I found the missing Jolt.

Crazy Chainsaw said:
It is your math I am using to disprove you, you and your group screwed up and continue to screw up on energy values. The equations you use presume a MA<R fall, however in the real collapse MA>R causes a different reaction.

In an MA<R model a jolt will be observed, in a MA>R Collapse or model, there can be no human perceived Jolt, it is physically impossible for it to occur.
The math checks out and is sound Tony, you and your compatriots screwed up.
Click to expand...

Where is your math?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Sure it is relevant as it shows the three hinge energy dissipation equation underestimates the amount of energy dissipated during bifurcated buckling which is what Bazant used in his analysis.

I know you try to say the columns never came into contact, as you seem to think they could have somehow slipped by each other, which is a notion that is quickly refuted by inertia of the upper section during the beginning of the collapse.
Click to expand...

One they use aluminum,
two the column being tested has no welds
and three the test is designed solely to buckle the columns in a perfect U hinge.

Aluminum has a higher energy value than steel per weight, they do not account for that in the math Tony, and the model column is short and restrained, unlike the real event.
 
Oystein said:
Why should I? With this "axially loaded columns during buckling" stuff, it is obviously irrelevant to the WTC collapses.
Did Szuladzinski et al also assume "axially loaded columns during buckling"? Then I am glad I never wasted time on it.
Click to expand...
Actually Oystein it is a valuable and interesting read. if only for a couple of the handful of ironies:
1) T Szamboti as co-author of a paper which rebuts "Missing Jolt"; AND
2) The assertion that Bazant was "too optimistic" with his quantities - so the original basis of "global collapse was inevitable" was possibly false.

--even tho' we now know that what some call "ROOSD" and my more comprehensive "Three Mechanisms" show that NIST's conclusion was correct...

..but NOT for their original reasoning which was possibly based on wrong weight estimates

So a lot of this contentious argument over 7 or 8 years here was probably wasted.

Ironies in all directions in this land of "Bazant could never be wrong"....

...and ROOSD deniers

..and T Szamboti supporters who don't realise they are :)



.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The experiment is worthless for the towers,...
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of that. And I've explained it for Tony many times tho he pretends otherwise. Tony is n a "no win situation" with "Missing Jolt". He has himself written at least two comprehensive rebuttals of MJ - and that is before we even consider my and any other debunker's multiple falsifications of MJ.

Crazy Chainsaw said:
the ends are restrained on the columns, not enough real world movement, more fantasy land.
Click to expand...
Yes - fantasy land for possibly more reasons that you realise.

My understanding and explanations are rigorously linked to a comprehensive understanding of the real collapse mechanisms.

It makes life a lot easier. :rolleyes:
 
ozeco41 said:
In the real events of WTC 9/11 collapses there never was a "Missing Jolt" - it was a fallacy created by T Szamboti.
Click to expand...

The most ridiculous thing about it is that Tony himself has had to impose arbitrary conditions on when it is or isn't observed. He's had to declare that, even if only the core and the corners of the perimeter were blown up, the residual strength of the perimeter column sheets cannot possibly have been enough to produce a measurable jolt, because even he can see that there can't possibly have been any explosions in the middle of the walls. He hasn't supported this with any calculations, just a general handwave that I've memorialised in my signature file. And the worst irony of all is that he himself has admitted that the real conditions of collapse initiation would necessarily preclude a jolt; he's just too blinded by his own ******** to be able to understand his own statement.

I totally agree with ozeco41 on this one; any discussion of the "Missing Jolt" is a complete waste of time.

Dave
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
I'm well aware of that. And I've explained it for Tony many times tho he pretends otherwise. Tony is n a "no win situation" with "Missing Jolt". He has himself written at least two comprehensive rebuttals of MJ - and that is before we even consider my and any other debunker's multiple falsifications of MJ.


Yes - fantasy land for possibly more reasons that you realise.

My understanding and explanations are rigorously linked to a comprehensive understanding of the real collapse mechanisms.

It makes life a lot easier. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes it does, however there is no problem, in diving into the theoretical, if just to
Understand the dog with a bone who will never give it up, psychology of CTERs who refuse to give up easily falsified
Ideas.
 
Missing jolt?.....

The only thing missing is the evidence of the inside job, the whole thing is popycock without this evidence.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's right next to the maths you used to determine that there wouldn't be a jolt from the perimeter walls if the core and the corners were blown up.

Dave
Click to expand...

Actually it is more a discussion of the energy dynamics, compression wave causing reflection wave that would have shook the ground as energy from impacts transited both down and back up the central core, and perimeter, helping to weaken floor connections, and Column welds well before anything impacted them.
But I could be wrong after all we all know it is impossible for a steel ball to dent, spring back and bounce off of a flat steel surface. We know the ball flies back upward because of spring elves using momentary anti gravity pixy dust on it. :rolleyes:
 
ozeco41 said:
True.

Despite the divergence of explanatory styles our core understandings often align.
Click to expand...

My core understanding is the Missing Jolt nonsense on both sides, is the result of both sides falling for a fallaciously over simplified argument, that has really no basis in reality.
It could as I said never have been true even in Banzant's limited case, because both sides forgot to factor in the dynamic equations of the reactions of the energy both from an impact, and the resulting refection bounce.
I find it fascinating that both sides got it so wrong, over simplified for so long.
 
Everyone forgot that granite like concrete is hard to deform, so over half the energy of an impact travels back up though the structure as a rebound wave.
When that meets the non compressible collapse front, it causes significant connection failures.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Where is your math?
Click to expand...

All you have to do Tony is factor in the rebound energy, you forgot- (ignored) in your equations
about half the impact energy, traveling at 5900 Meters per second, back up the structure, the video Camera frame rate I believe was too slow to capture it.
I hope forgetting to factor in the rebound wave was an accidential error, not a deliberate act Tony.
When can we expect a corrected and updated paper Tony?
Would really be nice if you could accept your mistake, and correct it, however I doubt that possibility, exists I expect you will just cling to that old missing Jolt bone.

However Remember William Rodriguez, heard the impact from below, first for the same reason your paper is not accurate, energy reflections from the rebound wave all steel structures will exhibit when anchored to non deformable foundations.
Admit your error and you might regain some respect from knowledgeable people.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Everyone forgot that granite like concrete is hard to deform, so over half the energy of an impact travels back up though the structure as a rebound wave.
When that meets the non compressible collapse front, it causes significant connection failures.
Click to expand...

That is rubbish...

True they are hard to "deform" but they fracture instead. This is nonsense really... give it up.
 
JSanderO said:
That is rubbish...

True they are hard to "deform" but they fracture instead. This is nonsense really... give it up.
Click to expand...

Science is never nonsensical the speed of sound in steel is 5900meters per second, and the columns are thicker and more rigid at the base, so your argument JSO is flawed.

Sound compression waves are what causes steel to bounce when dropped.

Regardless of whether the impact is from the side or inline with the Columns.
 
The dynamics of the building collapses (constant acceleration in WTC 1 and free fall acceleration in WTC 7) prove they were not natural and it seems all that those who don't want to believe this can do is offer up incessant nonsensical twaddle.

That is all this silly thread shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom