Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth

[lexicon008]

That would depend on where you get your evidence

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

Actually you can find the same in sec 6.4.3 of Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (DRAFT)



"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 °C: 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 °C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors.
• Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC."

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony please, let's be civil. I don't know what MHM knows about engineering or science. I do know what he or she means.

While I congratulate you on the publication of your paper, my post was intended to point out that the venue renders the importance of the findings to be almost insignificant. There are many journals that are desperate for papers. I do not know how many submissions International Journal of Protective Structures gets. I am surprised by their editorial board, though, and take this as an indication of the depth to which the journal penetrates into legitimate academic engineering. I went through the names listed and found that some of the members of their board have published nothing that I can find. So if this is who they have on their board, I can only wonder who is doing their reviewing for them. My experience with 3rd and 4th tier journals, such as IJPS appears to be, reminds me of how many journals of this sort have trouble finding reviewers, especially for highly specialized papers. I suspect that in many cases, it was the people listed on the editorial board who did the review. And as I have said, I have trouble understanding what gives at least some of the IJPS editors the background to make such expert judgements. In all honesty, you appear to have a strong academic and research background that some of those listed on the IJPS editorial board.

The issue that keeps coming up is why you and similar researchers have waited so long to start publishing papers of this kind. I suspect it is because the intelligentsia of 9/11 Truth, in which I include you and your friend Richard, have been waiting for that avalanche of research you were certain would follow once think tanks like AE9/11T brought the true facts of 9/11 to professional attention. But that never happened. Sometime around the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack by the Jihadist terrorists, you and what was left of the Truther intelligentsia began to take it seriously that you would have to do this publishing yourself. And you did.

I congratulate you on your initiative. I congratulate you on your publication in a serious venue. But I hope you understand that what MHM meant with his or her post was clearly that we are looking for you to publish these findings in a venue with greater credibility than one that appears rarely cited and, as such, almost entirely uninfluential in the field it claims to represent. For me personally, as a non-engineering specialist, I wonder how much more space there is in engineering scholarship for the critique of a model that I am told was never intended as the final word on the WTC collapses. But I guess we will find out soon enough.

Once again, congratulations. I look forward to seeing this work published in a venue with a higher level of respect in the profession.

Scott, thanks for the congratulations, but it seems sort of half a congratulations as it appears you don't think very highly of the IJPS and even opine that publishing in it makes our work insignificant.

I do have to wonder just how you feel qualified to make that determination of an engineering technical journal when by your own admission here you are not an engineer.

 

[Spanx]

Actually you can find the same in sec 6.4.3 of Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (DRAFT)



"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 °C: 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 °C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors.
• Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC."

there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600

So we can rule out thermite ?

 

[lexicon008]

there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600

So we can rule out thermite ?

maybe..but there is no way to know since the tests were to 3% or less of the columns.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

It was at constant acceleration at some point, including measurement error?

 

[TheJamesrocket]

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

The substances composition is easy to define, due to the fact that it was glowing light orange, which indicates a temperature of approximately 1100 celcius. Iron is one of the few metals that could be heated to this temperature before it became molten (I.E, since aluminum melts at just half this temperature, it wouldn't have stuck around to be heated to 1100 celcius. A liquid always finds its level, and as soon as a metal melts, it starts dripping away).

 

[LSSBB]

The substances composition is easy to define, due to the fact that it was glowing light orange, which indicates a temperature of approximately 1100 celcius. Iron is one of the few metals that could be heated to this temperature before it became molten (I.E, since aluminum melts at just half this temperature, it wouldn't have stuck around to be heated to 1100 celcius. A liquid always finds its level, and as soon as a metal melts, it starts dripping away).

No other metals exhibit that behavior, at any given temperature? What exactly was the temperature of that metal, anyway?

 

[TheJamesrocket]

Scott, thanks for the congratulations, but it seems sort of half a congratulations as it appears you don't think very highly of the IJPS and even opine that publishing in it makes our work insignificant.

I do have to wonder just how you feel qualified to make that determination of a technical journal when by your own admission here you are a not a scientist or engineer.

Well, since scott isn't a 'conspiracy theorist', in his mind, that make him more qualified than someone WHO IS (no matter what the task at hand may be).

 

[Spanx]

maybe..but there is no way to know since the tests were to 3% or less of the columns.

Exactly, just like Tony doesn't know how many internal columns were damaged during the impacts or exactly how hot the columns got during the fires.

It's easier to say they were whisked away before anyone had a chance to check them. At least that way it plants the seed of doubt.

 

[tsig]

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?

Molten steel would be evidence of temps above 600C thereby blowing his theory.

 

[carlitos]

I'm familair with Szamboti and Szuladzinki (I believie they are forum members here), but I have never heard of the third author, Richard Johns from Langara College in Canada. Google finds a philosphy instructor and nothing else. Does anyone know who he is?

Your google fu is correct. He introduced himself as a teacher of Philosophy from there at the 911 Forum.

The substances composition is easy to define, due to the fact that it was glowing light orange, which indicates a temperature of approximately 1100 celcius that it was glowing light orange.

fixed your mistake there.

Molten, contaminated (e.g not pure, since it's aluminum scrap from a computer ) aluminum:
[qimg]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5899/pouringaluminumoutsider.jpg[/qimg]

Molten glass:
[qimg]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/54478811_bf0c4784c3.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.tequilasource.com/sultanadevidrio/pics/molten-glass_4322_r2.jpg[/qimg]

Now, consider a mixture of the above together. Also, it's important to know that when you just heat aluminum toward and to melt it'll oxidize when exposed to air, and its emissivity is .44 whereas regular steel is at .35. Therefore, if a degree of impurities (oil, plastic, glass or other metallic blends in the mix) is present this can notably affect the colour of the 'glow'.

 

[TheJamesrocket]

No other metals exhibit that behavior, at any given temperature? What exactly was the temperature of that metal, anyway?

You bedunkers are really horrible at reading other peoples comments. Why do you even bother asking a question which was already made redundant by my previous post? Do I really need to simplify things any further?

 

[TheJamesrocket]

Your google fu is correct. He introduced himself as a teacher of Philosophy from there at the 911 Forum.


fixed your mistake there.

Glass has a much higher melting point than aluminum (its actually closer to that of iron), so try again. Experiments have been done by steven jones, mixing in a variety of substances with molten aluminum, and none exhibit the propertys of the material pouring out of WTC 2. Besides, the substances we see being poured in the last picture are not even exhibiting a glow, that is simply the base colour of whatever (?) it is they are pouring.

 

[lexicon008]

Exactly, just like Tony doesn't know how many internal columns were damaged during the impacts or exactly how hot the columns got during the fires.

It's easier to say they were whisked away before anyone had a chance to check them. At least that way it plants the seed of doubt.

Whos fault is it that only 3% of the columns were tested? Who gave the order to remove the rest before testing? How are we to determine the extent, temperatures and durations of fires if the materials are removed before they get tested? What we are left with is the visual evidence and guess work.
Since NIST has acknowledged that none of the samples were above 600C and most did not exceed 250C how can we be sure the fires were severe enough to actually cause a failure in the first place?

 

[LSSBB]

You bedunkers are really horrible at reading other peoples comments. Why do you even bother asking a question which was already made redundant by my previous post? Do I really need to simplify things any further?

What did I misread? You gave a response conjecturing steel and gave some properties of steel. See other responses to your question above, maybe that will help you think of how other material can fit the visual evidence.

 

[Spanx]

Whos fault is it that only 3% of the columns were tested? Who gave the order to remove the rest before testing? How are we to determine the extent, temperatures and durations of fires if the materials are removed before they get tested? What we are left with is the visual evidence and guess work.
Since NIST has acknowledged that none of the samples were above 600C and most did not exceed 250C how can we be sure the fires were severe enough to actually cause a failure in the first place?

Ok, so why didn't the truth movement do anything about it at the time ? Why wait untill the "evidence" had been removed. Or were they waiting untill loose change was made?

Perhaps it's because they didn't know about building 7 and felt they had been cheated because they missed it.

 

[LSSBB]

Whos fault is it that only 3% of the columns were tested? Who gave the order to remove the rest before testing? How are we to determine the extent, temperatures and durations of fires if the materials are removed before they get tested? What we are left with is the visual evidence and guess work.
Since NIST has acknowledged that none of the samples were above 600C and most did not exceed 250C how can we be sure the fires were severe enough to actually cause a failure in the first place?

How can you be sure there were explosives or other demolition materials when you don't have any evidence of them?

 

[000063]

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.

We can tell you're refusing to include the damage caused by the plane impacts and fire. I've pointed it out twice already, Tony.

And, again, arguing from ignorance.

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.

So you're saying the average temperature in the Jet Fuel initiated fires was slightly hotter than boiling water?

Come to think of it, wouldn't that put the lower end estimates at below boiling temperature?

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.

And much of it was given away. And much of it was hand-searched by people looking for body parts. Unless the "dirty" steel was somehow identified at the scene and quietly spirited away, it would've been found. It was mostly "shipped away" to a Staten Island landfill. It didn't even leave New York City.

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.

The molten-metal-looking substance pouring out.

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.

Stop ignoring the planes.

I would hope you realize there are other problems with this heat weakened column collapse theory

Yes, in that it omits the planes.

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.

Many of the columns were severed by planes.

I am actually incredulous at the depths of your ignorance.

there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600

So we can rule out thermite ?

Hey, did someone drop this petard?

Well, since scott isn't a 'conspiracy theorist', in his mind, that make him more qualified than someone WHO IS (no matter what the task at hand may be).

What number am I thinking of right now? You do have mind-reading powers, right?

Whos fault is it that only 3% of the columns were tested? Who gave the order to remove the rest before testing?

You wanted them to test thousands of columns?

How are we to determine the extent, temperatures and durations of fires if the materials are removed before they get tested? What we are left with is the visual evidence and guess work.
Since NIST has acknowledged that none of the samples were above 600C and most did not exceed 250C how can we be sure the fires were severe enough to actually cause a failure in the first place?

Fires and impact. This isn't hard, people.

 

[lexicon008]

Ok, so why didn't the truth movement do anything about it at the time ? Why wait untill the "evidence" had been removed. Or were they waiting untill loose change was made?

Perhaps it's because they didn't know about building 7 and felt they had been cheated because they missed it.

Im reasonably sure there was no truth movement at that time. I do recall there being quite an uproar from the fire engineering community, Bill Manning in particular.

This argument is nonsense though. It is quite appropriate to investigate a crime after the fact if new evidence arises that may refute the original theory. This happens all the time with DNA and other evidence that was not available at first.

Again this doesn't prove a cd, but it does make you wonder why they felt it necessary to remove the materials before testing was done.

 

[lexicon008]

How can you be sure there were explosives or other demolition materials when you don't have any evidence of them?

the same way to prove a murder without a body..circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, forensic study etc