Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Grizzly Bear]

I think most competent people who've read Bazant's paper already know it was a limiting case model. The only one here who seems to be having trouble understanding that is you Tony. :\

I agree with people who can not only explain data properly, but also interpret it. I will not bend my principals for people who cannot do either.

 

[dafydd]

Is there a minimum I.Q. level in order to qualify as a truther? Or maximum?

 

[twinstead]

I'm just curious as to how many people who obviously have a very good knowledge about a subject have to tell somebody he is wrong before he at least starts thinking something might be up.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

No Tony. You're doing an incredibly oversimplified analysis of a complex problem. You need to:

1. Adjust the distribution of vertical forces based on actual tributary area and stiffness. (Hint: the perimeter columns take less than the core columns)

2. Include the moment in the columns due to eccentric unbalanced loads.

3. Include P-Delta effects. You'll also need to include for out-of-plumbness of the columns. See the Direct Analysis Method in AISC 13th.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Name one single claim by AE911Truth that didn't come from the theologian David Ray Griffin first.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

If you label everyone else in this thread (apart from the no-planers, of course) as "rabid NIST supporters," then your claim above is trivially satisfied... and completely meaningless, of course.

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. [...] The NIST is either incorrect here or Gregory Urich's mass analysis isn't correct. You can't have it both ways.

No. Addressed in this very thread, here. Rather than fix your calculation, you merely repeat it as though that will somehow make it more accurate.

And Gregory's mass analysis is consistent with NIST, which is one reason why I accept it in the first place.

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.

See above. Also, in case you haven't learned this yet, 2 comes after 1, not 3.

2. The present official theory does not address the lack of a jolt by your own admission in the debate.

You mean to say, of course, that NIST doesn't address it. Correct. NIST doesn't address a lot of relatively irrelevant things. Pretty much everyone except the few hardy souls in the Truth Movement understand that once a structure starts moving, all bets are off, and the real problem is preventing it in the first place. You've had years to figure this out. Keep trying.

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

I just got done telling the no-planer that yes, I can, and I did. In print, even. It's pretty darn simple.

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.

If you mean I could not explain this during the debate, that's true. You kept talking over me and derailing the discussion. If instead you mean I cannot explain it at all, that's yet another stupid lie. I already explained to you how the floors cannot resist a twisting moment, so the perimeter is in no position to withstand the tilt. Also see NIST NCSTAR1-6D which treats this quantitatively.

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.

The truss seats remained attached, but were flattened. This is different than bolt failure that leaves the trusses intact. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Tsk, tsk.

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.

I picked an example that was clear to see, and well within the "9 floors" you said would have been definitely destroyed by nefarious means. I'm rather amazed that you can't figure this out.

Basically you're complaining that I didn't read the whole NIST report to you in the space of three 30-minute debates. That's dumb even for you.

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...

It's over, all right. You can beg for "best 2 out of 3" in typical Truther fashion, but until you fix your mistakes, you deserve no attention at all.

 

[Algebra34]

.relatively irrelevant things

You crack me up Mackey. Get em Tony. I smell blood.

 

[bardamu]

That's not even a good objection. Newtons Bit laid out the criteria for what a progressive collapse is. Your response is basically a non sequitor. Regardless of how fast or slow components fail, a progressive collapse is defined by qualitative criteria, not the rate at which it occurs.

Speed of progression of column failure may not be relevant to a strict definition of a progressive collapse, but it's very relevant to an analysis of the WTC collapses. If the perimeter of the roof falls as one, all the perimeter columns must have failed together. We've seen videos of progressive collapses and videos of controlled demolitions, and only the controlled demolitions show the roof edge drop without completely breaking apart. In fact, even standard controlled demolitions seem to cause more initial destruction to the roof line than we see in the videos of the WTC7 collapse.

Word salad is not a response. First of all, the connections between the floor trusses and the core beams in the Twin Towers do not have to be strong enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core. On the contrary, when those connections between the trusses and the core columns sever, the core columns cannot stand on their own at all. They're too slender in relation to their length to do so. The thing that holds them up - the floors - are gone, so all they can do is collapse.

Are we talking about the same core, or even the same building?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

Even if the beams could be smashed away from the columns, the columns might topple over eventually, but I've yet to see a plausible reason for them to completely fall apart as the collapse is progressing.

You really don't know the basic mechanics of any of the WTC collapses, do you?

One thing we all have in common here is we know the buildings were demolished. Some of us want to expose it, others want to cover it up.

Probably not, but Bazant, Zhou, and others worked out the energy totals in the whole system and discovered that regardless of how you describe the collapse, once it got started there was more than enough energy to keep it going. Or in short, there was more than enough energy to fail all the connections, regardless of whether the failure modes were shear, buckling, or whatnot.

Working out the energy totals in the whole system is an excellent way to avoid doing a meaningful analysis. Without a plausible mechanism to transfer the energy of the falling rubble onto the load-bearing structure below, there's no global collapse. Each lower core beam had to be hit by something from above to shear at least one of its connections with the columns. If the upper floor beams lifted off the seats easily, they could only hit the beams below with their own energy, not the combined energy of the whole upper block.

His point is that the very description you provide is consistent with a progressive collapse that wasn't induced by explosives or any other sort of intentional demolition. So what you'd have to do to further determine the collapse mechanism is study the evidence. And the fact of the matter is, there is zero evidence of intentional demolition of the structure.

Imagine WTC7 was brought down by a two-stage controlled demolition where one column is taken out first, then 7 seconds later, the remaining 80 columns are removed. The interior columns are removed slightly before the perimeter ones, so that the sides will fold inward to minimize damage to neighbouring buildings. In what way would the collapse mechanism of such a controlled demolition be visibly different from what we see in the videos from 9/11. I'm talking about the sequence and rate of column failures, not periphery characteristics, such as flashes and expulsions.

Ah... truther misstatements and strawmen. You might want to look up what that highlited portion means... It doesn't mean what you think it does. And it didn't happen. Nothing was "hurled" hundreds of feet. It fell out during the collapse due to the very chaotic collapse mechanisms.

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

The amount of explosive necessary to "hurl columns for hundreds of feet" would be very noticable during the collapse.

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:

Now your shifting the goal-post. You asked for someone with relevant experience and qualifications to answer you question. I'm an engineer who makes a living designing the structural systems of buildings. I gave you a text-book response to the definition of a progressive collapse.

We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse. In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.

You've now moved on to the "it can't collapse that fast" idiocy. This is an argument from incredulity. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand. If you would like to continue with that particular long debunked meme, then I ask you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

Why would ANY architects be challenging YOUR explanation for the collapses--in even larger numbers than your intrepid list of merry professionals? Are these whom you must consider incompetent or worse "in on it" still allowed to design buildings? Have YOU complained to the architect licencing body?

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

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

I laughed at that, beachnut. Much better than your usual rants.

 

[Algebra34]

Speed of progression of column failure may not be relevant to a strict definition of a progressive collapse, but it's very relevant to an analysis of the WTC collapses. If the perimeter of the roof falls as one, all the perimeter columns must have failed together. We've seen videos of progressive collapses and videos of controlled demolitions, and only the controlled demolitions show the roof edge drop without completely breaking apart. In fact, even standard controlled demolitions seem to cause more initial destruction to the roof line than we see in the videos of the WTC7 collapse.




Are we talking about the same core, or even the same building?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

Even if the beams could be smashed away from the columns, the columns might topple over eventually, but I've yet to see a plausible reason for them to completely fall apart as the collapse is progressing.




One thing we all have in common here is we know the buildings were demolished. Some of us want to expose it, others want to cover it up.




Working out the energy totals in the whole system is an excellent way to avoid doing a meaningful analysis. Without a plausible mechanism to transfer the energy of the falling rubble onto the load-bearing structure below, there's no global collapse. Each lower core beam had to be hit by something from above to shear at least one of its connections with the columns. If the upper floor beams lifted off the seats easily, they could only hit the beams below with their own energy, not the combined energy of the whole upper block.




Imagine WTC7 was brought down by a two-stage controlled demolition where one column is taken out first, then 7 seconds later, the remaining 80 columns are removed. The interior columns are removed slightly before the perimeter ones, so that the sides will fold inward to minimize damage to neighbouring buildings. In what way would the collapse mechanism of such a controlled demolition be visibly different from what we see in the videos from 9/11. I'm talking about the sequence and rate of column failures, not periphery characteristics, such as flashes and expulsions.




You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related




The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:




We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse. In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.




Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.




How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?




I laughed at that, beachnut. Much better than your usual rants.

You are doing way too good here. Just be careful. They would like nothing more than not to debate you at all. Watch out for the teachers pets.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are doing way to good here. Just be careful. They would like nothing more than not to debate you at all. Watch out for the teachers pets.

Thank you for that articulate, genuine evidence based and logical argument.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

No twoof. I think that steel when hooked to a lever arm can fall in an ARC from where it was attached and that is how you get steel girders severl hundred feet away from the towers.

or, the collapsing pile being very chaotic allows the steel to shift horizontally. It isn't that hard.

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:

Great. Then you can provide video or audio of the collapse where you can easily hear the explosives.

Any explosives that have enough power to throw steel 600 feet would EASILY be heard. Please provide the evidence of explosions. (you know one of the dozens of videos with explosives in it, the seismic data showing explosives, or the explosive damage to any steel recovered.) It should be easy.

why can't you provide any of this easy to find proof?

We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse.

Why and how? Provide your mathematical proofs. I eagerly await your thesis.

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted.

In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.

Your lack of understand and lack of education are on display for all to see.

Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

you still haven't presented anything except wishful thinking and hopes.

You have claimed a uniform and symmetrical collapse of wtc7. PROVE IT. I'm still waiting to see that video of yours that shows all 4 corners falling a the same time. Where is it?

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

How many astrophysicists are actively defending the "earth is round" theory?
argument from ignorance noted and rejected. Try again.

If NIST is full of crap, there would EASILY be dozens of (if not hundreds of) peer reviewed engineering or architectural journals. Please provide just one. In any language.

Of course we can always post the 50+ real peer reviewed journal articles which support the NIST conclusions.

One would think that you would have learned about arguments from incredulity and ignorance in the UK public schools... Unless manchester is really that bad.[/QUOTE]

 

[carlitos]

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_G...eature=related

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:
<snip>
Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

According to AE911Truth, it "looks like a classic controlled demolition" because the buildings "collapsed perfectly straight down at free-fall speed (sic) into their own footprints." And the proof for this is that silent explosives hurled beams outward "hundreds of feet." This is ridiculous, of course.

Here is analysis of the damage to the many other buildings around the WTC complex.

Here is a photo that shows how the outer wall fell outwards by 600 feet into the Winter Garden.

Stop believing the lies these people are telling you. It's for your own good. Learn how to think.

 

[twinstead]

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

Indeed. Depends on your definition of "actively defending", does it not? How many architects are ACTIVELY defending your position? Do You think all it takes is a name and an asinine comment on a website roster to be actively defending something? Where are their scientific papers, their press conferences, their books, their interviews?

Hell, if just putting your name to something means actively supporting, I'll take the hundreds of contributers to the NIST and Purdue reports alone. They certainly trump your delightful little group.

 

[bardamu]

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.

Here's one of the Climategate emails discussing how to stop sceptics from publishing their work:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited misattributed quote. Please be careful using the quote function.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/

You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will.

I regret to inform you that the only person you've humiliated is yourself.

Orwell said something about folks like you, I believe.

Orwell based a character on you, Mackey. He was called O'Brien and his job was to pimp for Big Brother. O'Brien held four fingers up and forced Winston Smith to say he could see five. He threatened to set hungry rats on Winston Smith, which is rather appropriate considering some of the rodents on this forum.

Anyway, it's come to my attention that you are a no-planer

Newton was an alchemist. Do you reject his physics on that basis?

And you've more than earned your ticket to Ignore, which I strongly suspect isn't your first

I thought you already had me on ignore. I've had to rely on elMondoHummus to provide any coherent answers my questions about your presentation.

 

[carlitos]

(lots of silly stuff)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited misattributed quote.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

(more silly stuff)

I'm quoting because he can't see it. bardamu, if I were you, I would remove Mr. Mackey's name from that climategate quote. Unless you think he said those things.

 

[twinstead]

Newton was an alchemist. Do you reject his physics on that basis?

Interesting analogy. So you're saying we should believe your physics in spite of your belief in something stupid like no planes?

 

[TruthersLie]

I love ignorant, undereducated pompus twoofs.

Here's one of the Climategate emails discussing how to stop sceptics from publishing their work:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/

See this is hilarious. Twoofs can't publish anywhere. If you all could get a decent paper together, I'm sure most mainstream journals would LOVE to publish it. It would increase readership and gain them attention.

of course, we also know that twoofs don't publish anywhere. Why? Because if they were submitting real journal articles and getting rejected, they would be all over JONES having twoofs publish the papers.

If they were valid papers, then it would create quite a stir. To have good,valid well researched papers (even on JONES) to examine would be fantastic. So far we have crapola. I mean huge steaming piles.

That is how I can definatevly say you are full of ****.

I regret to inform you that the only person you've humiliated is yourself.

<snort><snicker><ROFLMAO>

That is why "debating" twoofs is so much fun. Anyone with even a basic education in physics and engineering knows that Ryan has wiped the floor with you, heiwa and Tony S. BADLY.

Yet you think you have done something... You are so outclassed you are not even playing the same game, let alone in the same ballpark.

Orwell based a character on you, Mackey. He was called O'Brien and his job was to pimp for Big Brother. O'Brien held four fingers up and forced Winston Smith to say he could see five. He threatened to set hungry rats on Winston Smith, which is rather appropriate considering some of the rodents on this forum.

Ad hom noted and reported. Thank you twoof. Is this how you debate in manchester?

 

[rsalinger]

Newton was an alchemist at a time when chemistry was in it's infancy. No one even understood that atoms existed or what their structure was. So, transmutation is completely reasonable given the state of knowledge at the time. So, to compare Newton's speculations to "no planes" is completely off target. It would be better argumentation if you could show that say Einstein or Bohr were alchemists.

 

[twinstead]

Newton was an alchemist at a time when chemistry was in it's infancy. No one even understood that atoms existed or what their structure was. So, transmutation is completely reasonable given the state of knowledge at the time. So, to compare Newton's speculations to "no planes" is completely off target. It would be better argumentation if you could show that say Einstein or Bohr were alchemists.

I agree, Newton can't be blamed for his alchemy; he couldn't have known any better. That's not the way bardamu meant it though.

 

[bardamu]

I'm quoting because he can't see it. bardamu, if I were you, I would remove Mr. Mackey's name from that climategate quote. Unless you think he said those things.

Careless use of the paste command on my part, and the edit button is not available any more. Not sure if a mod could remove it, but if not, I'd like to make it clear that the quote is from the Telegraph article on the Climategate emails and has nothing to do with Ryan Mackey. Sorry for the confusion.