Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[ozeco41]

...So which is correct?

Neither. The first is outright wrong. The second may be "right for the wrong reasons" - his logic is wrong - the conclusion may be right but his logic doesn't support it.

The issue is one of Tony's persistent errors at the level of basic understanding of engineering. All of his papers and posts from 2007 onwards show that same lack of comprehension of basics. (One partial exception is that those persistent errors are present but not fatal in the recent paper.) He persists with several false premises -- false assumptions -- false starting points.

The two relevant here are:
1) His posts show that he has no understanding of how loads redistribute when columns are removed. That is why he is wrong in both the alternates you reference; AND

2) He is locked to a one dimensional model of collapse when the WTC collapses were all essentially 3D and cannot be explained in 1D abstractions. Note that last assertion "cannot". I can show why if there is any doubt.

I'll finish this post here. I may give a fuller explanation of what really happens in a later post. I have published those explanations 'a few times"

 

[ozeco41]

Here's a fun exercise.

Using Tony's two quotes above, try and figure out what the new core FOS would be if you removed the 23 inner core columns and left the outer 24.

Anyone?

Not this engineer. The Term "...core FOS" is meaningless.

Sorry.



I can explain why...have done in earlier posts. My experience is that nobody wants to understand. It ain't all that hard.

 

[ozeco41]

Based on two specific statments by Tony, I would really like an explanation from him on how he thinks FOS is applied to structures.

I don't think he will accept the challenge;
HOWEVER
All he need do is research and plagiarise my posts - I won't sue.

It has all been laid out several times.

 

[JSanderO]

Not this engineer. The Term "...core FOS" is meaningless.

Sorry.



I can explain why...have done in earlier posts. My experience is that nobody wants to understand. It ain't all that hard.

The FOS is both a global concept and a local one. If the loads on an individual node (member or joint) exceed its capacity - FOS drops below 1 - then that node fails. The forces /stresses it "carried" now find alternate paths... all gravity loads are looking for paths to the ground (foundation/bedrock).

The global FOS is the ratio between the total service loads and the aggregate capacity of all the members in this case columns. If you had 4 columns and two were operating at 50% capacity (FOS =2) and the others were operating at 100%v capacity (FOS =1) then aggregate would be FOS 1.5 but it's meaningless because it does not represent the real conditions at any of the columns.

The load redistribution has to move through diagonal members... if the exist, shear walls.. if they exist or horizontal beams with moment connections and composite floor systems. It seems that a column failure would cause all manner of node failures and the stresses would redistribute (propagate) to the closest members in a rapid dynamic process (Ozzie's 4D notion).

The complexity has driven the truthers to retreat into reductionist 1D block descriptions which do not and cannot reflect what happened and so they are incapable of understanding it.

 

[ozeco41]

Hey, I'm just a dumb retired industrial chemist, not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that if, hypothetically, one were to cut 20% of the perimeter columns supporting a structure, one would get very different results depending on whether it was done to every fifth column on all four sides, or to cut mostly on one side.

Throw in a large fire, and.....

That goes to the main principle. It depends entirely on which columns -- where they are located in the floor plan.

This is my explanation of the principle involved. If members get their heads around the principle at this simple level they will have some understanding of why Tony et all are wrong.

(My usual apology for the poor drawing in this graphic from about 2009 - I really should make a better drawing but....)

Take the drawing on the left. It shows an extremely simplified "model" similar to WTC 1 or 2. Note "similar" - we are explaining a principle not detailing the WTC real mechanism for collapse initiation.

Point by point:
1)The weight of the "top block" is 400
2) It is carried on three rows of columns A, B and C;
3) The initial load distribution is 100, 200, 100 respectively;

Are we happy so far?

4) Cut out the row of columns C;
5) The load carried by C becomes ZERO;

What happens. This is where the foggy thinking comes in.

The answer is not intuitive for non-engineers and sadly for quite few engineers. No names - I'll point you look.

The correct answer is as shown in the middle drawing:
6) The load on row A becomes ZERO;
7) The load on the central row B doubles from 200 to 400; AND

8) Framing it in percentages (the way T Sz et al do) a 30% removal of columns causes a 100% increase in loading of row B. AND

That explains the principle. Simply. Trust me it is 100% correct. I don't sell used cars.

If anyone wants it translated into a multiple column scenario I can do it BUT be warned it very quickly becomes a few grades harder to comprehend.

For most non-engineers/architects/physicists reading this it may be enough to understand that arguments based on "percentage of columns removed" >>> redistributes load uniformly ARE WRONG. If anyone wants to get more understanding of what is RIGHT...follow up the post.

The most complex aspect of WTC Twin Towers collapse to explain IMO is the cascade failure process of collapse initiation. It has scarcely been touched on in forum discussions. Too hard for truthers. Hard for most engineers. And the engineers and academics would mostly accept that "it was a cascade - we cannot know the details and so what?' Of course truthers want to argue "If you cannot explain it it means CD."

Comments welcomed.

PS - Ignore the drawing on the right for now. It takes the next couple of steps towards explaining WTC cascade failure

 

[ozeco41]

The FOS is both a global concept and a local one. If the loads on an individual node (member or joint) exceed its capacity - FOS drops below 1 - then that node fails. The forces /stresses it "carried" now find alternate paths... all gravity loads are looking for paths to the ground (foundation/bedrock).

The global FOS is the ratio between the total service loads and the aggregate capacity of all the members in this case columns. If you had 4 columns and two were operating at 50% capacity (FOS =2) and the others were operating at 100%v capacity (FOS =1) then aggregate would be FOS 1.5 but it's meaningless because it does not represent the real conditions at any of the columns.

The load redistribution has to move through diagonal members... if the exist, shear walls.. if they exist or horizontal beams with moment connections and composite floor systems. It seems that a column failure would cause all manner of node failures and the stresses would redistribute (propagate) to the closest members in a rapid dynamic process (Ozzie's 4D notion).

The complexity has driven the truthers to retreat into reductionist 1D block descriptions which do not and cannot reflect what happened and so they are incapable of understanding it.

Well said Sander.

Simply put the problem with "Global FOS" is that one member can be over its limit - its FOS less than 1 - whilst the global FOS is still safe. That one member fails>>>loads redistribute>>>cascade collapse. WHILST THE GLOBAL FOS IS STILL SAFE. That was almost certainly the situation with WTC1 and WTC2.


(We crossed in posting - mine took longer to type. )

 

[ozeco41]

...The complexity has driven the truthers to retreat into reductionist 1D block descriptions which do not and cannot reflect what happened and so they are incapable of understanding it.

BTW it is not just the truthers. Quite a few Bazantophile debunkers are locked into apologetics for 1D models.

 

[JSanderO]

BTW it is not just the truthers. Quite a few Bazantophile debunkers are locked into apologetics for 1D models.

I think the discussion of what a cascading system failure looks like and how stresses redistribute and "failures" propagate has been missing from the collapse discussions as long as I've been following them.

It's not intuitive and it is multi dimensional... 3D plus time and it taxes a lot of people who need to think is very simple concepts.

CD is so ***** neat -BOOM- blow them out and down it comes. Easy concept anyone can understand and it goes boom and then comes down...

Ironically with 7WTC you KNOW things were progressing through time because it SHOWS EPH and WPH descend before curtain wall does and then you see a kink and so forth... This means only one thing... forces /stresses/failures are moving about the building over time... albeit a brief period of time.

Same thing with the 1WTC antenna or the IB of a portion of the facade... That means failures are progressing enough to move parts of the structure very visibly.. it is the tell tale sign of load redistribution.

The downward movement of the antenna strong suggests that the core beneath it down to the strike zone were we know there was considerable mechanical damage and perhaps much of the hat truss had come apart. This is a reasonably good sign the core had failed and likely the flrs had pulled down breaking free from the facade...yanking it in the process. It's wasn't a block any more or in the process of disintegrating and so it's hard to move 30,000 tons of structure AS a block... but it sure likely that column alignment was no longer there to resist descent.

Reductionism... is not helping here.

 

[swright777]

...
The correct answer is as shown in the middle drawing:
6) The load on row A becomes ZERO;
7) The load on the central row B doubles from 200 to 400; AND

8) Framing it in percentages (the way T Sz et al do) a 30% removal of columns causes a 100% increase in loading of row B. AND

That explains the principle. Simply. Trust me it is 100% correct. I don't sell used cars.

If anyone wants it translated into a multiple column scenario I can do it BUT be warned it very quickly becomes a few grades harder to comprehend.

...

I have a few questions but I don't want you to have to do too much 'splainin.

1. If columns A and C were both moved the same distance toward the center (during construction, not using supernanotermites) would the result be the same if C is removed?

2. If column B was split into B₁ and B₂, each equidistant from the center of the building, would they each now be supporting half of the total load if C is removed?

Don't waste time if either of these is not a trivial answer.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think the discussion of what a cascading system failure looks like and how stresses redistribute and "failures" propagate has been missing from the collapse discussions as long as I've been following them.

It's not intuitive and it is multi dimensional... 3D plus time and it taxes a lot of people who need to think is very simple concepts.

CD is so ***** neat -BOOM- blow them out and down it comes. Easy concept anyone can understand and it goes boom and then comes down...

Ironically with 7WTC you KNOW things were progressing through time because it SHOWS EPH and WPH descend before curtain wall does and then you see a kink and so forth... This means only one thing... forces /stresses/failures are moving about the building over time... albeit a brief period of time.

Same thing with the 1WTC antenna or the IB of a portion of the facade... That means failures are progressing enough to move parts of the structure very visibly.. it is the tell tale sign of load redistribution.

The downward movement of the antenna strong suggests that the core beneath it down to the strike zone were we know there was considerable mechanical damage and perhaps much of the hat truss had come apart. This is a reasonably good sign the core had failed and likely the flrs had pulled down breaking free from the facade...yanking it in the process. It's wasn't a block any more or in the process of disintegrating and so it's hard to move 30,000 tons of structure AS a block... but it sure likely that column alignment was no longer there to resist descent.

Reductionism... is not helping here.

Well maybe its just my personal abilities but I consider progressive failure through redistribution to be very intuitive.
First, some columns are severed(FOS less than zero, in fact no capacity to bear a load) or damaged(I.e. reduced load bearing capacity or if you prefer, a reduced FOS for that specific column). For all loads carried by columns with individual load bearing ability less than that load, the load must be redistributed to other columns. If a new equilibrium can be achieved, the building remains standing. At this point load distribution is vastly different than original building design. Even at this point, before fires attack the structure, TS fails to recognize that structural loads are vastly different than the building was designed with. I find it extremely odd that an engineer would even put forth the simplistic math noted above.

Now enter the fires and these were wide spread on the several floors involved, and they were widespread within seconds of impact ( a point seemingly completely lost with truther) but at this time the greatest fires are proximate to the impact side. Thus the first columns to have their load bearing capacity to fall below the load on them will be those with impact damage that , until heat affected them, still could bear their load. Redistribution occurs once again, again changing the overall distribution. The structure responds to these redistributions by deforming.
Over time the fires proceed around the structure, weakening more distant columns and , with heat induced creep, again the loads must be redistributed. These continual redistrubutions cause continual structure deformations, and indeed the upper portion of the buildings were observed to move around, the most obvious movement being the lean towards the impact side.
At some point a local heat induced creep led to redistribution but some of the columns this new redistributed load went to were too near their,at this point in time, load bearing capacity and they failed( buckled or snapped or simply underwent increased creep rate)immediately leading to more redistribution pushing yet more columns over their ability

And thus progressive failure/collapse begins.

Similar things occur in electrical systems. Last year an electrical overload at the headquarters of Shaw Cable systems in Calgary, caused the main supply to be interrupted. With mains out the back up generator fired up but the initial overload had caused a short( melted insulation-short to ground) and when the generator came online the surge caused a severe fire throwing the entire building into darkness. The fire caused the sprinkler system to go off. With the electrical room located on the upper story this water flowed to lower floors, This also caused all servers, now on battery back up, to go down. Customers of Shaw then saw their distributed computing go down, that included hospitals and gov't agencies. It also caused Shaw phone customers to lose their phone service, more businesses affected. Of course all home cable, internet and phone customers also lost service. Hundreds of other towns and cities served by Shaw across Canada saw their local offices lose their distributed computing services and company email go down( a back up facility on the other side of Calgary took over home services feeds outside of Calgary). Customers could drop off payments but these could not be posted, nor could local reps pull up customer accounts, schedule service calls , effect service upgrades.

It took two days to get customer services back up. Employees in the headquarters building were moved to other Shaw offices in Calgary and it was weeks before the headquarters building was again liveable.

 

[ozeco41]

I have a few questions but I don't want you to have to do too much 'splainin....

Thanks for the comment. I have chosen a simple model so let's see if I can make it understandable whilst sticking with the simple model.

...1. If columns A and C were both moved the same distance toward the center (during construction, not using supernanotermites) would the result be the same if C is removed?

Yes

...2. If column B was split into B₁ and B₂, each equidistant from the center of the building, would they each now be supporting half of the total load if C is removed?

No.

Now take a deep breath.... I think we can still keep it understandable.

The first step is easy:
A + B1 + B2 = 400

Reason: All column loads must add up to the full weight on them - which is the 400 push down from the top block.

But it gets more complicated - we need to know how far from centreline each column is and what force it applies. Let's label them all:

The columns from the left are:
A_____B₁___|___B₂_____C (gone)
______|<Q>|<Q>|
|<___P__-_>|
F_A____F_B1__-|__-F_B2_____0

..where the "F's" are the forces and P and Q are the distances from centreline.
(I hope the text graphics work for you.)

Now this is the "tricky bit" - first put in "algebra":

AP + B₁Q = B₂Q

OR restating that in English rather than algebra:

Load in A times distance P from centreline PLUS B1 times distance Q from centreline WILL ADD UP TO B2 times distance Q from centreline.

This "tricky bit" is what is technically called "moment". That is "force times distance" and the "moments" have to balance out to zero. Think of it like leverage - a longer lever needs less force OR using the same force with a longer lever has more effect. So the force in column A is further out from the centreline so it will have more "overturning leverage" due to the greater distance.

...Don't waste time if either of these is not a trivial answer.

The answers were easy. The explanation a bit harder. I hope it is at the right level. Ask if still in doubt.

More complicated past this line.
_______________________________________

It gets harder as we try to apply to real event WTC 9/11.

There are a lot more factors involved...the two biggies:

1) For the real event you don't know where the pivot point is because it is not at the centreline like my simplifide model; AND

2) In reality:
___the top block is not rigid; AND
___a lot of the steel was heat affected; AND
___we do't know which bits OR how much; AND
___ (a few more) ..so let's not go there...

....yet.

All of which is why I chose the very simple model to explain the principle.

 

[ozeco41]

Well maybe its just my personal abilities but I consider progressive failure through redistribution to be very intuitive....
..
Similar things occur in electrical systems. Last year an electrical overload at the headquarters of Shaw Cable systems in Calgary, caused the main supply to be interrupted. .

It comes easily to some people .. not so easy to others and damned hard/impossible for others. And, in my experience as an engineering manager, a lot of engineers cannot handle it. They can fill in the numbers in a table or an FEA but when it comes to comprehending non standard situations they are lost. And that before we add in the dynamic dimension - structural engineers design for safe statics.

I find it quite easy to explain to lay persons face to face with hand waving. But those people want to learn. In those situations I usually lead of with "dominoes falling" then explain electrical network cascade failures at the simple level of "this one fails and drops its load on the other..."

Structural is similar but with one big difference for the professionals which the lay folk may not realise. Domino serial tipping is essentially binary at each stage. Doesn't fall then does. Electrical network failure is near enough the same. Instant overload causes next failure.

Structural cascade is significantly more complex because all the failures involve elastic/flexibilities. Not only the immediate element but the whole flexible framework which is transferring the load. No binary "now it doesn't --- now it does" simplicity.

So it is at least two orders more complex if you go into the details. And for WTC towers add in heat factors which are near undefined as to distribution of both heat and resulting temperature.

It is very hard in written words.

And in the asymmetric warfare of debunkers v trolls/truthers where the t/t's are determined to not understand...give it away.

Dishonesty outranks comprehension even for those who should be able to comprehend.

 

[JSanderO]

It comes easily to some people .. not so easy to others and damned hard/impossible for others. ....

Structural cascade is significantly more complex because all the failures involve elastic/flexibilities. Not only the immediate element but the whole flexible framework which is transferring the load. No binary "now it doesn't --- now it does" simplicity.
...

Of course the issues of the connections of a structure such at we see in the WTC is very different from the capacity of the sections themselves. Welds and bolts and plates are what connect the members and these are mini structural systems in themselves. In a sense a connection with multiple bolts, welds and or plates can be "picked off" bit by bit experiencing their own "cascading and progressive failure"

If one examine the massive transfer trusses at the base of 7WTC you see very extensive and massive connections with multiple bolts. Yet no how matter how massive these connecting gussets systems are, they are ALWAYS constructed from components of less capacity than the massive sections of very thick steel plates used for the chords and panels of the truss.

In examining the debris we see the steel almost undamaged and this suggested the connections were the locations of the failure of the frame. Indeed a column bearing connection does not require lateral bracing as much as simple alignment which is why the splice connections for the columns were not very robust and could not "hold them in column" very well when warping from heat began. Column to column connections were not restrained and were 4' above the floor level were the lateral bracing was located.

The discussion has been very silent on the role of the connections despite the evidence showing how many of them failed.

 

[Gamolon]

My initial post was to try and pull Tony out of hiding to admit that he doesn't understand how to apply the FOS to a complex structure. This is evident because quote #1 from my original post contradicts quote #2 for the reasons given.

As I understand it, the global FOS of an entire structure will change as the FOS for each node changes.

The global FOS for the same structure can be different at any given time, depending on which FsOS have changed for certain nodes.

A node in this instance can be a single component (column, beam, bolt) OR group of connected components whose designed load capacity has degraded or has completely failed. Failed/weakened node boundaries are separated by still functioning nodes (although now taking on redistributed loads from failed/weakened nodes).

Tony's application of the "blanket column removal percentage" used to derive his "FOS failure number" is bogus for the reasons others have given above. I think Tony STARTED to see this as he progressed to his "node" description of 70% vertical load support for the outer core columns and 30% vertical load support for the remaining inner columns.

IMO, any number of blanket/simplified controlled demolition scenarios presented by truthers may very well yield the same collapse results that we see in the videos and photos. The problem is that no truther engineer or architect has presented an scenario with the same granular explanations as they expect from NIST, whether it be for proving their demolition scenarios OR disproving the plane impact/fire (Official Explanation).

Truthers basically want a node by node description of the weakening and failure put to the impact to collapse timeline which they can then use to compare to photographs and videos and say:

"THAT's why the antenna fell first!"

"THAT's why that particular perimeter section was pushed outward!"

"THAT's what caused the pull in of the perimeter columns!"

The reason Tony and others DON'T come out with their own detailed explanation is because it can be examined and shown to be wrong. More detailed equals more places for mistakes. Claiming that "only the 24 outer columns needed to be cut" in order to initiate global collapse is WAY easier then actually showing how much thermite/thermate/explosives were used, where they were used, how each node failed, etc.

 

[swright777]

I have a few questions but I don't want you to have to do too much 'splainin....

Thanks for the comment. I have chosen a simple model so let's see if I can make it understandable whilst sticking with the simple model.

...1. If columns A and C were both moved the same distance toward the center (during construction, not using supernanotermites) would the result be the same if C is removed?

Yes

That's what I expected.

...2. If column B was split into B₁ and B₂, each equidistant from the center of the building, would they each now be supporting half of the total load if C is removed?

No.

Not what I expected, but your explanation was easy to follow and let me see where my thinking was wrong. The text graphics worked perfect for me and when you put it in algebraic form I could see it right away.

<Snip very easy to understand explanation>

...Don't waste time if either of these is not a trivial answer.

The answers were easy. The explanation a bit harder. I hope it is at the right level. Ask if still in doubt.

I couldn't have asked for better. I had lots of math (54 credits iirc) and computer science (about 50 more) for my BS, but no physics. That's something I've come to regret over the years.

More complicated past this line.

I'll leave the complicated stuff for those more qualified, but I get the idea.

...
All of which is why I chose the very simple model to explain the principle.

It worked fine for me. Thanks again.

 

[ozeco41]

That's what I expected.

Not what I expected, but your explanation was easy to follow and let me see where my thinking was wrong. The text graphics worked perfect for me and when you put it in algebraic form I could see it right away...

Great. I was unsure of your familiarity with the algebraic notation - so the "English language" version was my "fail safe" and a bit of arse protection.

