Tony harasses Bazant

NoahFence said:
Your entire raison d'etre is an insignificant nit. I know it must suck and all, but that's the truth.

Nothing you have ever written changes one iota any conclusion of the reality that is 19 Terrorists + 4 planes = 9/11.

Jolt, no jolt, who gives a crap? Seriously? What possible meaning could there be? The very first thing you need to come to grips with is that nothing could have survived the impact of those aircraft, LET ALONE explosives of any kind. That's absolutely INSANE.
Click to expand...

NoahFence said:
Heat.

Do i get my degree from :crazy: University now?
Click to expand...
This is about the long and short of it.
 
Originally Posted by Redwood
I was just about to say that. But remember, you're dealing with a fellow who claimed that objects at rest are being accelerated at g towards the earth.
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
Can you tell me what the equation for static load force of

F = mg

means?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Gladly, Tony. It's the solution to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation for the attraction of two bodies:

F=Gm1m2/r2 where G=Newton's Gravitational Constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between them. To derive g, the acceleration of a body in a vacuum near the earth's surface,

g=F/mb=Gme mb/r2mb = Gme/r2
where me= the mass of the Earth, and r=the radius of the Earth.

Note that the mass of the body drops out of the equation, so that all objects fall towards the earth at the same acceleration. But from the original Newton's law, the force exerted between the Earth and a body is proportionate to the body's mass. Kind of takes you back to high school, doesn't it? :D

But back to the statics. When I stand on the earth, the earth is pushing on me just as hard as I'm pushing on the earth. That means that net force=0.
Which means I don't move. Which means I don't accelerate.

You remind me of a kid I used to help out in high school physics. He could never "get it", so he became a music producer and wound up as a millionaire. :D
 
Tony Szamboti said:
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.
Click to expand...


Yet he only overestimated the initial potential energy by a factor of two (assuming your mass correction is accurate). So in your "corrected" version of the model, after one story of fall, half the potential energy of Bazant's model has been converted, but the falling mass has only 1/3.4 the amount of kinetic energy as in Bazant's model. Where does the extra energy go?

In Bazant's model, the potential energy of the one story of drop becomes kinetic energy. That's simplified and unrealistic in its details, but at least the energy is accounted for. The ledger books balance. In your "corrected" model, only a part of that potential energy has become kinetic energy, and you disregard the rest as if it has no effect. The books don't balance. Energy has gone missing. Has it been embezzled?

Actually, of course, that energy is converted into deformation of the adjacent structures during the initial one-story drop, which is why the acceleration is slower than g in the first place. By the time the upper mass has dropped one story, there's no longer an intact next floor for it to land on. Your missing energy explains your missing jolt.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Beachnut, he said it in the addendum of Bazant and Zhou.

I did list the errors which need to be corrected in the letter I sent to Dr. Bazant. I would imagine you have read it.
Click to expand...
How many times does "jolt" show up? lol, you take it out of context and then make up your own failed numbers and claims.

How many times did Bazant use jolt?

Why do you make up your numbers? Show your work... lol, and where are those silent explosives after 14 failed years of woo and calling people who disagree with your paid agents of the guys you can't name.


wow, more made up numbers

What happens when more than 11 floors hit a lower floor - I will let you have zero speed at impact... go ahead make my day? Good luck with the CD fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Redwood said:
Gladly, Tony. It's the solution to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation for the attraction of two bodies:

F=Gm1m2/r2 where G=Newton's Gravitational Constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between them. To derive g, the acceleration of a body in a vacuum near the earth's surface,

g=F/mb=Gme mb/r2mb = Gme/r2
where me= the mass of the Earth, and r=the radius of the Earth.

Note that the mass of the body drops out of the equation, so that all objects fall towards the earth at the same acceleration. But from the original Newton's law, the force exerted between the Earth and a body is proportionate to the body's mass. Kind of takes you back to high school, doesn't it? :D

But back to the statics. When I stand on the earth, the earth is pushing on me just as hard as I'm pushing on the earth. That means that net force=0.
Which means I don't move. Which means I don't accelerate.

You remind me of a kid I used to help out in high school physics. He could never "get it", so he became a music producer and wound up as a millionaire. :D
Click to expand...

Wow, you are quite the spinner. We were not talking about items on the ground. We were talking about an elevated object like the upper sections of the WTC buildings.

Of course, everyone knows one needs to counter the force generated by a static load if it is elevated and put on a table or in a building or it will fall. The structure underneath experiences this force, so it is real. You can't have force from a mass without acceleration being involved. The only reason it doesn't move is that it is being countered by the supporting structure. Take that away and the item falls to earth at one g less air resistance.

If kids had to listen to the kind of spin you used here they would learn nothing. If you did the same to the kid you were trying to teach physics to it isn't hard to understand why he "didn't get it". Do you bloviate often?
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
Since it's completely illogical to believe anyone other than duped 9/11 truthers would be even remotely interested in a New InvestigationTM, you've answered your own question.
Click to expand...
Other than your own opinion, do you have proof?
 
Myriad said:
Yet he only overestimated the initial potential energy by a factor of two (assuming your mass correction is accurate). So in your "corrected" version of the model, after one story of fall, half the potential energy of Bazant's model has been converted, but the falling mass has only 1/3.4 the amount of kinetic energy as in Bazant's model. Where does the extra energy go?
Click to expand...

It is being absorbed by the buckling or deforming columns in the first story. It was not in free fall as he had it. He overestimated both mass and velocity.

In Bazant's model, the potential energy of the one story of drop becomes kinetic energy. That's simplified and unrealistic in its details, but at least the energy is accounted for. The ledger books balance. In your "corrected" model, only a part of that potential energy has become kinetic energy, and you disregard the rest as if it has no effect. The books don't balance. Energy has gone missing. Has it been embezzled?
Click to expand...

There was never as much potential energy as Bazant claimed due to the overestimate of mass.

Actually, of course, that energy is converted into deformation of the adjacent structures during the initial one-story drop, which is why the acceleration is slower than g in the first place. By the time the upper mass has dropped one story, there's no longer an intact next floor for it to land on. Your missing energy explains your missing jolt.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is no missing energy. Bazant overestimated it and didn't account for what was being absorbed in the first story.

The deceleration would have happened because there would not have been enough energy to move through the columns below without a serious percentage of what was there being lost in deforming those columns.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.
Click to expand...
How does this work for the South Tower? Does this represent what is seen in video? You can say it...................
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Where is that in the NIST report?
Click to expand...

Both the artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load that was applied to each exterior column on the south wall of WTC 1 to get them to bow inward and the admission that the sagging floors didn't cause inward bowing in the model are in the same place. I don't remember the exact chapter off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Wow, you are quite the spinner. We were not talking about items on the ground. We were talking about an elevated object like the upper sections of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...


At what point was WTC 1 struck by American 11? Where did the collapse of WTC 1 originate?

At what point was WTC 2 struck by United 175? Where did the collapse of WTC 2 originate?

WTC 1 was struck before WTC 2, but why did WTC 2 collapse before WTC 1?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Do you mean the artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load that was applied to each exterior column on the south wall of WTC 1 to get them to bow inward or just that the sagging floors didn't cause inward bowing in the model?
Click to expand...


Buckling of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 was caused by fires raging within those buildings.

Structural buckling was noted by witnesses moments prior to the collapse of those buildings.
 
FalseFlag said:
Let's find out.
Click to expand...


Go ahead, pay for a new investigation and when the result reconfirms no CD explosives and thermite, then I will be ready when Truthers scream the investigation was rigged and call for another investigation.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Both the artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load that was applied to each exterior column on the south wall of WTC 1 to get them to bow inward and the admission that the sagging floors didn't cause inward bowing in the model are in the same place. I don't remember the exact chapter off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

That's OK Tony you clearly don't understand the collapses, because you are still using a one story drop model failure of welds in the core as walk off and fracture begins explains both the drop of the antenna and the pull in of the exterior columns.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Wow, you are quite the spinner. We were not talking about items on the ground. We were talking about an elevated object like the upper sections of the WTC buildings.

Of course, everyone knows one needs to counter the force generated by a static load if it is elevated and put on a table or in a building or it will fall. The structure underneath experiences this force, so it is real. You can't have force from a mass without acceleration being involved. The only reason it doesn't move is that it is being countered by the supporting structure. Take that away and the item falls to earth at one g less air resistance.

If kids had to listen to the kind of spin you used here they would learn nothing. If you did the same to the kid you were trying to teach physics to it isn't hard to understand why he "didn't get it". Do you bloviate often?
Click to expand...

Ahahahahaaaaaa

I, ...you, oh so much wrong and only a tiny phone keyboard .......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom