Tony harasses Bazant

[Bitca]

Posted today. For everyone's sake, I've omitted the picture of Tony. I've also saved you a visit to the site.

Mechanical Engineer Sends Open Letter to Main Defender of the 9/11 Official Account, Zdeněk Bažant

“This open letter is being sent to you to request that you correct your four papers on the collapse of the WTC Towers, which were published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.” — Tony Szamboti

On June 19, 2016, Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has studied the World Trade Center collapses intensively for the past ten years, sent an open letter to Northwestern civil engineering Professor Zdeněk Bažant. Dr. Bažant is the author of four articles in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that purport to explain why the lower sections of the WTC Twin Towers provided no discernible resistance to the falling upper sections.

The Open Letter
...snip...

Now we know why bazantmisconduct was created from the finest woo.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Quoted text edited for compliance with Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[beachnut]

Which part of E=mgh does Tony have problems with? Why can't an engineer do physics or understand Bazant's model. No clue what models are as he tries to back in the delusion of CD.

The overestimates of velocity and mass of the descending upper section in your papers cause it to have a kinetic energy which is several times what it actually would have been. Of course, this would make a collapse propagation more likely.

Tony can't do models. What is new.


Tony, have you told the FBI they missed the silent explosives?

Unfortunately, the possibility that there were charges in the buildings has not been investigated... Anthony Szamboti
paranoid conspiracy theorists with a fantasy of CD... aka, the realcddeal

 

[MileHighMadness]

OMG...our favorite unlicensed mechanical engineer is trying to tell one of the most brilliant structural engineers on the planet on how to do his job.

Well, the good news...Tony will never live long enough to realize how big of a fool he has made of himself.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OMG...our favorite unlicensed mechanical engineer is trying to tell one of the most brilliant structural engineers on the planet on how to do his job.

Well, the good news...Tony will never live long enough to realize how big of a fool he has made of himself.

You claim you are a structural engineer. Why don't you answer the points in the letter which describe the errors in Dr. Bazant's papers instead of just complaining about it without giving a reason?

I am also wondering just what your comment concerning your estimate of how long I will live is about. My wife took it as a threat and is upset about it. I reported your post and asked the moderators to give me your real name.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You claim you are a structural engineer. Why don't you answer the points in the letter which describe the errors in Dr. Bazant's papers instead of just complaining about it without giving a reason?

I am also wondering just what your comment concerning your estimate of how long I will live is about. My wife took it as a threat and is upset about it. I reported your post and asked the moderators to give me your real name.

I wish you a long happy life Tony, you have brought much humor into the world.

Though you do tend to misconceive it as engineering, for some absurd reason.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Which part of E=mgh does Tony have problems with? Why can't an engineer do physics or understand Bazant's model. No clue what models are as he tries to back in the delusion of CD.

Tony can't do models. What is new.


Tony, have you told the FBI they missed the silent explosives?

To view the first jolt, every second frame on the video would have to be measured, in a Fifty frames per second video.

For me the boom, boom, boom of the floor collapses is evidence of multiple impact Jolts and thus Tony's missing Jolt nonsense is falsified.

Tony, physics, and reality were separated long ago.

 

[NoahFence]

 

[Tony Szamboti]

To view the first jolt, every second frame on the video would have to be measured, in a Fifty frames per second video.

For me the boom, boom, boom of the floor collapses is evidence of multiple impact Jolts and thus Tony's missing Jolt nonsense is falsified.

Tony, physics, and reality were separated long ago.

First, you are wrong saying the frame rate of the video used for the measurements was fifty frames per second. The video used for the measurements (the Sauret video) used the NTSC standard, which is 29.97 frames per second (one frame every 33 milliseconds).

Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the 0.64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame, as we did, would give at least 4 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever observed in the measurements.

Your error with the frame rate itself shows you do not have all of the parameters right to even contemplate what you are trying to say. You really should get those things right before saying someone else isn't dealing with reality. Your indulgence in making these types of claims, which contain easily provable inaccuracies, is precisely why this forum cannot be taken seriously.

 

[NoahFence]

First, you are wrong saying the frame rate of the video used for the measurements was fifty frames per second. The video used for the measurements (the Sauret video) used the NTSC standard, which is 29.97 frames per second (one frame every 33 milliseconds).

Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the 0.64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame, as we did, would give at least 4 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever observed in the measurements.

Your error with the frame rate itself shows you do not have all of the parameters right to even contemplate what you are trying to say. You really should get those things right before saying someone else isn't dealing with reality. The easily provable inaccuracies in your comments is precisely why this forum cannot be taken seriously.

Word salad. You're not fooling anybody.

 

[BasqueArch]

OMG...our favorite unlicensed mechanical engineer is trying to tell one of the most brilliant structural engineers on the planet on how to do his job.

Well, the good news...Tony will never live long enough to realize how big of a fool he has made of himself.

You claim you are a structural engineer. Why don't you answer the points in the letter which describe the errors in Dr. Bazant's papers instead of just complaining about it without giving a reason?

I am also wondering just what your comment concerning your estimate of how long I will live is about. My wife took it as a threat and is upset about it. I reported your post and asked the moderators to give me your real name.

"Will never live long enough" is a manner of expression, not a threat. It says you will never realize how wrong you have been.
http://tinyurl.com/hln9jsu

The violent threats and stalking of the those on this board come from the disturbed truther side. A number have already dropped out, some still remain.
I take your naming of MHM as your veiled threat to silence him.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

First, you are wrong about the fifty frames per second rate of the video. The NTSC standard is 29.97 frames per second and thus one frame every 33 milliseconds.

Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the .64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame would give 5 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever measured.

Your error with the frame rate itself shows you do not have all of the parameters right to even contemplate what you are trying to say. You really should get those things right before saying someone else isn't dealing with reality. The easily provable inaccuracies in your comments is precisely why this forum cannot be taken seriously.

That's the frame rate capable in a modern High definition camera, secondly reducing the frame rate as you just did insures no possible observance of a rebounding at all.

A rebound wave is nessisary for observation, of an energy transference at the speed of 5900 meters per second.

That is the speed compression energy travels though solid steel Tony, the speed of energy transfer, and the energy and materials involved means only a quick disunification effect,
Triggered by both rebounding waves could be observed.

Oh you probably thought there would only be one rebound wave, which would not be the case,
Duel rebound waves means duel disunification, from simple connection failures.

The sound in the early collapses also falsifies the columns removed by charges theory as does the seismic data.

Crush up, Crush down is easily falsified, as is the missing Jolt based on it, I don't even have to go into the engineer, physics and evidence falsify them.

 

[TJM]

I am also wondering just what your comment concerning your estimate of how long I will live is about.

Stupid is forever. That's what it's about.

My wife took it as a threat and is upset about it.

Then she needs to be seen to...

I reported your post and asked the moderators to give me your real name.

...just not by you.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Stupid is forever. That's what it's about.



Then she needs to be seen to...



...just not by you.

It is like he thinks we and the university are gullible enough to believe his bull, or that
Cole's experiments that he supports have any validity.

 

[MileHighMadness]

You claim you are a structural engineer. Why don't you answer the points in the letter which describe the errors in Dr. Bazant's papers instead of just complaining about it without giving a reason?

I am also wondering just what your comment concerning your estimate of how long I will live is about. My wife took it as a threat and is upset about it. I reported your post and asked the moderators to give me your real name.

Tony, it was not a threat...I wish you a long life.

You should already know my real name, you emailed me your WTC 7 computer model years ago.

 

[DGM]

My favorite sentence in the whole paper:

The NIST stopped their analysis at a point where the report says the building was “poised to collapse” when the south exterior wall purportedly buckled.

I seriously doubt anyone actually read that far considering who it came from. You've got to admire Tonys consistency. He's likely one of the only people left that believe Bazants model accurately represented reality.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My favorite sentence in the whole paper:



I seriously doubt anyone actually read that far considering who it came from. You've got to admire Tonys consistency. He's likely one of the only people left that believe Bazants model accurately represented reality.

Yes Tony is a great fiction writer.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, it was not a threat...I wish you a long life.

You should already know my real name, you emailed me your WTC 7 computer model years ago.

Okay.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes Tony is a great fiction writer.

No, it is that you don't understand how an impulse would have been observed, if it had occurred. It would have been through the velocity loss and the recovery time.

The impulse itself happens too fast, but it isn't necessary to see it as a significant velocity loss would be required and would be the telltale sign.

No velocity loss was observed and the recovery time was more than long enough to have a significant number of measurements which would have shown it if an impulse of the magnitude required to buckle the columns had in fact occurred.

 

[NoahFence]

No, it is that you don't understand how an impulse would have been observed, if it had occurred. It would have been through the velocity loss and the recovery time.

The impulse itself happens too fast, but it isn't necessary to see it as a significant velocity loss would be required and would be the telltale sign.

No velocity loss was observed and the recovery time was more than long enough to have a significant number of measurements which would have shown it if an impulse of the magnitude required to buckle the columns had in fact occurred.

Nothing you write changes reality.
Aircraft impacts and fire took down the towers.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No, it is that you don't understand how an impulse would have been observed, if it had occurred. It would have been through the velocity loss and the recovery time.

The impulse itself happens too fast, but it isn't necessary to see it as a significant velocity loss would be required and would be the telltale sign.

No velocity loss was observed and the recovery time was more than long enough to have a significant number of measurements which would have shown it if an impulse of the magnitude required to buckle the columns had in fact occurred.

That is not factual and is totally fallacious given the energy values involved, you really don't understand physics do you, a simple engineering question you should easily be able to answer, what would be the pressure in a 2 inch pvc pipe filled with water standing up right 2200ft tall?

Velocity loss is determined by the simple equation, ma><r, if the towers upper mass fell though air, water, vacuum, or a solid steel block the same equation applies.

The connections were simply not strong enough to make much of a difference, the building was not designed to resist that amount of dynamic loading.

That is why Cole's experiment are fallacious, and self debunking and why I asked Cole about the energy values in the first place.
Why do you support obviously fallacious Ideas like Cole's experiments?