Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[Jetblast]

The stupid thing demo people fail to realize is the outer perimeter frame was like a 110 storey ladder. If that ladder fell backwards it would fall the full length of the ladder away from the footprint. The frame did provide resistance in the sense that it braced the impact zone enough to burst materials laterally as you saw in the collapse. Demo people ignore resistance when it works against them and suggest resistance where it didn't exist.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The 6.5 seconds canard has been proven wrong so many times, that by now it's just a flat out lie, and you know it.

Why lie? Seriously, I want to how lying benefits YOU. I'm curious.

10 seconds, 12 seconds, 14 seconds? It was inordinately fast. Things collapse awkwardly and with warning and obvious reasons such as the building was old.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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?

In response to your alluding the columns needed the floors for support.

No no no no. The columns were connected to each other. They formed an independent structure.

And this.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc12consenr.html

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
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.....

Originally Posted by Redwood
A further point about the Stairwell B survivors being evidence for a wind effect....

Thanks for the comments which responded to my post.
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

I enjoy reading your posts, as they are very detailed. On subjects beyond my specific expertise, like structural engineering, I try to avoid analyzing the details and concentrate on the big picture.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by LSSBB
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

Um.....Clayton? Call me a fool, but I think that failure analysis begins by looking at the weak links, not the strong points. Aren't they the most likely to fail? This applies not merely to engineering failure but also to things like political and military tactics and strategies.

Truthers should apply failure analysis to their movement. Start by eliminating the weakest contentions like "no large fires in WTC 1,2, or 7", Larry Silverstein's "confession", "phone calls are fake"..... Oh, wait, if you do that, then you have nothing left.

Well, as the great Walter Sobchak said, "**** it, Dude! Let's go

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[Robrob]

10 seconds, 12 seconds, 14 seconds? It was inordinately fast.

Please state how long you think it should have taken for the building to fall 110 stores and why.

Things collapse awkwardly and with warning and obvious reasons such as the building was old.

...or was struck by an airliner and then an out of control fire.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Clayton...do you see how heavy the interior core columns are? There is no way that thermite can cut thru those heavy (thick) steel plates. I would like to see Jon Cole set up a little experiment and try and cut thru 3 or 4 inch steel plate using thermite. Maybe you can do the experiment for him, and post it on YouTube.

 

[Robrob]

Clayton...do you see how heavy the interior core columns are? There is no way that thermite can cut thru those heavy (thick) steel plates. I would like to see Jon Cole set up a little experiment and try and cut thru 3 or 4 inch steel plate using thermite. Maybe you can do the experiment for him, and post it on YouTube.

I can already predict what video he's going to post in response.

 

[Redwood]

Clayton...do you see how heavy the interior core columns are? There is no way that thermite can cut thru those heavy (thick) steel plates. I would like to see Jon Cole set up a little experiment and try and cut thru 3 or 4 inch steel plate using thermite. Maybe you can do the experiment for him, and post it on YouTube.

That has Darwin Award written all over it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton...do you see how heavy the interior core columns are? There is no way that thermite can cut thru those heavy (thick) steel plates. I would like to see Jon Cole set up a little experiment and try and cut thru 3 or 4 inch steel plate using thermite. Maybe you can do the experiment for him, and post it on YouTube.

Fine. Then what did cut through the interior core columns?

 

[MileHighMadness]

Fine. Then what did cut through the interior core columns?

A big flicking airplane...do I need to post a video from YouTube for you?

 

[LSSBB]

In response to your alluding the columns needed the floors for support.

No no no no. The columns were connected to each other. They formed an independent structure.
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/mage6.jpg[/qimg]


And this.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc12consenr.html

And when those connections between the columns break a the joining to the columns, what happens?

 

[Clayton Moore]

And when those connections between the columns break a the joining to the columns, what happens?

They don't break, won't break, so nothing happens.

 

[ozeco41]

@Clayton Moore -- ozeco41 Response - Part 1

This is what I said I would do:

Thanks for the clear statement of your queries Clayton.....I want to give a step by step reasoned response....starting with the blue part..[and] I will include both the blue points and your post #2136 in [this] response to you.

