• 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.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

Why hasn't Tony done any scientific studies on his alleged CD, tilt, or "fire can't bring down buildings" theories?

Perhaps he could show us how they might've done it through CAD or CAE!

Tony only needs to take that step to prove his own delusions to be "true".
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am very clear as to when a jolt should occur, if the collapse was due to natural causes.

A number of you here have no problem believing these buildings could fall the way they did without a dynamic load. If that is possible then why can't someone build a model to show it could happen that way?

The NIST could have built a physical model to prove what they are saying if they couldn't do it on a computer. If they had done that it would be much easier to believe, because there are problems for collapse propagation without a jolt, as well as the way the NIST wants to say the collapses initiated.
Click to expand...
Para 1 -- Evasions noted.

Para 2 -- Whatever that bit of gobbledegook means it is not related to what I said.

Para 3 what did NIST say? Actually two things - FIRST some complicated explanations as to the "initial collapse" which WHETHER TRUE OR NOT clearly occur BEFORE your "missing jolt" which should have appeared AFTER the initial falling of trhe "Top Block" and SECOND NIST said (words to the effect of) "...[once started] global collapse was inevitable".

That second happens to be true by the mechanism I have outlined here and published in more detail elsewhere and many times. Your "imaginary missing jolt" fits in this second stage and it ain't needed....

Then, the big false dichotomy and fraudulent "shift burden of proof" claims.

Even if my explantion is wrong that does not make yours right --- the "false dichotomy" you rely on.

PLUS --- (if I am wrong, which I am not) you still have not shown how your fantasy demolition caused collapse could occur. AND that is your burden -- no one elses.

As I have said - "chasing fantasies" - the fantasy of a missing jolt and a fantasy demolition....
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Para 1 -- Evasions noted.

Para 2 -- Whatever that bit of gobbledegook means it is not related to what I said.

Para 3 what did NIST say? Actually two things - FIRST some complicated explanations as to the "initial collapse" which WHETHER TRUE OR NOT clearly occur BEFORE your "missing jolt" which should have appeared AFTER the initial falling of trhe "Top Block" and SECOND NIST said (words to the effect of) "...[once started] global collapse was inevitable".

That second happens to be true by the mechanism I have outlined here and published in more detail elsewhere and many times. Your "imaginary missing jolt" fits in this second stage and it ain't needed....

Then, the big false dichotomy and fraudulent "shift burden of proof" claims.

Even if my explantion is wrong that does not make yours right --- the "false dichotomy" you rely on.

PLUS --- (if I am wrong, which I am not) you still have not shown how your fantasy demolition caused collapse could occur. AND that is your burden -- no one elses.

As I have said - "chasing fantasies" - the fantasy of a missing jolt and a fantasy demolition....
Click to expand...

It is hard to understand your boldness in calling what I am saying fantasy. It is proven that jolts occur and are measureable in real momentum transfer and gravity collapse situations such as the Verinage demolitions, after the initial stories which are intentionally removed allow the upper section of the building to fall onto the lower structure.

On the other hand, I am sure there are no examples of a building designed to handle many times the load above it having a collapse propagate at 70% of the rate of gravity without a jolt, when the upper section meets the lower structure. It would seem to me that it is much more rational to refer to what you are saying as fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Just like the millionth time it was reminded to you what a limiting case was, I'd also like to remind you for the millionth time that we don't assume an as-built condition when the supports for the upper section buckle from a reduction in the yield strength. Generally speaking, having all the floors above a particular point of a particular building is outside of the scope of what people design. I'm only aware of one such, which was constructed post-9/11*.



* There are are several well-known structures like the Mandarin building in China and the new WTC 7 which improved on the fire protection aspects, but there's one other example where a collapse scenario similar to the WTC was specifically considered in the design which is what I'm referring to.
 
Last edited:
Bump for tony. Tony why do you dodge this? I mean you are an engineer after all, maybe you can explain the math and the issues with scale.

Please answer the question and provide the basic ground work necessary for building a scale model of the towers or wtc7. I'd love to see it.
TruthersLie said:
Tony.

Just a quick question.

Are you actually suggesting that NIST build a scale physical model IRL to test the collapse mechanisms? REally?

Over 4 million parts, and lets not forget the horrors of trying to SCALE any model IRL. That is why they used a computer simulation.

Please provide the simple math to show how you can easily scale and create a model... say 1/10th scale. Should be easy. Feel free. I eagerly await your thesis (it would be one too... )
Click to expand...
 
Bump for Tony.
Please answer the question. Or admit you are just spewing crap out of your ass.
TruthersLie said:
Really?
What peer reviewed engineering journals have printed any papers saying NIST is wrong?

I'll take any peer reviewed journal from anywhere in the world, in any language.

Name one please.
Click to expand...
 
DGM said:
I believe he's referring to the horizontal bracing in the core. At any rate it's still insignificant.
Click to expand...

The I-beams are not insignificant.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

The core was a steel-framed structure in itself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/constr07/wtc2_core.jpg

In comparison, it's the floor trusses and their connections to the columns that are insignificant. To hear debunkers describe the collapses, anybody would think each of the 47 core columns was standing independently from the others and was supported only by the floor trusses.


ozeco41 said:
As for the core on core impact - despite all the cross braces etc it was still one wire basket falling on a similar wire basket - more space that solid. The most probable contacts would be horizontal beams on horizontal beams which would indirectly collapse the columns by pulling them sideways. Too complicated to put in simple words BUT (the fact that matters) no way near the full column strength of the columns would be engaged.
Click to expand...

If you could crush 10 wire baskets by dropping another wire basket on top of them, what was all the fuss about?


ozeco41 said:
Then, the big false dichotomy and fraudulent "shift burden of proof" claims.

Even if my explantion is wrong that does not make yours right --- the "false dichotomy" you rely on.

PLUS --- (if I am wrong, which I am not) you still have not shown how your fantasy demolition caused collapse could occur. AND that is your burden -- no one elses.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on whoever is making the extraordinary claims. Prior to 9/11, many tall buildings had been brought down using controlled demolition, whereas no tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire. On top of that, Building 7 collapsed as would be expected in a well-planned controlled demolition. Claims that the building collapsed due to fire are very extraordinary indeed.
 
bardamu said:
The I-beams are not insignificant.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

The core was a steel-framed structure in itself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/constr07/wtc2_core.jpg
Click to expand...


And by 2:00pm, structure experts said that WTC7 was at risk of collapse.

FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
The I-beams are not insignificant.
Click to expand...

I never said they were, I said they're "insignificant" in your context of stopping the collapse. And they are.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg
Click to expand...
Nice picture.

The core was a steel-framed structure in itself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/constr07/wtc2_core.jpg
Click to expand...
I like that you included a picture with the tower crane supports (that were removed after construction) Are you trying to make it seem stronger than it was?
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
no tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire.
Click to expand...

See. There you go again. Dude, this is a lie, and you're using it as some kind of evidence of your position. It's DISHONEST. And I will guess the next post will be "then show me", even though you've been shown a dozen times before. It never ends.
 
bardamu said:
no tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire. .
Click to expand...

Oops you forgot to add the truther disclaimers. You're meant to say "steel frame high rise greater than 40 stories" or something.

I was arguing with a truther once that said no building ever collapsed from fire, proved him wrong, then he said no high rise building ever collapsed from fire, proved him wrong eventually moving he goal posts back and back further.

Of course we have buildings that didnt even collapse from fire, they just collapsed. I guess they had 'splosives in 'em
 
bardamu said:
In comparison, it's the floor trusses and their connections to the columns that are insignificant. To hear debunkers describe the collapses, anybody would think each of the 47 core columns was standing independently from the others and was supported only by the floor trusses.

.
Click to expand...

You really have no clue. No one has ever said or implied that. Obviously you have no idea how the buildings were designed or care to ever know. Why is this?
 
twinstead said:
See. There you go again. Dude, this is a lie, and you're using it as some kind of evidence of your position. It's DISHONEST. And I will guess the next post will be "then show me", even though you've been shown a dozen times before. It never ends.
Click to expand...

So NIST is lying?
 
twinstead said:
See. There you go again. Dude, this is a lie, and you're using it as some kind of evidence of your position. It's DISHONEST. And I will guess the next post will be "then show me", even though you've been shown a dozen times before. It never ends.
Click to expand...


Yep. Application of recipe 1 from "The Anomaly Cookbook. How to Prove a Conspiracy:"

Theorem: WTC towers where brought down by cd.

Proof:

1. Reallity: two skycrapers damaged by impact of fast flying fuel laden wide body jets, set ablaze, burned for an hour or so and then collapsed.
2. Distort: two skycrapers on fire, then collapse.
3. Reallity: buildings having collapsed due to fire. Fire proofing. Building codes.
4. Distort: No building collapsed due to fire, ever.
5. Apply Non-Sequitur: by 4 it follows that it is impossible for a building to collapse due to fire.
6. From 2) and 5) We have the desired anomaly: not possible for the towers to have collapsed due to fire, yet they collapsed.
7. Resolve anomaly 6). Pull hypothesis out of **** end: cd!

QED.
 
twinstead said:
See. There you go again. Dude, this is a lie, and you're using it as some kind of evidence of your position. It's DISHONEST. And I will guess the next post will be "then show me", even though you've been shown a dozen times before. It never ends.
Click to expand...

The claim itself is actually true; the conclusion truthers draw from this though is false. I could get specific about how fire protection (both passive and active mechanisms) helped with this success but bardamu's argument fails at the point where he contends that if something hasn't happened before it it cannot ever happen in the first place. There's also plenty of past examples where fire has caused the partial collapse of structures; however truthers have a tendency to be horribly inept at figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were. You will likely never have this kind of conversation with one seeing as how individuals like red, and Bardamu like to avoid these issue like the bubonic plague
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom