What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...
You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?
I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.
We have no idea if the people on the JREF and 911 Forums actually are physicists and engineers like you want to say, as they are all anonymous. That means you can't know either. Regardless of what they are it is a joke that you would say they debunked my work and of course you provide no basis for that, just links to long winded nonsensical threads. No surprise there.
It is talk like this that truly exposes your bias Jeffrey and when you behave like that you become deserving of ridicule.
I have to agree about the JREF forums and much of the 911 forums. Very dodgy. So moving from the forums what about the academic journals?
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...
You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?
I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.
We have no idea if the people on the JREF and 911 Forums actually are physicists and engineers like you want to say, as they are all anonymous. That means you can't know either. Regardless of what they are it is a joke that you would say they debunked my work and of course you provide no basis for that, just links to long winded nonsensical threads. No surprise there.
It is talk like this that truly exposes your bias Jeffrey and when you behave like that you become deserving of ridicule.
I have to agree about the JREF forums and much of the 911 forums. Very dodgy. So moving from the forums what about the academic journals?
Not one of the people Jeffrey seems to regard so highly has published anything anywhere except as an anonymous person on the Internet. Dodgy is an appropriate word for them and I regret to say for our friend Jeffrey also.
Quote:Somebody was being nice by just saying your diagrams and sketches were deeply flawed, as it is becoming apparent that they are really an attempt at a con job.
Actually, I said or meant to say his entire argument is deeply flawed after I had spent hours reading his stuff and looking at his diagrams. Not having credentials in the area I would not be qualified to say his diagrams en toto are deeply flawed.
However, I did zero in on his Top Down Cartoon because that one seemed to be central in explaining his ideas around a natural collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Recall I proposed a thought experiment in which the core columns were instantly removed from one floor of the building. I wanted to tease out what if anything would cause a cascading collapse. Your answers were central. You said that a such a collapse could happen if core columns from 5 floors would indeed cause such a collapse, but not just one. Tony's point is that something has to explain the downward measured acceleration of 5.1 m/sec^2. Slowly weakening columns from exposure to low heat fires just can't explain it. I catastrophic, cascading collapse without extra help can't happen.
That's the read of a non-engineer interpreting two conflicting POV from two different professionals. If fact, Jeffrey's argument just seems bizarre -- and those are stronger words than deeply flawed. I have written earlier that the building 7 collapse is the strongest evidence for CD and therefore CD in WTC 1 & 2. Now even without the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, there is still a strong argument for CD in WTC 1 & 2.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Tony, you seem to have forgotten our own Albert Doyle. This was his first contribution before he realized you were too cowardly to face the onslought of his powerful intellect.
Quote:Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.
And Jeffrey annointed him as one who had really gotten the point.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Tony Szamboti. Feb. 17, 2008. Mechanical Engineer.
(pdf attached)
Phil's note:
I found the concise summary of problems with the official theory of collapse to be presented in a manner leading to a) discovering the actual cause; and b) examining the method and motives of the event.
The paper in its entirety is eleven pages with notes, and is recommended as a complete summation of the official fable versus the known:
Here is a series of excerpts:
It was the revelation of the presence of large quantities of molten metal, in the rubble of all three buildings which collapsed in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, which caused Dr. Jones in 2005 to begin to question whether the present U.S. government explanation, for the collapses, was sufficient. It is provable that the molten metal in the rubble was not aluminum and that diffuse flame fires cannot achieve temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Steel can only be melted in the controlled environment of a blast furnace, with the use of incendiaries, an electric arc welder, or an oxy-acetylene torch. The amount of metal melted with an electric arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch is small and does not produce large pools of molten metal.