So I am addressing the "blue parts"

What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail?

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

Plus including the hilited part of this post:

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.

What I need to do is get my explanation on the table for your consideration. We can then see where your concerns and reasoning fit into the picture.

So it is one rational step at a time. Four main sections to cover in this post. Here goes with #1:

Rational Step #1 - Defining the Context - where are we at and what are we discussing.

The issues are all part of the explanation of the "Global Collapse" AKA "collapse progression" stage of the fall of both WTC1 and WTC2 - at this stage we don't need to separate the two. I will be explaining that stage of collapse as "Three Mechanisms in Parallel" with one of them identified by the convenient label of ROOSD which femr2 coined. (True ) The other two don't have recognised labels.

For our purposes here there were two distinct stages of WTC1 & 2 collapse viz:
1) "Initiation" which strictly speaking started at the point of first damage from the aircraft impact and ended when the "Top Block" of the tower started to fall. (femr2 defines it as "release" by which he means "all four corners falling". I use the simpler version "top block falling". There can be subtle differences between the two but they are of no concern to us here.)

2) "Progression" AKA "global collapse" that period of whatever seconds from "top block starts falling" to "collapse front reached bottom of fall". Again there are some bits of pedantry in that but it is good enough for what we need here. And a damn sight tighter than we usually see posted.

We are discussing "Progression" - what happened after "Top Block" started to fall. I am going to explain three mechanisms which made up that overall "progression". Those three mechanisms were separate processes bit closely related in time and interdependent. ROOSD was the leading process, the other two resulted from and were dependent on ROOSD. The three mechanisms are:
1) Failure of the OOS floors by the process labelled "ROOSD" - the process where whatever fell down the "open office space" could and did shear off the floor joist connections to columns;
2) Failure of the perimeter wall of columns by a process of "Peel Off" and falling away; AND
3) Failure of the core where the most likely main component was "Beam Strip Down".

Those three mechanism combine to a sufficient explanation for the "collapse progression" stage which is the stage we are discussing. I will try to present every necessary step of logic and indicate the status of evidence without detailing the evidence at this stage.

Rational Step #2 -- "Progression" Starts
As the top block starts to fall it is still a structural integral entity. Somewhat tilted and with the base slightly displaced. Evidence for "starts to fall" and "somewhat tilted" is in readily available video records. Evidence for "base slightly displaced" is from video evidence plus simple reasoning.

At at that point of time AKA that stage of the collapse sequence all columns in the failure zone - the zone affected by impact and fire damage - all columns have failed. AND they are all already misaligned - top and bottom parts not lined up OR they are inescapably in the process of failing and becoming misaligned.

Now the truth of those three assertions is obvious to me, many other people also see it immediately but many don't and some deny it even after being provided with explanations. And those come from both sides of the truther - debunker great divide.

So, Clayton, if it is obvious to you, skip the next couple of paragraphs - down to "Shortcut>>>> ". If it is not obvious read on.

A) The "Top Block" is falling must mean that for whatever reason more than enough columns have failed to reduce the total supporting strength to below what is needed to hold up the top block. Not enough strength remaining to hold up top block means inevitable that top block falls.

So some columns must have already failed because the top block is falling - what about the others? The others are not strong enough to hold up the top block and the top block is falling means that, whatever strength may remain in those columns they are already failing - they must be already bending or buckling or (whatever failure mode)...because the top block is falling -- the space those columns occupy is getting shorter -- they must already be buckling or bending.

So that should prove two of the four assertions:
A1 Some columns already failed; AND
A2 the rest already failing and those ones cannot escape from failing.

B) What about "misalignment'? Much the same logic proves misalignment. The "Top Block" is falling must also mean that the top parts of already failed columns are not aligned with their bottom parts. "Bypassing" has been the word of choice in this forum. So the failed columns are either already bypassing OR are in a situation where bypassing is inevitably coming into effect. The first claim self evident. The second one logically follows from the preceding reasoning for failure. If there are columns still trying to resist but losing they are losing because there aren't enough of them. So any lone column trying to remain in line holding load will be overwhelmed and pushed out of line. The circular logic of that last "yes but" claim is inevitable - if the column is not pushed out of line it will be hit with such force that it is pushed out of line.

Shortcut>>>> Rejoin discussion here.
Status at this point: The top block is falling, all columns failed and all columns are misaligned. Those two "failed' and "misaligned" are critical to what follows. And, Clayton they are the key to answering these two as first step:

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

AND

My problem with roosd is

One more big step and we can answer those two.
(additional point - and we have proved my earlier claim that 'Evidence for "base slightly displaced" is from video evidence plus simple reasoning'.)

Rational Step #3 -- "Progression" Continues
The critical issue we now face is "What hits what".

Since the lateral displacement of the Top Block is small it follows that:
A) What lands on the OOS areas of the lower tower will be mostly the OOS of the upper tower;
B) Similarly what lands on core will be mostly core; AND
C) The perimeter will tend to land on or near the perimeter.

The ROOSD process is self perpetuating once there is sufficient accumulated load of floor and other debris. The issue of how it gets started s more complex and I will leave it aside for now. I can explain if you need the explanation and we have got past these preliminary but foundation matters.

So:
1) ROOSD is the key. Once sufficient mass is falling down the OOS "Outer Tube" the process is self sustain. Your questions about changing rates of acceleration belong in a later discussion if needed and once the basics are dealt with.

So "Mechanism #1 - ROOSD" strips down the floors of the OOS.

2) ROOSD leaves the outer perimeter unbraced in the "radial" direction outwards from core. Those perimeters fall due to instability and probably some impact forces during the ROOSD collapse.

So "Mechanism #2 Perimeter Peel Off"

Neither of those should be contentious. The new territory is probably:

3) What happens with the core? Recall that we have shown that:
(i) the Top Block core is falling AND
(ii) All the columns are out of alignment.

So what hits what? It must be the horizontal beams. And those beams have stregth appropriate to a "one floor" load. They are hit with their portion of the full weight of Top Block. Massive overload == beams shear off.

The situation is analogous to the OOS floor joists - overwhelming weight as a part of a multi-storey Top Block hits floor beams/joists designed for one floor plus a bit of safety. And it hits with dynamic impact. Forces 10-20 or more times the design load are available. Shearing is inevitable.

The difference with the core is that there will be a much more confused mess of bent or out of alignment columns plus assorted debris. Very confusing BUT it doesn't affect the underlying reality. Horizontal beam on horizontal beam is the dominant impact mode and the loads are overwhelming.

So those are the basic premises or foundations. Any claim has to rely on those factors. Any counter claim has toshow those factors to be in error.

Rational Step #4 -- Preliminary Answers to Clayton's Questions and Concerns

What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail? ..

The perimeter columns were left standing with bracing removed. They would fall over for one of several reasons -- impacts from the descending ROOSD process, instability or vibration following ROOSD descent OR simply Euler buckling due to unsupported column of hight/slenderness far in excess of critical length. The key causal issue is "Removal of Bracing" - the rest follows automatically.

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

The word "column" is confusing. The core beams failed because the core of the Top Block fell on the core of the lower block with the columns already out of alignment. So the beam on beam contact applied loads of multiple storeys to beam connections designed for one storey loads. The failure almost certainly shear at the beam columns connections.

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.

We are merely starting to address this issue. Broadly stated the problem is that at this stage your comments and concerns about debris etc are not linked to the underlying foundations which I am attempting to present clearly. So we need to get those basics clear THEN relate your issues to agreed bases of fact.

What I have posted is the start - the bare minimum framework which any claim or concerns must comply with. (Provided I have it right. )

Even at this starting level there is enough to show the weakness of some truther claims. AND the weakness of many debunker arguments. On these issues there ain't a lot of difference in the quality of the arguments. And both sides do a lot of "Authority Parroting" ( there I go - lèse-majesté again. Fortunately it is no longer a capital offence. )

Understanding these 9/11 challenges is complex. They will never be explained or agreement reached by two way "JAQing off" Thanks again for your reasoned responses. I enjoyed writing this post - let's see if it helps you, maybe casts a new light for some others.

Over to you Clayton.

Remember - it is only "Step One"

PS Zero apology for the length of this post. If we really want to understand WTC collapse we need to get serious. And serious explanations will take a few (?? ) words.

 

[ozeco41]

I enjoy reading your posts, as they are very detailed.

Thanks - sometimes...see next comment.

On subjects beyond my specific expertise, like structural engineering, I try to avoid analyzing the details and concentrate on the big picture.

Actually I tend to go for the "bigger picture" myself. Specifically the common failing of "'Forest v Trees" or "Alligators v Swamp Draining" Those metaphoric allusions both refer to folk getting lost in the details and losing the plot. Colloquially we need to keep asking ourselves "WTF are we doing here?"

For just two examples both the "Missing Jolt" paper and most discussions about "tilt" preventing/not preventing axial contact are wasted effort. The starting point for the debate is already past the point where the alleged consequence could occur.

If tilt has occurred the failed columns causing the tilt have already rearranged their broken/bent/folded/buckled/melted/stolen ends. It is too late for "axial contact". Ditto with slight variations for missing jolts.

Yes there are a lot of "yes buts" to both those bare assertions.

But those are merely examples of taking a "bigger picture". Whether I am right or not both those claims repeated multiple times attract no interest. No even disagreement. Why? Is it because people prefer to focus on trees or alligators? Or because we have to discuss down at truther level if there is to be any debate? I incline to the latter but....

Sure I can go right down into the details when it is needed. Even if not needed I will always have mentally gone down there to make sure my arguments are sound - even if I don't post the details. But I'm a lazy B. And I see no point responding to or building arguments about situations which cannot happen.

Unless you are a posting masochist. AND IMNSHO naturally. I failed "Modesty 101" .

Thanks again for your support.


PS My recent post for Clayton is of the style I used to practice back in 2007-8-9 when we had a lot of "genuine Truth Seeking Truthers" who needed explanations backed by rigorous argument. So I thought "what the heck - why not?"

 

[dafydd]

They don't break, won't break, so nothing happens.

Thus sprach Clayton the engineer.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail?

ozeco41

The perimeter columns were left standing with bracing removed. They would fall over for one of several reasons -- impacts from the descending ROOSD process, instability or vibration following ROOSD descent OR simply Euler buckling due to unsupported column of hight/slenderness far in excess of critical length. The key causal issue is "Removal of Bracing" - the rest follows automatically

.

Sorry. You're wrong right there.

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.

There is nothing happening to remove the bracing configuration of the steel core support structure. Plus if the core columns, "from above" as you put it, failed they would fail/fall erratically with little impact on the remaining 80+ floors of steel core support structure.

Again as you can plainly see the roosd conduits for the FOUR cement floors can have little or no effect on the steel core support structure.

In addition, assigning the FOUR floor segments as North, East, South, and West, for each of the 110 floors, you must also concede that floor 77 East cannot possibly collapse in sync with 77 WEST.

 

[dafydd]

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/mage6.jpg[/qimg]

Another crackpot site for you to parrot. Have you no opinions of your own?

 

[JSanderO]

Neither of those should be contentious. The new territory is probably:

3) What happens with the core? Recall that we have shown that:
(i) the Top Block core is falling AND
(ii) All the columns are out of alignment.

So what hits what? It must be the horizontal beams. And those beams have stregth appropriate to a "one floor" load. They are hit with their portion of the full weight of Top Block. Massive overload == beams shear off.

The situation is analogous to the OOS floor joists - overwhelming weight as a part of a multi-storey Top Block hits floor beams/joists designed for one floor plus a bit of safety. And it hits with dynamic impact. Forces 10-20 or more times the design load are available. Shearing is inevitable.

