Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[dafydd]

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.

Clayton does not answer questions, especially ones that involve physics and maths.

 

[ozeco41]

Clayton does not answer questions, especially ones that involve physics and maths.

...or thinking or responding to reasoned argument or presenting his own reasoned argument......

 

[dafydd]

...or thinking or responding to reasoned argument or presenting his own reasoned argument......

He utterly incapable of doing those things. Fascinating to behold.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yet I'm perfectly able to explain what could not have happened.

Unfortunately, in that you are again, incorrect.

 

[Gamolon]

Clayton does not answer questions, especially ones that involve physics and maths.

Well, he needs to.

He's making the same mistake the Tony is making.

How can the FOS, calculated for the INTACT core, be used in an argument for a damaged core structure? This proves that Clayton and Tony have no clue what they are talking about.

I mean a simple example refutes this kind of thinking.

If I have two steel columns with cross bracing and I design that structure to support a FOS of 3 times it's actual design, using Tony's/Clayton's logic, I could sever 1 of the columns (50% reduction) leaving me with a FOS of 1.5. That means that the structure would remain erect and not collapse.

 

[JSanderO]

Well, he needs to.

He's making the same mistake the Tony is making.

How can the FOS, calculated for the INTACT core, be used in an argument for a damaged core structure? This proves that Clayton and Tony have no clue what they are talking about.

I mean a simple example refutes this kind of thinking.

If I have two steel columns with cross bracing and I design that structure to support a FOS of 3 times it's actual design, using Tony's/Clayton's logic, I could sever 1 of the columns (50% reduction) leaving me with a FOS of 1.5. That means that the structure would remain erect and not collapse.

Good example of selective use of facts to distort and confuse. The progression of weakening lead to a changing, lowering of FOS, both locally at a node and globally over the entire core. A local node could drop below FOS one and this would then lower the global FOS and the adjacent nodes. It's a dynamic process and only one metric to understand capacity.

TSz uses reductionist approaches to make what amounts to disingenuous arguments that be refuses to see as such.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, he needs to.

He's making the same mistake the Tony is making.

How can the FOS, calculated for the INTACT core, be used in an argument for a damaged core structure? This proves that Clayton and Tony have no clue what they are talking about.

I mean a simple example refutes this kind of thinking.

If I have two steel columns with cross bracing and I design that structure to support a FOS of 3 times it's actual design, using Tony's/Clayton's logic, I could sever 1 of the columns (50% reduction) leaving me with a FOS of 1.5. That means that the structure would remain erect and not collapse.

That's the long way of stating the three legged stool problem. 3 legs each distribute 1/3 of the load. If the entire stool could support 300 pounds before failing, then obviously take out one leg and it will still not fail with up to a 200 pound load. At least that is how Tony and Clayton would see it.

In reality of course the stool is incapable of supporting itself with one of three legs removed, let alone any load.

 

[Jetblast]

Except for the problem with reality - the columns didn't play much of their usual load bearing part in the progressive collapse.

You show you don't understand what is being said since we are saying the same thing.


The reason they didn't play that role is because they had been catastrophically compromised by lateral forces they were not designed for that were a direct result of floor collapse. Szamboti refuses to see that this would happen so fast as to occur as a sort of fluid or 'rolling' dynamic that literally undercut his expected resistance. Szamboti refuses to see that the impetuses for this would result from structural elements seriously compromised by heat and damage. The flaw in his theories is that he always starts from a model of undamaged resistance when the reality is quite different from that.

Demo proponents casually say no steel structure building ever collapsed from fires. However they don't take into consideration that 2 massive fuel laden Boeings were flown into the Towers first. Saying this with the 110 storey hanging floor truss buildings is like comparing a block of wood to a set mouse trap.

 

[Gamolon]

Good example of selective use of facts to distort and confuse. The progression of weakening lead to a changing, lowering of FOS, both locally at a node and globally over the entire core. A local node could drop below FOS one and this would then lower the global FOS and the adjacent nodes. It's a dynamic process and only one metric to understand capacity.

TSz uses reductionist approaches to make what amounts to disingenuous arguments that be refuses to see as such.

Agreed.

For Tony/Clayton to use the FOS of the original INTACT structure to make arguments that try and support their demolition claims based on applying that INTACT FOS to the same structure in a damaged state is beyond absurd.

No wonder neither of them wants to respond.

 

[Jetblast]

Good example of selective use of facts to distort and confuse. The progression of weakening lead to a changing, lowering of FOS, both locally at a node and globally over the entire core. A local node could drop below FOS one and this would then lower the global FOS and the adjacent nodes. It's a dynamic process and only one metric to understand capacity.

TSz uses reductionist approaches to make what amounts to disingenuous arguments that be refuses to see as such.

Perfectly put.

There had to be several core columns that were severed and therefore lost 100% of their factor of safety. Szamboti is dishonest because he never directly answers this and tries to lose this serious loss of resistance in his obfuscating numbers. The real numbers here reflect a slow fatigue failure of the remaining members as they were compromised by increasing stress and heat weakening. What Szamboti runs from is his model has no explanation for why the North Tower first let go from its south side? The reason is that side had the raging fires caught on video. This alone shows how important steel fatigue from heat weakening was in the real process and its related math. Szamboti omits the real forces that gained momentum by falling through this weakened and damaged area in the impact zone.


.

 

[jhunter1163]

T Sz saying something does not guarantee that it is false....

...but it could be the safest bet if you don't know.

To paraphrase Dashiell Hammett, "Tony S saying something doesn't guarantee it's false, but that's how you bet."

 

[jaydeehess]

Perfectly put.

There had to be several core columns that were severed and therefore lost 100% of their factor of safety. Szamboti is dishonest because he never directly answers this and tries to lose this serious loss of resistance in his obfuscating numbers. The real numbers here reflect a slow fatigue failure of the remaining members as they were compromised by increasing stress and heat weakening. What Szamboti runs from is his model has no explanation for why the North Tower first let go from its south side? The reason is that side had the raging fires caught on video. This alone shows how important steel fatigue from heat weakening was in the real process and its related math. Szamboti omits the real forces that gained momentum by falling through this weakened and damaged area in the impact zone.


.

One salient point is that by distributing thousands of gallons of acellerant over several levels and having it ignite, one STARTS off with a multilevel fire, that already involves a large area on each of those floors. This is a fire situation that develops over the course of many hours in more common office fires, but in the towers it developed seconds after impact destroyed a significant number of load bearing structural members.

 

[jaydeehess]

Agreed.

For Tony/Clayton to use the FOS of the original INTACT structure to make arguments that try and support their demolition claims based on applying that INTACT FOS to the same structure in a damaged state is beyond absurd.

No wonder neither of them wants to respond.

Point is that FoS refers to the design of an intact structural system. Massively disrupt that system and the original designed FoS is all but irrelevant.

 

[ozeco41]

Except for the problem with reality - the columns didn't play much of their usual load bearing part in the progressive collapse.

You show you don't understand what is being said since we are saying the same thing.

That is a puzzling accusation Jetblast. The comment of mine you find fault with happens to be true viz ""[in] reality - the columns didn't play much of their usual load bearing part in the progressive collapse." The reminder of the post does nothing to show that my claim was in any way in error.

 

[ozeco41]

Good example of selective use of facts to distort and confuse. The progression of weakening lead to a changing, lowering of FOS, both locally at a node and globally over the entire core. A local node could drop below FOS one and this would then lower the global FOS and the adjacent nodes. It's a dynamic process and only one metric to understand capacity.

That puts the FOS concept in perspective Sander - as several other members have already noted.

My own advice is simply avoid using FOS - it is far easier to explain what really happens without referring to FOS than it is to use FOS then have to retrospectively patch up the misunderstandings that follow.

And whenever you see a truther refer to FOS expect the reasoning to be false.

...TSz uses reductionist approaches to make what amounts to disingenuous arguments that be refuses to see as such.

There is a shorter word that "disingenuous"

...and I think it is "refuses to acknowledge" - there can be little doubt that he "sees" it - he's been told many times

 

[ozeco41]

Point is that FoS refers to the design of an intact structural system. Massively disrupt that system and the original designed FoS is all but irrelevant.

Which is why I suggest avoid using the concept of FoS - it causes more confusion than it is worth.

 

[jaydeehess]

That is a puzzling accusation Jetblast. The comment of mine you find fault with happens to be true viz ""[in] reality - the columns didn't play much of their usual load bearing part in the progressive collapse." The reminder of the post does nothing to show that my claim was in any way in error.

I too was quite puzzled by that post wrt it supposedly illustrating error on your part.

 

[jaydeehess]

Which is why I suggest avoid using the concept of FoS - it causes more confusion than it is worth.

Yes.
Its use in any argument in this discussion must either indicate a deep lack of understanding, or a greatly, as you say, disingenuous discourse perhaps meant to sway those who do have a deep lack of understanding.

 

[JSanderO]

Which is why I suggest avoid using the concept of FoS - it causes more confusion than it is worth.

People use FOS because obviously structures all always made stronger than the stresses that they are designed to encounter. It's the reseerve or extra strength of the materials/system.

For structural systems the notion is that they frame holds the thing up... that is if it has a frame and it's not something like a stressed skin or an inflatable structure for example. The frame therefore is designed to support X design load... Steel types are rated for the strength obviously... based on empirical tests. A column which is designed to support say, 40 kips will support 80 kips if it has an FOS of 2... but this of course means it's actually more cross sectional area and more costly than then smaller section with a lower FOS.

Builders and engineers are pushed to limit cost and so find that FOS of 1.4 is more than adequate for typical applications. Some are pushing to lower that to reduce weight and cost of the frames they design.

Weight and strength were key considerations of the WTC for the usual reasons and then some. The use of high FOS ergo larger cross sections was a very expensive decision... because it would be reflected in two towers of 110 stories and about 300 columns in each tower. No developer would over design if there was no need to. Apparently the column weight in the facade was do critical they had to use higher grade steel to reduce the weight because the column size was limited from flr 9 to 108 to 13.5" x 13.5". The lowest columns supporting all the loads from above required space to bolt them together limiting the plate size. This was accomplished by using higher grades with thinner walls than standard 35ksi steel for the facade. There was no design need to use higher strength steel in the core.. although TSz claims this to be the case.

The global FOS is not terribly hard to calculate at floor one if one knows the total mass of the tower because the cross sectional area of the core and the facade columns is known... ergo the column strength. The FOS is a ratio of the load to the aggregate yield strength.

Why would the FOS be different by design on the upper floors compared with the lower floors? My calcs show the total FOS at floor 1 to be no more than 1.65 meaning that the columns could safely support 65% additional load or perhaps function with as many as 1/3 columns removed if the loads could be redistributed "properly"... and that's a big if. And then there's the fact that all the columns were not of the same capacity. Some core columns had 7 times the capacity of other core columns! All columns were not created equal! A failed smaller one could offload to one of the monsters with little effect... were that so easy. But a big guy failing would drag several of the little guys with it.

It's not simple at all... especially considering the mechanism for load redistribution - the moment connections and braces.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

Lateral forces? Sideways?


Left to right?

Variations of East to West and so on?

4 different directions away or toward the building?


At a certain threshold the collapse dynamic changes?