Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Tony Szamboti]

Can the top of your skull yield a 16-ounce hammer, resting on top?
I think we agree on "yes". In fact I just tried that on my skull, and it caused no trouble.

Can the top of your skull yield a 16-ounce hammer after a fall of, say, 6 feet?
If you think yes, please demonstrate and upload the video on youtube.
If you think no, please explain why suddenly your skull can't yield 16 ounces. Would you say that somehow had removed 90% of the original structural integrity of the skull while the hammer was being lifted?

ETA - followup: If that first hammer had broken up a few more hammers along a longer fall of several times 6 feet, and all of them now crushed on several skulls, would you expect the several skulls to be able to resist several hammers that fell several times 6 feet?

It is hard to tell just what you are trying to say here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Has Verinage ever been done with 15 or 30 floors above initiation zone?
What happens if Verinage is initiated with an initial tilt of the upper floors?
What happens when Verinage is not done on a reinforced-concrete-structure, but on a steel-frame tube-in-tube design?
What happens if Verinage is done on a steel-frame tube-in-tube design with an initial tilt andd 15 or 30 floors above initiation floor?

Why do you think Verinage would still look the same it does when you only have 4 or 6 reinforced-concrete floors with no tilt above?

Tony, honestly: You only imagine there would still be an observable jolt, right?

To answer your concerns you needn't look any further than right across the street from the Twin Towers, as WTC 7's upper section was about 33 stories, it had a significant observable deceleration and velocity loss just like the Verinage demolitions, and it was a steel framed tube in a tube design building.

Some of the Verinage demolitions do have some tilt in them. It was just insignificant as to whether or not a deceleration should occur, just like it was for WTC 1.

The above shows your arguments here have no merit concerning this issue, and there is no imagination involved. The reality is that if WTC 1 were somehow able to naturally collapse without an observable deceleration and velocity loss it would be a severe exception to the rule.

 

[Oystein]

To answer your concerns you needn't look any further than right down the street from the Twin Towers, as WTC 7's upper section was about 33 stories, and it had a significant observable deceleration and velocity loss just like the Verinage demolitions, and it was a steel framed tube in a tube design building.

Some of the Verinage demolitions do have some tilt in them. It was just insignificant as to whether or not a deceleration should occur, just like it was for WTC 1.

As the above shows your arguments here have no merit concerning this issue, and there is no imagination involved. The reality is that if WTC 1 were somehow able to naturally collapse without an observable deceleration and velocity loss it would be a severe exception to the rule.

WTC7? You mean the building that fell at free-fall-acceleration according to so many truthers, had significant deceleration?

Ok what I do know is:
- Of the internal collapse, not much can be said. We see the two penthouses disappear. The rest is hidden.
- Of the north wall, we can say that it accelerated for (iirc) 1,75 seconds, with accelaration increasing; then fell another 2.25 seconds at an average acceleration very near g. Fell 105 feet, or about 8 stories, during that time.
- It then hit the ground!
I am not surprised deceleration occurs when the assembly hits the ground.

Now back to the twin towers: You are missing jolts. Do you still miss them after the collapse zone hit the ground?
Or do you claim that deceleration never occurred (and WTC1 and are still moving)?

 

[Oystein]

It is hard to tell just what you are trying to say here.

Really??

In the post that I quoted you suggested that only static loads be considered. Or only the mass resting above a structure.

I tried to alert you to the fact that loads increase dramatically once that resting mass starts moving down.
I did not expect that you'd really not understand dynamic loads...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Really??

In the post that I quoted you suggested that only static loads be considered. Or only the mass resting above a structure.

I tried to alert you to the fact that loads increase dramatically once that resting mass starts moving down.
I did not expect that you'd really not understand dynamic loads...

I cetainly do understand dynamic loads as my work involves them. In order to have one you need a deceleration greater than the rate of gravity.

The upper section of WTC 1 never even decelerates, so there was no dynamic load.

 

[Oystein]

I cetainly do understand dynamic loads as my work involves them. In order to have one you need a deceleration greater than the rate of gravity.

The upper section of WTC 1 never even decelerates, so there was no dynamic load.

You seem to imply that the entire assembly gets observably decelerated just because individual members resist for a brief moment? That is wrong.
That would only be right if a high number of elements were hit and loaded by the falling block simultaneously. But given the tilt and the uncontrolled nature of the failures, this is unlikely. Elements will be attacked, and fail, in rapid and random succession, giving the upperblock assembly an average downward acceleration of something like 2/3 g

 

[ozeco41]

You seem to imply that the entire assembly gets observably decelerated just because individual members resist for a brief moment? That is wrong....

Your comments are spot on Oystein. And you identify one of the two fundamental errors in Tony's approach as revealed in the "Missing Jolt" paper and recent discussion in this thread.

That error is his presumption that the top block acts as a "rigid" whole then, flowing from that error, he presumes that any contact of the top block with the lower tower would be a contact between two integral and "rigid" assemblies. (Excuse the slight licence with my use of "rigid" which I do for simplicity of writing. Tony is not explicitly clear as to his assumptions but it is obvious from his arguments, such as they are, that he presumes very little flexibility/elasticity in the structures.)

He also shows no comprehension that the top block to lower tower interaction was not one impact but multiple impacts of elements, each of which is far weaker that the structure as a whole. Your following comments have the situation in proper perspective:

...That would only be right if a high number of elements were hit and loaded by the falling block simultaneously. But given the tilt and the uncontrolled nature of the failures, this is unlikely. Elements will be attacked, and fail, in rapid and random succession, giving the upperblock assembly an average downward acceleration of something like 2/3 g

So by treating the top block to lower tower impact as a single contact between "rigid" bodies Tony creates the order of magnitude error which is one of the foundation wrong premises of his "Missing Jolt" hypothesis.

You may recall that I identified the same issues in earlier posts. Tony had attempted to make a false analogy to WTC using the model of a steel ball falling on another steel ball. One discrete entity on another discrete entity. Needless to say the "jolt" involved on the ball model is a measurable one and corresponds to the elastic rebounding of one ball from the other. Basic physics but not relevant to WTC. As I have previously stated a closer analogy to the WTC collapse is to consider a square in plan view wire basket with rectangular meshes for the sides. If such a basket was cut horizontally around its middle then the top part held over and dropped so that it lands on its matching lower half.

In no way would the contact of "top bit" on "bottom bit" be a single impact between two "rigid" members. Going to a bit deeper detail there would be little contact of be vertical wire on vertical wire. Most would be horizontal wire on horizontal wire. (And therefore a better model of core failure than outer tube - but that is taking the model further than we need at this stage.)

(In fact - a slight sideline comment - the chance of "end for end" axial contact between the corresponding parts of cut wires would be of a similar order of probability to the same end for end contact happening with the columns of WTC1 & 2.)

So this is my previous comment, with a better analogy, which Tony declines to address. (And it is usually a positive sign when opponents in these forum debates decline to address your arguments. )

...The key error you are making I think is an order of magnitude issue. The jolt you [i.e. Tony Szamboti] look for is one where the total falling weight is significantly affected. The worst case jolt produced by "end on end axial contact" of the two parts of one column is too small to measure as that column instantly buckles under the overwhelming load. At least one and probably two decimal orders of magnitude less than the jolt you are looking for.

Yes I am aware of multiple columns. Multiple possibilities but they would be spread in time. (If you can visualise that reality given your apparent fixed view that the structure is of rigid geometry. It isn't)

I cannot think of a perfect analogy..

However. Think if a small paint brush. Cut all the bristles but one leaving the one protruding. Then drop the brush on that one bristle. Alternatively try to push something with that one bristle.

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.

So Tony declines to engage with the apt analogy and reverts to his false fixation on Verinage as some sort of analogy for WTC Twin Towers collapses. It is probably the worst example - certainly the conditions for Verinage are nothing like what happened with WTC1 & 2.

Then the repeated false implication. The truism "...columns don't buckle without the overload..." qualified by what is a partial truth related to the WTC context "...which can only be caused by high g deceleration..." - well, maybe, within the limited context but certainly not generally true.

Followed by the challenge "I can back up what I am saying with math whereas it sounds like you are arguing from incredulity here." I am yet to see Tony apply maths to any legitimate context related to WTC1 or 2 collapse. And maths wrongly applied is a waste of effort. As for incredulity it is clear that the only incredulity barrier in evidence in these recent posts is Tony's own unwillingness to address clearly stated concepts which appear to fall outside either his ability or his willingness to comprehend.

 

[carlitos]

I am speaking of the collapse continuation process here. So here the term natural collapse is used to mean that there would have been no assistance from demolition devices after any form of initiation. In all natural cases an amplified load is needed and that process is caused by deceleration, which is absent in WTC 1, and may also be absent in WTC 2, but its radical tilt prevents its measurement.

Since we don't have any evidence for "demolition devices" at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, I don't understand your premise. It seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Did you see the question posted by Disbelief regarding the bowling ball and the dixie cup? Can you please present some limits regarding amplified load and "jolts?"

I don't understand why you seem to think the plane impacts could contribute to anything more than a collapse initiation

I mentioned jet fuel as well, but OK. The terminology of these collapses as "natural" just seems odd to me, given the external forces involved.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You seem to imply that the entire assembly gets observably decelerated just because individual members resist for a brief moment? That is wrong.
That would only be right if a high number of elements were hit and loaded by the falling block simultaneously. But given the tilt and the uncontrolled nature of the failures, this is unlikely. Elements will be attacked, and fail, in rapid and random succession, giving the upperblock assembly an average downward acceleration of something like 2/3 g

So according to the Oystein laws of the universe something that happens in every other case is unlikely in WTC 1 and would account for why we see no deceleration.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Since we don't have any evidence for "demolition devices" at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, I don't understand your premise. It seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Did you see the question posted by Disbelief regarding the bowling ball and the dixie cup? Can you please present some limits regarding amplified load and "jolts?"


I mentioned jet fuel as well, but OK. The terminology of these collapses as "natural" just seems odd to me, given the external forces involved.

Whatever was left over from the fireball, of the 10,000 gallons of fuel the aircraft had on them, was aerosolized and spread as a film. It was then burned up within minutes, NIST even admits that. If half of it made it into the towers and spread over just two floors it would have put a 1/16" film on things. So much for the vaunted jet fuel.

What I am saying is that if there is no natural mechanism to explain the collapse as observed then assistance of some sort must have been provided. Call it whatever you want. I call it some form of demolition device or method. We have no idea what evidence there may have been as the steel wasn't saved and analyzed. Now why would that be?

I will answer Disbelief's question separately.

 

[GlennB]

You seem to imply that the entire assembly gets observably decelerated just because individual members resist for a brief moment? That is wrong.
That would only be right if a high number of elements were hit and loaded by the falling block simultaneously. But given the tilt and the uncontrolled nature of the failures, this is unlikely. Elements will be attacked, and fail, in rapid and random succession, giving the upperblock assembly an average downward acceleration of something like 2/3 g

So according to the Oystein laws of the universe something that happens in every other case is unlikely in WTC 1 and would account for why we see no deceleration.

My bolding.

Your misapprehension throughout this whole 'missing jolt' debate is summarised in oystein's words. We have no reason to suppose there was an ordered, axial, synchronised impact of upper block upon lower. Quite the reverse in fact.

From the beginning you have taken the idealised, theoretical Bazant analysis and tried to apply it to a chaotic collapse.

But you seem to be deeply in love with the sheer power of your devastating 'insight' here. Irreducible delusion is the perfect description.

p.s. did you give any more thought to that 2-D diagram of the 180° buckled column that creates axial impact of column ends? Or are you uncomfortable with what it might reveal?

 

[beachnut]

The WTC did not collapse at free-fall, something slowed it down. Gee, what was it?

Tony has a CD delusion as his model;
What explosives was it Tony?
Ammonium Nitrate + Fuel Oil
Triacetone Triperoxide
TNT
RDX
HMX
PETN
What was used in your delusion?

How much?
300 pounds
5 tons
100 tons
1000 tons
How much was used in your delusion of CD?

How did they survive the aircraft impacts?
How did they survive the fires?

Explain how your CD delusion works.

Now we know why Bazant's model is applicable to the real world and your model of CD is applicable to the delusional world.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, how much more mass would an object have to have to have no discernible jolt? For example, if I drop a bowling ball on a dixie cup, the bowling ball will have virtually no deceleration and no measurable jolt. (Note, I am NOT comparing this to the Towers in any way, just trying to get the concept.) Is this correct?

The situation we are dealing with in a building collapse is where the lower supporting structure is designed to support several times the load it is carrying. In that case the only way the insufficient load above can cause failure to the lower structure is if it is amplified.

This can happen in a fall if the impacting upper load decelerates at a rate greater than gravity. Of course, we see that this did not happen in the measurable fall of WTC 1.


In the case of your dixie cup and bowling ball, the dixie cup is not designed to support even the static weight of the bowling ball and it would fall right though it.

Now imagine your bowling ball was supported by a steel cylinder about two inches in diameter and 1/8" diameter wall thickness. Then imagine that it turned into paper and the bowling ball accelerated right through it. The paper cylinder would still be applying some small resisitance to the fall of the bowling ball but not nearly enough to support the static load. That is what appears to have happened to the upper section of WTC 1.

The short answer to your question is that if the supporting structure below cannot support the static load there will be no deceleration.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My bolding.

Your misapprehension throughout this whole 'missing jolt' debate is summarised in oystein's words. We have no reason to suppose there was an ordered, axial, synchronised impact of upper block upon lower. Quite the reverse in fact.

From the beginning you have taken the idealised, theoretical Bazant analysis and tried to apply it to a chaotic collapse.

But you seem to be deeply in love with the sheer power of your devastating 'insight' here. Irreducible delusion is the perfect description.

p.s. did you give any more thought to that 2-D diagram of the 180° buckled column that creates axial impact of column ends? Or are you uncomfortable with what it might reveal?

I have no particular affection for anything but reality.

Your insistence that some insight would be gained by creating this simple 2-D column model with a 180 degree fold is somewhat baffling. It seems you believe the top and bottom hinges would somehow twist away from each other about the vertical axis and no longer be in vertical alignment. There is no mechanism to cause that and the geometry of the fall indicates that the columns would impact in a natural collapse.

It seems that the Irreducible Delusion belongs to those desperately clinging to the NIST/Bazant explanation for the collapses. First, it was that there was a dynamic load. When it was shown that there was no observable deceleration of the upper section of the building and thus no dynamic load, that was changed to the columns missed each other due to the tilt or that we couldn't discern the deceleration although it is plenty discernable in every other situation where there would be a dynamic load. Then when it was shown that the tilt was not nearly enough to cause any significant misalignment, it is now some imaginary twisting or contortion that would cause misalignment of the columns.

 

[beachnut]

... The short answer to your question is that if the supporting structure below cannot support the static load there will be no deceleration.

BINGO
The top floors can't be held by a lower floor.

11 additional floors is all a WTC floor can hold. There goes your CD delusion, and Bazant is applicable to the real world.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

BINGO
The top floors can't be held by a lower floor.

11 additional floors is all a WTC floor can hold. There goes your CD delusion, and Bazant is applicable to the real world.

The structure of every story below was capapable of supporting several times the load above it. In other words, in the 110 story buildings the 98th story structure was capable of supporting 36 stories or more, the 95th was capable of supporting at least 45 stories, etc.

What you are saying is that the floor slab of a particular floor was only capable of supporting 11 additional floors. The problem with that little theory is that the upper section of the building could not just fall on the floor slabs. There would have definitely been column on column impact in a natural collapse.

Dr. Bazant knew the only way the upper section could destroy the lower section naturally was if its load was amplified in an impact, so he thought there was a dynamic load. The problem is that it turns out there was no deceleration by the upper section, so there couldn't have been a dynamic load, and that is proof that WTC 1 was rigged prior to Sept. 11, 2001 and demolished in an unnatural way. The aircraft impacts were apparently causal ruses designed to fool us into thinking they caused the collapses. Scientific scrutinization of the structure and damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, have proven they couldn't do it. When you add the fact that there was no dynamic load it completely seals the argument that the buildings were intentionally demolished.

 

[pgimeno]

What I am saying is that if there is no natural mechanism to explain the collapse as observed then assistance of some sort must have been provided.

That's a flawed logic leap. Unexplained things happen all the time. That doesn't mean they are unexplainable; it merely means that our capacity of understanding them, often bounded by our capacity of measuring them, is limited.

 

[ozeco41]

@Oystein, carlitos, GlennB, beachnut, Disbelief,

Tony continues to circle and entrap himself with his own flawed logic.

Since he has addressed your posts and ignored mine I will not comment at this stage but allow time for each of you to respond.

 

[Oystein]

So according to the Oystein laws of the universe something that happens in every other case is unlikely in WTC 1 and would account for why we see no deceleration.

Which "every other case" are you referring to? Care to name 2 other cases, for comparison?

 

[Disbelief]

The situation we are dealing with in a building collapse is where the lower supporting structure is designed to support several times the load it is carrying. In that case the only way the insufficient load above can cause failure to the lower structure is if it is amplified.

This can happen in a fall if the impacting upper load decelerates at a rate greater than gravity. Of course, we see that this did not happen in the measurable fall of WTC 1.


In the case of your dixie cup and bowling ball, the dixie cup is not designed to support even the static weight of the bowling ball and it would fall right though it.

So if I can support a bowling ball with a dixie cup, you're wrong? Not sure if I can do this, but I could give it a shot.

My point is that there is going to be some point where the force of the falling object will destroy what is below it with little discernible jolt.

Now imagine your bowling ball was supported by a steel cylinder about two inches in diameter and 1/8" diameter wall thickness. Then imagine that it turned into paper and the bowling ball accelerated right through it. The paper cylinder would still be applying some small resisitance to the fall of the bowling ball but not nearly enough to support the static load. That is what appears to have happened to the upper section of WTC 1.

Or if the steel cylinder was heated or suffered damage.

The short answer to your question is that if the supporting structure below cannot support the static load there will be no deceleration.

I disagree and I did an experiment many years ago in high school that disproves this. I made a bridge out of 8 straws that could support 100 pounds of static weight (actually got to 130). Dropping that weight on the straws, there would be no discernible deceleration.