Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[alienentity]

Dr. Bazant does have quite an impressive resume but that doesn't mean he can't err and that something like a covert controlled demolition couldn't fool him as it initially did most of us. His papers do have a couple of major errors. He is off on the axial stiffness of the columns by a factor of 10 to 1 and his energy absorption value is off by a factor of about 6 to 1. He should correct these errors as they have been pointed out to him in the last several months. He hasn't yet.

No, you were initially correct. You are now being fooled.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly, you should look into what mass participation, stiffness, and transmissibility mean in a shock load.

I'm well aware of the basic concepts, however I'm concerned that you don't have a full appreciation yourself concerning how material strength factors into it. You seem to be repeating the "no dynamic load scenario" to me yet again... Need I remind you that the exterior columns already deflected substantially just from the onset of the South tower's tilt... and it didn't take much movement for them to fail all together from that:

 

[Gravy]

Dr. Bazant does have quite an impressive resume but that doesn't mean he can't err and that something like a covert controlled demolition couldn't fool him as it initially did most of us. His papers do have a couple of major errors. He is off on the axial stiffness of the columns by a factor of 10 to 1 and his energy absorption value is off by a factor of about 6 to 1. He should correct these errors as they have been pointed out to him in the last several months. He hasn't yet.

Tony still can't show us the enormous detonations that he claims happened, and still embarrasses himself every time he writes about engineering and physics.

Just so people know who they're dealing with, here's a sampler that sheds light on Tony Szamboti's competence and intellect.

June, 2007: Szamboti (as "realcddeal") says he will be asking pertinent questions of the engineers who were involved in the investigations. Despite repeated reminders to do so, he still has not done this.

January, 2008: Szamboti says that within a week he will be taking his evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to a District Attorney. Despite repeated reminders to do so, he still has not done this. Szamboti's evidence is this:

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it and at the time I was not suspicious about 911 and that comment made sense to me as I had never understood Bldg. 7's complete collapse. It seems to me that the original plan may have been to admit it was a controlled demolition, but for safety reasons. It looks like it got to be a problem after Dr. Steven Jones' paper was published and people started asking when there would have been time to set the charges and then asking about the towers given all of the testimony about explosions being seen, heard, and felt after the Oral Histories were released in August 2005. I personally asked myself the question of when there would have been time to set the charges in Bldg. 7 only after reading Dr. Jones' paper in early 2006."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10741#comment-157751

Szamboti on Kevin Barrett's radio show, 10/30/07:

"The way the towers were really brought down was a series of 3-story controlled demolitions. Around 25 to 30 controlled demolitions every three stories.

Look at any standard controlled demolition. Look at building 7. Look at the tremendous uh, clouds. You know, the pyroclastic surge after that dropped. Well, that was happening every three stories in the towers. That's why you get all that pulverization. It wasn't just the explosives either. The potential energy itself. Every three stories. Continuously. Is why there was so much pulverization in those towers.

...There's no doubt that there's an energy deficit."

Barrett: "A hundred times as much energy would have been required to pulverize it, as was there for gravity."

Szamboti: "There's no question. I just reviewed a paper along those lines, and the guy shows that. The PhD from Australia. So, there's no doubt that there was explosives.

There is an energy deficit in expanding those clouds. That's really where the energy deficit comes in."

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.

I have to believe that any honest engineer, who has looked at the collapses of the towers and Bldg. 7, would have to think something is at least fishy, and would probably not want to go out on a limb backing up the fire and damage theory. The buildings simply came down too fast and explaining the visible highly energetic squib blowouts, that made it past the perimeter, as just puffs of debris and dust from the collapse, probably strains credulity to an honest person. http://www.911blogger.com/node/11646?page=2

Tony Szamboti Mechanical engineer Says:

The volunteers from ASCE who participated in both the Oklahoma City bombing and WTC building failure assessments were either very trusting and were fooled by the perpetrators into lending their names to the cover up or they were actually part of it. I have watched Gene Corley try to say the energetic jets seen coming out of the towers, below the demolition wave, are due to air being compressed by the collapse. I find it hard to believe he is that stupid.

http://riverstextureediting.wordpre...bombing-and-wtc-collapse-same-engineers-team/

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10741#comment-157751[/quote]


Szamboti repeatedly fled like a scared bunny from my challenges to debate me in print and on television. One example:

Come on Ron's show, Tony, so I can dust you in an engineering debate...and I hardly know anything about engineering, while you have a degree in it!

If you're so sure I can't handle it, then come on the show and make a fool of me for everyone to see.

See you soon, ain'tgineer?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3419009&postcount=564

Szamboti repeatedly demanded to know if I was a "dual citizen" of the US and Israel.

I am not a dual citizen Roberts. It is you who didn't deny that you were.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3418946&postcount=553

When challenged to prove that he wasn't a dual citizen of Israel and Mars, Szamboti, for a reason only he can fathom, indignantly posted this:

I am 1/2 italian, 1/4 polish, 1/8 german, 1/16 jewish, and 1/16 austrian and I am an American citizen only. However, I was accused of being racist on this site for asking Roberts if he was a dual citizen.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3419001&postcount=562

So, Tony, by how many "factors" are your cerebrations off?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

AA. It is m times h times g!

BB. In this example 50% of the energy applied is used to deform the structures.

CC. Some of the deformation energy is transformed into heat and warms the structure - 0.05°C in this example.

DD. This is the energy that remains that can produce failures.

EE. In this example 300 columns happen to contact other elements.

FF. See CC. Very little energy applied. Cannot do much harm!

You do not really believe that dropping a little part C on a big part A can one way crush down A ??????????????????????????????????????????????

Pardon me. I thought I was being clear when I asked where these numbers came from. Let me try again.

Please show your calculations, using factual values for m, h, etc., for deriving these numbers. Please explain why 1/2 the energy is lost to heat as opposed to, say, 30%. Please explain why the number "300" is appropriate. Please show your calculations showing a .05 degree rise in temperature. Please show your calculations that show the remaining energy is not sufficient to continue component failure.

Thanks.

 

[FineWine]

Since you think it is idiotic to believe otherwise, you should at least explain how loose material would cause the complete collapse of the towers. Please add some math to at least provide some basis.

NIST has already performed the task you're asking me to begin. Please explain how a supposed engineer can regard thirteen collapsing floors as "loose material." Does that mean they weigh less and do less damage?

When those thirteen floors hit the floor immediately below, does it matter if they've already suffered damage or if they have magically remained pristine? Heiwa and his parrot run away whenever I ask them if it matters whether the bottom floor of the collapsing floors contains lightweight lawn furniture or metal printers' plates. Can you do better? (You can't do worse.)

Tell us, at long last, what you imagine will arrest of the process that was observed on 9/11, namely, the falling floors crush each successive floor and add its mass, causing the collapse to gain momentum and making it unstoppable.

 

[alienentity]

Dust to Snow

NIST has already performed the task you're asking me to begin. Please explain how a supposed engineer can regard thirteen collapsing floors as "loose material." Does that mean they weigh less and do less damage?

When those thirteen floors hit the floor immediately below, does it matter if they've already suffered damage or if they have magically remained pristine? Heiwa and his parrot run away whenever I ask them if it matters whether the bottom floor of the collapsing floors contains lightweight lawn furniture or metal printers' plates. Can you do better? (You can't do worse.)

Tell us, at long last, what you imagine will arrest of the process that was observed on 9/11, namely, the falling floors crush each successive floor and add its mass, causing the collapse to gain momentum and making it unstoppable.

Well, you see Tony's emphasis on loose material, since apparently loose material carries less kinetic energy than other types....except that it doesn't.
Last week we drove by the Hope Slide in British Columbia. Happened in 1965, when a bunch of 'loose material' accelerated down the side of a mountain, obliterating everything in its path. '46 million cubic meters of pulverized rock, mud, and debris 85 metres (280 ft) deep and 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) wide, which came down the 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) mountainside . This mass of debris completely displaced the water and mud in the lake below with incredible force, throwing it against the opposite side of the valley, wiping all vegetation and trees down to the bare rock, then splashed back up the original (now bare) slope before settling.' wikipedia

Nanothermite didn't even exist in 1965..and had never been used in controlled demolitions. Oh wait, it still hasn't been used that way. Silly me.

I suppose you could excuse Tony and Judy Wood for thinking that the towers turned to dust, therefore dust wouldn't do any damage to the structure below. But dust is made of fine particles, just like snow is. Snow can cause enormous damage as well, in the form of avalanches - if there is enough mass of snow at a sufficient speed, it can not only bury things, but can completely destroy houses, and snap trees like twigs.
A good sized avalanche can contain as 105 megajoules of energy. Whole forests in Switzerland have been destroyed by this process..

Here's an article from Physicsworld.com
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/256

As they say in Switzerland, 'Look ma, no nanothermite!'

 

[Heiwa]

Pardon me. I thought I was being clear when I asked where these numbers came from. Let me try again.

Please show your calculations, using factual values for m, h, etc., for deriving these numbers. Please explain why 1/2 the energy is lost to heat as opposed to, say, 30%. Please explain why the number "300" is appropriate. Please show your calculations showing a .05 degree rise in temperature. Please show your calculations that show the remaining energy is not sufficient to continue component failure.

Thanks.

I am just outlining how to do the calculations! You have to fill in the actual figures for your structure under observation. Then you'll find that an upper part C of any structure cannot one-way crush down the lower part A of same structure assisted only by gravity and a small drop. I have done it in my papers. Try to find any errors there.

 

[funk de fino]

The difference is I can back up what I say. Something I do not see you do.

If this is the case then show us the program with Larry admitting it was a CD for safety reasons.

If you cannot then you look like you could be a particularly nasty liar.

You have failed in this and other threads and are not man enough to admit when you are proved wrong.

It's disgraceful.

 

[funk de fino]

Since you think it is idiotic to believe otherwise, you should at least explain how loose material would cause the complete collapse of the towers. Please add some math to at least provide some basis.

Redeem yourself here Tony. Admit that Heiwa and Bill are talking nonsense. I know its in there, you can do it.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I am just outlining how to do the calculations! You have to fill in the actual figures for your structure under observation. Then you'll find that an upper part C of any structure cannot one-way crush down the lower part A of same structure assisted only by gravity and a small drop. I have done it in my papers. Try to find any errors there.

In other words, you are making up numbers?

Suppose the structure under observation is WTC2. Can you provide numbers and calculations for that?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have done it in my papers. Try to find any errors there.

Found 'em! All I had to do was click on the link, and BOOM! There they were.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony still can't show us the enormous detonations that he claims happened, and still embarrasses himself every time he writes about engineering and physics.

Just so people know who they're dealing with, here's a sampler that sheds light on Tony Szamboti's competence and intellect.

June, 2007: Szamboti (as "realcddeal") says he will be asking pertinent questions of the engineers who were involved in the investigations. Despite repeated reminders to do so, he still has not done this.

January, 2008: Szamboti says that within a week he will be taking his evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to a District Attorney. Despite repeated reminders to do so, he still has not done this. Szamboti's evidence is this:

Szamboti on Kevin Barrett's radio show, 10/30/07:



http://www.911blogger.com/node/10741#comment-157751


Szamboti repeatedly fled like a scared bunny from my challenges to debate me in print and on television. One example:


Szamboti repeatedly demanded to know if I was a "dual citizen" of the US and Israel.
When challenged to prove that he wasn't a dual citizen of Israel and Mars, Szamboti, for a reason only he can fathom, indignantly posted this:
So, Tony, by how many "factors" are your cerebrations off?

I thought you said you retired from your 911 sophistry Mark. What happened?

Of course, all we see here are your normal disingenuous and tired attempts to discredit anyone who has brought up the fact that 911 was an inside job.

 

[NutCracker]

I thought you said you retired from your 911 sophistry Mark. What happened?

Of course, all we see here are your normal disingenuous and tired attempts to discredit anyone who has brought up the fact that 911 was an inside job.

Please Mr. Szamboti, you don't need anybody's help in descreting you. Your writings are quite capable of doing that on their own.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Please Mr. Szamboti, you don't need anybody's help in descreting you. Your writings are quite capable of doing that on their own.

What is descreting? Is it something new or something you invented?

Pardon me if I take your silly comment here with less than a grain of salt. I am wondering if you ever even read anything I wrote, much less understood any of it, as your post here provides no basis for what you say.

 

[hokie]

the fact that 911 was an inside job.

The word is delusion.

So it looks like you bought into that inane concept of the expanding clouds showing incredible amounts of energy. Then you bought into the pulverized concrete (actually gypsum) can't be done by gravity alone. Then its the 'squibs'.

Wow. What a bad track record.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST has already performed the task you're asking me to begin. Please explain how a supposed engineer can regard thirteen collapsing floors as "loose material." Does that mean they weigh less and do less damage?

When those thirteen floors hit the floor immediately below, does it matter if they've already suffered damage or if they have magically remained pristine? Heiwa and his parrot run away whenever I ask them if it matters whether the bottom floor of the collapsing floors contains lightweight lawn furniture or metal printers' plates. Can you do better? (You can't do worse.)

Tell us, at long last, what you imagine will arrest of the process that was observed on 9/11, namely, the falling floors crush each successive floor and add its mass, causing the collapse to gain momentum and making it unstoppable.

The NIST analysis stops at the point where they say the tower was "poised to collapse" so how can you say they already performed the task?

You need to explain why you feel loose debris would provide sufficient force to break up intact structure which was capable of supporting several times the load above it.

There was no deceleration observed by those thirteen floors, so how did they crush the lower structure? The first floor they would contact was built to support those thirteen floors several times over. How could it happen without an ampliication of the load?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The word is delusion.

So it looks like you bought into that inane concept of the expanding clouds showing incredible amounts of energy. Then you bought into the pulverized concrete (actually gypsum) can't be done by gravity alone. Then its the 'squibs'.

Wow. What a bad track record.

Where have you seen me discussing what you say here? I have said repeatedly that it can be calculated that about 15% of the concrete was actually pulverized to dust and the remainder broken up and probably in the sub-levels and that impulsive loads were capable of this.

Do you always just say whatever you feel like saying about someone?

 

[funk de fino]

Where have you seen me discussing what you say here? I have said repeatedly that it can be calculated that about 15% of the concrete was actually pulverized to dust and the remainder broken up and probably in the sub-levels and that impulsive loads were capable of this.

Do you always just say whatever you feel like saying about someone?

Tony

You are running away from things. Why is that?

 

[funk de fino]

I thought you said you retired from your 911 sophistry Mark. What happened?

Of course, all we see here are your normal disingenuous and tired attempts to discredit anyone who has brought up the fact that 911 was an inside job.

You're a proven liar Tony. Show us the documentary.

 

[NutCracker]

What is descreting? Is it something new or something you invented?

Pardon me if I take your silly comment here with less than a grain of salt. I am wondering if you ever even read anything I wrote, much less understood any of it, as your post here provides no basis for what you say.

Yes. I've read quite a few of your posts here. I've also read your "Missing Jolt" paper. That is the foundation for my assertion.

Let's take your paper. Your first error is that you conflate a limiting case analysis with reality. Via a flawed-ridled analysis you conclude that the limiting-case scenario did not occur in reality. Surprise. You construe this as an argument in favor of CD (Non Sequitur: the conslusion doesn't follow from the premisse). The analysis is flawed. You use a 166 ms sampling interval to find a 13 ms event. You fail to do error analysis (whch given the low spatial and temporal resolution and going to the first and second derivative of the observed quantity is fully warranted), you superimpose the limiting-case jolt on your plot expressing your opinion on how the graph should look where the jolt present, thereby implicitly assuming it isn't there (Circular Logic).

Thank you.