Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[ozeco41]

Oh I know. There's a huge list of impossible assumptions he makes to achieve a scenario where a jolt is possible. He knows it too. But this is the last rung he's got to hold on to. If he lets go of it, then he falls back into the world of the sane, and that's a very bright and painful world to be in after living for so long in the world of "Truth".

Understood.

BTW I agree that your overlapping "I Beams" model is one of the possibilities for end contact which develops far less that full design column strength.

There are several others which result in bypass. The most visually obvious is the "pulled in columns" of the initial failure. Those face two easily envisaged possibilities:

• The first that the pulled inwards ends fold over leaving two rounded ends consequent of plastic flow before failure. Rounded ends would cause the column parts to "slip off" and bend sideways in elastic (maybe plastic) flexure so that the ends bypassed. In that case with the top block columns falling wedged inside the lower tower outer tube.
• columns bent out of line before failure but remaining standing as "bent columns" would form sloping surfaces which would also facilitate flexure and consequent bypassing.

There are multiple possibilities. The main point(s) being;

• that ends coming into axial contact are the least likely outcome once the top block is falling which means most columns not bearing load; AND
• any ends which did come into end for end contact would be in the minority and would have such an overwhelming load acting that failure or slip off would rapidly follow. That failure either by buckling OR mutual cutting as per your model.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Give some examples, apart from verinage, which has already been discussed.

Dave

Dave, WTC 7 had a significant observable deceleration of 14 mph after the freefall. Did you know that?

Now the only way that deceleration can happen is if some of the columns are in play, and this is after an eight story drop. The "columns would miss each other and that is why we don't see a deceleration" advocates are out in left field somewhere. What they are saying is bogus nonsense with no example for it anywhere.

Standard controlled demolitions take out enough floors to generate the required momentum to destroy the rest of the building. The Verinage technique is essentially a standard controlled demolition as it uses the same mechanics, with the difference being the use of hydraulic rams in lieu of explosives to remove the columns.

 

[femr2]

Dave, WTC 7 had a significant observable deceleration of 14 mph after the freefall. Did you know that?

You need to do the tracing yourself Tony, rather than rely upon the data from others.

Here's velocity for WTC 7...

Now the only way that deceleration can happen is if some of the columns are in play

What deceleration ?

and this is after an eight story drop

An eight storey drop would equate to around (12.75*8) 102 ft, yes ? Well, that's about 14.8s into that trace. Change in behaviour, sure. 14mph (20.5 ft/s) *deceleration* , er, no. Not really much change in velocity trend until the 16s mark, 120ft later on.

If you don't trust my data, no problem. But do it yourself.

(ETA: Do you drop in very silly mistakes, such as stating velocity change as a deceleration, on purpose, so that folk complain about it and avoid addressing the other issues ?)

 

[leftysergeant]

Your simple concept has no other example in any natural force caused collapse. All known examples of natural force caused collapses have deceleration.

Do CDs show any deceleration? Any of them? Does verinage show deceleration? How much, and would the same dgree of deceleration be detectable using the same data and methods used by twofers?

There really is only one answer to why the upper section of WTC 1 does not decelerate and that is that the legs were being taken out from under it by unnatural forces.

Got any evidence of an unnatural process at work? Aside from the gross results, I mean. Any perievent phenomena that should not have been there?

One of your assumptions appears to be that the collisions would all be simultaneous. But since the core columns did not fall straight down in either tower, that is a bloody huge assumption.

Consider for a moment how a video image moves. Pixels are erased and replaced at a rate fast enough that the eye (or a camera) would sample them as they would a slowly-moving object. There were a lot of columns colliding and failing during the collapses, enough that I would expect them to average out as a smooth movement.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do CDs show any deceleration? Any of them? Does verinage show deceleration? How much, and would the same dgree of deceleration be detectable using the same data and methods used by twofers?



Got any evidence of an unnatural process at work? Aside from the gross results, I mean. Any perievent phenomena that should not have been there?

One of your assumptions appears to be that the collisions would all be simultaneous. But since the core columns did not fall straight down in either tower, that is a bloody huge assumption.

Consider for a moment how a video image moves. Pixels are erased and replaced at a rate fast enough that the eye (or a camera) would sample them as they would a slowly-moving object. There were a lot of columns colliding and failing during the collapses, enough that I would expect them to average out as a smooth movement.

Every single Verinage demolition shows significant deceleration at impact between the upper and lower sections. These descents were measured using the same methods used to measure the descent of WTC 1, which does not show deceleration.

 

[leftysergeant]

Every single Verinage demolition shows significant deceleration at impact between the upper and lower sections. These descents were measured using the same methods used to measure the descent of WTC 1, which does not show deceleration.

Okay, then the collapse of WTC 7 does not that closely resemble most CDs that we have seen. Or can you point to some perievent phenomenon that we should not have seen in a progressive collapse?

 

[leftysergeant]

Now the only way that deceleration can happen is if some of the columns are in play, and this is after an eight story drop.

The exterior of WTC 7 was in play, but the internal columns were obviously gone when the building started to move. What resistance we see after the eight-storey drop is the exterior columns coming to rest on the rubble below it and breaking as would any building in Bazant's scenario in the "crush-up" stage.

The "columns would miss each other and that is why we don't see a deceleration" advocates are out in left field somewhere. What they are saying is bogus nonsense with no example for it anywhere.

They might not miss each other entirely, or they may have never been separated before collapse was underway. It seems to me that the drop of both towers was rather slow, and the bottom of the upper block of the south tower clearly moves toward the camera in the best shot.

I get the sense that a key column had failed and allowed the upper core to slide off the lower in such a way that it would not have simply toppled into the street. Notice how the upper part starts to separate well above the failure point rather like a smoke stack does without an additional charge. In sliding across the tops of the lower columns, the more fragile upper columns would break up under the weight of the upper structure and rather quickly.

Its momentum to the south kept it from surpassing the cewnter of gravity and toppling to the north.

Maybe I am just not making myself clear because I am a fire fighter and construction laborer rather than an engineer, and am basing my comments on what I have observed personally over the decades.

 

[pgimeno]

Dave, WTC 7 had a significant observable deceleration of 14 mph after the freefall. Did you know that?

Is that an axial column-to-column impact?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is that an axial column-to-column impact?

The floors alone could not cause a loss of velocity.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is that an axial column-to-column impact?

It would, by that time, obviously be exterior column to rubble pile impact.

 

[pgimeno]

It would, by that time, obviously be exterior column to rubble pile impact.

That's what I thought. Thanks.

 

[pgimeno]

The floors alone could not cause a loss of velocity.

But that's what you have in Balzac-Vitry.

 

[leftysergeant]

But that's what you have in Balzac-Vitry.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/Balzac-Vitry-Misaligning.jpg[/qimg]

I was about to take issue with you there, because It seemed rather clear to me that verinage would require a lot of the destruction to be one column landing on aother, but, in that extreme close-up, we see massive dust clouds being formed from the material of the bottom floor of the upper block before the failed columns are fully out of the way, but are, clearly, not capable of aresseting the downward motion of the upper block.

 

[femr2]

Every single Verinage demolition shows significant deceleration at impact between the upper and lower sections. These descents were measured using the same methods used to measure the descent of WTC 1, which does not show deceleration.

I note, yet again, that you have ignored my post Tony.

An eight storey drop equates to around (12.75*8) 102 ft. That's about 14.8s into that trace.

There is slight change in behaviour, sure.

14mph (20.5 ft/s) velocity drop, er, no.


Not really much change in velocity trend until the 16s mark, > 100ft later on.


Verinage traces do indeed show a velocity reduction at the point in time that the floor surfaces collide, whereas the deceleration of WTC 7 did not occur at the time you say it did. It occurs over 100ft later on. Another 8 floors.

We can have this discussion over at the911forum if you prefer. Perhaps I'll request it's made mandatory.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I note, yet again, that you have ignored my post Tony.

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/656459373.png[/qimg]

An eight storey drop equates to around (12.75*8) 102 ft. That's about 14.8s into that trace.

There is slight change in behaviour, sure.

14mph (20.5 ft/s) velocity drop, er, no.


Not really much change in velocity trend until the 16s mark, > 100ft later on.


Verinage traces do indeed show a velocity reduction at the point in time that the floor surfaces collide, whereas the deceleration of WTC 7 did not occur at the time you say it did. It occurs over 100ft later on. Another 8 floors.

We can have this discussion over at the911forum if you prefer. Perhaps I'll request it's made mandatory.

Obviously, the upper section had to go through the eight floors of rubble before hitting the intact structure below and it was not literally meant that a jolt occurred immediately at the end of the eight story drop.

The Balzac-Vitry velocity curve has a slower acceleration occur, just like WTC 7, indicating there is a rubble effect before the jolt.

Your point here is not germane.

 

[femr2]

Obviously

...

the upper section had to go through the eight floors of rubble before hitting the intact structure below

Tony, are you suggesting that the height of 8 destroyed floors of the building, with an original height of 100ft, and after a 100ft drop of the upper section of the building is, er, 100 ft ?

Come on Tony.

The bottom floor of the *intact upper block* is in contact with the top floor of the *intact lower block* after it descends that 100ft. Where did your additional 100ft come from eh ?

and it was not literally meant that a jolt occurred immediately at the end of the eight story drop.

Your assertion about the *jolt* relates directly to the data provided to you by David Chandler...

The *jolt* you have been talking about is at the 10s mark (15s mark on my graph), and I'm afraid you're simply working from bad, low resolution, low quality data.

If David Chandler wants to discuss the data quality, I'll be happy to do so either here or at the911forum.

By all means perform the tracing yourself, if you don't trust my data (though I think I've more than earned the *generate good quality trace data badge* by now).

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, WTC 7 had a significant observable deceleration of 14 mph after the freefall. Did you know that?

Now the only way that deceleration can happen is if some of the columns are in play, and this is after an eight story drop. The "columns would miss each other and that is why we don't see a deceleration" advocates are out in left field somewhere. What they are saying is bogus nonsense with no example for it anywhere.

Standard controlled demolitions take out enough floors to generate the required momentum to destroy the rest of the building. The Verinage technique is essentially a standard controlled demolition as it uses the same mechanics, with the difference being the use of hydraulic rams in lieu of explosives to remove the columns.

Tony, I see you're evading the question. You've claimed that all natural force driven collapses show deceleration. I'm asking you to provide evidence for that claim. So far you haven't offered a single example. Are you going to, or are you going to avoid the issue some more? If you do the latter, we can assume that you're making up evidence to support your hypothesis, and we'll draw appropriate conclusions.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Whilst the subject is here, here's an overlay of my data (with slightly different smoothing (9 point adjacent differencing) to the Tony/David data...

What is wrong with this picture ?

The timescales are matched by gridlines very accurately.

I know my timebase is correct, 59.94 samples per second.

Looks like the Tony/David data timebase is wrong, though would need to have the raw position/time data to align them properly.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It looks like Tony Szamboti has decided to ignore the problem of local failures in steel...

I am not surprised.

 

[ozeco41]

It looks like Tony Szamboti has decided to ignore the problem of local failures in steel...

I am not surprised.

He is also pretending that the falling top block cannot mean that the column ends of the top block are falling past their complementary lower part. Contrary to his unreasoned denial that bypassing is the mechanism which I would rank as most common and most significant in all the available options.

Look at his responses - they are in inverse proportion to how seriously the opposing view point damages his case. Strong arguments he ignores or responds ad hom. Weaker arguments - though still valid - he responds in more detail.

The less fatal to his case the more detailed his response. Standard truther ploy - derail distract or diverge by focussing on the minutia - and as far off the track as you can get away with.

The second truther ploy is to avoid considering the overall context. I have served notice that his "missing jolt" model has no end point for closure. The column bypassing is valid right down to ground level - once we can get him past the starting gate of the immediate context of the non existent missing jolt. Look at the core columns of the spire - stripped of the cross beams due to collision with falling cross beams with the columns themselves "bypassing".