Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[alienentity]

Somebody needs to start a 12-step program to get these poor souls out of their addiction. Truthers Anonymous maybe..
No disrespect intended.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It's highly ethical & logical that Mr. Anthony "Tony" Szamboti doesn't have Controlled Demolition credentials to serve his proposed theories that explosives (of any kind) or thermite (of any kind) was ever used on 9/11.

Also reguarding his theory that WTC2s top section dropped suddenly onto the next floor & stopping at the floor below is entirely unethical, improbable & impossible given the sheer amount of weight from the severly weakened structure above the impact & fires zones. Including WTC1s collapse!

Gravity affected the structural integrity of each Tower with the top sections being comprimised & collasping onto its own structure.

So if Mr. Szamboti is reluctant to give his certified Controlled Demolition credentials, he could have a case. If not, then his case in null & void!

PS: Sorry Tony, but that's the way things are in the real world.

 

[Mangoose]

alienentity: This NBC video shows the tilt the best:

Look particularly at these three things: (1) The tilt of the antenna, (2) the tilt of the northwest edge of the North Face, (3) The descent of the floor with fires on the East Face. Notice also that this is prior to any ejection of debris and dust clouds on the North Face, including the northwest corner.

The second really good video showing the tilt prior to any collapse on the North Face is the NBC video that appears on the National Geographic "Inside 9/11" video. It is the one that they very helpfully freeze-frame at the moment the collapse has reached the North Face, and up to that point we can see floor collapse on the West Face occur at the 98th Floor.

Several important observations can be made with this video:

First, the antenna mast starts dropping prior to any movement on the North Face. You can see it move relative to the white structure on the roof, the same one used in Tony's "Missing Jolt" paper as a marker. This shows that the upper block was leaning before this structure began to descend.

Now if we look at what is going on at the West Face during this brief moment, we can see the initial emergence of the dust cloud at the 98th Floor. This shows that the collapse began on the West Face prior to any collapse on the North Face. And if we look in further detail at the West Face, we can observe many other interesting things (consult your own copy of "Inside 9/11", as it is much clearer there in the original quality):

(1) Prior to the dust cloud emerging at the 98th Floor, a fire flares up near the southwest corner at the 95th Floor (at column 405). This flare-up occurs simultaneous with the initial descent of the antenna mast. (2) Then in the next second, still prior to the dust cloud emerging on the 98th Floor, we can see a localized collapse occuring on the 96th and 97th Floors between columns 410-420. (3) When that happens, the fire directly above on Floor 104 (at columns 405-415) flares up and begins to descend. (4) It is then that we see a dust cloud appear on the 98th Floor, first around column 420 and then shooting northward across the West Face until it reaches the northwest corner (this is seen best frame by frame, as it occurs across just 5-7 frames).

The Sauret video shows that the earliest visible sign of column failure on the North Face occurred on the 94th and 95th Floors at the impact site, not on the 98th Floor above:

Finally there is the helicopter video taken of the South Face at initiation (here sped up 3x), and it shows that the earliest sign of activity in fact was on the South Face in the area where bowed columns were photographed just minutes earlier:

 

[TruthersLie]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

Ummm tony.

Just a simple question.
HOw sensitive were the seismographs which recorded the collapse?

(do you know?) I know what I have read (no I don't have a citation) that any explosives over 20 lbs would have been transferred through the columns to the ground and detected.

are you saying they used less than 20lbs of explosives to bring down the towers?

 

[BasqueArch]

Posted by Tony Szamboti
In the real world demolitions are done by removing a certain amount of structure and allowing momentum to build and then there is a jolt to destroy the lower intact structure.

Finally TS admits gravity-only can collapse remainder of structure.

Posted by Tony SzambotiI guess it is too hard for you to realize that the structure can just as well continue to be removed but it is cheaper to let gravity do some of the work in a legitimate CD.

Finally TS admits gravity-only can collapse remainder of structure.

Posted by Tony Szamboti In the real world buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

The central core WTC1,2 didn’t come down first, WTC1 south perimeter wall failed first, tilted that direction. WTC2 east perimeter wall failed first, tilted that direction. Tilt = columns above hit floors below not columns below = no jolt.

Posted by Tony SzambotiAdditionally, the NIST does a gigantic hand wave to get the east and west walls to just sympathetically fail due to the alleged demise of the south wall. They don't have the stresses in their analysis to show why they would collapse. No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

Wrong.

1) Tilt = columns above hit floors below not columns below = no jolt.

2) Bazant has provided calculations TS hasn't read, calculates tilt of 2.8 degrees sheared columns on failed floor.
“Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?” Pp. 5.6
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

3) Pictures of WTC2 north wall perimeter columns sheared off , not buckled, exploded, hydraulicked, as east wall collapsed- per Bazant’s analysis.
[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/collapse9smhj6.jpg[/qimg]

Posted by Tony Szamboti
There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

1) TS abandons explosives at core columns every three floors, adopts new flapdoodle - hydraulics verinage
2) Heated or hydraulics at core columns would have collapsed core first, didn’t happen, WTC1,2 perimeter collapsed first.
3) Finally TS admits gravity-only can collapse remainder of structure.
4) Smaller Part C can crush larger Part A, Heiwa betrayed.
5) Perimeter columns not propelled 600 feet horizontally, Chandler betrayed.
6) Pyroclastic clouds produced by gravity-only collapse, Gage betrayed.

===================================================
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Swift

 

[Julio]

I'm not an expert on the details of the collapse but I know of a video that shows the core column for one of the towers was left standing for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors were on the ground, or close to it.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

And also, the core can be seen in "Eyewitness", by Rick Seagal.

 

[BigAl]

Ummm tony.

Just a simple question.
HOw sensitive were the seismographs which recorded the collapse?

(do you know?) I know what I have read (no I don't have a citation) that any explosives over 20 lbs would have been transferred through the columns to the ground and detected.

are you saying they used less than 20lbs of explosives to bring down the towers?

I think a look at the blasting manual I linked to below will show that 20 pounds of C4 doesn't cut a very large beam by WTC standards.

 

[cantonear1968]

For my first jref post I just wanted to say what an excellent show this was. Ryan, a fantastic job of staying on point and arguing the science behind the collapses. Very, very informative. Mr. Szamboti, I congratulate you as well for appearing, as most from the truther movement will not come on and debate their position; David Ray Grifiin being most notable. And I also appreciated Ron's sometimes sides notes (to the annoyment of Ryan!) of how AE911truth's position completely contradicts facts outside of the science that they cannot explain or have completely ignored.

A good show all around, but my hope is that we are on the path to making these debates unnecessary.

 

[cantonear1968]

I did want to ask one question that was raised at the beginning of the show and was not revisited: it had to do with Szamboti's claim about Bazant's overestimation of the yield strength of the beams by a factor of 10. This has been quoted several times but I haven't found anything on it. I can appreciate that this may have been discussed before so even just a link to a thread on this subject would be appreciated.

 

[Jono]

I'm certainly not a structural engineering expert, I have however smithed, heated, bent, pounded, twisted more steel in my career than most. The information oft abridged on the fires and structural movement of the WTC's is enough for me to explain what I did see in a reasonable manner.

I've had to work with steel in varying temperatures, but I had no idea people (up until recent years) thought steel to have these supermaterial qualities.

It doesn't it.
Very often, of course, I used furnaces or ovens. But for example, the reserve bar-holder where I had to put the pieces at first to just gently get them ready, like say 2 inch thick/1 foot long steel bars, experienced a moderate temperature of "only" 400-500 Celsius. And I was standing right next to it, fortunately the fan worked most of the time which blew the hot air to the sides.

After circa 10 minutes of exposure on the reserve bar-holder, the steel was far from melting point yet still I could take a hammer to it or a simple dime-store compressor and really mess it up beyond use. Heck, they used to be able to forge swords with such "low" temperatures back in the day. And a normal office fire can reach more than 2-3 times that temperature. Steel is strong, no doubt about it, but if it's not packed isolated inside concrete (or has otherwise wicked protection) then for God's sake keep it as far away from fire if you depend on it to hold up tons and tons of pressure.
Also, if the spray-on fire-proofing can be scraped off by your mere fingers, I wouldn't count on it when a plane smashes into it.

 

[R.Mackey]

I did want to ask one question that was raised at the beginning of the show and was not revisited: it had to do with Szamboti's claim about Bazant's overestimation of the yield strength of the beams by a factor of 10. This has been quoted several times but I haven't found anything on it. I can appreciate that this may have been discussed before so even just a link to a thread on this subject would be appreciated.

Welcome to the Forum, glad you enjoyed the program.

This topic was handled earlier in this thread itself, here.

In brief, Tony's assumptions that lead him to conclude Dr. Bazant underestimated the strength (actually "toughness," or aggregate energy absorption, not "strength" which is a measure of maximum load) are based on the following errors:

• Uses a "first principles" analysis to estimate column strength rather than the actual structure -- some drafts making a bizarre and indefensible "spring constant" argument
• Incorrectly treats columns as fully pinned, even during collapse
• Incorrectly assumes columns buckle near material yield strain, instead of at elastic instability
• Incorrectly assumes columns are loaded purely vertically during collapse
• Incorrectly assumes structural strength is unchanged during collapse

In terms of strength, Tony has claimed that there was a Factor of Safety of 3 in the intact Towers, and more at the perimeter. This is wrong. NIST found this value to be closer to 2, as explained in the link above, and in its simulations describes how this reserve steadily eroded up until the point of collapse. NIST not only correctly predicts the onset of collapse, it also comes up with a reasonably good estimate of when, for both Towers. The Truth Movement, of course, waves this study away entirely on the thinnest of excuses.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Welcome to the Forum, glad you enjoyed the program.

This topic was handled earlier in this thread itself, here.

In brief, Tony's assumptions that lead him to conclude Dr. Bazant underestimated the strength (actually "toughness," or aggregate energy absorption, not "strength" which is a measure of maximum load) are based on the following errors:

• Uses a "first principles" analysis to estimate column strength rather than the actual structure -- some drafts making a bizarre and indefensible "spring constant" argument
• Incorrectly treats columns as fully pinned, even during collapse
• Incorrectly assumes columns buckle near material yield strain, instead of at elastic instability
• Incorrectly assumes columns are loaded purely vertically during collapse
• Incorrectly assumes structural strength is unchanged during collapse

In terms of strength, Tony has claimed that there was a Factor of Safety of 3 in the intact Towers, and more at the perimeter. This is wrong. NIST found this value to be closer to 2, as explained in the link above, and in its simulations describes how this reserve steadily eroded up until the point of collapse. NIST not only correctly predicts the onset of collapse, it also comes up with a reasonably good estimate of when, for both Towers. The Truth Movement, of course, waves this study away entirely on the thinnest of excuses.

I think you mean fully fixed.

 

[alienentity]

alienentity: This NBC video shows the tilt the best:

[qimg]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2857/aniv.gif[/qimg]

Look particularly at these three things: (1) The tilt of the antenna, (2) the tilt of the northwest edge of the North Face, (3) The descent of the floor with fires on the East Face. Notice also that this is prior to any ejection of debris and dust clouds on the North Face, including the northwest corner.

The second really good video showing the tilt prior to any collapse on the North Face is the NBC video that appears on the National Geographic "Inside 9/11" video. It is the one that they very helpfully freeze-frame at the moment the collapse has reached the North Face, and up to that point we can see floor collapse on the West Face occur at the 98th Floor.

Several important observations can be made with this video:

First, the antenna mast starts dropping prior to any movement on the North Face. You can see it move relative to the white structure on the roof, the same one used in Tony's "Missing Jolt" paper as a marker. This shows that the upper block was leaning before this structure began to descend.

[qimg]http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9404/output2.gif[/qimg]

Now if we look at what is going on at the West Face during this brief moment, we can see the initial emergence of the dust cloud at the 98th Floor. This shows that the collapse began on the West Face prior to any collapse on the North Face. And if we look in further detail at the West Face, we can observe many other interesting things (consult your own copy of "Inside 9/11", as it is much clearer there in the original quality):

[qimg]http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4963/r1a.gif[/qimg]

(1) Prior to the dust cloud emerging at the 98th Floor, a fire flares up near the southwest corner at the 95th Floor (at column 405). This flare-up occurs simultaneous with the initial descent of the antenna mast. (2) Then in the next second, still prior to the dust cloud emerging on the 98th Floor, we can see a localized collapse occuring on the 96th and 97th Floors between columns 410-420. (3) When that happens, the fire directly above on Floor 104 (at columns 405-415) flares up and begins to descend. (4) It is then that we see a dust cloud appear on the 98th Floor, first around column 420 and then shooting northward across the West Face until it reaches the northwest corner (this is seen best frame by frame, as it occurs across just 5-7 frames).

The Sauret video shows that the earliest visible sign of column failure on the North Face occurred on the 94th and 95th Floors at the impact site, not on the 98th Floor above:

[qimg]http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6802/94646677.gif[/qimg]

Finally there is the helicopter video taken of the South Face at initiation (here sped up 3x), and it shows that the earliest sign of activity in fact was on the South Face in the area where bowed columns were photographed just minutes earlier:

[qimg]http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8177/asas.gif[/qimg]

Wow, thanks! Saved me a lot of trouble...

Tony, it looks as though you argument is officially debunked.

 

[Edx]

wow, thanks! Saved me a lot of trouble...

Tony, it looks as though you argument is officially debunked.

I see NO TILT!

 

[twinstead]

Wow, thanks! Saved me a lot of trouble...

Tony, it looks as though you argument is officially debunked.

I don't know. In my experience, few if any truthers consider their argument officially debunked, no matter what and no matter how debunked.

 

[bill smith]

Tony, of course, has picked a video looking almost directly in the plane of the tilt, and on the other side, so naturally it's harder to see in this video. But in others, and in the picture I showed, the tilt is obvious.

This is why, as far as I know, not even anyone else in the Truth Movement cares about this theory. You can see a great deal of skepticism, for instance, at Gregory's forum: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc1-hinge-like-wtc2-t139.html

... or here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-tilt-t235.html

I notice that RM did not think to mention the fact that the antenna was falling into the building a second or two before there was any other visible movement. Does anybody think that that early movement might have had any sognificance ? I have pefectly clear slow motion video of this happening available on request.

 

[bill smith]

I see NO TILT!

Keep listening to RM and you will do eventually.

 

[Edx]

Keep listening to RM and you do will eventually.

I was being sarcastic Bill,

What do you see when you see those gifs?

 

[DGM]

I notice that RM did not think to mention the fact that the antenna was falling into the building a second or two before there was any other visible movement. Does anybody think that that early movement might have had any sognificance ? I have pefectly clear slow motion video of this happening available on request.

Why don't you just show it then?

ETA: I bet I know what vantage point it was taken from.

 

[bill smith]

Why don't you just show it then?

ETA: I bet I know what vantage point it was taken from.

We can assume that RM knows that the antenna begins to fall into the building prior to the collapse onset. Before the top block begins to move downwards as a whole in other words.

This would likely mean that the the entire hat truss (which spanned three floors) and which supported the 360-foot antenna had to be also moving downwards. The fact that the perimeter walls (to which the hat truss was also attached) are pulled inwards lends credence to this notion.

Can I suggest that somebody against whom RM has not raised his shields asks him to clarify whether he is aware of the early-falling antenna ? And if so why he has not thought it worth mentioning ?