Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony I wish to address three issues which support your denial of counter claims against your "Jolt" explanation.

Issue #1 - Clearly identify the Stage of Collapse which is under discussion.

One which causes confusion to both "sides" of the Szamboti v The Rest debate is failure to clearly identify which stage of the collapse is under discussion. That same issue seems to pervade discussion of WTC towers collapse on all forums I have viewed.

I would normally categorise two critical stages of the towers collapses as "Initial Collapse" when the top block started to fall and "Global Collapse" as the completion of the collapse.

For purposes of this explanation I will add the intermediate process so we have:

1. Initial collapse which started the total collapse - and that statement is independent of how it worked - natural processes or demolition assistance;
2. The transition from the initial collapse to the following global collapse where the key point is that the falling mass ended up falling inside the outer tube of columns. Again "...that statement is independent of how it worked - natural processes or demolition assistance..." BUT it is clear from global collapse evidence that it occurred somehow - the explanation may be needed. The fact is established. AND
3. The Global Collapse which was a top down rapid sequence of floor by floor failures again a statement of fact whether natural causes or demolition assisted.

Now if we accept those as the basic facts what follows? (And if we do not accept those facts there are other preliminary issues to resolve but we reach this point.)

Issue #2 - Clearly identify the Consequences of the Process of Global Collapse.

Your "Jolt" theory relies on a significant impact or Jolt to cause the acceleration which would be visible to your macro analysis and is needed to support your conclusions.

To achieve that you postulate more or less explicitly that the upper falling structure collision on the lower structure met with substantially a full strength lower structure. Therefore discussion about column on column collisions/alignment/unlikelihood of missing etc.

The reality is that there were two main parts of the structure which carried the vertical loads - viz the core and outer tube - and in some proportion - 60/40 IIRC. The floors also carried their own loads but depended, naturally, on the columns.

Now the clear evidence is that during the global collapse, "3" of my above sequence, the outer tube columns were sheared off and fell. So they were either separated by demolition - essentially a zero load vertical resistance OR they resisted the falling weight to the impact failure in shear strength of the joust to column connectors. The latter less than 10% of the column strength and probably much lower.

So the outer tube columns played little part and the core would need to carry nearly double if it was to resist sufficient to cause the "Big Jolt".

But can we seriously expect that a multi storey failure will have a block with already buckled columns fall with those columns somehow maintaining full strength or close to it?

On the column on column alignment aspects you ridicule "missing", you seem to overlook "glancing" and rest your argument on "axial contact with near full strength".

What proportion do you claim gave near full strength? I would say near zero but even if it is 50% of the core it is still not enough. And no need to divert into esoteric maths to show that.

So we have near zero outer tube involvement and seriously degraded core strength if any.

And ( another "ignored" factor in much debate) with the large proportion of the top block falling mass landing inside the tube on the floors the limit of what can be transferred to the core caused by the same limited strength weakest link of the floor joist to core column connector. And it also is designed for one floor not a block of 10 or 20.

Yes, there are many factors interacting. But that explanation is sufficient for the macro statement I am making here. The one serious counter would require that the "Hat Truss" carried the floors and outer walls of the falling top block over to put those forces onto the core. Note that only in passing at this stage.

BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line is simple - your "Missing Jolt" explanation depends on near full resistance to the falling block be exerted by the lower structure.

Even a broad examination shows that such resistance was not available - the outer tube columns were peeled off and at least a large proportion of the core could not give full strength resistance.

And all of those claims subject to more detailed support if needed.

Issue #3 - Clearly Identify the Scale of Jolt involved.

No point explaining more - you are committed to looking for a "Big Jolt". There would have been a rapid sequence of many "Small Jolts". Those jolts not detectable by your macro examination.


Number of papers published is a poor measure - even the leading paper publishers make the same errors over WTC Collapses.

What matters is whether or not the explanation holds up.

And, almost to a man, the engineers I have discussed it with laugh at demolition. ...but no point playing "my list is longer than yours"

the "Missing Jolt" explanation does not stand.

So add my name to the list of engineers who do not agree with you.

The outer tubes were not simply shearing off at the first or first several floors of drop of the upper block. That is gross speculation on your part.

There is a reason Dr. Bazant said there must have been a powerful jolt. That is because he knew that would be the only way a natural collapse could continue beyond a one story collapse. You too should read the Addendum to his paper with Zhou, where he says a smaller series of jolts would not be fatal. The reality is that this is an untenable argument that several people here simply continue to use with no legitimate basis provided for how it could possibly transpire. To his credit Bazant realized it was impossible.

Your shearing of the outer tubes argument has some merit like Bazant's jolt, but it also does not conform with observation, for the first several stories at least.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The outer tubes were not simply shearing off at the first or first several floors of drop of the upper block. That is gross speculation on your part.

There is a reason Dr. Bazant said there must have been a powerful jolt. That is because he knew that would be the only way a natural collapse could continue beyond a one story collapse. You too should read the Addendum to his paper with Zhou, where he says a smaller series of jolts would not be fatal. The reality is that this is an untenable argument that several people here simply continue to use with no legitimate basis provided for how it could possibly transpire. To his credit Bazant realized it was impossible.

Your shearing of the outer tubes argument has some merit like Bazant's jolt, but it also does not conform with observation, for the first several stories at least.

Bazant's model is fundamentally based on a columns striking each other axially. We all know that this is very conservative and didn't actually happen. You can't draw too many conclusions from his model. The only one you can really draw is that even with this assumption that is grossly in favor of collapse prevention the collapse still progresses.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yeah, thjey make the same mistake you do. They and you ignore the over-pressurization of the interiors of the towers. A few tons of falling concrete will displace a goodly amount of air explosively.

It sounds like you think naturally induced explosive air pressure was at least part of the cause for the destruction of the towers.

What kinds of pressures do you think would be realized and why wouldn't it just blow out the windows and be relieved before doing any structural damage?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I also showed him why a series of separate smaller impulses was extremely improbable, as for that to even be possible the beams of a particular section would have to let go all the way up through all or nearly all of the floors for the columns of that section to fall independent of the rest of the block. Why would those beams let go? This is why Bazant was saying the series of smaller separate jolts was improbable with a deep block of more than a few stories and why I say the Addendum essentially pours cold water on the notion of smaller separate jolts.

OK, I withdraw the accusation of lying; it's clear that you've completely failed to comprehend what I've been saying all along. A series of separate smaller impulses does not need to imply a loss of rigidity of the upper block. It's simple geometry arising from the fact that the upper block rotates. If you're not capable of understanding that the rotation of the upper block must inevitably result in some parts of its bottom edge being lower than others, and hence striking the lower block before others, then I don't think I have the elementary school teaching skills to explain it to you.

The upper block did not come down like a seesaw the rest of the way and even if it did a large observable impulse would still have occurred in a natural collapse.

I have absolutely no idea where you got the notion that anyone was suggesting a seesaw motion; that's entirely your own construction. Again, as the upper block continues to rotate, the difference in height between the highest and lowest point of the bottom edge will increase, smearing out any impacts even more. I'm completely at a loss to understand why you still fail to grasp this; it's kindergarten level geometry.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, I withdraw the accusation of lying; it's clear that you've completely failed to comprehend what I've been saying all along. A series of separate smaller impulses does not need to imply a loss of rigidity of the upper block. It's simple geometry arising from the fact that the upper block rotates. If you're not capable of understanding that the rotation of the upper block must inevitably result in some parts of its bottom edge being lower than others, and hence striking the lower block before others, then I don't think I have the elementary school teaching skills to explain it to you.



I have absolutely no idea where you got the notion that anyone was suggesting a seesaw motion; that's entirely your own construction. Again, as the upper block continues to rotate, the difference in height between the highest and lowest point of the bottom edge will increase, smearing out any impacts even more. I'm completely at a loss to understand why you still fail to grasp this; it's kindergarten level geometry.

Dave

I fully grasp that you think there were separate impulses as the block rotated and I am saying that you can only try and use that for the initial floor collapse. The difficulty for you is to then try and explain the rest of the 114 foot measureable drop of the upper block not showing any signs of deceleration.

Additionally, the way the north face fell is hard to reconcile with your explanation of impulses being smeared. When something rotates and then falls it does not eliminate a deceleration of the raised side. I do rotational drop tests of of electronic equipment on hard benches and have had accelerometers on the vertical surface of the raised side of the box while dropping from just four inches of height, and have recorded 300g decelerations there. The reason is that the vertical surface is stiff in the direction of the load and the shock is not attenuated by deflection. The north face would have been stiff in the direction of the load caused by it's impact also.

I don't think you have a full appreciation for how shock loads work. There really is no chance that the rotation would explain a lack of observation of a deceleration on the north face of WTC 1, if an impulse actually occurred there. The columns on both corners were intact and just nine columns on either side of the north face and east and west faces on those corners, or 18 columns per corner, were capable of supporting 25% of the full tower load above them. They would not have collapsed without a serious impulse barring some sort of weakening.

 

[leftysergeant]

It sounds like you think naturally induced explosive air pressure was at least part of the cause for the destruction of the towers.

What kinds of pressures do you think would be realized and why wouldn't it just blow out the windows and be relieved before doing any structural damage?

I'm dyscalculic, so don't expect values for the pressure. I will leave that to the nerds here.

I do know, however, that any air moving within the office space would carry with it a tremendous load of dry wall, office furniture and flailing human bodies. Kind of obstructs flow out the windows, don't you think?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm dyscalculic, so don't expect values for the pressure. I will leave that to the nerds here.

I do know, however, that any air moving within the office space would carry with it a tremendous load of dry wall, office furniture and flailing human bodies. Kind of obstructs flow out the windows, don't you think?

No, the actual air pressure can find it's way through pretty much any opening. I don't think the explosive air pressure argument has much merit.

 

[boloboffin]

My goodness, Szamboti. Posting at 4 and 5 in the morning. You certainly were up way past your bedtime.

It's strange. I was looking through your paper and starting from page 3, you do nothing but describe the process that "we" undertook to measure the drop of this section of the building. I would have taken that to be you and MacQueen. And yet here, you say that there were "two" other people who did all of that TV measuring for you. That's page 3 to page 12 of your paper, Tony. What exactly did you contribute to this paper? Attitude?

And I'm still not clear about a measuring process that can tell us velocity figures so precise that they see a difference of 0.01 f/s in .6 seconds, but acceleration figures so completely unreliable (but printable by you anyway) that they cannot be used to falsify your paper.

And I'm also still not clear about this measuring process that is looking for a impulse of 113 milliseconds, and yet only take samples 167 milliseconds at a time. And how odd it is that every five frames can give you the accuracy that you need and yet every three frames or every frames would be so unreliable in your estimation as to be unable to falsify your paper.

In short, I feel not so much in the presence of a technical wizard exposing the fraud and complicity of the federal government as I feel in the presence of the Wizard of Oz.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My goodness, Szamboti. Posting at 4 and 5 in the morning. You certainly were up way past your bedtime.

It's strange. I was looking through your paper and starting from page 3, you do nothing but describe the process that "we" undertook to measure the drop of this section of the building. I would have taken that to be you and MacQueen. And yet here, you say that there were "two" other people who did all of that TV measuring for you. That's page 3 to page 12 of your paper, Tony. What exactly did you contribute to this paper? Attitude?

And I'm still not clear about a measuring process that can tell us velocity figures so precise that they see a difference of 0.01 f/s in .6 seconds, but acceleration figures so completely unreliable (but printable by you anyway) that they cannot be used to falsify your paper.

And I'm also still not clear about this measuring process that is looking for a impulse of 113 milliseconds, and yet only take samples 167 milliseconds at a time. And how odd it is that every five frames can give you the accuracy that you need and yet every three frames or every frames would be so unreliable in your estimation as to be unable to falsify your paper.

