Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[LSSBB]

I assume this is rhetorical.

Good assumption, unfortunately. Why do people come to the banquet of critical thinking and at least not even try the Hors d'œuvre? I don't claim to be a gourmet, however I at least don't only choose the hamburgers because that's what makes me comfortable.

 

[beachnut]

It is only a mystery to you.

The actual steel temperatures needed to weaken the columns to the point of failure on the initiation floor would be about 650 degrees C minimum and there is no evidence of steel temperatures even remotely close to that.

Additionally, there are other problems for a heat weakened initiation that are explained in the paper.

I have also explained to you a number of times that ROOSD does not save the natural collapse theory because the collapse would not be self-propagating until further down in the process than the first several stories, as it needs to pick up steam. The natural collapse theory cannot explain the first several stories of the collapse.

What a load of BS. 911 is a mystery to you too.

Source your temperatures. Go ahead explain how the heat energy equal to 2,700 Tons of thermite/thermate (jones' insanity) in the towers, only from office fires, not including the heat energy of the Jet fuel (330 tons of tnt in heat, in each tower) was not able to make 500 to 600 C, as you exaggerate the temperature for your fantasy CD stuff.

Your paper failed to make a point and you can't summarize your conclusion. What is your take on collapse speed? A real engineer can summarize and explain their conclusions many ways, why can't you?

 

[TheJamesrocket]

It is only a mystery to you.

The actual steel temperatures needed to weaken the columns to the point of failure on the initiation floor would be about 650 degrees C minimum and there is no evidence of steel temperatures even remotely close to that.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but what sources did you look at to come to this conclusion (I.E, the point when the beams and columns would fail)? About 1/3rd of the steel in the twin towers construction was welten 80c grade, which has different thermal characteristics from the a36. I'm not sure whether or not that would have contributed to the differential thermal expansion that was alleged to have been taking place at the WTCs, but I'll list their specifications anyway.

Welten 80c
Thermal expansion: 10-10 e-6/K
Thermal conductivity: 25-25 W/m.K
Specific heat: 460-460 J/kg.K
Melting temperature: 1450-1510 °C

A36
Thermal expansion: 16-17 e-6/K
Thermal conductivity: 16-16 W/m.K
Specific heat: 500-500 J/kg.K
Melting temperature: 1370-1400 °C

Additionally, there are other problems for a heat weakened initiation that are explained in the paper.

I have also explained to you a number of times that ROOSD does not save the natural collapse theory because the collapse would not be self-propagating until further down in the process than the first several stories, as it needs to pick up steam. The natural collapse theory cannot explain the first several stories of the collapse.

I do agree with you there. It doesn't seem like there is any way for the 'upper block' to have picked up as much momentum as it otherwise did. I would hazard a guess that the core columns were severed across several floors, allowing the piledriver to fall cleanly through them, thus setting the floor collapse into motion. And we still haven't seen any concrete evidence that the 'bowing' of the WTCs façade was as severe as has been alleged.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My foundation is far simpler Scott. You are basing credibility or lack thereof on the academic publishing standards including peer review. I respect the processes but they are irrelevant here.

All of Tony's papers which I have critiqued since late 2007 have major faults of logic. Peer review or not cannot change the fact that the claims of the papers are either false or IIRC in one instance not proven. This latest example is so narrowly focussed anti Bazant that it is totally irrelevant to what actually happened on 9/11. As several members have identified the trick relies on mixing real events with abstract modelling and doing it invalidly whether with intention to mislead or though limited understanding.

They could well be right within the narrow focus of the abstract scenario. BUT there is no logical linkage to real world and any inference of relevance to real events is misleading.

The garbage arguments could well pass legitimate peer review. Doing so would not by magic make the arguments valid.

You say you have critiqued my work. Most scientists and engineers would say that would require using math and calculations as we show in our critique of Zdenek Bazant's work. I have never seen you do that. So you have critiqued nothing. You just want to say you have.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but what sources did you look at to come to this conclusion (I.E, the point when the beams and columns would fail)? About 1/3rd of the steel in the twin towers construction was welten 80c grade, which has different thermal characteristics from the a36. I'm not sure whether or not that would have contributed to the differential thermal expansion that was alleged to have been taking place at the WTCs, but I'll list their specifications anyway.

Welten 80c
Thermal expansion: 10-10 e-6/K
Thermal conductivity: 25-25 W/m.K
Specific heat: 460-460 J/kg.K
Melting temperature: 1450-1510 °C

A36
Thermal expansion: 16-17 e-6/K
Thermal conductivity: 16-16 W/m.K
Specific heat: 500-500 J/kg.K
Melting temperature: 1370-1400 °C



I do agree with you there. It doesn't seem like there is any way for the 'upper block' to have picked up as much momentum as it otherwise did. I would hazard a guess that the core columns were severed across several floors, allowing the piledriver to fall cleanly through them, thus setting the floor collapse into motion. And we still haven't seen any concrete evidence that the 'bowing' of the WTCs façade was as severe as has been alleged.

The claim for thermal weakening caused collapse has to do with the decrease in yield strength due to heating. Structural steel (A36 included) loses about half of its strength at 600 degrees C. If 20% of the columns were severely damaged or severed then 80% of the capacity would remain. The intact factor of safety of the core columns was at least 3.00 to 1, so a loss of 20% would drop that to 2.40 to 1. So one would have to lose 60% of the yield strength before the remaining undamaged columns would begin to yield. This would require about 650 degrees C. There is no evidence of these high steel temperatures on any of the steel NIST tested. In fact, they only found three spots out of hundreds that were above 250 degrees C.

 

[Spanx]

There is no evidence of these high steel temperatures on any of the steel NIST tested. In fact, they only found three spots out of hundreds that were above 250 degrees C.

So no thermite then

 

[TheJamesrocket]

So no thermite then

I believe those were only perimeter columns.

 

[Spanx]

I believe those were only perimeter columns.

Your welcome to believe whatever you like.

 

[TheJamesrocket]

The claim for thermal weakening caused collapse has to do with the decrease in yield strength due to heating. Structural steel (A36 included) loses about half of its strength at 600 degrees C. If 20% of the columns were severely damaged or severed then 80% of the capacity would remain. The intact factor of safety of the core columns was at least 3.00 to 1, so a loss of 20% would drop that to 2.40 to 1. So one would have to lose 60% of the yield strength before the remaining undamaged columns would begin to yield. This would require about 650 degrees C. There is no evidence of these high steel temperatures on any of the steel NIST tested. In fact, they only found three spots out of hundreds that were above 250 degrees C.

Yeah, the research that I have done would tend to agree with that. I have seen several analysis done which indicate the average temperatures at the impact site would have hovered around only 120 celcius, while even the hot spots would not have exceeded 260 celcius. Steel just doesn't lose any strength at that point. The beams never would have sagged to the extreme degree required to break connections.

 

[TheJamesrocket]

Your welcome to believe whatever you like.

Except its not just my belief. I quote: ''Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.''

 

[Spanx]

Except its not just my belief. I quote: ''Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.''

That would depend on where you get your evidence

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I believe those were only perimeter columns.

There was a couple of core columns saved that were tested. However, Spanx logic isn't complete as he isn't considering that much of the steel was shipped away before testing.

Did that steel have evidence of even higher temperatures than office fires could produce? A good detective would ask this question if confronted with possible evidence of incendiaries/accelerants in other ways, like the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower's northeast corner.

 

[Spanx]

There was a couple of core columns saved that were tested. However, Spanx logic isn't complete as he isn't considering that much of the steel was shipped away before testing.

Did that steel have evidence of even higher temperatures than office fires could produce? A good detective would ask this question if confronted with possible evidence of incendiaries/accelerants in other ways, like the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower's northeast corner.

At least we both agree you don't have any evidence.

 

[TheJamesrocket]

That would depend on where you get your evidence

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/.

So they lied? Is that what your saying?

 

[TheJamesrocket]

At least we both agree you don't have any evidence.

Do you not even bother reading the comments you respond to? Tony was talking about molten steel pouring out of WTC 2, that is evidence in itself. Do you deny or accept this?

 

[LSSBB]

Do you not even bother reading the comments you respond to? Tony was talking about molten steel pouring out of WTC 2, that is evidence in itself. Do you deny or accept this?

How is it evidence without a metallurgical analysis? How do you or Tony know it was steel?

 

[Spanx]

So they lied? Is that what your saying?

You are the one suggesting you have evidence of an inside job, your source of your evidence is in that link.

You can believe what you want.

 

[Spanx]

Do you not even bother reading the comments you respond to? Tony was talking about molten steel pouring out of WTC 2, that is evidence in itself. Do you deny or accept this?

Oh yes. Steven jones says that's evidence of thermite but there was no evidence of heated steel, which of course was carted away before anyone had the chance to test it but we know that's true because we don't have any evidence and we can never get any.

Yes it all adds up

 

[Tony Szamboti]

At least we both agree you don't have any evidence.

No, the steel evidence NIST examined is still evidence of no high steel temperatures and it says there is no physical basis for assuming a natural heat weakened column buckling collapse.

I would hope you realize there are other problems with this heat weakened column collapse theory as it should not have been able to develop a high acceleration and velocity. It was also at constant acceleration. That is a clue to something other than column buckling going on.

 

[Spanx]

No, the steel evidence NIST examined is still evidence of no high steel temperatures and it says there is no physical basis for assuming a natural heat weakened column buckling collapse.

I would hope you realize there are other problems with this heat weakened column collapse theory as it should not have been able to develop a high acceleration and velocity. It was also at constant acceleration. That is a clue to something other than column buckling going on.

So how many internal columns were damaged during the impacts ?