• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

BasqueArch said:
“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.”​
Click to expand...

I was going to say that this is one of the most significant quotes that any CD'ist should try to understand. Then I put a slice of it into Google - just as a test - and found that the word 'optimistic' here is totally misunderstood by CD'ists. <sigh>
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
What, and ruin the suspense? How else am I supposed to get people to tune in?
Click to expand...

I really hope it wasn't like this

neon-green.jpg
 
R.Mackey said:
Sigh. DCR, one more time.

The DCR that NIST computes is the Demand to Capacity Ratio, where the Demand is the actual load (the "in service load"), and the Capacity is the design load, which incorporates a factor of safety mandated by the ASCE7 AISC standard.


The bulk of debris does not land squarely on the columns in the first place. The more relevant resistance is that of the floor system, which can support -- according to Tony -- a maximum 29 million pounds, or less than 45% of the mass of the upper block at the start of the collapse, and getting steadily worse as the descending material snowballs.
Click to expand...

I assume the 29 million pounds refers to the static load capacity, not accounting for any acceleration of that mass onto the floor systems?
 
Yup. Which is why the upper block didn't even have to be moving to cause a cascading failure. Which is yet another reason why there's no "jolt."

Once that mass is no longer carried by the columns, it's all over.
 
R.Mackey said:
Yup. Which is why the upper block didn't even have to be moving to cause a cascading failure. Which is yet another reason why there's no "jolt."

Once that mass is no longer carried by the columns, it's all over.
Click to expand...

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.
 
Last edited:
Facepalm time, Tony. You've seen it twice, in full scale. When will you understand that the lack of a jolt is evidence for the collapse hypothesis I've laid out? The problem isn't your observation, it's your interpretation. Everyone else seems to get it, and I do mean everyone.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.
Click to expand...


If you are willing to define the terms a bit more closely, I will take you up on that bet. The two terms that concern me the most are "scale model" and "without a jolt". Regarding the term "scale model", I would want you to come up with a list of the parameters involved based on the understanding that a simple resizing will not replicate the dynamics accurately. Regard the term "without a jolt", are you looking for a single jolt of a specific magnitude? If so, please define that magnitude (accounting for scaling issues, of course). If not, what are you looking for?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.
Click to expand...

With the walls bowed the columns fell onto the slab below, not atop the columns. The columns fell onto the slab below = "no jolt"

There, RM saved you the need to build a scale model.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(nobody believes the short version, no one reads the long version)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.
Click to expand...

Tony,

I have stated before, I am no engineer, and never claim to be. Why do you know understand that when you scale something down, the materials behave differently than at full scale?? Why do you think they crash FULL SIZE CARS in crash tests?? It would be much cheeper to build smaller cars, of course to scale, and crash them??

Its because they would behave differently.

Same reason firefighters train in live burns often. I can pretend all day long, but untill you do a full scale live burn, you wouldn't understand how it feels.
 
R.Mackey said:
Sigh. DCR, one more time.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The "sigh" just made it that much more patronizing.

This is a forum for discussion. Not for research. Anyone using the search function here can attest to that.

I really don't blame you for taking this attitude. You don't want to explain yourself again, then don't.

It's pretty simple. When you find yourself taking about issues you've already discussed, stop. If you find yourself linking to previous posts, stop.

"sigh"ing like a little girl who didn't get her way at the checkout line is beneath you. It's beneath the both of us really.

If I didn't mention it, thanks.
 
Don't take it so personal. I was mostly sighing at Tony. Maybe you haven't followed the discussion, but he's had it explained to him, in person, solely for his benefit by numerous posters here. And he still doesn't get it.

Again, this is why "debating" the Truth Movement is futile. Their only weapon is dogged refusal to accept reality.

I welcome Tony to prove me wrong about that last statement by coming to terms with the tilt prior to collapse. Or the inward bowing several minutes before collapse. Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.
Click to expand...
Special as in short school bus special.
 
Don't mean to derail this but I think it's on topic.

Did the core twist? When the upper block fell did it turn, and in turn twist the core from top to bottom? Thinking of the upper block as a door knob and the core as the shaft. As the block falls and turns, it twists the core also. This is different from a progressive gravity induced collapse no? Was it a combination at all? Is this just a silly hypothesis?
 
I'll let the engineers - or Architect - answer this definitively, but from my layman's point of view, there could only be so much travel in any "twist" before the connections between the columns would sever, let alone sever core to floor truss connections. So, again from a layman's perspective, I can't imagine there being much twist of the core at all.

I'll subject myself to correction from the legitimate engineers in this forum, though.
 
Twist? No. WTC 2 experienced a slight twist as it deformed, and this is predicted by simulation (see Case D in NCSTAR1-6D), but the actual collapses involve virtually no movement about the vertical axis for either Tower. Not sure what difference that would make in any event, neither explosives nor lack thereof are expected to induce much twist.
 
R.Mackey said:
Twist? No. WTC 2 experienced a slight twist as it deformed, and this is predicted by simulation (see Case D in NCSTAR1-6D), but the actual collapses involve virtually no movement about the vertical axis for either Tower. Not sure what difference that would make in any event, neither explosives nor lack thereof are expected to induce much twist.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wasn't thinking explosives in this scenario. I just thought that the core would have been twisting, breaking away, and popping the floor connections. This would have been hard to see contained inside the outer cage. Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom