jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So Tony Szamboti produced a paper with significant problems.
Comments, anything else to discuss?
Comments, anything else to discuss?
Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter Scott Sommers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tony szamboti
ozeco41
Philosopher
I've suggested that path many times. The only topic worthy of discussion here is why do people waste effort responding to Trolling. And that is off topic. Even on a separate thread I doubt we would get discussion.
and, apologies to beachnut but, why post your standard rant beachnut against Tony Sz??? Fantasies?
WHEN - in this paper - Tony got the two main assertions CORRECT..as in "RIGHT" AKA "TRUE"
I've suggested that Tony getting something right is itself a noteworthy effort worthy of comment. Even worthy of discussion. Again deafening silence from the ranks of debunkery.
Beats me.
I've also suggested that Tony et al getting it right in 2013 is about 12 years too late. Few people agree on that either.
So I'm sitting on those points as my position:
1) Tony got something RIGHT;
2) That something pulls the rug from under "Missing Jolt" - which was probably both Tony's biggest error and his biggest claim to fame;
3) Both the big points he and the other Sz and J got right are things that most of us have been preaching for ages;
4) So Tony is agreeing with me and some more of us; AND
5) So what? It changes nothing, the arguments it could have saved/minimised are long past; AND
6) I don't see it changing those hard liners who are still hiding behind the idea that Bazant could never do wrong. AND
7) That is their delusion.
How about we discuss the topic and ignore the trolling???
I think Szamboti underestimates the amount of damage in the core caused by the speeding 767. Also, one look at the roiling black smoke coming off the North Tower just prior to collapse would show there were serious fires going on there.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Tony gets a lot of things wrong - most of them have been pointed out to him many times and by numerous members.
That is why this paper is unique. Whilst Tony was only one of three authors the paper actually gets some key points right. I suspect that it was Szuladzinski's influence....look at his published papers - he has been on a one man crusade on the "Bazant was wrong" theme for some years.
Two points of irony that appear to have gone unnoticed by the masses:
1) The paper "pulls the rug" from under Missing Jolt; AND
2) Tony, who in practice is a committed Bazantophile, disagrees with the very basis of Bazantianism which he, Tony, relies on.
Metaphors like "shooting yourself in the foot" come to mind. But, strangely, no one seems to notice.
Szamboti hasn't presented any input for the 23mph NW wind stoking of the fires. There was a "furnace effect" caused by this forced air at altitude where that wind came in through the impact hole and channeled through the tower. Unless you recognize and produce a model for this scientific input you haven't created a legitimate representation of what went on in the North Tower.
If you watch the videos and look at the images of the North Tower the North, East, and South faces experienced rents caused by the impact. The 23mph NW wind would have necessarily flowed into those openings creating a forced channeled air effect. Look at the smoke coming off the tower and you can see there's a serious wind blowing across it. This wind would have fed oxygen to the fires which is why helicopter photos show serious fires burning on the south face.
Anyone looking at the heat roils in the black smoke plumes rising from the North Tower will see there was serious heat energy causing that amount of "roil". Such energy can only be caused by oxygen-fed fires. There's no way that furnace effect would fail to deliver that oxygen. Persons suggesting oxygen starvation are not grasping the true scenario occurring in the tower as evidenced by the seen effects. Of course, all this stuff is completely off Szamboti's radar, which is his achilles heel. He addresses this in a cowardly way by making a side remark of "impossible nonsense" without ever addressing it directly. He destroys his credibility with this and confirms his lack of scientific integrity.
Sorry, those fires had plenty of oxygen and were hotter than people realize. Hot enough to weaken the steel which is why the North Tower showed the collapse forensic of falling from the south face first where the hottest fires were. Anything else is a clearly inferior argument that doesn't honestly address the facts.
Another thing is why would the alleged demolition spooks have loud blasts seen in the videos while having silent thermite at the same time? If they had the loud blasts shown in the video they would be out in the open with their explosives at that point and wouldn't need any silent devices.
If you watch the videos and look at the images of the North Tower the North, East, and South faces experienced rents caused by the impact. The 23mph NW wind would have necessarily flowed into those openings creating a forced channeled air effect. Look at the smoke coming off the tower and you can see there's a serious wind blowing across it. This wind would have fed oxygen to the fires which is why helicopter photos show serious fires burning on the south face.
Anyone looking at the heat roils in the black smoke plumes rising from the North Tower will see there was serious heat energy causing that amount of "roil". Such energy can only be caused by oxygen-fed fires. There's no way that furnace effect would fail to deliver that oxygen. Persons suggesting oxygen starvation are not grasping the true scenario occurring in the tower as evidenced by the seen effects. Of course, all this stuff is completely off Szamboti's radar, which is his achilles heel. He addresses this in a cowardly way by making a side remark of "impossible nonsense" without ever addressing it directly. He destroys his credibility with this and confirms his lack of scientific integrity.
Sorry, those fires had plenty of oxygen and were hotter than people realize. Hot enough to weaken the steel which is why the North Tower showed the collapse forensic of falling from the south face first where the hottest fires were. Anything else is a clearly inferior argument that doesn't honestly address the facts.
Another thing is why would the alleged demolition spooks have loud blasts seen in the videos while having silent thermite at the same time? If they had the loud blasts shown in the video they would be out in the open with their explosives at that point and wouldn't need any silent devices.
Last edited:
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
1) Where is this mentioned in either NIST or Bazant?
2) Since Tony already works with the assumptions in NIST and Bazant, and that's what this paper (and supposed discussion) is about, how is your comment here even remotely relevant?
The paper, and this discussion, is not about Really Hot Fires. Szamboti already factors in the assumptions used by NIST and Bazant. Where those assumptions are wrong, he shows, with numbers, why they're wrong. But his corrections have nothing to do with the alleged heat of the fires.
Again, jetblast, it appears you don't understand anything about the paper you pretend to be discussing. I am guessing you haven't read it.
Could you specify the page number where Tony shows assumptions are wrong. Can you post those numbers and explain?
BTW, jetblast is a 911 truther too, just like you.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I don't see why criticism of Tony's paper should only be limited to NIST or Bazant sources. Whether the argument being raised either supports or undermines Tony's paper should be the only relevant criteria.
We are talking about the real world, and not just models, aren't we, ergo?
ozeco41
Philosopher
It's a funny thread ergo - all the debunkers working with Clayton to keep it off topic.
Me in the unusual position of agreeing with MM who tried to put it back on topic. Both our efforts condemned to AAH because we got mixed up in the off topic.
And now you advocating the topic.
And Tony's paper got a few key points right but no debunkers seem to want to make mileage of that fact -- either way. Go figure.
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
The paper is 10 pages long, so, um, pages 1 through 10. Explanation has been provided by Tony several times over, in this thread, and another on the same topic. So no, I'm not going to repeat those discussions if you haven't read them and posted any coherent critique yet.
Not likely. But I couldn't care less.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
No, because Tony's paper deals with the assumptions used by NIST and Bazant. That's the scope of the paper. The Really Hot Fires theory is included in those assumptions. If there's some new Really Hot Fires theory out there then it needs to be cited specifically and, in that case, you can't really complain that Tony doesn't address it, because neither have NIST or Bazant.
Tony's paper is discussing the models used by NIST and Bazant. Whether those models represent reality is not as important for debunking purposes as whether they are intended to represent reality. Either way, Tony's paper shows that they can't represent reality because they don't work in reality.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I beg to differ. The scope of Tony's paper is whether or not the building could collapse due to fire. Very first line of the paper:
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
That's a fair point, but some new Really Hot Fires theory is not going to change that claim. And it would in any case need to exceed the assumptions used by NIST and Bazant, which already go beyond generally accepted engineering assumptions.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Why? I don't indulge in the practice of discounting true claims on the basis that the person is regarded as a truther or troll. If what they say is true it is true.
What ergo said about the fact of being off-topic is true. If we ever get back on topic I may well disagree with ergo's specific bounding of the scope but he is a damn sight closer to the topic than most have been over recent pages.
Those aspects aside I find the most ironic aspect of the paper is that Tony as co-author makes claims about the limits of Bazantianism which pull the logical rug out from under "Missing Jolt."
And nobody wants to comment on that.
In fact if we take the cynical overview of this thread we see that Tony persistently avoided defending his paper. He did so by contributing to extended derail discussions of his false understandings about collapse initiation AKA "Missing Jolt Revisited"
....and that in a thread about a paper which Tony co-authored which, if its claims are correct, destroys the foundation premises of Missing Jolt.
And my opinion posted many times:
1) The paper is correct that the actual collapses were not by "PCF";
2) Bazant's abstract model from B&Z does not apply to real event WTC collapses as claimed by later Bazant papers; AND
3) The paper makes a prima facie case that Bazants original B&Z numbers were wrong.
And my conclusion "So what?" - what is the purpose, what objective does the paper satisfy in 2013.
Those are the bits they got right IMO.
Any one who wants to pursue what they got wrong be my guest. The "So what?" question is the overriding factor.
And I don't recall anyone taking up that issue. certainly Tony wouldn't.
This, I believe is a strategy (or would that be a tactic) to play to the truth movement who needs to knock down Bazant who they believe provides the backbone for the theory supporting the official explanation of the collapse of the twin towers.
Even though Bazant's work was shown by the 911FF to be a limited case theoretical discussion and not meant to be real world... it was apparently used by some as proof that towers can globally collapse and absent an other explanation (ROOSD) at the time he was da man.
So TSz is getting points for beating up on Bazant as if he (mis)explained the twin tower collapse.
Many truthers feel that when they pick at NIST's work, such as David Cole (Kawika) with respect to the details of column 79 they put a nail in the coffin of NIST rendering it a cover up and producer of intentional deception.
Like with the Bazant put down this does not put forth a mechanism for the collapses AND TSz goes on to make up stuff which puts his work in the same NON REAL WORLD situation as Bazant.
But his theory is inconsistent and has contradictions. Strawman with smoke and mirror math full or sound and fury signifying nothing.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I don't think you will get any further meaningful discussion from anyone until the "So what" is answered. ergos premise, stated here:
...is wrong, and does neither answer the "so what" nor does his follow on of:
NIST and Bazant are merely strawmen here, for all intents and purposes. The following assertion is unsupported:
ergo has brought nothing to the table here to support that statement. Why bother with further Bazant and NIST pickings when this very premise has been shown to be unsupported by the material of the paper:
There is a strawman here. We don't need more cheerleadering here to have us stab at it.
ETA: It appears to me JSanderO has already made the same point.
Last edited:
What goes beyond generally accepted engineering assumptions? What a load of silly nonsense. Your statement is meaningless dribble, and you can't explain it.
What is Tony's conclusion? Nothing.
... he only has a summary.
He calls the collapse a "smooth motion history", a redo of his "missing jolt" nonsense.
What does Tony's paper say? Nothing.
There is no substance in the paper, and you can't support the silly statement you posted.
You say this about experts in their field of engineering.
Better read Tony's paper, and then ask the real experts in structural engineering why Tony has delusions on 911, delusions of CD. The experts are those who you think Tony refutes. What does Tony do? 12 years, no evidence for CD.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Thanks for bringing up that "smooth motion history", Beach. Another statement unsupported by the descent profiles. The old "missing jolt" zombie.
ozeco41
Philosopher
So true. IIRC the discussion was essentially over on the original thread when Scott OP'ed this thread, we didn't get the threads merged and everyone started from zero base as if there had been no original thread.
Somewhere in that "two threads" confusion I raised "So what?" and IIRC said the paper is pointless in 2013.
My ongoing amusement is that with this paper Tony actually shoots himself in the foot. The main findings of the paper - which are correct IMO - destroy the foundation of Tony's Magnum Opus "Missing Jolt".
And that raises another point which I have commented on. Missing Jolt and all the related stuff Tony pushes about "axial contact" is all based on a false premise which is out of sequence. I've called it "anachronistic" to attract attention but failed to do so. The out of sequence error with "Missing Jolt" and all the "tilt does or does not prevent axial contact" claims/counter claims is that the opportunity for the impact they look for as a "coming" or "future" event was already past at the starting point. That is easy to say but full comprehension requires a sound comprehension of the mechanism of the two Twin Towers cascade failures that we call "initiation". That process was essentially 3D and cannot be explained in 1D. And that "cannot" is 100% certain. Yet both Bazant and Tony use 1D modelling. And Tony doesn't see the problem or acknowledge it despite multiple comments from quite a few members .
Wrong without the slightest doubt. One aspect of my writing style could be confusing here. If I say something about Item A then my comments refer to Item A and Not B, C , D even if they are in the same box.
So I said the ergo was correct in claiming "off-topic". I also said in an earlier post that MM was correct in saying off topic. (That one sent to AAH with a lot of off topic. So on the issue of off-topic ergo, MM and I were correct.) My amusement then being on the rare event of me agreeing with MM and ergo.
The rest of both their posts was garbage. I didn't comment on the garbage. Members should not read my lack of comment as endorsement.
True and agreed.
Mostly agreed on all three and I won't try any "fine tuning of nuances" - at this stage.
The thread is essentially dead as far as the OP goes. Tony published a paper. As we would expect he got a lot wrong BUT surprise surprise he got a few points right. However they are points we have been telling him about for ages.
THEREFORE "So what?" The paper achieves nothing. And I have deliberately not explored why the paper does not achieve anything. Waiting to see if anyone could claim that it has value.
Now if it had been published 14 Sept 2001 - i.e. the day after 13 Sept...the situation could have been different. The reason for the choice of date should be obvious.
Last edited: