Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Edx]

People using hyperbole on possibly the most chaotic day in recent history?

Yes, actually that's when I can imagine people using hyperbole the most!

I'll go with the quote mined, out of context, means what I want it to mean interpretation thank you very much.

My point is we don't have a lot of evidence for fires on "all" floors, at least NIST didnt seem to think so unless you can see where they actually think there was.

The main point is the firefighters reported large uncontrollable fires and no dissenting opinions from any of them, truthers ignore them and their claims imply the FDNY are liars.

 

[GlennB]

For the perimeter columns to be relevant, they'd have to be able to resist the collision between the upper and lower sections. Are you saying the columns met end to end?

Where does the rotational momentum go?

It goes into ejecting material on the side towards the tilt somewhat further than the material on the 'hinge' side once it starts to fall, tending to straighten the falling section.

Maybe my first truther video included Prof Jones explaining that the apparent loss of angular momentum at WTC2 could only be explained by its being blown up in mid-air. Total gibberish, of course. All that could achieve would be dispersing the very same angular momentum over a wider area with a lot of booming and flashing meanwhile. Nobody heard or saw that, plus it would be utterly pointless.

 

[ozeco41]

It seems about time that someone went back to Tony's paper and showed (once again?) why it was simply wrong from the outset. Tony's starting assumptions were/are still wrong. He does not address the mechanism of collapse which actually happened with both towers WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.

So the detailed debate can go round in ever diminishing circles chasing details which may be of abstract interest but bear little or no relevance to the analysis of what actually happened on 9/11.

This is from the start of Tony's paper:

The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath
it. ¹In addition, the rigid block had to fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, ² the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.”[5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.”[6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. ³Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it,⁴ with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse? ⁵ Journal of 911 studies January 2009/Volume 24
1
There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise.⁵ The lower part of the Tower ⁶ had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283
cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high
winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind ⁷. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it ⁸damaged by plane impact or fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to
it ⁹. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. ¹⁰ But momentum is a product of mass and velocity¹¹, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational ¹², the upper block had to fall, and
the greater its velocity the greater its momentum.....etc

1. Utter nonsense in the situation which actually happened. The "top block" started off rigid and intact it progressively broke up an its way to the ground. The critical issue is that as it fell the bulk of the falling structure descended inside the outer tube of columns effectively bypassing the strength of those. Similarly it bypassed most of the core strength (Hanging questions there we can leave for now are "How much is most? AND How do you prove it?)
   
   The falling mass fell on the floor of the office space AND (key point) was such an overload that it would near certainly have failed the floor to column connectors if placed there by the Hand of God, as gentle as a feather and with zero momentum impact. ~10 or ~20 floors of full building weight onto one floor.
2. Tony starts to build his strawman and other logic errors. Of course it is obvious that the falling block would fall on the lower structure. But WHICH PART of that structure is the key issue. And it did not fall onto the columns of the outer tube (and the conditional explanation for the core columns);
3. Come off it Tony - we are not idiots here (we may not be the target audience however.) "descent" - "the act of moving downwards" v "falling";
4. Well here comes the strawman (plus a gratuitous dig at NIST) BUT the concluding rhetorical question "why would the structure beneath collapse?" is answered by "Why did the structure beneath collapse?" and it did so because the floors were ripped out from the space between the core and the outer tube by a falling weight which applied an overwhelming force to each floor in succession in a (dare I say it?) "pancake" failure.
5. Well you got that bit right but get ready for the strawman;
6. Classic "strawman" technique - lead with a statement that globally includes both positions then infer yours. Lets correct the ambiguity/lack of concision. "...The columns of the lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970.
7. All of which is irrelevant because the falling "top block", whether intact and rigid, broken into bits OR somewhere partially broken up, fell on the floor area NOT the columns.
8. Same strawman trick "it" was not weak. What is "it"? the "it" which was not weak was the integral structure of the lower block. The falling top block (whole or in parts) did not fall onto the integral lower structure. Strawman.
9. Utter rubbish based on Tony's ignoring of the collapse mechanism which actually happened in favour of his own implicit and unstated/undefined mechanism which did not happen.
10. A "sort of truism" which fits both Tony's "jolt" explanation and the mechanism which actually happened. The difference is on "how much momentum?"
11. From here he heads off into "cloud cuckoo land"
12. with another unsupported dig at NIST - what forces other than gravity were relevant and involved?

So, given that Tony's base starting assumptions are wrong why bother with the rest of the paper?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They weren't on fire simultaneously. Why must you lie like that?

The 15 floors were on fire at some point in the 7 hour period, not all at the same time.

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers


Why must you lie like that, Vinnie?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Maybe they realise that not all floors were on fire and that one firefighter must have exaggerated.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this one, EDX.

