Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
There was no falling steel.
ETA: thanks for
What does that mean? Is it a compliment?
Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter Scott Sommers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tony szamboti
There was no falling steel.
ETA: thanks for
What does that mean? Is it a compliment?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
I'm sure the paper Tony contributed to is perfectly correct. Where are all the papers and groups supporting the debunker position?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
delete
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Top marks for this post. 90% Go to the head of the class tomorrow - reason for the delayed reward in a later comment. The direction you are heading - 99% on several aspects. Progress is good but has some distance to go.
He does not, will not and probably cannot separate reality from abstract models. Earlier in the thread I kept count of the number of times various members had told him - got to about 25. Still holding to a point and not even acknowledging you have been told 25 times needs a special class of "blind spot" or delusion. Even I am not that slow on the uptake.
That is why we are all on detention after school - me included. We all fell for the trap that Tony set. He kept us off the topic BUT we chose to follow him.
Mea also culpa. Youa culpa also IIRC. we have to write 100 lines "I must not follow derails set up by evasive truthers." So your "head of class" award comes after you clear your punishment backlog. 
Three points there
1 Yes. The main points of muddiness go back to 2007 in my personal experience. So he hasn't learned.
2 True. Then he offers spme false reasonms and concludes "CD".
3 True.
4 (OK I failed "Counting 101") Correct also but I don't think Tony comprehends why that would be true.
5 That is his theme. He is correct but....'twasn't what happened. So another example of getting "reality' and "abstract model" confused.
6 Both points true. But AFAICS no debunker has taken him up on that point - and in the words of the prophet it is "bleedingly obvious".
7 Ditto.
8 Which is what Tony is trying to prove AND as you identify it is in his assumptions. So his argument is circular - he makes assumptions then circles round and "proves" his assumptions. We sing the "earwiggo song" at this point ("earwiggo roundthemul berrybush")
I'll leave the point by point critique for now - you can do it for homework.
Back to the main theme:
Yes but so what does it mean for us in 2013?
Comment not needed.
His SOP from 2007 onwards is - try again later and pretend that no criticisms have been amade, no advice or assitance offered.
The whole truth movement is arse about on logic ad debate protocol. And their limited intelligence and low integrity show.
A) They cannot explain something THEREFORE they presume CD and demand that we explain why it wasn't. Reversed burden of proof. And we debunkers accept it. I wont divert into critique of that.
Top marks for this post. 90% Take the oak leaves to your "Top of Class" award. You are already at the top so there is no higher, no topperer.
Yes.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
To us? Not much. To truthers? Should illustrate that there was no requirement for CD. That said they could still attempt to come up with a scenario with Cd that would in fact mimic the situation docuemented on 11/09/01.
There would still be hurdles to overcome of course. In the commonly accepted history of the events, we have a known cause, hijacked aircraft, tons of liquid acellerant, fires, for the collapses.
In any CD however the explosive/incindiary used is not in evidence, certainly no evidence of its installation in the structures. So any scenario of CD neccessarily begs the question of how, when and who, wrt to the devices used. Failure to provide this in a competant scenario will then fail to overcome the null hypothesis that is the commonly accepted history.
ozeco41
Philosopher
That is near enough to what I have been saying about the "new" paper from the start of discussion on this forum and in this thread.
The three main themes of the paper are:
1) Bazant and Zhou's "columns in line" assumption in their 2001-2002 paper didn't happen in the real event. On that theme the paper is correct.
2) Later academic papers followed Bazant's "columns in line" assumption and took it literally. They were wrong to do so. On that theme also the paper is correct.
3) Bazant's numbers to justify his conclusions in the earlier paper were wrong and on corrected values Bazant's conclusions were not valid. On that theme I have said I accept their claim as prima facie true. No one has been prepared to take up that point - agree or disagree.
There doesn't seem to be a "debunker position". Apart from me there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to take up the discussion. Many have been happy to follow Tony's derails.
Which is a funny situation if you have a twisted sense of humour. Here we have Tony co-authoring a paper:
A) which is formally peer reviewed and published;
B) Where his two main claims are correct and one other seems to be correct (the one about the numbers); AND
C) Tony doesn't want to defend being correct.
Some interesting twists there. It would take a mega post to try an explanation. AND - there is another "twist":
You, Clayton, have made some technical comments which happen to be spot on target and you still get accused of trolling. The "boy who called wolf" syndrome I suppose?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I'd address this if I did not firmly believe that CM is a troll who wishes for nothing other than to have others to interact with him.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I don't see that it adds anything to the CD debate. Maybe I'm wrong.
