Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[ozeco41]

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?

Grizzly has explained the problem of T Sz's false assumption.

The "proper way to envision this" is a full step more basic than many members are prepared to go. It must be the first step. Decide what mechanism or "model" you are talking about.

The foundation model that T Sz assumed was not real. Never happened and never could happen . So it is a total waste of time trying to apply logic, reasoning, engineering applied physics or any other form of valid argument to the T Sz nonsense other than to show that it is nonsense.

If you need to discuss the Szamboti fantasy make that explicit choice - and don't fall for the trap of trying to overlay real factors. Otherwise make the choice to discuss reality - and stay with it.
In the post I am responding to you are implicitly discussing the "real event" without explicitly disconnecting form the Szamboti nonsense.

If you want to explain what really happened make a conscious decision to do so. AND to ignore the nonsense of the T Sz model. The two simply cannot co-exuist or be mixed.

Now let me respond to your suggestion EXPLICITLY in the setting of the real event.

Your first question:

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?

In brief "No!" because that is not what happened.

The key first impact once the Top Block started to move downwards was between the ends of the perimeter columns and the OOS floor which they impacted. Top Block perimeter moving downwards onto Lower Tower OOS. Lower Tower perimeter "moving upwards" (effectively - the top block floor fell down) onto the lower tower perimeter.)

That was the key mechanism. The part of the mechanism which cause the biggest forces and dominated what happened from there on. It started "ROOSD". Sure there were bits of floor involved - and the situation was complicated by the reality that it was over several floors at once.

This graphic shows it for WTC2 - the tilt was far less for WTC1 but the same issues for the "high' and "low" sides of the tilt as shown here. And the other two sides no different in principle. The extreme tilt simply makes it more dramatic and more obvious for WTC2 and from "this" side.

Floor on floor impact did not occur. Bits of floor did impact on bits of floor but the magnitude of the impacts/forces involved with "floor on floor" were second order - the perimeter impacts on floors were the dominating forces.

Then some brief coments on your suggestion:

I guess the question I have, and I may not even be looking at this correctly, << I am suggesting taking a different perspective. 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, << Maybe - provided you identify which bits actually impacted. 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? << I suggest check your objective. Why take the approach from energy? Why limit yourself to the false scenario posted T Sz - getting debunkers limited to his own false context is SOP for Tony - his second favourite debating trick. Why not go back to the real issue of what he is trying to claim THEN rebut it by valid argument - not needing argument tortured to stay within his false setting?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Grizzly has explained the problem of T Sz's false assumption.

And I think Tony's - shall we say - somewhat disinclined to come back here and discuss it himself, as the number of inconvenient questions for him has got a bit excessive.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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?

Measurement technique. Chandler's is probably more accurate as he was using a program named Tracker, which locked on a pixel. For the Missing Jolt paper we used Screen Calipers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now you're back, care to comment on why it's obvious that the perimeter columns can resist collapse to the tune of a third of G without producing a jolt, yet it's equally obvious that the core columns can't?

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And I think Tony's - shall we say - somewhat disinclined to come back here and discuss it himself, as the number of inconvenient questions for him has got a bit excessive.

Dave

Ive mentioned the foundational fatal flaw since 2009 going as far as to place Bazants own disclaimer from the first page in bold letters on several occaisions dispersed throughout that period and thats never apparently been a deterrent.

And my sentiments likely aren't unique

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Measurement technique. Chandler's is probably more accurate as he was using a program named Tracker, which locked on a pixel. For the Missing Jolt paper we used Screen Calipers.

Tony, now that we know Steven E. Jones, Niels Harrit, Richard Gage, and Mark Basile,
are complete frauds thanks to Ziggi's last post on another thread, and that the inert
Gas test under DSC by an independent lab, with reliable samples of 9/11 paint chips will
Never be done do you continue to support the thermite fraud, and the swindling of money
Perpetuated by AE/ 911 Truth?

 

[JSanderO]

Measurement technique. Chandler's is probably more accurate as he was using a program named Tracker, which locked on a pixel. For the Missing Jolt paper we used Screen Calipers.

Free fall motion of a part of a building is not evidence of CD... this is such nonsense...

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Free fall motion of a part of a building is not evidence of CD... this is such nonsense...

Of course it is just drop a rock and you will see a building material falling at free fall,
Free fall only indicates lack of structural support.

The truth movement now is clear fraud, I am now more interested
In other 9/11 conspiracy theories such as the one proposed by Rep. presidential Canidate Donald Thrump, on thousands
Of Muslims cheered and celibated, 9/11/2001.
That and writing a SciFi I have been working on titled Stay, where a man a researcher is able to use an artificial gravity well, to probe the past, and make duplicates of people from the past, including copying their neural patterns onto a synthetic matrix.
However the law requires him to erase the synthetic pattern after the experiment's
Conclusion, what happen though when he brings back a famous 19 year old blond from the old 1950 movies and the young researcher, falls maddly in love with her?
Will he be able to once again assign her too oblivion, or will he defy the Law and try to
Escape to some where she can remain alive, and happy with him?
It's basicly a simple morality play!

 

[jaydeehess]

In other 9/11 conspiracy theories such as the one proposed by Rep. presidential Canidate Donald Thrump, on thousands
Of Muslims cheered and celibated, 9/11/2001.

Is that the opposite of "masturbated"?

Sorry, I had to do it, you threw that one right through the middle of the strike zone.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Is that the opposite of "masturbated"?

Sorry, I had to do it, you threw that one right through the middle of the strike zone.

I have a long memory just have to wait till you strike out, then have to bench you for the season,

I just find writing my own Science fiction preferable to reading Twoofer movement
Retreaded pesudo Science fiction, its like watching the same old boring movie, over and over and over,
always knowing how it is going to end.

Since Ziggi admitted to Basile's obvious fraud, that makes this a complete strike
Out for the third strike, in the third, for Twooferism.

That makes this exstreamly boring watching the same instant replay over and over,
and nothing changes!

 

[JSanderO]

I know this post is heresy on this site... but virtually all of the nonsense claims of the "truth movement" have been shown to have no merit. It's gone well beyond beating a dead horse.

On the other hand in both cases... the twins and 7wtc... the initiation phase is described as fire caused heat weakening. While HEAT was the energy it is not the mechanism. Even buckling is hardly more descriptive of what actually happened... missing column ends and so forth.

Obviously no one can literally provide a step by step sequence of the loss of capacity and progression of "failures". On the other hand no one is interested in it either. It's more fun to repeatedly jump on the nutty ideas of the truther who are having no impact on anything aside from raising money to raise money.

No problem is looking at their new material. I've seen nothing compelling in the last 6 years.... always the same incorrect arguments. And now they are at each other over the pentagon!

This is getting boring.

 

[jaydeehess]

On the other hand in both cases... the twins and 7wtc... the initiation phase is described as fire caused heat weakening. While HEAT was the energy it is not the mechanism. Even buckling is hardly more descriptive of what actually happened... missing column ends and so forth.

.

Well, describing the changes to crystalline structure of the metal as heat energy is added, combined with the effect of loading, off axis versus axial, gets a bit unwieldy.

 

[Oystein]

And now they are at each other over the pentagon!

This is getting boring.

That is actually slightly entertaining, in comparison!
(Although I nearly fell asleep listening to Wayne Coste, formerly AE911Truth Board member, describing 56 PDF slides during a recent Teleconference (Nov. 22). In fact, I paused / stopped at 28 minutes; not sure if I can muster the patience to listen to the remaining 70 minutes. The teleconference is hosted by Craig McKee and Ken Freeland, two CIT nuts, while Coste seems to be on the "but there was a big plane impact, though I won't commit to details" side.)

 

[JSanderO]

That is actually slightly entertaining, in comparison!
(Although I nearly fell asleep listening to Wayne Coste, formerly AE911Truth Board member, describing 56 PDF slides during a recent Teleconference (Nov. 22). In fact, I paused / stopped at 28 minutes; not sure if I can muster the patience to listen to the remaining 70 minutes. The teleconference is hosted by Craig McKee and Ken Freeland, two CIT nuts, while Coste seems to be on the "but there was a big plane impact, though I won't commit to details" side.)

It would be funny if it wasn't sad... what happened to intelligent people thinking critically?

 

[WilliamSeger]

It would be funny if it wasn't sad... what happened to intelligent people thinking critically?

Given Gage's lack of success recruiting qualified experts who can make a rational technical argument, I'd say they're still around and they vastly outnumber the fantasists.

 

[Gamolon]

Grizzly has explained the problem of T Sz's false assumption.

The "proper way to envision this" is a full step more basic than many members are prepared to go. It must be the first step. Decide what mechanism or "model" you are talking about.

After going through everything over and over, that's what I came up with. I just wanted to make sure.

The foundation model that T Sz assumed was not real.

Is "Foundation model" referring to Bazant's model?

Never happened and never could happen.

If it is Bazant's model you are refering to as the "foundation model", that was used to simplify a complex scenario and explain that there was enough force/energy to destroy the towers correct? NOT to explain what physically happened.

So it is a total waste of time trying to apply logic, reasoning, engineering applied physics or any other form of valid argument to the T Sz nonsense other than to show that it is nonsense.

Understood and why am asking questions. What I don't understand is why Tony cannot seem to keep the two separated and why his paper and explanations are confusing, at least to me. He keeps mixing "rigid blocks" and "complex objects/individual connections" together when they should be kept separate according to which scenario you are talking about, either Bazant's model or the real event.

If you need to discuss the Szamboti fantasy make that explicit choice - and don't fall for the trap of trying to overlay real factors. Otherwise make the choice to discuss reality - and stay with it.
In the post I am responding to you are implicitly discussing the "real event" without explicitly disconnecting form the Szamboti nonsense.

If you want to explain what really happened make a conscious decision to do so. AND to ignore the nonsense of the T Sz model. The two simply cannot co-exuist or be mixed.

Now let me respond to your suggestion EXPLICITLY in the setting of the real event.

Your first question:
In brief "No!" because that is not what happened.

The key first impact once the Top Block started to move downwards was between the ends of the perimeter columns and the OOS floor which they impacted. Top Block perimeter moving downwards onto Lower Tower OOS. Lower Tower perimeter "moving upwards" (effectively - the top block floor fell down) onto the lower tower perimeter.)

That was the key mechanism. The part of the mechanism which cause the biggest forces and dominated what happened from there on. It started "ROOSD". Sure there were bits of floor involved - and the situation was complicated by the reality that it was over several floors at once.

This graphic shows it for WTC2 - the tilt was far less for WTC1 but the same issues for the "high' and "low" sides of the tilt as shown here. And the other two sides no different in principle. The extreme tilt simply makes it more dramatic and more obvious for WTC2 and from "this" side.
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webpics/ArrowedROOSD.jpg[/qimg]
Floor on floor impact did not occur. Bits of floor did impact on bits of floor but the magnitude of the impacts/forces involved with "floor on floor" were second order - the perimeter impacts on floors were the dominating forces.

Then some brief coments on your suggestion:

Thank you for taking the time to explain!

 

[Gamolon]

Measurement technique. Chandler's is probably more accurate as he was using a program named Tracker, which locked on a pixel. For the Missing Jolt paper we used Screen Calipers.

Do you think Bazant's intention of his model and explanation was intended to match up physically with what was seen in videos and pictures of the collapse?

Do you think Bazant and NIST think the upper section of each tower stayed intact during it's entire descent and crushed/destroyed the lower section? And then, when the upper section could not descend further, it was then destroyed from the bottom up?

 

[Gamolon]

Free fall motion of a part of a building is not evidence of CD... this is such nonsense...

The upper section of the towers weren't at free fall.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Is "Foundation model" referring to Bazant's model?


If it is Bazant's model you are refering to as the "foundation model", that was used to simplify a complex scenario and explain that there was enough force/energy to destroy the towers correct? NOT to explain what physically happened.

Correct on both counts. Bazant just simplified it to the most extremely ideal scenario to show if it did not arrest in that case it wasnt going to in any practical case.

It has a degree of relevance to reality. Its just that T's argument ignores the limit that relevance has to the point of absurdity.

Ozeco often takes on the nitty gritty of the why's for this. Im just burnt out after years of this

 

[ozeco41]

Do you think Bazant's intention of his model and explanation was intended to match up physically with what was seen in videos and pictures of the collapse?

Ozeco often takes on the nitty gritty of the why's for this. Im just burnt out after years of this

Tony does. It is the fatal error under the nonsense of his "Missing Jolt" claims. Bazant made some assumptions about initiation of collapse in order to get collapse started so that he could test the energy available for the progression stage of collapse. It was a "worst case" limit assumption valid ONLY for testing the limit of the progression stage. Bazant clearly stated so. Tony falsely uses those assumptions of what never did happen and never could happen as if they were the real event. He has been shown many times why he is in error. To the stage where he can no longer be accepted as "genuinely not understanding" - his untruths must by now be deliberate.

Tony's false scenario has the "Top Block" dropping into impact with the lower tower - with the columns - each and every one of them - falling through a gap to land with it's top part in axial alignment with its own bottom part. Didn't happen that way for the real scenario - real event - where the dominant failure mode for columns was failure by folding/bending/buckling of each column. By the time the column fails allowing the Top Block to move down the ends have already missed. Should be "bleedingly obvious" to anyone who thinks it through. Sadly Tony has partially succeeded in promulgating his false model - quite a few debunkers cannot break the mind set of "drop to impact". The commonest confusions in discussion result from "mixing and matching" bits of real event reasoning with the illogical false foundation of the Szamboti model.

Do you think Bazant and NIST think the upper section of each tower stayed intact during it's entire descent and crushed/destroyed the lower section? And then, when the upper section could not descend further, it was then destroyed from the bottom up?

Whatever Tony thinks - Bazant certainly supported that concept under the label "Crush Down - Crush Up". It is wrong if applied to WTC Twins collapses. The visual evidence is clear - for the WTC "Twin Towers" break up of the Top Block started at the same time as break up of the lower tower. People also tend to forget that crush down crush up is a subset of Bazant's one dimensional approximation. I've asserted for years that WTC Twins collapses cannot be validly modelled in 1D - many members disagree but I've not seen argument that I find persuasive.

I'm not aware of NIST's attitude to the issue.