Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[ozeco41]

Was there a noticeable jolt in the Balzac-Vitry demolition?

We know there were far more potentially arresting structures in Balzac-Vitry, so I would assume that there would have been an impressive jolt, on which to establish our baseline when discussing what WTC1 and 2 should have looked like.

Sorry - I cannot help. From about 9/13 (if I can translate American terminology correctly) and certainly from my detailed involvement in WTC debate from early 2007 I have never based my analyses on any of the expert papers. My objective was to answer the question "demolition or not?" for WTC1 and WTC2 with WTC7 added later.

All the expert papers seemed (and still seem) to take complicated approaches OR operate on wrong models. So I decided to stand alone. It is within my range of competence as a Civil/structural and military demolitions person. IMnsHO there is sufficient evidence in the public domain to conclude "no demolition" for WTC1 and WTC2 (and by probability/analogy if nothing else the same for WTC7).

There was no jolt because the way the collapse actually occurred would not cause or need a jolt. Szamboti is wrong on the base premise. End of Szamboti's claims. It is that simple.

I have no interest in pursuing the details therefore. I hold a similar position on the S E Jones nano-thermxte nonsense,. There is simply no way that such a miracle substance could have been used in the form of collapse which actually occurred. That is my "bold assertion" as the experienced forensic engineer. The burden of proof lies with Jones et al to show how the magic thermxte could have been used. They do not despite multiple challenges.

My commendation for all those who have rigorously tested the thermxte residue claims - paint or not paint etc. My position is simple - such testing and rebuttal is redundant to the needs of the question "Demolition or not?" In fact I care not if a one tonne stockpile of certified thermxte was on site. It was not used in the collapses which actually occurred. On another forum I have referred routinely to "Santa's Custard" as the material causing the collapse. Hypothesis being that Rudolph dropped it from the sleigh on a 9/11 test run. It is not up to me or others to disprove the "Santa's Custard Hypothesis". It is up to those proposing it to support and "prove" it.

Szamboti's base premise on the "Jolt Hypothesis" is wrong. Easy to explain why for those genuinely interested - see my previous brief post.

The ball is in Szamboti's court to show why his base premise is valid. He ain't done it. And AFAICS he ain't even acknowledged the statement of the challenge when it has been put to him.

End of Szamboti's Jolts..... Without calling on help from Bazant.

ozeco

 

[Dave Rogers]

Was there a noticeable jolt in the Balzac-Vitry demolition?

Yes, there's been a lot of discussion of this at The 9/11 Forum and there is a measurable jolt at the expected time of impact between the upper and lower blocks. As I pointed out some time ago, this is what would be expected from the observation that the upper block had not rotated significantly prior to this impact. The absence of a jolt in WTC1 arises from the fact that the upper block had rotated prior to impact.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

The absence of a jolt in WTC1 arises from the fact that the upper block had rotated prior to impact.

Or from the fact that it weas a gradual bending that picked up speed?

Simple fact is that a jolt is seen in a controlled demolition, but not in progressive collapse.

WTC was progressive collapse. All else is but commentary.

(Well, commentary and some unenlightewned blather that someone's ear crickets want to post here.)

 

[Heiwa]

Or from the fact that it weas a gradual bending that picked up speed?

Simple fact is that a jolt is seen in a controlled demolition, but not in progressive collapse.

WTC was progressive collapse. All else is but commentary.

(Well, commentary and some unenlightewned blather that someone's ear crickets want to post here.)

There is always a jolt when a moving part, let's call it C, contacts a static part, let's call it A. Reason is that C and A need time to decide what shall happen next. Shall C bounce on A? The energy applied and deformations of C and A decide! Shall local failures of C and A take place? Same answer. But C can never start, e.g. a progressive collapse - whatever that is - without a jolt.

If C has the same structure as A, a progressive collapse cannot take place under any circumstances. C will suffer local failures like A and that's it. When the energy applied is used for local failures, further local failures will not take place.

If C is much heavier and stronger than A, A may very well be crushed, after the jolt, but if it is a progressive collapse is another matter. Proper structural damage analysis can easily resolve the matter. It seems the USA is not capable to do that!

 

[leftysergeant]

If C has the same structure as A, a progressive collapse cannot take place under any circumstances. C will suffer local failures like A and that's it. When the energy applied is used for local failures, further local failures will not take place.

When the top fell onto the bottom part, the dissaray placed strains on the bottom part in directions it was not designed to be strained, and it fell apart. That's called a progressive collapse.

And another of your arguements is taken out behind the sauna.

 

[Heiwa]

When the top fell onto the bottom part, the dissaray placed strains on the bottom part in directions it was not designed to be strained, and it fell apart. That's called a progressive collapse.

And another of your arguements is taken out behind the sauna.

If the top really fell onto the bottom part and the dissaray placed strains on the bottom part, and the upper part, too, of course, the upper part would decelerate = a jolt.

Evidently, as the two parts have same structure, both parts will fail locally ... and, you know the result! No progressive collapse can take place.

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidently, as the two parts have same structure, both parts will fail locally ... and, you know the result! No progressive collapse can take place.

Stop stating that as though it were some sort of law of physics It isn't, and I would expect an engineer such as you claim to be would know better.

When floors get over-loaded, they collapse. It is clear to anyone with an IQ over room temperature thast the fllors in the towers collapsed and that the debris just shoved the perimeter walls outward.

So, perhaps, calling it "crush down " is not entirely accurate, but calling it CD is utterly absurd.

 

[FineWine]

There is always a jolt when a moving part, let's call it C, contacts a static part, let's call it A. Reason is that C and A need time to decide what shall happen next. Shall C bounce on A? The energy applied and deformations of C and A decide! Shall local failures of C and A take place? Same answer. But C can never start, e.g. a progressive collapse - whatever that is - without a jolt.

If C has the same structure as A, a progressive collapse cannot take place under any circumstances. C will suffer local failures like A and that's it. When the energy applied is used for local failures, further local failures will not take place.

If C is much heavier and stronger than A, A may very well be crushed, after the jolt, but if it is a progressive collapse is another matter. Proper structural damage analysis can easily resolve the matter. It seems the USA is not capable to do that!

You've been caught lying again. There is no part A. The collapsing floors hit the floors below them ONE-AT-A-TIME.

When will you stop this foolishness? You've been exposed.

 

[Heiwa]

Stop stating that as though it were some sort of law of physics It isn't, and I would expect an engineer such as you claim to be would know better.

But it is a law of physics. And that is a BIG problem for the 911 perpetrators.

 

[Heiwa]

You've been caught lying again. There is no part A. The collapsing floors hit the floors below them ONE-AT-A-TIME.

When will you stop this foolishness? You've been exposed.

I only use the descriptions of parts C, A and B introduced by Bazant & Co. In reality, of course, there are no parts C and A or ... B. Only plenty of structural elements that suffer local failures and many more that are not damaged at all. Every failure is of course associated with a jolt. That seems missing!

 

[Dave Rogers]

But it is a law of physics.

That's a lie. That is, in the sense that (a) it's untrue, and (b) you stated it knowing that it was untrue. You know it isn't a law of physics, because you made it up as an axiom and have repeatedly claimed it as such, and an axiom by definition cannot be a law of physics.

If you want to prove it isn't, please provide a link to a physics textbook that quotes it as a law. If you can't, then it's a proven lie.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

That's a lie. That is, in the sense that (a) it's untrue, and (b) you stated it knowing that it was untrue. You know it isn't a law of physics, because you made it up as an axiom and have repeatedly claimed it as such, and an axiom by definition cannot be a law of physics.

If you want to prove it isn't, please provide a link to a physics textbook that quotes it as a law. If you can't, then it's a proven lie.

Dave

Suggest you prove me wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Suggest you prove me wrong.

I already have. You stated it as an axiom. An axiom cannot be a law of physics. Therefore, you're wrong.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

Suggest you prove me wrong.

How is your delusion compatible with the Balzac-Vitry demolition?

 

[Heiwa]

How is your delusion compatible with the Balzac-Vitry demolition?

Evidently the principles outlined in my papers also apply to the Balzac-Vitry controlled demolition; we have a structure; in the B-V case a big part of it is destroyed by controlled demolition, upper part C then drops on lower part A and upper part C is destroyed in contact with lower part A.

Evidently part C is not rigid at start and later destroyed in a mysterious crush up by the rubble (part B) of part A as postulated by Bazant and NIST.

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidently part C is not rigid at start and later destroyed in a mysterious crush up by the rubble (part B) of part A as postulated by Bazant and NIST.

Part C in B-V is every bit as solid as is part C of the towers. It proves Bazant.

The part A crushed by part C in B-V was more resistant to collapse and had more robust arresting mechanisms in place than was the case for the towers.

What a building is made of and how it is put together matters greatly, and both you and Tricky Dickey Gage fail to take that into consideration.

 

[Julio]

Here's the jolt:




Between t=1.6 - 1.8 appears to be a discontinuity, of about 1.26 m/s. (Numerical differentiation by Origin 7.0 )

At that time the upper block has fallen down 3 floors distance. Now, imagine a scenario, where floors 96 and 97 are pulling in the facade so it buckles, and floor 98 falls directly onto floor 95. This is coherent with NIST observations of the inward bowing of the facade from floors 95 to 98 (NCSTAR 1-6 Figure E-5, pag lv).

The block gets a velocity of 12.3 m/s just before impact. Assuming the paper's energy sinks, that would make a velocity change of 3 m/s. Well, not too far.

Now assume, as Bazant does, that crush-up is neglegible during crush-down, and neglect that part of energy. The velocity reduction is about 2.1 m/s. (BTW in verinage demolitions can be seen that the upper block seems to be destroyed slower than bottom block)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzovOlsWpT0

Now assume a bit more realistic scenario not so ideal for the building survival, where the upper block does not fall directly onto the columns but out-of-axis, take into account time and pixel resolutions, add uncertainties, and the data would fit perfectly in this scenario.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's the jolt:


View attachment 15788

Between t=1.6 - 1.8 appears to be a discontinuity, of about 1.26 m/s. (Numerical differentiation by Origin 7.0 )

At that time the upper block has fallen down 3 floors distance. Now, imagine a scenario, where floors 96 and 97 are pulling in the facade so it buckles, and floor 98 falls directly onto floor 95. This is coherent with NIST observations of the inward bowing of the facade from floors 95 to 98 (NCSTAR 1-6 Figure E-5, pag lv).

The block gets a velocity of 12.3 m/s just before impact. Assuming the paper's energy sinks, that would make a velocity change of 3 m/s. Well, not too far.

Now assume, as Bazant does, that crush-up is neglegible during crush-down, and neglect that part of energy. The velocity reduction is about 2.1 m/s. (BTW in verinage demolitions can be seen that the upper block seems to be destroyed slower than bottom block)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzovOlsWpT0

Now assume a bit more realistic scenario not so ideal for the building survival, where the upper block does not fall directly onto the columns but out-of-axis, take into account time and pixel resolutions, add uncertainties, and the data would fit perfectly in this scenario.

The flat velocity spot at t = 1.6 to 1.8 seconds into the collapse is not a deceleration and would not produce an amplified load. It just means the resistance was equal to the load for a short time and there was no acceleration for that short period.

There is never a velocity loss in the curve which is what would be needed to produce a dynamic (amplified) load.

I think you have to admit that it is hard to imagine how floors 96 and 97 could just move out of the way to allow 98 to fall onto 95 in your postulated scenario here. There is really no chance of a full three story buckle.

In reality what happened was floors 99 through 102 to 103 disintegrated first anyway. How did that happen without a jolt?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The flat velocity spot at t = 1.6 to 1.8 seconds into the collapse is not a deceleration and would not produce an amplified load. It just means the resistance was equal to the load for a short time and there was no acceleration for that short period.

There is never a velocity loss in the curve which is what would be needed to produce a dynamic (amplified) load.

I think you have to admit that it is hard to imagine how floors 96 and 97 could just move out of the way to allow 98 to fall onto 95 in your postulated scenario here. There is really no chance of a full three story buckle.

In reality what happened was floors 99 through 102 to 103 disintegrated first anyway. How did that happen without a jolt?

Steel doesn't just "disintegrate" Tony. How in the hell can you make 1/2" steel just "disintegrate"?

The Towers were a tube within a tube. Think about a collapsable telescope that old mariners used to navigate. Same principle, different structures though.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Steel doesn't just "disintegrate" Tony. How in the hell can you make 1/2" steel just "disintegrate"?

The Towers were a tube within a tube. Think about a collapsable telescope that old mariners used to navigate. Same principle, different structures though.

I think you should realize the context I was using the term disintegrate in. How about fell apart? Does that work better for you?

The point is that the lower stories of the upper block of WTC 1 were the first to collapse and they had no aircraft damage and there was no jolt. How could that happen naturally?

Your collapsable telescope is not akin to the towers construction unless your telescope had a huge structure (the core) in the middle, which collapsed also. The perimeter did not collapse around the core, they both collapsed at the same time.

Additionally, there wasn't a lot of fire above the 99th floor. Think about that.