There is very credible witness testimony of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, in many areas of the towers, both before and during the collapses. This testimony can be found in the Oral Histories of the 503 NYC firefighters and emergency personnel, who were on the scene that day and survived. Their testimony was taken and transcribed in late 2001 and early 2002 by order of the NYC fire commissioner. However, afterward the mayor of NYC repeatedly refused to release these testimonies to the public. They were only released due to a court order from the New York State Court of Appeals in August of 2005, after earlier court challenges had failed to gain their release. Amazingly, in spite of the existence of this testimony, there was no testing done for explosive residue on the steel structural elements during either the NIST or FEMA investigations of the building collapses. An article by Dr. David Ray Griffin discussing and quoting these Oral Histories can be found at
The fact that fires have never in history caused a complete vertical collapse of a steel framed high rise structure, let alone any built as robustly as the twin towers, has been amply documented.
~~~
Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering magazine in 2002 that: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the official Investigation' blessed by FEMA... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure... Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers....".
~~~
It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging. It is interesting that neither the NIST press release or report seem to concern themselves with the fire testing of the floor deck and supporting truss assembly models, done under contract for them by Underwriters Laboratories. Full scale models of the floor deck and supporting truss assemblies were fire tested, under load, for two hours per ASTM E119. These tests did not produce a collapse and the 35 foot long trusses sagged just 3 inches at midspan, not likely enough to buckle the perimeter wall columns. In fact, NIST needed a non-evidence supported floor truss deflection of over 40 inches in their computer model to cause buckling of the perimeter columns. The central core columns great mass gave them a large heat capacity, and their interconnection gave them the ability to transfer heat to other areas of the building. The lack of high temperature evidence on the core columns is a testament to these points. These factors would have certainly made them even less susceptible to weakening than the floor trusses.
~~~
The downward movement of the antenna mast, before the perimeter roofline, certainly makes it appear that the central core failed first and that it's failure is what caused the floor trusses to move downward and pull on the perimeter columns, causing them in turn to bow inwardly, buckle, and fail. The central core needed to have a loss of 67% of its original strength before any collapse initiation could begin to occur, and even then it could not be sudden, due to the strain hardening of the steel which would take place after initial yielding.10 Since the evidence for column damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, cannot account for more than a 20% loss of strength in the central core, it does not appear any collapse initiation, let alone a sudden initiation, can be accounted for without some form of artificial weakening process or controlled demolition being involved. By demolishing the central core, the destruction of the building could also be done with the added advantage of the demolition being mostly hidden from view.
It would seem that any honest and objective look at; the design of the buildings, the true damage potential of the aircraft impacts, the physical evidence of the low steel temperatures, the physics of the collapses, the evidence of pools of molten metal in the rubble, and the emergency personnel testimony, should cause one to conclude that the towers must have been destroyed by a form of controlled demolition. In addition to what has been mentioned so far, there is also evidence of the presence of incendiaries, in the chemical analysis of the dust from an apartment and other locations near the towers, which have been analyzed by Dr. Jones and others.
~~~
The spectacular collapses of the twin towers, which were most probably caused by controlled demolitions, shocked us all, and caused us to demand action against the foreign entities that we were told supported the hijackers. However, the placing of charges, to cause the controlled demolitions, would have required access to the interiors of the buildings, which outsiders were very unlikely to have had in highly secure buildings such as the towers and WTC7. It thus needs to be considered as to whether it is conceivable that the aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses, to allow the collapses to be blamed on outsiders.
If it were insiders who placed and detonated the charges in the buildings, one may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn't do it. It seems that a good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, and the privatization of Iraq's oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be astart at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.
~~~
Phil's footnote:
The above linked and excerpted paper by Tony Szamboti presents a compelling refutation of the official explanation and a powerful argument for controlled demolition as the only means to initiate the collapse.
23-08-2013, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2013, 01:37 PM by Tony Szamboti.)
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony, you seem to have forgotten our own Albert Doyle. This was his first contribution before he realized you were too cowardly to face the onslought of his powerful intellect.
Quote:Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.
And Jeffrey annointed him as one who had really gotten the point.
Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.
In the meantime, Jeffrey claims it is others at AE911Truth etc. who are not objective. I think it is a general technique of the trade called projecting, where the propagandist publicly claims their adversary is doing what the propagandist is actually guilty of, and in a sense beating their adversaries to the punch.
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony, you seem to have forgotten our own Albert Doyle. This was his first contribution before he realized you were too cowardly to face the onslought of his powerful intellect.
Quote:Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.
And Jeffrey annointed him as one who had really gotten the point.
Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.
One cannot overestimate the value of this deep political insight.
There's no greater travesty than mocking a very credible analysis because you don't understand it and then attributing false claims of Sunstein op to it when that person is wrongfully restrained from defending themselves. I could defend what I wrote there, but alas some people find it easier to censor it and mock it. It is really quite credible, as were my dust blast analyses.
Quote:Somebody was being nice by just saying your diagrams and sketches were deeply flawed, as it is becoming apparent that they are really an attempt at a con job.
Actually, I said or meant to say his entire argument is deeply flawed after I had spent hours reading his stuff and looking at his diagrams. Not having credentials in the area I would not be qualified to say his diagrams en toto are deeply flawed.
However, I did zero in on his Top Down Cartoon because that one seemed to be central in explaining his ideas around a natural collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Recall I proposed a thought experiment in which the core columns were instantly removed from one floor of the building. I wanted to tease out what if anything would cause a cascading collapse. Your answers were central. You said that a such a collapse could happen if core columns from 5 floors would indeed cause such a collapse, but not just one. Tony's point is that something has to explain the downward measured acceleration of 5.1 m/sec^2. Slowly weakening columns from exposure to low heat fires just can't explain it. I catastrophic, cascading collapse without extra help can't happen.
That's the read of a non-engineer interpreting two conflicting POV from two different professionals. If fact, Jeffrey's argument just seems bizarre -- and those are stronger words than deeply flawed. I have written earlier that the building 7 collapse is the strongest evidence for CD and therefore CD in WTC 1 & 2. Now even without the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, there is still a strong argument for CD in WTC 1 & 2.
Lauren,
I don't have the time to explain to you what you are clearly incapable of understanding. The top drop sketch sequence was a 1D sequence and was not intended to be represent exactly WHAT happened but suggest a possible sequence... depending of course on actual data inputs. There are no values in the diagrams. The drawing is simply a way to conceptualize what COULD have happened.
Any definitive explanation has to be linked to the actual obervations and data and the physics and engineering as it applies. I don't have that data nor the facility to do the math... and I make no pretense that I do. 911FF have produced the most reliable observations and data and the analysis to go along with it. Tony is making stuff up... and using some math to make it seem like it's a proof of something. He's fooled you but not most physicists and engineers.
There is a lot of garbage published... publishing garbage is not proof of anything.
The motion has been explained.. go read the explanations.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.
In the meantime, Jeffrey claims it is others at AE911Truth etc. who are not objective. I think it is a general technique of the trade called projecting, where the propagandist publicly claims their adversary is doing what the propagandist is actually guilty of, and in a sense beating their adversaries to the punch.
Tony,
Keep making the claims that I have an agenda, that I am an agent for some group sent to destroy the truth movement, that I work for the NWO or whomever you think is behind 9/11
AND YOU LOOK LIKE A PARANOID IDIOT
I don't think Paul Zarembka shares your belief. I count him as a personal friend. He has stayed in my home and he is a truther.
P[size=12]LEASE KEEP UP TH[size=12]E AD H[size=12]OMS[size=12].... [size=12]IT[size=12]'S WHAT PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY CAN'T ARGUE THE FACTS OR DEFEND THEI[size=12]R OWN STATEMENTS.
Y[size=12]OU ARE NOW JOINING THE R[size=12]ANKS OF FETZE[size=12]R. HE USE[size=12]S THE SAME TECHNIQUES.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