However the big issue for me is "missed opportunity". Szuladzinski has been in a personal battle with Bazant for years in the halls of academic discourse. And to me it seems that he has a valid point or two. The central point is that he is claiming that Bazant & Zhou was wrong. He is at least partly correct.
Now if that had been demonstrated say 2005-6 before the growth of 9/11 CD discussion on the internet the path of subsequent debate would have been very different. So would the history of this sub-forum.
Simply stated the technical discussions of WTC towers collapses from the debunker side has been dominated by the B & Z paper and its misinterpretation by many commentators. Those misinterpretations include Bazant's own errors in sequel papers.
If what we now call ROOSD and the "Three Mechanisms in Parallel" explanations of collapse progression had been available from say 2005-6 the whole course of discussion would not have been down the false track of pseudo Bazantianism as advocated by most Bazantophiles.
A marketing failure actually. My explanations circa 2007 were on an obscure Internet forum and nobody in mainstream internet discussion is aware of them. Acceptance of Major_Tom's valid technical research has been resisted because of his perceived status as a "truther" and his own grossly offensive way of presenting his work. So it's 20010-11 onwards before it becomes barely acceptable to criticise Bazant here on JREF.
Therefore my conclusion:
A missed opportunity. The paper couild have been pivotal to the course of discussion if presented in 2005-6. It is of little value now because those of us normal people outside of academia and who could be interested are no longer blinded by uncritical Bazantianism.
There is little we can do to rescue academia. And I doubt that the paper will have much affect because the academic criteria is dominated by status and fear of lèse majesté.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Since logical points made during debate isn't crying wolf please expound on the highlighted.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Agreed with one proviso - one difference.
My SOP is to ignore trolling. And I distinguish trolling from trolls. Some people who engage in trolling sometimes make reasoned comments. Ergo in particular. Clayton also occasionally breaks out of role. I ration them to one response to the rational comment. I am prepared to continue discussion if they enter reasoned rebate - they rarely do. I have applied that criterion to all current trolls.
The record with MM goes back to another forum where AFAIK he launched his trolling career - and I was the moderator of a forum which enforced a "no trolling rule"
However the overriding preferred policy is "don't feed trolls"
BTW it was the long standing rule on Amateur Radio directed at unlicensed pirates. Never ever respond to them. Radio amateurs being an intelligent mob usually adhered to the maxim.
Contrast say with the no discipline of CB radio which has always been a feeding ground for....."trolling types"...
...and I'm assuming that parallels and analogies are acceptable.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Its been so long since it came to be, please remind me what ROOSD stands for.
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 493
It seems to me that you may be scanting the null hypothesis that "academia" actually doesn't care much about Bazantianism one way or the other.
I noticed fairly early in the 2004 election fraud debate that they had accomplished something important if they could rebut Warren Mitofsky (often called the "father of exit polling"). Trouble was, although Mitofsky was widely respected, only the "fraudsters" were hanging on his every word in that way. (Mitofsky was not an academic, so the analogy isn't perfect.) To many academics, the only question of any interest was whether the exit poll results evinced fraud, and most quickly concluded that they didn't. Some academics were interested in why the exit poll results were wrong, but they realized that the forensic analysis couldn't be conclusive. So they moved on. Nobody bothered to publish a series of debunking articles, good or bad, in major journals; I don't think anybody thought that such articles would even be publishable. If they had been published, I'm not sure who would have bothered to read them, other than the fraudsters.
I sort of imagine that if Bazant hadn't, somewhat accidentally, gotten this bee in his bonnet and been in a position to publish almost at will, there wouldn't have been an academic literature on the collapse mechanism at all. Obviously that isn't based on my extensive conversations with engineering professors -- I don't know any. It's just a thought.
Whether ROOSD etc. are worthy of academic discussion, I do not know. I doubt it, but I don't deny it.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Why would I participate on a forum thread if that wasn't my intention?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
I seem to be on the receiving end from "other guys" quite often so I think the other guys are the trolls not I.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The mechanism of collapse is useful to understand in order to better design future structures. Even if the state of construction and engineering is at this point in history, unable to do much to address it, there may be future techniques that will.
However, that is most certainly not why AE911T wants a new investigation. What they want is to affirm their political worldview of a vast shadowy group of overlords manipulating the populace for their own, often indecipherable, agendas.
However, that is most certainly not why AE911T wants a new investigation. What they want is to affirm their political worldview of a vast shadowy group of overlords manipulating the populace for their own, often indecipherable, agendas.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Recent examples:
..I have responded to that one at post 2106.
I didn't respond but I commend you for addressing the topic. My comments in summary would be along these lines:
1 There are three main themes IMO - I have stated my opinion that the paper is correct on two and probably correct on the third. Also the key question for me is "So What?" - why does the paper matter in 2013?
