ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , tony szamboti , Zdenek Bazant

Reply
Old 6th July 2016, 05:14 PM   #121
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What pulled the exterior columns in to start with? Hint: NIST found out it couldn't be the floor weight due to sagging.
Redistribution of load with a small amount of truss pull in. Yes, there is no reason to believe the truss sag did all the work.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 6th July 2016 at 05:19 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:15 PM   #122
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
How about I say your response to this says you might suffer from moral turpitude.

I said if Dr. Bazant corrects his errors I would laud him as an honorable man.
Therefore you are not an honorable man.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:15 PM   #123
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Redistribution of load with a small amount of truss pull in.
No, that wasn't what caused it according to NIST. The load on the south wall where they say it started was no different than it ever was and sagging trusses couldn't pull the exterior columns inward in their model.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th July 2016 at 05:17 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:16 PM   #124
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, that wasn't what caused it according to NIST. The load on the south wall was no different than it ever was.
Quote the reference.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:18 PM   #125
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
I love it when I can post quick enough to show Tony editing to try and make sense.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:21 PM   #126
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Quote the reference.
Read the NIST report and it will tell you what they had to do. They could not get the exterior columns to bow inward so they applied a 5,000 lb. artificial lateral load to each exterior column of the south wall.

This means they don't say what caused it.

It really is obvious though. It was the core dropping and pulling the exterior columns inward through the floors. The dropping antenna shows the core went down before the exterior.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:22 PM   #127
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Tony, Why are you obsessed with models?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:22 PM   #128
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the 0.64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame, as we did, would give at least 4 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever observed in the measurements.
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
"Impulse" is not the same thing as jolt. Impulse is the total (vector) change in momentum due to the integral of an acceleration (i.e. over time or using a delta function for instantaneous acceleration). "Jolt" is the derivative of acceleration, as from a sudden brake. If you brake a car from 90 mph to 0 mph, you get the same impulse no matter what, but a high jolt if you brake it quickly, and a low jolt if you brake it slowly.

A high jolt, or jerk, is typically what causes people to stumble on a tram (the acceleration itself is rarely high enough and is typically constant for a while, but it may very suddenly goes from zero to a few mph).

I was just about to say that. But remember, you're dealing with a fellow who claimed that objects at rest are being accelerated at g towards the earth.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:24 PM   #129
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
I was just about to say that. But remember, you're dealing with a fellow who claimed that objects at rest are being accelerated at g towards the earth.
Can you tell me what the equation for static load force of

F = mg

means?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:25 PM   #130
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Lets forget about the North Tower. Give you expert analysis for the South. Don't like that because no fancy math can save it. No charges needed right?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:25 PM   #131
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Tony, Why are you obsessed with models?
That is how we diagnose failures in general. Do you have an alternative?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:26 PM   #132
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Lets forget about the North Tower. Give you expert analysis for the South. Don't like that because no fancy math can save it. No charges needed right?
I kind of prefer looking at the North Tower. Its descent is measurable and more can be observed.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:28 PM   #133
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What pulled the exterior columns in to start with? Hint: NIST found out it couldn't be the floor weight due to sagging.
In one of the "Structures In Fire" Conference there are over twentysomething references to catenary horizontal forces that pull in columns. The same forces you deny in the WTC.

The unrestrained girder that expands and gets trapped in WTC7 buckles, twists,deforms. You say it only deflects 2-3" and remains trapped without buckling. This is wrong.

Bazant describes the sequential column failure of the towers due to the moment generated by the rotating top portion. You don't know this.

Your knowledge of structural mechanics and structures in fire is inferior.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:29 PM   #134
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Analyzing video and not ignoring sound would be one.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:30 PM   #135
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I kind of prefer looking at the North Tower. Its descent is measurable and more can be observed.
And the fact even you can't play with Bazants numbers enough to prevent global collapse? Don't feel bad, no one has.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 6th July 2016 at 05:35 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:31 PM   #136
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Now that's confusing as hell.
Impulse is dimensionally (Force)*(time), eg, N*s, lbf*sec, etc. An impulse of 10 N*sec may be the result of 100 N acting over 1/10 second, or 1/(106)N acting over 107sec, or any combination that works out to 10
You have to multiply a very large number by 0 to get 10...
Game physics engines use a time step dt which is a small but nonzero number. The smaller the number, the more accurate the simulation is. That's what causes the big spike in the Box2D simulation I wrote; it gets arbitrarily large as I reduce the timestep, because the impulse lasts for 1 simulation tick (which in turn lasts dt seconds).

__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:44 PM   #137
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And the fact even you can't play with Bazants numbers enough to prevent global collapse? Don't feel bad, no one has.
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th July 2016 at 05:46 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 05:53 PM   #138
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.
WTC1,2 NIST simply calculated the failure of the truss connections from the weight of the falling mass above. The failure of the truss connections was verified from the debris.
The collapses were due to failure by simultaneous multifloor fires and damage, not CD.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:01 PM   #139
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
My units are straight. I determined the force required to buckle the columns and then determined deceleration (g's) required from the impact (or shock load) using the impacting mass.

The term jolt was misapplied by Z. Bazant. Take it up with him. He has several more pressing errors to fix, so this little nit should really be let go. I understand it is all many have here as they are being shown that there are problems with the present official explanation, so in a vain attempt to save face they are willing to pick on an insignificant nit.
Your entire raison d'etre is an insignificant nit. I know it must suck and all, but that's the truth.

Nothing you have ever written changes one iota any conclusion of the reality that is 19 Terrorists + 4 planes = 9/11.

Jolt, no jolt, who gives a crap? Seriously? What possible meaning could there be? The very first thing you need to come to grips with is that nothing could have survived the impact of those aircraft, LET ALONE explosives of any kind. That's absolutely INSANE.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:04 PM   #140
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What pulled the exterior columns in to start with? Hint: NIST found out it couldn't be the floor weight due to sagging.
Heat.

Do i get my degree from University now?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:25 PM   #141
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your entire raison d'etre is an insignificant nit. I know it must suck and all, but that's the truth.

Nothing you have ever written changes one iota any conclusion of the reality that is 19 Terrorists + 4 planes = 9/11.

Jolt, no jolt, who gives a crap? Seriously? What possible meaning could there be? The very first thing you need to come to grips with is that nothing could have survived the impact of those aircraft, LET ALONE explosives of any kind. That's absolutely INSANE.
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Heat.

Do i get my degree from University now?
This is about the long and short of it.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:27 PM   #142
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood
I was just about to say that. But remember, you're dealing with a fellow who claimed that objects at rest are being accelerated at g towards the earth.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Can you tell me what the equation for static load force of

F = mg

means?
Gladly, Tony. It's the solution to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation for the attraction of two bodies:

F=Gm1m2/r2 where G=Newton's Gravitational Constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between them. To derive g, the acceleration of a body in a vacuum near the earth's surface,

g=F/mb=Gme mb/r2mb = Gme/r2

where me= the mass of the Earth, and r=the radius of the Earth.

Note that the mass of the body drops out of the equation, so that all objects fall towards the earth at the same acceleration. But from the original Newton's law, the force exerted between the Earth and a body is proportionate to the body's mass. Kind of takes you back to high school, doesn't it?

But back to the statics. When I stand on the earth, the earth is pushing on me just as hard as I'm pushing on the earth. That means that net force=0.
Which means I don't move. Which means I don't accelerate.

You remind me of a kid I used to help out in high school physics. He could never "get it", so he became a music producer and wound up as a millionaire.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:29 PM   #143
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,066
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.

Yet he only overestimated the initial potential energy by a factor of two (assuming your mass correction is accurate). So in your "corrected" version of the model, after one story of fall, half the potential energy of Bazant's model has been converted, but the falling mass has only 1/3.4 the amount of kinetic energy as in Bazant's model. Where does the extra energy go?

In Bazant's model, the potential energy of the one story of drop becomes kinetic energy. That's simplified and unrealistic in its details, but at least the energy is accounted for. The ledger books balance. In your "corrected" model, only a part of that potential energy has become kinetic energy, and you disregard the rest as if it has no effect. The books don't balance. Energy has gone missing. Has it been embezzled?

Actually, of course, that energy is converted into deformation of the adjacent structures during the initial one-story drop, which is why the acceleration is slower than g in the first place. By the time the upper mass has dropped one story, there's no longer an intact next floor for it to land on. Your missing energy explains your missing jolt.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:35 PM   #144
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Beachnut, he said it in the addendum of Bazant and Zhou.

I did list the errors which need to be corrected in the letter I sent to Dr. Bazant. I would imagine you have read it.
How many times does "jolt" show up? lol, you take it out of context and then make up your own failed numbers and claims.

How many times did Bazant use jolt?

Why do you make up your numbers? Show your work... lol, and where are those silent explosives after 14 failed years of woo and calling people who disagree with your paid agents of the guys you can't name.


wow, more made up numbers

What happens when more than 11 floors hit a lower floor - I will let you have zero speed at impact... go ahead make my day? Good luck with the CD fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 6th July 2016 at 06:36 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 06:59 PM   #145
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Gladly, Tony. It's the solution to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation for the attraction of two bodies:

F=Gm1m2/r2 where G=Newton's Gravitational Constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between them. To derive g, the acceleration of a body in a vacuum near the earth's surface,

g=F/mb=Gme mb/r2mb = Gme/r2

where me= the mass of the Earth, and r=the radius of the Earth.

Note that the mass of the body drops out of the equation, so that all objects fall towards the earth at the same acceleration. But from the original Newton's law, the force exerted between the Earth and a body is proportionate to the body's mass. Kind of takes you back to high school, doesn't it?

But back to the statics. When I stand on the earth, the earth is pushing on me just as hard as I'm pushing on the earth. That means that net force=0.
Which means I don't move. Which means I don't accelerate.

You remind me of a kid I used to help out in high school physics. He could never "get it", so he became a music producer and wound up as a millionaire.
Wow, you are quite the spinner. We were not talking about items on the ground. We were talking about an elevated object like the upper sections of the WTC buildings.

Of course, everyone knows one needs to counter the force generated by a static load if it is elevated and put on a table or in a building or it will fall. The structure underneath experiences this force, so it is real. You can't have force from a mass without acceleration being involved. The only reason it doesn't move is that it is being countered by the supporting structure. Take that away and the item falls to earth at one g less air resistance.

If kids had to listen to the kind of spin you used here they would learn nothing. If you did the same to the kid you were trying to teach physics to it isn't hard to understand why he "didn't get it". Do you bloviate often?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th July 2016 at 07:13 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:10 PM   #146
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Since it's completely illogical to believe anyone other than duped 9/11 truthers would be even remotely interested in a New InvestigationTM, you've answered your own question.
Other than your own opinion, do you have proof?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:11 PM   #147
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Yet he only overestimated the initial potential energy by a factor of two (assuming your mass correction is accurate). So in your "corrected" version of the model, after one story of fall, half the potential energy of Bazant's model has been converted, but the falling mass has only 1/3.4 the amount of kinetic energy as in Bazant's model. Where does the extra energy go?
It is being absorbed by the buckling or deforming columns in the first story. It was not in free fall as he had it. He overestimated both mass and velocity.

Quote:
In Bazant's model, the potential energy of the one story of drop becomes kinetic energy. That's simplified and unrealistic in its details, but at least the energy is accounted for. The ledger books balance. In your "corrected" model, only a part of that potential energy has become kinetic energy, and you disregard the rest as if it has no effect. The books don't balance. Energy has gone missing. Has it been embezzled?
There was never as much potential energy as Bazant claimed due to the overestimate of mass.

Quote:
Actually, of course, that energy is converted into deformation of the adjacent structures during the initial one-story drop, which is why the acceleration is slower than g in the first place. By the time the upper mass has dropped one story, there's no longer an intact next floor for it to land on. Your missing energy explains your missing jolt.
There is no missing energy. Bazant overestimated it and didn't account for what was being absorbed in the first story.

The deceleration would have happened because there would not have been enough energy to move through the columns below without a serious percentage of what was there being lost in deforming those columns.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th July 2016 at 07:12 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:12 PM   #148
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.
How does this work for the South Tower? Does this represent what is seen in video? You can say it...................
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 6th July 2016 at 07:14 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:12 PM   #149
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Why?! A new investigation would come to the same conclusion.
Let's find out.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:14 PM   #150
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I don't want answers.
Of course you don't. You can't accept anything that contradicts your delusions. I realize this. Why won't you?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:15 PM   #151
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What pulled the exterior columns in to start with? Hint: NIST found out it couldn't be the floor weight due to sagging.
Where is that in the NIST report?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:15 PM   #152
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How does this work for the South Tower? Does this represent what is seen in video? You can say it...................
I haven't really looked at the South Tower.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:16 PM   #153
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,975
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Where is that in the NIST report?
Both the artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load that was applied to each exterior column on the south wall of WTC 1 to get them to bow inward and the admission that the sagging floors didn't cause inward bowing in the model are in the same place. I don't remember the exact chapter off the top of my head.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th July 2016 at 07:18 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:17 PM   #154
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Wow, you are quite the spinner. We were not talking about items on the ground. We were talking about an elevated object like the upper sections of the WTC buildings.

At what point was WTC 1 struck by American 11? Where did the collapse of WTC 1 originate?

At what point was WTC 2 struck by United 175? Where did the collapse of WTC 2 originate?

WTC 1 was struck before WTC 2, but why did WTC 2 collapse before WTC 1?
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:20 PM   #155
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Do you mean the artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load that was applied to each exterior column on the south wall of WTC 1 to get them to bow inward or just that the sagging floors didn't cause inward bowing in the model?

Buckling of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 was caused by fires raging within those buildings.

Structural buckling was noted by witnesses moments prior to the collapse of those buildings.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:24 PM   #156
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Let's find out.

Go ahead, pay for a new investigation and when the result reconfirms no CD explosives and thermite, then I will be ready when Truthers scream the investigation was rigged and call for another investigation.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:30 PM   #157
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Both the artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load that was applied to each exterior column on the south wall of WTC 1 to get them to bow inward and the admission that the sagging floors didn't cause inward bowing in the model are in the same place. I don't remember the exact chapter off the top of my head.
That's OK Tony you clearly don't understand the collapses, because you are still using a one story drop model failure of welds in the core as walk off and fracture begins explains both the drop of the antenna and the pull in of the exterior columns.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:33 PM   #158
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Of course you don't. You can't accept anything that contradicts your delusions. I realize this. Why won't you?

Just to let you know that explosives make a lot of noise when detonated. Here is a good example.


Explosive Detonation Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmNErY0FIU


Now, show us a video that depicts the sound of explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 collapsed.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:51 PM   #159
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Wow, you are quite the spinner. We were not talking about items on the ground. We were talking about an elevated object like the upper sections of the WTC buildings.

Of course, everyone knows one needs to counter the force generated by a static load if it is elevated and put on a table or in a building or it will fall. The structure underneath experiences this force, so it is real. You can't have force from a mass without acceleration being involved. The only reason it doesn't move is that it is being countered by the supporting structure. Take that away and the item falls to earth at one g less air resistance.

If kids had to listen to the kind of spin you used here they would learn nothing. If you did the same to the kid you were trying to teach physics to it isn't hard to understand why he "didn't get it". Do you bloviate often?
Ahahahahaaaaaa

I, ...you, oh so much wrong and only a tiny phone keyboard .......
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 07:54 PM   #160
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... The term jolt was misapplied by Z. Bazant. ...
Once? In one paper? How was it misapplied? Explain why.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 6th July 2016 at 08:09 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.