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

[Oystein]

Aside 2.
I noticed one other thing that caught my eye, Tony. David Chandler now cites YOU as the engineer who opened his eyes to the fact that the columns will NOT contact each other end to end during the crush down of the towers....

I wasn't aware of that - how did I miss it?

"That's one small step for man; one giant leap for..." this little corner of 9/11 discussion.

A nice little gem of significant info -- thanks tfk.

Is there a source for that?

 

[A W Smith]

Is there a source for that?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5546482&postcount=1198

 

[tfk]

Is there a source for that?

It was about 2/3rds the way thru one of Chandler's latest videos. He broke his latest silly assertions up into 2 groups. The first 2/3rds of the video was his own work.

About 2/3rds the way thru, he starts down another failed path of illogic, based upon a point that "engineer Tony Szamboti pointed out to him, that the columns would not contact end to end, but would slide by each other". [paraphrase].

If Tony were an honest person, he'd point out immediately in which video that appears. The probability that he doesn't know is indistinguishable from zero.

I'll see if I can find it.

Meanwhile, we can all ask Tony when he had a change of heart.

He'll answer with complete honesty & candor, of course...

 

[ozeco41]

It was about 2/3rds the way thru one of Chandler's latest videos. He broke his latest silly assertions up into 2 groups. The first 2/3rds of the video was his own work.

About 2/3rds the way thru, he starts down another failed path of illogic, based upon a point that "engineer Tony Szamboti pointed out to him, that the columns would not contact end to end, but would slide by each other". [paraphrase]...

Which raises two points of interest:
1) What price now for "Missing Jolt" - how unthinking of D Chandler to pull the plug on one of the implicit premises of MJ; AND
2) No acknowledgement of those of us who had been making that point for several years.

I had been making the point persistently since early 2008 that columns must have been bypassing. Others no doubt longer than me - I was a relative late comer to WTC collapse explaining. But the truther who changes sides late in the game only recognises another truther who changed sides nearly as late in the game.

Now I do wonder where either of them really got that St Paul heading for Damascus revelation. I mean it must be one of the first things that anyone would work out if they looked at a collapse video AND thought for a couple of minutes.

Clues:
A) The top block was falling; AND
B) The perimeter columns fell away unbuckled AND the few core columns clearly observable in the "spires' were also unbuckled.

 

[Oystein]

It was about 2/3rds the way thru one of Chandler's latest videos. ...

I'll see if I can find it.
...

That'd be great

 

[Animal]

I said that when the actual geometry of the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is analyzed it shows that the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section, as the first several stories of the fall do not produce enough offset. What didn't you understand about that?

It seems to me that those advocating that the columns all missed each other are simply making an assertion without an analytical basis.

<sigh> Hitting in their "cross section" is a far different animal than hitting square.

 

[GlennB]

I said that when the actual geometry of the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is analyzed it shows that the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section, as the first several stories of the fall do not produce enough offset.

Not possible. The building only falls because the column ends have parted and passed each other or are just about to. Even if it's 1mm they can never meet again. They might scrape and bump a lot, yes, but the ends cannot meet.

How a bright chap like you can't see this is a mystery, especially as it was discussed to death in the 'missing jolt' thread.

Theoretical collapse models (such as Bazant's) might throw light on reality but they don't, and aren't intended to, represent reality.

 

[ozeco41]

<sigh> Hitting in their "cross section" is a far different animal than hitting square.

Sure but the misunderstanding is more fundamental than that. It goes to one of the errors underpinning "Missing Jolt".

I said that when the actual geometry of the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is analyzed it shows that the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section,...

So Tony is talking about the fall of the "upper section". The upper section is moving downwards. There had been columns filling the original space between the "upper section" and the "lower section". That space is getting shorter as the "upper section" falls.

So what is happening to the columns that were in that gap as the gap gets shorter?

Well the columns have failed for some reason or other. Let me be quite detailed here. Remember that the upper section is falling because the columns have failed to support the "upper section". So, no matter how those columns failed, they are no longer as long as the original space. Their net length is equal to the rapidly shortening gap. How is this happening?

Let's be fair to Tony and allow two options. The first option is:
A) The columns have broken so that the lower end of the top bit is passing the upper end of the bottom bit or they have buckled/folded with the same overall effect. THEREFORE the ends are not in a position to land top bit on bottom bit - they are already past each other. So that applies whether we argue about "would contact each other within their cross section" OR "hitting square end on end".

The second option which I understand to be Tony's preference is:
B) Some section of column has been removed so that there is a gap which closes as the "upper section" of tower falls.

Tony goes on to say:

...the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section as the first several stories of the fall do not produce enough offset....

...where he is essentially arguing that the upper section and the lower sections were of such rigidity that the geometry would be maintained close enough to guarantee column on column landing when the gap closes.

Two problems with that:
1) There was no gap and his "missing Jolt" logic goes circular on that issue - he assumes the gap then tries to use no jolt to prove the gap.
2) It assumes a level of rigidity for the steel frame which is ridiculous given the weights and energies involved in the falling "upper section". Should be self evident but reasoning available if needed.

Then:

...What didn't you understand about that?...

...raised the question of who is not understanding.

And:

...It seems to me that those advocating that the columns all missed each other are simply making an assertion without an analytical basis.

It probably does seem to him....

Recall my "Clues" from this post:

....I had been making the point persistently since early 2008 that columns must have been bypassing.
.... I mean it must be one of the first things that anyone would work out if they looked at a collapse video AND thought for a couple of minutes.

Clues:
A) The top block was falling; AND
B) The perimeter columns fell away unbuckled AND the few core columns clearly observable in the "spires' were also unbuckled.

 

[ozeco41]

Not possible. The building only falls because the column ends have parted and passed each other or are just about to. Even if it's 1mm they can never meet again. They might scrape and bump a lot, yes, but the ends cannot meet.

How a bright chap like you can't see this is a mystery, especially as it was discussed to death in the 'missing jolt' thread.

Theoretical collapse models (such as Bazant's) might throw light on reality but they don't, and aren't intended to, represent reality.

Beat me to the post.

But you are welcome to go first - the original point was yours.




(EDIT) PS - I'm not sure that the light Bazant throws on reality is a net gain. We regularly see folks from both sides of the polarised debate misapply Bazant. And (heresy of heresy to Bazantophiles) I think Bazant has fooled himself a few times. Whether I'm right or not I suggest we would be better not using Bazant concepts and thinking it through for ourselves. Which poses an obvious potential problem......

 

[000063]

I said that when the actual geometry of the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is analyzed it shows that the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section, as the first several stories of the fall do not produce enough offset. What didn't you understand about that?

It seems to me that those advocating that the columns all missed each other are simply making an assertion without an analytical basis.

No one has made that claim. Tsig and Carlitos both said that you are claiming that the columns hit squarely on each other.

All the columns on the falling floors manage to hit squarely on the columns of the standing floors?

The idea of adopting the limiting case - columns hitting square end on end - as reality - is probably in the "top 10" of ridiculous truther ideas. If you are not insane, it would be interesting to understand why you might suggest such an idea.

 

[GlennB]

As mentioned, a lot of the recent points were made in "Missing jolt". Tony was pressed to explain and, eventually, was driven to claiming that mid column-section plastic buckling would lead to 90° folds hitting other 90° folds .... er..... "axially" (pretty much like the Bazant hinge diagram, only taken further). That was such a moment that he was then pressed to provide a diagram to illustrate. He never did, as I recall, which is hardly surprising. If I missed it I'd love to have a look

I tried to produce my own, just for fun, but I wet myself laughing.

 

[twinstead]

I tried to produce my own, just for fun, but I wet myself laughing.

Attention. Clean up on aisle 5. I repeat--clean up on aisle 5

 

[ergo]

Not possible. The building only falls because the column ends have parted and passed each other or are just about to. Even if it's 1mm they can never meet again. They might scrape and bump a lot, yes, but the ends cannot meet.

How a bright chap like you can't see this is a mystery, especially as it was discussed to death in the 'missing jolt' thread.

Theoretical collapse models (such as Bazant's) might throw light on reality but they don't, and aren't intended to, represent reality.

Oy vey. If they don't represent reality, then they don't "throw light" on reality. Then you are talking about two completely different collapse mechanisms and models. The 9/11 anonymous JREF bedunker model has not been peer reviewed. You can speculate all you want, but it has not been endorsed by any engineering community.

The smooth motion of the "upper block" is not something Bazant has dismissed, else he would not have attempted to explain it professionally.

When are you going to get this through your heads?

 

[beachnut]

Oy vey. If they don't represent reality, then they don't "throw light" on reality. Then you are talking about two completely different collapse mechanisms and models. The 9/11 anonymous JREF bedunker model has not been peer reviewed. You can speculate all you want, but it has not been endorsed by any engineering community.

The smooth motion of the "upper block" is not something Bazant has dismissed, else he would not have attempted to explain it professionally.

When are you going to get this through your heads?

Models don't "throw light" on reality, this is your stand. A most anti-intellectual stand based on the following models.

F=ma, you are saying Newton failed to "throw light" on reality, yet many people claim the laws of physics were broken, but here you are saying the laws of physics are nonsense - they are models. Is this your last stand?

Are you saying models are bad? F=ma is wrong for you? Your moon size debris field can't crush the WTC towers is a good indication you might not be physics.

What about E=mc²? Do you understand any models?

How do you model this? Some 911 truthers deny the A-bomb, they say it is a hoax. You are in the correct movement. A movement called truth, but you all spread lies and celebrate being anti-science.

If you understood models, you would not be supporting the idiotic claims of CD and the failure of 911 truth Google U. Engineers to produce rational work. You support nonsense. Models are too complicated for you? F=ma, to hard? Go ahead get specific and explain why each model you have problems with is wrong.

Where is your model for the collapse of WTC 7? Do you realize the irony of attacking the NIST "probable" collapse sequence? Have you looked up probable?

Reality based engineers would present their thousand page thesis on their probable collapse sequence instead of wasting time posting big talk and assorted nonsense on how bad NIST did it. You have problems with models and you have failed to acknowledge them.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

You know, you have turned into one awful human being.

You have every opportunity to speak clearly, to use standard terminology, to clarify issues.

Instead you choose, intentionally, purposfully, to obscure, to speak in indefinite terms, to obfuscate.

For the sole purpose of maintaining the illusion amongt your UTTERLY CLUELESS acolytes that you have valid arguments, that you are not getting creamed in a debate.

You are getting creamed by me citing independent engineering websites that agree 100% with exactly what I am saying, and disagree 100% with what you are asserting.

You are getting creamed by me copying & pasting YOUR OWN WORDS, showing their intentional self-contradiction. Do you really think that the people who post here don't understand the difference between "dividing by the length of a weld" and "multiplying by the height of a weld throat"??

But you ignore the exposure of your blatant errors & intentional misdirections, and bumble on.

Do you really possess no dignity at all? No shame?

And now this load of hand-waving misdirection...

I bring in the length of the throat to find stress once the bending and shear stresses and resultant have been determined in lbs./inch.

Stress = load in lbs./inch divided by (0.707 x fillet weld size), where 0.707 x fillet weld size is the length of the throat.

You are clearly the wanker here,

No, Tony, more gibberish disguised as engineering discussion.

We are discussing the calculation of MOI for a weld bead.

You intentionally LIE here by using the OBFUSCATING terms "bending and shear stresses". You collide these two types of stresses together in the vain attempt to jump back & forth between them, confusing your clueless supporters.

Your grasping-at-misdirection explanation of "load/inch divided by the length of the weld" is appropriate for the SHEAR stresses. The MOI plays NO ROLE in the shear stresses.

Why are you using your engineering knowledge to lie to people, Tony?

The MOI plays a crucial role in BENDING stresses. The "load/in divided by the length of the weld" plays NO ROLE in the calculation of bending stresses.

Ergo, the "load/in divided by the length of the weld" plays NO ROLE in the calculation of the MOI.

And your gibberish, that "multiplying by the weld height" is equivalent to "dividing by the weld length" is shown to be comically inept on multiple levels, not just 4th grade 'rithmatic.

Do you think that the people posting here are unable to understand the difference between shear stresses & bending stresses?

Do you think that they are unable to understand the difference between multiplying & dividing?

Hell, Tony, even Christopher7, ergo & clayton moore can understand that piece of folly. (Tho they won't admit to it, of course.)

People should be asking themselves why you don't present an actual complete and clear analysis of the weld on the stiffener.

Because I am not the person who has claimed to have produced such an analysis. YOU are. Ergo, you are the person who is obliged to defend YOUR analysis.

"Why don't you do your own analysis" is a cluelessly inept, incompetent defense of your own. Why don't you try that with the reviewers of your paper submitted to JEM. Along with a couple of juicy insults.

Let's see how far those arguments get you.

I don't need to do an analysis of single pieces, Tony. The full, meaningful analysis has been done for me by competent engineers (unlike you) who know what they are doing.

I've shown, to anyone with even the vaguest understanding of the issues, the numerous non-linearities in the analysis that you claim to have done.

Now you have shown that you don't even know how to calculate MOIs. Freshman level engineering failure.

You have replied to NONE of the questions that I have listed several times now.

I know exactly why you haven't replied to them. So do you. So do others.

You can't reply to them & still maintain that your analysis of the girder expansion & sag is meaningful.

By the way, I spoke with David Chandler tonight on a different issue and when I asked about your claim, he said he never quoted me as telling him I didn't think the columns in the North Tower would hit square.

Do you think that adding in the qualifier "North Tower" goes unnoticed by anyone, Tony.

I never said a word about which tower.

Do you think that it makes you look like anything but a charlatan & intentional deceiver to add in that term, and then deny a red herring?

I have always maintained that analysis of the geometry of the fall of the North Tower shows it would not produce enough offset to keep the upper and lower columns from contacting within their cross section...

And this, as much as any of your long line of idiocy, demonstrates what a lousy mechanical engineer you are.

So now you are just making things up. Not surprising.

No, Tony. YOU are the one "making things up." Specifically, you made up the word "North", and threw it into the comment that I made.

Did you think that was clever, Tony?

You work very closely with Chandler. He quotes you as one of his principle technical advisers. (The poor sap.)

On some arbitrary day that I happen to mention something about him, you are already calling him about some "different issue".

You know exactly what he posts. Especially when it involves you. Most especially when he mentions you by name. (An artifact of your drunken addiction to the truther limelight.)

You know EXACTLY which video I am talking about.

You know EXACTLY what Chandler said in the video.

You know EXACTLY what you said to Chandler.

And yet, you blithely accuse me of "making it up".

You've turned into one horrible human being, Tony.

Why don't you tell us about a comment he made in one of his videos, that he attributed to you, along the lines of what I quoted, about … oh, I don't know … perhaps the SOUTH Tower?

Do you think that I won't find the video, Tony.

Do you think that, when I post the exact quote, you won't then look even more like a lying weasel?

Christ, you can be unremittingly stupid some times.

 

[ozeco41]

As mentioned, a lot of the recent points were made in "Missing jolt". Tony was pressed to explain and, eventually, was driven to claiming that mid column-section plastic buckling would lead to 90° folds hitting other 90° folds .... er..... "axially" (pretty much like the Bazant hinge diagram, only taken further). That was such a moment that he was then pressed to provide a diagram to illustrate. He never did, as I recall, which is hardly surprising. If I missed it I'd love to have a look

I tried to produce my own, just for fun, but I wet myself laughing.

I missed the "Missing Jolt" discussion - it was probably before I became active here...

...but, that said, the errors of foundation assumptions and lack of understanding of mechanism were and remain quite obvious to me.

 

[GlennB]

I missed the "Missing Jolt" discussion - it was probably before I became active here...

Maybe you were lucky. But then, why do any of us do this except as an obscure hobby? MrsB does "mind bending" Sudoku and mostly fails to solve the puzzles

...but, that said, the errors of foundation assumptions and lack of understanding of mechanism were and remain quite obvious to me.

Yes. Tony's ability to mix+match theory and reality can be quite scary.

 

[carlitos]

The idea of adopting the limiting case - columns hitting square end on end - as reality - is probably in the "top 10" of ridiculous truther ideas. If you are not insane, it would be interesting to understand why you might suggest such an idea.

I said that when the actual geometry of the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is analyzed it shows that the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section, as the first several stories of the fall do not produce enough offset. What didn't you understand about that?

It seems to me that those advocating that the columns all missed each other are simply making an assertion without an analytical basis.

Well then, it's a good thing that I didn't make that assertion.

When Albert Pujols tees one up square, he hits it a mile. When he fouls a pitch straight back to the screen, there is barely any change in the ball's velocity. (a missing jolt!) What you had in the WTC collapse was a couple of foul balls at best, and not 100% home runs like the limiting case. This is obvious even to us non-engineers.

I'm not sure how many more analogies would help, since the 'missing jolt' thread never got through. I guess the ignorance is willful, and tfk's suspicions regarding motive are right. After all Tony's intentionally bad engineering got him on TV, a few other appearances, etc. Wonder if ae911Truth pays him too?

 

[ozeco41]

Maybe you were lucky. But then, why do any of us do this except as an obscure hobby? MrsB does "mind bending" Sudoku and mostly fails to solve the puzzles ...

I got started in late 2007 out of a desire to explain WTC Towers collapses to a friend. He was and still is a "Conspiracy Nut" and WTC collapse just a sideline for him. WTC fitted my career/professional expertise as a civil structural engineer and a military engineer trained in demolitions. But I had long been a manager of engineers and engineering so spotting the "lose the plot" or "big picture" errors was a speciality of mine. just as the old saw "When you are up to your arse in alligators its easy to forget that the objective was 'drain the swamp'" OR (British/Australian version) "Cannot see the wood for the trees" (I think the US folk say "Cannot see the forest for the trees") Whatever pithy comments we use to describe it that is where Tony gets it wrong IMNSHO most times.

So that is how I got started. My primary focus is still on "explaining" rather than the Unarmed Combat sports of "debunking" or "beating the other person in argument" or "troll feeding". BUT given the few remaining genuine sceptics or real truthers these days there is little opportunity for explaining. The commonest game being counter trolling.

...Yes. Tony's ability to mix+match theory and reality can be quite scary.

He is not alone on that - there are many examples on the "debunker" side. The unusual aspect with Tony he is one of few engineers coming from the losing side of CD claims who makes that error and consistently repeats it despite multiple efforts to show him the error. And he does it without pausing for breath or whatever the written version of that is.

Being the lone supporter of the position leaves him exposed. He is probably the only regular here who can quote reams of 'engineery' looking stuff which looks impressive but leaves us engineers squirming in discomfort at the false premises. The debunkers who wrongly mix up Bazantian theory with real world stuff get away with it because:
1) Most of us agree with their outcomes and don't give them a hard time on shaky logic;
2) They end up with the right answers so no need to scrutinise logic anyway; AND
3) Probably some of us use the same dubious logic.

Except you and I, naturally, because by my definition I have no blind spots and you probably feel the same.

 

[carlitos]

I have made it a point to discuss that Bazant was a limiting case. But since I'm just a marketing guy, I'll defer to any engineers if I'm using that or the terminology wrong.

Video of the tower collapses show rotation and stuff. How long skinny things could possibly perfectly line up with other long skinny things in a fall eludes me. Especially since something obviously failed to make the fall happen in the first place. As ridiculous as it sounds, I would be more likely to believe in a perfect, symmetrical fall if there was a demolition. At least that way, multiple columns could be simultaneously removed. Given that the failure was chaotic, there is no chance.