Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony,

From your paper, "The Missing Jolt":


Can you please explain how you think explosives or other means of demolition would have created the characteristics seen during the collapse? How did demolition destroy the structural integrity of DS-6 and a lower portion of the upper block, yet maintain a roofline acceleration of 64% of g? Shouldn't the roofline acceleration have been at g and not 64% of it?

If Chandler's view is any indication, the interpretation used to justify this is that the integrity of the "lower section" is being reduced by 2/3 so as to only exert 33% of it's static capacity. Recall, that the basis of the claim is that there is no impact-related dynamic load; everything exerted is based on the static.

 

[BadBoy]

No, one has to speak about the details of what makes a situation chaotic or uniform and orderly.

Your comments about chaotic involves your opinion that column ends would be uneven and I say that type of collapse occurring naturally, as you want to believe, would take much more time to occur. With demolition devices the columns can be cut at the same level and maintain an even, ordered, and rapid horizontally propagating collapse, such as what is observed. The instantaneousness of the charge is not the consideration and hence why I say your understanding of the subject is skewed.

Based on what was observed this cannot be what happened since the event you are describing would be very very obvious.

How many columns and corners on how many floors would need to be CD'd?, 47 columns plus perimeter corners times 12 floors, that's at least 500 explosions, and we heard and seen jack. Remember you are suggesting that each floor support was taken out completely for several floors one after the other. These floor's would have to be taken out in a timed fashion working away down the building floor by floor, otherwise we would have seen the building start to collapse further down which didn't happen. Not just a single event, but many events. They would have to be loud and violent.

1. No physical evidence of any explosives or ancillary equipment were found at ground zero. No detonators. No cable, No timers, No device for attaching explosives to columns
2. Impossible to fit explosives in all the places required for all the floors required. Massive job. Presumably these would need to be fitted to the corners, not just lift shafts, for x number of floors.
3. Columns are usually partially cut for a CD, again very difficult to do.
4. No synchronized loud bangs or flashes seen at all.

 

[BadBoy]

What an unsophisticated silly comment you indulge yourself in here, when we know that the planes only severed or severely damaged about 15% of the columns. However, I would imagine you might think the fires caused a lot more damage to the columns, in spite of the fact that the recovered core columns showed no evidence of being heated to more than 250 degrees C, where steel has essentially not lost any of its strength.

The lack of sophistication behind the claims of those adhering to a natural collapse scenario here is frighteningly low. God help us all if there are many more like this.

As far as I'm aware there wasn't a whole lot of evidence they were blown apart - all core columns for at least 12 floors (according to you). Evidence for explosives would be all over the place to create a free fall and missing jolt in the way you are describing. It really is ridiculous.

 

[Notconvinced]

You are saying that if 10 floors below the upper section are removed via demolition, the upper section (consisting of 12 floors) would be enough to destroy the remaining 88 floors below? Aren't you contradicting what Chandler believes should have happened? Wouldn't applying Chandler's explanation above to your scenario above result in a total of only 12 floors being destroyed, leaving 76 floors worth of tower left?

Much of the lower section of WTC7 was already degraded by thermate demolition earlier in the day. The building no longer offered the structural integrity of an unadulterated building. Additionally, I've seen footage of charges going off on the lower floors of 7 anyway. WTC7 was a dud and there was nothing artful in its destruction later that day. It had to be brought down expeditiously to conceal the prior demolition, lest that also reveal the true fate of the towers.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Much of the lower section of WTC7 was already degraded by thermate demolition earlier in the day. The building no longer offered the structural integrity of an unadulterated building. Additionally, I've seen footage of charges going off on the lower floors of 7 anyway. WTC7 was a dud and there was nothing artful in its destruction later that day. It had to be brought down expeditiously to conceal the prior demolition, lest that also reveal the true fate of the towers.

Tell me how these thermite charges worked in a fire that would degrade the mixture allowing the separation of the Aluminum and Iron oxide?

As the Aluminum melts at 600C the Iron Oxide floats to the surface of the Aluminum!

 

[BadBoy]

Much of the lower section of WTC7 was already degraded by thermate demolition earlier in the day

Holy cow

Glad your here to bring to bear your diamond edged critical analysis skillage. Please though I would like to know about the thermate demolition earlier in the day, how did you know about that?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

From your paper, "The Missing Jolt":


Can you please explain how you think explosives or other means of demolition would have created the characteristics seen during the collapse? How did demolition destroy the structural integrity of DS-6 and a lower portion of the upper block, yet maintain a roofline acceleration of 64% of g? Shouldn't the roofline acceleration have been at g and not 64% of it?

No, the exterior columns needed to buckle under their load after being pulled inward which would not allow full g acceleration, and there would have been resistance by the exterior walls which needed to be pushed outward by the falling floors. It isn't hard to imagine that these two mechanisms provided about 0.36 g of resistance. That 0.36 g of resistance could not support the static load so the upper section would accelerate at 0.64g.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, the exterior columns needed to buckle under their load after being pulled inward which would not allow full g acceleration, and there would have been resistance by the exterior walls which needed to be pushed outward by the falling floors. It isn't hard to imagine that these two mechanisms provided about 0.36 g of resistance. That 0.36 g of resistance could not support the static load so the upper section would accelerate at 0.64g.

And yet somehow the exterior columns managed to get out of the way of the falling block without the aid of explosives and didn't generate a jolt, even though they had half the load bearing capacity of the structure. Since you've repeatedly argued that this is impossible, how did they manage that feat? And how did they manage not to generate a jolt while still providing enough structural resistance to reduce the acceleration of the upper block by a third?

Dave

 

[WilliamSeger]

No, the exterior columns needed to buckle under their load after being pulled inward which would not allow full g acceleration, and there would have been resistance by the exterior walls which needed to be pushed outward by the falling floors. It isn't hard to imagine that these two mechanisms provided about 0.36 g of resistance. That 0.36 g of resistance could not support the static load so the upper section would accelerate at 0.64g.

Maybe it isn't hard for you and Chandler to "imagine" that, but I find it impossible to imagine that those mechanisms (or any other failure modes) provided the constant resistance that you're claiming. Please explain how that works in your imagination.

 

[JSanderO]

Columns will only buckle for excessive load or reducing their strength or increasing their unbraced length or reducing their bearing area or a combination of the above. Load increase has to be the result of loss of columns and redistribution.

No one is showing with any specificity at all how these loads are being redistributed and causing other columns especially the facade to buckle. My impression from the posts here is columns simply lost capacity from heat... and this was a progressive process until all reserve capacity was consumed at loads then exceeding capacity the tops "dropped" and buckled the rest of the columns... or somehow fell past them.

 

[ozeco41]

No, the exterior columns needed to buckle under their load after being pulled inward which would not allow full g acceleration, and there would have been resistance by the exterior walls which needed to be pushed outward by the falling floors. It isn't hard to imagine that these two mechanisms provided about 0.36 g of resistance. That 0.36 g of resistance could not support the static load so the upper section would accelerate at 0.64g.

Idiotic gobbledegook.

"No, the exterior columns needed to buckle under their load after being pulled inward..." - a requirement of the initiation stage which preceded the fall of the Top Block.

Is a non sequitur to: "...which would not allow full g acceleration" which is the status of measured acceleration after the Top Block is falling.

Then: "...and there would have been resistance by the exterior walls which needed to be pushed outward by the falling floors." - so pushing outwards - horizontally - creates resistance to falling vertically?

Contrary to the assertion "It isn't hard to imagine..." - it requires a vivid imagination to attempt to meaningfully combine two process - one occurring at the wrong time and the other in the wrong direction.

However the mental gymnastics of "imagining" are essential to the fantasy of CD.

 

[Gamolon]

Much of the lower section of WTC7 was already degraded by thermate demolition earlier in the day. The building no longer offered the structural integrity of an unadulterated building. Additionally, I've seen footage of charges going off on the lower floors of 7 anyway. WTC7 was a dud and there was nothing artful in its destruction later that day. It had to be brought down expeditiously to conceal the prior demolition, lest that also reveal the true fate of the towers.

I was discussing statements made about the north tower, not WTC7. Would you like try answering again?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Idiotic gobbledegook.

<snipped for brevity>

However the mental gymnastics of "imagining" are essential to the fantasy of CD.

Or in fewer words he is contending that the columns were weakened so as to fail under a static load without deviations to the load paths other than those caused by reduced carrying capacity. most people know where that falters... the other party believes the simplification of mechanisms is valid

 

[jaydeehess]

Much of the lower section of WTC7 was already degraded by thermate demolition earlier in the day. The building no longer offered the structural integrity of an unadulterated building. Additionally, I've seen footage of charges going off on the lower floors of 7 anyway. WTC7 was a dud and there was nothing artful in its destruction later that day. It had to be brought down expeditiously to conceal the prior demolition, lest that also reveal the true fate of the towers.

I thought the towers were being discussed but....
quite astounding that this weakening of WTC 7 structure by thermite was not noticed by the hundreds of people IN WTC 7. This was accomplished after they all left I suppose. Let's see, firefighters were in the building until about noon, iirc. They left as it was determined it was not safe and that there was little chance of being able to fight the fires in it. After noon those fires were growing, the building filled with smoke, creaking and bulging on its south side, so that must be when some intrepid brave stupid souls must have loaded in this thermite, ignited it and not have it noticed by hundreds of workers in the WTC complex area, or the dozens(hundreds?) of reporters on scene covering the single most compelling news story on Earth that day.

Got it !

 

[ozeco41]

Or in fewer words he is contending that ...

Sure - if you need "fewer words"

..but generalising loses the impact - IMO letting him off too lightly.

 

[ozeco41]

I thought the towers were being discussed but....
quite astounding that this weakening of WTC 7 structure by thermite was not noticed by the hundreds of people IN WTC 7. This was accomplished after they all left I suppose. Let's see, firefighters were in the building until about noon, iirc. They left as it was determined it was not safe and that there was little chance of being able to fight the fires in it. After noon those fires were growing, the building filled with smoke, creaking and bulging on its south side, so that must be when some intrepid brave stupid souls must have loaded in this thermite, ignited it and not have it noticed by hundreds of workers in the WTC complex area, or the dozens(hundreds?) of reporters on scene covering the single most compelling news story on Earth that day.

Got it !

The Twin Towers version is even more fun.

Remember the squads of fire suited volunteer suicide teams we needed to:
A) Place all the cutter charges within the impact and fire zone whilst the fires raged - using no bang, no flash and fireproof explosives; AND
B) An additional two teams to melt all that steel and place the channels to carry it to that corner where it could cascade out the side and create lots of "Molten Steel" controversies. Without adding anything to the CD effort - purely to confuse the truther v debunker debate which would arise 6-7-8 years after the event.

Talk about forward planning.

 

[Gamolon]

If Chandler's view is any indication, the interpretation used to justify this is that the integrity of the "lower section" is being reduced by 2/3 so as to only exert 33% of it's static capacity. Recall, that the basis of the claim is that there is no impact-related dynamic load; everything exerted is based on the static.

Grizzly,

So is Tony's issue with the explanation the fact that the tower's upper and lower sections are considered rigid/solid "blocks" when NIST/Bazant tried to explain what happened using a simplified model?

I ask this because Tony seems to think that there should have been a jolt observed for the upper block as if all the connections would have the strength to resist the impact between the upper and lower section.

Is this correct?

