Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[Tony Szamboti]

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

The perimeter was being cut at its corners and the four walls were acting like slender sheets at that point, which would still provide some resistance but could not support the static load. The core was being removed.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The perimeter was being cut at its corners and the four walls were acting like slender sheets at that point, which would still provide some resistance but could not support the static load. The core was being removed.

Cut with what we now know Harrit and Jones are a fraud thanks to Ziggi, and the
Constant refusal to do an inert gas test, which both Jones and Harrit know would
have made their case for thermite or falsified it conclusively!
Do you believe in perpetuating said fraud, or are you willing to call the Jones &
Harrit garbage because that is what it is?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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?

Yes.

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?

In his papers on the WTC Twin Tower collapses Bazant says it is reasonable to assume the upper section to be rigid and his crush down / crush up hypothesis is based on the upper section staying intact until it has completely collapsed the lower section and hits the ground.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cut with what we now know Harrit and Jones are a fraud thanks to Ziggi, and the
Constant refusal to do an inert gas test, which both Jones and Harrit know would
have made their case for thermite or falsified it conclusively!
Do you believe in perpetuating said fraud, or are you willing to call the Jones &
Harrit garbage because that is what it is?

I am willing to go on record saying the complete to the ground collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7 can be proven to have been due to controlled demolition using mechanics alone. Identifying what type of demolition charges were used is not necessary to prove they were.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The perimeter was being cut at its corners and the four walls were acting like slender sheets at that point, which would still provide some resistance but could not support the static load. The core was being removed.

Evading the question. How could they provide significant support without creating a jolt, which you have repeatedly declared to be impossible?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am willing to go on record saying the complete to the ground collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7 can be proven to have been due to controlled demolition using mechanics alone. Identifying what type of demolition charges were used is not necessary to prove they were.

Also evading the question. I see you have no problem with fraud as long as it's by your side.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes.

Can you explain why this is a fatal flaw in Bazant's model yet a realistic starting point in yours?

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes.



In his papers on the WTC Twin Tower collapses Bazant says it is reasonable to assume the upper section to be rigid and his crush down / crush up hypothesis is based on the upper section staying intact until it has completely collapsed the lower section and hits the ground.

You do understand that Banzant is referring to a computer model and mass conservation
Do to a principal of Newtonian physics, Right?

Have you looked at the computer modeling of the limited case studies or just the limited abstract?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you explain why this is a fatal flaw in Bazant's model yet a realistic starting point in yours?

Dave

Because he radically embellishes the kinetic energy to cause a collapse propagation which would not have likely occurred if he had not.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You do understand that Banzant is referring to a computer model and mass conservation
Do to a principal of Newtonian physics, Right?

Have you looked at the computer modeling of the limited case studies or just the limited abstract?

Apparently you don't understand. Zdenek Bazant's papers were not based on a computer model. They were based on his calculations.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Evading the question. How could they provide significant support without creating a jolt, which you have repeatedly declared to be impossible?

Dave

If the corner cut perimeter walls could not have supported the static load of the upper section they could not have produced a jolt. The upper section simply pushed them downward while accelerating at less than g due to the intrinsic resistance provided by the force required to do so.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I am willing to go on record saying the complete to the ground collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7 can be proven to have been due to controlled demolition using mechanics alone. Identifying what type of demolition charges were used is not necessary to prove they were.

So you are willing to participate in a known fraud, you have no evidence or theory of merit,
we were informed By Ziggi spokes person for Mark Basile now with AE/911truth, the promised independent tests,
Including an inert gas DSC by an independent Lab will not be occurring!
Harrit & Jones refused to attempt proper falsification, of the hypothesis of the 2009 paper,
Basile has now abandoned his independent status, and is no longer doing independent
testing.
It is very simple Tony, thermite is now out of the question, and nitrate based explosives can not survive the impact shock and fires!
So your saying evil elves perhaps with oxyacetylene torches cut the columns from inside the buildings, or was it metal munching moon mice, or steel eating termites?

Oh and yes I could have built a thermite cutter to cut the steel had the building not been on
fire, but with fire the Aluminum melts before the charge goes off destroying the careful mixing. The iron oxide floats off to the surface with the aluminum oxide just like in Jones's
Experiments at BYU in early 2005!

You now are left with an impossible sinario, and you have no valid hypothesis, as to how it can be accomplished, that means you are participating yourself in fraud, you should think about that carefully.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Apparently you don't understand. Zdenek Bazant's papers were not based on a computer model. They were based on his calculations.

They were based on calculations from his work on computer models of concrete and steel structures, you did understand that Right?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the corner cut perimeter walls could not have supported the static load of the upper section they could not have produced a jolt. The upper section simply pushed them downward while accelerating at less than g due to the intrinsic resistance provided by the force required to do so.

So you're arguing that, if the remaining structure was unable to support the static load of the part above it, it would then collapse without a jolt. This is exactly what your critics have been claiming all along. When we have made this claim, you have immediately branded us liars or fools. Since you are now making precisely the same claim, which are you?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because he radically embellishes the kinetic energy to cause a collapse propagation which would not have likely occurred if he had not.

I see you missed the bit about why it's OK for you to use this fatally flawed model.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I see you missed the bit about why it's OK for you to use this fatally flawed model.

Dave

Flawed models are often used in alchemy, and fraud, I am told that rubbing a toad on lead by the light of a blue moon while watching a dancing witch dance nude, under an oak tree, can turn lead into gold and make you rich.
Either that or I just used a can of metallic gold paint to convince a young 28 year old lady to Dance nude all night long for me, for two bucks worth of worthless lead.

Tony's Ideas are similarly only ment to fool the stupid, but for a less worth wiled goal, increasing his own self importance, and worship by his followers!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Apparently you don't understand. Zdenek Bazant's papers were not based on a computer model. They were based on his calculations.

Simplified ones, yes:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. [...] The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced.

Since this has been pointed out to you since 2009 or earlier and you're still arguing that Bazant is explaining the real collapse mechanics I doubt the problem is a simple misunderstanding so much as someone thinks reader's are incapable of going to the paper itself to read the abstract, even 14 years after it's original publication.

I know it's pointless to point this out but the direct quote in juxtaposition to the claim says enough

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I see you missed the bit about why it's OK for you to use this fatally flawed model.

Dave

The 1-D model used by Bazant is not flawed. It is the embellishment of the kinetic energy and underestimate of the column energy absorption capacity by Bazant that is flawed in his analysis.

Why the use of a 1-D model is appropriate in this situation was discussed in Appendix B of the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis".

 

[beachnut]

The 1-D model used by Bazant is not flawed. It is the embellishment of the kinetic energy and underestimate of the column energy absorption capacity by Bazant that is flawed in his analysis.

Why the use of a 1-D model is appropriate in this situation was discussed in Appendix B of the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis".

This is your evidence for CD?

 

[Oystein]

The 1-D model used by Bazant is not flawed.

No, not for its stated purpose, which is to present "a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers" as a limiting case. They apply "simplifying assumptions most optimistic in regard to survival", as you know. They explain however:

The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part in motion are of course very complicated and their clarification would require large computer simulations. For example, the upper part of one tower is tilting as it begins to fall (Appendix II); the distribution of impact forces among the underlying columns of the framed tube and the core, and between the columns and the floor-supporting trusses, is highly nonuniform; etc.

It boggles the mind why Szamboti is so confident that such a simplified 1D-model would not be flawed for someone analyzing details of the response of the 3D-assembly, such as "jolts" at random points.

It is the embellishment of the kinetic energy and underestimate of the column energy absorption capacity by Bazant that is flawed in his analysis.

Maybe, but that doesn't save your MJ nonsense, because you cannot take Bazant's simplified model, whether his values are flawed or not, to compute the response of details of the 3D-assembly.

Why the use of a 1-D model is appropriate in this situation was discussed in Appendix B of the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis".

This bears quoting in full, so that no one here remains in doubt about the follies of TSz:

APPENDIX B. DIMENSIONALITY OF BUILDING COLLAPSE
There have been opinions stated by some claiming that a one-dimensional analysis such as the one presented here are not valid, because they do not include the lateral effects of the collapse, effects that were quite visible during the catastrophe. One example of such criticism is provided by Grabbe [17], who notes that there was a significant lateral ejection of dust, debris and structural fragments.
When we observe the collapsing North Tower, the downward motion seems to be quite regular in the sense that all points on the building surface move down by about the same amount in a given time period. This invites a unidirectional analytical treatment. On the other hand, the lateral effect mentioned can’t be ignored, because
(a) Ejection of gas and debris causes the loss of mass and energy of the falling building.
(b) Expulsion of air, until fully accomplished, tells us that there is an air cushion in action.
Both (a) and (b) have the effect of slowing down the falling part of the building. Yet, in spite of this, the lateral action is only a minimal secondary effect. Perhaps the most rational way out of the difficulty is to say that the event is essentially one-dimensional, but the results, especially the duration of fall, need an adjustment to account for the lateral effects.
The problem is not unlike that of a steel column squashed vertically between two guided plates. In a large-deflection mode a good part of the column material will move sideways. Yet, the overall behavior can be quantified as uni-dimensional: Axial load vs. axial displacement.
One must observe that we know about uniform vertical movement only during the time the upper part of the building is visible and before it disappears in a cloud of dust. Later on, large structural elements can be seen falling from inside the cloud. This may suggest a loss of symmetry in the event, but then the process might have been advanced enough by that point, so that accurate preservation of symmetry may not have mattered.

Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns strangely ignore that the tops tilted before they dropped bodily, and that tilt, being a rotation, has lateral components by definition.
Also, it is weird that Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns believe that columns not braced by two guided plates would behave like columns braced by two guided plates. Where did they pull out that idea?!