Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[CHF]

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

Your point?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your point?

What caused floors 100 through 102 to collapse without a jolt?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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.

"Fell apart" sounds just right Tony.

Tony, each floor was in essence an acre on each side. You had 4 acres of air space on each floor, times that by 110 & you've got 440 acres of air space.

If you were to take a book & let it fall onto a table & you had your hand near where it fell at the exact spot. You'd feel air rushing from under it, right? Now think of each floor acting like that book that slammed onto the table. Same principle!

Just like that collapsible telescope, the top also collapsed into itself. I thought you knew that Tony, since you're a mechanical engineer? I thought you'd know how things worked mechanically.

You didn't need a fire on the 99th floor Tony. All that weight combined with damage from the planes & the fire weakened steel, something was gonna give.

What are you trying to propose Tony? I get the whole thermite/CD gig, but where's your evidence?

 

[Baylor]

Psikeyhackr is on the YouTube videos saying the same old stuff. That is one tenacious Mo'Fo.

 

[R.Mackey]

"Tenacious" isn't the word I'd use... the one I'm thinking of starts with "mono" and ends with "maniacal."

 

[TruthersLie]

I didn't know that monofluffymaniacal was a word....

hmmm learn something new every day.

 

[Julio]

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's simply not enough resolution in your data to appreciate that decrease in velocity. Just be happy to observe a discontinuity in the curves. It's been pointed out in this thread several times.

I'm just pointing out where you would expect the velocity change to ocurr based on observations, opposite to your (Bazant's) unlikely ideal scenario. Just get more accurate data to rule out this observation-based scenario.

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?

Yup, sure. It's more likely that those floors disintegrated while falling down, than two floors caused the bukling of the perimeter wall to make the top block fall.

And how did they disintegrate? And why would the NWO do that? (less mass, less kinetic energy, less probability to cause a collapse. Stupid thing to do in fact)

 

[Dave Rogers]

What caused floors 100 through 102 to collapse without a jolt?

Tilt. A brief period of nearly zero acceleration seems, if anything, to suggest an instantaneous resistance somewhat on the high side given the known tilt of at least 2º prior to any significant roofline drop. However, the scatter on your velocity is quite high from pixellation error alone - it would be nice, by the way, if you gave us some idea of your estimated error bars and hence the detection limit of your analysis - so I suspect the flat interval may be an error artefact anyway.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tilt. A brief period of nearly zero acceleration seems, if anything, to suggest an instantaneous resistance somewhat on the high side given the known tilt of at least 2º prior to any significant roofline drop. However, the scatter on your velocity is quite high from pixellation error alone - it would be nice, by the way, if you gave us some idea of your estimated error bars and hence the detection limit of your analysis - so I suspect the flat interval may be an error artefact anyway.

Dave

Floors 99 through 102 had no damage and collapsed before any of the impact damaged areas did. If they weren't damaged by impact or heat what caused them to collapse without a jolt?

You are not providing any mechanical explanation for their collapse by simply saying "the tilt caused it".

David Chandler and others have gotten pretty much the same results we did in their measurement of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, so any claim that error is responsible for it is unjustified. It is clear that the upper section accelerated at an approximate rate of 0.7g and never lost velocity.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I'm not an engineer, so when I first came across Tony's work, I imagined he might really have found issues with engineering explanations that I am improperly prepared to handle. Unfortunately, it turns out impossible to tell the difference between anything meaningful he might have to say and the other crap floating around on the net. He may have something. And he may not. Since he's also willing to act as a mouthpiece for the other swill that is so clearly ridiculous.

It's too bad, but all I can see he's good for now is attracting the attention of confirmed conspiracy theorists away from other conspiracies - like FEMA death camps or weather control - and promoting the Gage Regime through AE911.

 

[GlennB]

David Chandler and others have gotten pretty much the same results we did in their measurement of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, so any claim that error is responsible for it is unjustified.

Did they, by any chance, use a similar method of measurement?

 

[Julio]

it would be nice, by the way, if you gave us some idea of your estimated error bars and hence the detection limit of your analysis - so I suspect the flat interval may be an error artefact anyway.

Tony discretizes the displacement in pixels. 1 px=0.88 feet, so that's his error bar for vertical displacement.

Now, for velocity error , it would be twice the displacement error, divided by the time interval (not considering time error bar), and it gives us about a 10 ft/s error bar (3 m/s, the maximum velocity change theorized according to Tony's energy sinks if the block fell 3 floors distance)

The flat feature could very well be just an artifact. But, if there was any jolt to be seen (*) at that time, it would be masked by this artifact. Hence, theres's not enough resolution: "get better data" would be the only conclusion.


(*) not saying there has to be one, but if it had to, that's where I would expect it to be

 

[Dave Rogers]

Floors 99 through 102 had no damage and collapsed before any of the impact damaged areas did. If they weren't damaged by impact or heat what caused them to collapse without a jolt?

I don't know what caused the collapse sequence to proceed precisely the way it did, because the situation is too complex for analysis. I don't even know for certain that the initial progression was upwards; it may be simply poor interpretation of the video, or it may be that the perimeter failure initially progressed upwards while failure progressed downwards elsewhere in the structure. However;

You are not providing any mechanical explanation for their collapse by simply saying "the tilt caused it".

No, and any such statement would be absurd. However, it's abundantly clear that the absence of a jolt was caused by the fact that the upper block pivoted about a hinge before falling freely. Therefore, tilt is the answer to your question as to why there wasn't a measureable jolt.

David Chandler and others have gotten pretty much the same results we did in their measurement of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, so any claim that error is responsible for it is unjustified. It is clear that the upper section accelerated at an approximate rate of 0.7g and never lost velocity.

If you honestly believe that an agreement over the average rate of fall has anything to do with the error bars on individual data points, then you need to take an undergraduate level course on error analysis. Alternatively, Julio seems to be offering to provide you with one. I agree with his conclusion, having done a similar analysis of your starting data; even if your analysis were valid, the effect you're looking for would be comparable with the error bars on your individual data points.

Dave

 

[tfk]

Again, I don't think he's neglected that point, but for the initial impact he's claiming that the lateral and rotational movement of the upper block was less than the width of a single column, so the initial strikes were column-on-column. I think he has an argument there for the core columns, but the additional buckling of the perimeter columns would complicate matters enormously.

Dave

Hey Dave,

Nah, if this is his contention, he doesn't have a point here either.

There are enormous dynamic motions in all the pieces & component, including flexing, spring back in the columns themselves when they snap, etc.

You cannot set a 50,000 ton structure on top of another one by throwing this bunch of tiny oscillating support points onto that bunch of tiny, oscillating support points. No freshman engineering student would suggest something this absurd.

More importantly, no experienced engineer is gonna start doing calculations trying to figure out what is the exact probability that they might align & hold up. An experienced engineer is just gonna laugh anyone who made such a contention out of the room. And put the idiot into that small, but real, category of "how the hell did this guy get a degree".

So, tell me, Tony. Is this really your contention? That the upper columns are going to align directly with the lower ones?

I'm tired of Tony bringing up these absurd scenarios, and then claim that, since competent engineers don't waste their time on his nonsense, he's exposed the weak underbelly of the conspiracy to ... blah, blah, blah.


Tom

 

[Mr.D]

it would be nice, by the way, if you gave us some idea of your estimated error bars and hence the detection limit of your analysis

I tried to get some rudimentary error analysis out of Tony before, but it never really got anywhere. I'm not even convinced he understands the nature of the question or why it might be important.

ETA: Whoops, I see you also and a couple others also addressed it later in that thread.

So Tony, how about it? Give us some estimates on your errors.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm not an engineer, so when I first came across Tony's work, I imagined he might really have found issues with engineering explanations that I am improperly prepared to handle. Unfortunately, it turns out impossible to tell the difference between anything meaningful he might have to say and the other crap floating around on the net. He may have something. And he may not. Since he's also willing to act as a mouthpiece for the other swill that is so clearly ridiculous.

It's too bad, but all I can see he's good for now is attracting the attention of confirmed conspiracy theorists away from other conspiracies - like FEMA death camps or weather control - and promoting the Gage Regime through AE911.

I am an engineer but you don't need a lot of engineering to understand where Tony is either misunderstanding the mechanisms himself OR is leading a lot of people by the nose.

There is no jolt because the collapse mechanisms which actually occurred would not cause a jolt. He has you chasing a fantasy.

There were two significant failure processes which occured with both WTC1 and WTC2 plus a hiatus or transition between them.

Process One >> is the accumulation of several partial failure mechanisms in the impact zone which built up to a rapid cascade failure of the impact zone. The "initial collapse". It became too weak to support the "Top Block" of storeys which started to fall.

Process Two >> The "Top Block" fell essentially by wedging itself inside the outer tube of columns of the lower "stub" tower. By doing so the top block near totally bypassed the column strength of the outer tube (and more or less bypassed the core columns but the explanation is a bit more complex).

That falling top block of storeys grossly overloaded (I usually say "overwhelmed") the floors below in sequence. All over bar the shouting - Pancake down to ground level. The "global collapse".

Now Tony's fantasy of a "jolt which wasn't needed" - wasn't needed in the "initial collapse" of the "impact zone". Wasn't needed in the sequential pancaking of the "global collapse".

And however you explain the "hiatus" as the collaopse transitioned from the "initial collapse" to the "global collapse" it also didn't need any jolt (OR to put the logic the right way around there was no mechanism to offer resistance which would be the pre-requisite to any jolt.)

So stop chasing a fantasy.

The "error bars" in Tony's explanation is not in the number of pixels he counts. The one big error is in the totally false initial premises he builds on.

Whatever collapse he is looking for "jolts" in it certainly isn't the failure of WTC1 and WTC2 as those failures actually happened on 9/11.

And chasing imaginary failure modes is surely a waste of bandwidth???

Why not ask him to explain what actually happened and leave the red herrings to die of old age swimming some ocean?

Tony has a lot of you chasing a fantasy. Why fall for it? There was nothing to cause a (noticable/measurable/large sized) jolt. That is why there was no big jolt.

 

[tsig]

Hey Dave,

Nah, if this is his contention, he doesn't have a point here either.

There are enormous dynamic motions in all the pieces & component, including flexing, spring back in the columns themselves when they snap, etc.

You cannot set a 50,000 ton structure on top of another one by throwing this bunch of tiny oscillating support points onto that bunch of tiny, oscillating support points. No freshman engineering student would suggest something this absurd.

More importantly, no experienced engineer is gonna start doing calculations trying to figure out what is the exact probability that they might align & hold up. An experienced engineer is just gonna laugh anyone who made such a contention out of the room. And put the idiot into that small, but real, category of "how the hell did this guy get a degree".

So, tell me, Tony. Is this really your contention? That the upper columns are going to align directly with the lower ones?

I'm tired of Tony bringing up these absurd scenarios, and then claim that, since competent engineers don't waste their time on his nonsense, he's exposed the weak underbelly of the conspiracy to ... blah, blah, blah.


Tom

Tony was the guy in class that got the "C",

 

[TruthersLie]

Tsig.

that is what made me give up engineering in my third year. I was walking out of a particularly hard class that didn't make sense to me and one of my friends clapped me on the shoulder and said

"cheer up man. C's get degrees."

And that did it for me. Being right only 70% of the time when peoples lives are on the line? I'm sorry, but that was enough to make me shudder and walk away (well there are other issues).

Again, I want to know what Tony S, and good ole Heiwa have designed so I can stay WAY AWAY FROM THEM.

Of course it doesn't help that every time I go over a bridge or fly in a jet I am reminded of that quote. I reallllllly hope that my designer was an A+ student.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Eh, IMHO there is a likelihood that outside of the conspiracy claptrap that his work may very well be competent. I don't really judge their professional competence otherwise, although I have concern over a couple extreme cases (Heiwa being one)

 

[GlennB]

Eh, IMHO there is a likelihood that outside of the conspiracy claptrap that his work may very well be competent. I don't really judge their professional competence otherwise, although I have concern over a couple extreme cases (Heiwa being one)

Don't worry. The biggest engineering project Heiwa ever claimed was welding lifeboat davits on a Med. ferry. So unless you're on a Med.ferry that sinks and you need to use his davits, you should be OK.