Wouldn't the proper way to envision this is that the two floors, the top floor of the lower section and the bottom floor of the upper section, upon impacting each other would have failed/been destroyed? I guess the question I have, and I may not even be looking at this correctly, wouldn't the proper way to figure this out would be to determine the force/energy generated by the initial impact of the two sections, how much of that energy would be used to destroy the two floors involved in the impact, how much energy remained, and how much the upper section would have slowed?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Contrary to the assertion "It isn't hard to imagine..." - it requires a vivid imagination to attempt to meaningfully combine two process - one occurring at the wrong time and the other in the wrong direction.

More ironically, it seems to me, Tony is saying that "it isn't hard to imagine" a set of processes taking place in the exterior columns, whereas it's patently absurd and downright idiotic to suggest that exactly the same processes could possibly be taking place in the core columns. He's using special pleading to the max: resistance to collapse is impossible without creating a jolt, yet the perimeter columns can resist collapse without creating a jolt; it's impossible for the structure to go from completely ordered to sufficiently chaotic to smear out a jolt because the collapse initiation time is too short, yet for some reason it's not too short in the perimeter columns; it's impossible for column ends to bypass each other in the core, yet inevitable that they bypass each other in the perimeter. I'm looking forward to the mixture of tortured logic and incomprehensible insults he generates to explain all that, if he chooses not to run away from this thread.

Dave

 

[Gamolon]

No, the exterior columns needed to buckle under their load after being pulled inward which would not allow full g acceleration, and there would have been resistance by the exterior walls which needed to be pushed outward by the falling floors. It isn't hard to imagine that these two mechanisms provided about 0.36 g of resistance. That 0.36 g of resistance could not support the static load so the upper section would accelerate at 0.64g.

Can you explain why Chandler comes up with .36g resistance .64g acceleration and in your paper, you come up with .29g resistance and .71g acceleration?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly, So is Tony's issue with the explanation the fact that the tower's upper and lower sections are considered rigid/solid "blocks" when NIST/Bazant tried to explain what happened using a simplified model?

I ask this because Tony seems to think that there should have been a jolt observed for the upper block as if all the connections would have the strength to resist the impact between the upper and lower section.

TS's argument is premised entirely on:
A) That Bazant's limit case model actually tried to explain the collapses.

B) From there, he assumes since the WTC didn't exhibit a large "jolt" that would be expected of an axial column to column impact as premised by Bazant's model, then the only reasonable conclusion is that there was no impact - no dynamic load force - imposed on the floors below.

C) Therefore, the structure of the entire lower section was weakened so as to fail under the static load.

I thought at one point maybe it was an issue of treating the upper and lower portions strictly as rigid blocks (Bazant's limit case assumes this for simplicity) but neither Tony nor Chandler have really implicitly made that claim so much as they have taken Bazant so literally that the physics of the real world collapse are completely omitted in favor of the perfect impact scenario Bazant modeled for a baseline. (By baseline, his original work basically said if the WTC collapse didn't arrest in the perfect impact case, there was no event that could have arrested them).

Wouldn't the proper way to envision this is that the two floors, the top floor of the lower section and the bottom floor of the upper section, upon impacting each other would have failed/been destroyed? I guess the question I have, and I may not even be looking at this correctly, wouldn't the proper way to figure this out would be to determine the force/energy generated by the initial impact of the two sections, how much of that energy would be used to destroy the two floors involved in the impact, how much energy remained, and how much the upper section would have slowed?

Basically yes...I did basic work last week with "notconvinced" to explain this point, albeit since the work I did is itself is greatly simplifying complex events, this is more just to point out what dynamics they're ignoring than to try and quantify the actual event.

Since Bazant's model is being used literally to make the "CD" argument it ignores any any pretty much all documentation showing the flexing of the columns at collapse initiation:

As well as the new load paths after the impacts, changes in paths as the fires weakened them, misrepresenting the NIST findings on the fire temperature. The errors and deviations from the "perfect axial impact event" expand greatly as you start thinking about all of the different dynamics involved in real life, and the limits of the model scenario become apparent... well... to most people anyways.

But at the most basic level, they're taking a limit case as interpretation of real life. It is dead on arrival