In short, I feel not so much in the presence of a technical wizard exposing the fraud and complicity of the federal government as I feel in the presence of the Wizard of Oz.

So I got up early today. Is that a problem for you too?

The term "we" is usually the generally accepted term used in papers which are co-authored, regardless of who did what specific work. I did the data reduction and explained what it meant.

As for your confusion about not being able to see an impulse of 113 seconds with a measurement taken every 167 milliseconds, I have explained to you several times that it is the after effects which would be visible. Read pages 10 through 12 again if you don't understand.

The acceleration graphs were not printed in the paper as they are two steps removed from the measured data. They are good for general trend but not for the minute correlation you are trying to make. It sounds like you are upset about that. There was no deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 and your attempts to somehow show there could be have no basis.

Since the paper explains how to do the measurements maybe you can do them yourself. The only thing that would cost you anything is the $20 for the Screen Calipers software.

The real Wizards of OZ were those who demolished those three NYC hi-rise buildings on Sept. 11, 2001 and fooled a lot of us for a long time and are still fooling some including you. The real debunkers are those of us who have seen through the ruse and are pulling back the curtain for all to see what the Wizards at the controls really did on that day.

Don't forget "if there was no deceleration of the upper block there was no mechanism for a natural collapse".

 

[Furcifer]

I fully grasp that you think there were separate impulses as the block rotated and I am saying that you can only try and use that for the initial floor collapse. The difficulty for you is to then try and explain the rest of the 114 foot measureable drop of the upper block not showing any signs of deceleration.

Anything less than 9.8 m/s^2 is a deceleration. I'll have to take another look at the paper, but I find it hard to believe you measured the "114 measurable drop" accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Anything less than 9.8 m/s^2 is a deceleration. I'll have to take another look at the paper, but I find it hard to believe you measured the "114 measurable drop" accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2.

Wrong! Deceleration is a negative acceleration. Anything less than 9.8 m/s^2 but greater than zero is just lesser positive acceleration. To transfer kinetic energy the impacting object needs to decelerate. The upper block of WTC 1 never did that, it continued to increase it's velocity throughout it's fall. The lower acceleration was due to resistance which failed at loads less than those of the static weight of the structure.

The average acceleration for the 114 foot drop was approximately 0.7g.

 

[boloboffin]

Wrong! Deceleration is a negative acceleration. Anything less than 9.8 m/s^2 but greater than zero is just lesser acceleration. To transfer kinetic energy the impacting object needs to decelerate. The upper block of WTC 1 never did that, it continued to increase it's velocity throughout it's fall. The lower acceleration was due to resistance which failed at loads less than those of the static weight of the structure.

The average acceleration for the 114 foot drop was approximately 0.7g.

So what happened to that kinetic energy if it wasn't transferred anywhere? The upper block was being accelerated by gravity.

ETA: I am actually concerned about your sleeping habits. Sleep deprivation could explain these delusions you keep putting into print.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So what happened to that kinetic energy if it wasn't transferred anywhere? The upper block was being accelerated by gravity.

ETA: I am actually concerned about your sleeping habits. Sleep deprivation could explain these delusions you keep putting into print.

Kinetic energy is just potential energy, which is mass x gravitational acceleration x height, unleashed by the removal of restraint to gravitational acceleration. Kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2, so if the velocity of the upper block did not decrease it did not transfer any of it's energy. I think you are confused about this and how the acceleration could have been a little lower in some areas. I explained that in a reply to 3BodyProblem above.

The static load above the columns of any building is actually being decelerated in a sense at 1g. The deceleration required is that above 1g for the impulse to generate an amplification of the weight of the impacting mass. This causes a kinetic energy transfer and subsequent velocity loss. If you understand the convention of gauge pressure, that is the measure of the pressure above atmospheric, then you will understand this. Look at the deceleration of 1g on the static load as atmospheric pressure and the deceleration above that as the pressure above gauge.

