• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

Clayton Moore said:
Tony's paper has proven, without any doubt, that the towers and WTC7 could not collapsed without the assistance of explosives.

Why would I challenge that?
Click to expand...

Clayton,

You appear to have extreme confirmation bias. You are looking for any means to justify or explain what you believe. Tony is guilty of the same thing and goes further in committing sort of scientific fraud.. making stuff up, producing a few technical papers which leverage his made up information (data) and concluding that heat weakening could not produce the collapses of the twins on top of the mechanical damage from the planes. He has been shown to be wrong. He is in denial. And you appear to be in the same boat with him as a a passenger.

The response by the US to the attack is not the issue. The issue whether jumbo jets hitting those towers as they did, with their unique designs, including the mechanical and electrical systems could collapse as they did.

The answer is -YES-... and it has been explained quite well by many analysts although some will argue that the NIST explanations contain errors... correct cause... wrong locations of where it acted. These analyses have been done by study of the public record carefully and producing accurate data... something that AE911T and various truth advocate *scientists/engineers* (such as TSz) have failed to do. You've fallen hard for the GIGO arguments apparently because of your confirmation bias as you seem to show little comprehension of the data, the engineering, the science or the details of the structures themselves. Sadly you are not alone in this. The complexity of the event is difficult to understand... and with a political prism to see the events through it feeds confirmation bias. That describes you.
 
JSanderO said:
You have not understood the sequence of failures. There was a progression of them. After the top sections broke free... the huge mass of the upper section drove through the much weaker FLOOR system destroying it and leaving the columns to which it was attached to unbraced and unstable. The columns broke apart at the weakest point - their connections.

Examination of the debris shows virtually all the steel connection broke because they were the weakest part of the frame. The column to column connections were basically for alignment purposes during erection... the floor beams provided the lateral bracing. Those floor beams were destroyed by the collapsing mass falling on them.

The top sections broke apart and broke free as a result of plane destroyed columns, extensive fuel fed fires which raged with fire protection stripped away by the chaos of the plane crashing through the floors... the heat weakened the frame to the point where it could not support the floors above and then 30,000 tons of mass dropped and destroyed all the floors and the bracing inside the core.

Below the crash zone no columns were crushed or blasted apart or cut apart. LOOK AT THE DEBRIS. Your answer is right there.
Click to expand...

Nope.

That collapse had to start on one of the four sides of a tower. It could have somehow straddled adjacent sides of a tower. There is no way for a collapse to begin to descend yet cause the other 3 or 2 sides descend with it in a timely manner.

The highlighted is preposterous.

As for the bracing connections between the steel core structure they stabilized the core columns, making the core columns self sufficient.

And the core columns? They could break and fall to a side but they couldn't collapse and cause columns immediately beneath them to collapse.
 
JSanderO said:
Clayton,

You appear to have extreme confirmation bias. You are looking for any means to justify or explain what you believe. Tony is guilty of the same thing and goes further in committing sort of scientific fraud.. making stuff up, producing a few technical papers which leverage his made up information (data) and concluding that heat weakening could not produce the collapses of the twins on top of the mechanical damage from the planes. He has been shown to be wrong. He is in denial. And you appear to be in the same boat with him as a a passenger.

The response by the US to the attack is not the issue. The issue whether jumbo jets hitting those towers as they did, with their unique designs, including the mechanical and electrical systems could collapse as they did.

The answer is -YES-... and it has been explained quite well by many analysts although some will argue that the NIST explanations contain errors... correct cause... wrong locations of where it acted. These analyses have been done by study of the public record carefully and producing accurate data... something that AE911T and various truth advocate *scientists/engineers* (such as TSz) have failed to do. You've fallen hard for the GIGO arguments apparently because of your confirmation bias as you seem to show little comprehension of the data, the engineering, the science or the details of the structures themselves. Sadly you are not alone in this. The complexity of the event is difficult to understand... and with a political prism to see the events through it feeds confirmation bias. That describes you.
Click to expand...

The event isn't at all difficult to understand.

Making up or believing roosd garbage or any other "natural collapse" garbage is pure hokum.

I've showed all here why the towers couldn't have been brought down without preparation/explosives. It's simply a matter of showing that the required dots could not possibly have been connected.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Nope.

That collapse had to start on one of the four sides of a tower. It could have somehow straddled adjacent sides of a tower. There is no way for a collapse to begin to descend yet cause the other 3 or 2 sides descend with it in a timely manner.

The highlighted is preposterous.

As for the bracing connections between the steel core structure they stabilized the core columns, making the core columns self sufficient.

And the core columns? They could break and fall to a side but they couldn't collapse and cause columns immediately beneath them to collapse.
Click to expand...

Where did you study architecture and engineering? You seem reluctant to answer that question.
 
Clayton is convinced of his own brilliance. He's fooled himself but not many others.

Clayton is not an architect, not an engineer and has no advanced study of science and certainly doesn't know much about physics.
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
Clayton is convinced of his own brilliance. He's fooled himself but not many others.

Clayton is not an architect, not an engineer and has no advanced study of science and certainly doesn't know much about physics.
Click to expand...

Yet I'm perfectly able to explain what could not have happened.
 
dafydd said:
You appear to be having problems with it.
Click to expand...
He appears to be both unable and unwilling to process any form of reasoned argument even when it is spoon fed to him in simple language. Plus he lacks even basic courtesy - he asked me some questions and I presented him with a professional standard explanation and answers in this post. He has not even acknowledged my effort in response to his request - let alone said "thank you". :rolleyes: I was well aware of the risks, enjoyed the exercise and have no regrets about doing it. It is years since I wrote a detailed explanation of WTC collapse basics and it was time to refresh my own stock of explanatory posts. None of which excuses Clayton's rudeness and related dishonesties.
 
JSanderO said:
...Ooops - quote deleted - You edited your post Sander....
Click to expand...
All that may be, is probably, true Sander but I take a different perspective. His main failings are that:
A) He shows no comprehension of reasoned argument and no ability to process rational discussion; AND
B) He shows no intention, no willingness to learn even when offered professional level help from an experienced technical teacher.

Lack of engineering or science qualification is not the limitation. The need is to accept learning on advice from those who can help. The problems which arise from low technical understanding by the learner are merely extra challenges for the teacher.
 
ozeco41 said:
He appears to be both unable and unwilling to process any form of reasoned argument even when it is spoon fed to him in simple language. Plus he lacks even basic courtesy - he asked me some questions and I presented him with a professional standard explanation and answers in this post. He has not even acknowledged my effort in response to his request - let alone said "thank you". :rolleyes: I was well aware of the risks, enjoyed the exercise and have no regrets about doing it. It is years since I wrote a detailed explanation of WTC collapse basics and it was time to refresh my own stock of explanatory posts. None of which excuses Clayton's rudeness and related dishonesties.
Click to expand...

We all know why he can't and won't answer questions or address the reality of the situation.
 
ozeco41 said:
All that may be, is probably, true Sander but I take a different perspective. His main failings are that:
A) He shows no comprehension of reasoned argument and no ability to process rational discussion; AND
B) He shows no intention, no willingness to learn even when offered professional level help from an experienced technical teacher.

Lack of engineering or science qualification is not the limitation. The need is to accept learning on advice from those who can help. The problems which arise from low technical understanding by the learner are merely extra challenges for the teacher.
Click to expand...

I've learned a lot since I joined up here, from people who know what they are talking about. Clayton does not fall into that category.
 
CGI so powerful that it can knock down buildings? Let's hope that Hollywood sticks to using it only in movies.
 
dafydd said:
We all know why he can't and won't answer questions or address the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif

dafydd said:
I've learned a lot since I joined up here, from people who know what they are talking about. Clayton does not fall into that category.
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
Me too. Many areas of expertise here outside my engineering/legal/policy biases. Plus all the sciency stuff - dust and thermXe despite my view that all that is a red herring. The list is very long. Conversely I'm never surprised by engineers who lose the plot - Forest v Trees style - head down arse up chasing details and forget why they were doing it. Faced that all the time as a manager of engineers.


PS Second thoughts. I've actually learned a lot of engineering also. I'm "slide rule era" and I had to learn about FEA so I could be confident and correct when telling some people they were using it wrongly.
 
Last edited:
Once you got to a certain threshold the inner columns were not designed for the massive lateral forces such a falling mass would create on a floor by floor basis.
 
Jetblast said:
Once you got to a certain threshold the inner columns were not designed for the massive lateral forces such a falling mass would create on a floor by floor basis.
Click to expand...

That may be true... but the mechanism of floor collapse to column displacement is not intuitive.

TSz would deny that there were any floors or mass collapsing inside the core from above the strike zone. To him it was a rigid block until and as it started moving.
 
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Answer a hypothetical question.

If 3 columns of the core were severed and another 3 were 30% damaged, how much would the remaining core columns be able to support? Is it still 3 times the support load that the ORIGINAL core system was able to support?

Let's see if you can put a number to this problem.
 
Jetblast said:
Once you got to a certain threshold the inner columns were not designed for the massive lateral forces such a falling mass would create on a floor by floor basis.
Click to expand...
Except for the problem with reality - the columns didn't play much of their usual load bearing part in the progressive collapse. :confused:

JSanderO said:
That may be true... but the mechanism of floor collapse to column displacement is not intuitive...
Click to expand...
Naughty Sander...the claim "may be true" and "may be true" is a truism
nono.gif


...but you are correct - the mechanism of collapse is certainly not "intuitive". :D
JSanderO said:
...TSz would deny that there were any floors or mass collapsing inside the core from above the strike zone. To him it was a rigid block until and as it started moving.
Click to expand...
T Sz saying something does not guarantee that it is false....

...but it could be the safest bet if you don't know. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom