• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Care to Comment

Tony Szamboti said:
Unfortunately, for you the Verinage demolitions refute what you are saying. They all show large decelerations which has been observed everytime someone measures their falls. The Verinage demolitions need the dynamic load caused by the deceleration of the upper section in order to continue their collapse.

The lack of a jolt in WTC 1 proves there was no dynamic load and there is no other natural way for the building to collapse with the large reserve strength in the columns below. The tilt does not explain it as even separate impacts would show a deceleration and there is no chance all of the columns missed each other.

I think those of you who claim to believe these buildings could have collapsed naturally without a deceleration are playing games. There isn't a chance that could of happened and all of your posturing won't change that reality.
Click to expand...

This discussion would go a lot more smoothly if you used the same language as every other engineer. Examples of your terminology disconnect are the use of "deceleration" in previous posts, and the phrase "dynamic load" in the one referenced here. I know how the rest of us would define dynamic load, but it seems you are using some other definition (based on context). Can you explicitly define this term so I (and the others here) know what you mean?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Unfortunately, for you the Verinage demolitions refute what you are saying. They all show large decelerations which has been observed everytime someone measures their falls.
Click to expand...
I addressed that objection in a previous post.

You ignore that, of course, pretending no one has ever noticed the holes in your arguments.

Tony Szamboti said:
The lack of a jolt in WTC 1 proves there was no dynamic load and there is no other natural way for the building to collapse with the large reserve strength in the columns below. The tilt does not explain it as even separate impacts would show a deceleration and there is no chance all of the columns missed each other.
Click to expand...
Bare assertion is not proof, especially when the person doing the asserting has also told such whoppers as
  • The WTC towers were accelerating at 1g from the time they were built to the time they collapsed.
  • The alleged ±0.44ft quantization error of his position data do not imply a ±1g error for acceleration.
  • His new improved position data are 8 to 12 feet off from his old position data, whose error was allegedly ±0.44ft.
As for the highlighted text, you persist in failing to understand how a tilt can give rise to a sustained cascade of jolts that are too small and short to show up as individual jolts, given the quantization and discretization errors and resolution of your data, and show up instead as a decrease in the average acceleration from 1g to 0.7g.

Tony Szamboti said:
I think those of you who claim to believe these buildings could have collapsed naturally without a deceleration are playing games. There isn't a chance that could of happened and all of your posturing won't change that reality.
Click to expand...
Yes, it always comes down to that same old argument from incredulity, coupled with your unshakeable belief that, notwithstanding your oft-demonstrated difficulties with undergraduate physics and mathematics, not to mention your unreasoning fear of competent peer review, you're always the smartest guy in the room.

Feckless arrogance rocks.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I think the quote 'the man doth protest too much" is appropriate here.

The data taken with the more sophisticated Tracker program shows there was no deceleration whatsoever in the fall of WTC 1, so the premise of the paper is sound.
Click to expand...

If you're happy for a paper to remain in publication under your name despite the fact that the data presented in that paper has been shown not to support its conclusions, I have no problem with that; it's just that it's a clear indication of the fact that you've worked backwards from a conclusion to the data, and that you don't really care what the data says as long as you can fabricate an argument that leads to the conclusion you want. So, by all means, don't hurry to correct your errors; they're more instructive by far than your conclusions.

Dave
 
Just out of interest, by the way, Tony: If the resistance of the lower structure has been removed by explosives, what exactly is providing the resistive force that reduces the acceleration of the upper block to about 0.7G?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just out of interest, by the way, Tony: If the resistance of the lower structure has been removed by explosives, what exactly is providing the resistive force that reduces the acceleration of the upper block to about 0.7G?

Dave
Click to expand...

The way I believe it was done was to remove the strength of the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter.

The smaller inner core columns would then buckle under the full static load and the perimeter walls would petal outward. While these remaining structural elements could not sustain the load they would provide some level of resistance, restraining it from full freefall acceleration.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If you're happy for a paper to remain in publication under your name despite the fact that the data presented in that paper has been shown not to support its conclusions, I have no problem with that; it's just that it's a clear indication of the fact that you've worked backwards from a conclusion to the data, and that you don't really care what the data says as long as you can fabricate an argument that leads to the conclusion you want. So, by all means, don't hurry to correct your errors; they're more instructive by far than your conclusions.

Dave
Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous saying the hand data does not support the conclusions. The average velocity was still greater despite an artifact with a lower velocity. That can't happen with a real deceleration.

You seem to be grasping at anything to try and obfuscate the fact that the lack of deceleration in WTC 1 shows it could not have been a natural collapse.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Y
You seem to be grasping at anything to try and obfuscate the fact that the lack of deceleration in WTC 1 shows it could not have been a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Tony, but your solemn declaration that it could not have been a natural collapse has had enough doubt cast on it not just in this forum--but in the engineering community in general--that you will have to pardon me if I don't take what you say as gospel, but require a second opinion.

Until there is some kind of respected engineering or scientific journal that backs you up, this layman respectfully believes you're full of it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are being disingenuous saying the hand data does not support the conclusions. The average velocity was still greater despite an artifact with a lower velocity. That can't happen with a real deceleration.
Click to expand...

You're the one being disingenuous. In effect, you're saying that any negative spike in the acceleration is impossible, therefore your data proves that there was no negative spike despite the fact that it actually shows one. But, as I said, you've made your bias clear by refusing to withdraw the paper because it presents the right conclusion even though that conclusion doesn't follow from the data. I just wish you could be honest enough to admit to yourself that you'd reach the same conclusion whatever data you were presented with.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The way I believe it was done was to remove the strength of the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter.

The smaller inner core columns would then buckle under the full static load and the perimeter walls would petal outward. While these remaining structural elements could not sustain the load they would provide some level of resistance, restraining it from full freefall acceleration.
Click to expand...

So why wouldn't you expect to see jolts from the impact of the upper block on the remaining structural elements? You see, all you're doing here is reducing the instantaneous force proportionately; you're doing nothing to smooth out the jolts, just making them smaller. You'd therefore expect, if your beliefs about the jolt had any validity, to see periods of freefall acceleration, alternating with jolts, to give an average acceleration of 0.7G. But that's not what's actually seen; what's actually seen is a roughly constant acceleration with only very small jolts.

You're in a cleft stick here, unfortunately. If you argue that the jolts would be smoothed out if only the inner core columns were providing resistance, then by the same argument they would be equally smoothed with all the columns providing resistance. Conversely, if you insist that there must have been discontinuities in the acceleration with the full column set present, then there must have been proportionately sized discontinuities in the acceleration with the reduced set.

But at least you started your post accurately; this is a statement of belief, not of analysis leading to a conclusion. We all know that; you should try to understand it yourself.

Dave
 
Ya know in all the discussion of a jolt, and the tilts, I've yet to see a single mention of eccentric loading being the factor responsible for weakening the structure. Which would further smooth the overall impacts from floor to floor. I believe it's irresponsible to think that the only weakening mechanism possible is man-made. For christ sakes we learn why collapse initiation is prevented as best as possible in college, before we design the real deal. In what world do we learn this "as we go"? :\
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
"Real deceleration" differs from "deceleration" how, exactly?
Click to expand...

I was trying to figure this out myself. Perhaps it is a pseudo force, akin to centrifugal, that arises when the observer is in a rotational frame of reference?

Such a case could arise if your head were spinning.:eye-poppi
 
Dave Rogers said:
You're the one being disingenuous. In effect, you're saying that any negative spike in the acceleration is impossible, therefore your data proves that there was no negative spike despite the fact that it actually shows one. But, as I said, you've made your bias clear by refusing to withdraw the paper because it presents the right conclusion even though that conclusion doesn't follow from the data. I just wish you could be honest enough to admit to yourself that you'd reach the same conclusion whatever data you were presented with.

Dave
Click to expand...

Thats it in a nutshell. Anything he doesn't like he ignores or handwaves. It's like his imaginary Silverstein confession. It is not just ignorance, it is dishonesty.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Ya know in all the discussion of a jolt, and the tilts, I've yet to see a single mention of eccentric loading being the factor responsible for weakening the structure. Which would further smooth the overall impacts from floor to floor. I believe it's irresponsible to think that the only weakening mechanism possible is man-made. For christ sakes we learn why collapse initiation is prevented as best as possible in college, before we design the real deal. In what world do we learn this "as we go"? :\
Click to expand...

If the north face of WTC 1 collapsed due to the separate impact theory espoused by Dave Rogers, and some others here, it would have had to decelerate itself and would be observable.

Sorry, but the eccentric loading smooths out the jolt argument doesn't explain the fact that the separate decelerations would themselves be observable in a natural event.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
I was trying to figure this out myself. Perhaps it is a pseudo force, akin to centrifugal, that arises when the observer is in a rotational frame of reference?

Such a case could arise if your head were spinning.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

See answer below.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If the north face of WTC 1 collapsed due to the separate impact theory espoused by Dave Rogers, and some others here, it would have had to decelerate itself and would be observable.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Only in the vanishingly unlikely case of every column of the face making a simultaneous axial impact on the column below would a deceleration be observable. Any variation in the lengths of the initial column buckles, any significant amount of tilt or any significant degree of non-axial impact would distribute the impact sufficiently that no deceleration would be observable.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom