Why should that be obvious? If you can dispute any of the information he posts, you should do so. His debates speak for themselves. His tactics, as far as I can see, appear to consist of confronting "truthers" with facts and evidence.
Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
Why should that be obvious? If you can dispute any of the information he posts, you should do so. His debates speak for themselves. His tactics, as far as I can see, appear to consist of confronting "truthers" with facts and evidence.
hokie
Scholar
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 119
Szamboti has error analysis on ignore as well.
It's just more simplistic models that are inappropriate. That is his stock and trade. He can't possibly produce the more robust and detailed models such as the one NIST used.
He should be showing that the string can't possibly break in the classic physics demonstration of inertia. Sorry got that wrong. He should be showing that the string broke due to nanothermite in the classic physics demonstration of inertia.
It's just more simplistic models that are inappropriate. That is his stock and trade. He can't possibly produce the more robust and detailed models such as the one NIST used.
He should be showing that the string can't possibly break in the classic physics demonstration of inertia. Sorry got that wrong. He should be showing that the string broke due to nanothermite in the classic physics demonstration of inertia.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Phasers?
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Translation: I thought you said you weren't returning to expose me to
strangers Mark. What happened?
strangers Mark. What happened?
Translation: Of course, all we see here are your normal impossible to refute
and successful discrediting of anyone who has brought up the delusion that
911 was an inside job.
and successful discrediting of anyone who has brought up the delusion that
911 was an inside job.
Szamboti Lets Loose Pyroclastic Math Puffery. Dazzle Them With Brilliance
Bluff Fails When Gravy Catches Szamboti With Lying Pants Down.
Baffle Them With Bulldroppings Reply Expected.
Bluff Fails When Gravy Catches Szamboti With Lying Pants Down.
Baffle Them With Bulldroppings Reply Expected.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
This is a false dilemma. I could use the same logic to say that a controlled demolition that leaves no evidence is impossible, therefore a one-way crush down by gravity is the only possible cause.
I looked at your paper. God, what a train wreck.
A little advice: Copious exclamation points are more appropriate in text messages between 10-year-old girls than in technical writing.
So how would you, as an engineer, accomplish this without anyone noticing and without leaving any evidence at all? How many people would it require, and how would you keep them quiet?
I await your rambling, non-sequitur reply.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Szamboti's got Gravy on ignore.
Actually, I don't. What made you jump to that conclusion with nothing being said to indicate it?
Just because I don't particularly like the way the guy operates doesn't mean I don't read his posts to see if he actually says something worthwhile occassionally.
I may or may not respond depending on whether or not I believe it is worth the effort.
There are a number of people on this forum who's posts I view that way, yours included, and I am sure there are some who view mine the same way.
Have a ball bolo.
Last edited:
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Actually, I don't. What made you jump to that conclusion with nothing being said to indicate it?
Just because I don't particularly like the way the guy operates doesn't mean I don't read his posts to see if he actually says something worthwhile occassionally.
I may or may not respond depending on whether or not I believe it is worth the effort.
There are a number of people on this forum who's posts I view that way, yours included, and I am sure there are some who view mine the same way.
Have a ball bolo.
Because the rest of us are watching you avoid answering his very good questions. Assuming you have him on ignore is being charitable to you, Mr. Szamboti. That you actually read what he's saying, see how astutely he is demonstrating your character and your ignorance, yet continue to post blithely as if all here cannot see how you act and who you are?
I look forward to the Hardfire show. Be so good as to show up.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
If you notice a pattern:
Bazant creates a model and simplifies the collapse specifically for this purpose.
Heiwa, et al... for whatever the **** reason thinks Bazant is asserting this was reality.
It makes me wonder if there's any reading comprehension in their reading of his papers...................
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
What's wrong with curious engineers discussing failure modes and coming up with models?
Absolutely nothing.
Where the truther agenda screws things up is that it imposes an artificial condition on reality, which is very unlikely to be proven by accurate, representative math, since it almost certainly doesn't reflect reality.
The only possibility that a fire driven collapse could become pushed aside is if the model isn't accurate, IMHO.
One example is Tony Szamboti's reliance on an oversimplified model of the collapse, in which he expects to find a real-world artifact. Nobody, including Szamboti, is arguing that the overall forces and models proposed by Bazant are incorrect; they are too smart to do that.
They instead try to show Bazant's model as legit but not representative of the actual collapse. They claim that the absence of the jolt means that something else caused the towers to fall. But they are not able to offer a comprehensive mathematical alternative to Bazant, they are simply speculating about an alternative. I suppose they feel that their job is simply to call into question the 'official' story, hoping to discredit it and insert the standard truther dogma instead.
According to Szamboti's paper, Bazant theorized the upper portion as a rigid block, with a discreet and sudden 31g impulse. But Bazant was modeling the overall forces, the summary, and the model is oversimplified. Clearly the actual collapse didn't happen quite that way.
Szamboti also claims that it doesn't matter whether the upper block fell 1 story or several stories before major impact, relying again on the assumption that a large deceleration would be detected. This perhaps accounts for Tony's claim that the increasing mass and velocity of the falling materials wouldn't be sufficient to destroy the stronger undamaged parts below. This is clearly nonsense - he is relying on the absence of the jolt for this claim, which makes it very tenuous.
Proponents of Tony's approach should note that the overall mass of the collapsing material increases very rapidly, something not accounted for in his thinking. The idea that the collapse, once it had progressed for say 30 floors, accelerating and accumulating mass (huge gains in momentum and kinetic energy), would be somehow magically too weak to destroy everything else below is a fantasy which will not stand scrutiny.
But what if Mr. Szamboti's assumptions are incorrect? He has not allowed this possibility, yet it exists.
Tony's problem is that he denies certain possibilities simply out of his dogmatic approach, not for real scientific reasons.
By simply accepting that the actual collapse differed sufficiently in reality from all the models, including Bazant, Szamboti could contribute to the conversation without the slightest need to evoke mythical explosives.
And to the problem of the doctrinal imposition of explosives - this is not merely an engineering problem; acceptance of the explosives theory requires a denial of many basic facts of the collapses which are simply not allowed in a reality-based analysis.
Without going into all the reasons that explosives must be categorically excluded, (that is another discussion) one must simply accept that the truther version of events is fictional, even if it is argued for with mathematics, as Mr. Szamboti has done.
Where is Mr. Szamboti's alternative scenario, showing the placement and type of detonations, and their precise effects on concrete and steel? To my knowledge it doesn't exist.
His missing jolt paper is a great distraction from all these other problems: it is focusing on the wrong ideas, and for the wrong reasons. It takes an artificial simplification and is surprised when the artifice doesn't coincide exactly with the actual collapse. Quel surprise!
Absolutely nothing.
Where the truther agenda screws things up is that it imposes an artificial condition on reality, which is very unlikely to be proven by accurate, representative math, since it almost certainly doesn't reflect reality.
The only possibility that a fire driven collapse could become pushed aside is if the model isn't accurate, IMHO.
One example is Tony Szamboti's reliance on an oversimplified model of the collapse, in which he expects to find a real-world artifact. Nobody, including Szamboti, is arguing that the overall forces and models proposed by Bazant are incorrect; they are too smart to do that.
They instead try to show Bazant's model as legit but not representative of the actual collapse. They claim that the absence of the jolt means that something else caused the towers to fall. But they are not able to offer a comprehensive mathematical alternative to Bazant, they are simply speculating about an alternative. I suppose they feel that their job is simply to call into question the 'official' story, hoping to discredit it and insert the standard truther dogma instead.
According to Szamboti's paper, Bazant theorized the upper portion as a rigid block, with a discreet and sudden 31g impulse. But Bazant was modeling the overall forces, the summary, and the model is oversimplified. Clearly the actual collapse didn't happen quite that way.
Szamboti also claims that it doesn't matter whether the upper block fell 1 story or several stories before major impact, relying again on the assumption that a large deceleration would be detected. This perhaps accounts for Tony's claim that the increasing mass and velocity of the falling materials wouldn't be sufficient to destroy the stronger undamaged parts below. This is clearly nonsense - he is relying on the absence of the jolt for this claim, which makes it very tenuous.
Proponents of Tony's approach should note that the overall mass of the collapsing material increases very rapidly, something not accounted for in his thinking. The idea that the collapse, once it had progressed for say 30 floors, accelerating and accumulating mass (huge gains in momentum and kinetic energy), would be somehow magically too weak to destroy everything else below is a fantasy which will not stand scrutiny.
But what if Mr. Szamboti's assumptions are incorrect? He has not allowed this possibility, yet it exists.
Tony's problem is that he denies certain possibilities simply out of his dogmatic approach, not for real scientific reasons.
By simply accepting that the actual collapse differed sufficiently in reality from all the models, including Bazant, Szamboti could contribute to the conversation without the slightest need to evoke mythical explosives.
And to the problem of the doctrinal imposition of explosives - this is not merely an engineering problem; acceptance of the explosives theory requires a denial of many basic facts of the collapses which are simply not allowed in a reality-based analysis.
Without going into all the reasons that explosives must be categorically excluded, (that is another discussion) one must simply accept that the truther version of events is fictional, even if it is argued for with mathematics, as Mr. Szamboti has done.
Where is Mr. Szamboti's alternative scenario, showing the placement and type of detonations, and their precise effects on concrete and steel? To my knowledge it doesn't exist.
His missing jolt paper is a great distraction from all these other problems: it is focusing on the wrong ideas, and for the wrong reasons. It takes an artificial simplification and is surprised when the artifice doesn't coincide exactly with the actual collapse. Quel surprise!
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
AOOOWWWW Well Thrown Googly
lalala ... I'm looking over a four leaf clover that I overlooked before . One is .... *sproinggggggg*
lalala ... I'm looking over a four leaf clover that I overlooked before . One is .... *sproinggggggg*
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Anyway, I suggest that, instead of using a conflation of nitpicking to oppose the NIST/Bazant ideas, that Tony S and his cohorts rise to Mr. Mackey's Hardfire Challenge and design a comprehensive model themselves.
Leave the mythical nanothermite hush-a-boom explosives out of it and instead put in cold, hard, physics.
Leave the mythical nanothermite hush-a-boom explosives out of it and instead put in cold, hard, physics.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Further criticisms of Tony Szamboti's approach:
1) The assumption of a 'rigid block' impacting another rigid body. This was not what actually happened. There is clear video evidence of sagging floor trusses and collapsing floors, large deformations of perimeter columns, etc. These show without doubt that the structure of the buildings were weakening progressively following impacts and raging fires.
This is fact, it is not in serious dispute.
The compromised structure of initial failure modes implies that a singular, neat impact was highly unlikely, hence the tidy deceleration also was absent.
2) As soon as global collapse was underway there would have been a debris/crush front of chaotic and dense material which would then continue to thunder down on subsequent floors - there was nothing neat and tidy about it.
Very quickly in the process, it is likely that the collapse front, and accelerating wave of gathering mass, would act just like an avalanche, destroying (thanks to gravitational acceleration) everything in its path, and gathering energy all the while.
The crush front probably behaved a lot like a pressure wave - the almost comical notion that columns would meet columns in unison is just not realistic, IMHO.
1) The assumption of a 'rigid block' impacting another rigid body. This was not what actually happened. There is clear video evidence of sagging floor trusses and collapsing floors, large deformations of perimeter columns, etc. These show without doubt that the structure of the buildings were weakening progressively following impacts and raging fires.
This is fact, it is not in serious dispute.
The compromised structure of initial failure modes implies that a singular, neat impact was highly unlikely, hence the tidy deceleration also was absent.
2) As soon as global collapse was underway there would have been a debris/crush front of chaotic and dense material which would then continue to thunder down on subsequent floors - there was nothing neat and tidy about it.
Very quickly in the process, it is likely that the collapse front, and accelerating wave of gathering mass, would act just like an avalanche, destroying (thanks to gravitational acceleration) everything in its path, and gathering energy all the while.
The crush front probably behaved a lot like a pressure wave - the almost comical notion that columns would meet columns in unison is just not realistic, IMHO.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Tony, for a year and a half now, you seem to have a problem with my attitude towards you, which is one of utter disdain. Yet you are unable to produce a scintilla of evidence to support your own claims (including your sick fantasy that I am some sort of "dual" agent).
So, Tony, refer to my post below and tell us all exactly how I've misrepresented your positions.
It should be a trivial matter for you to discredit me and to establish your own credibility.
Have at it, Tony Szamboti. We've been waiting.
Since 2007.
Or does a tour guide still make you flee like a scared little bunny? Still afraid to debate a tour guide Tony Szamboti?
Damn right you are. You can't even answer the most basic questions about your own idiotic claims.
So, Tony, refer to my post below and tell us all exactly how I've misrepresented your positions.
It should be a trivial matter for you to discredit me and to establish your own credibility.
Have at it, Tony Szamboti. We've been waiting.
Since 2007.
Or does a tour guide still make you flee like a scared little bunny? Still afraid to debate a tour guide Tony Szamboti?
Damn right you are. You can't even answer the most basic questions about your own idiotic claims.
Last edited:
From my paper:
When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity during and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh (1.22 GNm) of potential, PE, or kinetic energy, KE, is produced by gravity force and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns. Let's assume that this event by gravity takes 5-6 seconds based on video clips (it should only take 0.8-0.9 seconds near free fall) and that there is a certain velocity when the upper part impinges the lower structure. In reverse - to first stop and second pull the upper block back up again you need a very big engine with power 204 000 kW that pulls up the mass above. Let's assume this engine is very effective and that you require 120 grams of diesel oil to produce 1 kWh. It means that 40 800 grams or 40.8 kgs of diesel oil is required to stop and pull the mass up again! It takes 6 seconds! It can be done. It shows how much energy was released when the top fell. 40.8 kgs of diesel oil.
Answers to all your questions are in my papers. Read them!
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Can you prove B-V was a simultaneous cd/cu?
btw, I think Gravy is posting because his woo-detector is buzzing loudly. It seems you and he have some unfinished business. Perhaps you should answer his questions and also set a date for a public debate.
Or you could run away.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
If I was Tony I would not become too involved in posting in the run up to the Hardfire debate. Anything that can be misconstrued and used against him will be. I would be preparing some 'surprises' if it was me because this show will be all about viewer perception. The debunkers may be concentrating more on making their opponents look like fools than anything else. Most viewers will likely not understand too much about the technicalities and will think that the side who appears most confident has won the debate. Thus a few 'surprises' up the sleeve could help to destabilise the debunkers and put the boot on the other foot.
I could be wrong about their approach but on he other hand forewarned is forearmed.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That's more or less my point; you can't extrapolate. You've started by claiming that the difference between a solid and a square tube was very small, yet when you actually calculate it, it turns out to be more than an order of magnitude. How many orders of magnitude is the similarly small correction between a square tube, and one with holes cut out of it that amount to the majority of the material in it? And you're being a little disingenuous to say you used a solid to show that "a column of that plan could easily be self-supporting over the height of the towers"; your claim was that:
No, it doesn't. It shows that a completely different hypothetical structure could have been self-supporting. You haven't actually analysed the real structure at all.
In keeping with what I've said above, I'll make it clear that I am analysing a hypothetical structure, which is intended to be similar but not necessarily identical to the tube-in-tube column structure of the Twin Towers. I'm not entirely sure how to make the full spreadsheet available, as I don't have access to a suitable host that preserves my anonymity to the degree I would like, and it's certainly too big to post here. I also haven't had time to clean it up to the point where it's comprehensible to anyone but me. However, I've described the structure and the assumptions involved, and it should be trivial enough to reproduce.
You commented that I hadn't made any allowance for the buckling phase. I've done a modified analysis where I've taken what seems to me to be not just an overestimate, but a very gross overestimate, of the structural resistance; I'm assuming that the load on each column initially increases linearly with compression from zero to the ultimate strength at 0.2% compression (this overestimates the energy transferred into elastic shortening, as the elastic yield strength is less than the ultimate strength); I've then assumed that the column retains its full ultimate strength through both plastic shortening and buckling phases, up to a total shortening of 15% (corresponding to about a 30º buckle at the ends and a 60º buckle in the middle), again grossly overestimating the energy absorption of the column. The result, for an 8º tilt of the upper block about an axis parallel to the long axis of the core, shows that the downward acceleration of the upper block never falls below about 0.4G. For some reason I'm having trouble posting images at the moment; I'll try to edit in the graph. But to summarise, what I'm finding is that the jolt in a structure similar to the WTC is critically sensitive to the angle at which the upper block is falling, and it's trivial to construct a scenario analagous to the observed fall of the upper block in which no negative acceleration is seen, even with a gross overestimate of the structural resistance of the lower block. Therefore, the observation of no jolt below zero acceleration is in no sense incompatible with a gravity-driven collapse.
ETA: Still can't get pictures to post, no idea why.
Dave
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In clear violation of Heiwa's Axiom. Heiwa, you owe Tony a million dollars.
Dave