• 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

bill smith said:
We are not really interested in the tilt until RM clears up why he did not discuss or even mention the fact that the 30-story antenna began to fall into the building considerably before there was any other movement.
Click to expand...


The tilt that you have no interest in is the very reason why the antenna *looks like* it falls "into the building" when you view videos that show the North Face straight on. The bias in the video record to the North Face (owing to the evacuation of lower Manhattan) predisposes you to view the collapse from the angle that most obscures the tilt; you see the antenna falling without anything on the North Face falling. The North Face however showed signs of the collapse later than the other sides of the building. You need to balance these videos with those taken from the northeast, northwest, and the south which show clearly that the antenna mast did not simply fall but tilted southward and such movement was synchronous with collapse activity visible on the South, East, and West Faces.

bill smith said:
I take it that you agree that the antenna began to fall into the building first as I described ?
Click to expand...


Of course not.
 
Mangoose said:
The tilt that you have no interest in is the very reason why the antenna *looks like* it falls "into the building" when you view videos that show the North Face straight on. The bias in the video record to the North Face (owing to the evacuation of lower Manhattan) predisposes you to view the collapse from the angle that most obscures the tilt; you see the antenna falling without anything on the North Face falling. The North Face however showed signs of the collapse later than the other sides of the building. You need to balance these videos with those taken from the northeast, northwest, and the south which show clearly that the antenna mast did not simply fall but tilted southward and such movement was synchronous with collapse activity visible on the South, East, and West Faces.




Of course not.
Click to expand...

Your post as Bill sees it (bold).
 
So where is RM then ? It would be best if he puts the stamp of authority on this and states clearly that the 30-storey antenna did NOT start falling into the building prior to collapse onset. Because if it did.......?

As DGM said, that would be really big news.
 
R.Mackey said:
In brief, Tony's assumptions that lead him to conclude Dr. Bazant underestimated the strength (actually "toughness," or aggregate energy absorption, not "strength" which is a measure of maximum load) are based on the following errors:

.
Click to expand...

What I find strange is why the TM bothers with Bazant's paper much anyways.

If you read it carefully, IIRC, his calcs are for crushing all the columns during the collapse propagation. And since many of the core columns are seen standing after the collapse, it renders much of those moot,IMHO.

Granted, it can be used as an upper bound case, but attacking it is proven to be stupid.
 
Many of them seem to interpret his paper as an observation of the collapse rather than as a limiting case model.
 
Seymour Butz said:
What I find strange is why the TM bothers with Bazant's paper much anyways.

If you read it carefully, IIRC, his calcs are for crushing all the columns during the collapse propagation. And since many of the core columns are seen standing after the collapse, it renders much of those moot,IMHO.

Granted, it can be used as an upper bound case, but attacking it is proven to be stupid.
Click to expand...


Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings. Just because a few (not many) were the last to go down proves or disproves exactly what?
 
Algebra34 said:
For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings.
Click to expand...


Pasquale Buzzelli, Captain Jay Jonas, Josephine Harris, David Lim, Billy Butler, Matty Komorowski, and ten others wouldn't be alive if that were true.
 
Algebra34 said:
Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?
Click to expand...

IIRC, the part of the core that remained standing after the collapse of tower 2 was about 40 stories in height, and the part of the core that remained standing after the collapse of tower 1 was 60 stories in height. If I'm remembering wrong, I'd appreciate it if someone would correct me.

In any case, if Bazant's paper includes destruction of core columns, then he's overestimating the energy needed to continue collapse, at least for the lower part of each tower.
 
I just created a short video with timecode and also vertical reference lines so you can see exactly when the tilt happened.

Unfortunately for Tony Szamboti, it happened within the first second of collapse, immediately. There is no question about this.

Tony, your jolt theory is dead, and the sooner you wake up to the truth, the better. I've just taken the rotting corpse, riddled it with some new wholes, weighed it down with bricks and thrown it into the swamp.

Let it die already. You are wrong, plain and simple. Ryan Mackey is correct, as is Gregory Urich etc.... It would be great if you could join them instead of opposing them.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S66l28KveFw
 
Algebra34 said:
Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings. Just because a few (not many) were the last to go down proves or disproves exactly what?
Click to expand...

<facepalm>
I love ignorant twoofs.
1. Bazant was calculating the BEST CASE scenerio. That is if all of the columns fall on OTHER columns directly. And even under that scenerio the building still collapses.

That is why Bazant does not match the reality... it didn't need to. It was to show that no matter what happened, once a collapse started it was going to progress.

Try to read for comprehension.

2. Now why are the core columns so important AFTER the collapse? Because if you are doing CD you implode the core columns from the bottoms. If the core columns are still standing... what does that mean? Oh no CD.

3. Another reason they are extremely important is that because they are still standing they give a very indepth insight into the collapse mechanics.
 
Algebra34 said:
Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings. Just because a few (not many) were the last to go down proves or disproves exactly what?
Click to expand...

It disproves the contention and speculation by truthers such as Steven Jones (who isn't an engineer anyway) and Tony Szamboti that explosives had to be placed at fairly close intervals all the way down the core to get the buildings to fall as fast as they did, and to pulverize the material.

They all deny that there was enough energy available in the collapse to do those things, a claim which is easily disproven using mathematics, but oh well.

It is not possible for a 60-story high section of core column to be standing if it was already blown up with explosives. No way. Plus, truthers fail completely to explain why the steel showed no signs of cutting charges (no, don't bother offering the diagonally-cut columns sticking up after the collapse, there are pictures of workers cutting them).

There is overwhelming positive proof of fire-driven collapse, and virtually zero to support claims of explosives. The core columns are yet another example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom