Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[R.Mackey]

Not really. We already discussed and retired the paper here.

As we noted there, the "missing jolt" is not only expected, it's further evidence that the collapse was unstoppable. A jolt would indicate the structure resisting, at once, at full power. Instead, the gradual nature of individual elements failing means that at no time did it resist as a unit, and therefore the collapse is even more likely.

 

[boloboffin]

Thanks, Ryan. I did a search for Missing Jolt, but that thread didn't come up, I don't believe.

I'll also make one further point before reading the other thread. Szamboti likes to say that B-V entered deceleration while WTC1 never did, but clearly B-V only entered deceleration in the crush-up phase, while experiencing acceleration dips throughout the crush-down phase.

 

[Heiwa]

As we noted there, the "missing jolt" is not only expected, it's further evidence that the collapse was unstoppable. A jolt would indicate the structure resisting, at once, at full power. Instead, the gradual nature of individual elements failing means that at no time did it resist as a unit, and therefore the collapse is even more likely.

So what kind of structure, A, is not resisting at once as a unit, if it is contacted/impacted by another structure C? And what kind of structure is C?

Shouldn't A at least compress gradually at impact, before the gradual nature of individual elements failing starts, whatever that means?

This missing jolt has nothing to do with elements failing. It has to do with the complete structure compressing elastically ... before this one-way crush down collapse you think took place.

Is a missing jolt further evidence that the collapse was unstoppable? Where did you learn that? Hollywood? Lol.

 

[Seymour Butz]

So what kind of structure, A, is not resisting at once as a unit, if it is contacted/impacted by another structure C? And what kind of structure is C?

You've stated clearly that it is your belief - which I agree with - that the core columns couldn't meet during the collapse initiation. This is the starting point of your "entanglement" scenario.

So how can it resist as a "unit" and provide the basis of your "bounce" scenario, when in order to provide this "bounce" the columns wust meet at collapse initiation? This is also demonstrated in the 5 figure diagram you have provided in your other thread, so I'm sure that you have a clear idea of what you're claiming.

Why are you proposing 2 contradictory scenarios?

They are mutually exclusive. If you like Tony's explanation/paper, then you must abandon the "entanglement"scenario, for Tony's paper RELIES on column-to-column contact at collapse initiation.

Therefore, you must now pick one scenario to prove that you are thinking clearly.

Can you do this?

 

[Furcifer]

So what kind of structure, A, is not resisting at once as a unit, if it is contacted/impacted by another structure C? And what kind of structure is C?

Shouldn't A at least compress gradually at impact, before the gradual nature of individual elements failing starts, whatever that means?

This missing jolt has nothing to do with elements failing. It has to do with the complete structure compressing elastically ... before this one-way crush down collapse you think took place.

Is a missing jolt further evidence that the collapse was unstoppable? Where did you learn that? Hollywood? Lol.

Wow, you simply don't have the faculties to understand the simplest of statements. You don't understand what gradual means in relation to a jolt?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not really. We already discussed and retired the paper here.

As we noted there, the "missing jolt" is not only expected, it's further evidence that the collapse was unstoppable. A jolt would indicate the structure resisting, at once, at full power. Instead, the gradual nature of individual elements failing means that at no time did it resist as a unit, and therefore the collapse is even more likely.

That's a good way to put it.

Given the weight of the debris and the speed of the collapse, I'm not even sure all that much force was delivered to the columns. The individual elements of the floor structure would be overloaded before the columns saw much load.

I've also pondered upon the repetitive loading of the debris from above. A cyclic loading* would further multiply the dynamic loading of the debris.

*Note: I'm not talking about a "resonance" effect here like you (truthers) think I might be implying. I am however implying with this statement that you (truthers) don't understand how dynamic effects work.

 

[leftysergeant]

This missing jolt has nothing to do with elements failing. It has to do with the complete structure compressing elastically ... before this one-way crush down collapse you think took place.

Now this is where you get caught with your knickers to your knees.

Of course, the structure compressed elasticly. The steel on the impacted floors was hot, thus more easily compressed.

Problem is, it had squat for rebound capability.

So, we now have the core kind of sagging. We have fllors sagging. We have concrete falling from one floor to the next, gradually. The falling concrete is a dynamic load, and it is increasing in mass by the second.

Look closely at the collapses. Very little comes out the windows in the first few fractions of seconds of collapse. (Rules out any use of explosives right there.)

But, when stuff does start blowing out, the volumn picks up rapidly.

This is known as a progessive collapse.

Ain't no arresting mechanism at work here, people.

 

[boloboffin]

Thanks for reminding me of the floors sagging, lefty. Debris or rigid blocks hitting those sagging floors would be hitting the floors in their weakest spot. That's why you build dams with the curve into the water they're holding back.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Now this is where you get caught with your knickers to your knees.

Of course, the structure compressed elasticly. The steel on the impacted floors was hot, thus more easily compressed.

Problem is, it had squat for rebound capability.

So, we now have the core kind of sagging. We have fllors sagging. We have concrete falling from one floor to the next, gradually. The falling concrete is a dynamic load, and it is increasing in mass by the second.

Look closely at the collapses. Very little comes out the windows in the first few fractions of seconds of collapse. (Rules out any use of explosives right there.)

But, when stuff does start blowing out, the volumn picks up rapidly.

This is known as a progessive collapse.

Ain't no arresting mechanism at work here, people.

FYI, something that compresses "elastically" will return to it's original un-strained state. It may even oscillate from compressed to elongated (think of a spring) depending on the material.

 

[A W Smith]

Its in the pantry under the root beer and iced tea

Found what happened to the jolt energy
http://www.joltenergy.com/default.aspx

 

[Heiwa]

Now this is where you get caught with your knickers to your knees.

Of course, the structure compressed elasticly. The steel on the impacted floors was hot, thus more easily compressed.

Problem is, it had squat for rebound capability.

So, we now have the core kind of sagging. We have fllors sagging. We have concrete falling from one floor to the next, gradually. The falling concrete is a dynamic load, and it is increasing in mass by the second.

Look closely at the collapses. Very little comes out the windows in the first few fractions of seconds of collapse. (Rules out any use of explosives right there.)

But, when stuff does start blowing out, the volumn picks up rapidly.

This is known as a progessive collapse.

Ain't no arresting mechanism at work here, people.

Well after 3.1 seconds of 'collapse' the roof has moved down about 35 meters.


This means that 10 storeys below floor 97 should have been crushed at this time by what you call the upper block and which I call Upper Part C, each one-way crush should have been associated with a jolt.

Please do not repost images that have been previously posted a number of times. If you need to refer to the images again, then link them to the previous post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

But as you see in above picture right - after 3.1 seconds - it is the Upper Part C that is being locally destroyed together with top of Lower Part A. No jolts anywhere.
And after that Lower Part A is blown into pieces - but not by anything dropping by gravity from above.

 

[leftysergeant]

FYI, something that compresses "elastically" will return to it's original un-strained state. It may even oscillate from compressed to elongated (think of a spring) depending on the material.

There was still some spring left in the steel, I am sure, though far less than it originally would have had. But, as the floors fell away, the ability to rebound even part way was compromised.

 

[Heiwa]

There was still some spring left in the steel, I am sure, though far less than it originally would have had. But, as the floors fell away, the ability to rebound even part way was compromised.

Say that lower part A is a spring with 97 parts. You hit it on top with a solid object C and all 97 spring parts compress elastically but then top part #97 breaks for any reason.

What happens to the 96 springs that remain of part A? And what happens to the object C that hit? Does it hit again? Assisted by part #97?

Pls provide a model that can perform this feat!

 

[GlennB]

You've stated clearly that it is your belief - which I agree with - that the core columns couldn't meet during the collapse initiation. This is the starting point of your "entanglement" scenario.

So how can it resist as a "unit" and provide the basis of your "bounce" scenario, when in order to provide this "bounce" the columns wust meet at collapse initiation? This is also demonstrated in the 5 figure diagram you have provided in your other thread, so I'm sure that you have a clear idea of what you're claiming.

Why are you proposing 2 contradictory scenarios?

They are mutually exclusive. If you like Tony's explanation/paper, then you must abandon the "entanglement"scenario, for Tony's paper RELIES on column-to-column contact at collapse initiation.

Therefore, you must now pick one scenario to prove that you are thinking clearly.

Can you do this?

No, foolish Seymour. He must refuse to be pinned down to anything resembling consistency. That way he can leap from one scenario to another - unapologetically - according to how the wind is blowing at the time. Classic "twoofer tango".

 

[Heiwa]

You've stated clearly that it is your belief - which I agree with - that the core columns couldn't meet during the collapse initiation. This is the starting point of your "entanglement" scenario.

So how can it resist as a "unit" and provide the basis of your "bounce" scenario, when in order to provide this "bounce" the columns wust meet at collapse initiation? This is also demonstrated in the 5 figure diagram you have provided in your other thread, so I'm sure that you have a clear idea of what you're claiming.

Why are you proposing 2 contradictory scenarios?

They are mutually exclusive. If you like Tony's explanation/paper, then you must abandon the "entanglement"scenario, for Tony's paper RELIES on column-to-column contact at collapse initiation.

Therefore, you must now pick one scenario to prove that you are thinking clearly.

Can you do this?

Good you agree that columns misses each other - if there is a drop/impact - and punch holes in/damage the weaker floor elements = small bounces = entanglement = collapse arrest. This is one scenario - if there is a drop/impact. Something similar happens in, e.g. ship collisions. The two objects - they are not alike - align their elements randomly. But if no element fails, there is always a bounce. It's like a child jumping on a mattress in a bed. Bouncing! Very funny.

The Szamboti jolt argument refers to structures/objects which have similar elements and uniform arrangements and then there is always a jolt at contact. It is not my scenario, but if it takes place, there must be a jolt.

My WTC 911 theory is that the upper part C never drops on lower part A. Should be clear from my web site, where I debunk Bazant's theory. The forces that destroy lower part A, were similar to the forces destroying part C earlier.

What do you think?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Not really. We already discussed and retired the paper here.

As we noted there, the "missing jolt" is not only expected, it's further evidence that the collapse was unstoppable. A jolt would indicate the structure resisting, at once, at full power. Instead, the gradual nature of individual elements failing means that at no time did it resist as a unit, and therefore the collapse is even more likely.

Gradual nature? There was nothing gradual about it. Nothing slow in the collapse at all. Not only that, you haven't proved 'individual elements' failed gradually. Had that happened, wouldn't a asymmetrical collapse initiation occurred?

The jolt is missing because the resistance was removed due to some external force like explosives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Gradual nature? There was nothing gradual about it. Nothing slow in the collapse at all. Not only that, you haven't proved 'individual elements' failed gradually. Had that happened, wouldn't a asymmetrical collapse initiation occurred?

Asymmetrical collapse initiation was observed. The top blocks of both towers rotated significantly in the early stages of collapse, indicating that the collapse initiation mechanism was a lateral progression of failures across the structure. Therefore, the individual elements didn't fail simultaneously.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Gradual nature? There was nothing gradual about it. Nothing slow in the collapse at all. Not only that, you haven't proved 'individual elements' failed gradually. Had that happened, wouldn't a asymmetrical collapse initiation occurred?

The jolt is missing because the resistance was removed due to some external force like explosives.

But that's not what we witnessed with video. Symetrical collapse occurred from asymetrical damage; therefore, not only is it possible, it's proven. See how circular logic works?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Gradual nature? There was nothing gradual about it. Nothing slow in the collapse at all.

Gradual does not necessarily mean slow.

Had that happened, wouldn't a asymmetrical collapse initiation occurred?

http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg

Looks pretty asymmetrical to me. Unless, of course, you're using a custom definition of the word. You truthers have been known to do that.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Gradual does not necessarily mean slow.
http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg
Looks pretty asymmetrical to me. Unless, of course, you're using a custom definition of the word. You truthers have been known to do that.

Gradual-1. taking place, changing, moving, etc., by small degrees or little by little: gradual improvement in health.
2. rising or descending at an even, moderate inclination

This was not observed. It was sudden and immediate.

WTC 2 started off asymmetrical and finished symmetrical. The asymmetrical part exploded on the way down. No big upper block laying to the side of the tower. But then again, doesn't the OP deal with only WTC 1?


Dave- Could you please post the source for asymmetrical initiation observations of WTC 1?
Thanks. Every video and picture shows symmetrical initiation.

RedIbis- I like circles. LOL Your right though. Its a great example of someone trying to make asymmetrical logic, symmetrical!

Hewia As an expert who is qualified to speak on the structural damages and collisions, did you observe an asymmetrical initiation collapse of WTC:1?
Thanks for your time!

By the way, I may have an example for your challenge, but I have to heat the entire structure below upper C until it can offer little to no resistance. Can I do that as part of the challenge?