Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[alienentity]

Tony Szamboti wrote to Ryan Mackey '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'

Tony, you have a funny way of admitting that your were wrong. You also have a peculiar habit of shifting the burden of proof onto others while it is you who makes the initial claims.
To summarize, you have explicitly been arguing that the impact between upper block and lower structure was square and simultaneous, column-on-column. You have denied that it wasn't actually column-on-column, which is expected (and inevitable) if the upper blocks tilted. You have found it necessary to deny that the tilt happened, to support your false assumptions.

You are wrong. You have lost the argument. Now if you wish to examine more precisely what the effects of the initial tilts were, abandoning your previous wrong assumptions, that's fantastic. Everyone makes mistakes Tony, including you and Ryan. The thing is you need to acknowledge your mistakes and correct your calculations.
You haven't gone thru all the Kubler-Ross stages of grief yet. You're still hanging onto a lot of denial, you're getting some anger, but you're not at acceptance yet.

You can heal if you try. Let the facts in, and let go of the myths. Stop resisting reality, it's futile.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

Hey bub, you're the one who thinks progressive collapse has a speed parameter in it's definition. It doesn't. You've seemed to accept that fact but you've conveniently forgotten that you were the one who brought it up.

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.

Again, speed is not a parameter in progressive collapses. It's a factor in the mode in which the elements failed.

Take WTC1&2 for example:

Damaged and destroyed columns in the core of the building pulled all of the exterior columns inwards through centenary action. The fire heated an entire walls-length of perimeter columns to the point where they failed. This resulted in the complete global failure of an entire floor of columns. Global collapse ensues. Speed isn't an issue because of the load redistribution resulted in an entire floor of columns failing near simultaneously. This is obvious.

The information needed to see this is available in the NIST report. Try to read it for understanding. Come here with questions. People like myself or Mackey can answer them. Even a few of the achitecture people will try and help you out. They're not experts, but they had to learn a small amount of structural engineering to pass their license exam.

 

[alienentity]

Tony, don't forget to include WTC2 in your tilt calculations. Remember that the first 20 stories fell at less than freefall acceleration, with a large column offset.

You will probably find that a jolt would not be expected in that case, which inevitably renders your argument moot and irrelevant. Which, to state the obvious, means that explosives were not necessary to produce the effects seen.

Never mind that WTC2 is harder to measure (acceleration). Just measure the degree of tilt, that's what's important in terms of your calculations. Don't run away from the truth because it threatens you. It's only threatening to fools, and you're not a fool.

 

[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.

 

[alienentity]

bardamu, I would add to Newton's comment that the towers didn't fall like controlled demolitions. There was no initial stage in freefall, as you would see if columns were blown out by explosives or hydraulics.
The initial failures of the towers were more gradual. You can see that very clearly on the videos, and there were no giant explosions at onset either. Neither feature is like a controlled demolition.

Here's a little clip which demonstrates the initial failure of WTC2 was slower than freefall. I've done some recent calculations using overall acceleration in the 64% to 70% of freefall range, as measured in WTC1 by David Chandler, and mentioned by Tony Szamboti, for the remaining 90 stories of WTC2. This is intended to give a reasonable estimate of the overall collapse time - I came up with roughly 11 to 12 seconds. This figure is very close to the mathematical estimates given by various published papers and consistent with other observations.



With WTC7, the initial failures were internal, progressive, and without any evidence of explosions. The final stage of global collapse was the drop of the entire curtain wall, while much of the internal structure had already fallen.
Again, not like any controlled demolition you can find on youtube. I challenge you to find a single example which exactly matches the WTC collapses.

You're just wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Newtons Bit]

bardamu, I would add to Newton's comment that the towers didn't fall like controlled demolitions. There was no initial stage in freefall, as you would see if columns were blown out by explosives or hydraulics.
The initial failures of the towers were more gradual. You can see that very clearly on the videos, and there were no giant explosions at onset either. Neither feature is like a controlled demolition.

Here's a little clip which demonstrates the initial failure of WTC2 was slower than freefall. I've done some recent calculations using overall acceleration in the 64% to 70% of freefall range, as measured in WTC1 by David Chandler, and mentioned by Tony Szamboti, for the remaining 90 stories of WTC2. This is intended to give a reasonable estimate of the overall collapse time - I came up with roughly 11 to 12 seconds. This figure is very close to the mathematical estimates given by various published papers and consistent with other observations.



With WTC7, the initial failures were internal, progressive, and without any evidence of explosions. The final stage of global collapse was the drop of the entire curtain wall, while much of the internal structure had already fallen.
Again, not like any controlled demolition you can find on youtube. I challenge you to find a single example which exactly matches the WTC collapses.

You're just wrong, plain and simple.

As I recall from the NIST WTC7 report, the building did not fall all at once. The collapse started on one end and progressed to the other. I think it was east to west but I'd have to open up the report again. The curtain wall visible in the videos is attached to the side of the building that collapsed last.

 

[Furcifer]

*deleted the thread isn't about stupidity.

 

[GlennB]

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.

As has been mentioned, this is a bizarre concept given the horrific devastation wreaked on Lower Manhattan that day. Knowingly wreaked in your view, it seems.

But, can you give us your thoughts on why WTC7 was CD'd?
Also how it was rigged, and when?

Y'know, crimes require motive, method and opportunity.

 

[Newtons Bit]

As has been mentioned, this is a bizarre concept given the horrific devastation wreaked on Lower Manhattan that day. Knowingly wreaked in your view, it seems.

But, can you give us your thoughts on why WTC7 was CD'd?
Also how it was rigged, and when?

Y'know, crimes require motive, method and opportunity.

They also require evidence that they actually happened. So far the "truthers" have nothing that hasn't been proven incorrect.

 

[bardamu]

Hey bub, you're the one who thinks progressive collapse has a speed parameter in it's definition. It doesn't. You've seemed to accept that fact but you've conveniently forgotten that you were the one who brought it up.

Again, speed is not a parameter in progressive collapses. It's a factor in the mode in which the elements failed.

Take WTC1&2 for example:

Damaged and destroyed columns in the core of the building pulled all of the exterior columns inwards through centenary action. The fire heated an entire walls-length of perimeter columns to the point where they failed. This resulted in the complete global failure of an entire floor of columns. Global collapse ensues. Speed isn't an issue because of the load redistribution resulted in an entire floor of columns failing near simultaneously. This is obvious.

The information needed to see this is available in the NIST report. Try to read it for understanding. Come here with questions. People like myself or Mackey can answer them. Even a few of the achitecture people will try and help you out. They're not experts, but they had to learn a small amount of structural engineering to pass their license exam.

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally. NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever. The screenwall starts to drop at the end of the 7 second period, the west penthouse follows, then the roof perimeter starts to drop within 0.7s of the screenwall. If the collapse of the east penthouse was caused by the failure of 1 column, then according to the observed movement of the structures on the rooftop, the other 80 columns failed within 700ms of each other. To assume the progressive collapse of all interior columns over a period of 7 seconds is to work backwards from the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire, and it flies in the face the evidence.

bardamu, I would add to Newton's comment that the towers didn't fall like controlled demolitions. There was no initial stage in freefall, as you would see if columns were blown out by explosives or hydraulics.
The initial failures of the towers were more gradual. You can see that very clearly on the videos, and there were no giant explosions at onset either. Neither feature is like a controlled demolition.

Here's a little clip which demonstrates the initial failure of WTC2 was slower than freefall. I've done some recent calculations using overall acceleration in the 64% to 70% of freefall range, as measured in WTC1 by David Chandler, and mentioned by Tony Szamboti, for the remaining 90 stories of WTC2. This is intended to give a reasonable estimate of the overall collapse time - I came up with roughly 11 to 12 seconds. This figure is very close to the mathematical estimates given by various published papers and consistent with other observations.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally. NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever. The screenwall starts to drop at the end of the 7 second period, the west penthouse follows, then the roof perimeter starts to drop within 0.7s of the screenwall. If the collapse of the east penthouse was caused by the failure of 1 column, then according to the observed movement of the structures on the rooftop, the other 80 columns failed within 700ms of each other. To assume the progressive collapse of all interior columns over a period of 7 seconds is to work backwards from the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire, and it flies in the face the evidence.




This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

Then what's the speed for free fall?

 

[carlitos]

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.

You still think that, even after being corrected by people who actually understand these concepts. This is called "willful ignorance." You really aren't willing to learn anything, are you?

 

[Mancman]

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

How long should it have taken, in your estimation?

 

[alienentity]

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally. NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever.

You haven't read the report, have you? First, how many times must you be corrected in terms of visual evidence before the facts finally sink in? The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?
This event is not speculation, as your explosives theory is - it is a simple fact.

Therefore we already know that major failures were occurring, I guess you are arguing that silent explosives did it, whereas we're arguing a more real-world explanation of fires and thermal expansion leading to failure.

Take a look at the seismic data for WTC7. It takes about 17 to 18 seconds for the building to completely collapse.
Again, this cannot and has not been explained by controlled demolition theory. That glib label is applied by truthers who don't, or won't take the trouble to understand the facts at hand.

Third, NIST created an engineering-based computer model which demonstrated how the building could fail due to fires alone. You and other truthers haven't even begun to refute this engineering data thru your own inquiry.

Why don't you do that and report back to us? Seriously.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

According to what engineering and physics principles is it ridiculously fast? You don't know what you're talking about. Read a few of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject before opining.

Besides, in both towers significant portions of the cores remained standing after the floors and perimeters had met their demise, so the overall collapse time is of course longer than 12 seconds.

Finally, if you think buildings shouldn't collapse very fast, try to explain how the upper block of this buiilding, when dropped a couple of stories max, crushed down the rest of the building so quickly.......without explosives and without weakening the structure below the collapse.

Yup, you read that right. No explosives, no weakening below. Fast crush anyway. You can't just handwave that away, 'cause it's irrefutable, dude.

 

[newton3376]

If some non expert tried to argue with me in my area of expertise I would likely get pissed off eventually....I don't know how some of you continue to debate these truthers without being a bit frustrated and maybe even a bit insulted too....

But hats off to you structural guys who continue to try and educate them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.

No there's really no distinction. If a column buckles then it has no value as a supporting structural element; it'll fail and it's normally sudden. You can only lose so many (and depending on how the loads are distributed) before you get a rapid succession of failures in the remaining structure.

Gage usually talks about how you have sagging that indicates how structures fail. From what I've been able to ascertain of his remark on that area he's talking about the creep behavior without actually getting into the critical failure point; he stops short of it. Dunno if that's why you object to the rapid failure issue, but if you want I can scan a page from one of my reference books so you can read on it yourself. PM me if you want any scans.

 

[alienentity]

OK Bardamu, you want to debate the collapse time? Well, I've just created a brand new video which proves conclusively that there was still major collapse occurring at 15 seconds in, and that the core elements held up at least 31 seconds.

I was partially inspired (aggravated) by last week's Fifth Estate program on CBC TV, which wrongly stated the towers collapsed in 9 seconds at up to freefall speed.

Well, I guess if you include the stuff that fell off the buildings in the air, yes, that was obviously freefall, but the collapse wasn't nearly so fast. And it does make a big difference IMHO.

Just for fun, try to calculate the size of the WTC tower footprints based on where the major debris landed. Truthers always like to say they fell 'into their own footprints', who knew that the footprints included all the surrounding buildings? Go figure....

Just another dumb truther talking point D.O.A.

 

[Furcifer]

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.

Why? I don't get this at all. Any kid can tell you when you crush a pop can it resists to a point then all of a sudden crushes. In order to maximize material, building elements are bu it significantly stronger in the intended plane. Once you get out of alignment all bets are off.

Haven't you ever done that trick with the egg, trying to crush it? In one direction its almost impossible to crack, but you put it another position and it breaks easily. What's so freaking hard to comprehend here?

There's some basic principles at work in this example. So basic you seem a fool if you don't comprehend this, and you can't extend them to the WTC.

 

[TruthersLie]

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

Really? Coming in a place where real engineers post and then using your piss poor understanding of the terms and your own personal ignorance to try to back up a claim? Yea, bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time

Ah... personal incredulity and ignorance. Got it.

that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.

That is the problem there. You are making assumptions which are not backed up by reality.

You do know what happens when you make an assumption right? You make an ASS out of U and MPTION. You have done a good job doing that already.

NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever.

Wrong. You can see the upper corner where the eastern mechanical penthouse was has collapsed. You don't need to have xray vision to figure out why it collapsed and how the collapse progresses. It comes from YEARS of (get ready for it) education and experience in the field of engineering.

How many years of education or experience do you have in that field? Oh none. right. argument from incredulity and ignorance noted.

The screenwall starts to drop at the end of the 7 second period, the west penthouse follows, then the roof perimeter starts to drop within 0.7s of the screenwall. If the collapse of the east penthouse was caused by the failure of 1 column, then according to the observed movement of the structures on the rooftop, the other 80 columns failed within 700ms of each other. To assume the progressive collapse of all interior columns over a period of 7 seconds is to work backwards from the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire, and it flies in the face the evidence.

What evidence do you have of CD? I'm still waiting to see any proof or evidence that you have... still waiting to see anything that isn't incredulity or ignorance.

what flies in the face of the evidence is the idea of super duper super silent explosives planted without anyone noticing.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

ah.. personal incredulity again. And it wasn't 12 seconds. Full collapse including eastern mechanical penthouse took between 16 and 20 seconds. Try again.

 

[Justin39640]

How long should it have taken, in your estimation?

How long does it take you to say "clunkity clunk"? lol