I think it's quite possible that given the number of firefighters who testified that there was fire on every floor that there was indeed fire on every floor. However, it's quite likely that in the investigation that the NIST found the heaviest fire damage on "only" 15 floors, and thus focused their investigation there.

 

[Edx]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this one, EDX.

I think it's quite possible that given the number of firefighters who testified that there was fire on every floor that there was indeed fire on every floor. However, it's quite likely that in the investigation that the NIST found the heaviest fire damage on "only" 15 floors, and thus focused their investigation there.

If thats the facts then thats fine!

It is true that a lot of firefighters talked about it being "engulfed" and "full involved" (of course fully involved we know doesnt mean all floors necessarily) and fires on nearly all floors.

It would certainly explain all the smoke that seemed to be coming out of every floor.

The alternative to fires being on all floors isn't small isolated fires though, so I just dont see the need to argue it too strongly.

 

[bardamu]

It goes into ejecting material on the side towards the tilt somewhat further than the material on the 'hinge' side once it starts to fall, tending to straighten the falling section.

For the falling section to straighten, the floors on the tilting side would have to resist each other.

Into the impulse absorbed by the lower section, whose floors (until they fail) apply torque opposing the upper section's direction of rotation.

Just the recipe for an observable jolt.

 

[WildCat]

Once the rotation was under way, what stopped the upper block from tilting right over and toppling over the side?

The fulcrum broke.

 

[twinstead]

As a layman, I'm finding it difficult to believe, Bardamu, that just because you and Tony claim there should be a jolt there should. The folks on this forum, as well as many other's I've discussed the issue with, agree that you are wrong about this.

The way the buildings collapsed, as shown in excruciating detail in the myriad of videos of the collapses, as well as the myriad of analyses of the collapses, precludes any noticeable 'jolt'. You are wrong, and demonstratively so, yet you continue to insist you are right like some kind of religious creationist.

What exactly do you expect to accomplish by this?

 

[WildCat]

You conveniently overlook John Schroeder and Paul Isaac Jr.

They are both 911 firefighters who do not believe the official account of 911.

Since when was Paul Isaac Jr. a firefighter?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You conveniently overlook John Schroeder [...]

John Schroeder? The same Mr. Schroeder that admitted to having a drug problem in the time between 9/11 and the interview he gave? The same Mr. Schroeder that claimed, without any prompting, the his mind was basically a mess? The same Mr. Schroeder that got the tower collapses mixed up and was never corrected by his interviewers?

You think this man is reliable?

 

[Justin39640]

For the falling section to straighten, the floors on the tilting side would have to resist each other.

Have you tried to picture the top of a building rotating and falling over the side of the remaining structure?
That would mean at some point only a corner (side & bottom) would be the only part holding up the upper block. do you think any building in the world could continue to rotate without destroying the upper part, lower part, or both leading to total collapse?

You are actually saying you can load an already broken top of structure on 45 degree angle from where its normally loaded and it won't crush or totally pile drive what's below it.

This 'rotating top like a zippo lighter' idea only shows ones inability to visualize physics.

Just the recipe for an observable jolt.

Maybe physics and observations just aint your thing.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If thats the facts then thats fine!

It is true that a lot of firefighters talked about it being "engulfed" and "full involved" (of course fully involved we know doesnt mean all floors necessarily) and fires on nearly all floors.

It would certainly explain all the smoke that seemed to be coming out of every floor.

The alternative to fires being on all floors isn't small isolated fires though, so I just dont see the need to argue it too strongly.

This is the thing though. All the evidence that we have that seems contradictory is all reconcilable. But only under what the tinfoilers deride as "the official story".

The firefighters who saw fire on every floor is reconcilable with those who only saw a dozen floors. It's reasonable to assume that one firefighter was looking in the right direction at the right time when a break in the smoke cloud appeared that allowed a clearer view of the entire building. Otherwise the others might have seen only the most intense fires.

Firefighters describing explosions are reconcilable as well. Explosions are a common occurrence in major structural fires. In fact a building as heavily on fire as WTC7 would have had numerous explosive events.

All of the evidence can thus be reconciled with the "official" version of what happened that day.

Not so with the twoofer version. Large amounts of photographic, video, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence must be discarded or declared faked in some manner.

This is why Vinnie and RedIbis will never respond to those quotes I presented from Deputy Chief Myers, Deputy Chief Visconti, Lt. McGlynn and Lt. Larocca. They can't make thier fantasies work with all of the evidence. Only we can do that.

 

[tfk]

So Tony,

Where did you go?

You said that my statements were "utter rubbish".

I asked you to specify where the mistakes were, and you pull a vanishing act. One might come to suspect that you had a sudden revelation about what the word "acceleration" means.

What was the vertical velocity of the upper 15-story block of the towers in 1975, Tony?

What was it in 1985. Tony?

In 1995?

In 2000?

What was the CHANGE in vertical velocity between 1975 & 2000, Tony.

What is the technical term for "change in velocity with respect to time", Tony?

What was the vertical acceleration of that stationary, stable upper block between 1975 & 2000, Tony?

Do you still claim the a stationary, stable structure undergoes a 32.2 ft/sec/sec acceleration, Tony? Or are you going to be a man about it and admit your error?

Does the answer to these questions depend one iota on whether I am an anonymous Ed Witten or the janitor, Tony?

Or are the answers clearly spelled out in every high school physics textbook?

Tom

 

[TruthersLie]

Once the rotation was under way, what stopped the upper block from tilting right over and toppling over the side?

Your ignorance is rather staggering.

What was the upper block using as a fulcrum for the tilt? Huh? OH the structure below it.

once the structure below it was destroyed, the tilt stopped because it couldn't use it as a fulcrum.

It really is rather simple. Got physics? no. Got math? No. Got evidence? No.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So Tony,

Where did you go?

You said that my statements were "utter rubbish".

I asked you to specify where the mistakes were, and you pull a vanishing act. One might come to suspect that you had a sudden revelation about what the word "acceleration" means.

What was the vertical velocity of the upper 15-story block of the towers in 1975, Tony?

What was it in 1985. Tony?

In 1995?

In 2000?

What was the CHANGE in vertical velocity between 1975 & 2000, Tony.

What is the technical term for "change in velocity with respect to time", Tony?

What was the vertical acceleration of that stationary, stable upper block between 1975 & 2000, Tony?

Do you still claim the a stationary, stable structure undergoes a 32.2 ft/sec/sec acceleration, Tony? Or are you going to be a man about it and admit your error?

Does the answer to these questions depend one iota on whether I am an anonymous Ed Witten or the janitor, Tony?

Or are the answers clearly spelled out in every high school physics textbook?

Tom

Weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity

Yes, static objects are being accelerated otherwise they couldn't apply the force we call weight. They are held in equilibrium by an equal and opposite force. In the case of a building, the lower structure is designed with reserve strength making it capable of providing several times that equal and opposite force to ensure equilibrium is maintained. To break that lower structure with an upper part of the structure requires the upper mass to be decelerated at a rate significantly greater than that due to gravity to increase the force to what is necessary.

You are either confused about or attempting to obfuscate these simple facts. Either way I hope what you are saying does not fool anyone.

By the way Tom, you are anonymous. Sorry to say that providing your first name only does not qualify as giving your real name. Why don't you provide us with your full name Tom?

 

[Furcifer]

To break that lower structure with an upper part of the structure requires the upper mass to be decelerated at a rate significantly greater than that due to gravity to increase the force to what is necessary.

Not if the lower structure is compromised.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Not if the lower structure is compromised.

It was not compromised nearly enough to provide only 0.3g of resistance to the fall of the upper section when the structure was originally capable of providing ten times that amount. It wasn't compromised to the point of losing 90% of its strength.

In WTC 1 the percentage of heavily damaged or severed columns was approximately 15%. There is also no evidence of high temperatures in the steel needed to reduce the strength by an additional 75%. Granted the NIST says they only got between 0.25 and 0.5% of the steel from the towers and go on to say this might not be representative. However, people need to ask themselves why the NIST only got that paltry amount of this critical evidence to use in their investigation.

It seems somewhat obvious that something else was removing the strength of the structure below prior to the collisions taking place and the reason the steel wasn't saved for the investigators is that they would then discover what that something else was.

 

[bardamu]

You are actually saying you can load an already broken top of structure on 45 degree angle from where its normally loaded and it won't crush or totally pile drive what's below it.

It will pile-drive the structure on one side of the fulcrum but not the other. By the time the fulcrum breaks, the mass of the upper section has been redistributed so that part of it is outside the building's footprint on the tilting side and there's less of it to fall onto the floor below on the opposite side. It can't straighten itself unless there's more resistance on the side that's tilting downwards than there is on the side that's tilting upwards.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It was not compromised nearly enough to provide only 0.3g of resistance to the fall of the upper section when the structure was originally capable of providing ten times that amount. It wasn't compromised to the point of losing 90% of its strength.

Well that's not exactly true, now. Is it?


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

EDIT: I forgot about this part:

"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."

So the building lost 25% of its strength from the impacts, plus as much as 90% of the remaining strength from the subsequent fires. That adds up to well over 90% of it's total starting strength.