Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Tony Szamboti]

Yee gads Tony. Who is playing with semantics here... ?

Here's the graph again...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/358993252.png[/qimg]

As you can see, for a 200ms sampling rate, and a 61ms *jolt* duration, the deceleration is indeed under 1g.

The graph content is clear.

I asked you a question...

Are you saying a jolt duration of less than 61ms is not possible ?

You stated "You are completely wrong here", yet have not highlighted any error whatsoever.


Your tone is quite humerous. How am I to know what discussion you are referring to ? And by asking you to post a link, do you really think I have any issue with posting a link to it ? Not good Tony.

Now I know what discussion you are referring to, yes, I posted the link at the time here. And you quoted the bleedin' thing here, but here it is again...

Clicky

Your graph is not pertinent for the reasons I stated. That is the last thing I will say about it.

 

[femr2]

Your graph is not pertinent for the reasons I stated.

Of course it is pertinent.

You always interpret, well, everything that doesn't begin and end with *there was no bazillion g jolt therefore that proves explosives 200ft below what is visible* as criticism.

You could choose to use the graph (which is correct in it's math as far as I am aware) to say that as my data has a sample interval of ~20ms (about ten times finer than the Chandler data you use to prop up your position) that *jolts* over ~0.1g are detectable.

Why you choose not to do so is beyond me, but then perhaps you've put yourself in a corner that is rather difficult to get out of now ?

That is the last thing I will say about it.

Hmmm. Noted.

 

[ozeco41]

Fireman don't know why WTC 7 would have been in freefall acceleration for over 100 feet of its fall. Why would you say they do?

NIST admitted it occurred but did not explain the freefall acceleration for over 100 feet of WTC 7. Why would you say they did?

Tony's red herrings aside this is part of the conclusion he reached in the discussion "in another place" which Tony and femr2 have been discussing.

(Ref T Szamboti at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11547.html#p11547) I think it can be safely said that the upper section of WTC 1 does not decelerate due to structural resistance and that proof of dynamic loading, normally necessary to cause a natural collapse of a building structure designed to support several times the load above it, is absent, which is the premise of the Missing Jolt paper.

It should be clear to everyone posting or reading this thread that Tony is avoiding the actual collapse mechanism which occurred for both WTC Twin Towers - Tony only refers to WTC1 but the same type of mechanism applied to WTC2.

Remember we are addressing the point in time where Tony's "Missing Jolt" hypothesis of "unnatural causes" requires a "Jolt".

That point in time occurs after the top block has started to fall and the reason there is no "big jolt" of the scale Tony needs is because there is no (significant) axial contact between the columns of the top block and their lower tower complementary parts. That lack of contact can come from two causes:

1. Something or somebody removed a bit of column; OR
2. The top parts of columns bypassed the bottom parts as the top block fell.

Tony has declined multiple challenges to acknowledge and address the second cause of column bypass. In addition the "missing bit of column" scenario he presumes for his missing jolt hypothesis self destructs because it has no defined end point.
So, piece at a time:

I think it can be safely said....

You think wrongly.

....that the upper section of WTC 1 does not decelerate due to structural resistance...

Wrong again. It does but not as much as you want it to.

... and that proof of dynamic loading...is absent...

Wrong again. It is but not as much as you want because you ignore the mechanism of how the tower actually collapsed.

...[dynamic loading] normally necessary to cause a natural collapse of a building structure designed to support several times the load above it, is absent...

Untrue inference. What was designed to "support the several times the load" was the intact structure including columns which carried the main vertical loads. The collapsing towers bypassed most of the columns so that the outer tube columns were sheared of, taking little effective load.

...which is the premise of the Missing Jolt paper.

Yes it is the premise.. That premise is wrong. That error alone is sufficient to destroy the "Missing Jolt" hypothesis. There are numerous other faults of that hypothesis.

And, although discussing how the jolt was measured is a legitimate topic for technical discussion, it is a red herring the the main issue here. The Missing Jolt hypothesis is wrong. And it is wrong no matter what the details of measuring the jolt which is not there. That jolt is not there because the mechanism of the collapse was not one to produce a jolt of the scale Tony needs to prop uip his claim of "unnatural causes" - i.e. demolition.

 

[ozeco41]

...Why you choose not to do so is beyond me, but then perhaps you've put yourself in a corner that is rather difficult to get out of now ?

It's simple. "I was wrong on the Missing Jolt and thank everyone who has had the patience and skills to show me where the errors were."

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony's red herrings aside this is part of the conclusion he reached in the discussion "in another place" which Tony and femr2 have been discussing.
It should be clear to everyone posting or reading this thread that Tony is avoiding the actual collapse mechanism which occurred for both WTC Twin Towers - Tony only refers to WTC1 but the same type of mechanism applied to WTC2.

Remember we are addressing the point in time where Tony's "Missing Jolt" hypothesis of "unnatural causes" requires a "Jolt".

That point in time occurs after the top block has started to fall and the reason there is no "big jolt" of the scale Tony needs is because there is no (significant) axial contact between the columns of the top block and their lower tower complementary parts. That lack of contact can come from two causes:

1. Something or somebody removed a bit of column; OR
2. The top parts of columns bypassed the bottom parts as the top block fell.

Tony has declined multiple challenges to acknowledge and address the second cause of column bypass. In addition the "missing bit of column" scenario he presumes for his missing jolt hypothesis self destructs because it has no defined end point.
So, piece at a time:
You think wrongly.Wrong again. It does but not as much as you want it to.Wrong again. It is but not as much as you want because you ignore the mechanism of how the tower actually collapsed.Untrue inference. What was designed to "support the several times the load" was the intact structure including columns which carried the main vertical loads. The collapsing towers bypassed most of the columns so that the outer tube columns were sheared of, taking little effective load. Yes it is the premise.. That premise is wrong. That error alone is sufficient to destroy the "Missing Jolt" hypothesis. There are numerous other faults of that hypothesis.

And, although discussing how the jolt was measured is a legitimate topic for technical discussion, it is a red herring the the main issue here. The Missing Jolt hypothesis is wrong. And it is wrong no matter what the details of measuring the jolt which is not there. That jolt is not there because the mechanism of the collapse was not one to produce a jolt of the scale Tony needs to prop uip his claim of "unnatural causes" - i.e. demolition.

The no axial contact rationale has been shown to be impossible. You can keep on saying it all you want but it is still incorrect.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's simple. "I was wrong on the Missing Jolt and thank everyone who has had the patience and skills to show me where the errors were."

Nobody here has shown the premise of the Missing Jolt paper to be inapplicable to the collapse of WTC 1.

As I have repeatedly said, if WTC 1 were to somehow collapse naturally, without an observable deceleration, it would be a severe exception to the rule.

You are essentially arguing that a severe exception occurred with no basis for it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Of course it is pertinent.

You always interpret, well, everything that doesn't begin and end with *there was no bazillion g jolt therefore that proves explosives 200ft below what is visible* as criticism.

You could choose to use the graph (which is correct in it's math as far as I am aware) to say that as my data has a sample interval of ~20ms (about ten times finer than the Chandler data you use to prop up your position) that *jolts* over ~0.1g are detectable.

Why you choose not to do so is beyond me, but then perhaps you've put yourself in a corner that is rather difficult to get out of now ?


Hmmm. Noted.

In addition to the fact that the sampling rate of 200 milliseconds would not have missed any amplified load causing event, in the discussion on the 911 forum I showed you another reason why your graph was not pertinent. It is because physically it can't happen the way you portray it. I explained shock transmissibility to you there and showed you why what you were saying was impossible.

What you are doing is like calculating horsepower potential for an internal combustion engine without considering the limiting effects of friction, or arguing that the speed of light is achievable for an object with mass without considering the fact that its mass increases to infinity when approaching the speed of light.

 

[ozeco41]

Nobody here has shown the premise of the Missing Jolt paper to be inapplicable to the collapse of WTC 1.

As I have repeatedly said, if WTC 1 were to somehow collapse naturally, without an observable deceleration, it would be a severe exception to the rule.

You are essentially arguing that a severe exception occurred with no basis for it.

Denial chapter 2xx Tony?

The top block was moving downwards. There are two reasons why. Either the bits of column missed each other OR something or somebody chopped a bit out.

You will not accept that those two are possible. I do accept that explosive removal is one of those possibilities. I am open and honest to recognise that there are two options. I also accept that the demolition or "unusual causes" option must be left in place until I remove it by reasoned argument. I can do that at a later stage of debate - if we ever get past your balking at the start line. There is no point in doing so in face of your bald assertions of denial.

I am not arguing at this stage because you will not engage on the facts of the necessary starting point. And that starting point is the one you chose for "Missing Jolt" - the top block was falling. There are consequences of that simple fact that the top block was falling. You are in denial over those consequences - at this stage one of the valid options which you dismiss as being an exception to a rule which you leave undefined.

Jumping to unwarranted conclusions as you do is no argument. Nor is your repeated untruthful use of the false claim "exception to the rule". It is no exception to any rule that when one item falls past another item without contact no force, impulse or jolt arises from those ships passing in the night. And within the dynamics of that stage of collapse columns passing each other is more the rule than wishful thinking about end for end axial contact. Which the mechanism of initial collapse had already overcome and where the possibility of end for end contact being re-established was remote and would not survive if it did arise by some miracle.

 

[femr2]

in the discussion on the 911 forum I showed you another reason why your graph was not pertinent. It is because physically it can't happen the way you portray it. I explained shock transmissibility to you there and showed you why what you were saying was impossible.

I've repeatedly asked you what is wrong with the graph Tony, and from our previous discussion, it's not clear.

I have no problem changing the graph to include additional factors, but you are going to have to spell them out. I freely admit shock transmission is not an area I know an awful lot about, but it seems critical to your position and I find no specific detail in *the missing jolt*.

So...

A 10 msec shock will not transmit to the roof with a 4.09 Hz vertical natural frequency of the perimeter wall. The shock pulse duration to vertical period of the structure ratio is about 0.04 and it will be isolated. That is why the vertical natural frequency, shock pulse to period of structure ratio of 0.25, and the resulting duration which allows for transmissibility, were part of the assumptions.

Here you are saying, to me, that even if a jolting event which lasts 10ms does occur, that it won't transmit.

What factors affect the ACTUAL jolt/shock duration between two columns, regardless of transmission ?
(equations are fine)

I see no reason why the duration of the actual jolt/shock/impact between two columns cannot be a range of values.

You also seem to be saying that different durations may or may not be transmitted. What makes you think that the duration of actual impacts was one of those durations which would be transmitted ?

I assume that if 61ms results in *highest* transmission, that 40ms or 70ms would result in *lower* transmission, not zero. Correct ?

If so, please provide some math so I can incorporate it in the graph.

You have to look at both duration of the pulse and the period of the structure. Below a ratio of 0.25 shock begins to be isolated. The further below 0.25 the ratio is the greater the isolation.

Please provide some additional information which will allow me to incorporate the period of the structure into the graph.

I assume such would oscillate as a harmonic of the natural frequency ?

With a ratio of 0.04, which is the ratio of a 10 msec shock pulse and a 4 Hz natural frequency structure with a period of 250 msec, the transmitted shock is less than 10% of the shock level at the origination point.

Could you post your math for this please ?

I'm fine with the 0.04 ratio , but not sure where you get the 10% from.


Again, I'd like to improve the graph if it's wrong.

If you provide me with the information to do so, I'll get it sorted.

 

[femr2]

Would this be the right response curve...?

The series' are damping.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Would this be the right response curve...?

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/651051956.png[/qimg]

The series' are damping.

Your graph doesn't say but it looks like vibration transmissibility not shock transmissibility. Shock does not have an isolation region on the right after resonance.

What source did you get it from?

I would also like to ask what your educational background is, as it is important to know just what you might be able to understand without a lot of preliminary study?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Denial chapter 2xx Tony?

The top block was moving downwards. There are two reasons why. Either the bits of column missed each other OR something or somebody chopped a bit out.

You will not accept that those two are possible. I do accept that explosive removal is one of those possibilities. I am open and honest to recognise that there are two options. I also accept that the demolition or "unusual causes" option must be left in place until I remove it by reasoned argument. I can do that at a later stage of debate - if we ever get past your balking at the start line. There is no point in doing so in face of your bald assertions of denial.

I am not arguing at this stage because you will not engage on the facts of the necessary starting point. And that starting point is the one you chose for "Missing Jolt" - the top block was falling. There are consequences of that simple fact that the top block was falling. You are in denial over those consequences - at this stage one of the valid options which you dismiss as being an exception to a rule which you leave undefined.

Jumping to unwarranted conclusions as you do is no argument. Nor is your repeated untruthful use of the false claim "exception to the rule". It is no exception to any rule that when one item falls past another item without contact no force, impulse or jolt arises from those ships passing in the night. And within the dynamics of that stage of collapse columns passing each other is more the rule than wishful thinking about end for end axial contact. Which the mechanism of initial collapse had already overcome and where the possibility of end for end contact being re-established was remote and would not survive if it did arise by some miracle.

I don't say the structural integrity had to be removed by explosives, only that it would have been unnatural.

To see you even use the term "two ships passing in the night" in relation to why you think there wouldn't have been a deceleration in the collapse of the north tower is pretty difficult to fathom.

 

[femr2]

Your graph doesn't say but it looks like vibration transmissibility not shock transmissibility. Shock does not have an isolation region on the right after resonance.

It does indeed have an isolation region, but my thinking there was that there must be some isolation due to the multi-member non-rigid structure through which the shock would have to travel.

Is that a reasonable assumption ?

What source did you get it from?

It's, as I see you are aware, from a text on isolation theory.

I would also like to ask what your educational background is, as it is important to know just what you might be able to understand without a lot of preliminary study?

As you know, I don't provide personal details.

As stated above, I freely admit that shock transmission is not an area I know an awful lot about, but it seems critical to your position and I find no specific detail in *the missing jolt*.

I'm simply trying to gather the factors/equations required to improve the graph, and clarify the factors which affect the shock magnitude transmissable to the NW corner.

A 10 msec shock will not transmit to the roof with a 4.09 Hz vertical natural frequency of the perimeter wall. The shock pulse duration to vertical period of the structure ratio is about 0.04 and it will be isolated. That is why the vertical natural frequency, shock pulse to period of structure ratio of 0.25, and the resulting duration which allows for transmissibility, were part of the assumptions.

Here you are saying, to me, that even if a shock which lasts 10ms does occur, that it won't transmit.

I see no reason why the duration of the shock between two columns cannot be a range of values. Do you agree ?

You also seem to be saying that different durations may or may not be transmitted. What makes you think that the duration of actual impacts was one of those durations which would be transmitted ?

I assume that if 61ms results in *higher* transmission, that 40ms or 70ms would result in *lower* transmission, not zero. Correct ?

If so, please provide some math so I can incorporate it in the graph.

You have to look at both duration of the pulse and the period of the structure. Below a ratio of 0.25 shock begins to be isolated. The further below 0.25 the ratio is the greater the isolation.

Please provide some additional information which will allow me to incorporate the period of the structure into the graph.

With a ratio of 0.04, which is the ratio of a 10 msec shock pulse and a 4 Hz natural frequency structure with a period of 250 msec, the transmitted shock is less than 10% of the shock level at the origination point.

I'm fine with the 0.04 ratio , but not sure where you get the 10% from. Could you elaborate a little please ?

I'd like to improve the graph if it's wrong.

If you provide me with the information to do so, I'll get it sorted.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It does indeed have an isolation region, but my thinking there was that there must be some isolation due to the multi-member non-rigid structure through which the shock would have to travel.

Is that a reasonable assumption ?


It's, as I see you are aware, from a text on isolation theory.


As you know, I don't provide personal details.

As stated above, I freely admit that shock transmission is not an area I know an awful lot about, but it seems critical to your position and I find no specific detail in *the missing jolt*.

I'm simply trying to gather the factors/equations required to improve the graph, and clarify the factors which affect the shock magnitude transmissable to the NW corner.



Here you are saying, to me, that even if a shock which lasts 10ms does occur, that it won't transmit.

I see no reason why the duration of the shock between two columns cannot be a range of values. Do you agree ?

You also seem to be saying that different durations may or may not be transmitted. What makes you think that the duration of actual impacts was one of those durations which would be transmitted ?

I assume that if 61ms results in *higher* transmission, that 40ms or 70ms would result in *lower* transmission, not zero. Correct ?

If so, please provide some math so I can incorporate it in the graph.


Please provide some additional information which will allow me to incorporate the period of the structure into the graph.


I'm fine with the 0.04 ratio , but not sure where you get the 10% from. Could you elaborate a little please ?

I'd like to improve the graph if it's wrong.

If you provide me with the information to do so, I'll get it sorted.

Shock transmissibility is isolated on the left side, not the right side as is vibration transmissibility.

You obviously don't know enough about it to equate it to the collisions in the towers and if you can't even tell me your educational background I am not going to waste time with you.

 

[femr2]

Shock transmissibility is isolated on the left side, not the right side as is vibration transmissibility.

You obviously don't know enough about it to equate it to the collisions in the towers and if you can't even tell me your educational background I am not going to waste time with you.

It's not about wasting your time with me Tony, it's about justifying your own position.

Let's do this another way.

You have stated that jolts would be transmissable to the NW corner.

I say, no, the duration of the jolts were such that they were not transmitted with the magnitude you expect with your essentially 1D analysis. The structure was not rigid, which also affected transmissibility. There were minimal column-to-column impacts. The perimeters did not collide, but passed-each-other-by. The many separate collisions that did occur were all separated by finite amounts of time, spreading the *jolts* over a much longer period of time. etc...

Not to mention that the fact the *jolts* are *missing* is a misnomer anyway. First jolt missing, or all of them ?

You have a paper which no-one appears to think is valid. Not the *debunkers*, not the *MIHOP'ers*.


This is your opportunity to add detail that is missing in your paper to clarify WHY the jolt should actually be measurable at the NW corner. You've been told many reasons from many people why it may NOT be expected, but have amended and added nothing at all to your paper. Nowt.


Please point me to where you have already gone through the, no-doubt, complex process of defining the shock path to the NW corner and quantifying variation in magnitude along the way.


No doubt you will ignore my questions, and validate your own paper by saying...Tony said so, so it is true.

Whatever.

Until you fill in the gaps, the paper will achieve nowt.

 

[femr2]

If anyone other than Tony feels like filling in the missing factors for the graph in question, then by all means.

The end result would then hopefully be a way of estimating what magnitude deceleration can be expected to transmit to the roofline, and also how shock duration affects that magnitude...


Not my field, but the end result would be handy...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You have been shown that your attempt to show a jolt could be missed due to a 167 or 200 millisecond sampling rate is nonsensical, as it could not exceed 1 g and thus does not provide for an amplification of the load.

What an idiotic thing to say. Does Tony Szamboti really believe that a deceleration exceeding 1g could not be overlooked when sampling position at 5 or 6 Hz?

In addition to the fact that the sampling rate of 200 milliseconds would not have missed any amplified load causing event,

Yes, folks, Tony Szamboti genuinely believes that no jolt in excess of 1g could possibly have escaped notice using a sampling rate of 5 or 6 Hz.

That idiotic belief is central to the Chandler/MacQueen/Szamboti fallacy.

For more on the Chandler/MacQueen/Szamboti fallacy, see

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6092716&postcount=62
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094041&postcount=79

Especially the second of those two.

For a correction to MacQueen and Szamboti's miscalculated velocity loss (when they incorrectly assumed the free fall acceleration following a jolt would be 0.7g instead of 1g), see

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5544701#post5544701

You obviously don't know enough about it to equate it to the collisions in the towers and if you can't even tell me your educational background I am not going to waste time with you.

Why is femr2's educational background relevant here? The limitations of your educational background haven't saved us from wasting plenty of time with you.

 

[ozeco41]

If anyone other than Tony feels like filling in the missing factors for the graph in question, then by all means.

The end result would then hopefully be a way of estimating what magnitude deceleration can be expected to transmit to the roofline, and also how shock duration affects that magnitude...


Not my field, but the end result would be handy...

I find your discussion of the measurement techniques interesting but they are a side track from my main area of interest.

However let's not lose sight of the context in which it has arisen is the presumption by Tony that the mechanism for creation of a "big" jolt was present on 9/11. That is the clearly stated premise of the MacQueen Szamboti paper which it, in turn, adopted from the Bazant and Zhou conservative assumption of axial column on column contact.

No matter how accurate your metrication it does not of itself endorse the assumed premise for "missing jolt". If it helps to show no "big" jolt there are still two legitimate conclusions which can flow from that finding:

• One such conclusion is Tony's preferred finding that "unnatural causes" have removed bits of column.
• The second conclusion is the one I and many others draw that there was no significant axial contact of column ends and therefore no mechanism to produce a "big" jolt.

And, at the current stage of progress of my claim for those two, I do not seek to eliminate either the "demolition" or "no demolition". That separation depends on later stages of logic.

Meanwhile I find the measurement technique discussion interesting. I muse on the concept of "vertical natural frequency" to a structure such as the top block undergoing all the complex of impacts that were being applied. Despite all the mess of the actual impact zone the block above that level was still sufficiently intact for the length (ie height) to exert a dominant role. Interesting since I deny the "one impact one jolt" presumption of Tonys hypothesis and it is intriguing to consider where the boundary between the multiple impacts of minor elements links to any concept of the more global natural frequency.

Fortunately from my perspective my interest is strongly on the question "demolition or not?" so I do not need to answer the more complex questions which do not intrude on my ability to answer that question.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What an idiotic thing to say. Does Tony Szamboti really believe that a deceleration exceeding 1g could not be overlooked when sampling position at 5 or 6 Hz?


Yes, folks, Tony Szamboti genuinely believes that no jolt in excess of 1g could possibly have escaped notice using a sampling rate of 5 or 6 Hz.

That idiotic belief is central to the Chandler/MacQueen/Szamboti fallacy.

For a correction to MacQueen and Szamboti's miscalculated velocity loss (when they incorrectly assumed the free fall acceleration following a jolt would be 0.7g instead of 1g), see

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5544701#post5544701

This poster is arguing that a jolt, which would have induced column buckling, could have been missed on one hand, and then that freefall would have occurred afterward.

Just so everyone can judge the quality of the above post and the knowledge level of the poster, it is important to note that it is impossible for a freefall to occur in a natural building collapse, as the resistance during column buckling never drops below 25% of the original intact resistance, and since the columns in the towers had low slenderness ratios with factors of safety of 3.00 to 1 minimum, it would take an impulse significantly higher than 1g to cause them to buckle.

 

[beachnut]

What a smoke blower you are Clinger.

It is impossible for a freefall to occur in a natural building collapse, as the resistance during column buckling never goes below 25% of the original intact resistance.

That is your retort, talk! Wave hands pull a number out of the vapor and that is it?
How would you know? Source and references please. Was it free-fall, over 15 seconds to collapse sounds like a long time. Not very close to free-fall. But go ahead publish a paper in a reality based journal; you may want to quit all 911 truth groups to increase your credibility.

What column, can you list them? Got a paper to back up your claim? Evidence of CD yet? When will your colleagues at work join your Quixotic pursuit of delusions on 911?

Over 15 seconds sounds like a long time; did you check your numbers? What does your delusion of CD have to do with Bazant's work?