Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Tony Szamboti]

If you were to strip away all supports on 1 floor, what would happen to the structure above it if it was 100,000 tons?

A: Would it drop suddenly & halt it's drop at the next floor.
B: Drop suddenly & keep going with inertia driving it downward causing global collapse.
C: Tip over & away from the structure below.
D: None of the above.

There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks.

At a minimum there would be a very large velocity loss of about 90% and then continue. However, there is no velocity loss observed at all. The upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

If you are talking about WTC 1 the weight of it's upper section (floors 99 through 110 plus the roof and antenna) was actually about 35,000 tons.

 

[NutCracker]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

Even the most superficial observation of the collapse footage shows this to be false.

The footage show an umbrella shaped debris plume. The perimeter of which fell at close to 1g. We observe the crush front to lag behind. Therefore the crush front acceleration was below 1g. Therefore there was dynamic load.


Cut the comedy. You are no fun anymore. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All you need to show is velocity. Why do you think you need to show velocity loss?

Because that indicates kinetic energy was transferred in an impulsive load which is required for a natural collapse propagation. Look at the Verinage demolition velocity curves and you will see they need to do this to collapse the building below where they have removed columns.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Even the most superficial observation of the collapse footage shows this to be false.

The footage show an umbrella shaped debris plume. The perimeter of which fell at close to 1g. We observe the crush front to lag behind. Therefore the crush front acceleration was below 1g. Therefore there was dynamic load.


Cut the comedy. You are no fun anymore. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief.

You don't sound like you understand what a dynamic load is, why it is necessary, or how it is accomplished.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks.

At a minimum there would be a very large velocity loss of about 90% and then continue. However, there is no velocity loss observed at all. The upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

If you are talking about WTC 1 the weight of it's upper section (floors 99 through 110 plus the roof and antenna) was actually about 35,000 tons.

Tony,

We're talking about 100,000 tons of driving force on the next floor below.

100,000 to 35,000 tons, it's still alot of weight Tony.

You put 100,000 to 35,000 tons of pressure per square inch on your thumb, what'll happend to your thumb?

 

[Newtons Bit]

There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks.

At a minimum there would be a very large velocity loss of about 90% and then continue. However, there is no velocity loss observed at all. The upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

If you are talking about WTC 1 the weight of it's upper section (floors 99 through 110 plus the roof and antenna) was actually about 35,000 tons.

No it wouldn't. I've already done the energy balance.

Cheers!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

the funny thing is the entire premise behind the acceleration issue is as simple as a misunderstanding of vectors. Net gains in velocity and acceleration come to mind.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No it wouldn't. I've already done the energy balance.

Cheers!

Did you assume a dynamic load?

 

[Julio]

You should read the Missing Jolt paper and see where Dr. Bazant is wrong. He never measured the fall of the upper block and was presuming there was a jolt.

I'll read it.

A 31g dynamic load was impossible and to get any amplification requires deceleration and velocity loss. There is no velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. There was no dynamic load.

As far as I know, Bazant can be wrong in the mass considered for the upper block, and only approximate on the spring constant C he uses. Just a matter of using the right numbers, but the idea is right.

So you are speaking about free fall. And dit it free fall all the way down to the ground?

 

[NutCracker]

You don't sound like you understand what a dynamic load is, why it is necessary, or how it is accomplished.

Well, here you have an opportunity to demonstrate your superior knowledge.

Please explain what I do not understand.

Prediction: your silence will be deafening.

 

[riptowtan]

It was the particle thickness which was being discussed not the full chip thickness. From page 12 of the paper

The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE
intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and
have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen
intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate
BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to
about 1 micron across.

To say the particles were not nanometer size is not accurate.

Ok. But I'm pretty sure Ryan was talking about the chips themselves.

 

[fourtoe]

Ok. But I'm pretty sure Ryan was talking about the chips themselves.

This issue in question starts at 26 minutes and 22 seconds into the 2nd program.

I've listened to it a few times and if talking about elemental aluminum = talking about particle size, then Tony is correct. But if that isn't the case then the discussion and the size was for the paint chips, thereby making Mackey correct. Though according to what he thought you guys were talking about at the time (just the paint chips), Mackey is still correct based on the quote rip posted.

I might be in over my head here, but I don't see a reference to elemental aluminum in the quote you posted, Tony.

Tell me what you guys think.

Link to the 2nd program.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did you assume a dynamic load?

What are you talking about?

You stated, "There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks."

I said no, it wouldn't. The energy in the deforming and the buckling of the columns, even at a theoretical maximum, is only about 10% of the total energy budget.

Loading is completely non-sequitur and, furthermore, the mode of load is completely irrelevant in an energy equation. That's basic physics.

 

[Julio]

You should read the Missing Jolt paper and see where Dr. Bazant is wrong. He never measured the fall of the upper block and was presuming there was a jolt.

I'll read it.

There's no missing jolt there. There's a big heap of missing mass in your math!!

You calculate a kinetic energy of the 12 upper falling floors to be 6,725,860 in-k (I'm more used to Joules: 1.67 MJ). With a velocity of V1= 6.95m/s, that means the mass you considered was m=69098 Kg. Only 69 tons for the 12-floor block!!!

But in very this thread, you wrote

The weight above was 69,303,00 lbs.

(figure that you use in the paper, but with different units, 69,303 kips)

That's about 31,000 tons for me. Using this other value of mass, the kinetic energy is about 759 MJ, and assuming the energy sinks of 1.50 MJ you calculate are correct, that gives us a final velocity of V2=6.66 m/s. Only about 0.3 m/s difference

 

[A W Smith]

There's no missing jolt there. There's a big heap of missing mass in your math!!

You calculate a kinetic energy of the 12 upper falling floors to be 6,725,860 in-k (I'm more used to Joules: 1.67 MJ). With a velocity of V1= 6.95m/s, that means the mass you considered was m=69098 Kg. Only 69 tons for the 12-floor block!!!

But in very this thread, you wrote

(figure that you use in the paper, but with different units, 69,303 kips)

That's about 31,000 tons for me. Using this other value of mass, the kinetic energy is about 759 MJ, and assuming the energy sinks of 1.50 MJ you calculate are correct, that gives us a final velocity of V2=6.66 m/s. Only about 0.3 m/s difference

a typo there? shouldn't that be about 6930 kips?

 

[Scott Sommers]

I've got a question for Tony.

If there was military grade "nano-thermite" within the dust from Ground Zero, then how come there were no military demolition experts involved in the investigation to confirm it?

Before Tony answers this, I'll have to remind him that the military used all kinds of thermite during WWII to the present. So it's no secret that they used the stuff.

I've become confused by Tony's discussion of thermite. While it is necessary to invoke thermite to explain things his way, he is no expert on this. The complete failure of the thermite community - and yes, there is a large thermite research community - to be consulted on this is important.

Tony has complained repeatedly that others do not understand his argument. He does not understand the complex nature of thermite and refuses to consult or discuss this with anyone who does.

While he cloaks his discourse in phrases that sound complex and scientific, this appeal to thermite - and more particularly, nano-thermite - shows he should be taken as seriously as the high school students that make up We Are Change. Now the conspiracy's grown to envolope the termite research community. What a joke, and I'm not hiding behind a pseudo-name.

 

[Julio]

a typo there? shouldn't that be about 6930 kips?

69,303 kips is what is written in the paper. I'm not used to those units (kips or lbs). Anyway, the kinetic energy calculated by Tony is not right.

ETA: mmm... I think i'm making some mistakes with conversion of units, but there's still some orders of magnitude of difference for the kinetic energy which are not due to that.

ETA 2: Ok, right, it was my problem with conversion of units. Forget what i said, Tony

 

[A W Smith]

another very basic error by tony szamboti, or maybe he was just clowning around

69,303 kips is what is written in the paper. I'm not used to those units (kips or lbs). Anyway, the kinetic energy calculated by Tony is not right.

oh ok, his error then. I thought a kip was 1000 lbs

The weight above was 69,303,00 lbs.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What are you talking about?

You stated, "There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks."

I said no, it wouldn't. The energy in the deforming and the buckling of the columns, even at a theoretical maximum, is only about 10% of the total energy budget.

Loading is completely non-sequitur and, furthermore, the mode of load is completely irrelevant in an energy equation. That's basic physics.

The calculation we did in the Missing Jolt paper showed 76% of the pre-impact kinetic energy would be used up in the first impact just in deforming and buckling the columns on the first floors on either side of the collision. We also used an actually measured velocity of the upper block after it's fall through one floor. We also used a mass for floors 99 through 100 and the roof and antenna from Gregory Urich's mass analysis.

Did you consider elastic and plastic deformation and buckling of the columns on both sides of the collision? What mass did you use for the upper block? Did you allow freefall to find your velocity at impact?

I asked the question about loading just to see what you thought not that it had to do with your energy calculations.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

oh ok, his error then. I thought a kip was 1000 lbs

You will see above that Julio realized his error and edited his post.