Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Tony Szamboti said:
You apparently don't read everything that is said. I have explained repeatedly that a series of smaller jolts would have the same effect as a large single jolt in causing a velocity drop, due to it's having the same energy dissipation requirements to deform and buckle the columns on either side of the collisions. The energy dissipation should have caused a 76% velocity drop based on just these minimum dissipation requirements. We looked for a velocity drop over a significant period of time. There was none. The upper block continuously accelerates at about 70% of gravity. The 30% of gravity resistance seen by the upper block is equal to about 10% of the strength of the columns below. Something was removing the strength of 90% of the columns. I explained this during the debate also.

Mackey gave nobody a hiding except in his own mind maybe. He is full of bluff and bluster but his actual arguments on collapse intitiation and propagation consist of nothing but grand scale sophistries which are defined below.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
Tony, when will you take your amazing research and submit it to an actual peer-reviewed engineering journal? I mean, your reaoning is so flawless it would be a slam-dunk, yes?

Or do you think the truth movement will be the first group ever to cause a paradigm shift in scientific thinking via youtube and internet forums? :rolleyes:
 
Off-axis loading of the columns and changes in their geometry. The explanation does not get much simpler than that. Columns perform optimally when their loads are axially aligned. when the collapses began, they weren't. You cannot ignore that, bvut some people forcibly do so, for reasons unknown...
 
bill smith said:
Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
Click to expand...

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Off-axis loading of the columns and changes in their geometry. The explanation does not get much simpler than that. Columns perform optimally when their loads are axially aligned. when the collapses began, they weren't. You cannot ignore that, bvut some people forcibly do so, for reasons unknown...
Click to expand...

In he clear video I posted can you show where the upper block shifted out of alignment with the lower block to allow the columns in turn to become misaligned ? If not your argument is dead in the water.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
...I have explained repeatedly that a series of smaller jolts would have the same effect as a large single jolt in causing a velocity drop, due to it's having the same energy dissipation requirements to deform and buckle the columns on either side of the collisions
Click to expand...

Mackey is simply working with the observed fact that the columns bowed asymmetrically, causing the tilt, and thus offsetting the columns on either side of the collisions.

That is precisely why your argument is fallacious and fails. And precisely why your argument is pure sophistry.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Let me add another definition for you:

Pwned
-Derived from the verb 'to own'
1. The term implies domination or humiliation of a rival, used primarily in the Internet gaming culture to taunt an opponent who has just been soundly defeated
 
Tony.. LashL caught you editing your posts after responses, then she caught you lying about the timing of them.

No comment, liar?
 
R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well it's pretty simple. If he doesn't get it it's only because he doesn't want to get it. I've read Architects post, yours and of course Newtons Bit's blog. None of it is overly technical, it's pretty much basic column analysis. And you're absolutely right, Tony is using first principles and mistaking design factor for the DCR.

The first principles approach is useless. You don't know the end-fixity and slenderness ratio of all the columns in the core. The best thing to do is work with the known values and plug them into modelling software. Exactly like was done.
 
alienentity said:
Mackey is simply working with the observed fact that the columns bowed asymmetrically, causing the tilt, and thus offsetting the columns on either side of the collisions.

That is precisely why your argument is fallacious and fails. And precisely why your argument is pure sophistry.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Let me add another definition for you:

Pwned
-Derived from the verb 'to own'
1. The term implies domination or humiliation of a rival, used primarily in the Internet gaming culture to taunt an opponent who has just been soundly defeated
Click to expand...

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Click to expand...
Tony, please stop with these "experiments". Their foolish and you know it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? It doesn't model what happened.

Neither do Richard Gage's cardboard boxes.

What's the point, unless you're determined to get the wrong result?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.
Click to expand...

In ny experience anything RM utters about 9/11 should be taken with a grain of salt. They cannot show a tilt because there is none to show. They can make ludicrous statements saying they see one till the cows come home. The video itself puts the lie to that.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Click to expand...
Allow me to suggest some revisions. One that has lost significant structural integrity on one side due to impact, and significantly weakened on the other where secondary effects have weakened the structure and induced changes in the geometry (Creep buckling). And a model which is scaled properly to model it with reasonable results.
 
Did you notice no sign of controlled demolition? That's why the person who posted it believes in space-based energy weapons. How about you? Are you a supporter of Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D.?
 
Just for grins:
3 each 5 g "jolts" of, say, 100 lb:
Force (Max)=500 lbf
1 each 15 g "jolt" on the same 100 lb.
Force (Max)=1500lb

If your design capability is 300 lb (SF=3), which one of the above scenarios fails the structure?
This is a trick question
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Allow me to suggest some revisions. One that has lost significant structural integrity on one side due to impact, and significantly weakened on the other where secondary effects have weakened the structure and induced changes in the geometry (Creep buckling). And a model which is scaled properly to model it with reasonable results.
Click to expand...

Fine, you can replicate the aircraft impact damage of 15 to 20% of the columns. Don't forget the spandrels redistribute load on the impact side though.

As for creep buckling the NIST does not have sufficient temperatures to cause much of that in the core. But if you want you can remove much of the core to replicate that claim also.

Let me know if the structure overturns even with these modifications.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.
Click to expand...


1 ) Here it is:

WTC 1 shot from the west showing tilt to south at collapse start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8

2) Tilt = The columns above hit the slab below not the columns below = "no jolt" Read post #366.

How can you be so wrong so often and not be embarrassed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Churchill
 
911kongen said:
1000 degreed an licenced architects and engineers agrees with you? Thats probably something like 0, 0001 % of all experts! Why do you believe that smale numbers of people? They are most likely CRAZY!
Click to expand...

I’m not surprised.
Half of all architects and engineers are below average. You don’t see top professionals believe this TM trash. On Gage’s muddleheaded web site the roster is arranged alphabetically - by first names.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into - Swift
 
BasqueArch said:
1 ) Here it is:

WTC 1 shot from the west showing tilt to south at collapse start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8

2) Tilt = The columns above hit the slab below not the columns below = "no jolt" Read post #366.

How can you be so wrong so often and not be embarrassed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Churchill
Click to expand...

Garbage as regards any tilt. But the crumbling, disintegrating look fits very well with only loose rubble having hit the lower 90% of the building I must say. Thanks for the clip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom