• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

ElMondoHummus said:
The column strength does not matter. The weak points were the floor to column connections for the perimeter columns, and the column-to-column splices for the core ones. We've told you before: The failure modes in the main towers collapses involved the failure of the floors at their connections to the columns as well as the column connections to each other. We see this in the debris that was recovered. The splices between the floor trusses and the perimeter panels failed when the debris hit. This is demonstrated by the condition of the recovered truss seats:



This compromised the floors and pulled them downward, causing core columns to sever at their splice connections. At no time during the collapse were the columns able to resist in purely the vertical direction to begin with. Given the layout of the columns - arrayed around the perimeter, and forming an interior "tube" for the core - the majority of falling debris hit the floors themselves. They had to; they were not intact as a solid mass, and the majority of area available were the floors, not the cross sections of the columns. Once you overload the floors, you sever their connections to the perimeter columns and create an out-of-axis force on the core columns, pulling them inward and down and severing those where they connect to each other. At no time did the collective force of the upper sections spend itself on the columns alone, and at no time was this force on the columns purely vertical. On the contrary, most of it was well off the vertical axis. Because of this, it is moot to discuss the strength of the columns increasing as you get close to the ground. At no time were the collapse forces manifesting in a direction where the increasing colulmn cross sections mattered.

You need to study the collapse mechanisms and understand the failure modes. Your post once again betrays a complete lack of understanding about how the towers actually collapsed.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.
 
bill smith said:
Sure there was almost no rubble in the footprint of WTC1. Didn't 15 people walk away in perfect safety from the middle of the footprint after the collapse ?

That makes it all the more interesting that we actually saw the Tower falling for the most part straight down. So where the heck did it all go ? Half a million tons....just gone ?
Click to expand...

According to ae911truth I think it was removed down the elevators during the 9 months before the attack. There is a truthful explanation for everything.
 
bardamu said:
In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.
Click to expand...
Why don't you spend some time learning how they did collapsed instead of posting ridicules comments like this.
 
bardamu said:
In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point. The weakness was never in the columns. They were in the floor truss to column connections. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. The pattern of damage to the floor truss to column connections demonstrates how the collapse progressed.

I don't know how many times we're going to have to say this either, but you really, really need to study the collapse events. The more you argue about the columns, the more you miss the point. The important events were the severing of the floors from the columns below the collapse initiation zone. If you don't get this central aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers, you don't get anything. Start here. Go look up Bazant and Zhou for the energetics argument. Look up other posts by Newton's Bit, as well as ones by Architect, R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, and others in this forum. The information is there, and you are completely ignorant of it. You need to familiarize yourself with the basics; otherwise, you're not even talking about the collapse with us.

Anyone else who wants to post links regarding the floor failures and other elements of the Twin Towers collapse, feel free. Bardamu here doesn't appear to have the simplest inkling of how the towers collapses progressed.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
You continue to miss the point. The weakness was never in the columns. They were in the floor truss to column connections. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. The pattern of damage to the floor truss to column connections demonstrates how the collapse progressed.

I don't know how many times we're going to have to say this either, but you really, really need to study the collapse events. The more you argue about the columns, the more you miss the point. The important events were the severing of the floors from the columns below the collapse initiation zone. If you don't get this central aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers, you don't get anything. Start here. Go look up Bazant and Zhou for the energetics argument. Look up other posts by Newton's Bit, as well as ones by Architect, R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, and others in this forum. The information is there, and you are completely ignorant of it. You need to familiarize yourself with the basics; otherwise, you're not even talking about the collapse with us.

Anyone else who wants to post links regarding the floor failures and other elements of the Twin Towers collapse, feel free. Bardamu here doesn't appear to have the simplest inkling of how the towers collapses progressed.
Click to expand...

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

Not everything fell on the floors. Enough fell on them to make the connections fail.

You have no credibility as you are a proven liar.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

This would be an interesting statement.... if it weren't clear that after repeated corrections you still do not seem to recognize what Bazant's paper was even about. I've seen you repeat this time and time again, and I seriously don't know what you expect to achieve by showing a distinct inability to rexognize when you're barking at a limiting case model, and not a less optimistic reality case.

And BTW... bardamu did miss the point. I've sat here reading the quotes that people keep responding to him with. The steel could be 10 feet thick; if you overload the connections then the strength of the columns is useless. bardamu clearly has no grasp of it, and I'm wondering if you do yourself.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

1. A static load is one which does not vary. A dynamic load is one which changes with time. The top assembly of the WTC1,2 was a dynamic load striking the lower structure and propagating a natural collapse. Bazant says so and is the core of his proof, NIST says so, the rational members of this board say so; why are you pommeling a straw man with this red herring when you claim that the rationals say a dynamic load was not necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

2. Bazant proved in one of his papers that a tilt of 2.8% or greater is sufficient to shear all columns, including the core columns. Both towers tilted greater than this therefore they sheared,therefore the top columns did not axially strike the lower columns therefore no jolt.

3. I'm sorry Tony, but at this point these facts have been repeatedly pointed out to you. The only remaining explanation is that you have a mental illness and have been prescribed medications.
I'm serious, if you can separate yourself from a psychiatric diagnosis - have you ever been diagnosed with psychiatric symptom(s) - have you ever been prescribed medications? - are you taking these medications as prescribed?. Can we trust that your responses to these questions are true. These answers would be helpful in understanding your intelligent yet baffling responses.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

He is indeed missing the point, and so are you. It may be forgivable for someone without any engineering experience or knowledge of the collapse mechanism to make the mistake he's making, but you have been told God knows how many times what the deal is, so there's no excuse for you to say this. The area availble for the debris to impact is greater on the floors than on the cross section of the columns arrangement, as anyone can see:

picture.php

(source: http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm)

... and a simple look at a floor diagram or an image like the one above tells you this. So given how the columns are arranged, how could most - not all, and as an aside, quit building strawmen - of the falling debris miss the floors? Furthermore, how can you explain the state of the recovered perimeter panel floor truss connectors if the floors weren't impacted by debris? You should be the last person that needs to be told this, but the state of the debris shows that the floors were hit with falling debris and failed at the truss-to-column connections because of it.

Don't confuse the issue and don't try to baffle with bulls***. I may not have the knowledge that Ryan, Newton's Bit, Dave Rodgers, Architect, Myriad, or any of the other structural brains here has, but I know attempts to muddy an issue when I see it. And that's exactly what you're doing. You know damn well that Bazant's papers were limiting cases and not descriptions of the actual collapse itself, so quit trying to make it out to be otherwise. Grizzly's told you, Ryan's told everybody, and now I'm telling you. If I, someone who's supposed to be inferior to you where engineering knowledge is concerned, can't get this point across to you, then you truly are lost.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

You'd be "willing to bet," huh.

Have you written to him?

Incidentally, Dr. Corotis -- chief editor of the journal in question, and a colleague of Dr. Bazant's -- viewed our Hardfire debate, and was rather astonished at the absurdity of your performance.

Is he part of the plot? ;)
 
Why is any of this important when at first the claim was that a steel structured high rise collapsed because of plane impacts, jet fuel, and building content fire? When people questioned this it was claimed that the towers were only designed to take an impact from a plane, lost in a fog, trying to land. Not a plane going 500 miles per hour.

Until WTC7. Now a steel structured high rise can collapse from building content fire alone. Because of thermal expansion.

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.
 
Algebra34 said:
Why is any of this important when at first the claim was that a steel structured high rise collapsed because of plane impacts, jet fuel, and building content fire? When people questioned this it was claimed that the towers were only designed to take an impact from a plane, lost in a fog, trying to land. Not a plane going 500 miles per hour.

Until WTC7. Now a steel structured high rise can collapse from building content fire alone. Because of thermal expansion.

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.
Click to expand...


You're comparing the Twin Towers to WTC7 and suggesting that, because they didn't fail for the exact same reasons, "it's all bull"?

Hah.
 
I used to think Szamboti was just a little misguided and overzealous. After he ran his mouth about FDNY, I put him in the same category as all the other frauds. One things for sure, I'll never send my kid to Villanova.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
You continue to miss the point. The weakness was never in the columns. They were in the floor truss to column connections. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. The pattern of damage to the floor truss to column connections demonstrates how the collapse progressed.

I don't know how many times we're going to have to say this either, but you really, really need to study the collapse events. The more you argue about the columns, the more you miss the point. The important events were the severing of the floors from the columns below the collapse initiation zone. If you don't get this central aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers, you don't get anything. Start here. Go look up Bazant and Zhou for the energetics argument. Look up other posts by Newton's Bit, as well as ones by Architect, R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, and others in this forum. The information is there, and you are completely ignorant of it. You need to familiarize yourself with the basics; otherwise, you're not even talking about the collapse with us.

Anyone else who wants to post links regarding the floor failures and other elements of the Twin Towers collapse, feel free. Bardamu here doesn't appear to have the simplest inkling of how the towers collapses progressed.
Click to expand...

Grizzly Bear said:
And BTW... bardamu did miss the point. I've sat here reading the quotes that people keep responding to him with. The steel could be 10 feet thick; if you overload the connections then the strength of the columns is useless. bardamu clearly has no grasp of it, and I'm wondering if you do yourself.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that the floor truss to column connections would have been the weakest link. In fact, that strengthens my case, since the collapsing floors would never be able to pull the cores apart. While I don't believe all the floors would have collapsed, let's suppose for the sake of argument they did. The core would remain standing. So the point is not how the floors collapsed, but how the core collapsed.
 
bardamu said:
I'm not disputing that the floor truss to column connections would have been the weakest link. In fact, that strengthens my case, since the collapsing floors would never be able to pull the cores apart. While I don't believe all the floors would have collapsed, let's suppose for the sake of argument they did. The core would remain standing. So the point is not how the floors collapsed, but how the core collapsed.
Click to expand...

Having been stripped of lateral support, its geometry was changed from a physics point of view. Welds that were previously supported in the horizontal plane were no longer supported. Meanwhile it was receiving sideways blows from falling debris. It's very hard to see how this can be hard to understand, but if you cut the horizontal bars from between the legs of a kitchen chair and test it for wobbliness before and after you might get a clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom