Tony harasses Bazant

Tony?
Where is your evidence for CD, and evidence "we" are paid by the man? And how will we get what is coming to us? Who is going to punish "us" for explaining you have a CD fantasy?

Tony Szamboti said:
... Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the .64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame would give 5 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever measured. ...
Click to expand...
Show you work. Or did you use the Balsamo method of physics.

Wait, you said
Tony Szamboti said:
... It is the velocity loss which is observable and it would take over a second to regain the velocity, ....
Click to expand...
Now it is 844 milliseconds, it was over a second. Both numbers are wrong - and your list of Bazant errors, is BS.

LOL, how much mass is required to make a floor fail? What is your mass for the upper section? You claim Bazant got it wrong, why does a model with matter if he uses the wrong mass? What is the purpose of the paper?

Was Bazant four times off on mass? What is the mass? Is it at or over 29,000,000 pounds? oops
 
FalseFlag said:
Of course you don't. You can't accept anything that contradicts your delusions. I realize this. Why won't you?
Click to expand...

It's a little dishonest to remove the rest of the text, kiddo. I said I didn't want them because I already have them.

A little honesty would do you people more good than you can imagine.
 
FalseFlag said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well since there's multiple components of the sentence you're responding to, please clarify exactly what you need proof of:

A) Complete illogic.

B) Gage's patsies aren't dupes.

C) Anyone cares.

D) You're not talking to yourself.

E) or F) All(e) or none(f) of the above.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Valid experiments.
Click to expand...

I would agree and in my work experiments are used when necessary. I have often used non-prototype experiments to test for various parameters but they generally do not provide a full range of interactions and that is why we also build and test physical prototypes and/or qualification units.

FEA models are virtual prototypes and can generally tell us more than just calculations. Physical prototyping is usually done after being satisfied with FEA and calculations. However, on large items, such as complete buildings, it is not feasible and scaling does not work for things like moment of inertia and slenderness ratio which have exponential values based on depth and length.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I would agree and in my work experiments are used when necessary. I have often used non-prototype experiments to test for various parameters but they generally do not provide a full range of interactions and that is why we also build and test physical prototypes and/or qualification units.

FEA models are virtual prototypes and can generally tell us more than just calculations. Physical prototyping is usually done after being satisfied with FEA and calculations. However, on large items, such as complete buildings, it is not feasible and scaling does not work for things like moment of inertia and slenderness ratio which have exponential values based on depth and length.
Click to expand...

Tony I know your numbers are correct, the problem is not with them it is with the big picture Idea, the physical impossibility of a one floor drop, the tilting shows that disunification and offsetting of columns was occurring over multiple stories as bracing failed on a multi story level.

As fulcrums formed on the columns, and welds failed, the buildings grew progressively weaker until a drop of atleast three stories occurred.

This drop in itself was proceeded by floor stripping.

Bolts and welds hold buildings together, when they fail in mass, buildings disunity occurs rapidly,
the bracing and floors above the impact zones were compromised by a chimney effect fire that could not have been avoided once the elevator shafts were damaged, that is where the evidence points.
 
So Tony can't tell the difference between a jolt and impulse but thinks they can both be expressed in units of acceleration, thus confusing first, second and third derivatives, but rather than say "Oops, my mistake," he'd rather say it's all the fault of Zdenek Bazant because he once used the word "jolt" - in an informal rather than a formal sense, as it turns out, and definitely without the faintest hint of a mis-specification of units - in an addendum to a paper? Classic. That's about the level of intellectual dishonesty we've come to expect from truthers in general and Tony in particular.

Dave
 
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...

IF all of the descending mass would impact directly and squarely the columns, without the slightest lateral offset, such that the columns could excert their full capacity to all that mass.

BUT since you of course know that only a very small fraction of the descending mass ever impacted column ends, and most of it impacted some entirely different set of subassemblies (the floors, held by relatively flimsy seats), you ought to know with great clarity that Bazant's limiting case scenario is irrelevant when it comes to explaining any particulars of the ACTUAL collapses.
I mean, you have been told only like 500 times, or even more often. It should have sunk in by now.

I appreciate that you sorta "debunked" B&Z 2002 (by showing that the "best case for survival" scenario is not an order of magnitude outside the best case capacity - it's about on that order of magnitude - and thus total collapse is not absolutely inevitable in theory), but you need to understand at some point that the actual building and its actual collapse mechanism could dissipate only a fraction of the actual PE/KE elastically (i.e. far less than B&Z's best case theoretical scenario) - total collapse still happened to be inevitable as a matter of fact in case.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
... You can't have force from a mass without acceleration being involved. ...
Click to expand...

Wow.

I would like to have that conversation with you while the tyre of your car rests on your foot.

We can talk for a minute while we observe that neither the car nor the tyre nor your foot nor the ground accelerate. I'd then ask you: "Tell me, do you feel this force from an unaccelerated mass?" I fully expect you to reply "No, nothing". Remember "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"? :D

 
Dave Rogers said:
.... Zdenek Bazant ,,,,,,,,, used the word "jolt" - in an informal rather than a formal sense, as it turns out, and definitely without the faintest hint of a mis-specification of units - in an addendum to a paper?
Dave
Click to expand...

iirc, FEMA stated that the towers fell in "ten seconds" thus setting CT's off in a tizzy expecting that the written "ten seconds" was meant as a literal 10.00 seconds.
 
Oystein said:
Wow.

I would like to have that conversation with you while the tyre of your car rests on your foot.

We can talk for a minute while we observe that neither the car nor the tyre nor your foot nor the ground accelerate. I'd then ask you: "Tell me, do you feel this force from an unaccelerated mass?" I fully expect you to reply "No, nothing". Remember "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"? :D

Click to expand...

In similar fashion I have seen misapprehension about weightlessness.
A bowling ball may be "weightless" in space but you still are advised against kicking it like a soccer ball.
 
jaydeehess said:
iirc, FEMA stated that the towers fell in "ten seconds" thus setting CT's off in a tizzy expecting that the written "ten seconds" was meant as a literal 10.00 seconds.
Click to expand...

That was the 9/11 Commission Report, which mentioned in passing that firemen were caught by surprise when WTC2 fell in ten seconds. I've seen that cited in what pretends to be a scientific paper as an actual measurement of collapse time. Gross intellectual dishonesty is just SOP for truthers.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
So Tony can't tell the difference between a jolt and impulse but thinks they can both be expressed in units of acceleration, thus confusing first, second and third derivatives, but rather than say "Oops, my mistake," he'd rather say it's all the fault of Zdenek Bazant because he once used the word "jolt" - in an informal rather than a formal sense, as it turns out, and definitely without the faintest hint of a mis-specification of units - in an addendum to a paper? Classic. That's about the level of intellectual dishonesty and moral turpitude we've come to expect from truthers in general and Tony in particular.

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
That was the 9/11 Commission Report, which mentioned in passing that firemen were caught by surprise when WTC2 fell in ten seconds. I've seen that cited in what pretends to be a scientific paper as an actual measurement of collapse time. Gross intellectual dishonesty and moral turpitude is just SOP for truthers.

Dave
Click to expand...

Added meme.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
IF all of the descending mass would impact directly and squarely the columns, without the slightest lateral offset, such that the columns could excert their full capacity to all that mass.

BUT since you of course know that only a very small fraction of the descending mass ever impacted column ends, and most of it impacted some entirely different set of subassemblies (the floors, held by relatively flimsy seats), you ought to know with great clarity that Bazant's limiting case scenario is irrelevant when it comes to explaining any particulars of the ACTUAL collapses.
I mean, you have been told only like 500 times, or even more often. It should have sunk in by now.

I appreciate that you sorta "debunked" B&Z 2002 (by showing that the "best case for survival" scenario is not an order of magnitude outside the best case capacity - it's about on that order of magnitude - and thus total collapse is not absolutely inevitable in theory), but you need to understand at some point that the actual building and its actual collapse mechanism could dissipate only a fraction of the actual PE/KE elastically (i.e. far less than B&Z's best case theoretical scenario) - total collapse still happened to be inevitable as a matter of fact in case.
Click to expand...

Right. Forget complicated computer models--I'd like to see Tony make even a rudimentary drawing showing how he supposes columns failed across only a single floor in such a way as to effectively delete themselves from existence entirely and allow the columns from the upper block to fall straight down in perfect axial alignment onto clean column seats on the lower level. It doesn't make any sense at all.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
That was the 9/11 Commission Report, which mentioned in passing that firemen were caught by surprise when WTC2 fell in ten seconds. I've seen that cited in what pretends to be a scientific paper as an actual measurement of collapse time. Gross intellectual dishonesty is just SOP for truthers.

Dave
Click to expand...

Correction noted,thx.
The rest, exactly my point. Knew i wasnt alone in seeing that.
 
benthamitemetric said:
Right. Forget complicated computer models--I'd like to see Tony make even a rudimentary drawing showing how he supposes columns failed across only a single floor in such a way as to effectively delete themselves from existence entirely and allow the columns from the upper block to fall straight down in perfect axial alignment onto clean column seats on the lower level. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Click to expand...
As I was reading your post a "Lucky Charms" commercial was playing on tv with the tag line " they're magically delicious ".
Serendipity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom