Thanks.
Yes I was just wondering hypothetically what engineering issues would need to be proven/disproven by both sides if Tony's missing jolt were valid.
The situation CANNOT arise for reasons given many times over recent years. THEREFORE there are no valid engineering questions which can arise in a legitimate scenario.
Sure there can be a wide range of engineering speculations but they must all fail if followed through with full logical reasoning - because the scenario under discussion could not arise.
Put simply - IF "Missing Jolt" was valid we would need to rebuild from scratch most of our understanding of the applied physics of structural engineering. The errors/confusions are not in the physics - they are in the minds of those trying to apply the principles.
- alignment of the columns at the time of collapse initiation.
That is the key area where Tony's claim is wrong and it is an area where many - both "truthers" and "debunkers" - are confused.
The confusion is over sequence or timing. It is NOT "alignment at the time of collapse initiation"
The scenario for missing jolt has ALL of the "top block" falling to make axial contact impact of ALL columns. So it is AFTER collapse initiation. Hence one cause of the confusion - no one clear about what stage of mechanism they are discussing. And it is not the real scene - it is the Bazant fantasy scene used to set up the "limit case" neither of which happened - the "limit case" did not occur - "ROOSD plus" did. And the fantasy initiation did not occur - initiation was a heat triggered sequential cascading failure of columns.
Your next comment is theoretically correct:
- "jolt" only possible if there was a separation between upper and lower column portions. THAT can only happen IF there was a section of those columns removed(ie. 'jolt' possible IF explosives used. No jolt = no explosives),
Theoretically correct IF it was possible to remove all columns in that manner. I doubt that such use of explosives would be possible under any circumstances and it certainly wasn't done at WTC on 9/11.
And we don't have to prove my assertion because it is only speculating about the possibility of setting up the Bazant Limit Case scenario. We are discussing the real event and need to make sure we don't keep switching scenarios - real to Bazant fantasy. (Or "mixing and matching".)
However that was the silly conclusion T Sz draws from "Missing Jolt" - since
he cannot explain it without explosives == therefore
explosives must have been used. Tony's limited comprehension of a complex engineering mechanism is NOT proof of CD - it merely proves his limited comprehension AND his dishonest refusal to address reasoned explanations posted by me and others.
or if buckling column 'kness' align.
That is a more complicated issue. Remember that it is a scenario for a single column which only occurs AFTER that specific column has taken its step in the cascade sequence. Which is specifically a "real event" scenario and therefore cannot be a contribution to the "Missing Jolt" scenario which was Bazant limit case fantasy.
Put simply IF such a scenario did arise - in the real event - it is only one column and the total available energy will simply re-buckle the already failed column. One of those "mini-jolts" which the supporters of Szamboti try to put into discussion. "Missing Jolt" was about one massive big jolt which Bazant legitimately identified as the premise for the limit case.
We need to keep avoiding the temptation to switch back from the real event into the Bazant fantasy - or Tony's bastardised version of Bazant to be more pedantic.
