You really need to need to find a better way of phrasing your argument Tony. Terms like "amplified load" seem to be of your own devising, and do not communicate anything.
WTC: Rate of Fall (rate of crush)
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
You really need to need to find a better way of phrasing your argument Tony. Terms like "amplified load" seem to be of your own devising, and do not communicate anything.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, I have been involved in structural dynamics work throughout my engineering career and the term "amplified load" is in common use among those who have to design for these types of loads and understand dynamics.
If you don't know that, you probably don't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently. There are books you can read to get to the point where you can. Here is a little primer on structural impact for you that happens to use the term you seem to think I just made up for my own reasons http://www.pdhcenter.com/courses/s164/s164content.pdf
Last edited:
The point, Tony, is that you are not communicating very well. If you want to convince people of your point, you need to explain it in a way people can understand. Even your own referenced does not used the term "amplified load". It's a pointless term in this situation anyway, since the static load component is pretty negligible. You'd be better off talking about "force of impact", or "crushing resistance", or somesuch. The "amplified load" is just a fairly abstract result.
And in the things you have been involved in, I doubt that they ever discussed amplified load in the context of a progressive collapse?
And in the things you have been involved in, I doubt that they ever discussed amplified load in the context of a progressive collapse?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, if all you can do is complain about semantics you clearly don't have much to say here.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
It also talks about impact loads. Sudden loading is another form of load amplification which can occur with an object initially at rest and a velocity of zero, but is limited to 2X. In the case of a dropped item which develops a velocity it can amplify the static load many times over, depending on the strength of the objects involved and the deceleration and velocity loss of the impacting object.
Are you an engineer Mick? If not, what is your scientific education and background?
Are you an engineer Mick? If not, what is your scientific education and background?
Last edited:
MichaelStox
Member
He may not be an engineer or have a scientific background as strong as yours, but that doesn't mean he's incapable of understanding and debating the given issues. What I think Mick was trying to say was that you need to keep in mind that people you are explaining things to don't have the same schemas as you do. I get you have a strong engineering background and you've done a pretty good explaining things for the most part IMO but try to communicate so people who don't have similar schemas/knowledge/background can more clearly understand your points.
Last edited:
Obviously. But load amplification is just a simplistic way of describing what happens. The important things are "the strength of the objects involved and the deceleration and velocity loss of the impacting object." And those are what we should be talking about.
That's entirely irrelevant. If I don't understand something, I'll tell you.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I haven't said anything here that a rational person can't understand if they have some scientific background and are attempting to understand.
It is usually incumbent on the person who possibly doesn't understand a technical discussion to go learn a little, instead of badgering the person who is talking in legitimate terms to dumb it down for them and use terms they like.
I would be embarrassed to make the kind of subjective complaints I am hearing here. There is an old saying that if you don't understand it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are stupid rather than opening it and removing all doubt. In other words, if you don't understand and can't legitimately discuss the issue then go learn about it before saying anything so you don't make a fool of yourself.
What I suspect is really going on here is that those who would want to deny what I am saying have no argument against it and don't want to admit that publicly, so they are trying to make it seem that what I am saying is not understandable. In reality, anyone who knows something about structural dynamics would not have any complaint with the terms I am using.
It looks like the debate is over here and it has been shown that the lack of deceleration of the upper section of the North Tower is evidence that the collapse was not natural. There is no more to say about it and all I can say, to those claiming to have a hard time understanding it, is to go educate yourself in the area of structural dynamics. There are a number of good books available on the subject.
Last edited:
Jazzy
Closed Account
You should read what I write. This is basic mechanics.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
That is your opinion. You are wrong if you think the lack of deceleration can be explained with only natural circumstances involved.
Jazzy
Closed Account
This answer shows quite directly that you are not reading and understanding what I write. You really should try.
It is also spelled "loth". It's perhaps better to use that spelling rather than to confuse yourself.
Jazzy
Closed Account
If there was lack of deceleration, then why did the collapse ejecta beat the tower to the ground?
Why was the fall time of this tower 11.5 seconds, and not 9.2 seconds?
Why do you not acknowledge my "action and reaction", and "direct equivalence" arguments?
Why do you not appreciate that the retardation of the falling tower is a direct indicator of the energy involved, and can therefore can be quite simply calculated?
The only answer to these questions is that you are in denial over this.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Jazzy, you clearly don't have much more to add to this than Mick does with his semantics complaints. You are actually taking the time now to worry about two different spellings of a word that was completely peripheral to the subject.
It is obvious that those not yet willing to accept that the lack of deceleration in the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is evidence of unnatural circumstances are in denial.
It is obvious that those not yet willing to accept that the lack of deceleration in the fall of the upper section of the North Tower is evidence of unnatural circumstances are in denial.
Jazzy
Closed Account
If my argument is "nonsense", then perhaps you should explain why you think so.
Last edited:
Jazzy
Closed Account
Nor you.
And you have still failed to address my argument "the retardation of the falling tower is a direct indicator of the energy involved, and can therefore can be quite simply calculated".
I have addressed yours, and have been waiting for some time for a meaningful response.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The 0.36G retardation of the falling section was less than what it was to support a static load. I have explained numerous times to you now, that to amplify the static load requires deceleration beyond the 1G required to restrain the static load.
The calculation of the kinetic energy involved vs. the column energy absorption capacity is done in the Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis paper, which Mick provided a link to above. Bazant drastically overestimated kinetic energy and significantly underestimated column energy absorption capacity. With the real values involved, the upper section fall should have promptly arrested after a one or two story drop.
You have no argument and seem to be playing a game here to waste my time. If you honestly don't get what I am saying about the lack of deceleration being an indication of unnatural causes, then do a little studying of structural dynamics before going off half-cocked.
Last edited:
Tony, you are cruising on the wrong side of the politeness policy here. Please try to address the arguments, and not the intelligence or the education of the person making them.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/
I'm trying to actually help you make your argument here. Your use of the term "amplified load" makes your argument unclear. Not because I don't understand what you mean, but because it's an uncommon term, and a bit of an abstraction, referring to idealized circumstances.
Why does it require it ALL THE TIME?
Why not just for short periods of time (impacts), and then the rest of the time we are closer to 0 for resistance? Imagine something like 0.99 seconds of 0 resistance, and 0.01 seconds of 65G resistance/"amplified load". That's kind of like 0.65G over 1 second (simplifying here for clarity), and yet has a powerful 65G impact, enough to break the supports.
So that satisfies your constraint "that to amplify the static load requires deceleration beyond the 1G required to restrain the static load." Hence that's a meaningless constraint - and was never a constraint that anyone really argued against.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/
I'm trying to actually help you make your argument here. Your use of the term "amplified load" makes your argument unclear. Not because I don't understand what you mean, but because it's an uncommon term, and a bit of an abstraction, referring to idealized circumstances.
Why does it require it ALL THE TIME?
Why not just for short periods of time (impacts), and then the rest of the time we are closer to 0 for resistance? Imagine something like 0.99 seconds of 0 resistance, and 0.01 seconds of 65G resistance/"amplified load". That's kind of like 0.65G over 1 second (simplifying here for clarity), and yet has a powerful 65G impact, enough to break the supports.
So that satisfies your constraint "that to amplify the static load requires deceleration beyond the 1G required to restrain the static load." Hence that's a meaningless constraint - and was never a constraint that anyone really argued against.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The only way a load above a structure designed to handle several times that load can be destroyed/collapsed by that load is with a dynamically amplified load which requires deceleration from free fall above that of the 1G needed for restraining the static load. In other words, it not only has to stop any acceleration, but must reverse it by decelerating and losing velocity.
In reality, the impulses would be short and aren't very observable/measurable. However, this is not what would be measured to determine if a sufficient deceleration had occurred. It takes time to recover the initial velocity and the velocity loss due to the deceleration is plenty measurable.
Additionally, you would never be close to zero between impacts (impulses) in a natural situation where the failure would be buckling columns, since buckling of columns have a very high minimum resistance over a one or two story buckling length.
Sure it was argued. Jazzy is trying to say there was deceleration due to the fact that the fall wasn't at G. Deceleration and load amplification due to impact is normally considered that which occurs after the static load resistance is applied, but mathematically the static load resistance can be shown as deceleration from free fall and presented that way, so I just explained it a little differently for him in that the load amplification occurs only with resistance greater than that needed to restrain the static load applied. This greater resistance than what is needed for the static load is what would cause deceleration and velocity loss. Do I have to do something different for you? I think you guys are confused in the opposite direction and by talking between yourselves would cancel out each other's confusion.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I think what you are trying to get at is that the average would be acceleration and if the impulse is too short for observation then it would simply appear to be constant acceleration. This is Dave Thomas' argument and it is bogus for a couple of reasons.
First is that there can never be anything near zero resistance between impacts as he tries to say, since columns would be buckling between impacts.
Secondly, Dave Thomas' impulse does not deliver enough energy to break the structure below.
In addition, the severe velocity loss from the required deceleration, to break up a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, would be observable. This is proven due to the time it takes to recover.
You don't need zero, you just need small.
Then that's what needs to be shown. Not this irrelevance about load amplification.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
We have shown in a couple of different papers that the energy drain from the columns would have caused a very large deceleration in a natural collapse and in the Some Misunderstandings paper that arrest was actually likely.
So I don't see where you have an argument here.
My argument is twofold.
Firstly you make a flat assertion that there should be a net deceleration. You justify this with arguments like:
As if there is some law of nature that renders any structure that supports a weight incapable of being crushed by that weight. This is reminiscent of the arguments of Heiwa, which are nonsense.
Secondly, when pressed, you admit it's a bit more complicated than that, but still assert that the resistance would quickly arrest the fall. But you base that on a simple model of columns crushing columns, when what happened was more along the lines of floors being stipped away, the exterior walls peeling to the outside, and the core columns buckling long after supporting floors have been removed, and mostly failing at the splices - not bending or squashing.
These arguments I'm sure you are familiar with:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc1-and-wtc2-collapse-progression-f56.html
It seems silly to be going round and round making the same arguments over and over again. I think what should be focussed on is a way of making the arguments both clear and verifiable. What is the actual root disagreement here. Sure we disagree over the end result, but if we work backwards, where is there common ground? What is the point of divergence?
I'm really not here to try to make a case. I'm here to figure out what the bugs are in the hypotheses.
Firstly you make a flat assertion that there should be a net deceleration. You justify this with arguments like:
As if there is some law of nature that renders any structure that supports a weight incapable of being crushed by that weight. This is reminiscent of the arguments of Heiwa, which are nonsense.
Secondly, when pressed, you admit it's a bit more complicated than that, but still assert that the resistance would quickly arrest the fall. But you base that on a simple model of columns crushing columns, when what happened was more along the lines of floors being stipped away, the exterior walls peeling to the outside, and the core columns buckling long after supporting floors have been removed, and mostly failing at the splices - not bending or squashing.
These arguments I'm sure you are familiar with:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc1-and-wtc2-collapse-progression-f56.html
It seems silly to be going round and round making the same arguments over and over again. I think what should be focussed on is a way of making the arguments both clear and verifiable. What is the actual root disagreement here. Sure we disagree over the end result, but if we work backwards, where is there common ground? What is the point of divergence?
I'm really not here to try to make a case. I'm here to figure out what the bugs are in the hypotheses.
Jazzy
Closed Account
That is NOT the retardation of the falling tower top, but the retardation of the next piece of the tower top to strike the stationary tower.
They are entirely different entities.
When you STOP confabulating the two separate entities, we are going to progress. This isn't the first time I have pointed this out.
The retardation of the WTC2 tower top, the integral part, as we already know, was 0.36G. We know this, if little else, by timing its time to complete collapse, using many video inputs.
The retardation of the next piece of tower top to strike the tower depends on its mass, the speed it is traveling at, and its own elasticity. We know NOTHING about it, nor will we ever know anything about it. It isn't worth confabulating it with the tower top's retardation as a whole, unless you are sickly determined not to think.
You are confusing your terms and assuming the structures were intact and correctly aligned. This cannot be correct, can it? Because we saw them leaning (WTC2) or rocking (WTC1) as they fell.
This HAS to mean that they were neither intact nor aligned. It also means that you are basing your argument on a foundation of sand. When neither intact nor aligned, they cannot be expected to transfer their loads to their appropriate members, and your argument is meaningless.
This isn't statics. Everything is moving and dynamic. In fact, thermodynamic, because of the immense potential energy of a 450,000-ton structure rising to 1360 feet were it to collapse. Which it did.
I am unconcerned about what you think about Bazant's paper. How many times do I have to tell you this?
I reiterate: "the retardation of the falling tower is a direct indicator of the energy involved, and can therefore can be quite simply calculated".
I have provided the calculations, which you have ignored.
I have a complete engineering argument, and the calculations to prove it. Calculations which you do not, item-by-item dispute, for if you did you would have to admit that your unmentioned credo has no basis in fact.
I would hate to compete with your own efforts in that respect. You are far more efficient at wasting your own time than I could ever be.
You are denying a palpably obvious deceleration, and failing to attribute that to what it obviously was. I cannot believe you are still doing this.
I did all that before you were a concept. For you I don't "go off" at all. I am much more concerned about the damage you create when you promulgate your bunk. My function is sanitary.
Here's a thought experiment, sunshine.
The tower top falls at 0.001 G. How much of its potential energy reaches the ground as kinetic energy?
The tower top falls at G. How much of its potential energy reaches the ground as kinetic energy?
The tower top falls at 0.64 G. How much of its potential energy reaches the ground as kinetic energy?
Just provide your own answers. You see - that part was easy, wasn't it?
Now ask yourself the question "Well, if 64% of the energy reached ground zero, then what happened to the 36% that didn't?
Was it perhaps the reason why the structure was so damaged?
Was the structure not damaged by the equivalent of sixty tons of TNT?
Was the steel wreckage not warmed, as the remaining energy was also equivalent to raising to melt 800 tons of iron?
Well you never! And there were you, thinking it was 1,001 watercooled/thermite/thermate/radiodetonators/telekinesis when after all the collapses were perfectly explicable in terms of physics....
Just as well…. …you didn't go off half-cocked, otherwise there would be egg all over your face.
You wear yellow glasses? Then let me explain to you the nature of light...
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, I do not see any bugs in my argument. It has been refined and there are several technical papers discussing it publicly. The one technical paper that tried to refute it (The Le and Bazant January 2011 JEM article) was shot down for containing falsehoods, without which it had no argument.
What I have not seen here are any legitimate arguments from any naysayers as to how constant acceleration (or synonymously a lack of deceleration) could be consistent with a natural collapse of an upper section through a lower section of a building designed to handle several times the load above it. So I guess it is time to move on.
What I have not seen here are any legitimate arguments from any naysayers as to how constant acceleration (or synonymously a lack of deceleration) could be consistent with a natural collapse of an upper section through a lower section of a building designed to handle several times the load above it. So I guess it is time to move on.
Last edited:
So what's the problem then? If you have proved it, then why hasn't the government been brought down?
Jazzy
Closed Account
Try something non-scientific, not involving your denial of plain facts, and your avoiding answering questions. You'll do better, perhaps.
Here's a legitimate argument: The energy required to essentially remove the the support is less than the energy difference between free-fall and 0.65g.
Here's another: The deceleration is there, it's just momentary multi-g upward jolts lost in the noise. The end result is a 0.65g downward acceleration.
Here's another: WTC1 did not need to crush every single column segment. It stripped the floors away from the core. The columns lost their lateral stability.
Move on all you like, but if you want to convice the world of your case, you need to communicate it in something more than flat assertions, and papers that refute imaginary models.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
This is a false statement. See the Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis paper. Google it for a copy.
Another false statement. There is no deceleration observed and the amount required in a natural collapse would be easily observable. We show this in the JEM Discussion by Richard Johns and I, which was posted on this forum. It is attached here again.
It couldn't do the floor stripping right away as that would require about five stories of floors to cause a cascade. There would have to be column on column contact for the first several floors.
Uh, I haven't just made flat assertions. I have been involved in writing technical papers about the issue, which I have sent to you and attached one here. What technical papers have you or anyone who disagrees been involved in with a different result?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The message does not fail on honest people who know something about structural dynamics. One of the reasons the message hasn't gotten out is that the JEM refused to publish our critique of the Le and Bazant paper, disingenuously claiming it was out of scope. So I would say there is real suppression of this information. You still haven't commented on that in spite of my asking you multiple times about it. Why not?
As I said to you on Skype:
1) Perhaps you paper is not as good as you think it is
2) Truthers have a lot of negative press, due to their often ridiculous claims.
I feel it's vastly more likely you are wrong than your theory is being suppressed. Otherwise you'd have no problem getting the information out - particularly in other countries.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You shouldn't be making these types of comments without having even discussed the paper. The submission to the JEM was professional and did not contain any ridiculous claims. It was strictly focused in a scientific way on a paper the JEM published. The fact that they sat on it for 27 months, while not being able to show we were wrong, and then simply would not publish it with the excuse that it was "out of scope" is what was ridiculous.
Last edited:
qed
Senior Member
@Tony Szamboti
Why could the top part of the building not fall through floor of the next level?
I mean through the weak part between the columns.
Why could the top part of the building not fall through floor of the next level?
I mean through the weak part between the columns.
MikeC
Closed Account
Jaz quoted someone:
I'm guessing this person doesn't have a background in physics or mechanical/civil engineering.
It is entirely possible to have momentary decelerations vastly greater than 1G while also having average deceleration of less than 1 G - that is just early high school mathematics/statistics - a load of 1000G for 0.001 second will probably destroy whatever is subjected to it, but not noticeably slow down an overall acceleration of 1G that it is s short "part of".
Start stringing such "instantaneous" high decelerations together one after the other and you will eventually get a noticeable effect on the larger picture - but that will not affect the nature of the events themselves.
I'm guessing this person doesn't have a background in physics or mechanical/civil engineering.
It is entirely possible to have momentary decelerations vastly greater than 1G while also having average deceleration of less than 1 G - that is just early high school mathematics/statistics - a load of 1000G for 0.001 second will probably destroy whatever is subjected to it, but not noticeably slow down an overall acceleration of 1G that it is s short "part of".
Start stringing such "instantaneous" high decelerations together one after the other and you will eventually get a noticeable effect on the larger picture - but that will not affect the nature of the events themselves.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Those multiple instances of the smaller picture will sum exactly to the bigger picture, from Newton's Third Law of Motion. The one is the reaction to the other.
In fact all three laws are required for the full argument, and these appear to have flown past our Mr. Szamboti without noticeable effect.
I think he's a poorly-trained statics guy who knows nothing about dynamics and even less about the root physics, which features in the aftermath.
Sorry, QED, I have to answer your question: "Why could the top part of the building not fall through floor of the next level?"
The answer is that the buckling turns some of the downward push into a strong lateral push in order to buckle in the first place.
This always guarantees that the next collision will be off the vertical axis, and thus where you ask it might go.
WTC2 tilted while WTC1 went into helical collapse (IMO). Both modes guaranteed vertical axis misalignment for the rest of the proceedings.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The upper section of the North Tower was 12 stories and weighed approximately 73 million lbs. There was no horizontal or lateral load involved and it would have fallen in place, that is straight down with columns impacting columns. This would have occurred for the first couple of stories at the very least. The fact that there is no deceleration means something was removing the structural integrity.
Those who want to say the columns would have been misaligned somehow can't explain how that would happen.
Last edited:
Similar threads
