• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

The NIST FAQ had it as 11 floors plus the supporting floors weight for a total of 12 floors. This was the static (very conservative) load. The dynamic load ability (again, very conservatively estimated) was 6 floors total. They then went on to say that a more realistic number was less than these estimates but seeing as the falling mass exceeded their most conservative dynamic estimates that it was moot to study the collapse beyond the initiation of the collapse.

That's just for the connections in a purely vertical load event. It's not what the floor trusses are designed to carry. It's quite literally the maximum possible under most favorable to collapse prevention scenarios.

These connections are robust, not because they're over-designed, but because they must be capable of delivering 2 or 3% of the vertical force of the perimeter columns into the diaphragm with very little movement to prevent bracing against compression buckling.
 
The NIST FAQ had it as 11 floors plus the supporting floors weight for a total of 12 floors. This was the static (very conservative) load. The dynamic load ability (again, very conservatively estimated) was 6 floors total. They then went on to say that a more realistic number was less than these estimates but seeing as the falling mass exceeded their most conservative dynamic estimates that it was moot to study the collapse beyond the initiation of the collapse.
But that number is derived from the capacity of the truss seat connections, yes? Wouldn't the trusses themselves sag before the truss seat connections broke off, and in doing so pull the columns out of plumb, causing them to buckle?

IOW, the 29,000,000 lb figure is going by the very conservative assumption that other failure modes weren't simultaneously occurring?
 
For the 69 million lbs. to apply a force greater than 69 million lbs. requires a deceleration greater than 1g. The reality is with only 0.3g resistance the upper section continuously accelerated at 70% of gravity,
Pardon reality's intrusion: The 69 million pounds of mass already exerts a force of 69 million pounds even when it is at rest, because whatever is supporting it is already supplying sufficient force to counter 1g of gravitational acceleration.

If the 69 million pounds of mass is moving downward at .7g, then it will rapidly acquire momentum. After falling for, oh I don't know, let's say 10 feet at .7g, those 69 million pounds (about 31 million kilograms) will be travelling at about 21 feet per second (about 6.5 meters per second) and have about 200 million Newton-seconds of momentum. If you think the collision of those 69 million pounds with the floor below should bring them to rest, then the floor below will have to absorb the 200 million Newton-seconds of momentum with an opposing impulse before the floor breaks.

The floor is brittle and will break if it moves downward very far before the downward momentum is arrested. That means the downward momentum will have to be arrested quickly, before the floor moves far enough to break. For example, let's suppose the downward momentum is arrested within 65 milliseconds (mainly because that makes the acceleration come out to a round number). That requires an average deceleration of 100 meters per second squared for the 65 milliseconds, roughly 10g. The floor will deflect about 21 centimeters downward during those 65 milliseconds. It will also be exerting an upward force of about 3 billion Newtons during those 65 milliseconds. That's about 700 million pounds of force.

Looks like the floor's going to break. I don't know whether it's going to break from excessive force or from excessive deflection, but it's going to break.

How much of that 700 million pounds of force could the floor actually exert before it breaks? Some have said 3 million pounds, others 6 million; even if we accept your figure of 29 million pounds, the floor is going to exert only 4% of the required force before it breaks. How long will it take for the force on the floor to increase from zero to 29 million pounds? If the impact is perfectly solid, as gives the largest jolt, then the floor will break within a tiny fraction of 65 milliseconds, and the deceleration will never even get close to the 100 meters per second squared because the floor breaks at 4% of the force required to achieve that deceleration.

Just for grins, let's say it takes 10 milliseconds for the force to increase to 29 million pounds, and that the deceleration during those 10 milliseconds averages 4 meters per second squared. A deceleration of 4 meters per second squared, applied for 10 milliseconds, results in a delta-V of 4 centimeters per second.

So your missing jolt would be on the order of 4 centimeters per second, which is less than 1% of the 6.5 meters per second velocity. Are you certain a jolt of that magnitude would be observable on the videos?

The above, by the way, is what engineers mean by a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Maybe I made a mistake. You should consider running the numbers yourself sometime.
 
You are attempting to use the least possible case where everything would miss the columns. .


You're quite the troll if you continue to misrepresent what people are saying.

Nobody says that everything missed the columns, except on your very lame and unprofessional strawman argument.

Every sane person realizes that it is improbable in the extreme that there would be square and perfect on 100% of the core and ext columns that would be necessary to give the jolt you're whining about.

Want to convince someone other than twoofs?

Run the numbers that would prove what kind of jolt should have been seen even in the unlikely scenario of all the columns impacting the floors.
 
That's just for the connections in a purely vertical load event. It's not what the floor trusses are designed to carry. It's quite literally the maximum possible under most favorable to collapse prevention scenarios.

exactly.

But, as we've seen, Tony has a little problem understanding "best case."
 
That's just for the connections in a purely vertical load event. It's not what the floor trusses are designed to carry. It's quite literally the maximum possible under most favorable to collapse prevention scenarios.

These connections are robust, not because they're over-designed, but because they must be capable of delivering 2 or 3% of the vertical force of the perimeter columns into the diaphragm with very little movement to prevent bracing against compression buckling.

I was aware of that. I was just saying where Tony probably got his numbers from, not the validity of the way that he used them.
 
A "jolt" and a "step"? Interesting you differentiate between the two now. Care to define these terms, Tony? Or are you going to hide behind ambiguity again?
They mean what he wants them to. They have only instantaneous meaning.
In other words, you can use them or define them, but not both at the same instant.
So, we have TQE, and now the "Szamboti Uncertainty Principle", or 'SUP!
ETA:
I guess we could call it "Principle What Nobody Else Determines"...
 
Last edited:
Each floor (including that within the core columns) was approximately 40,000 ft2. Typically, office building floors are designed to take 150 lbs per ft2, evenly distributed. So each floor could hold a maximum of 6 million lbs, not 29 million, evenly distributed. Your scenario calls for a floor to hold 725 lbs per ft2, and for the load to be evenly distributed! A ridiculous assumption.

And it gets even worse - the 69 million lb mass isn't sitting still, it's falling, so it impacts with a force far greater than 69 million lbs.

The anvil through sheets of glass scenario is much more analogous than your certifiably goofy proposition.

FYI, a typical office building is designed for the actual dead load of the building (permanent construction items such as the concrete floor, columns, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, ceilings, flooring material, etc). And a live load equal to 50psf for "office" space and 80psf for "corridors". There is also a 15 psf live load surcharge for spaces that have removable partition walls (as they may be placed somewhere else).

This does not add up to 150psf for a steel framed building, it's quite substantially less.
 
FYI, a typical office building is designed for the actual dead load of the building (permanent construction items such as the concrete floor, columns, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, ceilings, flooring material, etc). And a live load equal to 50psf for "office" space and 80psf for "corridors". There is also a 15 psf live load surcharge for spaces that have removable partition walls (as they may be placed somewhere else).

This does not add up to 150psf for a steel framed building, it's quite substantially less.
The Mezzanine area at a major aircraft manufacturer in Ft Worth is a steel-framed building, and does have signs at all the stairwells "Maximum Floor Load 150 Pounds per Square Foot"--in a building built in the 1940's.
So it's not that much of a reach
 
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.

If a picture is worth a thousand words...


wtc1tilt3.gif
 
... and another you asked for but didn't finish discussing on the DU board, Tony:
wtc1tilt.jpg



If this were a static situation, approximately what percentage of the weight of the upper tower would be resting on the perimeter columns on the right?
 
FYI, a typical office building is designed for the actual dead load of the building (permanent construction items such as the concrete floor, columns, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, ceilings, flooring material, etc). And a live load equal to 50psf for "office" space and 80psf for "corridors". There is also a 15 psf live load surcharge for spaces that have removable partition walls (as they may be placed somewhere else).

This does not add up to 150psf for a steel framed building, it's quite substantially less.
I know in Chicago residential floors have to be able to handle 100psf, and exterior porches 150psf, per the building code. I was assuming that the code for commercial buildings would tend towards the high side.

At any rate, Tony Szamboti's claim of 725psf is utterly ridiculous. That exceeds the requirement needed to pack every floor with M1 Abrams battle tanks!
 
... and another you asked for but didn't finish discussing on the DU board, Tony:
[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc1tilt.jpg[/qimg]


If this were a static situation, approximately what percentage of the weight of the upper tower would be resting on the perimeter columns on the right?

Bill, there was no tilt like you show immediately. The tilt did not actually start until after a two story vertical drop. It has been precisely measured now.

It is hard to post here tonight after seeing the devastation due to natural building collapses caused by the earthquake in Haiti yesterday. We can only hope the number of fatalities stays relatively low and that rapid aid stems the suffering.
 
Last edited:
I know in Chicago residential floors have to be able to handle 100psf, and exterior porches 150psf, per the building code. I was assuming that the code for commercial buildings would tend towards the high side.

At any rate, Tony Szamboti's claim of 725psf is utterly ridiculous. That exceeds the requirement needed to pack every floor with M1 Abrams battle tanks!

It is the truss seats on the columns which could take the load of 11 additional floors and this is where the NIST felt the failures occurred.

Wildcat, it would be interesting to hear how you think the floors in the towers failed.
 
It is the truss seats on the columns which could take the load of 11 additional floors and this is where the NIST felt the failures occurred.
No, it's not. That was the strongest part of the floor system, and even that was overwhelmed by the collapse front. Some certainly did shear off, but that was certainly not the only method of failure nor the primary one. Many structural systems failed in the collapse, all of them in fact. Bolts sheared, trusses collapsed, columns buckled, columns got bent into pretzel shapes.

Wildcat, it would be interesting to hear how you think the floors in the towers failed.
See above. What is certain is no thermite in any form was involved, no explosives.

How's that paper coming Tony? You know, the one you won't dare submit to an actual peer-reviewed engineering journal... :rolleyes:
 
Bill, there was no tilt like you show immediately. The tilt did not actually start until after a two story vertical drop. It has been precisely measured now.

I'll take that as a concession of the point I made, but...

wtc1tilt3.gif


... whoever "precisely measured" that "the tilt did not actually start until after a two story vertical drop" is in serious need of either an optometrist or a psychiatrist.
 
... and another you asked for but didn't finish discussing on the DU board, Tony:
[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc1tilt.jpg[/qimg]


If this were a static situation, approximately what percentage of the weight of the upper tower would be resting on the perimeter columns on the right?

No, you shouldn't take it as a concession. The increase in vertical load on the columns on the right is equal to the sin of 4 degrees or about 7%. It wouldn't have very much of an effect on columns designed to handle at least 300% of the load above them.
 
I'll take that as a concession of the point I made, but...

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc1tilt3.gif[/qimg]

... whoever "precisely measured" that "the tilt did not actually start until after a two story vertical drop" is in serious need of either an optometrist or a psychiatrist.

The image you are using here was taken from 3.5 miles away and is looking at the north face for the most part. It does not contain the resolution to discern the initial downward drop.

The tilt could not have occurred with an intact core, so it is somewhat apparent that the core went down first and caused an initial downward drop. The NIST does not get into how a south wall failure could cause a collapse propagation from south to north and it is starting to become clear to a number of people why they don't, because it can't happen. There has been a good deal of discussion on this on the 911freeform lately, which is pretty well summed up here http://the911forum.freeforums.org/refutation-of-nist-wtc1-collapse-initiation-scenario-t296.html
 
Last edited:
There has been a good deal of discussion on this on the 911freeform lately, which is pretty well summed up here http://the911forum.freeforums.org/refutation-of-nist-wtc1-collapse-initiation-scenario-t296.html
Yes, the 9/11 wackadoodle sites are buzzing about it. But all you hear from the engineering community, and 95% of the population not mentally ill, is derisive laughter.

Whatever you do Tony, don't submit your s00per-sciency paper to a real engineering journal! Stick to youtube and conspiracy forums.
 

Back
Top Bottom