• 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.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

Tony Szamboti said:
Extrapolating heat deforming of members into collapsing is not legitimate. This shows a certain level of knowledge is missing with your assessment. This is unfortunately true of many here who simply think fire would be a cause without even being able to show a precedent.
Click to expand...
As the point flies over your head. Not surprising considering your argument is based on heating elements evenly and ignoring the effects it had on other members at the same time. You know, the model as a whole.

Tell the Europeans yet? ;)
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Extrapolating heat deforming of members into collapsing is not legitimate. This shows a certain level of knowledge is missing with your assessment. This is unfortunately true of many here who simply think fire would be a cause without even being able to show a precedent.
Click to expand...

Lol, unlike the truthers who claim the steel was melted.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Extrapolating heat deforming of members into collapsing is not legitimate. This shows a certain level of knowledge is missing with your assessment. This is unfortunately true of many here who simply think fire would be a cause without even being able to show a precedent.
Click to expand...

Unsupported accusations that your critics lack sophistication or expertise in their rebuttals are inappropriate when you are unwilling to submit your work to the customary organs of discussion and debate among professional forensic engineers. When you have that degree of endorsement for your claims among the relevant professional community, you may offer cursory dismissals.
 
JayUtah said:
Unsupported accusations that your critics lack sophistication or expertise in their rebuttals are inappropriate when you are unwilling to submit your work to the customary organs of discussion and debate among professional forensic engineers. When you have that degree of endorsement for your claims among the relevant professional community, you may offer cursory dismissals.
Click to expand...

I am a co-author of a paper published in a professional journal on the subject of analysis of the collapse of the WTC North Tower, so what you are saying has no merit.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am a co-author of a paper published in a professional journal on the subject of analysis of the collapse of the WTC North Tower, so what you are saying has no merit.
Click to expand...
Good job. Which one was that?

Did you ever get an answer? (if it's the one I'm thinking)

ETA: Or was it the one that nullified your "missing jolt" paper?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
In after thought, I think the one he's referring to is the one that's fatal to his "missing jolt'. ;)
Click to expand...

What ever it is it certainly doesn't provide any evidence of the inside job fantasy he promotes.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am a co-author of a paper published in a professional journal on the subject of analysis of the collapse of the WTC North Tower, so what you are saying has no merit.
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with your claims regarding WTC 7?

Also, I do not consider Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a professional journal.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
And what does this have to do with your claims regarding WTC 7?

Also, I do not consider Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a professional journal.
Click to expand...

The paper about the North Tower (which is very closely related to WTC 7), that I was a co-author on, was published in the International Journal of Protective Structures. You have been making broad statements that people like me don't publish our findings and my point was made to show you aren't correct there.

By the way, where have you been published?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
In after thought, I think the one he's referring to is the one that's fatal to his "missing jolt'. ;)
Click to expand...

From what I see in your comments I don't think you can even explain this assertion of yours. Can you?

Otherwise, it sounds like you are parroting something you heard, which had no merit either, but you don't seem to be able to understand enough to know that.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You and your fellow NIST apologists can't show how the girder could fall off its seats no matter how much heating occurred, so it isn't a pristine condition we are discussing here in any way.
Click to expand...


LMAO - "pristine conditions" is the only way you can make your claim of no walk off. The real world knows pristine conditions did not exist. Troofer cointinue to believe such nonsense.

The temperature of the girder between Columns 76 and 79 on Floor 13 was sufficient to displace Column 76 to the west and Column 79to the east
(pg 527 NIST NCSTAR 1-9)
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The paper about the North Tower (which is very closely related to WTC 7), that I was a co-author on, was published in the International Journal of Protective Structures. You have been making broad statements that people like me don't publish our findings and my point was made to show you aren't correct there.

By the way, where have you been published?
Click to expand...

Care to link us to some articles from your peers that discuss this "paper"? Their reactions, their (unlikely) corrections or criticism?
 
I take umbrage at the notion that the North Tower is "very closely related to WTC 7". The two buildings are night and day in their construction and their collapses were driven by entirely different mechanisms. The only thing similar between the two is in the fundamental root cause: Fire + Damage. How can you even compare the two, outside of that?
 
thedopefishlives said:
I take umbrage at the notion that the North Tower is "very closely related to WTC 7". The two buildings are night and day in their construction and their collapses were driven by entirely different mechanisms. The only thing similar between the two is in the fundamental root cause: Fire + Damage. How can you even compare the two, outside of that?
Click to expand...

They are very closely related in that they were both steel structures alleged to have collapsed in a natural way initially due to a fire related instigation.

However, neither decelerates during their measureable falls which is always observed in the natural structural collapses of buildings instigated using the Verinage technique.

A natural collapse requires deceleration to impart a dynamic load whereas an artificially continued collapse does not have to decelerate.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Already been done. Do you need me to resurrect the threads here and at the 9/11 forum?

Your internet foot print is easy to follow.

ETA: Here's one.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-paper-by-szuladzinski-szamboti-and-johns-t706.html
Click to expand...

No, you felt like a big enough boy to make a negative but unsupported comment, so let's see if you can stand on your own two feet and back it up by explaining what you said in your own words, rather than your just parroting what you see others say. I want to see if you even understand what you are saying here, as I doubt you do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom