• 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

Gamolon said:
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.
Click to expand...


CORE


CORE


CORE


A failure/partial failure of 6 or so columns in the upper third of a tower would little effect, pretty much no effect on the middle third of the tower and absolutely NO EFFECT on the lower third of the tower.

A real life answer would be that the building, if it failed, it would fail/fall toward the failed area as when you chop down a tree.
 
Jetblast said:
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.


.
Click to expand...

South side? Which requires 3 sides that weren't "weakened" as the "south side" was "weakened" to catch up. Catch up? Pure idiocy. The three cool sides could never catch up.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Vague, non-technical terms masquerading as objective scientific fact detected.

The highlighted is preposterous.
Click to expand...
Persuasive, comprehensive, evidence backed.

Oh, wait, it's none of that.

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...

Are you saying that the core columns were structurally redundant?

Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

And yet, you studiously allow the "dots" that contradict the "explosives" claim.

Clayton Moore said:
Yet I'm perfectly able to explain what could not have happened.
Click to expand...

Then why do you believe in explosives?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if we take out those two factors - viz "relative ignorance" and "malice aforethought" the simple point I make still stands. "...it causes more confusion than it is worth."

Witness Sander's post which contains an extended lot of musings sort of related to FoS:
JSanderO said:
People use FOS because obviously structures all always made stronger than the stresses that they are designed to encounter. It's the reserve or extra strength of the materials/system...
Click to expand...
err...Sander...friend....

...I do understand FoS :o

AND I still advise people here to steer way from it. "...it causes more confusion than it is worth." ;)

Your post shows that you have a strong understanding of FoS and a few other things. Not everyone does. I'm not sure if I've ever said this recently but FoS causes more confusion than it is worth. :D

Now for those who want a mental exercise try this:
I'd take a bet that both WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed whilst their global FoS - the way most folks here use it -- was still above 1.0

So think about that statement. If you understand why it is both right and wrong - great. If you don't understand what I am saying AND what I am not saying then take my advice - steer away from FoS because....err



....it causes more confusion than it is worth. :boxedin:


And if anyone wants to discuss the derail start the thread. Not this one. All that is relevant here is that T Sz doesn't understand the suite of issues around load redistribution, FoS and column bypassing/axial load transfer. Specifically how all those interact and fit into the specific setting of the dynamic 3D process of cascade failure which initiated the WTC1 & 2 collapses.

And this is actually on topic because those are the issues of misunderstanding which underpin the key points of the OP Paper. :D
 
Last edited:
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...
Jetblast. That statement is incomprehensible. It also looks like it is wrong but until you make it clear what you are in fact claiming I cannot be sure that you are wrong.. I suggest that you read and comprehend this post. It covers the basics which you can either agree with OR show why and where it is wrong. Then you can see where your concepts fit or don't fit in that defined framework.
Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...
Clayton those are the sort of questions that I would also raise.
...and the foundation issues - the start of the answers - are in this post. as you are already aware. ;)
 
000063 said:
Vague, non-technical terms masquerading as objective scientific fact detected.

Persuasive, comprehensive, evidence backed.

Oh, wait, it's none of that.



Are you saying that the core columns were structurally redundant?



And yet, you studiously allow the "dots" that contradict the "explosives" claim.



Then why do you believe in explosives?
Click to expand...

If you showed the video of either of the three collapsed WTC buildings to a million Chinese or a million Vietnamese who had never seen them then asked them what happened every one of them would say they were blown up.

That's why.
 
ozeco41 said:
Jetblast. That statement is incomprehensible. It also looks like it is wrong but until you make it clear what you are in fact claiming I cannot be sure that you are wrong.. I suggest that you read and comprehend this post. It covers the basics which you can either agree with OR show why and where it is wrong. Then you can see where your concepts fit or don't fit in that defined framework.

Clayton those are the sort of questions that I would also raise.
...and the foundation issues - the start of the answers - are in this post. as you are already aware. ;)
Click to expand...

Again the problem with roosd is that it somehow moves around the building.

And that the three tiers of the huge steel core structure roosd failed in tandem with floor areas. Impossible.
 
Clayton Moore said:
If you showed the video of either of the three collapsed WTC buildings to a million Chinese or a million Vietnamese who had never seen them then asked them what happened every one of them would say they were blown up.

That's why.
Click to expand...

This only demonstrates that the average person is a poor observer, has little to no technical understanding of structure or physics and sees the world as Hollywood portrays it in cartoon like conceptions. Most of the world believes in religious myths, astrology and all manner of superstition and irrational beliefs.

Does this surprise you or mean anything to you?

Look boss....da plane.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Again the problem with roosd is that it somehow moves around the building.
Click to expand...
Yes. And relatively easy to understand why for anyone who is honestly willing to listen to reason.
Clayton Moore said:
And that the three tiers of the huge steel core structure roosd failed in tandem with floor areas.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a pity that you don't want to understand why. But bottom line is it's your problem. Few people here could care less.
Clayton Moore said:
Impossible.
Click to expand...
Your limited understanding does not make anything "impossible".

Clayton I cannot teach you how to think. BUT read what I posted for you taking it step by step.

Your unsupported global claims of "impossible" go nowhere.

Your many responses over time on this forum never show any constructed reasoned argument. So I doubt that you can do it and, if you cannot do it for yourself then using some other persons spoon feeding is the only way to break out of your circling habit of denials. Take it step by step challenge what you don't understand and:
1) I may be able to get it down to the level you can comprehend; AND
2) I may have the patience to put the effort in.

At this stage I am still willing to try. You are the one running away.

Other members - yes I know...so no need to remind me. :o :rolleyes:
 
Clayton Moore said:
If you showed the video of either of the three collapsed WTC buildings to a million Chinese or a million Vietnamese who had never seen them then asked them what happened every one of them would say they were blown up.

That's why.
Click to expand...

What a daft argument. When are you going to carry out this experiment? This is an insult to the Chinese and the Vietnamese. You are suggesting that they all as dumb as truthers.
 
Clayton Moore said:

CORE


CORE


CORE


A failure/partial failure of 6 or so columns in the upper third of a tower would little effect, pretty much no effect on the middle third of the tower and absolutely NO EFFECT on the lower third of the tower.

A real life answer would be that the building, if it failed, it would fail/fall toward the failed area as when you chop down a tree.
Click to expand...

You're comparing an object that has a SOLID core AND a top heavy upper section with a structural system comprised of many components?

So in essence you're comparing something like this...


...to a tree trunk.

:boggled:
 
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.
Click to expand...

There isn't?

If you remove/damage perimeter columns/core columns on one side, the other remaining components now have to take up the additional load that used to be supported by the removed/damaged columns.

So if you remove/damage 40 perimeter columns on one side at one floor level, do you increase the load of the other three sides of perimeter columns at all? Do you increase the load of the core columns at all?
 
Gamolon said:
There isn't?

If you remove/damage perimeter columns/core columns on one side, the other remaining components now have to take up the additional load that used to be supported by the removed/damaged columns.

So if you remove/damage 40 perimeter columns on one side at one floor level, do you increase the load of the other three sides of perimeter columns at all? Do you increase the load of the core columns at all?
Click to expand...

Perimeter columns? Are you serious?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If you showed the video of either of the three collapsed WTC buildings to a million Chinese or a million Vietnamese who had never seen them then asked them what happened every one of them would say they were blown up.

That's why.
Click to expand...

,,, and if you showed them to Egytian labourers constructing the great pyramids they'd tink it was some sort of magic. So what's your point? That people with no technical background make erroneous assumptions and connections based only on their own non-technical experience? Yes, we know that, you demonstrate it quite succinctly just about everytime you create a post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom