Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Tony Szamboti]

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

I am not surprised.

Local failures don't explain a lack of deceleration.

What isn't surprising here is your lack of clarity, given that your earlier proposal didn't provide an adequate explanation.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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".

Again your explanation falls short. If what you say were true the spires would not be made up of predominantly inner core columns.

The more likely explanation for it is that the outer core columns were removed and at the upper levels the inner columns would be pulled down with them until the inner columns were strong enough to withsatnd the pull.

I think you are hypocritical in accusing me of using ad hominem while you sit there and call me a truther. I am an engineer who calls it like he sees it, and there are no ploys about it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

You'll note that all of the discussions you have about the missing *jolt* has to do with tower 1, and the relative information vacuum created for it due to the lesser availability of clear, close up video of the collapse initiation zone, which has been pretty standard in the CD argument in general. I've been rather curious whether or not Szamboti thinks that the column impacts in tower #2 should have been end to end when the entirety of its upper floors began to descend. Considering Bazant's model also qualified WTC 2, and that it shared the same construction and damage as the other tower it should be a reasonable analogue and a demonstration of why a literal interpretation of the Bazant case model falls face flat...

I've brought WTC2 up multiple times in the past, and he seems adamant about avoiding it in the context of his discussion.

 

[femr2]

Tony,

This cannot go on...

WTC 7 had a significant observable deceleration of 14 mph after the freefall.

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.

From prior discussion it is clear that you statement relates to the data blip at the 10s mark in this graph generated by David Chandler...

I have repeatedly shown you the following WTC 7 velocity trace...

...highlighting the following:

a) An eight storey drop equates to 12.75*8=102ft.
b) 102ft drop of the NW corner equates to ~14.8s on my provided graph.
c) There is a slight behavioural change at that point in time, but no significant *jolt*.
d) Change in the trend of velocity does not occur until around the 16s mark.
e) At 16s the NW corner has descended ~200ft.

Your response was rather silly...

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.

I'm sorry but that was either an incredibly silly mistake or a feeble attempt at something more underhand.

After the NW corner has descended 102 ft the bottom of the *upper block* is already through your *rubble layer*.

102 ft of *removed building*, 102 ft of descent.

The trend of the velocity does not change until the NW corner has descended another 100 ft.

That's another 8 storeys.

Now, Tony, please... make your position clear.

At what point in time (specifying upon which graph) are you stating that the "deceleration of 14 mph" occurred, and what are you stating caused it ?

(And please stop mixing up your units.)

 

[twinstead]

(And please stop mixing up your units.)

Unless it's vodka and grapefruit juice. Then I'll have one too.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Local failures don't explain a lack of deceleration.

What isn't surprising here is your lack of clarity, given that your earlier proposal didn't provide an adequate explanation.

Local failures prevent the entire section from being engaged. That is pretty basic engineering. I'm sorry you have trouble with basic engineering.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think you are hypocritical in accusing me of using ad hominem while you sit there and call me a truther. I am an engineer who calls it like he sees it, and there are no ploys about it.

So please show me the evidence in support of your claim that:

All known examples of natural force caused collapses have deceleration.

So far you have only discussed verinage demolitions, which are by definition an artificially induced, controlled collapse. If you have evidence for your claim above, please present it. If not, please withdraw it and admit that you're simply inventing evidence to support your argument.

If you continue to do neither, we can draw the conclusion that you are far from "an engineer who calls it like he sees it".

Dave

 

[dafydd]

So please show me the evidence in support of your claim that:



So far you have only discussed verinage demolitions, which are by definition an artificially induced, controlled collapse. If you have evidence for your claim above, please present it. If not, please withdraw it and admit that you're simply inventing evidence to support your argument.

If you continue to do neither, we can draw the conclusion that you are far from "an engineer who calls it like he sees it".

Dave

Tony is a fascinating case study.

 

[ergo]

So please show me the evidence in support of your claim that:

So far you have only discussed verinage demolitions, which are by definition an artificially induced, controlled collapse. If you have evidence for your claim above, please present it. If not, please withdraw it and admit that you're simply inventing evidence to support your argument.

If you continue to do neither, we can draw the conclusion that you are far from "an engineer who calls it like he sees it".

You have to ask for evidence of a deceleration caused by the resistance that would naturally be provided by matter impeding other matter trying to move through it, as described by Newton's First and Third laws?

Why? You doubt Newton's laws of motion?

This is why these arguments get so dumb, when you have to go back over and over arguing first principles of science as if they've never been heard of before.

 

[uke2se]

You have to ask for evidence of a deceleration caused by the resistance that would naturally be provided by matter impeding other matter trying to move through it, as described by Newton's First and Third laws?

Why? You doubt Newton's laws of motion?

This is why these arguments get so dumb, when you have to go back over and over arguing first principles of science as if they've never been heard of before.

My guess is that he's asking for evidence that you understand these physical laws you keep invoking. It would appear from your posting history that you haven't the faintest idea how physics work, so a demonstration by you that you do isn't an unreasonable request.

ETA: "You" being Tony in this case, but you could give us a demonstration as well, ergo as it applies to you too.

 

[ergo]

I find that people who believe that steel-framed buildings 1/3 of a kilometre high can descend through themselves within four seconds of the time that they would take to descend through air are the ones who are reality challenged, and whose understanding of basic physical principles is severely compromised.

 

[uke2se]

I find that people who believe that steel-framed buildings 1/3 of a kilometre high can descend through themselves within four seconds of the time that they would take to descend through air are the ones who are reality challenged, and whose understanding of basic physical principles is severely compromised.

That would include the world's leading experts in such matters then. Your appeal from ignorance is noted.

 

[ergo]

That would include the world's leading experts in such matters then. Your appeal from ignorance is noted.

World's leading experts? Like...who? Thanks.

 

[ergo]

A lot of bee-dunkers think that Tony's "jolt" is some kooky pet theory of his that only Tony believes in and proselytizes about like some crazed person on a virtual streetcorner. They don't seem to understand the basic principles around what happens when one object impacts another, and what is required, and observable, without exception in how an impact force is transferred to another body.

 

[uke2se]

World's leading experts? Like...who? Thanks.

Like the scientists who make up NIST.

Like the scientists who have written peer-reviewed scientific papers that support the findings of NIST (as opposed to the zero peer-reviewed scientific papers that support the twoofers).

Like the hundreds of thousands of scientists who doesn't write papers criticizing the NIST findings or singing up with Gage and his lying posse.

 

[uke2se]

A lot of bee-dunkers think that Tony's "jolt" is some kooky pet theory of his that only Tony believes in and proselytizes about like some crazed person on a virtual streetcorner. They don't seem to understand the basic principles around what happens when one object impacts another, and what is required, and observable, without exception in how an impact force is transferred to another body.

You definitely don't understand it, that much is certain.

 

[ergo]

Eight-year-olds understand it, uke. Bee dunkers apparently won't.

 

[uke2se]

Eight-year-olds understand it, uke. Bee dunkers apparently won't.

Then demonstrate it with math.

 

[ergo]

Then demonstrate it with math.

Sensible people don't need advanced math to understand how buildings collapse, to understand how matter responds to gravity and how matter responds to other matter in its path. These processes are common-sense, idiot-proof (or so we thought) understandings of our physical universe. The fact that we have to, in these WTC "debates", re-argue why an apple will not continue falling through the earth, why it won't cut a hole through your hand if it falls into it, is a frightening reminder of the level of anti-science that nations such as the U.S. seem to be willing to stoop to.

 

[uke2se]

Sensible people don't need advanced math to understand how buildings collapse, to understand how matter responds to gravity and how matter responds to other matter in its path. These processes are common-sense, idiot-proof (or so we thought) understandings of our physical universe. The fact that we have to, in these WTC "debates", re-argue why an apple will not continue falling through the earth, why it won't cut a hole through your hand if it falls into it, is a frightening reminder of the level of anti-science that nations such as the U.S. seem to be willing to stoop to.

Math is the language of physics. If an eight year old can understand the argument you are pushing, demonstrate it with math. Bet you can't.