Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Grizzly Bear]

From a one floor drop the upper section of both towers would have impacted with a force of 8 times their static weight. But the floors would have failed well before that 8G threshold was fully transmitted. In other words, the net acceleration in the direction of gravity is still positive. For christ's sake there was a net loss of 0.30g in the average acceleration of the collapse propagation. The "no dynamic load" idea is -- has been -- always will be dead on arrival... :\

 

[Tony Szamboti]

From a one floor drop the upper section of both towers would have impacted with a force of 8 times their static weight. But the floors would have failed well before that 8G threshold was fully transmitted. In other words, the net acceleration in the direction of gravity is still positive. For christ's sake there was a net loss of 0.30g in the average acceleration of the collapse propagation. The "no dynamic load" idea is -- has been -- always will be dead on arrival... :\

How did the central core collapse with your theory?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How did the central core collapse with your theory?

To what are you referring; collapse initiation or after the collapse was already underway? Other? If you're going to ask me this stuff it'd help if you made your questions clearer.
I'm not seeing the relevance to your dynamic load denial...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Got any physical evidence of explosives? Thermite/Nano-thermite?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

To what are you referring; collapse initiation or after the collapse was already underway? Other? If you're going to ask me this stuff it'd help if you made your questions clearer.
I'm not seeing the relevance to your dynamic load denial...

I am referring to how the collapse propagated after the first story collapsed.

How do you rectify that just the floors outside of the core themselves would have provided at least the 0.3g resistance observed and explain how the central core collapsed without a dynamic load or column removal by artificial means?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I am referring to how the collapse propagated after the first story collapsed.

How do you rectify that just the floors outside of the core themselves would have provided at least the 0.3g resistance observed and explain how the central core collapsed without a dynamic load or column removal by artificial means?

You've got zero cred on the CD theory Tony. You're not a CD expert!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, you don't understand. A static load at rest is being decelerated at 1g.

To break a structure with a mass it is designed to handle several times over statically one needs load amplification. Load amplification can only occur if the deceleration of the impacting mass is greater than gravity.

Since F=ma the a needs to be greater than g to increase the force beyond the static weight.

For no reason at all, you are assuming the dynamic load is distributed as well as the static load. Counterexample: Stretch aluminum foil tightly over a mixing bowl. It should support a steak knife. That's the static load. Now lift the knife a short distance and drop it, point first, onto the foil. That's the dynamic load. It has the same mass as the static load, but the aluminum foil is likely to fail.

Repeat the experiment and make a video. Look for the missing jolt.

Alternatively, you can complain that my counterexample concentrates the dynamic load upon a small area of the structure. By making that complaint, you will have to admit that the manner in which the force is applied to the structure is relevant. You might even realize that your argument requires you to argue that the dynamic load is as evenly distributed as the static load.

But I doubt it.

 

[Furcifer]

I am referring to how the collapse propagated after the first story collapsed.

How do you rectify that just the floors outside of the core themselves would have provided at least the 0.3g resistance observed and explain how the central core collapsed without a dynamic load or column removal by artificial means?

The 4" floor slabs would have resisted the acceleration of the entire upper section by 0.3g? Wow.

I'm surprised they even bothered with a core. Them's some strong floors.

 

[R.Mackey]

They would have resisted by 0.3 g, but only for a few milliseconds. And most of that resistance is momentum transfer, not actual structural strength. The strength is a roundoff error, as Dr. Bazant proved in his many papers on the subject.

Round and round and round Tony goes...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

They would have resisted by 0.3 g, but only for a few milliseconds. And most of that resistance is momentum transfer, not actual structural strength. The strength is a roundoff error, as Dr. Bazant proved in his many papers on the subject.

Round and round and round Tony goes...

Please explain how the central core collapsed at the same time the floors outside of the core are providing the observed resistance of 0.3g.

 

[R.Mackey]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The 4" floor slabs would have resisted the acceleration of the entire upper section by 0.3g? Wow.

I'm surprised they even bothered with a core. Them's some strong floors.

Yes, there were more substantial than most people realize. Each floor could withstand the static weight of an additional twelve floors.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yes, there were more substantial than most people realize. Each floor could withstand the static weight of an additional twelve floors.

This is false.

The connections could handle that much weight. However, that assumes the weight all goes into the connections.

The floors themselves could handle maybe four times their own weight, if settled down gently upon them. If we bring things like broken columns piercing them, impact, and the fact that the next few floors were already sagged and fire-damaged, they have effectively no excess capacity at all.

Please try to get something right, Tony.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

You didn't answer this question during the debate, so maybe you didn't understand then either.

I'll try again. If the observed resistance is provided by just the floors outside of the central core then how do you account for the resistance of the core?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is false.

The connections could handle that much weight. However, that assumes the weight all goes into the connections.

The floors themselves could handle maybe four times their own weight, if settled down gently upon them. If we bring things like broken columns piercing them, impact, and the fact that the next few floors were already sagged and fire-damaged, they have effectively no excess capacity at all.

Please try to get something right, Tony.

Provide figures to back up your hyperbole here before telling someone else to get something right.

 

[R.Mackey]

You didn't answer this question during the debate, so maybe you didn't understand then either.

I'll try again. If the observed resistance is provided by just the floors outside of the central core then how do you account for the resistance of the core?

I don't recall you asking such a malformed question during the debate.

Nobody said the observed resistance is provided by "just the floors outside of the central core." Nor is there any reason to suspect this. Hence, a leading question. Try again.

 

[TruthersLie]

I've decided to award you 3 out of 10 for this effort, since you do seem to have a vague idea of the what the word means and you've demonstrated that you know exactly where it fits into a sentence. However, I'm not sure you fully appreciate the connotations that go with the usage of the word.

Use of the word "purported", suggests that the speaker is sceptical of a claim. In our first example, Tony was indicating that he's sceptical of the idea that any walls of WTC 7 were bulging or leaning.

If you don't believe me, ask you wife or any first year ESL student. I'm confident they'll confirm what I'm telling you.

Blah blah blah...

After getting completely owned repeatedly in every post... this is what you have?

what is momentum gain twoof?

What happened to that steel plate when it hit the concrete wall... did it just STOP? No it when through it.

Ace, it has to be hard for you with your basic high school education (GED I think), but at least try to do some basic research.

 

[R.Mackey]

Provide figures to back up your hyperbole here before telling someone else to get something right.

NIST NCSTAR1-6B. Read it. It describes the floor and their true maximum load, since that's what they were testing.

The 29 million pound figure is the sum of the truss seats' failure strength, not the floors. We've already discussed this in this very thread.

What you label hyperbole is, in fact, a result of your own ignorance.

 

[TruthersLie]

I've decided to award you 3 out of 10 for this effort, since you do seem to have a vague idea of the what the word means and you've demonstrated that you know exactly where it fits into a sentence. However, I'm not sure you fully appreciate the connotations that go with the usage of the word.

Use of the word "purported", suggests that the speaker is sceptical of a claim. In our first example, Tony was indicating that he's sceptical of the idea that any walls of WTC 7 were bulging or leaning.

If you don't believe me, ask you wife or any first year ESL student. I'm confident they'll confirm what I'm telling you.

And how about the other LIES you keep telling?

did wtc7 fall into its own "footprint?" Did you read the information I gave you?

Did it fall at "near freefall?"

Do you retract those lies?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST NCSTAR1-6B. Read it. It describes the floor and their true maximum load, since that's what they were testing.

The 29 million pound figure is the sum of the truss seats' failure strength, not the floors. We've already discussed this in this very thread.

What you label hyperbole is, in fact, a result of your own ignorance.

This isn't how the NIST described it in their FAQ from Dec. 2007.

You are dancing around like the NIST does and obviously don't have a complete scenario for the collapse yourself that you demand of others.

Just like the old saying goes "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull****". Have you ever heard that Ryan?