+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis (/thread-11027.html)
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 24-08-2013
I did find another e-mail from a week earlier on Jan. 26, 2013 to your alter ego e-mail address JSanderO, so you should look there before calling anyone a liar. In it I do use some numbers and I had even sent you a sketch about it showing why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I also talk about the prying loads, which are even worse at the connection to the perimeter and would fail before the beam itself which is all I mentioned in my earlier post here.
Jeffrey,
If you noticed I also included a little sketch showing what the outrigger orientation would need to be to take the moments on them generated at the perimeter if they were to take the core gravity load.
I also did a calculation which shows the outriggers would have needed to use 17 foot deep 24 inch wide flange I-beams with heavy flanges and webs to just take these bending loads with no factor of safety.
However, it is the prying loads on the perimeter connections, which would ultimately govern the design. They would be very severe and would require each outrigger being fastened to an item which could take a lateral load of about 8 million lbs. for a 17 foot deep connection fastened at top and bottom. This would be 32 million lbs. per perimeter wall since there were four outriggers per wall. Of course, the lateral load requirement could be lowered if the depth was increased. For example, a 34 foot deep connection would need to be able to withstand a 4 million lb. lateral load, a 68 foot connection a 2 million lb. lateral load etc.. This tells you why 12 stories of core vertical loads could not be transmitted to the perimeter by the hat truss.
I used the moment involved of 1.8 billion in-lbs./outrigger and a yield stress of 36 ksi.
Tony
Of course, I didn't just start sending you information at two different e-mail addresses. You contacted me that way.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 24-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I did find another e-mail from a week earlier on Jan. 26, 2013 to your alter ego e-mail address JSanderO, so you should look there before calling anyone a liar. In it I do use some numbers and I had even sent you a sketch about it showing why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I also talk about the prying loads, which are even worse at the connection to the perimeter and would fail before the beam itself which is all I mentioned in my earlier post here.
Jeffrey,
If you noticed I also included a little sketch showing what the outrigger orientation would need to be to take the moments on them generated at the perimeter if they were to take the core gravity load.
I also did a calculation which shows the outriggers would have needed to use 17 foot deep 24 inch wide flange I-beams with heavy flanges and webs to just take these bending loads with no factor of safety.
However, it is the prying loads on the perimeter connections, which would ultimately govern the design. They would be very severe and would require each outrigger being fastened to an item which could take a lateral load of about 8 million lbs. for a 17 foot deep connection fastened at top and bottom. This would be 32 million lbs. per perimeter wall since there were four outriggers per wall. Of course, the lateral load requirement could be lowered if the depth was increased. For example, a 34 foot deep connection would need to be able to withstand a 4 million lb. lateral load, a 68 foot connection a 2 million lb. lateral load etc.. This tells you why 12 stories of core vertical loads could not be transmitted to the perimeter by the hat truss.
I used the moment involved of 1.8 billion in-lbs./outrigger and a yield stress of 36 ksi.
Tony
Of course, I didn't just start sending you information at two different e-mail addresses. You contacted me that way.
All made up out of whole cloth...
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 24-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I would agree with others here that Jeffrey should be on moderation, as his answers and the information he provides show him to be either extraordinarily incompetent or dishonest. Just the simple fact that he insists that four outriggers per wall could transmit a load that then buckled 59 exterior columns per wall should tell one that his theory is nonsensical, yet he insists on it, but is unable to back it up with analysis. Of course, when an actual analysis is done it shows his theory to be nonsense.Tony Szamboti Wrote:I did find another e-mail from a week earlier on Jan. 26, 2013 to your alter ego e-mail address JSanderO, so you should look there before calling anyone a liar. In it I do use some numbers and I had even sent you a sketch about it showing why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I also talk about the prying loads, which are even worse at the connection to the perimeter and would fail before the beam itself which is all I mentioned in my earlier post here.
Jeffrey,
If you noticed I also included a little sketch showing what the outrigger orientation would need to be to take the moments on them generated at the perimeter if they were to take the core gravity load.
I also did a calculation which shows the outriggers would have needed to use 17 foot deep 24 inch wide flange I-beams with heavy flanges and webs to just take these bending loads with no factor of safety.
However, it is the prying loads on the perimeter connections, which would ultimately govern the design. They would be very severe and would require each outrigger being fastened to an item which could take a lateral load of about 8 million lbs. for a 17 foot deep connection fastened at top and bottom. This would be 32 million lbs. per perimeter wall since there were four outriggers per wall. Of course, the lateral load requirement could be lowered if the depth was increased. For example, a 34 foot deep connection would need to be able to withstand a 4 million lb. lateral load, a 68 foot connection a 2 million lb. lateral load etc.. This tells you why 12 stories of core vertical loads could not be transmitted to the perimeter by the hat truss.
I used the moment involved of 1.8 billion in-lbs./outrigger and a yield stress of 36 ksi.
Tony
Of course, I didn't just start sending you information at two different e-mail addresses. You contacted me that way.
All made up out of whole cloth...
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Phil Dragoo - 24-08-2013
With apologies to Dr. Seuss:
Jeffrey Orling at 515:
When the core columns at floors 93-5 lost their ability to carry load the columns above would be hangin (in tension) from the hatt truss. This meant that instead of the loads bearning DOWN.. they were being HUNG from the hat truss.
Tony Szamboti at 523:
Jeffrey, when the core load is applied to one side of the hat truss over the arm of the A-frames that generates a bending moment in the A-frames which they could not take. They would fail as soon as that load was applied. The connection at the perimeter side could not take the shear load either.
Regarding the location and extent of damage, Tony Szamboti:
The failure was not over three stories it was at the 98th floor and went across the building on that floor in a 250 millisecond time frame. In my opinion, it would be nothing short of magic if this was a natural event.
Regarding the strength of the hat truss in relation to the role ascribed to it by Jeffrey Orling, Tony Szamboti submits calculations above:
The 12 story upper section of the North Tower weighed about 73 million lbs. and the core load would have been about half of that at 36.5 million lbs.. So if we have 16 outrigger A-frames you are proposing that they could take 2,281,250 lbs each and the longer distance 60 foot span outriggers would have a moment of 2,281,250 lbs. x 60 feet = 136,875,000 ft-lbs. or 1,642,500,000 in-lbs. of torque applied to them trying to bend them. That is 1.6425 billion in-lbs. of torque in case you don't quite follow.
The maximum yield stress of the medium grade steel which would have been used is about 50,000 psi. Since bending stress = MC/I, lets see how deep a 2 foot wide solid rectangular beam we would need to be to take the load you are saying the outriggers could take
50,000 psi = (1,642,500,000 in-lbs. x depth/2) / (1/12 x 24 x depth ^3) and we can get depth by itself as
50,000 psi = (1,642.500,00 in-lbs. x depth/2) /(2 x depth^3) = (821,250,000 x depth) / (2 x depth^3) = 410,625,000/depth^2 so
depth = sq. root [410,625,000/50,000] = sq. root [8212.5] = 90 inches.
That is a 7.5 foot deep x 2 foot wide solid beam and you would need 16 of these to transfer the core load to the perimeter. The beams themselves would weigh nearly half a million lbs., and I didn't consider the self weight in the calculation. The A-frame outriggers were 3 stories tall (36 feet) but they were far from solid and were never meant for the kind of bending stress dumping the core on them would apply. Those outriggers could not take the bending you want to impose on them and in reality they failed before they ever transferred the core load to the perimeter, as we can see with the antenna coming down before the roofline. The roofline then came down because the core pulled the perimeter inward where it was falling at the 98th floor. Your theory doesn't explain why the perimeters would fail at the 98th floor either.
With a 4 inch thick web I-beam (which would be an enormously thick web) the depth would need to be 222 inches or 18.5 feet deep. A 3 inch thick web I-beam would need to be 256 inches or 21.3 feet deep to take the bending stress you want to put on them and that is just barely taking it with no margin. If you had a 1.5 margin the 4 inch web would need to be 272 inches or 22.67 feet deep and a 3 inch web with a 1.5 margin would need to be 314 inches or 26.17 feet deep. These are solid I-beams which the outriggers certainly were not. The outriggers could not have been able to take even half the stress imposed by the core load on them with their fulcrum at the perimeter. Additionally, these beams I am talking about would be full height or depth across the full span. The maximum stress would have been at the perimeter side and the A-frames tapered to about 2 foot deep beams at that point. The bending resistance is a function of the depth cubed so a 2 foot deep beam is about 64 times weaker in bending than an 8 foot deep beam. The outriggers were designed to transmit antenna wind loads out to the perimeter and would have worked fine in that capacity.
The video supports this 98th floor failure in rapid order, while the calculations eliminate the participation of the hat truss in a 93-95 floor core failure--itself not explained: as the required heat was not present to weaken the steel, and the few elements of the aircraft are not of adequate size or number to suffice.
Hence, the continuing probability of demolition charges supplants the theory of a mythically strong hat truss reacting to mythic damage at lower cores.
That Jeffrey responds with repeated accusations of Tony lying or making up emails to the contrary notwithstanding.
Controlled demolition persists as the likely cause of collapse in view of absence of heat and demonstration by calculation.
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 24-08-2013
Phil Dragoo Wrote:
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.
The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.
Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.
With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.
The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.
If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.
If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 24-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.
The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.
Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.
With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.
The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.
If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.
If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.
Interestingly, your default explanation is the present official story.
Unfortunately, it does not explain
- the rapid horizontal propagation across the 98th floor of the North Tower.
- why NIST did not have evidence of high steel temperatures.
- why the columns were not involved in the resistance to the first several stories of the collapse.
and these issues are established facts, not just assertions by me.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Charles Drago - 24-08-2013
It's all so familiar ...
This "debate" has just about reached a point of diminishing returns similar to that reached by the JFK assassination conspiracy/LN "debate".
The Facilitators responsible for maintaining the JFK cover-up do not wish to win the LN "argument," but only to prolong it indefinitely -- and with it, the uncertainty upon which minority control of an overwhelming majority depends.
Orling, with his essential LIHOP/MIHOP distinction-without-a-difference, presents a classic limited hang-out -- one that has the effects of factionalizing the 9-11 research community and driving it into endless internecine conflict.
Szamboti nobly shreds Orling over and over again. Orling could not be happier about it.
Why?
Because their back-and-forth extends a faux "debate" that in fact was settled years ago.
And let's not lose sight of Orling's latest give-away of what in my constitutionally protected opinion is his deep political agenda: his warm endorsement of "Albert Doyle's" nonsensical if near-eloquent "scientific analyses" offered in support of the Orling fiction.
Facilitators of the JFK cover-up are not allowed to post on DPF -- in theory and almost always in practice.
When will this prohibition be broadened to include Facilitators of the 9-11 cover-up?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 24-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.
The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.
Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.
With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.
The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.
If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.
If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.
Interestingly, your default explanation is the present official story.
Unfortunately, it does not explain
- the rapid horizontal propagation across the 98th floor of the North Tower.
- why NIST did not have evidence of high steel temperatures.
- why the columns were not involved in the resistance to the first several stories of the collapse.
and these issues are established facts, not just assertions by me.
blah blah blah... enjoy your 15 min...
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 25-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:The referenced thread was a debate and discussion... including the author Tony Szamboti. The debunkers were several posters only a few of which I know from the 9/11FreeForum, including the guy who is a working physicst and runs the 911FF. Tony is a 911FF member but doesn't post there any more... He kinda got roasted over his last paper... The Missing Jolt. He's not a glutton for punishment and didn't expect the same at JREF... but he appears to have gotten his proverbaial ass handed to him over this paper.
I report... you decide. But you have to read to know. Odd how that works.
I think this thread shows who actually has had the experience of having their proverbial ass handed to them Jeffrey, and it is not the one who can back their comments with analysis. This is something you and your ilk can't do because what you say is nothing but a mirage and not what actually happened or even could have happened.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 25-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I think this thread shows who actually has had the experience of having their proverbial ass handed to them Jeffrey, and it is not the one who can back their comments with analysis. This is something you and your ilk can't do because what you say is nothing but a mirage and not what actually happened or even could have happened.
Whatever you say... You run away when challenged... I've seen this on several forums. Have a blast... you're able to do your dog and pong show here and they are eating up.