Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[tfk]

The impacts do not have to be precisely face to face of the separate 3 story lengths. That is a ludicrous proposition. Buckled ends of columns can impact each other.

A jolt should have occurred after a one story drop. Why didn't it?

Sure they can. And that's likely to do ... what? The end of one column hits obliquely on the side of another. What happens next?

So tell me, Tony, a jolt produced by PRECISELY what pieces hitting what other pieces?

I am NOT interested in an answer of "the upper block hitting the lower block".

I want you to tell me exactly which massively strong pieces of the upper block ("massively strong" so that it could carry the massive energies required to produce a detectable jolt in a 50,000 ton structure) hit what massively strong pieces in the lower section after a fall of one story.

Clearly it can NOT be column to column, because there are NO mating surfaces that can align after 1 story's fall. Since the columns are 3 stories tall, the next column mating surface is still 2 more stories below you after 1 story fall.

So, Tony, if not the columns, the what other structure in the towers was built strong enough to "jolt" a 50,000 ton structure? Onto what other component could you have dropped two and a half welded-together Yorktown-class aircraft carriers? And have that structure "jolt" the Yorktown-Enterprise-and-half-Hornet?

Perhaps the 4" thick concrete floors? Maybe the spindly cross-trusses? Perhaps the 1/2" thick angle brackets? I know, bill smith's missing 1/4" thick corrugated cement pans?

Mechanical engineer much, Tony?


Tom

 

[Seymour Butz]

Hey Seymour,

"... a rough consensus ..." ??

How about "absolutely 100% certain".

Tom

I was being generous for Tony's benefit.

They all agree that he's nuts, after reading through some posts. But they're being nice to him by not calling him a loon for his beliefs. Guess they need all the help they can get and don't want to alienate somebody that they can use for their delusional views and then throw into the trash when they're done besmirching his name.

But they've reached the 100% concensus that Heiwa's nuts.

 

[WildCat]

The horizontal beams in the core were not trusses. Don't you know about them?

But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't think your postulated mechanism here would work, and a stress analysis would show it won't?

You can't just handwave this stuff.

Irony, thy name is Tony Szamboti.........

 

[tfk]

You can't just handwave this stuff.

STUNDIE...!!!!!

(...only because of the source...)

Tom.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

It is what I am talking about.

On top of that the NIST couldn't even get their model to cause buckling of the perimeter. They needed to apply artificial 5,000 lb. lateral loads to each column to get it to occur. In addition, they do not show how a south wall failure would even propagate.

This whole thing is a joke and those who defend the NIST report anonymously are also.

 

[WilliamSeger]

This telltale deceleration and velocity loss of the upper section in a purely gravity driven collapse is not observed in the velocity measurements of the upper section of WTC 1.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

STUNDIE...!!!!!

(...only because of the source...)

Tom.

So now you are resorting to childish behavior since you can't make your arguments work.

What a joke.

 

[DGM]

You are making it obvious that you don't have an argument against what I am saying when you need to start picking on fly**** like this.

Get real.

Tony, I did nothing of the sort. You edited your post after you realized it had no standing in reality (as stated). Get over the fact you were caught.

 

[WildCat]

It is what I am talking about.

On top of that the NIST couldn't even get their model to cause buckling of the perimeter. They needed to apply artificial 5,000 lb. lateral loads to each column to get it to occur. In addition, they do not show how a south wall failure would even propagate.

Are you still claiming the floors could handle 725psf?

This whole thing is a joke and those who defend the NIST report anonymously are also.

Well, something here is a joke. But it's not the NIST report.

Amazing you are completely unable to get a paper published in an engineering journal what with the NIST report being a joke and all...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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

I think it is the irreducible delusionary arguments by NIST apologists like yourself that cause the merry-go-round argumentation.

First you claimed a jolt. Then when it was shown not to occur you claimed the tilt caused the columns to miss and obviated the need for a jolt. Now that it is shown that the columns don't miss we are starting to see a new take from your side with a totally implausible 3 story buckling situation.

Give it a break Seger. You don't have a good argument and it is obvious.

 

[pgimeno]

The Verinage demolition technique removes the columns of a couple of stories to allow a drop of the upper section and to build momentum and then uses a kinetic energy transfer at impact with the lower structure to accomplish the demolition. It is indeed a purely gravity driven collapse and is what proponents of the NIST/Bazant explanation claim occurred in the towers.

Not fully. Seeing it as a Verinage-like collapse is a simplification, mainly intended to prove that vertical collapse is possible due to gravity alone.

However, the velocity measurements of every Verinage technique demolition show their upper sections undergo a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss, bearing out what I am saying.

Verinage demolitions are set up so that the upper floor falls on the lower one completely horizontally, meaning all columns give way at the same time. This produces a noticeable decrease in velocity. That didn't happen in the WTC. Do you have any videos of Verinage-demolished [eta: or by any similar technique] buildings where the top falls tilted instead of straight, to make a more decent comparison? Extra points if the building is a steel one.

Here's one (not verinage) where the top falls slightly tilted, but unfortunately the camera is not fixed so it's not useful for a speed analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

This telltale deceleration and velocity loss of the upper section in a purely gravity driven collapse is not observed in the velocity measurements of the upper section of WTC 1.

Am I wrong or have you already been asked to do some error analysis to prove that claim?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I did nothing of the sort. You edited your post after you realized it had no standing in reality (as stated). Get over the fact you were caught.

I was apparently editing while someone else was responding. How would I know that?

What really doesn't make sense is why would you even give a **** about it.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Give it a break Seger. You don't have a good argument and it is obvious.

But for some reason, you had no answer.

 

[Justin39640]

I think it is the irreducible delusionary arguments by NIST apologists like yourself that cause the merry-go-round argumentation.

Is a NIST apologist the same as an AQ apologist?

"Where's the jolt?"
"Many people have proven that you shouldn't have to see a jolt"
"Where's the jolt?"
"Here is why there is no jolt"
"Where's the jolt?"
"here is some math"
"Where's the jolt"
(Cue merry-go-round music)


You said that the top block could have been slowed and supported by a buckled beam?

Please post a list of every structure you have ever worked on so I can avoid them at all costs.

TY

 

[tfk]

The Verinage demolition technique removes the columns of a couple of stories to allow a drop of the upper section and to build momentum and then uses a kinetic energy transfer at impact with the lower structure to accomplish the demolition. It is indeed a purely gravity driven collapse and is what proponents of the NIST/Bazant explanation claim occurred in the towers.

However, the velocity measurements of every Verinage technique demolition show their upper sections undergo a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss, bearing out what I am saying. This telltale deceleration and velocity loss of the upper section in a purely gravity driven collapse is not observed in the velocity measurements of the upper section of WTC 1.

Do you think that I'm so clueless that you can slip "a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss" in for "greater than 1 G deceleration" and I wouldn't notice??

When was the last time a Verinage technique was performed on something the size of the Twin Towers?

Tell ya what... You go prep up a building that tall, damage it to the extent that the plane did, heat up the components to the extent that the fires did, allow it to creep into the precarious tilt just before the collapse, and THEN you pull your Verinage cables. And you measure your "jolt".

BTW, when falling at .7g, the building took ~1 seconds to fall. During this interval, it was in free fall for, say (98%? 99%? 99.9%) of the descent, and according to your "collision theory" would have been "impacting" for (2%? 1%? 0.1%?). Once again, it depends entirely on "what impacted what?" Something you have not yet addressed.

Regardless, the "impact time" is going to be proportional to the compliance of the impacting structures (lbs/in deflection), inversely proportional to the speed of the descending (in/sec), and inversely proportional to the elastic modulus of the mating parts (lb/in^2).

Let's say that the "impact time" is between .010 sec & (being VERY generous) .100 sec. HTF do you think that you'll catch that "jolt" when your "snapshots" are .167 seconds apart?

Psst, Tony. In case you hadn't noticed before, the NIST analysis & the Bazant analysis are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT analyses, with completely different assumptions, completely different approaches & completely different purposes.

There are only two things that join them together:

1. They come to the same conclusion: once the collapse started, it was unstoppable.

2. Twoofies don't like their answer.


Tom

 

[WilliamSeger]

First you claimed a jolt.

No I didn't, nor did anyone else that I know of, but that doesn't matter: even if anyone had made that claim, it would be completely irrelevant.

Then when it was shown not to occur you claimed the tilt caused the columns to miss and obviated the need for a jolt.

I didn't, but only because so many other people had already pointed that out.

Now that it is shown that the columns don't miss...

Really? Where was that?

... we are starting to see a new take from your side with a totally implausible 3 story buckling situation.

The collapse was obviously much more complex than you realize or are willing to admit, and there were many factors that would obviate the need for any "jolt" that could be measured by the technique you used. The answer doesn't need to be a single cause -- that doesn't make any sense. Most people understand that it was obviously much more complex than the simple Bazant and Zhou two-dimensional limiting-case analysis. By any rational reading, I would put Bazant and Zhou on the list of people who realize that. But you have yet to address one of the complications I have repeatedly brought to your attention:

Give it a break Seger. You don't have a good argument and it is obvious.

What's obvious to me is that you have no idea what's obvious to me.

 

[twinstead]

Tony, an honest question:

Say you were to take your little theory on the road, tour the university circuit. How many people would it take to tell you are wrong before you'd at least begin to think that they may have a point?

 

[TruthersLie]

It is what I am talking about.

On top of that the NIST couldn't even get their model to cause buckling of the perimeter. They needed to apply artificial 5,000 lb. lateral loads to each column to get it to occur. In addition, they do not show how a south wall failure would even propagate.

This whole thing is a joke and those who defend the NIST report anonymously are also.

So Tony.

In what journal can I read your peer reviewed refutation of NIST? Which journal will run this? I'd love to read it.

Where is it?

 

[TruthersLie]

I was apparently editing while someone else was responding. How would I know that?

What really doesn't make sense is why would you even give a **** about it.

Why should anyone give a **** about your editing habits?

Other than we have a long list of how you post utter bullcrap, then get replied to, then go back and edit your previous post to change your original claim.

so yet again, you make a ******** claim, get called on it, then change it trying to avoid looking (more) foolish. Tsk tsk tsk.