Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Seymour Butz]

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.

Agree so far. The floors fail.

But if no element fails, there is always a bounce.

So then there is no possibility of a bounce, right?

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.

Agree that he's unrealistic, since we all know (other than him) that the elements will never align after the drop.

My WTC 911 theory is that the upper part C never drops on lower part A.

What do you think?

I think you're either:

1- a liar
or
2- too stupid to realize that you're wrong
or
3- a troll

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Please post your source for the claim that every video and picture shows symmetrical initiation, or indeed what the statement "Every video and picture shows symmetrical initiation" is supposed to mean; it has the appearance of a rational statement, but on any kind of close examination, it's nonsense. It's impossible for any video or picture to show both the near and far sides of the building at collapse initiation, so it's impossible for a video or a picture to show symmetrical initiation; however, a simple tilt of the upper block, as seen in every video and picture of the WTC2 collapse, seen in videos and pictures of the WTC1 collapse other than those taken from a direction near-normal to the rotation axis (from which rotation would be expected, by geometry, to be difficult to perceive) and quantified by the NIST report, is incontravertible evidence that the collapse initiation was asymmetrical.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Straw Dangler . wrong again

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

From Hoboken you can see the top rotate south

 

[Dave Rogers]

From Hoboken you can see the top rotate south

There was one that bill smith posted some while back that showed the upper block rotation very clearly, which he then spent the next few dozen posts trying to handwave away. Of course truthers will claim that the Hoboken video just shows the antenna rotating, and that this proves that the core columns were blown up before the rest of the building, or something similarly unfounded.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

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?

Thanks for asking. Ship (and car) collisions are always asymmetrical. Re WTC 1 I do not think there was a collision between upper part C and lower part A at all! Upper part C was blown to pieces from inside like part A, from top to bottom, a little later.

Re Challenge - if you intend to enter some sort of ice cream structure and melt lower part A before impact by still frozen upper part C, then I suggest you offer the ice cream to any audience before melting.

 

[Heiwa]

From Hoboken you can see the top rotate south

Plenty of explosions mentioned! Explosions? According Bazant/NIST shall upper part C just gradually - and normally? - no explosions - one-way crush down lower part A and compress lower part A into a rubble part B with little resistance of part A. And after that, part A has become 100% rubble, rubble part B shall crush up part C.

 

[Shalamar]

Hmmm.

I see where many truthers fail to understand. The lower black of the towers did not simply fail. A single floor below the upper blocks failed. One floor The upper block collapsed unto a single floor. The severe stresses of this exceeded the capacity of the floor catastrophically, and the floor, at the connection points failed. That floor, plus the portion of the upper black fell onto the floor below it.. Causing that floor to fail. And so it continued.

Of course, there are those that say that the towers, and thus, the floors were completely invulnerable to such (an odd belief) . Given the debris, the smoke, and the dust thrown out by the collapse it can be difficult to measure and time the collapses. For those who claim that there was no 'arrest' of the collapse during the failures, please supply an un obscured view of the tower collapses via high-speed camera.

For those who say that the floors could have remained stable, and supported the upper blacks, please provide the load capacity of the floors, as compared to the mass of the upper block falling unto it.

Also remember.. explosions do not equal explosives.

 

[A W Smith]

removed as off topic

You completely ignored my point that the video shows the top of wtc1 did indeed rotate and therefore could not create a sudden jolt. Your post has been reported to the moderators as off topic cross posting.

 

[Tricky]

Merged with older thread on similar subject.

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

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hmmm.

I see where many truthers fail to understand. The lower black of the towers did not simply fail. A single floor below the upper blocks failed. One floor The upper block collapsed unto a single floor. The severe stresses of this exceeded the capacity of the floor catastrophically, and the floor, at the connection points failed. That floor, plus the portion of the upper black fell onto the floor below it.. Causing that floor to fail. And so it continued.

Of course, there are those that say that the towers, and thus, the floors were completely invulnerable to such (an odd belief) . Given the debris, the smoke, and the dust thrown out by the collapse it can be difficult to measure and time the collapses. For those who claim that there was no 'arrest' of the collapse during the failures, please supply an un obscured view of the tower collapses via high-speed camera.

For those who say that the floors could have remained stable, and supported the upper blacks, please provide the load capacity of the floors, as compared to the mass of the upper block falling unto it.

Also remember.. explosions do not equal explosives.

The connection between the floor truss and the building is not the only mode of failure possible. The floor slab itself can fail locally in shear from a large punching force without overloading the truss for example. Without the floor slab acting in compression the capacity of the truss is reduced quite significantly (maybe even enough to collapse from in-service live loads).

 

[A W Smith]

I have yet to find a surviving perimeter column tree panel with intact truss seats.

Interesting that in this image the truss seats (which are always seen welded onto the spandrel plate) are missing completely.

http://www.donwinslow.net/images/Fire/Ground%20Zero/ground%20zero%201247.jpg

For comparison below, You can see the truss seats on every other column, They are the lower set spaced 80" apart. The seats that are slightly higher are connections for the V shaped tie bars that were poured into the slab.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

How one would expect to see a visible "jolt" from floor failure with such fragile connections is beyond me.

 

[leftysergeant]

Can somebody point out to me when the jolt occurred in the Balzac-Vitry job?

Interesting thing about Balzac-Vitry is that there were hundreds of entangling elements under the demolition floor and not a one of them seems to have entangled anything.

 

[boloboffin]

Can somebody point out to me when the jolt occurred in the Balzac-Vitry job?

Interesting thing about Balzac-Vitry is that there were hundreds of entangling elements under the demolition floor and not a one of them seems to have entangled anything.

That's the funny thing. Szamboti is only defining a "jolt" as deceleration. The acceleration has to go to zero or below, right?

But B-V only goes into deceleration at the end of the collapse, according to Szamboti. Before that, it only demonstrates dips in acceleration rates, similar to what happens in the WTC 1 measurements.

The logical thing to gather here is that B-V enters deceleration (i.e., experiences a "jolt") in the crush-up phase of the collapse. When the top section is crushing the lower section down, it only has dips in acceleration. When the top section is crushing up, you get the deceleration.

Szamboti has documented the Bazant crush-down/crush-up hypothesis. And therefore, since WTC1 is only showing dips in acceleration, it's more logical to say that it is ONLY seen in a crush-down phase. Szamboti has verified the "official story."

 

[leftysergeant]

Now maybe we can get Heiwa to explain why the more numerous upright columns didn't make the top of B-V bounce off.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's the funny thing. Szamboti is only defining a "jolt" as deceleration. The acceleration has to go to zero or below, right?

But B-V only goes into deceleration at the end of the collapse, according to Szamboti. Before that, it only demonstrates dips in acceleration rates, similar to what happens in the WTC 1 measurements.

The logical thing to gather here is that B-V enters deceleration (i.e., experiences a "jolt") in the crush-up phase of the collapse. When the top section is crushing the lower section down, it only has dips in acceleration. When the top section is crushing up, you get the deceleration.

Szamboti has documented the Bazant crush-down/crush-up hypothesis. And therefore, since WTC1 is only showing dips in acceleration, it's more logical to say that it is ONLY seen in a crush-down phase. Szamboti has verified the "official story."

The upper block load needs to be amplified to overcome the factors of safety of the columns below for the collapse to continue.

Please explain for everyone here how you think a load is amplified in an impulse. If you aren't sure you can say that instead.

Then we will see if I verified the "official story" or not.

Don't chicken out, you are the one who opened your mouth about it.

 

[R.Mackey]

Are you suggesting a load isn't amplified in an impulse?

It's pretty simple mechanics.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you suggesting a load isn't amplified in an impulse?

It's pretty simple mechanics.

Of course not. That is what Bolo Boffin seems to be suggesting though.

 

[R.Mackey]

Maybe you should try reading his post again. That's not even close to what he's suggesting.

 

[AZCat]

Slightly OT, but I gotta hand it to boloboffin. For someone with no real technical training he's done an admirable job grasping the relevant physics. He doesn't always get it right at first (nor do I) but he has shown a willingness to learn and correct mistakes that I find worthy of commendation. I apologize for slighting other equally worthy laypersons, but I have been reading bolo's posts for quite some time now (five years+) and he deserves a pat on the back.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Maybe you should try reading his post again. That's not even close to what he's suggesting.

You should let him answer my question.