...I couldn't have asked for better. I had lots of math (54 credits iirc) and computer science (about 50 more) for my BS,...

The full WTC Tower version is an horrendously large matrix (One node per column) and the load on each is dependent on the flexibility of the top part of the tower. And that is before you include either impact damage, fire/heating effects on steel properties or changing damage as fire progresses. So the load on each depends on a multi dimensional bit of calculation even more complex than the number of columns and their layout. And most of the variables not determinable. Fortunately the "three rows" model is all that is needed to explain the principle.

... but no physics. That's something I've come to regret over the years.

Physics esp mechanics was my strong suite through school>>two University courses. My regret later in life was no biology.

...I'll leave the complicated stuff for those more qualified, but I get the idea...

That was the balance I was hinting at in my post.

...It worked fine for me. Thanks again.

No problem. I'm glad it served the purpose.

 

[ozeco41]

My initial post was to try and pull Tony out of hiding to admit that he doesn't understand how to apply the FOS to a complex structure. This is evident because quote #1 from my original post contradicts quote #2 for the reasons given.

As I understand it, the global FOS of an entire structure will change as the FOS for each node changes.

The global FOS for the same structure can be different at any given time, depending on which FsOS have changed for certain nodes.

A node in this instance can be a single component (column, beam, bolt) OR group of connected components whose designed load capacity has degraded or has completely failed. Failed/weakened node boundaries are separated by still functioning nodes (although now taking on redistributed loads from failed/weakened nodes).

Tony's application of the "blanket column removal percentage" used to derive his "FOS failure number" is bogus for the reasons others have given above. I think Tony STARTED to see this as he progressed to his "node" description of 70% vertical load support for the outer core columns and 30% vertical load support for the remaining inner columns.

IMO, any number of blanket/simplified controlled demolition scenarios presented by truthers may very well yield the same collapse results that we see in the videos and photos. The problem is that no truther engineer or architect has presented an scenario with the same granular explanations as they expect from NIST, whether it be for proving their demolition scenarios OR disproving the plane impact/fire (Official Explanation).

Truthers basically want a node by node description of the weakening and failure put to the impact to collapse timeline which they can then use to compare to photographs and videos and say:

"THAT's why the antenna fell first!"

"THAT's why that particular perimeter section was pushed outward!"

"THAT's what caused the pull in of the perimeter columns!"

The reason Tony and others DON'T come out with their own detailed explanation is because it can be examined and shown to be wrong. More detailed equals more places for mistakes. Claiming that "only the 24 outer columns needed to be cut" in order to initiate global collapse is WAY easier then actually showing how much thermite/thermate/explosives were used, where they were used, how each node failed, etc.

All understood and agreed.

Thanks for starting the thread.

 

[Gamolon]

All understood and agreed.

Thanks for starting the thread.

My next thoughts are these.

Is it possible to "work backwards" and use any visual item (video or photos) to come up with a "node by node" failure sequence or timeline that explains things that were seen during those events?

For example, we know what floors were impacted and have visual evidence of which perimeter columns were damaged/severed. What becomes difficult is what was damaged/severed on the INSIDE and how much each intact structural component degraded over time until the collapse initiation.

Is there enough information to fill in the blanks? Is there a way by trial and error to fail nodes or combination of nodes in a computer model to replicate, for example, the downward movement of the antenna in the manner that it did? Or possibly replicate the tilt of the upper block?

Would someone even deem this type of analysis (it would be complex and time consuming) as possibly providing anything worthwhile?

 

[Gamolon]

The discussion has been very silent on the role of the connections despite the evidence showing how many of them failed.

I think it's because people either:

A. Don't want to put the time and effort into doing such a granular study

or

B. Don't understand structures and the engineering used to design them

or

C. A combination of both A and B

I have always said that these floor truss connections circled in red:


Were not designed to resist the force/load of the upper section in red descending upon them:

 

[Gamolon]

2) In reality:
___the top block is not rigid; AND
___a lot of the steel was heat affected; AND
___we do't know which bits OR how much; AND
___ (a few more) ..so let's not go there...

....yet.

All of which is why I chose the very simple model to explain the principle.

This somehwhat answers my questions in post #22.



I also see the "yet"...