Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

Such an event has always been possible since the dawn of time. We just never had all the variables add up in the wrong way at the wrong time before.

It's a failure of intellect and imagination of you and your movement that you have become irrevocably stuck on the demonstrably false notion that "never before" = "physically impossible".

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[NutCracker]

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.

You have not presented your calculations yet showing how the supposed increase in energy needed to destroy a floor with d outweighs the c * d ² kinetic energy available for collapse progression in the falling mass.

Argument that have its foundation in your personal ignorance of relevant matters do not quite qualify as such a calculation.

Hint: You are being told that to destroy a floor it is not needed to destroy the beams' steel. It is sufficient to destroy the connections. Thus the energy required to disintegrate a floor is independent of the beams' steel thickness, is a constant e.

Good luck in showing the a constant e outweighs E_kin = constant * d².

You may need to invoke the inflation model by putting forward the delusion that the connections where made of super duper energy absorbing stuffy stuff.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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?

Just incredible. It seems that since you have not been able to answer my points you have decided your only out is to appeal to authority in a veiled way. An authority that is vested in defending Dr. Bazant's work due to it having been published in his journal. I notice Dr. Corotis does not provide any details.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Ah... another case of the "I want my cake and want to eat it too."

You are the one who is saying it is CD with silent explosives...

do you know how you do CD?

(your ignorance is showing)

In CD you remove the core and the building collapses inwards (it implodes).

Since we can see that the core of both towers is still standing AFTER the collapse has progressed, it conclusively shows it was NOT CD.

Please provide a CD where they use silent explosives
please provide a CD where they use silent explosives which ignores the core.

 

[TruthersLie]

Just incredible. It seems that since you have not been able to answer my points you have decided your only out is to appeal to authority in a veiled way. An authority that is vested in defending Dr. Bazant's work due to it having been published in his journal. I notice Dr. Corotis does not provide any details.

Then you should EASILY be able to publish a rebuttal.

It should be simple. I eagerly await your upcoming publication in any peer reviewed engineering journal.

Just like I'm still waiting to see that list of papers which are in real peer reviewed publications which say that NIST is wrong. I'll take it in any language... please provide one.

why can't you do that?

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

The engineering analysis to accurately design a building for a plane impact did not exist in the 1960's.

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.

Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance. WTC7 would not have collapsed if there was a spontaneous fire and no damage from debris. The debris, though insignificant as far as structural damage is concerned, breached the fire-walls that separate each floor. Without this intact fire-wall, the fire was able to spread orders of magnitude faster than a "content fire alone". This is an exceptionally important facet of building fire safety that you "truthers" seem unwilling to accept.

 

[R.Mackey]

Just incredible. It seems that since you have not been able to answer my points you have decided your only out is to appeal to authority in a veiled way. An authority that is vested in defending Dr. Bazant's work due to it having been published in his journal. I notice Dr. Corotis does not provide any details.

I made no appeal to authority. Your presentation has been patiently, comprehensively refuted dozens of times. This is merely in response to your empty boast that Dr. Bazant would "never" do something he was never asked to do.

I doubt he even knows about your "work." Its significance is practically nil.

 

[carlitos]

I have asked Mr. Szamboti previously, but he has ignored me, so I'll try one more time since he is posting here.

Tony, can you please direct me to where I may read your work in a proper engineering journal? Any ASCE journal at all will do - Journal of Structural Engineering, etc. Alternatively, could you explain why your work does not appear in these journals? This seems puzzling, if indeed your paper is significant in any way.

Also, if you have any affirmative theory that explains the events of 9/11/01, I would love to see it. Anywhere at all, even on the silly AE911truth site.

Thanks in advance

 

[Justin39640]

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.
.

There's a reason they didn't build the core all the way up first then install the floors....

I wonder why?

Who said everything just hit the floors?
Everything got hit including the floors. Maybe this is your mistake.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I made no appeal to authority. Your presentation has been patiently, comprehensively refuted dozens of times. This is merely in response to your empty boast that Dr. Bazant would "never" do something he was never asked to do.

I doubt he even knows about your "work." Its significance is practically nil.

Dr. Bazant certainly does know about my work. When asked Dr. Frank Greening admitted he had discussed it with Dr. Bazant more than once.

My main point here is that the assertion that most of the upper block material falling on the floors ouside of the core to cause a collapse which only experiences 0.3g resistance is folly, as it does not account for the resistance of the central core in the initial stories of the collapse. There is also no peer reviewed paper or even a rational white paper written to support it. It is all unsupported assertion attempting to leverage off of Dr. Bazant's original paper in a ridiculously extreme and impossible way.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Dr. Bazant certainly does know about my work. Dr. Frank Greening has assured me that they discussed it a number of times.

My main point here is that the assertion that most of the upper block material falling on the floors ouside of the core to cause a collapse which only experiences 0.3g resistance is folly, as it does not account for the central core. There is also no peer reviewed paper or even a rational white paper written to support it. It is all unsupported assertion.

Tony,

Have you ever read "Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail" by Matthys Levy, Mario Salvadori, & Kevin Woest?

If you haven't I suggest you read it for your sake!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Have you ever read "Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail" by Matthys Levy, Mario Salvadori, & Kevin Woest?

If you haven't I suggest you read it for your sake!

I purchased the book and read it. It is a very good book and several of the case studies are quite interesting. However, they do not get into detail about the WTC. They just use the NIST line of fire induced collapse. They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.

 

[Furcifer]

They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.

They certainly would have known the above statement is completely contradictory. It's either 1g and no "deceleration" or 0.7g with a 0.3g "deceleration".

and ffs, TRY USING VECTORS!!!!!!!!! Or try saying "deceleration" 50 times in a row. By the time you get to about 10 "decelerations" you should become aware it really has no meaning.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I purchased the book and read it. It is a very good book and several of the case studies are quite interesting. However, they do not get into detail about the WTC. They just use the NIST line of fire induced collapse. They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.

Tony,

The idea of the book was to tell you how buildings collaspe. Either by fire or by some other means.

I've been a firefighter for 6 yrs. & I can tell you that the WTCs' were brought down by a combination of damage from the plane impacts, the resulting fires & gravity taking care of the rest.

 

[carlitos]

Tony, would you care to answer my post. This is a simple question, one which you have avoided several times now. Thanks!

Can you please direct me to where I may read your work in a proper engineering journal? Any ASCE journal at all will do - Journal of Structural Engineering, etc. Alternatively, could you explain why your work does not appear in these journals? This seems puzzling, if indeed your paper is significant in any way.

 

[dtugg]

Well, obviously the reason his work hasn't appeared in any legitimate journal is because they are all in on it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My main point here is that the assertion that most of the upper block material falling on the floors ouside of the core to cause a collapse which only experiences 0.3g resistance is folly, as it does not account for the resistance of the central core in the initial stories of the collapse.

I don't recall myself or anybody else making that sort of case. If anything I'd contend that the speed of the collapse was a combination of the overloading of the connections, the buckling of columns from all sorts of ***'ed up load angle, and having a huge section of the building do something that it was never designed to withstand in the first place (fall down onto the floors immediately below it). Perhaps people might make that case because they aren't reading a particular LIMITING CASE as if it was reality... and all...

The resistance in much of the central core that you're referring to would have been provided by the connections that secured the floors to them, and those failed long before they had any chance of transferring the loads to the ground.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Think of dominos when you place them in a row, what happens when you push just 1 domino? It starts a chain reaction, right? Then all the dominos fall down.

The Towers were like dominos, the tops fell & started a chain reaction which lead to their destruction.

Domino Day 2008 - The New World Record (High Quality):

 

[willhaven]

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 ?

Gone? It took months to remove the debris. As for the size of the pile, the building was mostly empty space.

 

[TruthersLie]

Tony.

Why is it you dodge this every time? A detail rebuttal would be fantastic. Please explain to me why you cannot publish a rebuttal to NIST in any peer reviewed engineering journal, or supply me with some truther rebuttal.

Why can't you even admit you have nothing?

Then you should EASILY be able to publish a rebuttal.

It should be simple. I eagerly await your upcoming publication in any peer reviewed engineering journal.

Just like I'm still waiting to see that list of papers which are in real peer reviewed publications which say that NIST is wrong. I'll take it in any language... please provide one.

why can't you do that?