I found the missing Jolt.

skyeagle409 said:
Thank you!!

I am very surprised that a so-called structural engineer would overlook the reason why fire protection is applied to steel frame buildings and ignore the redistributed structural loads at the impact points where fires raged out of control, which exposed structural steel to temperatures of those fires.

Structural buckling observed during the moments before WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed was a prime example of structural weakening due to fire.
Click to expand...
What structural engineer are we talking about? :confused:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am posting here to point out legitimate problems with the story we have been given for the building collapses in NYC. Putting up with disingenuous barbs is not why I come here.
Click to expand...

There is no story, just reality that you can't seem to comprehend.

WTC7 was a building that collapsed due to gravity and fire where no one died.

It speaks volumes that you avoid WTC 1&2, the Penatgon and the Shanksville crash like the plague.

What happened at those locations Tony?

Do tell.

I'm predicting you'll dodge this like you always do.
 
skyeagle409 said:
A real structural engineer would not believe such a statement. After all, there is a very good reason why fire protection is applied to steel frame structures of buildings.

Structural experts also agree that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...

Tony isn't a structural engineer, not even close.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'd be careful with these blanket statements. First of all Tony is not a structural engineer or has he claimed to be. Second is, you are actually creating your own strawman by posting a link that does not exist. .

Welcome to the forum.

:)
Click to expand...

Mechanical engineers take the same structural design classes as civil engineers, which is the degree that people who call themselves structural engineers in the building industry have.

Now, who do you think does the structural design of aircraft, missiles, ships, satellites, trains, buses, cars, and machinery? I will give you the answer. It is mechanical engineers, and the science and math behind those structures is the same as that for buildings and at times more complicated because of the dynamics involved.

I am a mechanical engineer performing structural design with dynamics involved. It doesn't matter what you call it.
 
Last edited:
ProBonoShill said:
There is no story, just reality that you can't seem to comprehend.

WTC7 was a building that collapsed due to gravity and fire where no one died.

It speaks volumes that you avoid WTC 1&2, the Penatgon and the Shanksville crash like the plague.

What happened at those locations Tony?

Do tell.

I'm predicting you'll dodge this like you always do.
Click to expand...

Most of the papers I have been involved in writing are about WTC 1 and 2. Why don't you do your homework before making a comment? Your bias is showing.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Mechanical engineers take the same structural design classes as civil engineers, which is the degree that people who call themselves structural engineers in the building industry have.

Now, who do you think does the structural design of aircraft, missiles, ships, satellites, trains, buses, cars, and machinery? I will give you the answer. It is mechanical engineers, and the science and math behind those structures is the same as that for buildings and at times more complicated because of the dynamics involved.

I am a mechanical engineer performing structural design with dynamics involved. It doesn't matter what you call it.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to explain this? I was simply saying you are not a structural engineer.

Is that a problem? Your argument does not depend on your qualification, right?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Not a chance.
Click to expand...

I await photos you took of the girder and columns not expanding and warping on 9/11/2001.
Unless you were there and can provide a photo or video of the non event, you claim didn't happen.
Other wise, I will chalk your comments up to applied ignorance of the situation.
 
DGM said:
Why do you feel the need to explain this? I was simply saying you are not a structural engineer.

Is that a problem? Your argument does not depend on your qualification, right?
Click to expand...

The implication seemed to be that I wasn't qualified to discuss the subject. If you meant nothing by it, I apologize.

In the future you could elaborate a little and simply say I am a mechanical engineer who does structural design.

Many on this forum don't fully appreciate that it is mechanical engineers who design the structures of all of the moving equipment and machinery we have in society.

Besides me, there are a number of mechanical engineers who post or have posted on this forum such as Ryan Mackey, tfk, and I believe RWGuinn.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The implication seemed to be that I wasn't qualified to discuss the subject. If you meant nothing by it, I apologize.

In the future you could elaborate a little and simply say I am a mechanical engineer who does structural design.

Many on this forum don't fully appreciate that it is mechanical engineers who design the structures of all of the moving equipment and machinery we have in society.

Besides me, there are a number of mechanical engineers who post or have posted on this forum such as Ryan Mackey, tfk, and I believe RWGuinn.
Click to expand...
You seem to be the one that is defensive about this. If your argument is correct it doesn't matter what your qualifications are, right? By the same note you can not make claims based solely on your qualifications, right?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
You seem to be the one that is defensive about this. If your argument is correct it doesn't matter what your qualifications are, right?
Click to expand...

One tends to be more likely to get it right when they have the background in structural situations. Everything is not intuitive.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
One tends to be more likely to get it right when they have the background in structural situations. Everything is not intuitive.
Click to expand...
True but, background is not a qualifier for if an argument is correct. My arguments don't get down graded due to the fact I don't have a degree, correct?
 
Tony:

Bottom line. I can post countless examples where you have drawn on yourself as an authority to support your argument. You created the persona of an authority on this subject. It's not my job to challenge this it's yours to support it.
 
Tony has the technical background to understand and discuss the mechanics of the building collapses. His competence is not the issue. For whatever reason he's made some "unusual" assumptions to inform his views. You can't build a sound building on poor foundations and you can't build a winning argument on incorrect assumptions.
 
DGM said:
True but, background is not a qualifier for if an argument is correct. My arguments don't get down graded due to the fact I don't have a degree, correct?
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Your arguments should get UPGRADED because they are invariably correct.

The test of a claim is always "is the claim right" NOT how many or how big a degree the person holds. I've said it before BUT it bears repetition - I will accept a true claim from an "unqualified" person and I will reject a false claim by someone with multiple degrees.

BUT - "one small step.....one giant leap for [truther]kind.... etc" Tony explicitly agrees with the principle:
Tony Szamboti said:
Right.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tony and well done DGM
clap.gif

DGM said:
Tony:

Bottom line. I can post countless examples where you have drawn on yourself as an authority to support your argument. You created the persona of an authority on this subject. It's not my job to challenge this it's yours to support it.
Click to expand...
...and countless examples where Tony has been wrong, still is wrong, has been shown exactly where his errors lie AND the true situation and STILL will not acknowledge the simple truths involved.
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
Tony has the technical background to understand and discuss the mechanics of the building collapses. His competence is not the issue.
Click to expand...
the issue is always that he is WRONG.

JSanderO said:
For whatever reason he's made some "unusual" assumptions to inform his views. You can't build a sound building on poor foundations and you can't build a winning argument on incorrect assumptions.
Click to expand...
clap.gif

Exactly the point I made in my first internet forum post - Nov 2007. AND I was explicitly referring to Tony's then new paper:

econ41 -14 Nov 2007 said:
The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
Click to expand...
I later came to realise that "false starting premises" is Tony's SOP - his "trademark". Missing Jolt the prime example - it starts from a scenario that never happend and couldn't happen even if you tried to set it up.

To be even more bluntly explicit:

With Missing Jolt Tony bastardised the Bazant & Zhou abstract limit case model.
In effect he presumed CD removed parts of columns....
THEN went round in circular logic to "prove" the assumption he started with.

So "Truther Debating Trick #1". Falsified.

THEN the added irony - there is no way that the starting scenario could be set up even if you tried it deliberately by using the pre-assumed CD.

Implicit "Truther Debating Trick #2". Falsified.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom