Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[JSanderO]

This somehwhat answers my questions in post #22.



I also see the "yet"...

FEA attempts such types of analysis... but the structures were so complex with so many parts and connections and the behavior of the fire/heat is almost impossible to model.

FEA can really only model a limited set of inputs and so it's hardly a global model.. and will produce a GIGO.

 

[Jetblast]

You shouldn't start a thread with an abbreviation. What is "FOS"?

 

[LSSBB]

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.

I don't think large scale electrical blackouts are necessarily so straightforward. See the Northeast blackout of 2003 for comparison. Electrical networks may have many nodes and points of failure. Including software and human operators.

 

[Gamolon]

You shouldn't start a thread with an abbreviation. What is "FOS"?

Factor Of Safety

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In addition to what everyone else said, and possibly said the same but different... FOS is basically meant to describe the structural system of a building with design decisions and engineering taken into account. But load distribution is almost as, if not more important than the actual FOS since an eccentric load distribution introduces moment to the equation. Much of this is why systems with explicit conditions like that have to be designed accordingly with the proper connection conditions and structural designs to account for it. If it's not taken into account, or it exists for whatever reason beyond the scope of a design it can reap havock.

One way to visualize, or experience the concept is to see the difference in how much you can lift directly above you, vs what you can lift when your arm is extended out at a distance. It's the same concept with structures... though it's more complicated as you increase the detail level

 

[ozeco41]

...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...

OR:
D. Someone makes the point but few if any realise the significance at that time.

In November 2007 I first described - but did not label with a cute acronym - the process which Major_Tom later labelled ROOSD. My text long lost in history but the graphic survives - file creation date 26 Nov 2007:

...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:

My mistake probably that I circled in YELLOW when it should have been RED.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think large scale electrical blackouts are necessarily so straightforward. See the Northeast blackout of 2003 for comparison. Electrical networks may have many nodes and points of failure. Including software and human operators.

Sure. I'm familiar with the "Northeast Blackout" - I'm acquainted with one of the managers who was a player in the events. Plus my own background has a lot of involvement in emergency management. And if you are in that game you tend to be aware of the "big ones"

I wasn't trying to minimise the overall system(s) complexity. The purpose being to explain cascade failure to lay persons...not rigorously satisfy a political inquiry. The focus of how I use the example is on node failure - not overall system failure. Single domino topple>>>single electrical network node trip out>>>single structural node in a complex structure. And all of those from technical viewpoint focussed on nodes - not the overall socio/political/technical system. (And, being pedantic, I suppose with WTC1 & 2 I should say compound rather than complex.)

 

[jaydeehess]

@ozeco
All through school I had to shake my head at the people who complained about the number of formulae they had to memorize. Three were the 'plug in the numbers' people you describe.
Take the simple math descriptions of movement
V=d/t V=at d=0.5at² but
d is also = d_I+v_It+0.5at²
These people were attempting to memorize every one of these as if they were completely separate and all but unrelated BECAUSE they did not understand, on a basic level what the math was describing nor how to manipulate the formulae. In first year physics there's really only a handful of formulae one needs to remember, plus the relationship to various parameters. In the above case all one needs is that last formula plus a bit of calculus ,,,,,,,,and,,,,, a basic intuition as to what is being described by the math.
In a bit of professorial weeding out of who really understands what, one second year physics prof would include, on mid term test papers, a whole raft of various formulae, devoid of course of any context. Some were red herrings that would not need to be used in any answer to any question in the test. Some hilarity results. After the test oneother student approached me with a bit of panic because he had failed to see where to use one particular formula. 'Only one?' was my reply.

 

[jaydeehess]

@JSO and ozeco.
The complexity of the redistribution of loads has a level beyond fail/no fail. Here's my intuitive thought on this;
When heat induced creep shortens a column under load a redistribution takes place over time as the column slowly deforms. At some point it is quite possible that enough load on that column is passed off to others such that the load now impinging on the damaged column is less than what will cause further deformation. However passing on of that load can put other structural members into a stress or strain or torque that greatly compromises its load carrying capacity even if it is still at nominal room temperature.
There are a myriad of combinations , as ozeco says, a huge matrix equation for each node in an fea attempting to show some sequence to an event.

The truther might want a point by point description of what failed when, what caused the antenna to drop at a certain point. It is also possible to create a scenario, working backwards, that would describe in point by point fashion, what failed and when.
But, and for people who like big buts this qualifies, this solution is likely only one of dozens, perhaps hundreds. Thus the fea works forwards instead and the proof of being on the right track is the degree to which the sequence derived by the fea matches to parts of the collapse sequence that was observed to occur.
Truthers tend to work backwards, as evidenced by TSz coming up with his explosive demolition of outer core columns to cause perimeter column bowing. Yes that might result in such inward bowing but in a fashion that does not agree with the sequence seen.



Does any of this make sense?done with varying initial conditions to see how it affects the final product.

 

[JSanderO]

@JSO and ozeco.
....

Does any of this make sense?done with varying initial conditions to see how it affects the final product.

I suppose that we need to take a look at how the heat would effect the different nodes / parts of the frame. I don't have any experience with this except the intuitive understanding the heat would expand and cause some sort of creep in the steel... beams sagging in the core... perhaps connections shearing bolts from warping... I really have no clue as to how the frame would respond to heat stress and uneven heat stress at that.

In addition I would think a column... and I could be completely wrong here... supports the full service load until it buckles... it doesn't shed the load... but deforms under it. But once it buckles and goes out of column or the web and flange come apart the load it carried is then moved to adjacent structure via beams or shear walls etc. Those may then be over stressed and buckle creep and bend... and so on.

Maybe.

 

[Gamolon]

Question regarding the hat truss.

Are there any visual indications of the hat truss failing and having any affect on the perimeter facade when the antenna started it's collapse?


Photos of the diagonals of the hat truss to the perimeter facade:

 

[jaydeehess]

Major Tom did illustrate that the towers began collapse with certain portions moving before others. That may have led to shearing of the hat truss beams.

 

[JSanderO]

Even in the collapse of 2WTC you can see the top section kinks where the hat truss was. It was much stiffer part of the tower and included the strengthened mech floors at the top of the tower.

 

[ozeco41]

My next thoughts are these.

And good thoughts but some of the directions you try to take are IMO doomed to fail. So we need to use "workarounds".

...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?...

IMO (Probably IMNSHO ) It is not possible. Let me explain. There are broadly two ways to approach this sort of problem:
1) By using methods which require all the details. Since we never can know all the details this method will not succeed - no matter how good the research some data items will not be accessible.
2) By using methods which take a more "macro level" but still valid approach.

Your next two paragraphs actually define aspects of the "information barrier" which bars our way to the detailed approach:

...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?...

IMO (again ) all those answers are "no" or may as well be "no" because unless you can access all the data details you cannot progress UNLESS you start making assumptions AKA "guessing". I won't derail here but put briefly if you can guess the outcome with some level of reliability there is little point guessing the details to the same or lesser level of reliability then doing calculations which impose an appearance of pseudo accuracy on what is still basically your guess.

So let's explore the "more macro level" approaches.

Take one example - the numerous discussions about whether or not "tilt" will prevent axial contact between column ends. Recall that the assumption by Tony Sz et al is that, as they fall the lower ends of the columns of the upper tower portion would impact on their mating part in the lower tower. Tony arguning that they would, should and must on many occasions. Opposing viewpoints showing by various means that they wouldn't.

All of those arguments are wasted bandwidth for one very simple reason. What caused the tilt was that columns on the low side had failed. Failure whatever the mode meant that the column ends were already bypassing OR in a state where bypass was both imminent and unavoidable.

Now as it stands that statement is a bare assertion which needs support. The support is easily given - that is not the issue I am illustrating. The argument is a "more macro level" argument than the details of geometry and other factors arguments that have prevailed.

It is exactly the same argument that falsifies Tony Sz's "Missing Jolt" claims. Put simply both the argument about tilt causing or not causing column impact alignment AND the claims of "Missing Jolt" rely on a blatant error of timing - actually of sequence. They are looking for a future event when the time for that event has already passed.

So put the thinking cap on as to why that macro argument is correct and the consequence that it outflanks and overrules all the detailed level discussion.

Yes there are a couple of "yes buts" that I haven't identified (yet )
BUT shift the discussion and/or argument to that level and we have the workaround so we don't need all those details that we cannot get anyway.

There are several more aspects but I will pause here.

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

The pivotal question is "For what purpose?" and I can explore that after we see what response we get to my previous comments. One step at a time if you like.

 

[JSanderO]

Upper columns can't possibly fall straight down onto the ends of columns below. You would have to miraculously remove sections of the upper or lower columns for the aligned drop to take place. A completely nonsensical concept if there ever was one. This is essentially assert that some thing sliced away a uniform section of all columns to enable a straight drop.

If the descent were cause by connected columns but ones which were severely weakened so much as they could not support the service loads... the columns would buckle and cause some sort of lateral displacement as buckled webs and flanges tend to do. If the buckling was on one side of the structure, it would descend and cause a rotation about the stronger side. This is apparently what occurred.

There was evidence of several buckled and pretzel like columns. These must have still had their ends engaged (restrained) so they were able to bend as they did from seeing enormous loads far exceeding their capacity... perhaps weakened from some amount of heat. The misalignment was probably just enough to cause column impacts with bracing which sheared it and led to other failures in the frame which then broke apart. Maybe.

 

[ozeco41]

Upper columns can't possibly fall straight down onto the ends of columns below. You would have to miraculously remove sections of the upper or lower columns for the aligned drop to take place. A completely nonsensical concept if there ever was one. This is essentially assert that some thing sliced away a uniform section of all columns to enable a straight drop.

If the descent were cause by connected columns but ones which were severely weakened so much as they could not support the service loads... the columns would buckle and cause some sort of lateral displacement as buckled webs and flanges tend to do. If the buckling was on one side of the structure, it would descend and cause a rotation about the stronger side. This is apparently what occurred.

There was evidence of several buckled and pretzel like columns. These must have still had their ends engaged (restrained) so they were able to bend as they did from seeing enormous loads far exceeding their capacity... perhaps weakened from some amount of heat. The misalignment was probably just enough to cause column impacts with bracing which sheared it and led to other failures in the frame which then broke apart. Maybe.

All reasonable comments Sander.

However the thrust of my previous post is:
A) We cannot always know all the necessary details. Therefore discussions pursuing details often cannot reach conclusions and discussions will tend to keep ongoing round in circles. Many examples in this sub forum. Note the provisos "often" AND "cannot".

THEREFORE for some specific issues the circling discussion of details is wasted effort - same disclaimer re "specific" and "issues". The next two examples I leave out the obvious "yes buts" to keep the message simple and blunt - I can dispose of the "yes buts" easily if someone raises them:

B) Example One. Discussing whether or not "tilt" can prevent end for end axial contact of columns. It cannot because by the time tilt as occurred the axial contact has already been removed. Failure of columns by ends bypassing, folding, buckling, getting eaten by termites (OR, for benefit of T Sz, by explosive cutting, thermXte melting) OR whatever other method we imagine is what causes the bleeding tilt. (One obvious "yes but" hinted at but left hanging at this stage.)

C) Example Two. "Missing Jolt" looking for falling top section to cause a "biggish jolt" when it hits the lower section. It won't because the fact that the top bit is falling means that the opportunity for the "biggish jolt" has already passed. Is already past. Gone. Too late. (disclaimer re 2 or 3 "yes buts" )

Both those are really different aspects of the same point which I made at the start of the "Applicability of Bazant" thread - 29 Aug 2010:

Here is the core of my concerns:

So "the column impacts would always be axial"?? Could anything be further from what actually happened with the twin towers on 9/11?

Remember we are talking about the global collapse - the top block has started to fall - a point most people seem comfortable with.

But, if the top block is falling, what does that say about "end for end axial contact" of top block columns and lower tower columns.

..and we still see circling discussions about whether or not falling column ends will impact.

They wont - and again I omit 3 or 4 obvious "yes buts" for simplicity. They are easily explained - probably all different slants on the same issue but we may see.

The key point is that the top bit is falling. The time for impact is gone. "tilt or no tilt" makes no difference - the ends didn't impact. (past tense - already "past" and "passed" ).

Ditto for "Missing Jolt" - it is already too late at what Tony takes as start of his "argument" - top portion is falling.
[/endrepeatedrant]

And, for those with any doubts, all this is dead central on topic. Tony does not understand FOS and the four underpinning reasons are that his arguments:
a) show no comprehension of the actual mechanism of collapse initiation;
b) are based on a 1 dimensional model (plus time) for a process that is 3 spatial dimensions plus time and cannot be explained in 1D + t;
c) make false claims about how loads reallocate under load re-distribution - it does not happen uniformly/proportionally - it depends on column layout - original - which ones removed AND which ones remain bearing load.
d) make anachronistic assumptions - looking for something to happen in the future when the opportunity has already passed at the starting point of argument. (BTW it's a direct consequence of "a)" )

 

[JSanderO]

All reasonable comments Sander.

However the thrust of my previous post is:
A) We cannot always know all the necessary details. Therefore discussions pursuing details often cannot reach conclusions and discussions will tend to keep ongoing round in circles. Many examples in this sub forum. Note the provisos "often" AND "cannot".

THEREFORE for some specific issues the circling discussion of details is wasted effort - same disclaimer re "specific" and "issues". The next two examples I leave out the obvious "yes buts" to keep the message simple and blunt - I can dispose of the "yes buts" easily if someone raises them:

B) Example One. Discussing whether or not "tilt" can prevent end for end axial contact of columns. It cannot because by the time tilt as occurred the axial contact has already been removed. Failure of columns by ends bypassing, folding, buckling, getting eaten by termites (OR, for benefit of T Sz, by explosive cutting, thermXte melting) OR whatever other method we imagine is what causes the bleeding tilt. (One obvious "yes but" hinted at but left hanging at this stage.)

C) Example Two. "Missing Jolt" looking for falling top section to cause a "biggish jolt" when it hits the lower section. It won't because the fact that the top bit is falling means that the opportunity for the "biggish jolt" has already passed. Is already past. Gone. Too late. (disclaimer re 2 or 3 "yes buts" )

Both those are really different aspects of the same point which I made at the start of the "Applicability of Bazant" thread - 29 Aug 2010:

..and we still see circling discussions about whether or not falling column ends will impact.

They wont - and again I omit 3 or 4 obvious "yes buts" for simplicity. They are easily explained - probably all different slants on the same issue but we may see.

The key point is that the top bit is falling. The time for impact is gone. "tilt or no tilt" makes no difference - the ends didn't impact. (past tense - already "past" and "passed" ).

Ditto for "Missing Jolt" - it is already too late at what Tony takes as start of his "argument" - top portion is falling.
[/endrepeatedrant]

And, for those with any doubts, all this is dead central on topic. Tony does not understand FOS and the four underpinning reasons are that his arguments:
a) show no comprehension of the actual mechanism of collapse initiation;
b) are based on a 1 dimensional model (plus time) for a process that is 3 spatial dimensions plus time and cannot be explained in 1D + t;
c) make false claims about how loads reallocate under load re-distribution - it does not happen uniformly/proportionally - it depends on column layout - original - which ones removed AND which ones remain bearing load.
d) make anachronistic assumptions - looking for something to happen in the future when the opportunity has already passed at the starting point of argument. (BTW it's a direct consequence of "a)" )

Ozzie,
What is sort of interesting here in how you present this... it hardly requires any sophisticated understanding of the maths...especially the absurdity of expecting a jolt or a axially aligned drop.

Not if a fair amount of the frame was holding together and the top x number of floors were behaving block like one might expect to see some evidence of a change in smooth motion of the facade as it encounters what it falls upon or crushes into... after all it's not jello! However... it seems a good assumption based on the antenna drop preceding the facade motion that there WAS no block or there was a pretty messed up block and so the facade motion would not be telling the hole story.

So we're left with trying to figure out what we really can't see... and what we can is clearly not the whole story.

And of course TSz simply makes up what's going on inside (or what's not going on there) and screams CD the inside gang did it! My hairs on fire.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozzie,
What is sort of interesting here in how you present this... it hardly requires any sophisticated understanding of the maths...especially the absurdity of expecting a jolt or a axially aligned drop...

It is simply a question of coming at the problem from the opposite and easier direction - and it is all that is needed for many purposes. Certainly the micro details are not essential to demonstrating argument for "No CD."

HOWEVER: Tony is an extreme example. He makes wrong starting assumptions then throws in calculations (or FEA which is no more than complicated calculations). You may remember this comment from my first internet post which I have quoted many times:

...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.

The same problem lies behind the error called "Missing Jolt"; Tony's contributions to the "Girder Walk-off Thread" and most other contributions. And it is more obvious because he is on the wrong and losing side. Debunkers, being on the "winning" side, can make the same errors of reasoning but it is not obvious because they still get the answers correct. e.g. "No CD."

...So we're left with trying to figure out what we really can't see... and what we can is clearly not the whole story...

Which is the problem I am talking about in these recent posts - if you cannot validly do it coming from details working up -- for most purposes you can get a long way by starting with "bigger picture" and working down. In fact that is the better, more rigorous and definitely more efficient direction to come from. However the overwhelming preference on 9/11 discussion forums is to work from details up. Two big reasons being (i) it is the way truthers want to do it; AND (ii) the demographic sector of posting members is strongly biased towards technical therefore 'left brain' therefore details biased. And I wont derail but that is a topic in it's own right except.....(I said "won't derail. )

Put even more bluntly cruel - "Why not think about what you are trying to explain BEFORE you engage in unnecessary or irrelevant maths?" The limitation for some obviously in the activity called "think".

And of course TSz simply makes up what's going on inside (or what's not going on there) and screams CD the inside gang did it! My hairs on fire.

He is not the only one. Just a sad extreme example given that he is one of few engineers making the nonsense claims.

And all of this is "On Topic" - it is the probable reason for "doesn't understand FOS".

 

[Richard the G]

OR:
D. Someone makes the point but few if any realise the significance at that time.

In November 2007 I first described - but did not label with a cute acronym - the process which Major_Tom later labelled ROOSD. My text long lost in history but the graphic survives - file creation date 26 Nov 2007:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/003.jpg[/qimg]
My mistake probably that I circled in YELLOW when it should have been RED.

And dont forget both the debris and the air within the building is pushing the perimeter wall out which is why the building appeared to unzip like a banana. And why the debris field looked a bit like a cruciform.

 

[ozeco41]

And dont forget both the debris and the air within the building is pushing the perimeter wall out...

Sure - actually I won't forget now and didn't back in 2007. However it was 2007 and wrong interpretations of Bazantianism à la B&Z ruled. The challenge was to get the real mechanism comprehended and accepted instead of the "column crushing" nonsense. So my focus was emphatically on the "floor pancaking/strip down" primary mechanism. Not the secondary effects of debris and (possibly) air pressure. Hence my ancient graphic in the post you reference which shows the almost trivial small size of the floor joist connectors. And I deliberately kept it simple. I was putting forward what was at the time the minority explanation of collapse progression. And by doing so committing lèse majesté.

BTW at about the same time David Chandler was pushing his own video of "progression" claiming CD. I used his video often. It actually had a lot of evidence which was contrary to Chandler's claims.

...which is why the building appeared to unzip like a banana.

I prefer to not infer primary causality to secondary/tertiary factors. The reason the outer perimeter could fall away was that the floors were disconnected. Certainly debris pressure was one factor which would ensure "fall outwards" rather than a random mix of "fall outwards" and "fall inwards". For much of the descent there was not simply 'debris'. It was an integral but disintegrating lump of top tower.

And why the debris field looked a bit like a cruciform.

...err.... It was a square building - what other shape was the debris likely to adopt? Independent of the "direction to fall" trigger. No matter what the trigger it was going to go four main directions.

And a point to muse on with that aspect of air pressure. (This one puts us back in the theme of much of this thread - understanding the mechanism we are talking about. )

Try this one - Where/when did the air pressure pulse occur in sequence relative to the progression of floor disconnects?

So was it likely to be significant in "blowing out" the outer perimeter sheets of columns?