Thanks for the concern about my sleeping habits, but I think I'll be alright. I am 52 now and since turning 40 I have gotten up early and don't sleep in on the weekends.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Kinetic energy is just potential energy, which is mass x gravitational acceleration x height, unleashed by the removal of restraint to gravitational acceleration. Kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2, so if the velocity of the upper block did not decrease it did not transfer any of it's energy. I think you are confused about this and how the acceleration could have been a little lower in some areas. I explained that in a reply to 3BodyProblem above.

Thanks for the concern about my sleeping habits, but I think I'll be alright. I am 52 now and since turning 40 I have gotten up early and don't sleep in on the weekends.

Didn't you just say that it averaged at 0.7g? That leaves quite a bit of energy to go into the deformation of the connections, concrete, etc.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Didn't you just say that it averaged at 0.7g? That leaves quite a bit of energy to go into the deformation of the connections, concrete, etc.

Yes, it does leave 0.3 of the weight of the upper block to go into the connections. The problem, as I am sure you are well aware, is that the building structure below was designed to handle several times the weight of the upper block. The only way to overload it with the statically insufficient load above is with an impulsive load, which requires deceleration of the impacting mass.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, it does leave 0.3 of the weight of the upper block to go into the connections. The problem, as I am sure you are well aware, is that the building structure below was designed to handle several times the weight of the upper block. The only way to overload it with the statically insufficient load above is with an impulsive load, which requires deceleration of the impacting mass.

The building below (and their connections) would only support the design load from a relatively uniformly distributed load. A concentrated force could easily overload the floor slab in punching shear, one of the web members of floor truss, or both.

Furthermore, as evidenced from videos, etc, the upper block appears to be taking a very high level of damage before the lower-block begins to collapse. This suggests that a large amount of debris from the upper block began to pile up on the top slabs of the lower block. Some of this debris would be "punching through" as it were as evidenced by dust plumes on lower floors. This further damages the floors in advance of the main collapse wave.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The building below (and their connections) would only support the design load from a relatively uniformly distributed load. A concentrated force could easily overload the floor slab in punching shear, one of the web members of floor truss, or both.

Furthermore, as evidenced from videos, etc, the upper block appears to be taking a very high level of damage before the lower-block begins to collapse. This suggests that a large amount of debris from the upper block began to pile up on the top slabs of the lower block. Some of this debris would be "punching through" as it were as evidenced by dust plumes on lower floors. This further damages the floors in advance of the main collapse wave.

What do you think caused the upper block damage before the lower block begins to collapse?

 

[Furcifer]

Wrong! Deceleration is a negative acceleration. Anything less than 9.8 m/s^2 but greater than zero is just lesser positive acceleration. To transfer kinetic energy the impacting object needs to decelerate. The upper block of WTC 1 never did that, it continued to increase it's velocity throughout it's fall. The lower acceleration was due to resistance which failed at loads less than those of the static weight of the structure.

The average acceleration for the 114 foot drop was approximately 0.7g.

They tell first year students to avoid using the term deceleration as it only confuses. It's best to use negative acceleration. I avoided the term for a bit, but succombed.

A falling body undergoes an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 due to the force of gravity. Anything less than this is a negative acceleration, ie. an acceleration in the opposite direction. This means a falling body that increases its rate of decent slower than expected due to gravity is undergoing negative acceleration due to a retarding force. The kinetic energy absorbed in the deformation reduced the rate of decent.

I'm not sure of what you are looking for anymore. From what you have posted I am starting to think you are looking for a complete arrest (v=0 m/s) in the collapse at initiation or some time soon after.

 

[WildCat]

To transfer kinetic energy the impacting object needs to decelerate.

Absolute nonsense.

Gravity is always acting on the mass. This isn't, as your guru Heiwa claims, similar to 2 ships colliding.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What do you think caused the upper block damage before the lower block begins to collapse?

Explos...Err. This is a trick question isn't it!

The obvious answer is the upper block, which is what I was implying in my previous post. The lower block will shred the upper block until enough mass has built up on the lower block floors and the lower block has sustained enough damage for a progressive collapse to continue. Call it "critical mass" if you will. All it took was a redistribution of the weight of the towers from the columns to the floors.