Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Szamboti said:
I am a mechanical engineer and design weldments quite often and am aware of the strength of a weld using E70 weld material on A36 steel.
Click to expand...

Great, another engineer speaking outside his area of expertise.

Where are the chemical and environmental engineers? I haven't seen any of those weigh in yet.
 
Heiwa said:
Thanks for reminding us of Gordon Ross' excellent analysis of the controlled demolitions, CD, of the WTCs. A one-way crush down of a structure (topic) is not possible without assistance like CD.
Click to expand...

...or heavy damage from a plane crash and fire.

You still haven't said what you mean by one-way crush down, so it's impossible to say one way or the other.

That US authorities under various administrations suggest the opposite is a concern to us in Europe.
Click to expand...

"Us"? There are more of you?
 
aggle-rithm said:
...or heavy damage from a plane crash and fire.

You still haven't said what you mean by one-way crush down, so it's impossible to say one way or the other.



"Us"? There are more of you?
Click to expand...

He's got a mouse in his pocket.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Bill, I think a full core is superimposed on the video in that clip. It doesn't look like they are actually showing the core remnant. The reason I say this is that it is fully intact up top.
Click to expand...

I just made this post on another hread..

This is surely blinding evidence of controlled demolition. The core at the 30-second mark has survived all the stress that the falling building can place on it. That stress is over and has passed by leaving the core still intact and stnding. Given that the core was the srongest element of the entire building only controlled demolition could have brought it down after this point.

If we are dealing with manipulated video how can we teil whether any of he core footage is authentic ? Personally I don't recall seeing any video of core remnants until a year or two ago.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.
Click to expand...
44052587.jpg
 
"The Detonators" is showing all day today on The Science channel.
Here is your chance truthers because SEVERAL demo companies are featured so you can contact then!
Maybe they will help you kick off the new investigation!
I did learn that shape charges can only cut through about an inch of steel! So if they were used at the WTlC's it would have required EMENSE prep. I am no expert but the welding alone would have taken weeks or months just to plant the charges.
Gee I am sure no one would have noticed.
And what about all the people needed to plant the explosives?
What of just 1 had a pain of conscious?
The whole plot would have been blown wide open so to speak.
When you watch these shows it just further illustrates how insane and deluaional truthers are.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously don't have one.
Click to expand...
No Tony, I didn't feel like repeating the same absurdities yet again. Your jolt expectations are meaningless and it's been explained countless times as to why. Asking me to prove the existence of a dynamic load during a collapse was equally absurd when you brought that up to me. It's college material, not something you should be having this sort of trouble with. Frankly if you can't apply your expertise correctly that's not a problem I'm particularly responsible for solving. I'd rather not play that game.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it. I am not drawing conclusions here and said I don't know what to make of this issue presently. Detective work requires an open mind to possibilities.

On the contrary, you don't seem to want to consider any possibilities other than damage and fire, and you haven't shown why the notion of missing rebar is patently absurd, here at least.
Click to expand...
Hey Tony:
May I suggest you speak with people that worked on the clean-up, I'm positive they could describe what was there better then just using internet pictures, don't you agree? If you need help finding these people I think I can dig up some good contacts in NY/NJ for you. Let me know.
 
Why is it truthers spend COUNTLESS hours posting on forums,creating videos, etc yet they refuse to talk to first responders, demo experts, those involved on cleanup, etc?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.
Click to expand...

Did you read post #1510? I estimated that a 0.25 degree angle would give no velocity loss, and a 0.5 degree angle or greater would give no reduction in acceleration below 0.4G. Greater angles, including the 8 degrees actually observed and documented, give a minimum acceleration around 2/3G i.e. the figure actually observed. So no jolt and no velocity loss.

Dave
 
Grizzly Bear said:
No Tony, I didn't feel like repeating the same absurdities yet again. Your jolt expectations are meaningless and it's been explained countless times as to why. Asking me to prove the existence of a dynamic load during a collapse was equally absurd when you brought that up to me. It's college material, not something you should be having this sort of trouble with. Frankly if you can't apply your expertise correctly that's not a problem I'm particularly responsible for solving. I'd rather not play that game.
Click to expand...

You said all this and didn't actually say anything. So you are going to use the copout "that it has been explained to me many times" and that I am just not listening. Of course, you just say this with no links or basis for it.

There is no evidence of a dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1's upper block and I would venture to say probably not in WTC 2 either although that is difficult to measure. Your comment that this is simple material is nonsense. Understanding and designing for dynamic loads is much more difficult than designing for static loads. Most engineers don't get to do it until they have a reasonable amount of experience. I am wondering whether you have a full appreciation of dynamic loading.
 
Bobert said:
Why is it truthers spend COUNTLESS hours posting on forums,creating videos, etc yet they refuse to talk to first responders, demo experts, those involved on cleanup, etc?
Click to expand...

If the truth be told there are so many Shills out there that itis hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff. So we are better off being careful who we believe.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Did you read post #1510? I estimated that a 0.25 degree angle would give no velocity loss, and a 0.5 degree angle or greater would give no reduction in acceleration below 0.4G. Greater angles, including the 8 degrees actually observed and documented, give a minimum acceleration around 2/3G i.e. the figure actually observed. So no jolt and no velocity loss.

Dave
Click to expand...

I read over your post Dave and would like to know how you determine the remaining kinetic energy in the upper block and what the velocity is after each small jolt on a series of columns. This also relates to how quickly the series of separate jolts occur, as if the kinetic energy cannot be made up between jolts there will be a velocity drop which you aren't predicting. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture.

Your analysis currently does not account for axial plastic deformation and buckling separately. There are three energy loss mechanisms in the deformation of the columns: axial elastic, axial plastic, and buckling.

It would be interesting to see a spread sheet of your calculated energy losses due to column deformation and how fast these occur relative to one another and how far the upper block has fallen in the total time for the separate tilt jolts to occur over one floor.

Do you know that the actual core column sizes are available on the Internet? They are here http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

Additionally, it sounds like you are applying the full force of the upper block on each separate set of columns being impacted at any one time. Are you doing that? It also sounds like your model requires the lifted end to finally move down with a pivot in the center of the core, like a seesaw. Is that what you picture? What happens the next floor down? Does it reverse itself?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Hey Tony:
May I suggest you speak with people that worked on the clean-up, I'm positive they could describe what was there better then just using internet pictures, don't you agree? If you need help finding these people I think I can dig up some good contacts in NY/NJ for you. Let me know.
Click to expand...

DGM, while I am sure some of these people have some facinating information I don't think they can tell me much about a lack of deceleration or velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. Or about the factors of safety of the tower columns.

I am not going just by photos when examining this. The factors of safety were derived by knowing the building loads, the sizes of the columns, and the fact that the unit stress was kept the same on each column of a particular story to eliminate floor warpage due to differential deflection between the core and perimeter.

The Missing Jolt paper used the Sauret video to measure the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. What could clean up workers tell us about that?

If you are referring to distorted column ends there are a large volume of photos showing these things. That is better than the memories of individuals workers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom