Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Justin39640]

Only the bottom half of the cores remained and even then it was only half of the columns, so about 3/4 of the central core collapsed. Your comment that there was almost no damage to the cores is ridiculous.

As for the need for torches in a demolition setup that is nonsense. It is not necessary to pre-weaken columns by cutting them with torches to perform a successful demolition. That might be done occassionally in legal demolitions to keep the blast pressure down but it is not mandatory. Nobody pre-weakens reinforced concrete columns even in legal demolitions. They just use the right amount of energy to blow the column.

I thought they used blast curtains to reduce effects from the blast.
So you're saying that they used charges that were more powerful than normal? That still leaves the issue of... no booms. (extra loud booms in your scenario apparently lol)

No booms = no bombs.

Obviously there was no blast curtains at the WTC. What stopped the ejecta prior to collapse? Obviously you believe explosives initiated it. So why don't we see the result of extra powerful explosives that were designed to cut some of the biggest columns (that weren't pre-weakened) in NY?

 

[GlennB]

As for the need for torches in a demolition setup that is nonsense. It is not necessary to pre-weaken columns by cutting them with torches to perform a successful demolition. That might be done occassionally in legal demolitions to keep the blast pressure down but it is not mandatory. Nobody pre-weakens reinforced concrete columns even in legal demolitions. They just use the right amount of energy to blow the column.

It isn't done on rc columns, true. Wrecking the concrete is sufficient. The rebar will not stand alone obviously.

It is done on steel columns though. A shaped charge can cut roughly its own depth of steel. They can therefore easily be arranged to cut the flanges of an I column (sometimes in pairs, facing each other), but there's no way they'll cut the web. The web is pre-cut with torches. This also allows shaped charges on the inside of the flanges to pass through the web.

Now ... what was the construction of WTC1+2 ?

 

[rwguinn]

An F-16 sits on the runway with the brakes on. The pilot applies full afterburner, or 30000 lb_f of thrust. A drag force, which is a function of Velocity come in to play as the plane begins to move, so the applied forces are F=30000-f(v).
30 seconds later the aircraft is at v=M=1.0
where is the "decelleration", Tony? There was a force applied opposite the thrust--why no "jolt", Tony?
You are no engineer I would trust, Tony...

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't deny that there was a tilt in the upper section of WTC 1. My point is that it does not tilt prior to a vertical drop of about two to three stories occurring.

What do you say to that?

So let's say that for argument's sake we run with your observation that there was absolutely zero tilt at initiation.

You agree that there WAS a drop, correct?

You propose that the columns must have been "cut" by cutter charges, correct? Or thermite?

Now, propose a way that under either scenario, the columns would "meet" perfectly end-to-end in order to supply this "jolt".

Do you believe that the ends of the columns, and from reading Bazant's paper, this includes the ext columns, should be perfectly square in order to give the jolt? Or do you believe that ragged ends would do it?

Please comment on whether or not your numbers are wrong, since Bazant proposes a hypothetical "jolt", which would necessarily include the ext columns, but it is clearly seen that the ext columns are "pulled in" prior to collapse on one side, and others are seen to buckle - which btw would make square end-to-end impact impossible.

Aren't your numbers completely wrong when you account for the easily observable events concerning the ext columns?

 

[carlitos]

What you are saying here is absurd.

If an impact occurs between any two masses, one stationary and one moving, the velocity of the originally moving mass will decrease during the momentum transfer.

I'm not even an engineer and I know this is wrong. Dude, maybe you mean that the rate of increase in velocity will decrease? Seriously, how do you know that the momentum transfer will impact the moving mass at a rate greater than the gravitational force? Anvil / glass, etc.

Why is this paper not published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal again?

Where is the evidence that Giuliani is 'in on it' and what does this have to do with engineering?

Tony, you need to give it a rest.

 

[Edx]

It is not necessary to pre-weaken columns by cutting them with torches to perform a successful demolition. That might be done occassionally in legal demolitions to keep the blast pressure down but it is not mandatory.

(emphasis mine)

HAHAHAHAHHAHHAA.

You see a problem there Tony? Blast pressure? Another way of saying shockwave, right? And where are all the explosion sounds from the massive shockwaves from these explosives? Why wasnt anyones ear drums ruptured?

Oh but you have your mythical nano thermite that can do whatever you want it to do to save the day, right?

 

[Edx]

I thought they used blast curtains to reduce effects from the blast.
So you're saying that they used charges that were more powerful than normal? That still leaves the issue of... no booms. (extra loud booms in your scenario apparently lol)

Thats what Gage and Jones thinks, they used way more explosives than a typical demolition. Jones thinks they used stuff like C4 and Gage and Chandler think material and steel was ejected from the building but.... they dont make a sound becuase nano thermite is magic!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What you are saying here is absurd.

If an impact occurs between any two masses, one stationary and one moving, the velocity of the originally moving mass will decrease during the momentum transfer.

I'm not even an engineer and I know this is wrong.

Well, Tony's right if you accept his assumptions. He's modelling the impact of the upper section on the floor below as two perfectly rigid bodies undergoing a perfectly inelastic collision (meaning they stick together and move as one body after the collision). In that model, the falling body does lose some velocity when it hits the stationary body, and that is Tony's jolt. Tony's been ignoring the question of whether that jolt would be observable (even if his idealized model were applicable), but he's right about the physics of his idealized model.

Another idealized model is a ball rolling down an inclined plane. For that model, there is no jolt.

The WTC collapse was more chaotic than either of those idealized models, and belongs somewhere within the large gap between them.

The anvil/glass analogy is not altogether absurd. Although it may overstate the disparity between the weight of the upper section and the load-bearing capacity of the floor it hits, the disintegration of the glass models the disintegration of the floor, and that's a significant deviation from the perfect rigidity assumed by the perfectly inelastic collision of Tony's idealized model.

Why is this paper not published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal again?

Because Tony would have to address issues he's been ignoring.

 

[Seymour Butz]

but he's right about the physics of his idealized model.

My take on Bazant's paper in question is that he includes the "resistance" ext columns as contributing to the whole "jolt" statement.

Is this accurate?

And since videos clearly proves that on at the very least 2 sides, the ext columns weren't "blown", that Tony MUST redo his math to remain consistent to his own statements?

 

[R.Mackey]

I mentioned them in my debate with Ryan Mackey.

Tony that looks like a dodge to me. Instead of just posting the "ways" you expect someone to sift thru the entire show to find your remarks and possibly misinterpret them when you could have posted them right here.

I'll save you the trouble. In the debate, he suggested that the WTC could have been sabotaged just like the Balzac-Vitry structure was demolished, in verinage fashion, by using "jacks" or "cables."

He then suggested all this monstrously large and complicated equipment could be hidden above the false ceilings...

Furthermore, he's complaining here that Balzac-Vitry did experience a "jolt" as part of his core argument. But if the WTC was similarly demolished, but it didn't experience a "jolt," then obviously that proves nothing. Either way, he's painted himself into a logical corner, a very small one.

How's that new paper you promised coming, champ? I thought you were done here.

 

[R.Mackey]

My take on Bazant's paper in question is that he includes the "resistance" ext columns as contributing to the whole "jolt" statement.

Is this accurate?

And since videos clearly proves that on at the very least 2 sides, the ext columns weren't "blown", that Tony MUST redo his math to remain consistent to his own statements?

Dr. Bazant suggested that, in the best possible case, where the impact is flat and simultaneous, there would be a "jolt." He then goes on to show that the "jolt" potential is insufficient to arrest the collapse.

The best case is the one where the lower structure develops full power by (a) hitting the upper mass column-on-column and (b) doing so all at once. Thus, the best case would see a "jolt." That is, in fact, how you would determine it is the best case.

Reality <> best case.

The verinage demolitions try to come down as close to "best case" as they can, because they want the lower structure to break symmetrically. This makes it better controlled and safer.

We've explained this to Tony at least a thousand times, and I'm not even kidding about that. He still insists that Dr. Bazant's paper requires there to be a "jolt" for any collapse geometry, and this is stupidity unworthy of a degreed individual, full stop.

 

[tsig]

Oh but you have your mythical nano thermite that can do whatever you want it to do to save the day, right?

This means that thermite is:

""Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way! "

http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!77!23!C2E74F2C909C/DENNISOHAYS/MIGHTYMOUSE/

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not even an engineer and I know this is wrong. Dude, maybe you mean that the rate of increase in velocity will decrease? Seriously, how do you know that the momentum transfer will impact the moving mass at a rate greater than the gravitational force? Anvil / glass, etc.

Why is this paper not published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal again?

Where is the evidence that Giuliani is 'in on it' and what does this have to do with engineering?

Tony, you need to give it a rest.

Umm. No. If you look at a collision where momentum transfer occurs, the moving object will decrease in velocity. Unfortunately for Mr. Szamboti, his entire idea is based upon a really bad assumption: that the upper and lower blocks are both rigid bodies and free-to-move. Momentum transfer between the upper and lower block does not occur as the lower block is not free to move: it's attached to the Earth.

More importantly, if one considers that the upper and lower block will both behave as springs, the "jolt" that Mr. Szamboti is looking for at the roof-line can never occur. The force exerted from the lower block to the upper block will cause the a "jolt" in the bottom most portion of the upper block, this is true. However this jolt is going to be damped out at the roof-line as the columns in the upper block compress. It will behave quite similarly to shock absorbers on a car.

His entire thesis is based on assumptions that does not reflect reality. Though the assumption is wrong, his understanding of physics and engineering AFTER said assumptions are made is mostly correct.

 

[rwguinn]

I'll save you the trouble. In the debate, he suggested that the WTC could have been sabotaged just like the Balzac-Vitry structure was demolished, in verinage fashion, by using "jacks" or "cables."

He then suggested all this monstrously large and complicated equipment could be hidden above the false ceilings...

Furthermore, he's complaining here that Balzac-Vitry did experience a "jolt" as part of his core argument. But if the WTC was similarly demolished, but it didn't experience a "jolt," then obviously that proves nothing. Either way, he's painted himself into a logical corner, a very small one.

How's that new paper you promised coming, champ? I thought you were done here.

So he thinks applying a force to generate a bending moment at a beam restraint is best applied very close to the support location of the beam? How massive are those jacks and cables, anyway?
This guy is an ME?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So he thinks applying a force to generate a bending moment at a beam restraint is best applied very close to the support location of the beam? How massive are those jacks and cables, anyway?
This guy is an ME?

This big:

<--------------------------------------------->
(N.T.S.)​

 

[carlitos]

Well, Tony's right if you accept his assumptions.

Right and thanks for the explanation.

(on edit - thanks Newtons Bit for correcting my non-engineering self)

I still don't get how Mr. Szamboti could believe this so fervently that he refuses to publish it in an engineering journal. That is just odd.

I'll save you the trouble. In the debate, he suggested that the WTC could have been sabotaged just like the Balzac-Vitry structure was demolished, in verinage fashion, by using "jacks" or "cables."

He then suggested all this monstrously large and complicated equipment could be hidden above the false ceilings...

Yikes.

 

[tsig]

I'll save you the trouble. In the debate, he suggested that the WTC could have been sabotaged just like the Balzac-Vitry structure was demolished, in verinage fashion, by using "jacks" or "cables."

He then suggested all this monstrously large and complicated equipment could be hidden above the false ceilings...

Furthermore, he's complaining here that Balzac-Vitry did experience a "jolt" as part of his core argument. But if the WTC was similarly demolished, but it didn't experience a "jolt," then obviously that proves nothing. Either way, he's painted himself into a logical corner, a very small one.

How's that new paper you promised coming, champ? I thought you were done here.

Thanks R. Mackey

Funny that he wasn't as forthcoming here as he was on the show.

Let's hope he didn't use thermite paint for that logical corner or his arguments might fall faster than free fall.

 

[R.Mackey]

So he thinks applying a force to generate a bending moment at a beam restraint is best applied very close to the support location of the beam? How massive are those jacks and cables, anyway?
This guy is an ME?

Not necessarily, extremely, and yes.

I suppose the mystery secret jacks and cables could also be effective closer to the connections, but it would require even higher performance. Tony is probably aware this is not the right way to do it but is suggesting they could make up for the mechanical disadvantage through brute force. Hey, we're making this all up out of whole cloth, why not?

In any event, this is certainly not the kind of thing I'd want to try to place covertly under a false ceiling in an occupied structure.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Dr. Bazant suggested that, in the best possible case, where the impact is flat and simultaneous, there would be a "jolt." He then goes on to show that the "jolt" potential is insufficient to arrest the collapse.

.

Believe me, I'm not much interested in beating a dead horse (Tony) here, merely interested in discovering the internal conflict in Tony's beliefs and exposing them.

Your points about the verinage and jolt, etc, is a good one. But even there, my understanding of verinage and jolt, etc, relies on floor to floor contact being the only possible way of supplying any kind of jolt, since the verinage technique relies on pulling the columns out of alignment, which of course means that column to column contact couldn't be a contributor.

Which of course means that if we discard the obvious lunacy of hiding these hydraulics, etc, and take it at face value, then the columns at the WTC CAN'T contribute to any kind of "jolt" since like in verified verinage demo, the columns would ALSO be out of alignment.

 

[rwguinn]

Not necessarily, extremely, and yes.

I suppose the mystery secret jacks and cables could also be effective closer to the connections, but it would require even higher performance. Tony is probably aware this is not the right way to do it but is suggesting they could make up for the mechanical disadvantage through brute force. Hey, we're making this all up out of whole cloth, why not?

In any event, this is certainly not the kind of thing I'd want to try to place covertly under a false ceiling in an occupied structure.

Ah, yes--Fudd's principle: "There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be overcome by application of brute force and ignorance"
ETA:
And I wouldn't bet on the "probably", either...