Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[funk de fino]

Why can't you discuss this without lying

I think we can all see the reason for that.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, I watched your Hardfire Physics of 911 presentations, and while I thought you did a very good job of explaining the physics of the aircraft impacts and how to build an accurate model of the towers and get similarity of various parameters in the model with appropriate scaling factors, I had a couple of questions/comments about peripheral things which weren't addressed.

1. How would one be able to build an accurate scale model of the towers if all pertinent information on the structure is not publicly available? For one, the NIST has not released the wall thicknesses and yield strength of the perimeter columns at various locations on the towers. They have also not released the central core horizontal beam sizes, grades, and their locations in the towers.

There's this strange fellow around these parts called psikeyhackr. He's been asking basically the same question, hundreds and hundreds of times, to the point he says little else. He's been answered hundreds and hundreds of times, yet he still asks the question. You must have missed it.

Anyway, most of the information above is indeed available and released publicly as part of their SAP2000 model. Here you can download them for yourself.

This is not as well summarized as some would like, but it is more than sufficient to construct a model such as I describe to usable accuracy -- weight and strength as a function of height, as well as local details, are all contained here.

2. I have seen you say here that the above information is available publicly, if one knows where to look. As this presumes you know where to find this information, would you be so kind as to share that with the rest of us?

I also should point out that several people have used this, or other sources from NIST, to do exactly what you ask -- proving that it is possible. One is GregoryUrich, with whom you are familiar, and his summary is here, where I know you've seen it before. Another is newcomer femr2 whose data is here.

Either one of these is more than sufficiently accurate to run a simulation or construct a scale model. If for some reason you feel you need more, you can derive bounding cases from these data with little effort.

 

[beachnut]

...
1. How would one be able to build an accurate scale model of the towers if all pertinent information on the structure is not publicly available?...
2. I have seen you say here that the above information is available publicly, if one knows where to look. As this presumes you know where to find this information, would you be so kind as to share that with the rest of us?

Tony, you are an engineer. Look it up. Even Greg was able to estimate the WTC structure. Even the new 911Truth guru did it, femr2.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm

You have to do the work. You search for explosives and thermite at the WTC but you can't research the WTC structure? Searching for the structure of the WTC can be done, backing in lies about explosives can't be done.

You are trying to do the impossible explosives delusion and can't do the WTC a reality research project? You are an engineer?

You don't have the resolution to see the jolt in time or space.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There's this strange fellow around these parts called psikeyhackr. He's been asking basically the same question, hundreds and hundreds of times, to the point he says little else. He's been answered hundreds and hundreds of times, yet he still asks the question. You must have missed it.

Anyway, most of the information above is indeed available and released publicly as part of their SAP2000 model. Here you can download them for yourself.

This is not as well summarized as some would like, but it is more than sufficient to construct a model such as I describe to usable accuracy -- weight and strength as a function of height, as well as local details, are all contained here.



I also should point out that several people have used this, or other sources from NIST, to do exactly what you ask -- proving that it is possible. One is GregoryUrich, with whom you are familiar, and his summary is here, where I know you've seen it before. Another is newcomer femr2 whose data is here.

Either one of these is more than sufficiently accurate to run a simulation or construct a scale model. If for some reason you feel you need more, you can derive bounding cases from these data with little effort.

I have done what you suggest here for calculations (not physical models) and if you feel this method is satisfactory then we are in agreement.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Stop lying, Tony. That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it. Perhaps you'd lile to draw a sketch showing how it's possible for all the columns of a rotated upper block to impact axially and simultaneously on the columns of the lower block - or, in fact, for all the columns of a rotated upper block to strike the columns of the lower block at all. It's a geometrical impossibility.

Nobody is lying here and it is a childish to make a comment like that.

The reality is that even with a tilt the collapse was nearly simultaneous across the area of WTC 1. The columns were all interconnected and would not stray enough horizontally to avoid a steel on steel collision and for the load path to be somewhat unaltered down through the tower's columns. These are macro events and it is the height of irresponsible speculation to presume that no deceleration was observed because the columns missed each other. Using the Sine of the tilt angle times the distance from the North face one can determine the horizontal movement of the columns of the collapse initiation floor. It isn't enough for the columns to avoid colliding after buckling.

 

[WildCat]

Nobody is lying here and it is a childish to make a comment like that.

The reality is that even with a tilt the collapse was nearly simultaneous across the area of WTC 1. The columns were all interconnected and would not stray enough horizontally to avoid a steel on steel collision and for the load path to be somewhat unaltered down through the tower's columns. These are macro events and it is the height of irresponsible speculation to presume that no deceleration was observed because the columns missed each other. Using the Sine of the tilt angle times the distance from the North face one can determine the horizontal movement of the columns of the collapse initiation floor. It isn't enough for the columns to avoid colliding after buckling.

And why is it you can't find a single real (as opposed to the one Jones created because no one would publish his nonsense, or the Bentham vanity journal) engineering journal to publish your paper again?

This is quite telling, don't you think?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nobody is lying here and it is a childish to make a comment like that.

I know what I've said, and I know you've misrepresented it. I also can see very clearly that Bazant's addendum refers to a situation in which the upper block is sufficiently small that its collapse doesn't approximate to rigidity, and doesn't refer to the argument you claimed it refutes. If you insist that you're not lying, then I'm prepared to consider the possibility that you haven't understood either point, which doesn't help your argument. There aren't really any other possibilities.

The reality is that even with a tilt the collapse was nearly simultaneous across the area of WTC 1. The columns were all interconnected and would not stray enough horizontally to avoid a steel on steel collision and for the load path to be somewhat unaltered down through the tower's columns. These are macro events and it is the height of irresponsible speculation to presume that no deceleration was observed because the columns missed each other. Using the Sine of the tilt angle times the distance from the North face one can determine the horizontal movement of the columns of the collapse initiation floor. It isn't enough for the columns to avoid colliding after buckling.

Except that we know that many of the perimeter columns were bowing just before the impact and collapsed inwards as the initial drop began - the Trinity Church video shows this very clearly - and others were severed by the airliner impact, so the column-on-column impact would have occurred for these at a completely different level, and hence time.

At the very least, though, the tilt is easily enough for the initial impacts not to be simultaneous. I suggest you take the column spacings and the angle, and work out the time interval between the first and the last column-on-column impact. I believe Gregory Urich did something similar recently. What's the minimum time interval between these for your "missing jolt" hypothesis to be valid?

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And why is it you can't find a single real (as opposed to the one Jones created because no one would publish his nonsense, or the Bentham vanity journal) engineering journal to publish your paper again?

This is quite telling, don't you think?

I don't think the journals where I have had something published as author or a co-author is telling at all.

I just have to ask. How many papers do you have published and where were they published?

I think your answer to the above question might be quite telling though.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I know what I've said, and I know you've misrepresented it. I also can see very clearly that Bazant's addendum refers to a situation in which the upper block is sufficiently small that its collapse doesn't approximate to rigidity, and doesn't refer to the argument you claimed it refutes. If you insist that you're not lying, then I'm prepared to consider the possibility that you haven't understood either point, which doesn't help your argument. There aren't really any other possibilities.



Except that we know that many of the perimeter columns were bowing just before the impact and collapsed inwards as the initial drop began - the Trinity Church video shows this very clearly - and others were severed by the airliner impact, so the column-on-column impact would have occurred for these at a completely different level, and hence time.

At the very least, though, the tilt is easily enough for the initial impacts not to be simultaneous. I suggest you take the column spacings and the angle, and work out the time interval between the first and the last column-on-column impact. I believe Gregory Urich did something similar recently. What's the minimum time interval between these for your "missing jolt" hypothesis to be valid?

Dave

I showed Gregory Urich he was incorrect on the amount of horizontal travel.

I also showed him why a series of separate smaller impulses was extremely improbable, as for that to even be possible the beams of a particular section would have to let go all the way up through all or nearly all of the floors for the columns of that section to fall independent of the rest of the block. Why would those beams let go? This is why Bazant was saying the series of smaller separate jolts was improbable with a deep block of more than a few stories and why I say the Addendum essentially pours cold water on the notion of smaller separate jolts.

As for the time interval you want to know due to the tilt I would have to work it out. However, there is no jolt for the entire 114 feet (nine story) drop we were able to measure the fall of the upper block of WTC 1 through. The upper block did not come down like a seesaw the rest of the way and even if it did a large observable impulse would still have occurred in a natural collapse.

 

[beachnut]

I showed Gregory Urich he was incorrect on the amount of horizontal travel.

As for the time interval you want to know I would have to work it out. However, there is no jolt for the entire 114 feet (nine story) drop we were able to measure the fall of the upper block of WTC 1 through.

Because of pixel resolutions and the frame rate. You are silly; did you take any kind of course to prepare you for sampling errors? You failed.

You are funny; You guys need lots of help to guide you back to reality; you must not spend much time on research or gaining knowledge to produce real papers based on science. 7 years, 7 months, and 14 days of failed science from you, Jones, and all of 911Truth.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think the journals where I have had something published as author or a co-author is telling at all.

Sure it is. You and the rest of the people in Jones's little group couldn't get it published in an actual peer-reviewed engineering journal so you created your own sham journal to add some credence to your fraudulent claims. It fools the dolts in the "truth" movement but not anyone else, which is why you're still spinning your wheels over 7 years after 9/11.

I just have to ask. How many papers do you have published and where were they published?

I think your answer to the above question might be quite telling though.

What it tells is of your desperation. You're making the claims, and couldn't find anyone who wasn't a fraud, mentally ill, or a snake-oil salesman to take you seriously. So you troll internet forums pimping TEH TRUTH to dolts to idiots who saw Loose Change or Zeitgaist or some other ridiculous video on YouTube.

Real, actual engineers won't touch you guys with a 10 foot pole. Except, of course, to amuse themselves on internet forums exposing your lies and your fraud.

None of it's getting you bit closer to the "real investigation" you claim to desire.

 

[TjW]

If I had a missing Jolt, the first thing I'd do is check and see if anyone on the IT staff had a deadline recently. Jolt and Mountain Dew seem to evaporate very quickly under those conditions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sure it is. You and the rest of the people in Jones's little group couldn't get it published in an actual peer-reviewed engineering journal so you created your own sham journal to add some credence to your fraudulent claims. It fools the dolts in the "truth" movement but not anyone else, which is why you're still spinning your wheels over 7 years after 9/11.


What it tells is of your desperation. You're making the claims, and couldn't find anyone who wasn't a fraud, mentally ill, or a snake-oil salesman to take you seriously. So you troll internet forums pimping TEH TRUTH to dolts to idiots who saw Loose Change or Zeitgaist or some other ridiculous video on YouTube.

Real, actual engineers won't touch you guys with a 10 foot pole. Except, of course, to amuse themselves on internet forums exposing your lies and your fraud.

None of it's getting you bit closer to the "real investigation" you claim to desire.

You answer here shows you to be unworthy to be responded to concerning the publishing of papers so I won't.

However, I want to be sure that I rebut your contention that actual engineers scoff at 911 conspiracy claims. Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

 

[FineWine]

You answer here shows you to be unworthy to be responded to so I won't.

However, I want to be sure that I rebut your contention that actual engineers scoff at 911 conspiracy claims. Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

Do any of those "engineers" have names?

 

[WildCat]

Do any of those "engineers" have names?

Well there's Heiwa, and Richard Gage, and the guy who thinks nukes destroyed the WTC...

 

[Furcifer]

Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

This wouldn't surprise me. What would surprise me is if any of them continue to have serious problems after all the info is presented.

 

[leftysergeant]

Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

Yeah, thjey make the same mistake you do. They and you ignore the over-pressurization of the interiors of the towers. A few tons of falling concrete will displace a goodly amount of air explosively.

 

[ozeco41]

The reality is that even with a tilt the collapse was nearly simultaneous across the area of WTC 1. The columns were all interconnected and would not stray enough horizontally to avoid a steel on steel collision and for the load path to be somewhat unaltered down through the tower's columns. These are macro events and it is the height of irresponsible speculation to presume that no deceleration was observed because the columns missed each other. Using the Sine of the tilt angle times the distance from the North face one can determine the horizontal movement of the columns of the collapse initiation floor. It isn't enough for the columns to avoid colliding after buckling.

Tony I wish to address three issues which support your denial of counter claims against your "Jolt" explanation.

Issue #1 - Clearly identify the Stage of Collapse which is under discussion.

One which causes confusion to both "sides" of the Szamboti v The Rest debate is failure to clearly identify which stage of the collapse is under discussion. That same issue seems to pervade discussion of WTC towers collapse on all forums I have viewed.

I would normally categorise two critical stages of the towers collapses as "Initial Collapse" when the top block started to fall and "Global Collapse" as the completion of the collapse.

For purposes of this explanation I will add the intermediate process so we have:

1. Initial collapse which started the total collapse - and that statement is independent of how it worked - natural processes or demolition assistance;
2. The transition from the initial collapse to the following global collapse where the key point is that the falling mass ended up falling inside the outer tube of columns. Again "...that statement is independent of how it worked - natural processes or demolition assistance..." BUT it is clear from global collapse evidence that it occurred somehow - the explanation may be needed. The fact is established. AND
3. The Global Collapse which was a top down rapid sequence of floor by floor failures again a statement of fact whether natural causes or demolition assisted.

Now if we accept those as the basic facts what follows? (And if we do not accept those facts there are other preliminary issues to resolve but we reach this point.)

Issue #2 - Clearly identify the Consequences of the Process of Global Collapse.

Your "Jolt" theory relies on a significant impact or Jolt to cause the acceleration which would be visible to your macro analysis and is needed to support your conclusions.

To achieve that you postulate more or less explicitly that the upper falling structure collision on the lower structure met with substantially a full strength lower structure. Therefore discussion about column on column collisions/alignment/unlikelihood of missing etc.

The reality is that there were two main parts of the structure which carried the vertical loads - viz the core and outer tube - and in some proportion - 60/40 IIRC. The floors also carried their own loads but depended, naturally, on the columns.

Now the clear evidence is that during the global collapse, "3" of my above sequence, the outer tube columns were sheared off and fell. So they were either separated by demolition - essentially a zero load vertical resistance OR they resisted the falling weight to the impact failure in shear strength of the joust to column connectors. The latter less than 10% of the column strength and probably much lower.

So the outer tube columns played little part and the core would need to carry nearly double if it was to resist sufficient to cause the "Big Jolt".

But can we seriously expect that a multi storey failure will have a block with already buckled columns fall with those columns somehow maintaining full strength or close to it?

On the column on column alignment aspects you ridicule "missing", you seem to overlook "glancing" and rest your argument on "axial contact with near full strength".

What proportion do you claim gave near full strength? I would say near zero but even if it is 50% of the core it is still not enough. And no need to divert into esoteric maths to show that.

So we have near zero outer tube involvement and seriously degraded core strength if any.

And ( another "ignored" factor in much debate) with the large proportion of the top block falling mass landing inside the tube on the floors the limit of what can be transferred to the core caused by the same limited strength weakest link of the floor joist to core column connector. And it also is designed for one floor not a block of 10 or 20.

Yes, there are many factors interacting. But that explanation is sufficient for the macro statement I am making here. The one serious counter would require that the "Hat Truss" carried the floors and outer walls of the falling top block over to put those forces onto the core. Note that only in passing at this stage.

BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line is simple - your "Missing Jolt" explanation depends on near full resistance to the falling block be exerted by the lower structure.

Even a broad examination shows that such resistance was not available - the outer tube columns were peeled off and at least a large proportion of the core could not give full strength resistance.

And all of those claims subject to more detailed support if needed.

Issue #3 - Clearly Identify the Scale of Jolt involved.

No point explaining more - you are committed to looking for a "Big Jolt". There would have been a rapid sequence of many "Small Jolts". Those jolts not detectable by your macro examination.

You answer here shows you to be unworthy to be responded to concerning the publishing of papers so I won't.

However, I want to be sure that I rebut your contention that actual engineers scoff at 911 conspiracy claims. Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

Number of papers published is a poor measure - even the leading paper publishers make the same errors over WTC Collapses.

What matters is whether or not the explanation holds up.

And, almost to a man, the engineers I have discussed it with laugh at demolition. ...but no point playing "my list is longer than yours"

the "Missing Jolt" explanation does not stand.

So add my name to the list of engineers who do not agree with you.

 

[Crungy]

Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

That's the complete opposite of my experience in the design and construction industry. All of the structural engineers I know refer to those that believe either WTC1, 2 & 7 were brought down by explosives as the "21st century flat earth society".

Here are some real engineering publications with articles by real engineers discussing the WTC collapses.

Legitimate1

Legitimate2

Legitimate3

If all of your "engineering" buddies believe as you do, it should be quite easy submitting a paper to one of these journals. It should be a slam dunk Tony. You know how passionate engineers are for the truth and how offended they get when someone tries to pull the wool over their eyes. I have never known an engineer not to vigorously argue BS. You'll have to take off a month from work to receive all of the high fives you will no doubt get from all of the world's engineers.

So Tony, why on earth would you submit a paper to a bogus journal run by a mentally ill nutbar who spends the bulk of his time in search of Mayan paint chips produced by cold fusion?

 

[beachnut]

... Almost to a man every engineer I have discussed this with winds up realizing there are serious problems with the present official story and that there had to be an inside component to the collapses of the three hi-rises in NYC.

LOL - what a big failure. You must know a bunch of ignorant engineers. Or they are being kind to your insane conclusions based on hearsay, junk science, and delusions of Jones.

Your buddy engineer (a man) believes in explosives at the WTC set by unknown bad guys; like your delusion. At least you said to a man; one man?

What school did these fellow idiotic idea believers go to? How many are to a man engineers?