2 I recognise that you want to go further. For me that desire is outranked by the "So what?" If there is no benefit with the single paper what benefits can flow if we make two, three more papers? So I would need to know where those additional papers were heading - what they could achieve.
3 True and the physics is rigorous enough for the general comment you made. The broader issue is that we have a polarised "truthers" v "debunkers" entrenchment on the issue. And both sides trying to black and white it. HOWEVER the overriding issue is at #5 - understand the true mechanism of collapse progression and all the pile driver v rubble stuff is wasted effort. It is a side track.
4 Similar to above. Pasrt of the "rubble impact" aspoect is subject ofthe thread Solid Bodies versus Rubble: Results and femrs new work described there. But from my persopecivethe issue is a side track - see #5
5 That is answered by what Major_Tom calls "ROOSD" which is one element of what I refer to as three parallel mechanisms. The concept is simple.
Once collapse started what fell down the office space sheared off the floor joists - Mechanism #1
The unsupported outer perimeter columns peeled off and fell outwards - Mechanism #2 AND
The top Bock core falling on the Lower Tower core hit beam on beam and sheared off the beams. - Mechanism #3.
Those three mechanisms all fully or partially observed were the main mechanisms for "global collapse was inevitable". Quite a lot of details in "yes buts" Bottom line is that the exceptions were overwhelmed and can be explained anyway.
Getting a grasp of details is a bit harder. I have posted summaries and details many times. I don't keep reference indexes but I can did up a link or two if you cannot locate the material yourself.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
runaway open office space destruction when pigs fly
ozeco41
Philosopher
I doubt that you and I are forming significantly different opinions Mark. We sometimes seem to express ourselves differently.
I think your thrust is right - let me set aside academic perspective and put it from my perspective as a retired engineer of some former significant professional status.
The overall picture for Twin Towers is simple:
Plane impact and subsequent fires cause collapse.
Two schools of discussion fork out of that happening:
1) Artificial discussion chasing Conspiracy AND
2) Serious discussion by professionals.
All the controversy we see is in the artificial context of truth movement claims. And in the broader context of the real world the engineering aspects are of no significance. Even the socio-political aspects are small. "How much effort does the political process put into managing the manic fringe" v "some bits of manic fringe have enough clout to need attending to." Blunt politics.
Now as a professional the collapse mechanism was two stages:
A) A cascade process of failure initiation. There's nothing new or world shattering in that - cascade mechanisms abound in professional history and folk lore. But the details are always situation specific. Engineers for future buildings will learn little from the details of those 9/11 specific cascades. They will hear loud and clear the reminder to "try to prevent cascades in foreseeable situations"...and there is complex discussion down that path. Crudely put it will be the commercial decision and risk management of "how safe can we afford to be" v "what risks". (BTW That is the #1 reason we have engineers in the first place. Anyone can build things. The engineers role is to make it safe and economical.
)B) The "ROOSD" (I still wish I had labelled it back in 2007 - having a recognised "brand label" certainly eases communication.
) -- ROOSD is a characteristic of a specific building design. "We" (Major_Tom or I or any others who were the first to identify it in their own corner of the internet) are no cleverer than practising engineers. Anyone building a new tower will have looked at WTC design and tried to avoid the vulnerability of tube in tube within the overriding criteria of economic affordability.So I think we are saying much the same things - using different writing styles.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
That is your denialism cutting in Clayton.
The principles of ROOSD are undeniable. The likelihood of successful execution of aeronautical exploits by members of the family "suidae" is...err..."remote"...
You face the choice to keep digging deeper into the trench OR work though the reasoning. Your call.
Step one: can you identify what specific parts of "ROOSD" you disagree with. Not "I disagree with the lot" - that is merely another evasion. There are lots of bits - list them and put the tick or the cross against each one.
I can give you the starting list if you are willing.
Try some samples:
"a floor joist connector would fail if enough weight was played on it"
"a falling weight hits harder than one gently imposed at slow or bear zero speed"
You have already spoken out on this one "rubble slowly poured onto a floor will have less effect than a solid lump of the same total weight dropped from the same height"
You got that last one right so you already agree with a bit of ROOSD.
Last edited:
What sort of load impacting a typical 4" thk twin tower floor would fail it?... cause it to deflect and snap the trusses? Crush through the slap itself? Could you support an A1A Abrams tank on a wtc floor?
ozeco41
Philosopher
It's actually worse. They cannot even formulate the question.Sort of sums up this whole subforum. Problem is the subject group doesn't know the answer.So what?
