Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[ElMondoHummus]

"The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors"

Huh? How? As I recall, the floors were only very simply connected to the columns (bolts? Welds? Someone else can detail that for me). The connectors on a single floor would sheer away with far less weight than 11 whole floors, and that's not even taking into account the fact that the upper mass would be moving downward for such contact to take place (which would add even more force than simply resting that mass on a floor).

Ryan, Newton, Grizzly, Dave, Tom, Architect, whoever: Isn't that right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I recall the construction being.

 

[dtugg]

"The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors"

Huh? How? As I recall, the floors were only very simply connected to the columns (bolts? Welds? Someone else can detail that for me). The connectors on a single floor would sheer away with far less weight than 11 whole floors, and that's not even taking into account the fact that the upper mass would be moving downward for such contact to take place (which would add even more force than simply resting that mass on a floor).

Ryan, Newton, Grizzly, Dave, Tom, Architect, whoever: Isn't that right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I recall the construction being.

From NIST's Dec 2007 FAQ:

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ahhh. Okay. I didn't think the floor truss connectors to the columns were that robust. Okay. Thanks!

 

[tsig]

Wrong. What you mean is either you're too stupid or too stubborn to admit that you made a basic, but fatal, mistake. The angle of incidence of 8^o means that, at all times, bits of two entire floors make up the contact plane. The columns aren't all being hit at once.

There is no possible way for all columns to resist at once in this scenario. That is what is required for your stupid "jolt." This is not up for debate.

Once again, I've told you this, Gregory Urich has told you this, Dr. Greening and Dr. Benson have told you this -- independently. Are you claiming we're all in on the plot?



Except for the inconvenient fact that what we're telling you is true. What you're doing is usually called "paranoid delusion."



Again, liar, this is what you said:

You lied then, and you're lying now. It's pathetic!



Nothing to debate. You lied, in direct contravention of graphical evidence that was made public years ago and of which you are well aware. And you're still trying to cover it up with still more lies.

But by all means, keep digging, if that's what you want.



Sayeth the liar...



And now you once again betray stupidity about the most basic physics. It's not the same thing AT ALL. Your hypothesis depends on a "jolt," or the third derivative of position. It requires the impulse to be delivered at once. But since it's smooth, there is no jolt, even though the total impulse is the same.

The lower structure does resist. It just doesn't at once. As a result, the upper block descends at a more-or-less constant acceleration, but noticeably less than one g. This is utterly consistent with the smooth collapse initation caused by an initiating rotation. It also requires no explosives whatsoever.

Dumb, Tony, just plain dumb.



Wrong.



Apples and oranges. Again, Bazant & Zhou 2002 consider the worst-case impact, which is flat and column-on-column. They said nothing about the expected behavior once tilt is taken into account.

Go ahead and ask him, if you dare, if he supports your hypothesis. And post it here. I'm not done laughing at you yet.



Connected together -- by the floors, yes? The ones with an ultimate strength of about 250 psf, getting the entire structural weight of the upper block suddenly dumped on them (about 490 psf static, best possible case, and which was moving..?) Bye bye connections.



There's no "both ways" about it. Bazant & Zhou demonstrate the total energy absorption of the lower structure is insufficient for arrest, even in the best case, even if the lower structure isn't compromised by penetration, which of course it will be. And since the collision is not flat, face-on-face, column-on-column, the energy absorption is a smooth phenomenon rather than one puncutated by gaps, because floors don't fail individually and simultaneously.

You're completely off the wall. The above isn't in any way a special case.



I lose, sayeth the liar. Gee, I'm concerned.

Publish your paper, then, tough guy. I've got scads of published results that unanimously demonstrate the opposite. I suppose they all "lose" too, huh?

Or, perhaps, you're just wrong. Hmm, which to choose..?

ETA: Ah, you're adding a political rant, too. Surely that will make your pseudoscience valid!

I wonder if Tony thinks a shotgun works. Since all the pellets hit the target at different times, how can they transmit energy to the target. Also we never see any slowdown when they hit the target so how does that energy transmission take place?

I think his objections are more politics than science.

 

[GlennB]

I think his objections are more politics than science.

His objections are those of a fundamentalist believer who will argue that day is night rather than give an inch or retreat from the debate.

What is truly disturbing about Tony's posts is that he cheerfully claims "I never said xyz" when "I believe xyz" is free to view in his own posts. In the rough+tumble of purely verbal debate you might get away with this kind of guff, but not in print.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I wonder if Tony thinks a shotgun works. Since all the pellets hit the target at different times, how can they transmit energy to the target. Also we never see any slowdown when they hit the target so how does that energy transmission take place?

I think his objections are more politics than science.

A shotgun is not an appropriate analogy for energy losses in the falling upper block due to separate smaller impulses.

You could use it if you imagined the pellets being solid rods attached to the gun which was also in motion.

What would happen then if the rods/pellets hit targets at different times? The answer is that there would be a summing of the energy losses and a reduction in the velocity of the gun.

It sounds like you need to work on your science before making any comments about anyone else's politics and science.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

His objections are those of a fundamentalist believer who will argue that day is night rather than give an inch or retreat from the debate.

What is truly disturbing about Tony's posts is that he cheerfully claims "I never said xyz" when "I believe xyz" is free to view in his own posts. In the rough+tumble of purely verbal debate you might get away with this kind of guff, but not in print.

Here you go again mesmerizing us with technical discussion.

 

[R.Mackey]

I wonder if Tony thinks a shotgun works. Since all the pellets hit the target at different times, how can they transmit energy to the target. Also we never see any slowdown when they hit the target so how does that energy transmission take place?

Another valid comparison is to the dead-blow hammer... if you haven't heard of it, it's worth looking up.

However, the problem with his argument is subtly different. Earlier in the discussion, I likened the problem to one of soldiers marching on a bridge, one that can comfortably support their weight but has some elasticity. In the first case, the soldiers all march in lock-step, and in the second they all march out of sync.

In both cases, the weight of the soldiers is exactly the same, so averaged over time, they exert the same force on the bridge. However, at any given instant in time, the force is different. In the synchronized case, the instantaneous force (viz. the impulse) jumps up to a huge value as all those booted feet come down, and then drops away again in between. In the unsynchronized case, the force is basically constant. They average out to be the same -- the total impulse is the same -- but the bridge behaves differently. In the first case, the bridge actually bounces with each step. This is similar to the "jolt" that Tony is making such a fuss about. In the second case, there's no jolt at all, the bridge simply strains gradually as the soldiers walk onto it, and then gradually returns to its original position afterward.

This happens in real life. If they march in step, the "jolt" can cause the bridge to bounce and, if it hits a vibrational resonance, can actually damage or destroy the bridge. So they don't. That eliminates the "jolt," eliminates the bounce, and fixes the problem. Proving quite nicely that distributed impulse gets rid of the "jolt."

Now let's take another look at the World Trade Center collapse. The simplest way to think about it is to consider an upper "block" and a lower "block" that are essentially free bodies. As Tony denied and I corrected, the upper block rotated relative to the lower block. This is important.

The "soldiers" in our case are the support columns themselves. Each column has considerable strength, but it only exerts that strength for a short period of time, because steel only flexes a few percent before it buckles -- and once it buckles, its strength becomes practically zero, not even enough to support its own weight in all likelihood. So each column's resistance is like the "step" of one of the soldiers.

If the upper block hits flat, then it hits all those columns at once. There will still be enough energy to break all those columns, but the impulse delivered is extremely high and sharp. This leads to a "jolt," even though it won't stop the collapse. This is the basic conclusion of Bazant & Zhou 2002.

However, if the upper block does not hit flat, then it's really only hitting some of those columns at a time. Those buckle as the upper block descends a few inches, and then it loads a different set of columns, repeat. This is like the second case where all those soldiers are not walking in step. The individual impulses are all spread out. So the total impulse and average force is the same, but there's no "jolt" at all.

If you measure the top of the roof, like Tony does, in the first case you see the upper block descend at close to 1 g, except every time it loads and fails a new floor it suddenly slows down, decelerating at several g for a tiny fraction of a second each time. That's the "jolt." In the second case, what you see instead is a smooth curve, where the upper block descends at a more or less constant acceleration that's a fraction of a g, but no jumps and no "jolts."

Guess what, the latter is what we see. Absolutely no freakin' surprise.

No explosives required. Which is good, because in the video you can see no evidence of explosives, hear no evidence of explosives, later we find no trace of explosives, and nobody -- Tony included -- can even speculate about what kind or where they could have been to cause the effect he insists on. You'd think he'd at least have a workable hypothesis, but of course he doesn't.

I think his objections are more politics than science.

In my own terminology, this is a Strong Irreducible Delusion. I don't think there is any basis to it at all, I think it's just something he cannot comprehend being wrong. Interestingly, this is not the first time -- a different but equally silly delusion of Tony's appears in that discussion as a textbook example.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Another valid comparison is to the dead-blow hammer... if you haven't heard of it, it's worth looking up.

However, the problem with his argument is subtly different. Earlier in the discussion, I likened the problem to one of soldiers marching on a bridge, one that can comfortably support their weight but has some elasticity. In the first case, the soldiers all march in lock-step, and in the second they all march out of sync.

In both cases, the weight of the soldiers is exactly the same, so averaged over time, they exert the same force on the bridge. However, at any given instant in time, the force is different. In the synchronized case, the instantaneous force (viz. the impulse) jumps up to a huge value as all those booted feet come down, and then drops away again in between. In the unsynchronized case, the force is basically constant. They average out to be the same -- the total impulse is the same -- but the bridge behaves differently. In the first case, the bridge actually bounces with each step. This is similar to the "jolt" that Tony is making such a fuss about. In the second case, there's no jolt at all, the bridge simply strains gradually as the soldiers walk onto it, and then gradually returns to its original position afterward.

This happens in real life. If they march in step, the "jolt" can cause the bridge to bounce and, if it hits a vibrational resonance, can actually damage or destroy the bridge. So they don't. That eliminates the "jolt," eliminates the bounce, and fixes the problem. Proving quite nicely that distributed impulse gets rid of the "jolt."

Now let's take another look at the World Trade Center collapse. The simplest way to think about it is to consider an upper "block" and a lower "block" that are essentially free bodies. As Tony denied and I corrected, the upper block rotated relative to the lower block. This is important.

The "soldiers" in our case are the support columns themselves. Each column has considerable strength, but it only exerts that strength for a short period of time, because steel only flexes a few percent before it buckles -- and once it buckles, its strength becomes practically zero, not even enough to support its own weight in all likelihood. So each column's resistance is like the "step" of one of the soldiers.

If the upper block hits flat, then it hits all those columns at once. There will still be enough energy to break all those columns, but the impulse delivered is extremely high and sharp. This leads to a "jolt," even though it won't stop the collapse. This is the basic conclusion of Bazant & Zhou 2002.

However, if the upper block does not hit flat, then it's really only hitting some of those columns at a time. Those buckle as the upper block descends a few inches, and then it loads a different set of columns, repeat. This is like the second case where all those soldiers are not walking in step. The individual impulses are all spread out. So the total impulse and average force is the same, but there's no "jolt" at all.

If you measure the top of the roof, like Tony does, in the first case you see the upper block descend at close to 1 g, except every time it loads and fails a new floor it suddenly slows down, decelerating at several g for a tiny fraction of a second each time. That's the "jolt." In the second case, what you see instead is a smooth curve, where the upper block descends at a more or less constant acceleration that's a fraction of a g, but no jumps and no "jolts."

Guess what, the latter is what we see. Absolutely no freakin' surprise.

No explosives required. Which is good, because in the video you can see no evidence of explosives, hear no evidence of explosives, later we find no trace of explosives, and nobody -- Tony included -- can even speculate about what kind or where they could have been to cause the effect he insists on. You'd think he'd at least have a workable hypothesis, but of course he doesn't.



In my own terminology, this is a Strong Irreducible Delusion. I don't think there is any basis to it at all, I think it's just something he cannot comprehend being wrong. Interestingly, this is not the first time -- a different but equally silly delusion of Tony's appears in that discussion as a textbook example.

Your analogy here is not appropriate either as it does not explain what happens due to the energy loss by the upper block required to fail all of those columns, even with separate impulses. Why don't you put some numbers to it instead of just words. As Lord Kelvin said:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Please show us with numbers what the total kinetic energy loss would have to be to move through the columns of one floor and don't forget to include the columns on the floor on the other side of the separate smaller collisions as their failure, due to equal and opposite forces, would contribute to the energy loss also.

After you have done that we will see if there is enough energy left over to not only have no velocity loss by the upper block but for it to continue to accelerate at 0.7g.

 

[R.Mackey]

Your analogy here is not appropriate either as it does not explain what happens due to the energy loss by the upper block required to fail all of those columns, even with separate impulses. Why don't you put some numbers to it instead of just words.

WOW what a pathetic dodge. We're talking about your "jolt," Tony, not the absolute absorption of the structure.

This work has already been done -- BLGB, 2008.

As Lord Kelvin said:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Then you won't mind subjecting yourself to the same rules.

So you say there's a "jolt." Tell me, I wonder if you can, when exactly this "jolt" should have taken place?

Suppose there were no explosives of any kind. The upper block begins rotated at 8^o degrees. t = 0 is the instant at which the last part of the "hinge" fails, due to buckling, and the upper block begins its downward motion.

When do we expect the "jolt?"

Can't answer, can you? That's because there is none.

Please show us with numbers what the total kinetic energy loss would have to be to move through the columns of one floor and don't forget to include the columns on the floor on the other side of the separate smaller collisions as their failure, due to equal and opposite forces, would contribute to the energy loss also.

After you have done that we will see if there is enough energy left over to not only have no velocity loss by the upper block but for it to continue to accelerate at 0.7g.

Again, BLGB, 2008. But, those of you reading will notice that the above has absolutely nothing to do with his "jolt" argument. Now he's arguing that a progressive collapse is impossible due to the aggregate energy absorption, not the instantaneous impulse. Which, of course, is wrong.

Bait and switch, liar.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

WOW what a pathetic dodge. We're talking about your "jolt," Tony, not the absolute absorption of the structure.

This work has already been done -- BLGB, 2008.



Then you won't mind subjecting yourself to the same rules.

So you say there's a "jolt." Tell me, I wonder if you can, when exactly this "jolt" should have taken place?

Suppose there were no explosives of any kind. The upper block begins rotated at 8^o degrees. t = 0 is the instant at which the last part of the "hinge" fails, due to buckling, and the upper block begins its downward motion.

When do we expect the "jolt?"

Can't answer, can you? That's because there is none.



Again, BLGB, 2008. But, those of you reading will notice that the above has absolutely nothing to do with his "jolt" argument. Now he's arguing that a progressive collapse is impossible due to the aggregate energy absorption, not the instantaneous impulse. Which, of course, is wrong.

Bait and switch, liar.

I am not the one who first said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.

We just showed that there is no evidence of a jolt, and that in addition the velocity loss one would expect due to the transfer of kinetic energy required to collapse the columns below is not observed, as the upper block loses no velocity at any time and in fact continues to gain it.

It is obvious that you can't use numbers here as that would lay bare your analogies as not being appropriate and devastate your present thinking on just how those towers collapsed.

Dead blow hammers still decelerate if they hit something with resistance, they just don't bounce back. The soldiers in your bridge analogy are being decelerated vertically but you don't show the energy loss there in a cumulative way.

I find it hard to believe that someone who seems as intelligent as you do can't see what is happening here. That is why you need to show yourself and us the numbers. If you did and were honest with yourself and others I believe you would stop supporting the present official story on the collapses.

 

[GlennB]

I am not the one who said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.

That's because Bazant (and Ross, for that matter) analysed a pure axial impact. Square on, with theoretically pristine upper column ends meeting their counterpart theoretically pristine lower column ends. Under such circumstances a jolt would occur, although whether the time span of the jolt would be detectable from videos of TV footage is another matter.

I'd guess these simple facts have been pointed out to you at least 20 times on this forum, yet you continually ignore them. Reality was different from Bazant and Ross. There was a tilted and chaotic collision. Column ends did not meet in a synchronised manner.

 

[beachnut]

I am not the one who said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.
...

Why verify you are a bad engineer who doesn't understand models? Why would an engineer make up controlled demolition when the tower fell in a gravity collapse? You made it up because you present no evidence, no numbers, no engineering to support your controlled demotion story.

The 130 to 150 TONS of kinetic energy released due to the gravity collapse is the reason the towers looked destroyed. Why is 130 to 150 TONS of TNT kinetic energy per each tower not enough energy to destroy the WTC?

Why does the Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC towers think your thermite controlled demolition ideas are nonsense? Why do you fail to acknowledge gravity is the primary energy source for controlled demolition? Why have you failed to make any progress in 7 years and 9 months?
Heiwa's was proved wrong on 911. Soon you and Heiwa can celebrate 8 years of failed apologies for terrorists and you and Heiwa will not present the numbers to support your failed conclusions on 911. No numbers or engineering work to verify your ideas on 911.
It would be interesting to see some engineering numbers from you and Heiwa to support your failed delusions. Post your numbers and the evidence you are hiding so you can support your no one way crush down delusion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's because Bazant (and Ross, for that matter) analysed a pure axial impact. Square on, with theoretically pristine upper column ends meeting their counterpart theoretically pristine lower column ends. Under such circumstances a jolt would occur, although whether the time span of the jolt would be detectable from videos of TV footage is another matter.

I'd guess these simple facts have been pointed out to you at least 20 times on this forum, yet you continually ignore them. Reality was different from Bazant and Ross. There was a tilted and chaotic collision. Column ends did not meet in a synchronised manner.

It doesn't matter if it was axial or not. There is no velocity loss observed in the upper block and it would have been required to cause a natural collapse of any of the lower structure.

You need to show us the numbers also there chief. Get that pad and pencil out. Until then you are just blowing smoke.

 

[R.Mackey]

I am not the one who said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.

Yes, you did. You are now lying with virtually every post.

Again, the following are your words:

The lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 is devastating to the present official story on the collapses. It is time for a new investigation.

And, from your whitepaper, found here:

There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

Those are not Dr. Bazant's words. They are yours. You are very, very much, unambiguously saying that there should have been a jolt.

You may, in fact, now be the biggest liar on the entire JREF Forums. I lack a precise method to quantify this, but your dishonesty is simply incredible.

So now you're trying to hide behind him. Pathetic. If you ask Dr. Bazant whether the above is true, he will laugh at you and in all probability tell you to read a basic primer on solid mechanics before spreading misinformation ever again.

We just said there is no evidence of a jolt and that the velocity loss due to the transfer of kinetic energy required to collapse the columns below is not observed as the upper block loses no velocity at any time and in fact continues to gain it.

There is no jolt expected. That's what I've just explained to you, for the fourth or fifth time. I want you to acknowledge this, and the utter fail of your whitepaper before trying to change the subject again.

It is obvious that you can't use numbers here as that would lay bare your analogies as not being appropriate. Dead blow hammers still decelerate if they hit something with resistance, they just don't bounce back. The soldiers in your bridge analogy are being decelerated vertically but you don't show the energy loss there in a cumulative way.

I explained in the above post how the dead-blow hammer is not a good analogy. In my marching soliders example, I specified up front that the bridge handles the load without becoming plastic. You're deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

Now, again, you brought up your "jolt." Your "jolt" argument is crap. You need to understand and acknowledge this. Once you do that, then we can turn to the aggregate energy and momentum discussion, for the fiftieth time. Not before.

I find it hard to believe that someone who seems as intelligent as you do can't see what is happening here. That is why you need to show yourself and us the numbers. If you did and were honest with yourself and others I believe you would stop supporting the present official story on the collapses.

I rather doubt you have much experience with honesty at all.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, you did. You are now lying with virtually every post.

Again, the following are your words:



And, from your whitepaper, found here:



Those are not Dr. Bazant's words. They are yours. You are very, very much, unambiguously saying that there should have been a jolt.

You may, in fact, now be the biggest liar on the entire JREF Forums. I lack a precise method to quantify this, but your dishonesty is simply incredible.

So now you're trying to hide behind him. Pathetic. If you ask Dr. Bazant whether the above is true, he will laugh at you and in all probability tell you to read a basic primer on solid mechanics before spreading misinformation ever again.



There is no jolt expected. That's what I've just explained to you, for the fourth or fifth time. I want you to acknowledge this, and the utter fail of your whitepaper before trying to change the subject again.



I explained in the above post how the dead-blow hammer is not a good analogy. In my marching soliders example, I specified up front that the bridge handles the load without becoming plastic. You're deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

Now, again, you brought up your "jolt." Your "jolt" argument is crap. You need to understand and acknowledge this. Once you do that, then we can turn to the aggregate energy and momentum discussion, for the fiftieth time. Not before.



I rather doubt you have much experience with honesty at all.

Mackey, I believe as Dr. Bazant did that there should have been a jolt if the collapse was naturally caused.

You and some others are trying to show why there didn't have to be a jolt due to separate smaller impulses, and I have shown that that is not possible either as the aggregate energy loss there would still require a velocity loss since the energy requirements don't change. The Missing Jolt paper calculates the required energy loss by the upper block and shows that neither a jolt or the required velocity loss are observed.

Please show us the numbers to back what you are trying to say, instead of trying to twist my words to keep from showing your own case.

 

[funk de fino]

Reinforcing my clueless description quite adeptly there Tony

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Reinforcing my clueless description quite adeptly there Tony

What it actually reinforces is that this is the only type of posting you are really capable of in a technical discussion.

Edited by Tricky: 

Personal attack removed

Do not make personal attacks, and this includes changing member names.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[GlennB]

You and some others are trying to show why there didn't have to be a jolt due to separate smaller impulses, and I have shown that that is not possible either as the aggregate energy loss there would still require a velocity loss since the energy requirements don't change.

But there was a 'velocity loss' relative to free-fall in air. Nobody denies that. It's measurable to a reasonable degree in the early stages of collapse. But it was gradual and caused by many small chaotic impacts.

Your statement above makes no sense. It is based solely on your belief that there must be a Bazantian/Rossian jolt. Plus that you cannot handle any explanation that copes happily with an absence of it. You are utterly jolt-obsessed.

But that's because you poured your ego into 'publishing' a crap paper. You have become single-issue fundamentalist.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I believe as Dr. Bazant did that there should have been a jolt if the collapse was naturally caused.

Prove it. Show me where Dr. Bazant claims this.

You and some others are trying to show why there didn't have to be a jolt due to separate smaller impulses, and I have shown that that is not possible either as the aggregate energy loss there would still require a velocity loss since the energy requirements don't change. The Missing Jolt paper calculates the required energy loss by the upper block and shows that neither a jolt or the required velocity loss are observed.

It does nothing of the kind. In your whitepaper, you curve-fit to find an average acceleration of 22.8 feet per second² in the first three seconds of descent. That leaves about 9 feet per second² average deceleration caused by destruction of the lower structure. This is consistent with the findings of the BLGB paper.

In your own paper, your entire energy cost argument is based upon a "spring constant" which is never calculated nor referenced, but is merely stated. As a result, your estimate for destructive energy is about four times higher than all other published estimates. There's no reason why I should accept this.

Please show us the numbers to back what you are trying to say, instead of trying to twist my words to keep from showing your own case.

Again, see BLGB, 2008. And I note you still won't accept that there is no "jolt." You've denied saying it, you've claimed it was Dr. Bazant's claim, and you've tried the Truther Shuffle to retreat from it. Won't work. Own up to the smoothness of the collapse first, and once that's settled, we can talk energetics.

ETA: Oh, one more thing -- your own paper, warts and all, does not predict the collapse would stop were it not for "Explosives." It merely predicts that the collapse would be slower. Ergo, in your little world, the "Explosives" weren't even needed to bring the structure down. So, why were they there? Why should I believe a word of it?