Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Whats funny is Tony still wont acknowledge the fact that Gage's explosive demolition "indicators" are shot to hell when you look at those verinage demolitons.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The elastic wave travels at about 15,000 feet per second. How long do you claim it will take to fully respond?
Click to expand...

This is why you have no business debating this subject. The elastic wave travels at such a speed in a solid block of steel, yes, but we're talking about loading, not the elastic wavefront, and we're talking about a structure with a much lower spring constant than solid steel. What happens is that each individual impact creates an individual displacement, and further impacts add to this displacement if the structure hasn't yet sprung back. When the aggregate displacement matches the yield strain, the structure loses its ability to spring back and will almost certainly break if it continues to be hit.

The time constant for the structures is on the order of a second. Plenty of time for rubble etc. to all contribute in a manner indistinguishable from a solid object impacting.

Dynamics 101, Tony. Take it, you must.

Tony Szamboti said:
Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.
Click to expand...

Look again. You're wrong.
Tony Szamboti said:
To the contrary, close up video shows the upper block of WTC 1 came straight down for several stories before it actually tilted.
Click to expand...

By all means, keep repeating this lie. It destroys your credibility just as thoroughly as if you were a no-planer, and with it, any risk that anyone else will listen to your nonsense.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
This is why you have no business debating this subject. The elastic wave travels at such a speed in a solid block of steel, yes, but we're talking about loading, not the elastic wavefront, and we're talking about a structure with a much lower spring constant than solid steel. What happens is that each individual impact creates an individual displacement, and further impacts add to this displacement if the structure hasn't yet sprung back. When the aggregate displacement matches the yield strain, the structure loses its ability to spring back and will almost certainly break if it continues to be hit.

The time constant for the structures is on the order of a second. Plenty of time for rubble etc. to all contribute in a manner indistinguishable from a solid object impacting.

Dynamics 101, Tony. Take it, you must.



Look again. You're wrong.


By all means, keep repeating this lie. It destroys your credibility just as thoroughly as if you were a no-planer, and with it, any risk that anyone else will listen to your nonsense.
Click to expand...

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
At one point you said that the tilt obviates any need for a jolt, due to multiple separate smaller jolts. However, the energy dissipation requirement does not change and thus the velocity loss should be nearly the same, but it is not observed.
Click to expand...

Give this calculation a try:

a = g - U/(hm)

where a is the net acceleration

U is the total energy dissipated by collapsing one floor

h is story height and m is the mass of the upper block.

Note that there is the same total energy dissipated in collapsing a story, but the strain energy is being distributed over the height of a story. This is about what is expected in a collapse where there is tilting, and several small impacts rather than one large one.

All values are known from your observations or from known info about the building, except U.

Plug in the numbers and see if the value you get for U is similar to the numbers calculated by Newton's Bit's theoretical calculation
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Credibility is zero when claiming CD was the cause of the WTC towers collapse. No one who claims CD will build the real-skyscraper-deal after 8 years of failed real-cd-deal. Why did your paper on the jolt fail to gain any support from other engineers outside of the failed truth movement?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Well I give R. Mackey credit, he presents something substantual while all you've got is words & nothing substantual.

You either have physcial evidence of a controlled demolition or you don't. Stop pressing that issue on people.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.
Click to expand...
Only the roof was crushed?
It popped the tires and compressed the suspension permanently. Looks like it bent the hell outta the unibody frame too.
I'd love to see close ups of the damage.

Remember, most cars are designed to flip over onto their roofs and not cave in. I saw an Accord do that a couple of years ago. She blew a red light and clipped an Exploder.. um.. I mean Explorer at about 70. Never seen a car roll in midair like that and land square on its roof. Amazingly, she walked out, crying, but apparently unhurt.

I don't know why you refuse to see what is apparent to experts and dummies like myself. Even that video it's clear the water destroyed the car. A roof you can fix. That car was FUBAR'd.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I can see a large volume of rubble moving at high speed possibly causing a collapse propagation. However, that would not happen until many stories were destroyed.
Click to expand...

Yes, well as I said it's impossible to know exactly what happened in the midst of all that chaos. However, because I just finished work on my WTC2 video, I know that building tilted immediately to the East (because it failed on that side first) and almost immediately there was no possibility of much column alignment, so it is obvious that the impacts would have been to the floor slabs as well, which were not designed to carry the load of the upper stories.

So your argument really doesn't carry any force for that collapse, and yet both buildings collapsed on the same day. The evidence and physics suggest that the upper blocks didn't fall squarely onto the structures below, as the verinage demolitions do, and that's why the Bazant jolt never appears.

You'll never be able to prove otherwise using physics, if you include the conditions correctly. That's my opinion.

I know you can make this connection yourself, but I'll put it another way: Since we can show WTC2 meets the necessary conditions to fail without explosives, it would be silly to propose that WTC1 had them, because the conditions were a bit more subtle.

Explosives are not necessary to explain the collapses. Surely you must know that. It seems senseless to keep arguing about the issue.
 
Tony, the other really obvious thing you're not connecting is that you had intact structure, compressed material, loose material in various quantities accelerating down onto already weakened floor systems.
We're not just discussing rubble, we're also discussing intact columns ramming down onto floor slabs and shattering them. Within a very small time period this would be an overwhelming force, given the constant acceleration.

Nobody should expect the buildings to stand up under those conditions, it seems to me. There's no good reason why they would.

Next time some guy with one of those big Liebherr monsters is fixing to drop water on you, don't argue that the damage will be minor. Get out and run as fast as you can ;)
 
Justin39640 said:
Only the roof was crushed?
It popped the tires and compressed the suspension permanently. Looks like it bent the hell outta the unibody frame too.
I'd love to see close ups of the damage.
Click to expand...

Just add something else that Tony does not understand. I would like to see the close ups as well, just to see the damage to the structural components. While you can see some damage to the fenders and quarters, I would be curious how the welds held up and what happened to the fasteners.
 
Disbelief said:
Just add something else that Tony does not understand. I would like to see the close ups as well, just to see the damage to the structural components. While you can see some damage to the fenders and quarters, I would be curious how the welds held up and what happened to the fasteners.
Click to expand...

I'm sure bolts were ripped straight out of their threads and the spot welds probably tore. I would imagine the A-arms were bent or broken. The A-pillars probably tore or folded over. I'd imagine the steering components broke or bent (tie rods, rack, spindles, etc) I'd love to see what it did to the steering wheel, the rest of the interior, and the floorboards. I'd imagine that the rear rolling axle (I think that's a geo metro but I don't remember if they had a solid or independent rear rolling axle) broke or bent. Could have very well tore the front end supports from the unibody. Probably pushed the engine way down or broke its mounts which could have damaged the bell housing or the tranny housing. Hyper extended CV joints and axle shafts. I wonder if it crushed the air horn on the fuel system and what damage it did to more fragile parts under the hood. I wonder what the struts looked like after.

It would have been great if they had a longer video of the aftermath.

Tony really needs to have some time out of the office (IMO). I'm not that far from him (I think). He can come swing some wrenches with me if he needs a lil time in the field. Though if he starts stripping bolts left and right I'll have to fire him. lol
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Tony, the other really obvious thing you're not connecting is that you had intact structure, compressed material, loose material in various quantities accelerating down onto already weakened floor systems.
We're not just discussing rubble, we're also discussing intact columns ramming down onto floor slabs and shattering them. Within a very small time period this would be an overwhelming force, given the constant acceleration.

Nobody should expect the buildings to stand up under those conditions, it seems to me. There's no good reason why they would.

Next time some guy with one of those big Liebherr monsters is fixing to drop water on you, don't argue that the damage will be minor. Get out and run as fast as you can ;)
Click to expand...

Aside from the structural elements, what kind of equipment and anything else you can thing of was above the collapse zone that was falling as well. You have giant elevator motors, the sway dampening system, transformers and other electrical equipment, elevator cars, at least one UPS room (those batteries are not light). Maybe someone had a Nakatomi corp. sized safe in there. Just a million things that add to the equation.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
At one point you said that the tilt obviates any need for a jolt, due to multiple separate smaller jolts. However, the energy dissipation requirement does not change and thus the velocity loss should be nearly the same, but it is not observed.
Click to expand...

I've shown you, repeatedly, the calculations that demonstrate this to be untrue. I'd show you again if I thought you were capable of understanding them.

Dave
 
bio said:
Unfortunately Tony Szamboti argumeted mostly well, and won the debate.
Click to expand...

Well, my observation and discussions with people who know what they are talking about, both on this forum and in real life, makes it obvious that your only criteria for winning the debate is being told what you want to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom