WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[Tony Szamboti]

Dr. Bazant.

Your turn.......

Dr. Bazant, the man who uses freefall through the first story to gain nearly three times the velocity input to the kinetic energy, 58 x 10e6 kg instead of the actual 33 x 10e6 kg mass of the North Tower upper section, and about 60% of the actual column resistance to come up with a kinetic energy to resistance ratio that is overstated by about 8.5 times?

Is that the Dr. Bazant you are taking about? If so,

 

[jaydeehess]

its also plain to anyone with an iota of common sense that a machine weighing tens or hundreds of tons cannot rise up into the air. that rockets cannot propel anything in the vaccum of space since there is nothing to push against, and that light cannot be both a particle and a wave. Good thing that more than 'common sense' is in play

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Publish something.

I have submitted a Discussion of the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper to the JEM showing they made serious input errors, which when corrected completely undermines their conclusion, shows the reality is just the opposite, and that a jolt should have been observed in a natural collapse.

That paper has been with an editor since last June 2nd.

 

[NoahFence]

Dr. Bazant, the man who uses freefall through the first story to gain nearly three times the velocity input to the kinetic energy, 58 x 10e6 kg instead of the actual 33 x 10e6 kg mass of the North Tower upper section, and about 60% of the actual column resistance to come up with a kinetic energy to resistance ratio that is overstated by about 8.5 times?

Is that the Dr. Bazant you are taking about? If so,

Where's your evidence?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Dr. Bazant, the man who uses freefall through the first story to gain nearly three times the velocity input to the kinetic energy, 58 x 10e6 kg instead of the actual 33 x 10e6 kg mass of the North Tower upper section, and about 60% of the actual column resistance to come up with a kinetic energy to resistance ratio that is overstated by about 8.5 times?

Is that the Dr. Bazant you are taking about? If so,

1) Why wouldn't it be freefall through the first story? The supporting columns are all buckled or destroyed, and there's nothing else but air. I'm confused as to what exactly you think must have held up the collapsing upper section.
2) Where did you pull 33x10e6 for the mass of the upper section? Show evidence that this is the case.
3) Why would you use 100% column resistance for columns that have been WEAKENED AND BUCKLED DUE TO FIRE?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

its also plain to anyone with an iota of common sense that a machine weighing tens of tons cannot rise up into the air. that rockets cannot propel anything in the vaccum of space since there is nothing to push against. Good thing that more than 'common sense' is in play

Anyone with any real understanding of them knows rocket and jet engines don't push against anything external to propel themselves. They push against the internal pressure wall while the exhaust is just to let the forward component of the pressure dominate without being countered.

If rockets didn't work like that they wouldn't work in space. The only difference with the jet engine is it uses atmospheric oxygen for combustion.

 

[leftysergeant]

That paper has been with an editor since last June 2nd.

He is probably having to much fun sharing around at parties for a laugh to send it back.

 

[jaydeehess]

Tony my post seemed to have gone right over your head

 

[Tony Szamboti]

1) Why wouldn't it be freefall through the first story? The supporting columns are all buckled or destroyed, and there's nothing else but air. I'm confused as to what exactly you think must have held up the collapsing upper section.
2) Where did you pull 33x10e6 for the mass of the upper section? Show evidence that this is the case.
3) Why would you use 100% column resistance for columns that have been WEAKENED AND BUCKLED DUE TO FIRE?

It wouldn't be freefall through the first story because buckling columns have a minimum resistance, which in the case of the towers was about 25% of the yield strength. Zdenek Bazant even includes a little diagram showing this in Figure 5d of his 2002 paper.

The mass is from Gregory Urich's mass analysis which you can find on line and Zdenek Bazant's very own frequency analysis shown in his 2002 paper. They both determined each story weighed approximately 2.75 x 10e6 kg. The North Tower collapse initiation occurred at the 98th floor making the upper section 12 stories tall and 12 x 2.75 = 33.

Only about 5 to 10% of the columns were damaged on the 97th floor of the North Tower which would have been the first story impacted by the falling upper 12 stories. So even if you want to derate what I said, Bazant is still using a much lower column resistance and he isn't giving the excuse you are.

 

[twinstead]

Anyone with any real understanding of them knows rocket and jet engines don't push against anything external to propel themselves. They push against the internal pressure wall while the exhaust is just to let the forward component of the pressure dominate without being countered.

If rockets didn't work like that they wouldn't work in space. The only difference with the jet engine is it uses atmospheric oxygen for combustion.

I suspect he's being factitious to make a point, Tony

 

[LSSBB]

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

Uniformly: Wrong. Twisted, hit building across the street, dented in on top rim, Penthouse came down first.

at freefall acceleration: Wrong. The acceleration curve passed through 'g', went above 'g', then dropped below 'g'. Even if it was =g, it wouldn't prove CD - there are other reasons that it could have fallen @g.

I tell you what. You posted a whole lotta math trying to disprove NIST. You made some assumptions regarding shear studs and stating 'girder G2 was restrained by 12 beams ', and I say assumptions because you just make the assertion without proving it. You make some kind of unexplained comment about 'redundancy', like what, there was a backup column 79 or something? This is what I mean by 'engineeringy' talk.

Bottom line, you still, still, still have not done any ENGINEERING proving your own case. Why is that?

All hat and no cattle. There's no there there. You cannot make, will not make, have not made a case to convince anyone of your alternate theory.

Continue to tilt at windmills. Go after a group of engineers and scientists convened by the National Institute of Science and Technology and prove they 'lied'. Why? Why won't you prove your case? How much money has the Truth movement burned through in ten years. What have you got to show? Arguments with the likes of us? What's it get you?

While you do all that Chris Mohr crowdsourced a scientific study of the dust. What have you done? Any nice Truth resume bullets you can share with the world?

Where's your CD demonstration? How many buildings have been CD'd with superdupernanotherm*te? The kind with the therm*te flash hidden by the invisibility cloak, and sound dampeners?

All hat and no cattle.

Continue to argue with us. That'll teach those gubmit ninja warrior-hiring neo-con Mossad super secret war mongers.

 

[leftysergeant]

Dr. Bazant, the man who uses freefall through the first story to gain nearly three times the velocity input to the kinetic energy, 58 x 10e6 kg instead of the actual 33 x 10e6 kg mass of the North Tower upper section, and about 60% of the actual column resistance to come up with a kinetic energy to resistance ratio that is overstated by about 8.5 times?

Do you still think that you have to have a force capable of crushing the core to destroy the towers?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony my post seemed to have gone right over your head

No, I didn't. I just wrote what I did for someone who might not understand.

Most of the people on here would argue that a human could fly through the sun if it served their interests and they thought they could get away with it somehow.

 

[beachnut]

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

...

He took typing class; some people can type very fast. You think all the people who oppose your claims are shills anyway plus you throw in the anonymous engineer crap to add the evidence of your paranoia.

It does not matter if you don't let Bazant have any speed. The upper floors resting on the lower floor results in instant failure. That is why the towers continued to collapse. The "momentum jolts" are not seen on the low resolution low frame rate video, and would not be seen due to the complexity of collisions. Your "missing jolts" are heard as impacts increase in frequency, floors baning into each other, destroyed during collapse. The towers sure to match the momentum model; why can't you model it?

(time: 125 wpm, 125 words - wasted one minute typing this message, took 5 seconds to read your post - time wasted - 1:05, plus this note)

You should take speed reading courses, and typing class so you stop wasting so much time and falsely think everyone else is wasting time like you think they are - another failed analysis.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you still think that you have to have a force capable of crushing the core to destroy the towers?

There should have been a serious deceleration and the fact that there wasn't shows there was unnatural means of demolition going on. Just like the freefall acceleration of WTC 7. These two things are enormous red flags and to argue against these clues as to what really happened gives one away as either an idiot who can't think for themselves, or someone with an agenda.

 

[NoahFence]

No, I didn't. I just wrote what I did for someone who might not understand.

Most of the people on here would argue that a human could fly through the sun if it served their interests and they thought they could get away with it somehow.

Where's your evidence? Blasting caps, det cord, whatever. Show it.

 

[NoahFence]

There should have been a serious deceleration and the fact that there wasn't shows there was unnatural means of demolition going on. Just like the freefall acceleration of WTC 7. These two things are enormous red flags and to argue against these clues as to what really happened gives one away as either an idiot who can't think for themselves, or someone with an agenda.

Unnatural, like from a huge jet crash? Or is that natural in your twisted world?

 

[LSSBB]

There should have been a serious deceleration and the fact that there wasn't shows there was unnatural means of demolition going on. Just like the freefall acceleration of WTC 7. These two things are enormous red flags and to argue against these clues as to what really happened gives one away as either an idiot who can't think for themselves, or someone with an agenda.

As far as the highlighted sections: No it doesn't show unnatural demolition, it shows the building just collapsed from damage due to plane impact and fuel fires far enough from the top for the top section to crush the lower section, just as it appears on video, the same video that shows no obvious signs of controlled demolition. And WTC7 did not fall AT freefall, the acceleration passed through g. Not a step function.

The rest of your statement is just an insult.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, I didn't. I just wrote what I did for someone who might not understand.

Most of the people on here would argue that a human could fly through the sun if it served their interests and they thought they could get away with it somehow.

my post was directed at everyone who has cited 'common sense'

I know of no one who would propose as preposterous a thing as you suggest

 

[LSSBB]

my st ws directed at everyone who has cited 'common sense'

I know of no one who would propose as preposterous a thing as you suggest

Jay, the reaction you garnered is yet another example of how there appears to be opportunities to learn critical thinking skills in the engineering community.