Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter Scott Sommers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tony szamboti
No. If you had a competent grasp of the forces involved that little dust burst is indicative of the extreme compression forces you see above almost instantaneously shooting down the air shafts of the tower. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. That air would conduct quickly under those kind of forces and would act in a fluid manner. I'll bet if you got high-end investigators with the Tower blueprints they could trace the elevator shaft or ductwork that puff followed.
Anyone with any common sense would see that little puff disproves demolition more than proves it. Demo advocates simply say look there's evidence of a squib going off early (making up what they want to see). But closer inspection would demand more detail. Where exactly was the squib placed? It should have been on one of the inner columns. But that doesn't make sense because the puff is too focused by the window. If a lone squib detonated early its blast would have been radiated in a spherical manner into the OOS void. By the time it got to the outer frame it would be too spread out to focus that way.
Your video shows the start of the runaway floor collapse. The materials being ejected are too heavy to be office materials. Besides what is the force that would have created such a dust event even if it was office materials? It's not demo because I've already proven demo would not have taken 4 seconds to reach the outer wall as it does in the South Tower. Chandler's North Tower video shows the forward collapse front better.
You're way below the forces involved. The driving weight of the top section would create a pneumatic pressure wave focused by the steel faces of the floor pans that would snap those steel support seats downward like toothpicks. All you needed was to get past the intiation force on the first impacted floor and the rest would be automatic like dominoes.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What makes you think that's what's "throwing" the beams?Sure, those enormous dust blasts you see in the video that are throwing steel beams and tons of dust are only a few PSI...
Let me guess, gut feeling?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Close, but if the pressurized air entered a floor volume via the duct work at pressures large enough to do what is seen at the window, then the duct work itself would be destroyed too quickly. The elevator shafts are a better bet. They are larger and stronger.
However the elevators are located in the center of the building, several dozen feet from the windows and their doors do not directly face any window, they face another bank of elevators iirc. Air entering a floor volume this way is more likely to increase pressure accross the floor rather than send a jet of pressurized air at a window 70+ feet away, and the 'squibs' are focused on one window simply because that window and/or it frame are cracked/damaged such that they give out. Of course as soon as one window gives out on one floor, it causes a reduction of pressure on that floor. Thus it is likely that only the weakest window goes out.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Not at initiation. At that point in time there is no mass of debris. Its an upper section of building, largely still in its orginal state. Thus the floor would lift off before it could possibly snap the seats and braces of the next lower floor IF (if, if, if) air pressure was as involved as you and others claim it may have been.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
A 2 PSI overpressure would exert over 2 tons of force on each window.Sure, those enormous dust blasts you see in the video that are throwing steel beams and tons of dust are only a few PSI...
Surface area is key when taking about PSI.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth
...and last time I looked AAH was
<<<<<<that way.
The paper which is the topic of this thread has two main points:
1) The assumption underpinning B&Z 2001-2002 - for moot purposes supporting an abstract "limiting case" model. That assumption was that collapse at WTC1-2 had columns remaining in line. We know that it did not happen that way in the real collapse; AND
2) The numbers that Bazant used to support his 2001-2 claims were in error
Plus the implied point that, since NIST seemed to rely on Bazant's explanation AND his numbers, NIST was wrong in claiming "global collapse was inevitable".
Status of discussion of the OP is:
The key question raised by debunkers is 'Even if the claims of the paper are correct "So What?" '
Tony Sz has not defended his paper - with the assistance of a lot of us he kept the thread derailed thereby avoiding answering "So What?"
My assessment of the status of discussion is:
1) We know that columns were not in line in the real event. And Tony Sz is the only one who keeps making claims based on columns remaining in line whilst authoring a paper that purports to show that they were not. (
Read it again - that is the inevitable conclusion of what he claims in this thread IMO. )
HOWEVER the rest of us know the columns were not in line. Bazant knew that back in 2001-2 when he and Zhou put forward the paper.
2) So what if Bazant's numbers were wrong? Does it matter in 2013? If so how? If so why?
3) Even if Bazant's numbers were wrong AND NIST relied on them to conclude that "global collapse was inevitable" the current status is that clever people (Guess who that includes
) ... know that "global collapse was inevitable".
At worst NIST may have got the right answer for the wrong reason and Tony won't say why he thinks it matters.
So what?
.
Does anyone wants to discuss the topic?
...and last time I looked AAH was
<<<<<<that way.
The paper which is the topic of this thread has two main points:
1) The assumption underpinning B&Z 2001-2002 - for moot purposes supporting an abstract "limiting case" model. That assumption was that collapse at WTC1-2 had columns remaining in line. We know that it did not happen that way in the real collapse; AND
2) The numbers that Bazant used to support his 2001-2 claims were in error
Plus the implied point that, since NIST seemed to rely on Bazant's explanation AND his numbers, NIST was wrong in claiming "global collapse was inevitable".
Status of discussion of the OP is:
The key question raised by debunkers is 'Even if the claims of the paper are correct "So What?" '
Tony Sz has not defended his paper - with the assistance of a lot of us he kept the thread derailed thereby avoiding answering "So What?"
My assessment of the status of discussion is:
1) We know that columns were not in line in the real event. And Tony Sz is the only one who keeps making claims based on columns remaining in line whilst authoring a paper that purports to show that they were not. (
Read it again - that is the inevitable conclusion of what he claims in this thread IMO. )HOWEVER the rest of us know the columns were not in line. Bazant knew that back in 2001-2 when he and Zhou put forward the paper.
2) So what if Bazant's numbers were wrong? Does it matter in 2013? If so how? If so why?
3) Even if Bazant's numbers were wrong AND NIST relied on them to conclude that "global collapse was inevitable" the current status is that clever people (Guess who that includes
) ... know that "global collapse was inevitable". At worst NIST may have got the right answer for the wrong reason and Tony won't say why he thinks it matters.
So what?
. Does anyone wants to discuss the topic?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So what?
Sort of sums up this whole subforum. Problem is the subject group doesn't know the answer.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
True nuffTony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth
...and last time I looked AAH was
<<<<<<that way.
discussion drifted away from the subject about the same time T Sz drifted away from this thread.
of course the hilited portion above is the salient point. B & Z knew they were doing a first approximation. T Sz assumes otherwise for some odd reason.
<<sighs>> tis true
My assessment of the status of discussion is:
1) We know that columns were not in line in the real event. And Tony Sz is the only one who keeps making claims based on columns remaining in line whilst authoring a paper that purports to show that they were not. (
HOWEVER the rest of us know the columns were not in line. Bazant knew that back in 2001-2 when he and Zhou put forward the paper.
Tony seems to have muddled his thoughts on this but perhaps I can put words in his mouth to explain his position.
He is saying that in order to collapse the columns cannot line up. Not neccessarily true but it would make it less likely in a light wind for a whole structure(which the upper section of the towers were not).
He then says that if the columns were aligned and dropped upon each other that there would be a jolt as the contacted.
Now this is where its rather strange since in order to do this the upper section must be separated from the lower, and that never occured. No one lifted the upper section. So the only way to do such a thing would be to blow out a section of the columns cleanly. Now, with a section of column removed the upper section would drop and the column ends would, in theory, meet and there would be a jolt. But there is no jolt so this scenario also did not occur. However, in a common CD there are secondary charges on the column ends to push them to one side to allow the ends to pass each other.
THIS is what T Sz is saying must have occured because there was no jolt. Unfortunately in the case of columns failing due to heat weakening, in a structure that is tilting, columns will also not meet and there will be no jolt.
It matters little except in the case where one wishes to illustrate the magnitude of the overload on the floors. In their original paper B & Z had a minimum of 30X over design. They assumed that this was sufficient to show that further detailing would still show that the building's systems were vastly overloaded once collapse initiated.
3) Even if Bazant's numbers were wrong AND NIST relied on them to conclude that "global collapse was inevitable" the current status is that clever people (Guess who that includes
It was pretty obvious after the first second or so, though part of me was silently yelling "NO!", in common human denial of the horror I was witnessing. I recall wondering if, hoping that, everyone got out.
Since his assumptions are all muddled up in the first place I would say its a lost cause. Perhaps at some point he will try again.
However, the whole exercise has the 911 truth thing all bassackwards anyway.
So what if NIST or Bazant or anyone else got it wrong. AE911T wants to know the 'truth' so why are they not instead pursueing a BETTER scenario and explanation of the collapses?
Because, as T Sz illustrates, they have their assumptions and reasoning all muddled up.
Sure, if anyone has anything new or further to say about it.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So what?
Sort of sums up this whole subforum. Problem is the subject group doesn't know the answer.
For a while now the focus on this subforum has been to , after a decade of fighting over technical details, demand of the truthers, a reasoning, a scenario that matches both their claims, and the docuemented reality (and here we part ways with the delusional, the no planers and spacebeamers) of the aircraft impacts, office fires and collapses.
We have said, 'ok there was molten steel in the rubble, produce a scenario that accounts for it that includes the destruction of the WTC complex' We got one feeble attempt to explain how steel could be kept molten in the rubble.
There have been other attempts to get the remaining truthers to declare similar basic reasonings and they have been equally unsuccessful.
This thread also bogged down when the proponent of the paper failed to keep pace with the questions his paper begged.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Water and snow has nothing to do with cement rubble.
And the highlighted?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
delete
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
delete
Last edited:
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
The reality is that the plane(s) "went off", hit the building, a long time before the huge steel beams were launched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo1m7ldnQCc
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
"Moon-size field of rubble."
There, I said it. Some people just don't have the ability to comprehend the magnitude of forces involved.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Not much. And the post would remain standing and intact. As would the HUGE STEEL SUPPORT COLUMNS.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
delete
Last edited:
Really, and you have a competent grasp of what? Did you google the least resistance stuff from other failed 911 truth "experts"? Ironically you are an inside job truther trying with made up physics to debunk one of the original cd truthers.
What are you talking about? Explain the competent grasp of anything in regards to the "path of least resistance". And, how it relates to the new smoothness being used to fool a Journal. A journal which may of woke up if Tony had used his "missing jolt" junk?
Yes, Tony's CD claims are fantasy, but don't use fantasy physics to debunk him. Would you have fallen for Tony's paper and published it if you were the Journal? Do you know the name of the Journal?