Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

Tony Szamboti said:
It is quite a ways from a paint bristle analogy and unfortunately for your point of view the Verinage demolitions show what I am saying to be true.

Additionally, the columns don't buckle without the overload which can only be caused by high g deceleration. I can back up what I am saying with math whereas it sounds like you are arguing from incredulity here.
Click to expand...
Tony it is clear that you either cannot or are not prepared get your head around the issues.

Once again you totally ignore the central point I made. That selectivity is a common feature of your responses - ignore the main issue - attempt to distract onto minor points of dubious validity.

I will leave you with it - there is little I can do to teach conceptual understanding of complex three dimensional structural issues. Your attempts to demean or denigrate those who could assist do you no justice.

Cheers.
 
femr2 said:
Why is this thread being allowed to turn into yet another jolt thread ?

Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world.
Click to expand...
Progress so far seems limited to:
  • Bazant and Zhou made some global energy based decisions using a conservative assumption of column on column axial contact.
  • That assumption was clearly stated and valid in the context it was used.
  • There are aspects of the real events with collapse of the WTC Twin Towers which fall outside the validity of the BZ assumption.
  • Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" hypothesis is one example which relied on the BZ assumption which is not valid for the purpose to which it is put by "Missing Jolt"
There are outstanding issues not explored to finality in this thread - maybe a whole range of unclear territory - as to how far the column axial contact assumption underpins later work by Bazant with various colleagues. There may be other aspects which could be of interest.

My interest would only be triggered if someone were to use Bazant et al work in an invalid attempt to support an argument either for or against "demolition".

I have noted your concern that "demolition" may be too limiting a term for - whatever - "human assistance of the collapses beyond the aircraft impact and accumulated fire damage". I am unsure what you include in your broader classification.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It has been shown that the geometry of the upper section proves the columns would not miss each other.
Click to expand...

Could you then grace us with a simple diagram showing how, in a natural collapse, column ends would axially impact column ends. I'm sure you have CAD skills, and this should be very easy.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It has been shown that the geometry of the upper section proves the columns would not miss each other.
Click to expand...

Mega bull flops.

The bottom of the upper block of the south tower clearly moves toward the camera at the start of collapse. No freaking way is that going to line up with your delusions. Hello? The whole top of the building was leaning over before it was even clear to anyone what was happening. Those hat trusses were NEVER supported evenly by the exterior column once the planes hit. They would not have allowed the core columns to fall straight down.

Do try thinking of entire assemblies when you come up with these theories about a single component of a system.
 
leftysergeant said:
Mega bull flops.

The bottom of the upper block of the south tower clearly moves toward the camera at the start of collapse. No freaking way is that going to line up with your delusions. Hello? The whole top of the building was leaning over before it was even clear to anyone what was happening. Those hat trusses were NEVER supported evenly by the exterior column once the planes hit. They would not have allowed the core columns to fall straight down.

Do try thinking of entire assemblies when you come up with these theories about a single component of a system.
Click to expand...

We are talking about WTC 1 here. Who said anything about WTC 2?

The tilt of the upper section of WTC 1 was provably no more than 1 degree and probably less before it started to descend. It can also be shown that by the time of an impact between the 99th and 97th floors there could be no more than 3 degrees of tilt and probably much less. 3 degrees only produces about 3.5 inches of shift on the opposite side of the building and less as you approach the hinge. Trigonometrically even 5 degrees won't cause enough of a shift to have the upper and lower section columns miss each other on the opposite side of the building, and as I said it becomes less for columns closer to the hinge.

It is indeed laughable that some of you guys here can say so much while saying so little, when it comes to your attempts at proving that the columns would not line up.

Where are your numbers to support your bare assertions? If you can't come up with any then you are doing nothing more than arguing from incredulity. The arguments I have seen here seem to fit that profile.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Could you then grace us with a simple diagram showing how, in a natural collapse, column ends would axially impact column ends. I'm sure you have CAD skills, and this should be very easy.
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
It is indeed laughable that some of you guys here can say so much while saying so little, when it comes to your attempts at proving that the columns would not line up.
Click to expand...

Then let's assume they do "line up". Let's assume also a pure vertical drop.

Now you need to demonstrate how the ends manage to achieve axial impact with the buckled column still there.

I presume you can use CAD tools? If not a scanned sketch will do. Don't forget to keep the plane of buckling parallel to the beams
 
Tony Szamboti said:
We are talking about WTC 1 here. Who said anything about WTC 2?
Click to expand...

The differences between the two towers are a matter of magnitude. But if you are going to argue CD any way, you have to account for why any sabateur with half the brains it takes to pull off a job of this scale would use three different methods in three different buildings.

You are looking at this stuff too narrowly, through your parochial goggles. Try looking at it as someone from another profession, like a fire fighter or a construction laborer or poet or cook might look at it. You ignore fewer interesting phenomena that way.

The tilt of the upper section of WTC 1 was provably no more than 1 degree and probably less before it started to descend. It can also be shown that by the time of an impact between the 99th and 97th floors there could be no more than 3 degrees of tilt and probably much less. 3 degrees only produces about 3.5 inches of shift on the opposite side of the building and less as you approach the hinge. Trigonometrically even 5 degrees won't cause enough of a shift to have the upper and lower section columns miss each other on the opposite side of the building, and as I said it becomes less for columns closer to the hinge.
Click to expand...
Show your work, if you're going to get all mathy on us.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Where are your numbers to support your bare assertions? If you can't come up with any then you are doing nothing more than arguing from incredulity. The arguments I have seen here seem to fit that profile.
Click to expand...
The objections to your hypothesis are not mere incredulity. You're the one making extraordinary claims, which demand extraordinary proof. If that proof is shown flawed by simple arguments (like the lack of consideration of creep which NIST did consider in their analysis) then your extraordinary claims are not supported.

ETA: Plus, pointing you to (an explanation of) the NIST study where creep is taken into account where your analysis fails to do so is not in any way an argument from incredulity.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
The differences between the two towers are a matter of magnitude. But if you are going to argue CD any way, you have to account for why any sabateur with half the brains it takes to pull off a job of this scale would use three different methods in three different buildings.

You are looking at this stuff too narrowly, through your parochial goggles. Try looking at it as someone from another profession, like a fire fighter or a construction laborer or poet or cook might look at it. You ignore fewer interesting phenomena that way.

Show your work, if you're going to get all mathy on us.
Click to expand...

I showed the math for the horizontal shift due to a tilt on this thread already.
 
This is a rigid "hinge" representation at close to the actual angles:

view1.gif

view2.gif

view3.gif


Courtesy of achimspok.

The actual model would be non-rigid, meaning varying local deviations from the rigid model.
 
Last edited:
Major Tom,
Thank you again for a 4 meg animated gif crashing my blackberry. Your lack of awareness is noted.
 
leftysergeant said:
...You are looking at this stuff too narrowly, through your parochial goggles. Try looking at it as someone from another profession, like a fire fighter or a construction laborer or poet or cook might look at it. You ignore fewer interesting phenomena that way.

Show your work, if you're going to get all mathy on us.
Click to expand...
He is far too narrow even from a purely engineeing perspective.

A point I have made several times - it is a waste of time calling on the mathematics if you do not have:
  • A clear model of what you want to apply the maths to; AND
  • That model is valid.
He has not shown that he has any clear model and the bits of partial models he keeps referring to are not valid...plus not prepared to discuss anything which challenges his wrong modelling.

I identified that characteristic truther failure in the first post I ever made on an Internet forum. The Richard Dawkins forum, posting in the "WTC 9/11" Thread on 13 November 2007, after comparing "truthers" to "creationists" I said.
...The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
Click to expand...
 
I still fail to see where the columns are going top meet end-to-end. WTC 2 clearly would show no "jolt," because the columns were visibly displaced at the instant of collapse.

The only clear images I have seen of the collapse of WTC 1 are from one angle, and show that the TV tower tilts noticeably side-to-side, but it is less clear whether or how far away from the camera it tilts. It is, therefore, impossible to say that the columns would meet end-to-end.

The top blocks of both buildings can probably be said to have exerted an element of lateral force on the tops of the cores, probably splitting them open to some degree. The upper cores wou;d have to have broken up at the point of collision as well. You need to prove that the columns could withstand being hit at an angle without yielding.
 
Bazant model is real world
911 truth is delusional world

Major Tom needs to start a thread on his failed CD delusion.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Major Tom needs to start a thread on his failed CD delusion.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure out what that gif is supposed to show. It in no way resembles anything that I can imagine happening in the towers. The columns line up neatly, which just about any thinking person can see from video of the collapse could not have happened.
 
leftysergeant said:
I'm still trying to figure out what that gif is supposed to show. It in no way resembles anything that I can imagine happening in the towers. The columns line up neatly, which just about any thinking person can see from video of the collapse could not have happened.
Click to expand...

The gif is replicating the actual geometry of the tilt as measured from the videos and it is then showing the movement of the interior structure through the tilt.

Your attempt to say the video shows that there is no way the columns could line up has no basis.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The gif is replicating the actual geometry of the tilt as measured from the videos and it is then showing the movement of the interior structure through the tilt.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? I can't see where the angle of the columns changes at all. We know from the antenna that they did. I don't see it in the gif.

Does anyone else see it in the gif.

BTW, anybody who publicly associates himself with the nitwit MacQueen in order to support a position has shown ghastly bad judgement. He obviously lacks any skills useful to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Am I wrong or this gif that MT posted before shows horizontal displacement of the core?

initialtilt175230b.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom