Can 15 floors crush one floor?

[thedopefishlives]

Another one of Tony's minutae is to ignore the fact that even if the columns had landed square-on, there's simply no way they could've still held up under the load, considering that it was several times that of the entire building. Heck, they couldn't even take that as a static load.

But, but, but, moon-sized field of rubble!

Thankfully, Tony seems a little more discreet than ergo; he just dodges the point entirely.

 

[000063]

He also hides his snide personal attacks better, instead of using them as his main "argument".

 

[ozeco41]

Another one of Tony's minutae is to ignore the fact that even if the columns had landed square-on, there's simply no way they could've still held up under the load, considering that it was several times that of the entire building. Heck, they couldn't even take that as a static load.

So true. My first draft was in a bit more detail but I "pruned" it down to the post you see.

This was one of the bits I left out:

Now it is likely that you will think of one of the "yes buts" or exceptions. There are about four of them. Think about them and see if you can see why they self destruct....

 

[tfk]

That isn't an automatic. It depends on the strength of the structure below.

There is no such thing as "the strength of the structure below".

There exist the strengths of individual components & assemblies, which will have innumerable & wildly variable values depending on how that component or assembly is loaded & supported.

The strength of any component alone is irrelevant. The ratio of the INDIVIDUAL (not average) DYNAMIC (not static) stresses to the strength of each individual component tells whether or not that component will survive.

Calculating "individual stresses" means that you have to know which elements contacted which in the upper & lower blocks.

Calculating "dynamic stresses" means that you need to know both the local & global stiffnesses of both the upper & lower components as they exist in the DISASSEMBLING (not "as built") building at the moment of the individual collisions.

Chaos renders either calculation impossible in something as complex as the WTC towers or WTC7, except perhaps for the first colliding floors. So you have to take a statistical approach, and recognize that your results are merely indicative, rather than deterministic.

In reality, collapse propagation is a collision event, and should be analyzed (if one is going to bother to attempt to do a calculation so fraught with uncertainties) using the same impulse-momentum curves that were used to model the impact of the planes into the towers.

The difficulties in this analysis are the same as above, which appears in calculation of the reference curves on that diagram.

In doing so, one would find out that one was sliding around the curves from low to high impulse rapidly as the upper block gained momentum.

If you are following this issue much at all you would know there have been failed controlled demolitions. Some of these failures can be seen on the Internet. Why did they fail?

Why don't you attempt an answer of your own question.

It is patently obvious why those demolitions failed.

And it is patently obvious why the conditions that permitted those failures could not possibly arise in either the towers or WTC7 collapse.

And it is also obvious that "the strength of the structure below" played zero role in the survival of the building in the vast majority of the failed-demo cases, because the only "structure below" was the ground.

I'd be very surprised if there were not already a thread on the failed demolitions...

 

[beachnut]

... and why there would be no deceleration observed during that impact in a natural collapse.

...

What you are saying, the NWO had the WTC fall exactly at the correct speed for the momentum transfer using super secret special timing anti-jolt explosive super military secret special extra nano nano thermite. The realcddeal is a forever deal.

Wow - femr2 has special graphs for you, and videos on youtube, too -]: out of respect, so you can find his no comment no conclusion videos, they are labeled "demolition". Someone cares.

 

[Major_Tom]

Looking instead of guessing helps, too:

NE corner from above floor 98:

NW corner:

Measuring helps, too.

Upper west wall above fl 98:

Hard to miss this one:

Upper south wall and upper north wall also falls out and over the lower sections.


Looking helps. It would have helped the NIST not make so many silly mistakes, too.

..............

On the subject of progressive floor collapse through the towers, looking also helps.

On the question of demolition, looking also helps.

 

[ozeco41]

Of course it isn't. It is stupid and silly and moronic. Especially when you are an engineer. Which Tony is, and I aren't.

My goal here is to show that even within Tony's stupidly false premises, his conclusions are false....

Which your "hypothetical" does very well so I need not comment other than this:
The underlying flawed understanding of what happened is identical to that which "supported' the "Missing Jolt" nonsense. It made an assumption which was not justified THEN reasoned round in a circle to "prove" the assumption.

...Even if we accept his moronic premises, which are equivalent to the following hypothetical:...[Lots edited since no comment needed]....... And the answer is: If we have tilt of 1°, and columns ends have separated, 15 floors will crush 1 floor even if column magically reconnected)

....You guys identify that point very well, and it is obvious enough. Tony didn't get it when you and femr2 said it, and he won't get it if I say it. I'll leave that part to you....

The disturbing thing is, given the number of times I've said it and over quite a few years, the number of debunker types who miss the obvious. Not surprising that lots of truthers miss it because, like Tony, they start the logic the wrong way round. Pick a detail anomaly they cannot explain and try to work that into a bigger picture whilst challenging the opposing debunkers to accept "burden of proof" for either the bits the truther cannot explain OR to prove the opposite thereby setting up a "false dichotomy". BTW C7 is doing the same trick currently in the "walk-off" thread

...Tony is wrong on many levels: His premises contradict observed reality....

it actually is that simple. But I needed (also femr2 needed) to explain why so everyone could see the reasoning.

...But they even contradict his own other premises.

Par for the course

...The goal is to document that Tony is a very very incompetent engineer on many levels, so incompetent in fact that a layman like myself can point out his errors. On more levels than 1...

A worthy goal given his persistence and stubbornness in ignoring how many times his errors have been shown to him.

...And if Tony is an exemplary for the "Experts speaking out" for AE911Twoof, 'nuff is said.

Then again an organisation which started in 2007 to build an alleged call for "further investigation" on the basis of claims of CD at WTC - in 2007 mind you - is not composed of the brightest people. Either dumb or dishonest claiming CD in 2007 and staying with it through 2012.

 

[Justin39640]

On the question of demolition, looking also helps.

Agreed. It's pretty obvious that there wasn't any.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I fail to see why column alignment matters at all.

I speculate that: once a building portion of 15 floors accelerates at one g over a distance of 12-15 feet it will fail whatever portion of the below structure it impacts regardless of alignment.

Actually, I believe Bazant calculated something like .5 meter would be enough.

And I'd wager that any building built with steel columns, within a normal range FOS, and assuming the improbability of direct axial impact would be similar.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Actually, I believe Bazant calculated something like .5 meter would be enough.

And I'd wager that any building built with steel columns, within a normal range FOS, and assuming the improbability of direct axial impact would be similar.

Actually, Bazant used freefall through the first story. So he used 8.52 m/s instead of the actual 6.13 m/s velocity. This doubled the velocity input to the kinetic energy since it is a function of the square. He nearly doubled the mass of the upper section of WTC 1 by using 58 x 10e6 kg for its mass, instead of the actual 33 x 10e6 kg. So his kinetic energy was overestimated by 3.4 times..

He then underestimated the enery absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure by 3.3 times.

Sp Bazant actually overestimated the potential energy to energy of absorption by the columns by 3.4 x 3.3 = over 11 times. That is what Bazant actually did if you cared or knew how to look into what he actually did.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am saying the inertia of the upper section of WTC 1 would keep the columns aligned during the first story of the fall and that there should have been a serious deceleration observed during at least the first impact, which there mysteriously wasn't.

To counter you are simply asserting that the columns were out of alignment. That doesn't work. If you disagree you need to explain how the columns of WTC 1 were caused to be out of alignment during the first story of the fall and before the first impact, and why there would be no deceleration observed during that impact in a natural collapse.

Note: It is proven that there was no more than 1 degree of tilt for at least the first couple of stories of the fall, so make sure your answer takes this into consideration.

It wasn't a surprise to see that nobody here actually answered this.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Actually, Bazant used freefall through the first story. So he used 8.52 m/s instead of the actual 6.13 m/s velocity. This doubled the velocity input to the kinetic energy since it is a function of the square. He nearly doubled the mass of the upper section of WTC 1 by using 58 x 10e6 kg for its mass, instead of the actual 33 x 10e6 kg. So his kinetic energy was overestimated by 3.4 times..

He then underestimated the enery absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure by 3.3 times.

Sp Bazant actually overestimated the potential energy to energy of absorption by the columns by 3.4 x 3.3 = over 11 times. That is what Bazant actually did if you cared or knew how to look into what he actually did.

If you would actually read what I was replying to, you might understand that the implied question I was answering is:

What is the minimum distance needed to reslt in column overload?

Answer that

 

[Seymour Butz]

It wasn't a surprise to see that nobody here actually answered this.

The ext columns are visually confirmed to be out of alignment. there is zero speculation about that.

Reconsider your jolt hypothesis based on that undeniable fact.

 

[ozeco41]

It wasn't a surprise to see that nobody here actually answered this.

It certainly couldn't be a surprise because it refers to a false premise. It is not true that "nobody here actually answered this." So it couldn't be a surprise.

I claim with equal legitimacy to your claim that "I wasn't surprised that the evening sky yesterday was green with scarlet polka dots". And that statement is true. I wasn't surprised.

Reminds me of the equally true statement by the airline booking clerk (back in 1994 - so before what I did became a statutory criminal offence )

I was accompanying a friend age late 50's who had never flown before and was bit nervous. So I asked the booking clerk "My friend hasn't flown before and is nervous, Can you assure him that you haven't had the wings fall of one of your planes in the last week?"

He responded (poker faced): "Let me see, one week, that was Thursday the Xth,....er...er (pause as he "thinks"). No sir, quite correct we have not had the wings fall off any of our planes since Thursday Xth."

I wouldn't risk the same game now BUT it is the same bit of childish logic game Tony engages in. About the same level as the one I try on the kids as I drive the school bus taking them home. We are passing the local cemetery. "Do you kids know that there is a 'No locals rule' at that cemetery. Anyone who is living in this local town cannot be buried in the cemetery." It takes some of them a few seconds. Primary School kids. Years 3-4-5-6 - I think that is "Grade School" in US. So much for leading innuendos.

Why not reply to the three members who trashed your nonsense claims Tony?

Refer to posts 191, 195, 198 made by three members who each showed your claims to be nonsense.

And stop the silly games of "argument by inference of misleading truisms which wouldn't fool anyone above grade school level".

 

[000063]

...Why don't you attempt an answer of your own question...

Because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and any explanation of the point he's trying to make would expose his ignorance.

Looking instead of guessing helps, too:
[stuff]


Upper south wall and upper north wall also falls out and over the lower sections.


Looking helps. It would have helped the NIST not make so many silly mistakes, too.

..............

On the subject of progressive floor collapse through the towers, looking also helps.

He says, while showing photographs of and specifically describing the building collapsing outward.

On the question of demolition, looking also helps.

Also, hearing. Where's the audio signature and other signs of the y'know, explosive shockwave?

It wasn't a surprise to see that nobody here actually answered this.

I assume you'd find it perfectly fair if I went and dug up the posts you haven't answered, right? Such as the fact that the columns simply could not take the load, square-on impact or no. Or #198. Or #193, when your input was specifically requested. Or #191. Or...

 

[000063]

If you would actually read what I was replying to, you might understand that the implied question I was answering is:

What is the minimum distance needed to reslt in column overload?

Answer that

I don't think he's ever actually gotten around to answering that, despite being asked at least twice before you, in different forms.

I also pointed out that he was refuting a straw man, IIRC. Or maybe something else of his. It's hard to keep track.

 

[ozeco41]

The ext columns are visually confirmed to be out of alignment. there is zero speculation about that....

Correct. That is one of the points where I have showed that Tony's logic is "arse about"# (femr2 and Oystein have shown the same issue but described it differently) Tony says, in effect, "I claim that the columns cannot get out of alignment for reasons of geometry and rigidity. Therefore observations that the columns were out of alignment are wrong". Put more simply he is saying "I make a claim that contradicts reality THEREFORE reality is wrong."

The proper conclusion is the other way around - reality is that columns were misaligned THEREFORE Tony's assumptions about geometric alignment and structural rigidity must be wrong. BTW at risk of restating the "bleeding obvious"# that is one of the points Tony is evading by pretending that "nobody here actually answered this". We did. Three of us at my present count plus at least two three endorsements by other members. So five six and counting. (Edited to include 000063

)

As for:

Reconsider your jolt hypothesis based on that undeniable fact.

True also and with another reason the "allegedly Missing Jolt" is a fantasy. It is based on circular logic where he makes an assumption then follows a sort of "logic" round in a circle till he proves the assumption. If he kept going he would "disappear up his own fundamental orifice"#




# Three common bits of Aussie vernacular which should need no translation.

 

[Animal]

BTW C7 is doing the same trick currently in the "walk-off" thread

The only thing C7 is doing in the "walk off" thread is getting slapped around like a red headed step child.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If you would actually read what I was replying to, you might understand that the implied question I was answering is:

What is the minimum distance needed to reslt in column overload?

Answer that

About three stories. The Verinage demolitions required two stories and the Twin Tower structure was much more robust.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The ext columns are visually confirmed to be out of alignment. there is zero speculation about that.

Reconsider your jolt hypothesis based on that undeniable fact.

The only thing visible is some springing outward of some exterior columns and this hardly means the columns would have been misaligned at impact. The springing is very momentary and they would have returned to their normal position long before collision.

If the collapse was natural there certainly should have been a jolt just like what is seen in the Verinage demolitions where no explosives are used.