The physics toolkit

[Edx]

It really is clear that the collapses of these buildings were not caused by impact damage and fire and that all three buildings were actually brought down via controlled demolitions, which could certainly not be set up that day.

So then if its so obvious when do you plan on getting this research of yours in a legitimate journal?

Oh yes I forgot... the conspwasy!

bump!

 

[Seymour Butz]

The premise of the paper is correct and it doesn't matter what kind of comments anonymous freaks want to make about it or me. There should have been a serious deceleration of the upper section of WTC 1 after its initial fall if it had been a natural collapse.

You're delusional.

Proof of this is the fact that no one except other twoofers give this any weight.

And even THAT support is slipping away.

That's gotta smart......

 

[Seymour Butz]

A dynamic load and its amplification require deceleration which isn't observed in WTC 1.

So then there was no dynamic load, according to you. Your papaer states that Bazant's hypothetical model of a direct, square, axial impact of ALL the columns - not just the core columns - would result in a jolt.

You say there is no jolt, and want to explore why.

You say that because that first resistance was removed. What your theory is how that happened remains unclear.

We say that Bazant's hypothetical scenario has zero chance of happening in real life.

We say that any tilt MUST result in some misalignment of columns. This is actually observed in the ext columns, proving us right.

We say that core columns, after buckling, will be somewhat misaligned. We also say that buckling over several floors of some columns due to floor damage from the plane impacts, will mean that there will be a total miss on some of those.

We say that broken columns will miss.

We say that since some of the upper columns were merely bolted together, and their connection were never intended to be in tension, that NIST predicts a couple of them separating, and not being able to transfer any jolts.

We say that even though you've admitted to some misalignment, you've never explained just how a core column, for example, would be able to support any weight when the "H" is misaligned and only a fraction of the steel is in contact.

To summarize, there's 2 sides:

1- Tony uses a hypothetical scenario from Bazant, and is trying to use that as the basis for some real-cd-deal paper, all the while ignoring that it's a hypothetical scenario.

2- We say that it's a hypothetical scenario and can't expected to happen by any reasonable person.

So, what's more likely?

1- demo

2- the columns didn't impact squarely and axially - which, btw, is absolutely proven by just looking at the ext columns.

 

[Hokulele]

I have no problem with public debate. I get no pleasure from such negative discussion or forcing any public embarrassment however. Tony has provided me with useful information both in the past and present, but it would be better if he did not say silly things (such as implying zero degree tilt), or make ridiculous accusations. Such discussion has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Fair enough. I don't think Mr. Szamboti sees it the same way, as evidenced by his challenge to tfk for a televised debate, but I can see your point.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

Regarding your comment that

Your attempts to say [whatever] have no basis and seem to be simply more of an attempt to muddy the waters.

Your unremitting proclivity for making bald asertions with neither theoretical nor empirical support is the very definition of "no basis".

The reality is that the perimeter walls would have had a serious deceleration if it was a natural collapse, so there is no need for rigid behaviour between perimeter and core.

Baseless, bald assertion.

The natural frequency of the perimeter walls was sufficently high in the vertical direction to transfer the majority of the shock and deceleration to the roofline.

Baseless, bald assertion.

Your attempts to say column misalignment and non-rigid behaviour are the reasons no serious deceleration was observed have no basis

Baseless, bald assertion.

... and seem to be simply more of an attempt to muddy the waters.

Baseless, bald assertion.

Who do you think you are kidding?

Pot ... kettle.
Kettle ... pot.


Tom

 

[tfk]

Tom,

After this reply there is only one way I will respond to you and your spin, and that is in a televised debate like you challenged me to on Hardfire through its host Ron Wieck about six to eight months ago.

I told Ron I would be glad to debate you as long as you publicly stated who you were. He said you would have to and then I didn't hear any more about it. What happened?

Misdirection & lack of response noted...

In other words, you are unwilling to make the ONE SENTENCE correction to your erroneous statement.

Here, let me DEMONSTRATE, and then help you with, your sloppiness.

You said:

These methods also showed WTC 7 was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall, which NIST admitted was true.

As several others have already noted, your mistake is your use of the word "... first..."

NO careful, precise person (not NIST, not Chandler) has claimed "WTC 7 was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall".

NO careful person has even claimed that the "exterior walls were undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall".

For the outer walls alone:
NIST provides its raw height vs. time data, as shown in NIST NCSTAR1-9, vol 2, Fig 12-76 (pg. 602, pdf 264)

Here is a table of NIST's stated acceleration for the WTC7's north external wall over the first 2.25 seconds.

Time | Drop | Velocity | Accel | % G
(sec) | (feet) | (feet/sec) | (feet/sec2) |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
0.25 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 3
0.50 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 10
0.75 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 5.8 | 18
1.00 | 1.0 | 3.6 | 9.0 | 28
1.25 | 2.2 | 6.3 | 12.5 | 39
1.50 | 4.2 | 9.9 | 16.2 | 50
1.75 | 7.2 | 14.4 | 20.1 | 62
2.00 | 11.5 | 19.9 | 23.9 | 74
2.25 | 17.3 | 26.3 | 27.5 | 85

This table was taken from a direct single (velocity) & double (accel) integration of NIST's best fit curve in Fig 12-76.

Even you, as sloppy as you are, Tony, should be able to see that NIST says that, "over the first 2.25 seconds of the outer north wall's fall, the acceleration increases gradually from 0g to 0.85g".

It most specifically does NOT say that the north wall "was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall".

Not even Chandler, as confused as he is, says that the outer wall fell at free fall during the first 2.25 seconds. You pretty much the ONLY "engineer" on that Island of Stupid, Tony. (Lots of other sloppy truthers to keep you company, tho.)

If you actually read NIST's report with comprehension & rigor (see Table 12-2 in NCSTAR 1-9), you'll find that NIST clearly states that the north external wall begins to fall about 6.3 seconds after the start of fall of the east penthouse & about 12.9 seconds after the REAL "start of collapse of WTC7". As distinguished from the "start of collapse of the north exterior wall".

So, Tony, a COMPETENT (i.e., "non-sloppy") rendition of "what NIST really said" would read:

"NIST claims that the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."

In my opinion, the best, most precise rendition of the data would read as follows.

"NIST claims that the north external wall of WTC7 began to fall about 12.9 seconds after the start of collapse. It's collapse acceleration gradually increased until, at about 2.75 seconds, it had attained an acceleration approximately equal to G. It maintained this acceleration for approximately 1 second (until about 3.75 sec), at which point its acceleration decreased significantly."

Ergo, Tony, you are shown to be sloppy. Imprecise. Erroneous. Wrong. In taking up about 12 back-and-forth posting about this trivial matter WITHOUT your bothering to provide a correction (even tho several posters have given you the answer), you are shown to be perversely argumentative.

Now, you answer me a question, Tony. Why should I bother to debate someone who cannot get some fact as trivial as this correct? Someone who has shown themselves to be unremittingly incompetent and perversely argumentative.


Tom

 

[tfk]

Fair enough. I don't think Mr. Szamboti sees it the same way, as evidenced by his challenge to tfk for a televised debate, but I can see your point.

Hey Hoke,

As I explained to Ron, I'd be perfectly happy to debate Tony, introduced as "Tom, an experienced mechanical engineer with this background..." With all the background verified by Ron. I'd still be happy to do that anonymously.

Tony has realized that I'm not inclined to reveal who I am, for the following reasons.

After watching numerous people (from the NIST engineers, to reporters Mike Walter, Jamie Macintyre & Jane Standley, to people as innocent as Ms. McClatchy, who merely took the photo of the rising smoke column from the crash of Flight 93) who became publicly known as disagreeing with the truthers have their lives turned upside down, I decided that I'd rather not go thru that.

Then a bigger issue entered the picture.

I am the CTO of my own company. I thought that starting up my own company would give me all kinds of freedom to do what I want. Boy, was I in for a rude awakening.

I now have a Board of Directors and stockholders to answer to. I brought up this issue with the board. I was absolutely clear with them about the issues. Including the fact that I've already had my internet troofer stalker, who started posting insults on my hometown board on Topix.

We discussed it, and the risk/reward equation was a no-brainer. Ultimately they said that they "couldn't stop me", but it was imminently clear that they were very unhappy about the prospect. Now I was left with the question, "What message does it send to them if they clearly say that they are unhappy, and I do it anyway?"

That's not a message that I care to send to them in an area of my life that is hugely important.

Finally, the reason that the vast majority of real scientists & engineers don't bother: it's kinda embarrassing to do so. A bunch of my friends (real scientists & engineers) all roll their eyes whenever I mention this stuff. "Why the hell are you wasting your time on these bozos?" is the uniform question.

For the first several years after 9/11, I could cite a valid reason: Because these people were misleading a bunch of people (college & high school kids & the technically uninformed) down a pretty foul path regarding a huge number of this country's leaders, police, the military, its scientists & engineers, its professional societies, etc. This I felt (& still feel) was worth opposing vocally.

But that reason has gradually evaporated. There really is only a lunatic fringe left. My interest has waned as a result.

Since Tony can't debate the issues on their merits, every time Tony & I get into a discussion (like this on on timing of WTC7's north wall collapse), instead of addressing the issues, he now resorts to "you won't publicly disclose who you are".

He thinks it's his trump card.


Tom

 

[Hokulele]

Tom, I didn't mean to suggest anything about you or your reasons for keeping personal information private in the post you quoting. I am a huge believer in personal privacy and would never suggest anyone post anything publically that they don't wish to. I also firmly believe that, at least as far as scientific arguments go, facts and supporting evidence stand for themselves, regardless of who is making the argument.

I was simply pointing out to femr2 that Tony would most likely never agree to take things "private" when it concerns his irreducible delusion. It doesn't matter who he is discussing the issue with.

And I completely agree with you and your reasoning behind holding firm on your conditions for debate. You are right, debating someone like Mr.Szamboti would serve no more purpose than having a doctorate in biology debate a creationist.

 

[newton3376]

All VERY valid reasons tfk.

As I explained to Ron, I'd be perfectly happy to debate Tony, introduced as "Tom, an experienced mechanical engineer with this background..." With all the background verified by Ron. I'd still be happy to do that anonymously.

There you go Tony.....if you really think your "facts" and technical expertise can stand up to Tom then you should have no problem agreeing to these terms.....the truth is you are looking for any excuse you can find to not debate Tom.

Tony has realized that I'm not inclined to reveal who I am, for the following reasons.

Of course he does.....that is why Tony has as one of his "conditions" that you do something he knows you are unwilling to do....it's a defensive mechanism so he never has to debate you.

If he really thinks he has the engineering evidence to back up his claims....he should agree to the terms and just debate you.

Since Tony can't debate the issues on their merits, every time Tony & I get into a discussion (like this on on timing of WTC7's north wall collapse), instead of addressing the issues, he now resorts to "you won't publicly disclose who you are".

He thinks it's his trump card.

Yep....exactly...it's an attempt to dodge the debate because he is scared.

If he wasn't scared he would just agree to the terms you have laid out and debate you.

But he dare not do that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Post #407 of the Care to Comment thread here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175536&page=11.

Is this some kind of a joke? You posted four measurements of distance fallen, on a 1/6th second time spacing, and all you've deduced from them is that the differences are increasing. You could easily be missing jolts shorter than 1/6 of a second, and as usual you haven't even hinted at an estimate of measurement accuracy.

I'd like to see your entire raw dataset to compare it with femr2's, and also just to check whether you've 'accidentally' smoothed your data again.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

Hardly.

Do you wear a skirt when you cheerlead?

Do you ever switch your brain on before you post here?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is this some kind of a joke? You posted four measurements of distance fallen, on a 1/6th second time spacing, and all you've deduced from them is that the differences are increasing. You could easily be missing jolts shorter than 1/6 of a second, and as usual you haven't even hinted at an estimate of measurement accuracy.

I'd like to see your entire raw dataset to compare it with femr2's, and also just to check whether you've 'accidentally' smoothed your data again.

Dave

The real joke is your thinking that any jolt of less than 1/6th of a second would have any effect. In the Missing Jolt paper we show that the effect from any jolt capable of causing collapse continuation would cause the velocity to take nearly a second to recover. The jolt itself would be too short to be seen but its effects would not be.

It is obvious that people like you and W.D. Clinger have nothing else to go on but to try to say "see there could be a little bump they are missing", while not alerting them to the real issue which is the velocity loss which would take time to recover.

You are either being a dumbo here or are trying to B.S. people into thinking that any little bump matters, when that is far from the case.

The rest of the Tracker data had the same pattern, in that there was no single point reduction in velocity at any time. If you want to see it I would post it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you ever switch your brain on before you post here?

It isn't necessary when replying to cheerleaders.

 

[femr2]

I'd like to see your entire raw dataset to compare it with femr2's

My data is here...
NW Corner
Washer

I imagine I could actually improve upon the raw data quality these days. My tracing procedures improve quite regularly. (format is a bit sloppy, but no matter. Can always clean up if it was ever formalised.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

The rest of the Tracker data had the same pattern, in that there was no single point reduction in velocity at any time. If you want to see it I would post it.

How many times would you like me to ask before you do so?

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

How many times would you like me to ask before you do so?

Dave

Send me your e-mail address by PM so I can attach the file.

 

[DGM]

Send me your e-mail address by PM so I can attach the file.

What's wrong with putting it out for public scrutiny? Femr2 has.

 

[dafydd]

It isn't necessary when replying to cheerleaders.

A cheerleader knows more about about engineering that you do,so it might be an idea to get your little grey cells to do a bit of work for a change.By the way,I asked in another thread if you had designed any buildings in Europe so I can steer well clear of them,I bet that you've never designed a building in your life,but I want to be on the safe side.

 

[pgimeno]

Funk, the collapses in the Verinage demolitions occur after the columns of a couple of floors are removed artificially, but they are caused by momentum transfer only. This is a natural mechanism and the only one which could continue the collapse of WTC 1 if it had been natural.

And if not?

Can you please tell us how to set up a top-down demolition that does not involve momentum transfer causing deceleration or jolts?

In another message you say:

Weakening of structural joints can be done in a variety of ways and is all that would be necessary.

Without the integrity of those joints providing resistance to the fall of the upper section there would be no deceleration and velocity loss.

How does the loss of integrity of the joints avoid velocity loss by momentum transfer?

Plus, you're absolutely wrong about the Verinage demolitions. Have you read the patent? They apply to buildings with load-bearing walls, which are set up to give way simultaneously using jacks (vérins) and cables.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What's wrong with putting it out for public scrutiny? Femr2 has.

I am talking about sending the Tracker data file and video.

I don't have a place to put it on the Internet.

I can send it to you using MegaUpload and you can post it if you like.