Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Lauren Johnson]

This is a technical paper refuting the Progressive Column Failure theory of North Tower Collapse from the International Journal of Protective Structures. A couple of key paragraphs:

This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could
not fail. The objective is to eliminate erroneous concepts supported by false assumptions and
by the use of incorrect values for velocity, mass, and column resistance. The only complete
hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of
stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column
Failure mode or PCF in brief. (In the past this mode was often referred to as pancaking, but
this term is not used here to avoid ambiguities). It is explained here why PCF could not be
the mode of the ultimate destruction....

As one can readily see, this mode of damage is a distinct process, whereby each floor
becomes crushed, one after the other. An attempt has been made to smear the process out into
a continuum event and then use differential equations to obtain a solution [2]. Yet,
justification of such an approach must be performed, by showing that little is lost in
translation. As no such justification exists, the whole approach in [2] seems questionable....

[Summary]A number of simple, transparent calculations of the North Tower collapse were presented in
[5] and the conclusion was that assuming even a modest resistance of columns during their
destruction would cause an unacceptably long collapse time. It is only when perfectly
frangible columns were adopted that the fall time was as low as 15.3 s. This removes the PCF
mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse.

Yet, the PCF achieved significant popularity, as based on [1] and [2], while the next work
[12] did not contribute anything new to the core of the subject. These papers, purporting to
explain the collapse, suffered from three fatal errors, as detailed above. Also, the whole
methodology was not justified. Some incredibly short fall times were quoted by the authors,
while all solutions were of a black-box type. The presentations in these papers are not a valid
description of what happened. The reasons for a smooth motion history and promptness of
collapse of the North Tower remain yet to be determined.

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-07-09/so...e-analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

This is a technical paper refuting the Progressive Column Failure theory of North Tower Collapse from the International Journal of Protective Structures. A couple of key paragraphs:

This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could
not fail. The objective is to eliminate erroneous concepts supported by false assumptions and
by the use of incorrect values for velocity, mass, and column resistance. The only complete
hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of
stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column
Failure mode or PCF in brief. (In the past this mode was often referred to as pancaking, but
this term is not used here to avoid ambiguities). It is explained here why PCF could not be
the mode of the ultimate destruction....

As one can readily see, this mode of damage is a distinct process, whereby each floor
becomes crushed, one after the other. An attempt has been made to smear the process out into
a continuum event and then use differential equations to obtain a solution [2]. Yet,
....

This is Szamboti's paper and it's been pretty much debunked. It's a long "debate" but the proof is in the tasting:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=261678

You can fool some of the people some of the time
bit you can't fool all the people all of the time

Make up your own mind after you've availed yourself of the facts.

[Magda Hassan]

James Randi's forum? Randi is a dishonest tool and pseudo cult leader imo. I don't know any thing about his work on 911 stuff but he is totally discredited in my eyes and others with his involvement in the False Memory Syndrone Foundation. A CIA front to discredit the victims and cover up for their human experimentation and pedophilia.
[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?223-The-MK-ULTRA-iceberg&highlight=randi"]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?223-The-MK-ULTRA-iceberg
[/URL][URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?122-False-Memory-Syndrome-Foundation&highlight=randi"]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?122-False-Memory-Syndrome-Foundation

S[/URL]o I am a bit suspect of the source....being his forum and fellow cultists and all. Some there maybe not in his thrall of course but...

[Jeffrey Orling]

James Randi's forum? Randi is a dishonest tool and pseudo cult leader imo. I don't know any thing about his work on 911 stuff but he is totally discredited in my eyes and others with his involvement in the False Memory Syndrone Foundation. A CIA front to discredit the victims and cover up for their human experimentation and pedophilia.
[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?223-The-MK-ULTRA-iceberg&highlight=randi"]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?223-The-MK-ULTRA-iceberg
[/URL][URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?122-False-Memory-Syndrome-Foundation&highlight=randi"]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?122-False-Memory-Syndrome-Foundation

S[/URL]o I am a bit suspect of the source....

I don't care about Randi... and I didn't want to post the discussions... Randi has nothing to do with the thread or the discussion I linked to.

Hey why don't you bury your head in the sand and judge a book by its cover. There are a million platitudes about what is wrong with your comment. And they happen to be true.

[Magda Hassan]

Fine but can you get the supporting evidence from some other more reliable source? They don't even use real names there. You have no idea who they are.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The referenced thread was a debate and discussion... including the author Tony Szamboti. The debunkers were several posters only a few of which I know from the 9/11FreeForum, including the guy who is a working physicst and runs the 911FF. Tony is a 911FF member but doesn't post there any more... He kinda got roasted over his last paper... The Missing Jolt. He's not a glutton for punishment and didn't expect the same at JREF... but he appears to have gotten his proverbaial ass handed to him over this paper.

I report... you decide. But you have to read to know. Odd how that works.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a technical paper refuting the Progressive Column Failure theory of North Tower Collapse from the International Journal of Protective Structures. A couple of key paragraphs:

This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could
not fail. The objective is to eliminate erroneous concepts supported by false assumptions and
by the use of incorrect values for velocity, mass, and column resistance. The only complete
hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of
stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column
Failure mode or PCF in brief. (In the past this mode was often referred to as pancaking, but
this term is not used here to avoid ambiguities). It is explained here why PCF could not be
the mode of the ultimate destruction....

As one can readily see, this mode of damage is a distinct process, whereby each floor
becomes crushed, one after the other. An attempt has been made to smear the process out into
a continuum event and then use differential equations to obtain a solution [2]. Yet,
....

This is Szamboti's paper and it's been pretty much debunked. It's a long "debate" but the proof is in the tasting:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=261678

You can fool some of the people some of the time
bit you can't fool all the people all of the time

Make up your own mind after you've availed yourself of the facts.

Jeffrey, the paper legitimately exposes Zdenek Bazant's gross overestimate of kinetic energy available and gross underestimate of column energy absorption capacity and shows the columns were essentially not involved in the resistance to the collapse of the North Tower from the beginning (of course, the next question would be "why weren't the columns involved in resisting the collapse from the beginning"?). Nobody on the JREF Forum has been able to show what we said in the paper about these things to be untrue, and all they want to say is the columns simply missed each other, which is a physical impossibility in a "natural" situation. How you can possibly say the paper has been debunked on there is beyond me. It is apparent that you will say anything to promote your point of view, and here you are certainly talking like a man with a paper you know what.

[Charles Drago]

This is a technical paper refuting the Progressive Column Failure theory of North Tower Collapse from the International Journal of Protective Structures. A couple of key paragraphs:

This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could
not fail. The objective is to eliminate erroneous concepts supported by false assumptions and
by the use of incorrect values for velocity, mass, and column resistance. The only complete
hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of
stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column
Failure mode or PCF in brief. (In the past this mode was often referred to as pancaking, but
this term is not used here to avoid ambiguities). It is explained here why PCF could not be
the mode of the ultimate destruction....

As one can readily see, this mode of damage is a distinct process, whereby each floor
becomes crushed, one after the other. An attempt has been made to smear the process out into
a continuum event and then use differential equations to obtain a solution [2]. Yet,
....

This is Szamboti's paper and it's been pretty much debunked. It's a long "debate" but the proof is in the tasting:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=261678

You can fool some of the people some of the time
bit you can't fool all the people all of the time

Make up your own mind after you've availed yourself of the facts.

Jeffrey, the paper legitimately exposes Zdenek Bazant's gross overestimate of kinetic energy available and gross underestimate of column energy absorption capacity and shows the columns were essentially not involved in the resistance to the collapse of the North Tower from the beginning (of course, the next question would be "why weren't the columns involved in resisting the collapse from the beginning"?). Nobody on the JREF Forum has been able to show what we said in the paper about these things to be untrue, and all they want to say is the columns simply missed each other, which is a physical impossibility in a "natural" situation. How you can possibly say the paper has been debunked on there is beyond me. It is apparent that you will say anything to promote your point of view, and here you are certainly talking like a man with a paper you know what.

Thank you for being here, Tony.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Always good to have an informed debate... but in the end one side is correct and the other is not.

I have read the debate at the other online sites and I don't think Tony's position is prevailing. He makes assumptions, ignores contradicting evidence and knocks down strawdogs. If people can stipulate the observations and data derived from those observations, the debate is like people talking apples and oranges.

Or as they say... you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

[Lauren Johnson]

Always good to have an informed debate... but in the end one side is correct and the other is not.

I have read the debate at the other online sites and I don't think Tony's position is prevailing. He makes assumptions, ignores contradicting evidence and knocks down strawdogs. If people can stipulate the observations and data derived from those observations, the debate is like people talking apples and oranges.

Or as they say... you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I got a third of the way through the "debate" which was for the most part not substantive. For example, there was lots of "discussion" denigratingInternational Journal of Protective Structures as a low quality journal. I just ran out of time. Jeffrey, would you mind linking or quoting a key place where Tony's argument was debunked. I admit after an hour, I just did not have the patience to go on.