Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Tony Szamboti said:
I know what temperature the overpass beam connections got to and their is NO evidence for those types of temperatures in the twin tower steel that the NIST got.

You have no evidence for the kind of temperatures needed to cause the steel to lose enough strength to collapse, yet you act like you do. The tiny I-beams you show in your thumbnail are a far cry from the tower columns thermal capacity wise.

You simply have no argument.
Click to expand...

Tony,

I know fire caused the buildings to collaspe with the help of the impact from the planes weakening the structure.

Tony, you're not a firefighter, you weren't there on 9/11. You never risked your life like the FDNY did that day. You didn't lose 343 of your fellow firemen either. You'd never understand Tony, what it means to be in the fire service. You've got nothing but words!

And you have no evidence that thermite or explosives brought down the Towers'.

For the record Tony, you'll always be wrong about fire not collapsing the WTCs'. Nothing in the world would suggest that it wasn't fire.

Here's another picture for you to look at:
 

Attachments

  • Fire Twisted I-Beams.jpg
    Fire Twisted I-Beams.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.

This is why in the Verinage demolitions they drop the upper section through a distance to develop enough momentum to crush the lower section and itself through successive impacts where there is evidence of deceleration and load amplification.

Of course, the upper section experiences little resistance and accelerates while going through the removed stories in the Verinage demolitions.

The velocity curve for WTC 1 looks very similar to that measured of the fall of the upper section through the removed stories in a Verinage demolition.
Click to expand...

Wow where did the explosions go? Ae911t had "conclusive proof" on the explosions and now Tony demolishes that theory in favor of the new one: "fireproof hydraulics".

But it seems to me that Tony's calculations assume that the building above falls a few flloors and lands cleanly on the columns below, and that this would stop the building above or slow it down.

But what happens when the columns above hit a floor beam rather than a column.?

Or what happens if the top bit does not hit the bottom bit uniformly? Say it hits the the corner a few milliseconds before the others. Its easy: the corner buckles, ( a rapid failure with little resistance beyond the initiation foce) and the force then hits the next element and so on.

Once the speed increases then you can see the whole building "explodes", or should I say that the escaping air (calculated at over 160mph) pushes out the perimeter columns so that you can see that they dont add to the resistance.

But did the impact slow down the collapse. Yes. All we know is that the failure of the outside columns was at about 70%g, so that means that about 30% of the energy of the collapse was absorbed by the collapse, which slowed it down a bit.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I know what temperature the overpass beam connections got to and their is NO evidence for those types of temperatures in the twin tower steel that the NIST got..
Click to expand...

So how hot do you you think it got in the WTC, Tony?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.
Click to expand...

Um, no. The reason for collapse initiation is understood. The impact damaged some columns, the fires burned unfought, and the steel weakened.

The only ones criticizing NCSTAR and NIST, are the ones that don't understand it. Everyone else in the World knows exactly what they were tasked to do.

Any discussion with you is pointless, because you fail to realize this. Not fail, refuse. You refuse to accept a very simple fact, NIST was not tasked with collapse progression, because no one cares. We all saw it, plain as day, over and over again.

"But it shouldn't have happened!"- no it shouldn't have happened, but it did, 3 times on the same day.

"But it couldn't have happened!"- but it did, 3 times on the same day.

"But it's never happened before!"- no, and it will probably never happen again.

BUT!,BUT!,BUT! for 8 years, and not a single thing has changed. Just give it up already Tony. Head over to the Forum Community and start a nice thread about how you like pretzels, or your favorite type of music. Turn off the computer, get out, go see a movie. Take up bowling! Take some time away from all this and let it all sink in. Come back in a few years with some fresh new ideas. Because right now yours stink.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is no physical evidence whatsoever that fire caused those collapses.

Add to that the fact that the NIST couldn't get their model to produce the alleged south wall bowing and had to add artificial forces. Even then they don't show the loads required to collapse the east and west walls and remaining north wall of WTC 1. Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation. It is understandable as to why he would say this, because he knew a dynamic load was necessary for a natural collapse which he had no reason to doubt at the time. However, we have since learned that there wasn't one.

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.
Click to expand...

Jeez What do you mean there is no physical evidence that the fire brought down the towers? Does that mean there is no evidence on anything or what? I have seen lots of photos showing large fires immediately at or adjacent to the collapse initiation level. What is your alternative...fire proof explosives and now fire-proof hydraulics.. or what?

Actually Nist hhypothesized about many alternatives. Your statement that , "Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review." just demonstrates that you cannot be in the tall building industry, since you do not apply anything like the same standard of care to the words that come out of you mouth.

And you say we shouldn't look at dynamic effects when considering collapse propogation. That is completely nuts. Collapse propogation implies that it is moving. So why ignore the effects of movement, ie. the dynamics. But its fair to say that if the building had not moved after it failed then it would be much more difficult to prove collapse propogation.

Finally I am afraid that the whole world thinks you are nuts... but perhaps its the world.
LOL
 
Seems like each time I, or we, bring up something to Tony, he always manages to make up some kind of an excuse.

We all know that he's got zero credibility for thermite or explosives. He's supposed to be a mechanical engineer who should know that fire is an enemy to steel & wood.

But I think he put his career on the line just for his own crazy ideas about 9/11. When he loses his job or retires because of them, I'm not gonna laugh at him. I'll just say: "I told ya so!"
 
bill smith said:
Further....you can give no other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.
Click to expand...

Except for the Bailey's Crossroads collapse, where the 23rd and 24th storeys of an unfinished building fell on the 22nd and collapsed the entire structure down to the ground. You're not allowed to ignore it just because it's inconvenient.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.
Click to expand...

I made it perfectly clear, but since you're determined not to understand I'll have another go. There's no point publishing results that sane people would regard as trivial and truthers would regard as disinformation. And there's no need to refute results posted on an insignificant website through any more prestigious medium than a similarly insignificant discussion forum. If you ever get your missing jolt published in a grown-up journal, I might consider addressing it, but I suspect I'll be a long way back in the queue, and by the time Bazant's done with you there won't be much left to address.

Dave
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Would you like to clearify that Newton?
Click to expand...

Sure....

I find some of your arguments weak and when someone points out to you the error you say something about a wookie instead of listening to what they are saying. That reminds me of what truthers often do.

I also find some of your posts childish and designed to receive some kind of internet "slap on the back" because of how clever or funny you think you are being.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Atleast I don't make up stuff like a Truther does. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean other people should follow you.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to make stuff up...so I agree with you there.
I do not dislike you at all....I have nothing personal against you and don't know enough about you to dislike you. I'm just going off your posts which are sometimes good but sometimes are a waste of time and just seem like you are as zealous of a "debunker" as some truthers are.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
You feel like you want to attack me personally? Send me a PM instead!
Click to expand...

I have no desire to attack anyone personally.
 
newton3376 said:
Sure....

I find some of your arguments weak and when someone points out to you the error you say something about a wookie instead of listening to what they are saying. That reminds me of what truthers often do.

I also find some of your posts childish and designed to receive some kind of internet "slap on the back" because of how clever or funny you think you are being.



You don't seem to make stuff up...so I agree with you there.
I do not dislike you at all....I have nothing personal against you and don't know enough about you to dislike you. I'm just going off your posts which are sometimes good but sometimes are a waste of time and just seem like you are as zealous of a "debunker" as some truthers are.



I have no desire to attack anyone personally.
Click to expand...

Then what do you get out of ridiculing me Newton?

If you say that you're not ridiculing me, then that's the only word that I know that makes perfect sense to me at this point.
 
Last edited:
Baileys Crossroads

"In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.

Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "


Hardly comparable with the WTC towers.
 
Fourbrick said:
Hardly comparable with the WTC towers.
Click to expand...

Appeal to perfection. Bill smith said there was no recorded example in the history of the planet of the top 10% of a structure crushing the remaining 90% down to the ground. Bailey's Crossroads is a recorded example of the top 10% of a structure crushing the remaining 90% down to the ground.

At some point, either you're going to have to admit that there is no fundamental physical principle being violated here, or retreat to the position that, because never in history had the top 13 storeys of a steel-framed tube-in-tube 100-storey building crushed down the remaining 97, it was impossible for it to have happened on 9/11. The latter is simply an assertion that no specific event can possibly happen for a first time, which is absurd.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation.
Click to expand...

No evidence of the dynamic load? :eye-poppi

Are you saying that the top block of the WTC did not fall when the collapse started?
 
CHF said:
No evidence of the dynamic load? :eye-poppi

Are you saying that the top block of the WTC did not fall when the collapse started?
Click to expand...

Well... how much does a car slow down when it hits a horse fly on the expressway? Since the care continues moving may we assume that there was no force exerted on either object? :rolleyes:

Sorry I can't think of a better analogy to putting a light weight metal decking & concrete floor against well something like a 15 or 30 story building crashing down on it with a highly uneven load...

I'm sure someone who knows what I mean can word it better in the context of the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom