Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Heiwa]

This is complete and utter rubbish and invalids anything else you post. The top part did not implode,it disappeared behind the cloud dust. The weight was then funnelled down the inside of the external columns onto the floor trusses.The floors cannot stop this weight and fail, the external columns are then no longer braced to the core by the floors so they simply fall away. As more and more floors fail more and more of the external columns fall away, leaving guess what? The core. The reason the floor line appears to remain intact is because the massive dynamic weight is broken up and then carries on down, inside the towers, smashing the floors as it meets them. Your absurd assertion that it imploded in mid air is ridiculous and frankly the most stupid theory I have ever seen.

The collapse was nothing like two ships colliding. When two ships collide, gravity is not involved. When a massive dynamic weight falls on floors that cannot arrest it, it will continue under the pull of gravity until it meets something that can arrest it. In this case the only thing that could stop this massive weight not only falling but gaining mass as it smashed through the floor trusses was the ground.

I normally clear my ignore list now and again. You will be pleased to know you are the first back on it. Nonsense like yours is best ignored. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

End of derail , sorry folks, welcome back to ignore, Heiwa

Well, if you look carefully on the video, the roof line displaces 33 meters down during 3.17 seconds and there is no destruction taking place below floor 98! Only conclusion is that the upper part implodes.

IF there is a collision/impact it can only be between columns/floors, NOT columns/columns. You are right that the floors cannot stop the columns so the columns of the lower structure should destroy the floors of the upper part - but it does not happen! The floors of the upper part seems to have disappeared before that!

NIST has two suggestions; on the one hand the upper part is a rigid box that crushes the structure below, on the other hand the upper part is not rigid and 10 floors of the upper part drop down and overload the top floor of the lower structure. In the latter case, the columns are not affected at all.

The collapse has everything to do with two ships colliding. Two structural assemblies contact and cause local failures to each other. And the momentum, energy and force involved in the WTC1 destruction are much less than at serious ships' collisions. Regardless, you have to check where the force and momentum are applied and what failures are caused by the energy available. Evidently the upper part of WTC1 would have been seriously damaged or destroyed first, IF a collision took place. And a destroyed upper part cannot drive a collapse.

It's like bouncing a ball on a floor! If the floor destroy the ball, well, that's it! The ball does not bounce any more!

The MacQueen/Szamboti paper is excellent. It explains really what happens 3.17 seconds prior any destruction of the WTC1 below floor 93 incl. the fact that no jolt occurs = no collision of any type takes place.

You know, when ships collide, you feel it as a jolt! Same when a ship is subject to a wave impact. BANG - you feel (and hear) it. Basic physics at work.

 

[Brainster]

This is true no matter how much you reinforce the base below the can. Similarly, the WTC Towers collapses really do hit only one floor at a time. Really. The individual floors push down at their yield strength, and that's it. That yield strength, as Bazant & Zhou demonstrate, is simply not enough at any time to stop the collapse. So the individual floor fails, the debris falls some more, picks up speed, and it all happens again. Except it happens more or less continuously. It isn't completely flat.

I suspect also that the exterior walls of the building were unzipping from the towers and being forced outward at the same time; hence the columns and spandrels found hundreds of feet from the towers.

 

[funk de fino]

NIST has two suggestions; on the one hand the upper part is a rigid box that crushes the structure below, on the other hand the upper part is not rigid and 10 floors of the upper part drop down and overload the top floor of the lower structure. In the latter case, the columns are not affected at all.

You're a liar. NIST say that the wight dropped from above was too much for the floors to support so the connections failed. Please prove them wrong if you can and stop with the lies.

Szamboti barely makes more sense than you sometimes.

 

[dtugg]

You're a liar. NIST say that the wight dropped from above was too much for the floors to support so the connections failed. Please prove them wrong if you can and stop with the lies.

Szamboti barely makes more sense than you sometimes.

You have to understand that it is insane. Or a very clever troll. Or both.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not quite sure what you're rambling on about in your rant, but the primary question the paper is addressing is how did the rigid upper block separate itself entirely from the lower portion of the building and then crush everything below it, maintaining freefall speed?

If you honestly believe that's the primary question the paper's addressing, then either you haven't read the paper, or you're not capable of understanding it. The primary question the paper is addressing is, is there any measurable change in acceleration of the upper block at the instant of the first floor-on-floor impact? The answer given in the paper is that there is not. The answer given in this thread is that the data resolution is too poor to determine whether there is or is not, and that in any case the concept of an instant at which the first floor-on-floor impact occurs is derived from an oversimplified interpretation of a deliberately simplified model.

As for your use of the phrase "maintaining freefall speed", please tell me you're joking, because everyone's laughing.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

You're a liar. NIST say that the wight dropped from above was too much for the floors to support so the connections failed. Please prove them wrong if you can and stop with the lies.

Szamboti barely makes more sense than you sometimes.

The problem is that the 'weight' of the roof line drops 33 meters during 3.17 seconds, while there is no damage to floor 93 and structure below floor 93.

According my calculations - see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm - the roof line displaces at virtually constant acceleration 0.75 g, while there is no effects to the structure below floor 93.

NIST does not even bother to calculate any weight dropped from above so NIST has no clue how much (potential) energy is involved in the alleged 'drop'.

But it is not much depending on assumptions; say it is 1.2 GJ (assuming a solid, rigid, block of uniform density, etc) Say that it is applied on 4000 m² uniformly and you find that it cannot do much harm, particularly not breaking 280+ columns in 10 meter bits throwing them sideways, etc.

NIST suggest that 1.2GJ is sufficient to initiate a global collapse of 350 meters of WTC1. I say it will just cause the dropped 'weight' to bounce on top of the 350 meters structure.

It should be quite easy to find out who is right, don't you agree?

How to find out? Well, use the experience from ships' collisions. Sometiimes they bounce, sometimes they produce structural failures. It is quite easy to do the calculations.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It should be quite easy to find out who is right, don't you agree?

Yes, it should, and it's not your expertise either (and you clearly haven't studied much enough to understand it w/out being in professional practice). I've been here for 7 months and your expertise may well lie in ship engineering, however it is clearly insufficient for tall building design.

How to find out? Well, use the experience from ships' collisions. Sometiimes they bounce, sometimes they produce structural failures. It is quite easy to do the calculations.

And ships are not tall structures, they are water vessels intended for a multitude of purposes including transportation, and others. They're designed to be buoyant in water, not to support itself on land in a vertical position. "Collisions" between ships are not the same as what you apparently refer to as "collisions between buildings." That cannot be stressed enough to you, however, if you're still assuming this after a year and a half on this forum, I'm sure this has been stated to you hundreds of times...

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, it should, and it's not your expertise either (and you clearly haven't studied much enough to understand it w/out being in professional practice). I've been here for 7 months and your expertise may well lie in ship engineering, however it is clearly insufficient for tall building design.


And ships are not tall structures, they are water vessels intended for a multitude of purposes including transportation, and others. They're designed to be buoyant in water, not to support itself on land in a vertical position. "Collisions" between ships are not the same as what you apparently refer to as "collisions between buildings." That cannot be stressed enough to you, however, if you're still assuming this after a year and a half on this forum, I'm sure this has been stated to you hundreds of times...

Imagine a big oil tanker (steel structure) - 350 meters long, weight 300 000 tons - moored at a jetty (the biggest moving thing in the world but now static). Imagine that here comes another ship - only 30 000 tons - at full speed (10 m/s) and hits the tanker in the front. The little - hm, 30 000 tons! - ship continues to be propulsed forward - the engine doesn't stop. What happens?

Does the little ship continue through the big tanker at 10 m/s and does the little ship globally collapse the big tanker (crush through 350 meters of structure) and continue out through the other end at 10 m/s - undamaged?

Or, does the little ship get damaged in ITS front and maybe stop after a while having just locally damaged the big tanker at its front?

Or does the little ship just bounce off the big ship?

The answer? Easy - basic physics and structural damage analysis - just study the local strength of the two ships at point of contact and beyond - capability to absorb strain energy - and calculate the energies required to produce local structural failures and friction developing and how forces may be deflected! The collision stops when there is no more kinetic energy avalaible (but the engine is still running).

BTW 1 - the little ship applies 1.5 GJ of kinetic energy and a constant force into the collision at impact comparable to the 1.2 GJ that WTC1 upper part under ideal conditions (free fall) may apply to the lower structure of WTC1.

BTW 2 - note that the little ship cannot be regarded as a rigid body.

 

[funk de fino]

The problem is that the 'weight' of the roof line drops 33 meters during 3.17 seconds, while there is no damage to floor 93 and structure below floor 93.

According my calculations - see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm - the roof line displaces at virtually constant acceleration 0.75 g, while there is no effects to the structure below floor 93.

NIST does not even bother to calculate any weight dropped from above so NIST has no clue how much (potential) energy is involved in the alleged 'drop'.

But it is not much depending on assumptions; say it is 1.2 GJ (assuming a solid, rigid, block of uniform density, etc) Say that it is applied on 4000 m² uniformly and you find that it cannot do much harm, particularly not breaking 280+ columns in 10 meter bits throwing them sideways, etc.

NIST suggest that 1.2GJ is sufficient to initiate a global collapse of 350 meters of WTC1. I say it will just cause the dropped 'weight' to bounce on top of the 350 meters structure.

It should be quite easy to find out who is right, don't you agree?

How to find out? Well, use the experience from ships' collisions. Sometiimes they bounce, sometimes they produce structural failures. It is quite easy to do the calculations.

That is nothing to do with my post nor does it address your lies.

You lied about what NIST said caused the collapse to continue. NIST are very clear in how the collapse continued after initiation. It is set out in the December FAQ's. Either address my post or your lies or do not bother and continue telling porkies.

Even children can see you are not telling the truth here. I have seen high quality videos, on the BBC, of the towers collapsing and you can see the top section falling down while the lower section is destroyed. You do not see the top section blow up.

The floor connections could not hold the weight of the top section being dropped on it and gave way. NIST give you the calculations for this. Please read them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I commented in post #24 that the analysis technique used in the paper is effectively smoothing the data, then commenting on the fact that no discontinuities can be observed in the smoothed data. I thought a little more analysis might be in order, to demonstrate just how serious a fault this is. McQueen and Szamboti claim that the effect they are looking for, which may be summarised as a 13.13ft/sec decrease in velocity at one second into the fall, should be seen as a step in the velocity graph, and represent this as the dotted line in their figure 4, reproduced below [1]. This dotted line is not backed up by any calculations, simply asserted as fact.



To determine the actual appearance of an abrupt 13.13ft/sec decrease in velocity at 1 second elapsed time, I set up an Excel spreadsheet using the time points from McQueen and Szamboti's paper. I then calculated velocities and hence displacements downward for the following scenario:

1. Upper block falls at 1G acceleration for one second.
2. Upper block then experiences an abrupt reduction in velocity by 13.13ft/sec.
3. Upper block then continues to accelerate downwards at 1G.

This closely reproduces the scenario that McQueen and Szamboti claim will produce a large negative step in their analysed data.

Using this dataset, I then reproduced the expected measurements by rounding each displacement point to a multiple of 0.88 feet, corresponding to the pixel spacing calculated in the paper. The resulting dataset was then analysed using the methodology outlined in the paper. Results are shown below in a table, and the calculated velocity is plotted as a graph against time.



The result is that, despite the presence of an abrupt deceleration in the original data, no step discontinuity can be seen in the calculated velocity, in contradiction to the assertion in the paper. This is, as I previously commented, a consequence of the methodology used for analysis, which effectively applies a smoothing function to the data.

The conclusion of the paper is therefore comprehensively refuted. The analysis methodology used by the authors renders it impossible to detect any abrupt change in velocity. Their failure to do so is therefore unrelated in any way to their starting data.

Dave

[1] As this post is intended as a critique of the paper, this reproduction falls within fair use guidelines.

 

[alexi_drago]

The collapse has everything to do with two ships colliding. Two structural assemblies contact and cause local failures to each other. And the momentum, energy and force involved in the WTC1 destruction are much less than at serious ships' collisions.

does one of your ships have a planet attatched to the end opposite from the collision?

 

[RedIbis]

If you honestly believe that's the primary question the paper's addressing, then either you haven't read the paper, or you're not capable of understanding it. The primary question the paper is addressing is, is there any measurable change in acceleration of the upper block at the instant of the first floor-on-floor impact? The answer given in the paper is that there is not. The answer given in this thread is that the data resolution is too poor to determine whether there is or is not, and that in any case the concept of an instant at which the first floor-on-floor impact occurs is derived from an oversimplified interpretation of a deliberately simplified model.

As for your use of the phrase "maintaining freefall speed", please tell me you're joking, because everyone's laughing.

Dave

Congratulations, you decided to seize upon two somewhat tedious points. I should have said rate when I said speed. I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one, but this does not change the central issue. Perhaps I should have said,

the primary question the paper is addressing is how did the rigid upper block separate itself entirely from the lower portion of the building and then crush everything below it falling at freefall without there being a discernible jolt.

If NIST admits this block fell through the rest of the buildng at freefall, why was there so little resistance?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Excellent analysis by Dave Rogers, IMO. Effective addressing of the work by him, Ryan Mackey, and others regarding the paper.

While I won't blame RedIbis for being aggravated at some of the initial responses here, I will assert that other posts have dealt with the meat of the paper definitively. In short, from these posts here, the paper appears to be a poor argument, having applied a mathematical trick to the analysis that should not have been applied, and having built a misrepresentation of both the actual event and Bazant & Zhou's model of it in order to argue against that misrepresentation. From that, I would consider that MacQueen's and Szamboti's work is fatally flawed, and not worth further serious consideration.

Agree? Disagree? Mackey and Rogers have already weighed in, I was obviously leaning in that direction already, so we three have already made our statements.

 

[Heiwa]

That is nothing to do with my post nor does it address your lies.

You lied about what NIST said caused the collapse to continue. NIST are very clear in how the collapse continued after initiation. It is set out in the December FAQ's. Either address my post or your lies or do not bother and continue telling porkies.

Even children can see you are not telling the truth here. I have seen high quality videos, on the BBC, of the towers collapsing and you can see the top section falling down while the lower section is destroyed. You do not see the top section blow up.

The floor connections could not hold the weight of the top section being dropped on it and gave way. NIST give you the calculations for this. Please read them.

No, any child can see that the top section implodes and gets 100 feet shorter during 3.17 seconds while 100 feet of structure, 8-9 floors below the top section remains undamaged.

During these 3.17 seconds 8 or 9 floors of the lower structure would have been impacted by the top section according NIST; the first impact would occur after 1 second, then it should go faster. As McQueen/Zamboti point out, there is no sign of this first impact or any other impacts for that matter or, as seen on any video by a child, no damage to the 100 feet structure below the imploding top section at this time. It is not just the roof line that drops - the mast in the centre of the roof drops as fast. The whole top section implodes.

The NIST calculations of dropping floors of the top section stacking up on the top floor of the structure below (floor 94) and then overloading it, initiating a collapse, does not agree with the NIST assumtion that the top section is a rigid box, etc. You cannot have it both ways, as McQueen/Zamboti point out in their excellent, peer reviewed paper.

 

[NutCracker]

The conclusion of the paper is therefore comprehensively refuted. The analysis methodology used by the authors renders it impossible to detect any abrupt change in velocity. Their failure to do so is therefore unrelated in any way to their starting data.

Excellent! It was already quite clear that the paper is bunk, but it is always good to see such a thing in full daylight, as tangible as it can get.

Thanks.

 

[DGM]

Congratulations, you decided to seize upon two somewhat tedious points. I should have said rate when I said speed. I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one, but this does not change the central issue. Perhaps I should have said,

the primary question the paper is addressing is how did the rigid upper block separate itself entirely from the lower portion of the building and then crush everything below it falling at freefall without there being a discernible jolt.

If NIST admits this block fell through the rest of the buildng at freefall, why was there so little resistance?

Red:
Did you not understand the data resolution issue or are you choosing to ignore it? Your question has been addressed at least 5 times in this thread. See post #90 it's fairly straight forward


ETA post #73 (RMackey) really explains it well.

 

[RedIbis]

Red:
Did you not understand the data resolution issue or are you choosing to ignore it? Your question has been addressed at least 5 times in this thread. See post #90 it's fairly straight forward


ETA post #73 (RMackey) really explains it well.

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video. The rate at which the roof falls did not experience any deceleration, which NIST admits was at essentially freefall. This is measurable regardless of the resolution of this video.

 

[DGM]

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video. The rate at which the roof falls did not experience any deceleration, which NIST admits was at essentially freefall. This is measurable regardless of the resolution of this video.

Thanks and noted.

Please let us know when you can support this with data / science.

 

[beachnut]

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video. The rate at which the roof falls did not experience any deceleration, which NIST admits was at essentially freefall. This is measurable regardless of the resolution of this video.

If you understood physics, math, graphing, sampling theory, reality, and 9/11. You would not believe in this garbage you can't support with anything but your opinion and hearsay.

Your support for this paper is mush, pure junk.

The first “jolt” happens in the first second. You don’t know it but the video can’t see it due to resolution in time and space. Making your support of this paper a pure fantasy because you can’t see these guys have made idiotic assumptions and did idiotic research, to produce a fantasy paper you like because you live in a gravity free world of delusion with Heiwa.

At .87 second, the first impact they have only 4 pixels

Time, broken down to 33.33 ms, and space depicted in 0.88 foot chunks defeat the dynamic duo of woo. (note: they have to use 5 frames to get one pixel movement to make the fires speed calculations; lol)

According to the dynamic due a pixel is 0.88 feet. This means when the first impact occurs the speed is 27.9 f/s, and after the jolt (2.15 ms not 13 ms) the speed is 25.9 f/s. The funny part of this paper is a pixel is .88 feet. These guys need to see a 27.9 f/s and then 25.9 f/s in less than 13 ms, more likely 2.15 ms, and the best speed they can see at about .87 seconds is 26.4 f/s or 52.8 f/s cause each pixel is .88 feet and each frame is 33.33 ms. OOPS.
This is classic 911truth bumbling efforts of idiots who are looking well past the jolt to the jolts further along the time line cause they can’t see the jolt due to 0.88 feet/pixel and 30 frame/second, and in the paper 6-5 frame/second seem to be the choice because it take 5 frames to move one pixel at the beginning and you can’t measure a speed without some displacement (this case 1 pixel, at least). This get funnier if you take time to dissect the nonsense presented in this paper. I am afraid to go deeper and dig up more engineering stink to make this go away.

Sad; engineers try to act like idiots, and succeed well past the idiot level, while trying to manufacture evidence to apologize for terrorists; to support their delusion of explosives or thermite. How pathetic.

Even funnier, I can be wrong by 50 to 100 percent and I am right anyway.
The sad part of this thread, RedIbis has no clue what the paper is about. It is about making up junk science to fool people so they can simulate fake evidence to support the delusions of 911Truth. RedIbis presented a paper, which proves the engineers at Jones house of thermite are not capable of real engineering work; and this, is not news.

 

[CurtC]

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video. The rate at which the roof falls did not experience any deceleration, which NIST admits was at essentially freefall. This is measurable regardless of the resolution of this video.

You've misunderstood not only what folks here have explained, but you've misunderstood the fundamental point of the P.O.S. paper that you're referring to.

That paper tries to make a case that there should have been a "jolt" - an observable change in the downwards acceleration after it fell the first 3.7 m. We've established that the resolution of the video is insufficient to measure that. And it's been explained that with just a little tilt to the top section, there would be no jolt anyway because it wouldn't slam into the floor below, all at once.

What you're asking for is why it fell with a freefall acceleration downwards. And the answer is - it didn't. If it had been falling at freefall, it would have collapsed in under nine seconds instead of more like 13.