08-08-2013, 10:31 AM
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.
You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.
Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.
"
Summary of my "Discussion" with Tony
14/7
Presentation of motion over 9s prior to release.
Presentation of significant "jolt".
Presentation of data highlighting magnitude of "jolt" Tony's abysmal methods would miss.
15/7
Tony's acceptance of "tilt", though with later repeated and deliberate misinterpretation of the data source.
Presentation of errors in Tony's latest paper.
Tony's acceptance that clean column ends would never collide.
Presentation of to-scale diagram of (really skinny) core column dimensions.
Presentation of tilt data showing Tony's value to be false.
17/7
Presentation of energy required to sever OOS floor structure from perimeter and core.
Request to take early motion, tilt, identified "jolt", perimeter "unzipping", visible misalignment of perimeter columns and relatively tiny core column dimensions onboard.
Presentation of 0.2px Sauret footage displacement for thickest core column misalignment.
Presentation of accurate per-floor masses. (spreadsheet)
Repeated request to Tony to include identified additional factors.
20/7
Presentation of 14 (unanswered) questions.
Query (ignored) of horizontal propogation timing.
Presentation of NW corner velocity plot, showing non-smooth motion history.
Presentation of ROOSD propogation requirements.
Presentation of 14 (ignored) questions.
21.7
Presentation of external material refuting Tony's claims relating to inertia.
Presentation of issues with Tony's motion history data.
Presentation of confirmation of Bazant's data aquisition methods (a ruler stuck on the monitor).
Refudation of false trace data assertions by David Chandler.
21/7
Re-presentation of non-smooth motion history data, identified "jolt" data, early motion data, and 11 (ignored) questions.
22/7
Presentation of additional external comment relating to inertia.
Presentation of refutement to Tony's claim that "jolt" prior to 12ft descent of roofline is impossible.
Re-presentation of external inertia information.
Presentation of accurate storey masses.
Birth of Tony's "24 outer column removal" theory.
Presentation of imagery representing Tony's belief about column buckle mode, and acceptance of such by Tony.
23/7
Questions leading to embellishment of Tony's "24 column" theory.
Questions (ignored) fatal to Tony's new (and old) theory.
Presentation of fatal flaws borne from Tony's new theory.
Presentation of fragility of abstract virtual models.
24/7
Birth of Tony's "24 column removal" causes "perimeter pull-in" theory.
Presentation of imagery showing perimeter "unzipping" along bolted seams.
25/7
Presentation of trace data accuracy details.
27/7
Tony continues to demonstrate he cannot interpret simple graphs.
28/7
Presentation of some summary details.
Tony's "pull-in" theory reiterated.
Further summary of implications for Tony's papers.
Repost of sensitivity of virtual models.
Presentation of imagery highlighting tilt+descent.
Tony declares distance from trace point affects "jolt" magnitude.
Presentation of correct NW corner to South face distance.
Tony demonstrates his inavility to think beyond 1D.
29/7
Presentation of correct Roofline to 98th floor measurement.
Presentation of proof of Tony's dataset source, and proof of him altering it.
Request for response to Bazant critique.
Presentation of acceleration plot from actual Tony data., refuting "constant acceleration" claim.
Presentation of original David Chandler Trace Data.
30/7
Another summary with extensive uestions (ignored)
31/7
Request to explain real-world inward bowing.
3/8
Tony demonstrates his level of professional integrity.
4/8
More ignored questions.
Presentation of animation depicting the Tony "pull-in" mechanism. and request to provide drop/pull-in values.
and:
1) Inertia is mentioned only in "6." wrapped in a false assumption that the "upper section" was static prior to release. The word Placticity is not contained in the main body of the paper.
2) Tony has demonstrated he had no idea about the real-world motion of the building, and clearly was in no position to "correct" any "assumptions related to the beginning of downward motion". He has now accepted "tilt" and "perimeter unzipping", and really should be accepting higher quality motion data, and its derivatives.
3) Whilst it is fairly clear the paper highlights errors in the Bazant and co. calculations, extrapolating to "conclusions" is over-reaching.
interested persons can find a discussion and critique of Tony's theories and erroneous conclusions at the links previously provided.
You decide.