I found the missing Jolt.

Tony Szamboti said:
WTC 7 was certainly falling at full gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2) for over two seconds at the beginning of its descent and then a little less, but it was continuously picking up speed until it finally had a negative acceleration about 16 stories into the fall (a deceleration where velocity loss occurred). The North Tower was falling at about 52% of gravitational acceleration through its first story and then at 64% of gravitational acceleration (6.3 m/sec^2) continuously for as long as it could be measured (about ten stories).

You seem to have some issues with terminology and don't realize how embarrassing your comment here is in that regard, or you probably wouldn't have said it.
Click to expand...

No, I define embarrassing as claiming CD, and then describing what is clearly structural failure. Two very different things.
 
Axxman300 said:
No, I define embarrassing as claiming CD, and then describing what is clearly structural failure. Two very different things.
Click to expand...

You obviously aren't a detail guy and don't seem to let anything get in the way of what can only be termed biases. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously aren't a detail guy and don't seem to let anything get in the way of what can only be termed biases. Good luck.
Click to expand...

You do realize I can make a model of glass plates, and graphite rods that will demonstrate no Jolt do you not? Although I would not do such a worthless model, not when I have already done all I need to, to understand the collapses.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously aren't a detail guy and don't seem to let anything get in the way of what can only be termed biases. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence for CD? The simile is not evidence.

14 years, no Pulitzer for the fantasy of an inside job. A bad fiction.

What frame rate to we need to capture a jolt if the WTC acted like a perfect model WRT momentum? What about pixels? Did you do the error budget?

You got anything other than the CD fantasy for 9/11 issues? Do you know 19 terrorists were solely responsible for the damage on 9/11? no
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You can see this on the graph of the measurement and it makes perfect sense from a mechanics point of view.
Click to expand...
I agree with the highlighted, but not for the reason I suppose you have in mind.

Can you explain why, if the supports were removed since the beginning, it didn't fall at g from the start?
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
I agree with the highlighted, but not for the reason I suppose you have in mind.

Can you explain why, if the supports were removed since the beginning, it didn't fall at g from the start?
Click to expand...

First, only the core columns were artificially removed in WTC 7 and the exterior fall is what was being measured.

When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point due to high slenderness and p-delta loads. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and then decreases as the buckling increases. It is thus greater at the beginning of buckling, but I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and is greater at the beginning of buckling. I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
Click to expand...

What about the resistance and jolts seen in the seismic data, how do you explain those?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
What about the resistance and jolts seen in the seismic data, how do you explain those?
Click to expand...

We are talking about WTC 7 and why the exterior fall was momentarily less than g after it first started. It isn't clear how what you are saying has anything to do with that.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
First, only the core columns were artificially removed in WTC 7 and the exterior fall is what was being measured.

When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point due to high slenderness and p-delta loads. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and then decreases as the buckling increases. It is thus greater at the beginning of buckling, but I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
Click to expand...

#oysteinbookmark

Haven't thusly tagged a post in a long time. Thanks Tony.
This is a good explanation for the free-fall of the north wall roofline.

(Of course it is premised on the core failing first - not necessarily on the cause of the core failure)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point due to high slenderness and p-delta loads. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and then decreases as the buckling increases. It is thus greater at the beginning of buckling, but I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that free fall is not in itself an indicator of controlled demolition, and that instead it is just an indicator that the core fell first?
 
pgimeno said:
So, are you saying that free fall is not in itself an indicator of controlled demolition, and that instead it is just an indicator that the core fell first?
Click to expand...

The symmetric free fall is indicative of controlled demolition. The fly in the ointment of a progressive east to west core collapse is that it would have had to start taking the exterior down from east to west. That is not what happened. The exterior comes down evenly.

The core was dropped somewhat simultaneously with the charges set to go off from center outward in a fraction of a second.

The east penthouse fall was a separate and distinct event and the core was largely intact on the east side. This is provable due to the shock wave going from top to bottom, dust not emanating from the exterior until it falls itself, and only fifteen stories of windows at the top of the building are broken on the east side when the east penthouse goes down.
 
Last edited:
I'll rephrase.

Do you agree that the speed of the fall alone is not an indicator of CD?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The symmetric free fall is indicative of controlled demolition. The fly in the ointment of a progressive east to west core collapse is that it would have had to start taking the exterior down from east to west. That is not what happened. The exterior comes down evenly.

The core was dropped somewhat simultaneously with the charges set to go off from center outward in a fraction of a second.

The east penthouse fall was a separate and distinct event and the core was largely intact on the east side. This is provable due to the shock wave going from top to bottom, dust not emanating from the exterior until it falls itself, and only fifteen stories of windows at the top of the building are broken on the east side when the east penthouse goes down.
Click to expand...

While that may be true of an undamaged building, that might not be the case for one that has significant damage.
 
pgimeno said:
I'll rephrase.

Do you agree that the speed of the fall alone is not an indicator of CD?
Click to expand...

I would say it actually is as a progressive collapse could never get free fall going even on part of the structure due to connectivity with adjacent structure. Only CD could have caused free fall acceleration under any circumstances with a connected exterior structure.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The core was dropped somewhat simultaneously with the charges set to go off from center outward in a fraction of a second.
Click to expand...

Other than flashes and sounds of explosives, which we know were not observed, please list the key characteristics in which such a demolition would differ from a progressive failure starting at the centre and propagating outwards due to successive failure of components and load transfer.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Other than flashes and sounds of explosives, which we know were not observed, please list the key characteristics in which such a demolition would differ from a progressive failure starting at the centre and propagating outwards due to successive failure of components and load transfer.

Dave
Click to expand...

First, you are throwing out the column 79 initiation if you start your progressive collapse from center and you need it to happen extraordinarily fast which you probably can't explain. You can't explain the rapidity of the symmetric fall with your theory.

Your argument about not seeing flashes is somewhat arbitrary. Any charge flash in the core would be hard to see and hear and they could have been tamped and covered making it even harder. On top of that they were probably between the 14th and 22nd stories and that is 182 to 286 feet above ground and would not be visible from ground level in the core. There was only one camera taking high shots and it was from a long distance.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Somehow I knew you would evade the question. Thanks for confirming, yet again, that you won't ever give a straight answer.

Dave
Click to expand...

How cute you are Dave, a regular smarty pants without answers throwing out unsupported barbs at someone who actually provides answers to the questions, but not what you want to hear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom