Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[MarkLindeman]

I doubt that you and I are forming significantly different opinions Mark. We sometimes seem to express ourselves differently.

That sounds about right.

...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.

That makes sense. And my guess is that many academics (and others) would cheerfully argue with Bazant if they thought it could lead to better designs -- but not for the sake of getting themselves embroiled in a dispute between Truthers and their favorite bête noire. That aside, as long as we preserve the hope that clear thinking will lead to better discussions, I suppose we must wonder whether clearer thinking could have led to better discussions.

I'll go back to lurking now....

 

[chrismohr]

Ozeco41, I'm surprised to see you let pass the "extra energy needed to overcome the laws of physics" line, Maybe the gravitational energy of a black hole past the event horizon, or the energy of the universe .00000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang. Otherwise, I don't know of ANY energy that can overcome the laws of physics!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He doesn't have enough to stand by to justify even that question as far as I can glance. Remember that he can label as many things as "suspicious" as he wants, but like all of the points that came up earlier when the thread was more on topic... the question of "what implications to imply" comes back up. Because they're able to point out things they think are specious but nothing ever connects back to "explosives" or "things that connect to reality".

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the thread seems to have outlived it's usefulness... Tony's answers may have been derails and at times non-existent but they weren't robo responses and it gave some room to have discussion before points get reiterated multiple times. Remo's essentially reiterating a sticking point, and not really responding to the contents, which pretty much makes the discussion asymetric

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail?

What would have caused the core column flooring systems to fail?


One of the conundrums the paper builds but fails to take to task is that there are multiple/different aspects across the building that have to fail/be made to fail concurrently, the entire tower in less than 20 seconds. At least 5.5 floors a second.

Another consideration not taken to task is size/strength/shape/texture of the building's structural components.

walls
main floor
steel support columns
steel support columns floor(independent of the main floor)

Each floor must be attacked/made to fail/damaged in a way that the next floor can be attacked/made to fail/damaged.

And finally the obvious conclusion of the debris slowing down the damage process.
5.5 floors of debris in less than 1 second
11 floors of debris in less than 2 seconds
16.5 floors of debris in less than 3 seconds
22 floors of debris in less than 4 seconds
27.5 floors of debris in less than 5 seconds
33 floors of debris in less than 6 seconds
38.5 floors of debris in less than 7 seconds
44 floors of debris in less than 8 seconds

 

[LSSBB]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html



What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail?

What would have caused the core column flooring systems to fail?


One of the conundrums the paper builds but fails to take to task is that there are multiple/different aspects across the building that have to fail/be made to fail concurrently, the entire tower in less than 20 seconds. At least 5.5 floors a second.

Another consideration not taken to task is size/strength/shape/texture of the building structural components.

walls
main floor
steel support columns
steel support columns floor(independent of the main floor)

Each floor must be attacked/made to fail/damaged in a way that the next floor can be attacked/made to fail/damaged.

And finally the obvious conclusion of the debris slowing down the damage process.
5.5 floors of debris in less than 1 second
11 floors of debris in less than 2 seconds
16.5 floors of debris in less than 3 seconds
22 floors of debris in less than 4 seconds
27.5 floors of debris in less than 5 seconds
33 floors of debris in less than 6 seconds
38.5 floors of debris in less than 7 seconds
44 floors of debris in less than 8 seconds

Focus on the weak points. How do the floors connect to the columns?

 

[Clayton Moore]

That is your denialism cutting in Floor debris pile driverClayton.

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.

My problem with roosd is that the dynamic of the alleged initial pile driver changes from no debris to plus 5.5 floors of debris every second.
That means the "debris" and every second more of debris caused no or no additional deceleration. The significant or meaningful debris is the building itself sans the contents. That means the core columns from every floor must added to and become part debris. Now if that didn't slow down the pile driving capability/speed, which it didn't, roosd is simply fabrication.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by DGM

Originally Posted by ozeco41
So what? .

Sort of sums up this whole subforum. Problem is the subject group doesn't know the answer.

It's actually worse. They cannot even formulate the question. [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/nono.gif[/qimg]

 

[Redwood]

The physics is orders of magnitude out Chris.

Winds in the 180-200 range create pressures in the order of 100-200 pounds per square foot - see the table that Sander linked at post #2028. Those forces result when a building is exposed to a wind of that velocity. (Actually they are "play safe" assumed forces for designing buildings that are safe - so could have a safety margin built in.) The 400mph ejection velocity isn't the velocity OR resultant pressure that Jetblast is attributing failure to. Don't get confused. The ejection velocity is the speed of air out of a focussed orifice. And those orifices quite limited in area. So the pressure acting on the floors is the pressure needed to produce ~2-3-400 mph velocity through the hole of the escape. And it is probably coming along accessible corridors from some of the available vertical plenums--the elevator shafts being obvious candidates. IIRC femr2 et al over on 911Forum have shown that is the likely path. (I haven't checked but am relying on memory. 2013-1941 problems may intrude ) (And those preceding bits of "guestimation" are pseudo static. The situation was dynamic with very high speeds involved so there is another layer of complexity we need to remember. I think we are on the "safe side" but....)

So far that is the simple core explanation.

Then try putting it together in an hypothesis such as Jetblast has attempted and - put simply again - it wont add up easily.

The real bottom line is that there is a ruddy great mass of solid bits of structure and debris falling pushing air ahead of it. there can be large quantities of air down the core elevator shafts spurting out of broken window orifices where corridors from the core provide a conduit. BUT the "floor above" is protecting the "floor below" from much of the pressure until the "floor above" fails. So only whatever - 100 msec - for the pressure to build up over the OOS. And nothing horizontal in the core for it to act on. Sure there will be some sideways pressure effects as Jetblast has described but....is there enough??? Doubtful.

I'll stop there. It is as good as I can do straight off the top of my head. Comments welcomed.

The survivors of Stairwell B in the North Tower reported being tossed down the stairwell by the gust of air that came from above. This is consistent with an air compression effect.

It is inconsistent with demolition charges. In that case, they wouldn't have been tossed, they would have been deafened or injured by the shock wave.

It's irrefutable evidence that the truthers are wrong. Oh, wait...

[Truther] Obviously the survivors of Stairwell B are fake and their story is concocted in order to prove that we're wrong! [/Truther]

 

[Clayton Moore]

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?

What does that have to do with the steel support columns?

 

[Redwood]

A further point about the Stairwell B survivors being evidence for a wind effect:

The windows in the Trade Center were well-secured and very tough. They had to be, as high wind is a problem in very tall buildings. The gale or even hurricane force winds blew out the weakest of these very tough windows. (This shows that they certainly achieved their design goal.)

OTOH, back-blast from shape-charges creates spreading shock waves that are sonic booms. Sonic booms break glass not so much like blunt force, but by their velocity being greater than the speed of sound in glass. You'd have extensive breakage. One of the problems with explosive demolition is that it's known to cause window breakage in nearby buildings.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Focus on the weak points. How do the floors connect to the columns?

Weak points? Focus on the strong points. Every debunker pretends they, were of no consequence, that they meekly went down in tandem with the floors and the walls.

Fact is they, the huge steel support columns, were built to support 3 or so times the weight/load they supported for 30 or so years. No so called roosd/gravity collapse was going to overwhelm the huge steel support columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Cross-Bracing

Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.

 

[Animal]

Weak points? Focus on the strong points. Every debunker pretends they, were of no consequence, that they meekly went down in tandem with the floors and the walls.

Fact is they, the huge steel support columns, were built to support 3 or so times the weight/load they supported for 30 or so years. No so called roosd/gravity collapse was going to overwhelm the huge steel support columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

For all your footstomping wrt "huge" columns, Euler maintains your failure.

 

[LSSBB]

Weak points? Focus on the strong points. Every debunker pretends they, were of no consequence, that they meekly went down in tandem with the floors and the walls.

Fact is they, the huge steel support columns, were built to support 3 or so times the weight/load they supported for 30 or so years. No so called roosd/gravity collapse was going to overwhelm the huge steel support columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

How do the strong columns stay up without floors joining them? What's to keep them from the blow from the side knocking them down or breaking the points where column sections are joined?

 

[JSanderO]

Weak points? Focus on the strong points. Every debunker pretends they, were of no consequence, that they meekly went down in tandem with the floors and the walls.

Fact is they, the huge steel support columns, were built to support 3 or so times the weight/load they supported for 30 or so years. No so called roosd/gravity collapse was going to overwhelm the huge steel support columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

not the lateral forces they experienced as a result of the floor collapse.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A better perspective is how does he think the steel failed that was hit directly by the aircraft? It held the building up for 30 years... Didn't matter though when they reviewed a blow they weren't capable of withstanding. Ah well... Same crap different day as they say.

 

[ozeco41]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html


What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail?

What would have caused the core column flooring systems to fail?

One of the conundrums the paper builds but fails to take to task is that there are multiple/different aspects across the building that have to fail/be made to fail concurrently, the entire tower in less than 20 seconds. At least 5.5 floors a second.

Another consideration not taken to task is size/strength/shape/texture of the building's structural components.

walls
main floor
steel support columns
steel support columns floor(independent of the main floor)

Each floor must be attacked/made to fail/damaged in a way that the next floor can be attacked/made to fail/damaged.

And finally the obvious conclusion of the debris slowing down the damage process.
5.5 floors of debris in less than 1 second
11 floors of debris in less than 2 seconds
16.5 floors of debris in less than 3 seconds
22 floors of debris in less than 4 seconds
27.5 floors of debris in less than 5 seconds
33 floors of debris in less than 6 seconds
38.5 floors of debris in less than 7 seconds
44 floors of debris in less than 8 seconds

Thanks for the clear statement of your queries Clayton. I'm pushed for time over today/tomorrow and I want to give a step by step reasoned response as my explanation. (0100 Sunday as I type - I've been away from home base all day)

Your concerns require a comprehensive response - one that I will take in stages - dealing in sequence with the three parts of your post separated as I have marked by colour - starting with the blue part. Your other post #2136 and your concerns about ROOSD fits logically with those two first points marked in blue. So I will include both the blue points and your post #2136 in my next response to you. With any luck later today AU time.

 

[ozeco41]

That sounds about right.

And my guess is that many academics (and others) would cheerfully argue with Bazant if they thought it could lead to better designs -- but not for the sake of getting themselves embroiled in a dispute between Truthers and their favorite bête noire.

Agreed but add one. Academics live in a cloistered professional setting where rivalries and alliances abound. So "putting one over" or "getting ahead of" a favourite rival is often the primary objective.

...I suppose we must wonder whether clearer thinking could have led to better discussions...

Yes.

...I'll go back to lurking now....

I should follow the example. It is a long time since there was any new technical topic to discuss. This sub forum roughly 80% of the traffic is troll deeding - and I don't indulge - see my comments in nearby posts. Some of the remaining 20% is technical topics but none of them new. All of them recycling long settled issues. Or chasing red herrings.

Time for a new hobby.

 

[Jetblast]

A classic example of Szamboti's lack of credibility is his claim that the North Tower collapse had the damage on the north face but fell from the south face. He uses this example to mock natural collapse backers as if it had credibility. Typical of Szamboti he is too ignorant to admit the fuel from the impact sloshed to the south side of the tower from inertia and pooled there. There are photos of the south face fires raging. Also, video shows roiling smoke coming from those fires all the way up to the collapse. Typical of Szamboti seeing what he wants to see and ignoring the rest, he fails to realize this example shows the heat from the fires caused the steel to fail on the fire side even though it had less impact damage.

Also, it is foolish to claim the bomb sniffing dogs were removed one day in order to plant explosives. As soon as they returned they would have smelled the massive amount of explosives being claimed.

What were the real ACE elevator workers doing while the spooks were off doing a massive demo rigging job? Didn't they have any suspicion what their coworkers were doing? That job would have taken many weeks if not longer.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco41, I'm surprised to see you let pass the "extra energy needed to overcome the laws of physics" line,

..I didn't "let it pass" Chris. I responded to a specific issue out of some garbage trolling by Remo. I explained precisely why I do not respond to trolling. And deliberately threw back the challenge to him to pursue one on HIS claims.

He has failed to accept the challenge to support HIS claim and that is the end of my interest.

Everyone posting here who follows my posting should be aware that I expect people who make claims to support their own claim. Specifically I rarely if ever accept reversed burden of proof. Remo made that claim in a "Shotgun blast" of multiple half defined false claims all of them framed as demands that I disprove his half stated bits of emotive garbage. AKA "reversed burden of proof".

I will not accept the "burden to disprove" even when the claim is clearly stated. Even less chance when the opposing claimant is too lazy or incapable of expressing claims in a form which merits response.

So, in effect, I challenged him to "put up or shut up". I was well aware that it was unlikely that he would do either. He has now proved it and he will get no further comments from me.

I have a strong preference to not feed trolls or trolling. I leave other members free to make their own choice.

... Maybe the gravitational energy of a black hole past the event horizon, or the energy of the universe .00000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang. Otherwise, I don't know of ANY energy that can overcome the laws of physics!

Neither do I - but it wasn't my claim.

 

[ozeco41]

The survivors of Stairwell B in the North Tower reported being tossed down the stairwell by the gust of air that came from above. This is consistent with an air compression effect.

It is inconsistent with demolition charges. In that case, they wouldn't have been tossed, they would have been deafened or injured by the shock wave.

It's irrefutable evidence that the truthers are wrong. Oh, wait...

A further point about the Stairwell B survivors being evidence for a wind effect:

The windows in the Trade Center were well-secured and very tough. They had to be, as high wind is a problem in very tall buildings. The gale or even hurricane force winds blew out the weakest of these very tough windows. (This shows that they certainly achieved their design goal.)

OTOH, back-blast from shape-charges creates spreading shock waves that are sonic booms. Sonic booms break glass not so much like blunt force, but by their velocity being greater than the speed of sound in glass. You'd have extensive breakage. One of the problems with explosive demolition is that it's known to cause window breakage in nearby buildings.

Thanks for the comments which responded to my post.