Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

Ah, so you didn't read the analysis in that thread of how they averaged out the velocity values, basically invalidating their entire premise.

Got it.

ETA: Addressed to KreeL, not beachnut. Obviously.
 
So you can't read. That's established.

For your information, Jones didn't 'make up' the thermite scenario. The iron-rich microspheres were first shown to NIST by the USGS. What did NIST do with that information? Why ignore it ...of course. They work for the 'gubment'.
 
Christopher7 said:
The top section of the south tower was falling down and to the side. Newton's first law says it will continue falling to the side unless an external force is applied.
Click to expand...


It just so happens there was an external force being applied at the time.


It's called "gravity".
 
Travis said:
You think it's strange that part C, devoid of structural support, would fall in the direction gravity pulls on it and take the rubble of floor 97 with it to then impact on floor 96?
Click to expand...

Yes, very strange. First of all part C is not devoid of structural support! Part C is always connected to part A via buckled and deformed steel columns, i.e. free fall and impact are not possible. The columns between parts C and A never fracture! Second, buckling and deformation of columns do not produce any rubble except compressed furniture, wall panels, etc. Third, the buckled and deformed steel columns will affect the adjacent floors of both parts A and C. To assume that part C remains intact is incorrect.

It is very easy to verify that heating a column with an office fire will not produce free fall or impact of the load above. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 .
 
No. Don't tell me you still can't read, hokulele....

The same old tired rhetoric of 'waaaaa waaaaaa, bad math...waaaaa' doesn't float with me. I looked at the science behind the paper and it's sound. Nothing hard to understand or anything you won't 'get'. So read it.
 
Amazing, Heiwa. Two debunkings of Bazant's paper simultaneously.

If we were in the same room, we'd have to do a knucklebump.
 
KreeL said:
No. Don't tell me you still can't read, hokulele....

The same old tired rhetoric of 'waaaaa waaaaaa, bad math...waaaaa' doesn't float with me. I looked at the science behind the paper and it's sound. Nothing hard to understand or anything you won't 'get'. So read it.
Click to expand...


I am not talking about the science, but the calculations used to derive the acceleration curve. They made a serious error by averaging rather than calculating instantaneous velocities.

If you are looking for a "big jolt", what happens when you take an average and plot it (hint, smoothing)? Do you understand why this is a problem for their hypothesis?
 
Christopher7 said:
On page 4 they describe what "k-out" is. It is the amount of dust and larger fragments expelled by the air pressure of floors collapsing, not the framing sections weighing 4 tons that were ejected up to 600 feet!

"kout = mass outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards)."
Click to expand...

Please explain why you fell the 4-ton framing sections are excluded by the word "mass".

Dave
 
Hokulele, we can agree that their calculations are correct. They even point out some miscalculations made by Bazant in his theory. After reviewing their data and the way they comprised it, I don't see a 'big jolt' either. Please point out if we're missing something.

edited to add their conclusions in case there are some in this thread too lazy to check the paper:

Conclusions:
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9
stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt
deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the
absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion
of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors
of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The top section of the south tower was falling down and to the side. Newton's first law says it will continue falling to the side unless an external force is applied.
Click to expand...

So, please show your calculations of the lateral velocity of the top section of the south tower, and therefore the distance to which it would be expected to have fallen to the side. Then present your structural calculations showing whether, once the part of the structure intersecting the path of the falling block had been destroyed, the remaining part of the structure was capable of standing unsupported. Once you've done that, and not before, you will have a line of argument worth bothering with.

Christopher7 said:
The leaning side would collapse faster than the other side because of the uneven distribution of weight. This would cause the top section to lean more and fall to the side, not straight down.
Click to expand...

The top section of the south tower was observed to do exactly this. However, the distance its centre of mass moved was very small, as there was no part of the structure with sufficient lateral resistance to exert enough force to accelerate such a large mass by a significant amount. However, one consequence of the rotation of the upper block, in both cases, was that the impact with the lower block was not a single jolt but was distributed over a finite time interval. The implication of this is that the statement:

KreeL said:
Let me show you the folly of Bazant. He claims that the huge block of 13 stories falls on the lower structure and pulverizes it. That would be a monstrous impact. Yet when you measure the fall of the top block it impacts NOTHING. No impact, it just slips right through a thick cloud of pulverized concrete. No bang, no tremendous jolt, nada, zero, zilch.
Click to expand...

is utterly groundless. The "paper" referenced is an incompetent piece of work that deliberately and wilfully misrepresents Bazant's conclusions and bases its entire conclusion on the assumption that the collapses of the twin towers followed a scenario which is specifically contradicted by all observations. In this respect, it's fairy typical of the standard of work seen in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

And before somebody points out that Bazant's scenario is the one invoked by Szamboti and MacQueen, let me remind you that Bazant is claiming his scenario as the most optimistic that could have occurred, whereas Szamboti and Macqueen are claiming it as the only scenario that could have occurred. Anyone claiming that these two positions are equivalent is either stupid or dishonest.

Dave
 
KreeL said:
Hokulele, we can agree that their calculations are correct. They even point out some miscalculations made by Bazant in his theory. After reviewing their data and the way they comprised it, I don't see a 'big jolt' either. Please point out if we're missing something.
Click to expand...


Exactly. You do not see a "big jolt" because their math makes it impossible to ever see any kind of jolt, big or otherwise. They are taking an average rather than calculating true accelerations. Here's an analogy:

Let's say you want to determine whether or not I have good taste in adult beverages. To test this, you stand GlennB 50 meters away from me, holding a bottle of beer. As I start to run to get the beer, you measure how far I have run every second (OK, I am not the fastest person on the planet).

Once I see the beer, I run until I am 10 meters away from GlennB, when I suddenly realize that it isn't a beer he is holding, but a Corona. In my shock and dismay, I come to a screeching halt.

Most people would say that this clearly demonstrates that I have at least reasonable taste in adult beverages.

However, not in that farce of a paper you linked. Rather than calculating the fact that I came to a screeching stop 10 meters away, the way they determine negative acceleration (or in layman's terms, deceleration) is by dividing the total amount of distance I have run by the square of the total amount of time elapsed. In other words, I can never come to a complete stop in their world since I have always traveled at least 40 meters in some amount of time. The acceleration curve merely tapers off rather than registering the instant stop. Stupidity on a level with drinking Corona!

I would actually have to run screaming in fear and horror much further backwards than my starting point in order for any kind of "jolt" to show up in their calculation. In other words, gravtity would have to completely reverse itself for several seconds before the jolt they are pretending to be searching for could ever appear.

So yes, you will never see any "big jolt", since the authors of that paper are horrendously incompetent at correlating math to the real world.


ETA: I just saw your edit. Their conclusions are completely, utterly wrong as they are not calculating what they are claiming to calculate. Whether this is due to incompetence or deliberate deception is still undetermined.
 
Last edited:
"Originally Posted by KreeL
Let me show you the folly of Bazant. He claims that the huge block of 13 stories falls on the lower structure and pulverizes it. That would be a monstrous impact. Yet when you measure the fall of the top block it impacts NOTHING. No impact, it just slips right through a thick cloud of pulverized concrete. No bang, no tremendous jolt, nada, zero, zilch.
is utterly groundless. The "paper" referenced is an incompetent piece of work that deliberately and wilfully misrepresents Bazant's conclusions and bases its entire conclusion on the assumption that the collapses of the twin towers followed a scenario which is specifically contradicted by all observations. In this respect, it's fairy typical of the standard of work seen in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

And before somebody points out that Bazant's scenario is the one invoked by Szamboti and MacQueen, let me remind you that Bazant is claiming his scenario as the most optimistic that could have occurred, whereas Szamboti and Macqueen are claiming it as the only scenario that could have occurred. Anyone claiming that these two positions are equivalent is either stupid or dishonest."

I beg you to point out what you are saying here. Bazant's theory has everything to do with the falling top block destroying the lower structure. Is that true - or not?

Pay attention to the notes - full credit is given to NIST for their 'pancake, piledriver, truss failure, foot of God' theory.
 
"You do not see a "big jolt" because their math makes it impossible to ever see any kind of jolt, big or otherwise."

Their math is based on calculations bolstered by video evidence. It's not because their 'math makes impossible to see any jolt' at all. Their math shows conclusively that there wasn't a big jolt.

Deceleration requires an impact. Don't you agree? NIST requires an impact, and of course Bazant requires an impact.
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
"There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load."
Click to expand...

This is the non sequitur on which the entire paper rests. It would be more properly be phrased as "There was no observed jolt above a measurement threshold of (insert number that would require some actual work on the part of the authors to calculate). Thus there could not have been a simultaneous impact on more than (insert number that would require some actual work on the part of the authors to calculate) columns. This indicates that the upper block was not perfectly level after a one-storey drop, as is utterly fricken' obvious from every fricken' video of the whole fricken' collapse!"

But I don't think that would support JON-ES's predetermined agenda so well.

Dave
 
KreeL said:
"You do not see a "big jolt" because their math makes it impossible to ever see any kind of jolt, big or otherwise."

Their math is based on calculations bolstered by video evidence. It's not because their 'math makes impossible to see any jolt' at all. Their math show conclusively that there wasn't a big jolt.
Click to expand...


I do not give a damn what their calculations were based on. When you do an average, you remove any discontinuities in data, so whether or not it was deliberate, it eliminated any chance any jolt (or even any negative acceleration) would be found.

It is like using the average IQ of your 8th grade class to determine how smart you personally are.

ETA: And since you keep adding more nonsense to the end of your posts, wouldn't you agree that you would need to know what the speeds are before and after any potential impact before you can dismiss the impact altogether? As a final analogy, if you were trying to determine where the shift points were on a car with a manual transmission, how on earth would only the final speed at the end of the run tell you this?
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
"You do not see a "big jolt" because their math makes it impossible to ever see any kind of jolt, big or otherwise."

Their math is based on calculations bolstered by video evidence. It's not because their 'math makes impossible to see any jolt' at all. Their math shows conclusively that there wasn't a big jolt.

Deceleration requires an impact. Don't you agree? NIST requires an impact, and of course Bazant requires an impact.
Click to expand...
You are right! Their math can't show the jolt because you need 1000 frame per second not 30 frames per second to see the jolt.

Ask and engineer why the paper failed. I just told you one reason, and I am an engineer. Now you can get another independent engineer, get 10, and they will tell you the same. You picked a real dumb paper to use for your smoking gun. Why has the paper failed to get a Pulitzer Prize and bring your delusion to the top news story it would be if true.

lol - it is a delusion

The video needs to be 1000 frame per second to see the event! It is not. FAILURE is now you for spreading the false information.

Did you see the lack of resolution. Do you have a clue how many feet are in one pixel of the video? Do you have a clue what the feet per pixel need to be to see the jolt. Time and space are against you and your failed paper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom