Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Tony Szamboti]

Spot on!!!

Which is why I put the qualifiers later in my post:
"There was nothing to cause a (noticable/measurable/large sized) jolt. That is why there was no big jolt."

Tony starts from the (apparent) presumption of demolition and therefore has to ignore what actually happened so he can point out that his fantasy "jolt" is missing.

As for the core on core impact - despite all the cross braces etc it was still one wire basket falling on a similar wire basket - more space that solid. The most probable contacts would be horizontal beams on horizontal beams which would indirectly collapse the columns by pulling them sideways. Too complicated to put in simple words BUT (the fact that matters) no way near the full column strength of the columns would be engaged.

Eric

No, for many years I accepted Dr. Bazant's hypothesis that there would have been a large dynamic load to cause collapse propagation in the towers. It was only since hearing about molten steel in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings and looking into these collapses myself and learning that there was no deceleration and no dynamic load, that I have come to realize the collapses of these buildings were caused by column strength being removed artificially.

 

[ozeco41]

Can you explain in more detail how the unicorns managed to bypass the core columns?

Yes I can but it is tediously lengthy.

Here is an abbreviated version.

Remember that we are looking for how the falling top block managed to bypass the core columns sufficierntly to avoid any significant resistance being exerted by the core columns.

Also remember that despite the number of columns and cross connecting bveams there was still a lot more space than solid in both the descending core of the "Top Block" and the waiting core of the lower tower section.

A key factor is that the initial collapse of the impact zone had already removed the load bearing capacity of the columns to below what was needed to support the Top Block. That meant that the columns which had already failed were already buckled out of line. If "bent but not broken" the buckled section would force the top bit to slide past the lower bit - at least until the column snapped. It would probably snap at a construction joint and nearly as cleanly as the outer wall column sections separated. Once the column was broken the top bit would continue to slide past the bottom. The probability of it landing fair square on top of another lower bit of column near zero.

So that sort of explains the column to column broad mechanics of interaction.

The most likely interactions between the Top Block core and the lower tower core then fall into two catgories:

1) "horizontal beam" falls onto "horizontal beam". That impact would offer resistance at least one order of magnitude less than the strength of the related column(s) (simple engineering behind that) The impacting beams would each bend and in doing so pull their attached columns inwards. Then those columns would either fail as a direct consequence of that induced bending (the construction joints probably the weak point) OR the now "tilted" column presents a much larger target for whatever the next falling bit of structure hits it.

2) Columns "tilted" out of vertical as just said present a target for whatever next bit of structure hits them - column or beam.

3) There will be many other permutations/combinations.

HOWEVER
All of those multiple contacts are between structural elements which are at least one decimal order of magnitude weaker than the original column. There is no way that the original full strength of a column can be recovered and applied to resist the falling weight. AND they are staggered in time. So each one is struck sequentially by a very large portion of the total falling weight.

Not all of it - the dynamics would be very complex. BUT the effective load would be far more than one columns share of the original dead load AND falling on a much weaker structure AND with full dynamic impact.

(And BTW, there, down the drain, goes Heiwa's fantasy about "rigid block on rigid block" impacts. It was nothing like rigid block on rigid block. Wire cage on wire cage is much closer.)

I hope that helps - it is easier with 3d graphics than in words.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It was only since hearing about molten steel in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings and looking into these collapses myself and learning that there was no deceleration and no dynamic load, that I have come to realize the collapse of WTC 1 was almost certainly caused by column strength being removed artificially.

Tony,

But you've got no Controlled Demolition background to make that arguement. Sux not having the proper credentials doesn't it?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

........................ okaaaaaayyy......


....................anyway just the millionth time it's been brought up... anyone who believes Bazant's initial work was anything MORE than a limiting case model.... needs to look up the meaning behind a limiting case. I imagine it shouldn't take a gazillion repetitions of explanations for the point to sink in....

 

[R.Mackey]

........................ okaaaaaayyy......


....................anyway just the millionth time it's been brought up... anyone who believes Bazant's initial work was anything MORE than a limiting case model.... needs to look up the meaning behind a limiting case. I imagine it shouldn't take a gazillion repetitions of explanations for the point to sink in....

It shouldn't, and yet, for some reason it does...

Tony also ignores that, as I pointed out during the debate, if the jolt is really essential, then an explosive demolition would have had one too. The only conclusion one can make -- other than that Tony is barking mad -- is that the Mysterious Evil-Doers deliberately rigged it with extra explosives to somehow prevent a jolt, just because they could.

Madness, just as it has been since the very beginning when one of his own reviewers tried in vain to correct the problem before it was released. But, no, you just can't stop The Truth, so now a year has passed, Tony's dug his hole ever deeper, and we're all stupider for his effort. Bravo.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

........................ okaaaaaayyy......


....................anyway just the millionth time it's been brought up... anyone who believes Bazant's initial work was anything MORE than a limiting case model.... needs to look up the meaning behind a limiting case. I imagine it shouldn't take a gazillion repetitions of explanations for the point to sink in....

It shouldn't if the person you're repeatedly explaining it to was honest and not emotionally invested in his fiction. Neither applies here, so not even a gazillion repetitions will suffice. No number of them will.

 

[WildCat]

molten steel in the rubble

 

[ozeco41]

No, for many years I accepted Dr. Bazant's hypothesis that there would have been a large dynamic load to cause collapse propagation in the towers. It was only since hearing about molten steel in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings and looking into these collapses myself and learning that there was no deceleration and no dynamic load, that I have come to realize the collapses of these buildings were caused by column strength being removed artificially.

Tony that reveals your preset belief system whilst presenting no legitimate argument. It also shows thatyou are paying no regard to how the towers actually collapsed. eg the "Top Block" wedged itself inside the outer tube and simply sheared off the floor connectors seriatem. No column strength involved to provide the resistance your jolt requires. Very similar for the core except not visible and a few complications but bottom line near zero core resistance to the falling mass.

That is what actually happened. That is the starting point NOT some fantasy mechanism which required a jolt which wasn't available.

as for your reference to molten steel inthe foundations.....you must be kidding....

Yes Bazant's reasoning was wrong, as were some other anti demolition notables. From memory and without checking, those academics who did gross energy type analyses and found that there was sufficient total energy concluded "No demolition". Right answer wrong explanation.

It is a false dichotomy of a massive order when you say "Bazant was wrong THEREFORE demolition."

Why don't you simply look at the mechanism which actuially happened?

There were two independent phases:
1) The "initial collapse" which allowed the "Top Block" to fall.

2) The pancaking collapses if the lower floors in the global collapse.

You are not even clear where you want your fantasy jolts to appear and that ambiguity leads to nonsense whether you include it in the "initial collapse" OR the "global collapse" stages.

NIST got it right that once the initial collapse occurred "global collapse was inevitable" (quote from memeory)

I wont waste time trying to logically show why yourt premise is wrong - cannot fit logic onto an imaginary scenario which is itself illogical.

 

[TruthersLie]

No, for many years I accepted Dr. Bazant's hypothesis that there would have been a large dynamic load to cause collapse propagation in the towers. It was only since hearing about molten steel in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings and looking into these collapses myself and learning that there was no deceleration and no dynamic load, that I have come to realize the collapses of these buildings were caused by column strength being removed artificially.

the molten steel lie tony? Really?

Since you obviously are an engineer, please provide the citations and support for that claim. I'll take any experts work. Please provide recovered molten steel.

Molten metal? You bet. I can think of about 10 common metals which all will melt in the temperatures of an office fire... can you?

 

[alienentity]

I wont waste time trying to logically show why yourt premise is wrong - cannot fit logic onto an imaginary scenario which is itself illogical.

Well said.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony that reveals your preset belief system whilst presenting no legitimate argument. It also shows thatyou are paying no regard to how the towers actually collapsed. eg the "Top Block" wedged itself inside the outer tube and simply sheared off the floor connectors seriatem. No column strength involved to provide the resistance your jolt requires. Very similar for the core except not visible and a few complications but bottom line near zero core resistance to the falling mass.

That is what actually happened. That is the starting point NOT some fantasy mechanism which required a jolt which wasn't available.

as for your reference to molten steel inthe foundations.....you must be kidding....

Yes Bazant's reasoning was wrong, as were some other anti demolition notables. From memory and without checking, those academics who did gross energy type analyses and found that there was sufficient total energy concluded "No demolition". Right answer wrong explanation.

It is a false dichotomy of a massive order when you say "Bazant was wrong THEREFORE demolition."

Why don't you simply look at the mechanism which actuially happened?

There were two independent phases:
1) The "initial collapse" which allowed the "Top Block" to fall.

2) The pancaking collapses if the lower floors in the global collapse.

You are not even clear where you want your fantasy jolts to appear and that ambiguity leads to nonsense whether you include it in the "initial collapse" OR the "global collapse" stages.

NIST got it right that once the initial collapse occurred "global collapse was inevitable" (quote from memeory)

I wont waste time trying to logically show why yourt premise is wrong - cannot fit logic onto an imaginary scenario which is itself illogical.

I am very clear as to when a jolt should occur, if the collapse was due to natural causes.

A number of you here have no problem believing these buildings could fall the way they did without a dynamic load. If that is possible then why can't someone build a model to show it could happen that way?

The NIST could have built a physical model to prove what they are saying if they couldn't do it on a computer. If they had done that it would be much easier to believe, because there are problems for collapse propagation without a jolt, as well as the way the NIST wants to say the collapses initiated.

 

[NutCracker]

The NIST could have built a physical model to prove what they are saying if they couldn't do it on a computer. If they had done that it would be much easier to believe, because there are problems for it without a jolt.

Burden of proof shift noted.

Please Mr. Szamboti, show us how the towers could be demolished by cd in the first place, please put forward an hypothesis that fits the available evidence, all of it. Then please put forward evidence that this actually took place. Testimony of the people involved in the preperation and execution would be welcome. Physical evidence, remnants of detonation wire, WTC steel columns cut by shaped charges, WTC columns cut by thermite and the suchlike would als be quite welcome, if not needed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Burden of proof shift noted.

Please Mr. Szamboti, show us how the towers could be demolished by cd in the first place, please put forward an hypothesis that fits the available evidence, all of it. Then please put forward evidence that this actually took place. Testimony of the people involved in the preperation and execution would be welcome. Physical evidence, remnants of detonation wire, WTC steel columns cut by shaped charges, WTC columns cut by thermite and the suchlike would als be quite welcome, if not needed.

The official investigating agency the NIST has the burden of proving that their hypothesis is viable.

There are many who are skeptical of their explanation, including myself, who have shown that the present NIST explanation is not viable.

It is you who are trying to shift the burden of proof.

Why don't you support at least building a model which could show what they are saying is possible to quiet the skeptics?

 

[tsig]

I am very clear as to when a jolt should occur, if the collapse was due to natural causes.

Cd's are supernatural?

 

[TruthersLie]

I am very clear as to when a jolt should occur, if the collapse was due to natural causes.

A number of you here have no problem believing these buildings could fall the way they did without a dynamic load. If that is possible then why can't someone build a model to show it could happen that way?

The NIST could have built a physical model to prove what they are saying if they couldn't do it on a computer. If they had done that it would be much easier to believe, because there are problems for collapse propagation without a jolt, as well as the way the NIST wants to say the collapses initiated.

Tony.

Just a quick question.

Are you actually suggesting that NIST build a scale physical model IRL to test the collapse mechanisms? REally?

Over 4 million parts, and lets not forget the horrors of trying to SCALE any model IRL. That is why they used a computer simulation.

Please provide the simple math to show how you can easily scale and create a model... say 1/10th scale. Should be easy. Feel free. I eagerly await your thesis (it would be one too... )

 

[TruthersLie]

There are many who are skeptical of their explanation, including myself, who have shown that the present NIST explanation is not viable.

Really?
What peer reviewed engineering journals have printed any papers saying NIST is wrong?

I'll take any peer reviewed journal from anywhere in the world, in any language.

Name one please.

 

[A W Smith]

I am very clear as to when a jolt should occur, if the collapse was due to natural causes.

A number of you here have no problem believing these buildings could fall the way they did without a dynamic load. If that is possible then why can't someone build a model to show it could happen that way?

The NIST could have built a physical model to prove what they are saying if they couldn't do it on a computer. If they had done that it would be much easier to believe, because there are problems for collapse propagation without a jolt, as well as the way the NIST wants to say the collapses initiated.

How big a physical model tony? You claim to be an engineer but you ignore the very basics of physics Tony. Scaling! You ignore this on purpose. Willful ignorance is just as bad as lying. You need to take scaling off the table so your fatally flawed hypotheses fit's. To all but the most casual reader your "build a physical model" call for ignorance is obvious. And I will show you why. Maybe you got your degree at a correspondence school? Watch this physics lesson given at a legitimate university. This MIT video of professor Walter Lewin explaining Scaling.


http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm


go forward to 11:13 in this video.


Dont maker the fatal error of ignoring Scaling again tony. You will be called on it every time.

 

[TruthersLie]

How big a physical model tony? You claim to be an engineer but you ignore the very basics of physics Tony. Scaling! You ignore this on purpose. Willful ignorance is just as bad as lying. You need to take scaling off the table so your fatally flawed hypotheses fit's. To all but the most casual reader your "build a physical model" call for ignorance is obvious. And I will show you why. Maybe you got your degree at a correspondence school? Watch this physics lesson given at a legitimate university. This MIT video of professor Walter Lewin explaining Scaling.


http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm


go forward to 11:13 in this video.


Dont maker the fatal error of ignoring Scaling again tony. You will be called on it every time.

AW. That video from MIT is brilliant. I would have LOVED to have several engineering profs like him....

 

[NutCracker]

The official investigating agency the NIST has the burden of proving that their hypothesis is viable.

There are many who are skeptical of their explanation, including myself, who have shown that the present NIST explanation is not viable.

It is you who are trying to shift the burden of proof.

Why don't you support at least building a model which could show what they are saying is possible to quiet the skeptics?

I love it how twoofs argue. To counter a particlar critique on your position, just adapt it . One time you argue that the towers where brought down by cd. Another time argue that you are just skeptical of NIST's collapse explanation.

I also just love how twoofies turn reallity upside dow, inside out, how they declare red to be blue and blue to be red.

We have the science of civil engineering that dates back to.. ancient Rome? We have buikding codes. We have safety measures such as fire protection etc. All to make sure that the structures we erect stay that way, so that humans can occupy and use the structures reliably and safely. Once in a while civil engineering failed. Bridges started resonating under wind load until they collapsed. Buildings have collapsed due to fires. Building a safe structure is a challenge. Building high risers is particularly challenging. We have over 400 m tall structures that were damaged by fuel laden wide body jets impacting them at around 500 mph, burned for an hour or so, and subsequently collapsed. We have a 3rd, less tall, high riser being hit by debris from one of the larger ones, burning for several hours before collapsing. Given civil engineering and the disasters it witnessed these structures collapsing is intellectually unsurprising. And now we have the twoofs declairing the intellectually unurprising impossible and the intellectually unsurprising requiring special proof. The claim that the collapses are impossible without the use of explosves of some sort.This claim is substantiated by junk science at best and blanket statements in all caps at worst. Evidence in support of their claims is absent.

No Mr. Szamboti, you may fool yourself. You don't fool me. Unmistakenly you have argued that the WTC buildings have been destroyed by cd. The burden of proof rests on your side of the table. You claim the buildings were destroyed by cd, you show us the remnants of detonation chords, traces of explosives, steel beams being cut by shaped charges, steel being cut by thermite etc. Now, Mr. Szamboti, where is it?

 

[carlitos]

How did Tony's engineering expertise tell him that Rudy Giuliani was "in on it?"