The difference with the core is that there will be a much more confused mess of bent or out of alignment columns plus assorted debris. Very confusing BUT it doesn't affect the underlying reality. Horizontal beam on horizontal beam is the dominant impact mode and the loads are overwhelming.

Ozzie,

Good summary. I would suggest that the following be considered.

As the core columns failed the load that each column had been supporting was no long able to follow the path through THAT column to the one below and on to bedrock that it has in its static state. The load above it now was bearing on "nothing" which could support it...air? or what was structurally equivalent to air. The immediately effect was for the column above the failed column to drop down.. and in so doing it pulled all the bracing and floors bearing on failed column them (where there were no shafts) downward. I suspect this broke the lateral beam stub connections to the failed column (3 stories of them), shattered the 3 floor areas locally around the failed/dropping column. This was sort of analogous to the ground dropping into a sink hole... and there was a "sink hole" created around each failed column. The take away effect is that the core area ABOVE the failed columns were "sinking" and destroying the integrity of the core as they broke... freeing the floor mass from the structure where the mass began to building to threshold driving collapse mass.

Note the descent of the antenna pre release. This appears to be the tell tale sign that the support for the antenna, coupling it to the columns below and on to bedrock had failed... the antenna was falling into a "sink hole". And of course since the sink hole failure was not perfectly symmetrical, (the damage and the plans wasn't either) ...eccentricities would attend and so the antenna both descended and tilted. Note as well how eccentricities manifest in columns (antenna was a column with a pinned end condition).

My hunch is that in the moments just before the observed release of the facade... pretty much most of the core had gone into "sink hole" behavior but the sink holing" was propagating across the core.. not radially from the center of the core.... and since propagation was moving laterally plan asymmetry was created and this resulted in "tilting" as the last none sinking columns were the last paths of the loads to bedrock.

The sinking core's perimeter's columns then pulled down the core side ends of the floors in the region adjacent to and above the failure zone (3 story high plane strike region of one column length). The floors then either remained as cantilevered rectangular doughnut shapes attached to the facade (unlikely) ... or they began to break apart absent core side support. The latter would contribute to the outside the core ROOSD mass.

I suspect once the core sink hole effect and ultimate bending and buckling of the last core columns engaged to bedrock... the insides of the upper section was like one massive sink hole now hollowed out and its mass disengaged from the facade dropping inside the perimeter... which had rotated slightly as noted above, but was coming down pretty much as a rigid tube and breaking apart at its bottom upon impact with the rigid tube of the lower still engaged with bedrock facade below.

Note the facade appears to show inward movement locally in its initial failure. Was this buckling or being pulled in locally by falling floors? Perhaps both?

Therefore, I would suggest that the sink holing of the core preceded and was analogous to and enabled the ROOSD effect outside the core. The entire process of the inside of the tower going from static state to a dynamic "flow" of floor mass was the result of the progressive loss of axial support and column engagement with bedrock of the core which rapidly propagated through the core kicking off both tilting and ROOSD.

In my mind the only issue which remains uncertain is if there was sufficient heat to drive the progressive core column failures and how did the heat actually act? Did it drive the capacity of a few columns below service load and begin the progression of failures and sink holing? There was no other mechanism to erode capacity post plane impact. If the heat was sufficient to accomplish this... the above sequence seems to work.

At the heart of the truth movement's belief... is that there was insufficient heat to weaken the steel. I think it comes down to a definitive answer of the fire caused heat issue.

No?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
What sheared or caused the perpendicular steel columns to fail?
.

Sorry. You're wrong right there.

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




There is nothing happening to remove the bracing configuration of the steel core support structure. Plus if the core columns, "from above" as you put it, failed they would fail/fall erratically with little impact on the remaining 80+ floors of steel core support structure.


[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/mage6.jpg[/qimg]


Again as you can plainly see the roosd conduits for the FOUR cement floors can have little or no effect on the steel core support structure.

In addition, assigning the FOUR floor segments as North, East, South, and West, for each of the 110 floors, you must also concede that floor 77 East cannot possibly collapse in sync with 77 WEST.

Without the help of explosives of some kind.