Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[BigAl]

I don't want to derail, while technically I agree, but if a programs budget is tied to cost of living and the cost of living goes up while the budget doesn't, then the net result effectively is a cut and programs which relied on the expected increase may need to be cut. End of my derail.

If it's tied to cost of living, it's probably also subject to population growth. Zero budget increase results in a cut here, too.

 

[carlitos]

Oh, geez. I didn't specify what programs since I was trying to avoid this; I just thought it was a good illustration of the concept of acceleration vs. speed. The Space Program or Defense or capital funds have the same dynamics regarding spending.

 

[newton3376]

Unfortunately I can't say that. There are three mechanical engineers I have worked with in the past few years who either wholeheartedly support the claims of organizations like AE911Truth or at least think their arguments have merit.

There is a reason that there are so very few out there.....the arguments are so weak from a technical perspective that the engineering and scientific community as a whole have rejected the truthers claims.

So you meeting 3 doesn't really strike me as something good for the truthers....engineers who buy into the truth stuff are such an extreme minority in numbers and so underrepresented in peer reviewed literature that they might as well not exist.

 

[rwguinn]

There is a reason that there are so very few out there.....the arguments are so weak from a technical perspective that the engineering and scientific community as a whole have rejected the truthers claims.

So you meeting 3 doesn't really strike me as something good for the truthers....engineers who buy into the truth stuff are such an extreme minority in numbers and so underrepresented in peer reviewed literature that they might as well not exist.

I've met one. He is also a YEC, terracentric, and moon hoaxer. As long as he has a formula, from a book, and you don't go outside the limits of the formula, he is competent.
Unfortunately (for me, and aerospace), they laid me and 3 dozen other engineers off, and kept him--and only him...

 

[beachnut]

I've met one. He is also a YEC, terracentric, and moon hoaxer. As long as he has a formula, from a book, and you don't go outside the limits of the formula, he is competent.
Unfortunately (for me, and aerospace), they laid me and 3 dozen other engineers off, and kept him--and only him...

Maybe they kept him because they can pay him in trutherDollars!

 

[AZCat]

Is it fair to say that no architects or engineers have produced technical documentation supporting any 9/11 CT and presented it for peer review within their respective fields of expertise?

I think so, but I have seen truthers try to twist the purpose of legitimate papers in order to support their claims.

 

[AZCat]

There is a reason that there are so very few out there.....the arguments are so weak from a technical perspective that the engineering and scientific community as a whole have rejected the truthers claims.

So you meeting 3 doesn't really strike me as something good for the truthers....engineers who buy into the truth stuff are such an extreme minority in numbers and so underrepresented in peer reviewed literature that they might as well not exist.

I know - the rest of us have a good laugh at their expense. Considering I currently work in a firm of ~200 engineers, one nut is not surprising.

 

[newton3376]

I've met one. He is also a YEC, terracentric, and moon hoaxer. As long as he has a formula, from a book, and you don't go outside the limits of the formula, he is competent.
Unfortunately (for me, and aerospace), they laid me and 3 dozen other engineers off, and kept him--and only him...

Im sorry to hear you got laid off...

 

[rwguinn]

Im sorry to hear you got laid off...

It ain't my first rodeo...
Allows me to take care of my wife, who just underwent bilateral knee replacement.
And, you can only work 10/7 for so long before you either 1. die, or 2. go postal...

 

[rwguinn]

Maybe they kept him because they can pay him in trutherDollars!

Likely they pay him in commodities--he's also one of them there "the Fed is an evil plot by the Rothchild's" types. Name a woo, he'sall over it...

 

[newton3376]

It ain't my first rodeo...
Allows me to take care of my wife, who just underwent bilateral knee replacement.
And, you can only work 10/7 for so long before you either 1. die, or 2. go postal...

Yikes! I hope she is okay...

Very true on the 10/7....of course if you are an engineer I doubt you will be home for long, especially if you are willing to relocate.....there are definately more jobs than engineers overall...

 

[R.Mackey]

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

We ignore their opinion because it's stupid.

All those architects and engineers, working towards a common cause, with years and years to perfect their arguments... and not a single journal paper? Not even a conference paper?? How can this be?

This is only possible if they are actually avoiding a scientific argument. Or if they're so incompetent that they get summarily rejected with every submission, or if they know they're incompetent and don't even try.

Not good enough? Here's another reason. One of the very best of the AE911T morons is Tony Szamboti. Unlike most of them, he actually is an engineer. Unlike virtually all of them, he actually has written some whitepapers -- stupid ones, but at least he tried, and he did so with enough organization that we can find out where he went wrong, unlike the others who typically write in crayon. He's put out more original material than Richard Gage himself.

Well, guess what, I debated Mr. Szamboti. Maybe you've heard. You know, the subject of this thread, that you are so busily derailing. And I creamed him without cracking a sweat. You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will. I probably won't even have to work a single calculation to do it.

That is why we ignore them. Their incompetence is so phenomenal that they are not even recognizable as a parody of a valid authority.

Neither are you, for that matter. For instance:

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

Well, sure, if sub-light counts. Or even subsonic, I think that's safe. One more time, my whitepaper, Appendix B. Real simple.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

I explained, in the presentation accompanying the debate, my hypothesis of why the lower core preferentially resists destruction. This matches what was actually observed, which is why I came up with it in the first place. Your response is not even babble. It's Truther Mad Libs.

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

The force required is in NIST, of course. And in case you haven't heard, the "upper debris" massed about 34,000 tonnes.

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

Funny you mention that. Mr. Gage was forced to remove the AIA logo from his materials. Gee, I wonder why.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

Pretty much always. The only confusion occurs among folks like you, and only when you start claiming that all collapses are controlled demolitions. Orwell said something about folks like you, I believe.

Science is for the crime lab. Motive is for the detectives.

I already demolished the motive argument as well. It's pretty easy to do.

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

If you mean the real motive, expressed by bin Laden, I might agree with you. But if you mean the "motive" of the FDNY, which you believe murdered a large fraction of its own staff, you're wrong. That "motive" is inseparable from insanity, not politics.

It's the kind of collapse demolition teams dream of.

I'd like to see a graph of this progressive collapse showing observable failures at the roof level plotted against time, then compare it to a similar graph of the WTC7 collapse. I suspect the former would be a straightish diagonal line, whereas the latter would rise briefly, remain flat for most of the graph, then hit a brick wall near the end.

You suspect wrong. NIST describes why the collapse of WTC 7 progressed the way it did -- all of it. The falling penthouses, the timing, even the "free fall." Funny thing, I've never seen a single Truther even acknowledge this. It's as if you can't even read the report. Too many big words, I guess.

Anyway, it's come to my attention that you are a no-planer and you do, in fact, accuse the FDNY of demolishing the Towers. You also evidently don't believe in Apollo 11, and who knows what else. Compared to this grand mal rejection of observable reality, the spurious complaints you've made in my thread are barely a chip in the iceberg of your ignorance -- I'd have better luck trying to teach Scrabble to a caveman than correct your drivel.

You need a doctor, not a scientist. And you've more than earned your ticket to Ignore, which I strongly suspect isn't your first. Read here if you have any further questions. Good luck to you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It is nice that you have confidence in yourself Ryan, but that doesn't equate to your winning any debate here. The only people I see sharing your opinion are rabid NIST report supporters and even you had to admit they didn't have it right.

You were wrong about or did not provide an answer on several points in the debate

1. The factor of safety of the core columns, which I have shown you to be at least 3.00 to 1. You accept G. Urich's mass analysis of 69 million lbs. above the 98th floor. The total cross sectional area of the core columns at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and the perimeter columns with a wall thickness of approximately .289 inhces had a total area of 3,682 sq. inches. That is a total of 6,327 sq. inches and the unit stress at each floor was kept the same on the core and perimeter to avoid warpage. The 69 million lb. load equates to a compressive stress on all columns of 11,000 psi. Since the ASTM A36 core columns had a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi that is over 3.00 to 1. The buckling stresses of these low slenderness ratio columns was very close to the yield stress and thus the factor of safety was still above 3.00 to 1 for buckling. The NIST is either incorrect here or Gregory Urich's mass analysis isn't correct. You can't have it both ways.

3. You wrongly claimed that we overestimated the strength of the columns in the Missing Jolt paper. We used the actual column cross sections and yield strengths and did the analysis for buckling in the least radius of gyration.

2. The present official theory does not address the lack of a jolt by your own admission in the debate. The theory you and some others have, regarding the tilt obviating the need for a jolt, has not been shown analytically with precise measurements and timing of the tilt and published. We do know that the upper section of WTC 1 did not tilt 8 degrees or anywhere near that, before descending vertically. The simple diagrams you showed and pronouncements that you have explained it will not suffice.

3. You could not explain how the core columns collapsed with your "the tilt explains it all" theory.

4. You could not explain how the NIST gets the east and west walls of WTC 1 to rotate since their analysis does not provide the overload to cause failure of those columns.

5. You were wrong about the floor truss seats all being smashed off or broken on all floors below the collapse initiation. It turns out that while this is pretty much true for the perimeter floor truss seats it is just the opposite for the core column floor truss seats. Most of the core side floor truss seats remained attached to the channel joining them to the core columns. Read NCSTAR 1-3 Chapter 6.

6. You showed perimeter columns which were 5 to 8 floors below the collapse initiation in WTC 1 and attempted to use them to show there was no need for a jolt since they were not buckled and failed at the bolts. These columns are not germane to the argument. You didn't get into why you couldn't show the columns from the collapse initiation area. I would hope most people would realize that was because they were not saved for the NIST to use in their analysis.

No, the reality is that this debate is not over as you have not proven your contentions that the tilt obviates the need for a jolt to cause collapse propagation and that it explains the rapidness of the collapse. I will be doing precise measurements of the tilt and vertical drop magnitudes and timing and an analysis based on these measurements, which the NIST should have done. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Irreducible delusion, here presented as a classic example.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I submit hat mainstream scientific journals blackball papers hat they are told not to publish. A great example is the discussion paper by Anders Bjorkman (our very own Heiwa), an ae911truth.org member who submitted a paper to the ASCE early in 2009, had it accepted (see below) and yet publication has been stopped to this day.

There is therefore no reason to believe that other scientific papers by ae911truth.org or members of other 9/11 organisations would be published and every reason to believe that they would not..

'' Just a heads up, Anders Bjorkman, who some of you know... ( http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=998594 , he was AE911truth petitioner of the month a few months back) has mentioned elsewhere that a paper he submitted to ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) has been accepted for publication;

This is exactly what Mr. Bjorkman said;

"Just got following from ASCE

Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Parresol
Editorial Coordinator"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ryan, you also do not say how your "the tilt explains it all" theory provides an answer for the observation that it was the lower stories of the upper section of WTC 1 that were the first to collapse.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Irreducible delusion, here presented as a classic example.

Dave

I think the real Irreducible Delusion belongs to those who first accepted Dr. Bazant's dynamic load (jolt) theory, but when shown that a dynamic load could not have occurred are scrambling to salvage the natural collapse hypothesis, and yet are not willing to provide an analysis to show it was possible in detail. Your behavior fits this description very well Dave.
On the other hand, while I initially accepted Dr. Bazant's hypothesis, superior data has shown that it does not conform to observation. This has caused me to now look for answers to the question of whether a natural collapse is even possible in accord with observation. This is just the opposite of what you imply and it seems you are simply projecting your own flaw of logic onto those you don't agree with.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Tony, you're clearly intelligent enough to figure out for yourself that tilt removes the necessity for a jolt, yet you choose either not to do so, or to deny the existence of the visibly obvious tilt. This is not investigation; it's pathology.

Dave

ETA: And I've presented the analysis. You've seen it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, you're clearly intelligent enough to figure out for yourself that tilt removes the necessity for a jolt, yet you choose either not to do so, or to deny the existence of the visibly obvious tilt. This is not investigation; it's pathology.

Dave

ETA: And I've presented the analysis. You've seen it.

You have not presented an analysis. You simply showed a couple of graphs and that was it. You provided no backup data, which I asked you for several times.

How much tilt was there at initiation and during the first several floor drop?

Where is the data to support your conclusion Dave?

 

[Dave Rogers]

How much tilt was there at initiation and during the first several floor drop?

I've shown you a picture that demonstrates a 2º tilt when the highest point of the roofline had fallen at most a quarter of a storey. That's enough to remove the jolt. And that's your analysis refuted. Everyone but you can see that.

Dave