Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

[Tony Szamboti]

You have just debunked your own paper! Good job.

The major point in the paper is that the collapses could not have been caused by fire and happened the way it was observed.

I do believe explosives were used in those towers after collapse initiation, when the sound could be masked by the collapse. I also don't think the amount of explosives had to be substantial, but we didn't cover all of that in that paper.

The fact that I also believe that incendiaries could have been used to initiate the collapses does not detract from the paper.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You have just debunked your own paper! Good job.

The point of the paper is that a sudden collapse inititiation was impossible due to fire alone.

Your problem seems to be that you can't debunk that point so you look for nits to twist and pick on.

Whether explosives or incendiaries were used for collapse initiation is currently a debatable point.

 

[Corsair 115]

I do believe explosives were used in those towers after collapse initiation, when the sound could be masked by the collapse.

Do you not see the logical contradiction in what you just wrote?

If the explosives were used after collapse initiation, as you wrote, then what was the point of using explosives? The building was already collapsing! The explosives are not needed.

 

[JamesB]

The major point in the paper is that the collapses could not have been done via fire and happened the way it was observed.

I do believe explosives were used in those towers after collapse initiation, when the sound could be masked by the collapse. I also don't think the amount of explosives had to be substantial, but we didn't cover all of that in that paper.

The fact that I also believe that incendiaries could have been used to initiate the collapses does not detract from the paper.

Why do you ignore the fact that their was observable deformation of the structure due to the floors sagging when you claim the collapse was sudden? Is science just easier for you when you ignore the evidence?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you not see the logical contradiction in what you just wrote?

If the explosives were used after collapse initiation, as you wrote, then what was the point of using explosives? The building was already collapsing! The explosives are not needed.

I don't believe the collapse would have continued without cutting the columns in the lower portion of the building. There is no logical contradiction there.

 

[JamesB]

I don't believe the collapse would have continued without cutting the columns in the lower portion of the building. There is no logical contradiction there.

Who cares what you "believe". This is science, not religion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why do you ignore the fact that their was observable deformation of the structure due to the floors sagging when you claim the collapse was sudden? Is science just easier for you when you ignore the evidence?

[qimg]http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats23891_WTC2bowing.jpg[/qimg]

I have asked to see video of the perimeter columns being bowed inward minutes before the collapses and no one here has been able to come up with any. The only video we see of the columns bowing inward are just seconds before the collapse of the south tower.

If the core columns were cut or caused to completely fail in any way that would have caused the perimeter columns to bow inward also, by the trusses pulling on them, and in a much more believable way than that it was caused by the floor trusses merely sagging.

So I have an answer for the inwardly bowed perimeter columns which testing would validate. NIST fire testing of the floor trusses seems to say that the trusses would not have caused them to bow the perimeter columns inward.

 

[DGM]

Tony:
Do you really believe the pictures of the columns bowing are fake?

 

[beachnut]

failure, and lack of facts leads to junk engineering papers

The point of the paper is that a sudden collapse inititiation was impossible due to fire alone.

Your problem seems to be that you can't debunk that point so you look for nits to twist and pick on.

Whether explosives or incendiaries were used for collapse initiation is currently a debatable point.

No it was not Tony. We can all see on 9/11 that impact and fire brought down the WTC. I have to suspect the Chief Structural engineer of the WTC, as in a real engineer who really produced something, backs me up. Oops, I am right he does.

Darn, you have zero structural engineers who have built any buildings over 36 stories to support your failed ideas you have posted in a fake journal. This must be real blow to your engineering career to be published in a fake journal run by guys with nut case ideas on 9/11.

Sad you have no facts or evidence, no sounds, no sights, to support your delusional ideas of explosives, or even thermite! It is proof enough for most your paper is in the fake journal of woo. But based on your work, it is easy to see your errors and false information you spread freely without any clue.

I have yet to see the sudden collapse. Do you guys make up these terms to fool yourself or those who read your failed paper?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Who cares what you "believe". This is science, not religion.

The collapse would not have continued as there would not have been enough of a dynamic load. NIST's recent FAQ talks of a sudden load amplification factor of 2.00 and the central core had a 3:00 to 1 factor of safety and the perimeter columns a 5:00 to 1 factor of safety.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No it was not Tony. We can all see on 9/11 that impact and fire brought down the WTC. I have to suspect the Chief Structural engineer of the WTC, as in a real engineer who really produced something, backs me up. Oops, I am right he does.

Darn, you have zero structural engineers who have built any buildings over 36 stories to support your failed ideas you have posted in a fake journal. This must be real blow to your engineering career to be published in a fake journal run by guys with nut case ideas on 9/11.

Sad you have no facts or evidence, no sounds, no sights, to support your delusional ideas of explosives, or even thermite! It is proof enough for most your paper is in the fake journal of woo. But based on your work, it is easy to see your errors and false information you spread freely without any clue.

Please come back when you actually have something to say. You are a nuisance.

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't believe the collapse would have continued without cutting the columns in the lower portion of the building.

Well there's your problem. I really can't help you when you're basic grasp of physics is that far off.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:
Do you really believe the pictures of the columns bowing are fake?

I really have a problem with NIST only getting a few pieces of core column steel to test and have to wonder what else could have been going on.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well there's your problem. I really can't help you when you're basic grasp of physics is that far off.

Why don't you show where my basic grasp of physics is off?

 

[TjW]

Some form of artificial heat weakening of the columns could also cause the same phenomena <snippage by TjW>

Okay. How would you differentiate this "artificial" heat weakening from heat weakening caused by uncontrolled content fire and mechanical removal of fireproofing?

 

[beachnut]

Please come back when you actually have something to say. You are a nuisance.

Please post proof of explosives. Go ahead. Oops you have nothing!

You are such a poor researcher, poor engineer, and the proof is in your papers!

You continue to produce papers proven wrong by others who are published in real journals, not a journal run by a guy with nut case ideas on 9/11, and editor with even nuttier ideas on 9/11. Your papers prove you also have nut case ideas on 9/11 you say explosives or some hidden force caused the towers to fail; all without a shred of evidence. That is one nut case idea.

I have shown your research to be shoddy and you use false information which proves your paper faulty! You have made false assumptions and if need I will show you the things already posted making your paper a failed piece of tripe on 9/11 delusional ideas!

If I were you I would fix my errors and be on my way, or I will post the items again you ignored last time and you just left. Your new paper is even worse than your first! Do you really want a record of your failure so others can read it!

Tony said in his new paper!

A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.

But you can clearly see the outside of the WTC sagging, and the floors inside sagging. Oops, we have a liar because he did not do proper research, he just makes this up. If you look at his paper kids, you can see major hand waving, hearsay, and total BS to support his failed conclusion. And as my 5th graders can tell you, there is proof that Tony's paper is junk. But then you would not expect an Engineer like Tony, to be such a poor researcher. Would you?

 

[A W Smith]

The collapse would not have continued as there would not have been enough of a dynamic load. NIST's recent FAQ talks of a sudden load amplification factor of 2.00 and the central core had a 3:00 to 1 factor of safety and the perimeter columns a 5:00 to 1 factor of safety.

So your'e saying that these columns which plasticly deform from heat cannot punch through a 4 inch concrete slab supported by bar joists?

 

[CHF]

I do believe explosives were used in those towers after collapse initiation, when the sound could be masked by the collapse.

And the point of setting off explosives after the collapse started would have been....what?

And what kind of explosives could bring down a building and yet be drowned out by the collapse itself?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Okay. How would you differentiate this "artificial" heat weakening from heat weakening caused by uncontrolled content fire and mechanical removal of fireproofing?

It would get a lot hotter. Office fires do not get nearly hot enough, even without the steel having fireproofing to overcome the factor of safety and cause the steel to yield. With the 3:00 to 1 core column factor of safety all of the core columns would have had to reach 650 degrees C or higher to even have a chance at a collapse initiation. Testing has showed these types of steel temperatures do not occur in office fires, without fireproofing on the steel.

On top of that the physical evidence we do have shows the core columns never got hotter than 250 degrees C. There were only three pieces out of 170 tested by NIST that even got to 600 degrees C and they were perimeter column pieces.

Additionally slow heating by fire would have had a problem causing a catastrophic collapse due to strain hardening.

 

[CHF]

Why don't you show where my basic grasp of physics is off?

You think that a 50,000 ton dynamic load could be halted by a building that was 95% air.

I'd argue that your mental health is off, not just your grasp of physics.