Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Myriad]

If you put an increasing load on a rope, it will eventually break. When it does, a large number of individual fibers fail simultaneously or in such rapid succession as to appear simultaneous. So when that happens, is the simultaneous breaking of hundreds or thousands of fibers an improbable occurrence, or evidence that the rope must have been cut or otherwise sabotaged?

Truthers promote the idea that increasing instability and overload culminating in near-simultaneous failure of multiple members is improbable or impossible. Their argument might seem "intuitively" reasonable at first glance. But when you turn it around and ask, what should have happened instead, it ceases to be so.

Ironically, it's the least rational Truthers who most successfully take that notion to its logical conclusion, and claim that all global structural collapse is therefore impossible. The more rational ones hesitate to assert such a bold (and patently false) conclusion. But what are the logical implications of accepting that global failure is possible while denying that rapid progressive failure of multiple individual structural elements is plausible?

The resulting implied claim can only be, "Unless there was sabotage, the building cannot have collapsed without pausing for dramatic effect between individual column failures." Which of course is consistent with how structural failures are depicted in Hollywood, at least when the hero is standing under them.

But applied to reality, it's silly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bardamu]

Maybe you've heard. You know, the subject of this thread, that you are so busily derailing.

You posted a link to the material you prepared for the debate and I commented on the content of that material.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

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.

Is this 'hypothesis' the short sentence claiming that debris was channelled to the sides? If there's more on that subject, I'd like to see it.

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

As in the case of the 'slug of fuel', the force is an abstraction, and we need to know exactly how it comes into contact with the structure it collides with.

Pretty much always. The only confusion occurs among folks like you, and only when you start claiming that all collapses are controlled demolitions.

How about a detailed description of how WTC7 might have collapsed if it had been brought down by controlled demolition?

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

It's pretty easy when your world view only allows one conclusion.

But if you mean the "motive" of the FDNY, which you believe murdered a large fraction of its own staff, you're wrong.

Straw man. I've never suggested the FD planned the operation.

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.

I've read the relevant sections of the report, and it doesn't describe what I see in the videos. The report says the interior columns are progressively buckling during the 7 seconds following the first movement of the East penthouse, then the buckling rapidly spreads to the outer columns. The trouble is, the interior columns are supporting the Screenwall and the West penthouse. So why aren't these rooftop structures progressively collapsing during those 7 seconds?

 

[WildCat]

If you put an increasing load on a rope, it will eventually break. When it does, a large number of individual fibers fail simultaneously or in such rapid succession as to appear simultaneous.

Except in the movies, where the individual strands break one by one very slowly until our hero is hanging by a single strand...

 

[WildCat]

How about a detailed description of how WTC7 might have collapsed if it had been brought down by controlled demolition?

It would look, and just as importantly, sound, like this:



Note you do not see any deformation until the building is actually collapsing. Also note the very loud explosions, heard even though there are helicopters hovering nearby.

Have you learned anything from this video of an actual, real controlled demolition bardamu?

 

[bardamu]

How long should it have taken, in your estimation?

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

In my estimation, you should be able to read 'War and Peace' and the building will still be there.

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.

We agree that the east penthouse fell into the building. Let's take it from there. What's the next observable movement on the roof of WTC7, and how many seconds separate that movement and the first movement of the east penthouse?

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.

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

Yup, you read that right. No explosives, no weakening below.

No steel core?

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

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

We were talking about the south tower. Go back to sleep.

 

[Edx]

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

The videos dont prove explosive demolition, they prove exactly the opposite.

No steel core?

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

What the hell does that have to do with what Alien said? And what the hell does that picture have to do with it? OMG There is steel in the building! So?

We were talking about the south tower. Go back to sleep.

It still look longer than 12 seconds.

 

[WildCat]

It would look, and just as importantly, sound, like this:



Note you do not see any deformation until the building is actually collapsing. Also note the very loud explosions, heard even though there are helicopters hovering nearby.

Have you learned anything from this video of an actual, real controlled demolition bardamu?

bardamu?

 

[twinstead]

In my estimation, you should be able to read 'War and Peace' and the building will still be there.

Huh? In your estimation? What the hell does that mean? In what possible way are you qualified to make an estimation on how fast, or IF even, the building should have fallen?

Yea. An "edumacated" estimation. Like my math teacher always used to say, can you show your work?

 

[TruthersLie]

Straw man. I've never suggested the FD planned the operation.

No you have just stated they murdered 384 firefighters.

I've read the relevant sections of the report,

Just like a twoof. In fact you haven't read any part of the report, and if you did you didn't understand it. try again.

and it doesn't describe what I see in the videos. The report says the interior columns are progressively buckling during the 7 seconds following the first movement of the East penthouse, then the buckling rapidly spreads to the outer columns. The trouble is, the interior columns are supporting the Screenwall and the West penthouse. So why aren't these rooftop structures progressively collapsing during those 7 seconds?

argument from incredulity and ignorance noted. You might want to go back and actually try to read the report. It is fully described.

I'm still waiting to see your video where you can see the uniformity and symmetrical collapse by seeing all four corners descend at the same time. Where is that video?

 

[TruthersLie]

We were talking about the south tower. Go back to sleep.

That is it? I completely take you apart in full posts, and that is it? That is all you have?

ROFLMAO.

Oh twoofie... you were talking about wtc7 first... 18 seconds.

but lets look at the south tower twoofie.
collapse time took about 15 seconds according to the seismographs. It took over 13 seconds by video alone.

Can you not use a simple video timer?

AT 10 seconds in the collapse the south tower is still above the 30 story marriot hotel. How does a building collapse 30 stories in 2 seconds?
(pssss... it doesn't.)

massive swing and massive miss.
I mean with your massive investigoogling skills you must have found this right?

 

[TruthersLie]

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

I love the hypocrisy. It is absolutely amazing.

YOu don't believe the mainstream media video of the jets impacting the towers.

you don't believe in the video from the hundreds of eyewitnesses who videotaped the jets impacting the towers.

But you want to hold on tight for the video of the wtc7 collapse from the same people. OF course I am still waiting for you to show me that video where you can see all 4 corners start the collapse.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

 

[alienentity]

We agree that the east penthouse fell into the building.

I asked you a question, please answer it. 'The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?'
Explain what was happening inside the building, including how the failures could be induced by explosive charges which were neither heard, nor seen, nor captured on seismographs, nor left any evidence on the steel.

That would be a good start, if you're honest. If you're not honest, and you just want to waste my time, then avoid those questions, by all means. Every other truther deflects away at that point....why should you be different?

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

Are you saying you don't think the engineering models are legitimate and valid? On what basis are you making that claim? Personal ignorance isn't a good enough reason, Bard.

As I said, no truther has yet managed to refute the NIST LS-DYNA model by using another, legitimate engineering analysis of equal or greater sophistication (that's the ability to accurately model the possible failure and collapse).

Just repeating 'I don't believe' is not good enough. A small child can do that, it doesn't take any great knowledge or intelligence.

no steel core?

You don't understand how things fail yet, clearly. They do not s-l-o-w-l-y fail, do they? Explain, in engineering terms, why steel would fail more slowly than reinforced concrete, once it is loaded to failure.

Or at least consult and engineer about it and get back to us. I think there are a few on these forums who could help you. In the meantime, stop pretending that you know something you don't. Please. It's very tedious.

 

[tsig]

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

As opposed to stupidly slow?

 

[Mancman]

In my estimation, you should be able to read 'War and Peace' and the building will still be there.

Pathetic dodge. You think 12 seconds is 'ridiculously fast', so what would be reasonable? The 'building shouldn't have collapsed' is not an answer to this question.

 

[bardamu]

I asked you a question, please answer it. 'The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?'
Explain what was happening inside the building, including how the failures could be induced by explosive charges which were neither heard, nor seen, nor captured on seismographs, nor left any evidence on the steel.

I think the east penthouse went downwards into the building. I think it did so because the columns that were supporting it failed. I can't see through walls, so I don't know what was happening inside the building. I prefer to base my conclusions on observations, not on speculation.

Are you saying you don't think the engineering models are legitimate and valid? On what basis are you making that claim? Personal ignorance isn't a good enough reason, Bard.

As I said, no truther has yet managed to refute the NIST LS-DYNA model by using another, legitimate engineering analysis of equal or greater sophistication (that's the ability to accurately model the possible failure and collapse).

Just repeating 'I don't believe' is not good enough. A small child can do that, it doesn't take any great knowledge or intelligence.

I'm not saying NIST's models are just illegitimate and invalid. I'm saying they are fraudulent. I'm making that claim on the basis that they have replaced gaps in the observable data with stuff from their imagination. As Mr. Chandler says, science starts with observation. NIST appear to agree with that statement when they say: "Agreement between observations and simulations is reasonably good". Now let's look at two crucial events in NIST's timeline and try to verify when they were observed:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf (page 46)

Buckling of Column 79, quickly followed by buckling of Columns 80 and 81 - Not observable

Buckling of Columns across core, starting with Column 76 - Not observable

Did you notice? The alleged progressive buckling of the entire core is "not observable". To make matters worse, we can see in the videos that the screenwall and the west penthouse don't budge while this buckling is assumed to be occurring, even though they are supported by the interior columns that are assumed to be buckling one after the other. If NIST's simulations were based on observations, the simulations would show that the columns supporting the east penthouse fail suddenly, then 7 seconds later the columns supporting the screenwall and west penthouse fail suddenly. The (probable) progressive collapse is not observed at all, but simply assumed.

You don't understand how things fail yet, clearly. They do not s-l-o-w-l-y fail, do they? Explain, in engineering terms, why steel would fail more slowly than reinforced concrete, once it is loaded to failure

The upper section could not suddenly drop onto the lower section, because steel columns don't just disappear spontaneously. Even if that was possible, the core columns in the towers could not be loaded to failure, because there's no means of transferring enough energy from the falling debris onto the columns.

but lets look at the south tower twoofie.
collapse time took about 15 seconds according to the seismographs. It took over 13 seconds by video alone.

Can you not use a simple video timer?

AT 10 seconds in the collapse the south tower is still above the 30 story marriot hotel. How does a building collapse 30 stories in 2 seconds?
(pssss... it doesn't.)

I was using alienentity's calculations:

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.

I love the hypocrisy. It is absolutely amazing.

YOu don't believe the mainstream media video of the jets impacting the towers.

you don't believe in the video from the hundreds of eyewitnesses who videotaped the jets impacting the towers.

But you want to hold on tight for the video of the wtc7 collapse from the same people. OF course I am still waiting for you to show me that video where you can see all 4 corners start the collapse.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

You couldn't be more wrong. I believe the videos that show the cgi planes. That's the evidence. If they hadn't faked the videos, it would be a lot harder to prove there were no planes.

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.

What if I believed in ghosts instead of no planes? Would that discredit my work in other fields?

 

[alienentity]

Bard wrote 'I'm not saying NIST's models are just illegitimate and invalid. I'm saying they are fraudulent'

And you refuse to deal with the obvious question, as I asked again 'how the failures could be induced by explosive charges which were neither heard, nor seen, nor captured on seismographs, nor left any evidence on the steel.'

Ok then. End of discussion. You're not offering any alternative engineering-based hypothesis, as expected.

You'll notice that the W PH only begins to move momentarily before the whole curtain wall comes down. There was no large lag - once support failed across the building, it was almost simultaneous. There's no mystery. Remember, those massive failures were not expected to be slow - only truthers think they would be.
And there's still no evidence of controlled demolition, and never was. It is a fiction.

The kind of explosions necessary to destroy large columns wouldn't have been unnoticed and undetected - that's just not plausible, sorry. Try a different theory.

 

[twinstead]

What if I believed in ghosts instead of no planes? Would that discredit my work in other fields?

Are you even qualified enough in ANY field relating to the collapses to say "my work in other fields"? I'll look the other way for now, though. Regardless, you must remember that you leave most of the world in abject confusion when you deny the existence of something witnessed by so many people. The plane impact was literally witnessed first hand by thousands of people. I understand that you weren't there, but I can imagine that the roar of the incoming jet and resulting impact left a pretty big impression on most of them. You disbelief is irrational.

Hell, sometimes I wonder myself if ghosts exist. If you thought they did I wouldn't give it a second thought concerning your other beliefs. That said, your belief in no planes is SO irrational that at least to me I have to look askew at your other 'proclamations'. It also doesn't help that you have absolutely NO obvious expertise in the sciences involved. It's a lose-lose situation as far as I'm concerned.

 

[R.Mackey]

In case anyone wonders why I'm not fussing over the continuing derails (viz. no-planers deigning to lecture others on the scientific method...), it's not just because it represents a record seventh time a split is needed and I've given up.

Rather, I think at this point the derail is itself instructive.

Nobody's backing Tony up. Nobody even seems to care.

The Truth Movement is in such utter disarray that the only response they can concoct is the pre-programmed one, of just spamming their garbage over and over again, diving off into the weeds of whatever each particular individual believes (no matter how stupid), or nit-picking anything I say or do.

It's purely defensive. Ergo, Truthers, you have lost the debate, and the initiative. And now you know it too. So have fun. This thread has served its purpose.

 

[Furcifer]

...snip I see dead movements! ...snip

Gave up smoking and took up dance did yah? Nice!

 

[WildCat]

It would look, and just as importantly, sound, like this:



Note you do not see any deformation until the building is actually collapsing. Also note the very loud explosions, heard even though there are helicopters hovering nearby.

Have you learned anything from this video of an actual, real controlled demolition bardamu?

bardamu? Any comment on this real, actual controlled demolition?