Tony harasses Bazant

[ozeco41]

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.

Of course it is nonsense.

It was simply an artifice - a pretence - by Bazant and Zhou to set up the scenario for the "limit case" in their 2002 paper. The limit case was a limit for the progression stage. And progression stage was a plausible and valid setting for the limit case. "dropping to impact" was the artifice used by B&Z purely as a pretence substituting for an initiation stage to set up the real purpose of B&Z - the limit case of progression stage.

It never happend - actually neither of them never happend and that is Tony's continuing central error. He measures velocities and accelerations from the real event THEN applies them to the stages of an abstract model which is a fantasy which never happend.

Ridiculous nonsense. But it was - and still is the foundation of his paper "Missing Jolt".

The "drop to impact" not only didn't happen - it could not be performed even by a deliberate act. It would need a 1500 ft high mobile or tower crane capable of whatever - tens of kilotonnes lift capacity at a couple of hundred feet radius. There aint no such animal. There is a theoretical alternative - simultaneous explosive cutting of ALL columns. (Has to be all to meet the criteria) It wouldn't synchronise the timing OR create uniform axial contacts on impact.

And would probably be audible and visible .

Bottom lines:
1) Column crushing progression from overwhelming "limit case" axail overloading is plausible BUT didn't happen;
2) "dropping to impact" to initiate the progression is not plausible, could not be made to happen and - naturally- didn't happen.


A more subtle ongoing meme is that a lot of confused thinking is still underpinned by the "drop to impact" concept and some related misunderstanding about sequencing.

 

[beachnut]

Post fantasy irony - and try not to ask questions you don't know the answer to

... It was Zdenek Bazant who called it a jolt, not me. Personally, I would not have used that term ...

lol - that is classic for the fantasy of CD - Bazant said "jolt" once and you failed to answer how many time Bazant used jolt, or the context, or how it would help your failed CD and missing "jolt" paper... and then you would not have used the term:

The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis​

Graeme MacQueen
Tony Szamboti
April 22, 2009*

Oops, 18 times, "jolt", "you would not have used".

Does Chandler support your missing jolt BS, and the fantasy of CD with silent explosives?

...
AFAICT, Bazant uses the word exactly once, in an addendum to the final Bazant/Zhou paper:...-)

That is what I found, one. I was wondering why Tony failed to know this. I try to know the answer for questions before asking. Tony, no evidence for CD for 14 years. Tony did not know how many "jolts" were in the papers, and no clue CD is fantasy.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Of course it is nonsense.

It was simply an artifice - a pretence - by Bazant and Zhou to set up the scenario for the "limit case" in their 2002 paper. The limit case was a limit for the progression stage. And progression stage was a plausible and valid setting for the limit case. "dropping to impact" was the artifice used by B&Z purely as a pretence substituting for an initiation stage to set up the real purpose of B&Z - the limit case of progression stage.

It never happend - actually neither of them never happend and that is Tony's continuing central error. He measures velocities and accelerations from the real event THEN applies them to the stages of an abstract model which is a fantasy which never happend.

Ridiculous nonsense. But it was - and still is the foundation of his paper "Missing Jolt".

The "drop to impact" not only didn't happen - it could not be performed even by a deliberate act. It would need a 1500 ft high mobile or tower crane capable of whatever - tens of kilotonnes lift capacity at a couple of hundred feet radius. There aint no such animal. There is a theoretical alternative - simultaneous explosive cutting of ALL columns. (Has to be all to meet the criteria) It wouldn't synchronise the timing OR create uniform axial contacts on impact.

And would probably be audible and visible .

Bottom lines:
1) Column crushing progression from overwhelming "limit case" axail overloading is plausible BUT didn't happen;
2) "dropping to impact" to initiate the progression is not plausible, could not be made to happen and - naturally- didn't happen.


A more subtle ongoing meme is that a lot of confused thinking is still underpinned by the "drop to impact" concept and some related misunderstanding about sequencing.

The question is why would someone wish to pervert engineering, on political grounds?

 

[ozeco41]

The question is why would someone wish to pervert engineering, on political grounds?

Well - yes. That is the $64,000 can of worms.
I've posted my opinion many times using AE911 as the example.

Their goal - the purported public goal - is a "New Investigation"

Which is a political goal but basing their political strategy for a "New Investigation" on the single and false technical issue of CD is naive at best. CD so easy to disprove. The strategy is silly for the published objective. Whilst obviously succeeding on the R Gage salary objective.

Tony's obsession is a different situation and unclear as to why he is obsessed tho it is clear that he is wrong. So it is personal not organisational. His problem at some stage will be "How do I bail out of this dead end I've put myself in?"

...and that has been obvious for quite a few years.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As most of you know, I am currently involved in a one-on-one debate with tfk and have other demands on my time, so I really don't have much time to post here and don't really want to do so while I am debating tfk.

I only did so because of the title of the original post claiming that I am harassing Professor Bazant. It is hardly harassment to request that someone correct errors once they are found.

I also have to say that I am embarrassed for the boneheads here who can't argue about those errors and are reduced to arguing semantics over whether the word jolt should have been used by either Dr. Bazant or myself concerning an impact. Although that word is not normally used concerning shock loading and impacts in industry it was used in a colloquial sense by Dr. Bazant and in the paper The Missing Jolt. The connotation is clear and it is beyond disingenuous, and actually quite telling, that anyone would argue about it. I actually think it might be appropriate as acceleration does change with respect to time in an impact.

 

[DGM]

As most of you know, I am currently involved in a one-on-one debate with tfk ....................

Can you really call it a debate? I've seen nothing more than "boiler plate" from both of you. I suspect most of what you posted was "cut and paste".

Do you plan on proving your CD belief? By this I mean actually proving and not insinuating others are wrong?

 

[ozeco41]

Can you really call it a debate? I've seen nothing more than "boiler plate" from both of you. I suspect most of what you posted was "cut and paste".

Do you plan on proving your CD belief? By this I mean actually proving and not insinuating others are wrong?

AKA "Tony can you make an affirmative and supported claim?" RATHER than rely on the truth movement's standard ploy of "reversing burden of DISproof"

'coz if you cannot prove it Tony there is NOTHING for us to disprove.

And the threshold requirement is an hypothesis to prima facie standard - so its about time you gave us one.

(And if any of those words are too big - "bloviating" - just tell me which ones and I'll replace them with some one syllable equivalents. )

 

[DGM]

The connotation is clear and it is beyond disingenuous, and actually quite telling, that anyone would argue about it. I actually think it might be appropriate as acceleration does change with respect to time in an impact.

This would be true (and applicable) if you could prove that the Bazant model actually represents reality.

 

[beachnut]

As most of you know, I am currently involved in a one-on-one debate with tfk ...

lol, how do you debate your CD fantasy with no evidence. It is not a debate, it is your fantasy of CD discussion based on BS from you.


The failed letter to Bazant exposes ignorance on many levels. Will you post the reply? 9/11 truth, 14 years of failure and lies.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is hardly harassment to request that someone correct perceived errors once they are found.

.

You forgot one word.
After all, you wouldn't want to come off as bloviating.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

As most of you know, I am currently involved in a one-on-one debate with tfk and have other demands on my time, so I really don't have much time to post here and don't really want to do so while I am debating tfk.

I only did so because of the title of the original post claiming that I am harassing Professor Bazant. It is hardly harassment to request that someone correct errors once they are found.

I also have to say that I am embarrassed for the boneheads here who can't argue about those errors and are reduced to arguing semantics over whether the word jolt should have been used by either Dr. Bazant or myself concerning an impact. Although that word is not normally used concerning shock loading and impacts in industry it was used in a colloquial sense by Dr. Bazant and in the paper The Missing Jolt. The connotation is clear and it is beyond disingenuous, and actually quite telling, that anyone would argue about it. I actually think it might be appropriate as acceleration does change with respect to time in an impact.

Go back to the debate then Tony, you are wasting our time one Fallacy trying to debunk another is rediculously inept and solely to be laughed at, not debated.

I could draw the columns, and the tilt, and a toddler could understand why no impact takes place it was a fallacy from the start.

 

[skyeagle409]

As most of you know, I am currently involved in a one-on-one debate with tfk and have other demands on my time, so I really don't have much time to post here and don't really want to do so while I am debating tfk.

Once again, where is your CD evidence? You need to understand that structural and demolition experts do not agree with you.

I've noticed that you have failed to answer my questions regarding the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 and as a result, I will take your side-stepping on those questions as a sign of weakness on your part.

 

[Redwood]

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.

Which is a force, Tony. Meaning that net force=0. Meaning no acceleration. Which is why it doesn't move.

This is just embarrassing. The engineering guru of Trutherdom can't tell force from acceleration from impulse.

 

[Redwood]

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"?

To be clear, the automobile will initially experience net force and acceleration as Tony's foot is crushed, then will experience a net force and acceleration in the opposing direction as the crush limit is reached and the auto comes to rest on Tony's foot. After that, the forces will be in equilibrium and there will be no net force or acceleration.

I gather that something analogous is what really should have happened when the upper section of WTC 1 fell on the lower.

 

[rwguinn]

Which is a force, Tony. Meaning that net force=0. Meaning no acceleration. Which is why it doesn't move.

This is just embarrassing. The engineering guru of Trutherdom can't tell force from acceleration from impulse.

Civil Engineering: sum(F)=0
Mechanical Engineering: Sum (F)=Ma+Bv+Kx
ME's design weapons systems, CE's design targets

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Which is a force, Tony. Meaning that net force=0. Meaning no acceleration. Which is why it doesn't move.

This is just embarrassing. The engineering guru of Trutherdom can't tell force from acceleration from impulse.

True, Acceleration only occurs when motion is involved, how sad Tony's limited onderstanding.

For instance a water pipe stood on end, 2000ft tall, would rupture from the water pressure at bottom, of the tub do to gravitational static loading. However there would be no momentum or acceleration until the water started flowing out of the rupture.

Momentum and acceleration are linked, you can not have one without the other.

Mass times acceleration gives you the momentum, the momentum the tendency to keep moving, gives you the energy to do work, thus the force.

 

[Myriad]

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.

The column construction made it impossible to deform only a single story. That was Bazant's simplified scenario to make calculations easier because the only thing that mattered in his model was the energy balance.

In the real event, after one story of fall, there could not have been an intact fully column-supported floor below. There was no sudden onset of resistance or deformation; the deformation began when the upper mass started moving which is why the drop accelerated at less than g in the first place.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The column construction made it impossible to deform only a single story. That was Bazant's simplified scenario to make calculations easier because the only thing that mattered in his model was the energy balance.

In the real event, after one story of fall, there could not have been an intact fully column-supported floor below. There was no sudden onset of resistance or deformation; the deformation began when the upper mass started moving which is why the drop accelerated at less than g in the first place.

That assumes the floor stripping was not occurring before collapse initiation, if floor stripping occurs during the tilting phase, it will cause damage to the columns and floors below, as it occurs.
tfk was right about the materials being noncompressible, but the pressure of the impacting debris inside the building would also effect the now venerable columns and welds,
Leading to a fracture of the welds, and off set and loss of alinement.

The Columns then drop though the lower structure with little resistance from the bracing and floor slabs they impact.

We have tilting, that should cause cracking and fulcrum formation on the welds, debris falls on those venerable welds, they fracture and the top fails.

That is just my theory, please rip it apart if I am wrong, please falsify it if it is fallacy.

 

[ozeco41]

Civil Engineering: sum(F)=0
Mechanical Engineering: Sum (F)=Ma+Bv+Kx
ME's design weapons systems, CE's design targets

and Military Engineers blow up the targets.

OR - more often with peacetime Military - work out the plan to blow them up.

I've "demolished" in TEWT every major bridge on the three main highway approaches to Sydney - and a couple of peripheral "ring roads".

(Not the "Coat Hanger" - it is near city centre. )

 

[ozeco41]

There was no sudden onset of resistance or deformation; the deformation began when the upper mass started moving which is why the drop accelerated at less than g in the first place.

That is the key point - and it applied to each column. Top Block moves down at column XYZ because col XYZ is getting shorter due to overload. THEN - as downwards movement continues it buckles/folds (or - less likely - breaks). And the ends for that column have already missed each other. Hence no "axial impact after falling through a gap" for most columns (I'll allow possibility of rare exceptions. Bazant's "limit case" AND Tony's parody version demand 100% - any exceptions do not prove the rule.)