Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Seymour Butz]

Rwguinn what are your thoughts on why there was no decleration in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1?

It's very simple, even to a layman, that you're looking for things that aren't there, and never COULD be there.

Bazant's statements rely on a square and perfect column-to-column impact. The chances of this happening is impossible. Yet you're looking for it.

That didn't happen. It couldn't happen in your verinage scenario either, since the technique works by misaligning the columns. Yet you haven't adjusted your numbers to reflect what kind of "jolt" should be seen under this scenario.

And his figures rely on the instant removal of 1 story of every column and a freefall drop, of both core and external columns, for those numbers to be correct. Yet the verinage technique you propose doesn't remove anything. And yet you're still looking for a "jolt".

Redo your numbers, Tony, to fit your proposed scenario of verinage. How much of a jolt should be seen with column-to-floor impact?

 

[rwguinn]

It's very simple, even to a layman, that you're looking for things that aren't there, and never COULD be there.

Bazant's statements rely on a square and perfect column-to-column impact. The chances of this happening is impossible. Yet you're looking for it.

That didn't happen. It couldn't happen in your verinage scenario either, since the technique works by misaligning the columns. Yet you haven't adjusted your numbers to reflect what kind of "jolt" should be seen under this scenario.

And his figures rely on the instant removal of 1 story of every column and a freefall drop, of both core and external columns, for those numbers to be correct. Yet the verinage technique you propose doesn't remove anything. And yet you're still looking for a "jolt".

Redo your numbers, Tony, to fit your proposed scenario of verinage. How much of a jolt should be seen with column-to-floor impact?

Tony can't get it through his head that there was a less than 1 g acceleration of the upper portion of the tower downward, which means that there was a force resisting the fall. That force was, of course, the resistance of the standing portion of the building.
Sum(F)= m*d²X/dt²

 

[Seymour Butz]

Tony can't get it through his head that there was a less than 1 g acceleration of the upper portion of the tower downward, which means that there was a force resisting the fall. That force was, of course, the resistance of the standing portion of the building.
Sum(F)= m*d²X/dt²

Dear God......

Does that mean that he does't know the difference between:

Freefall=zero resistance
Less than g fall=some resistance, but less than the momentum of the falling debris
Deceleration= requires more resistance then than the momentum of the falling debris

?????

Is it truly possible that anyone can't grasp that? (if you excuse my layman's lingo)

If he doesn't then he should be fired for:

1- not understanding that
or
2- lying about it and smearing the reputation of engineers, when we the normal people rely on the professionalism of these individuals.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Dear God......

Does that mean that he does't know the difference between:

Freefall=zero resistance
Less than g fall=some resistance, but less than the momentum of the falling debris
Deceleration= requires more resistance then than the momentum of the falling debris

?????

Is it truly possible that anyone can't grasp that? (if you excuse my layman's lingo)

If he doesn't then he should be fired for:

1- not understanding that
or
2- lying about it and smearing the reputation of engineers, when we the normal people rely on the professionalism of these individuals.

No, Mr. Szamboti gets this. He assumes that the impacts are all discrete instantaneous events by solid, rigid elements that are free to translate. It has no bearing on reality.

 

[Seymour Butz]

He assumes that the impacts are all discrete instantaneous events by solid, rigid elements that are free to translate. It has no bearing on reality.

LOL.

So by that, I think what you're saying is that he assumes the columns should have contacted perfectly and squarely in NIST's collapse scenario-ie, the real world.

So he assumes that buckled columns will impact in this manner?

Madness......

 

[R.Mackey]

Correct -- that is exactly what Dr. Bazant's "best case" specifies, but unlike Dr. Bazant, Tony doesn't realize that the "best case" is practically impossible.

Remember, the Truth Movement isn't looking for the best hypothesis, like scientists do. The Truth Movement is looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- so that they can justify their nonsensical beliefs. Tony's excuse is that, theoretically, there's a minute possibility that the collapse could have experienced a "jolt," and he doesn't measure one, therefore he's created enough doubt to comfortably live in.

In the real world, however, this simply didn't happen. As I've said before, once the upper structure's weight is no longer on the columns, it's all over. It doesn't even have to build up speed to smash through the first floors. This is trivial to demonstrate.

 

[BasqueArch]

BasqueArch italics
...

We did this in the Missing Jolt paper by showing what the velocity loss should have been due to energy dissipation and that it would have taken a certain amount of time to recover to the pre-impact velocity. During that recovery period we have several measurements and they show the velocity never decreased from what it was pre-impact. It was always higher than pre-impact which shows there was no deceleration and thus no dynamic load. The logic is there. I think the repeated refusal is on the part of certain individuals here who simply will not accept more accurate information which negates what they want to believe.

Tony

You're using the wrong videos shot from the north which hide the south antenna tilt away from the viewer, therefore GIGO.

Here's the one shot from west which shows the antenna begin its tilt to the south before the nw roof corner drops. Measure this one instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8

 

[Newtons Bit]

Tony

You're using the wrong videos shot from the north which hide the south antenna tilt away from the viewer, therefore GIGO.

Here's the one shot from west which shows the antenna begin its tilt to the south before the nw roof corner drops. Measure this one instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8

But.... that could invalidate his conclusions! Rather than doing that, wouldn't it be easier to claim that the video is faked?

 

[BasqueArch]

But.... that could invalidate his conclusions! Rather than doing that, wouldn't it be easier to claim that the video is faked?

Others may do that, I know Tony won't. He will not repeatedly refuse to accept more accurate information which negates what he wants to believe.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Correct -- that is exactly what Dr. Bazant's "best case" specifies, but unlike Dr. Bazant, Tony doesn't realize that the "best case" is practically impossible.

Remember, the Truth Movement isn't looking for the best hypothesis, like scientists do. The Truth Movement is looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- so that they can justify their nonsensical beliefs. Tony's excuse is that, theoretically, there's a minute possibility that the collapse could have experienced a "jolt," and he doesn't measure one, therefore he's created enough doubt to comfortably live in.

In the real world, however, this simply didn't happen. As I've said before, once the upper structure's weight is no longer on the columns, it's all over. It doesn't even have to build up speed to smash through the first floors. This is trivial to demonstrate.

You are attempting to use the least possible case where everything would miss the columns. Of course, you are only doing so because you are forced to due to the extremely low resistance observed.

Your extreme needs to have all of the uppers section's 69 million lb. mass miss all of the columns and fall just on the floors outside of the core, which could take 29 million lbs., so you can get down to the low resistance observed. Of course, you conveniently forget to mention the core itself and what role it would play in resisting the upper section's fall. I find it incredible that you can even keep a straight face while discussing this obvious nonsense.

There is not a chance that the core columns would have been missed and it is highly unlikely that most of the perimeter coulmns would have been missed. The very low resistance of 0.3g represents only about 10% of the column strength, and it is proof that something unnatural was removing strength from the columns or rendering them ineffective, especially in the first several stories of the collapse.

You will never be able to analytically show what you propose and match observation, because it could not and did not happen the way you say it did. It seems highly predictable that all you will ever do is bark that the best case did not happen and attempt to spin away from your nonsense being scutinized by trying to put the onus on your adversaries.

 

[Justin39640]

You are attempting to use the least possible case where everything would miss the columns. Of course, you are only doing so because you are forced to due to the extremely low resistance observed.

Your extreme needs to have all of the uppers sections 69 million lb. weight miss all of the columns and fall just on the floors outside of the core which could take 29 million lbs. to get down to the low resistance observed. Of course, you conveniently forget to mention the core itself when talking about the weight falling on the floors. I find it incredible that you can even keep a straight face while discussing this obvious nonsense.

There is not a chance that even most of the columns were missed and the 0.3g resistance, which represents only about 10% of the column strength, is proof that something unnatural was removing strength from the columns or rendering them ineffective, especially in the first several stories of the collapse.

You will never be able to analytically show what you propose and match observation, because it did not and could not happen the way you say it did.

Are you joking?
No one would expect everything to either completely miss or hit square. Don't you see all the room in between the two ideas and the chaos that would create?
I bet some hit square and some didn't. Some hit off center and really messed stuff up pushing and pulling. Everything imaginable probably happened. (except explosives or nano-stupidity)

 

[R.Mackey]

You are attempting to use the least possible case where everything would miss the columns.

Of course, you are only doing so because you are forced to due to the extremely low resistance observed.

That "extremely low resistance" averaged to about 0.5 g over the entire collapse.

Your extreme needs to have all of the uppers section's 69 million lb. mass miss all of the columns and fall just on the floors outside of the core, which could take 29 million lbs., so you can get down to the low resistance observed.

If the floors can only take 29 million pounds, and the upper mass is 69 million pounds, then I don't need all the mass to miss, do I?

By the way, since you missed it the first dozen times, the 29 million pounds is wildly optimistic. That's the force to fail all the connections at once. The pressure for a broken column end to pierce the floors is far, far lower, and the trusses will buckle en masse at about three million pounds.

Of course, you conveniently forget to mention the core itself and what role it would play in resisting the upper section's fall. I find it incredible that you can even keep a straight face while discussing this obvious nonsense.

I'm the straight man, Tony. You're the funny man. Stick to the script.

The flooring in the core is not much stronger than the trusses.

There is not a chance that the core columns would have been missed

Hope you're not a gambling man...

and it is highly unlikely that most of the perimeter coulmns would have been missed.

... even though we have pictures of it happening...

The very low resistance of 0.3g represents only about 10% of the column strength,

You're confusing peak and average, for the hundredth time. The resistance, even if I accept your number, is remarkably high -- most of it from momentum transfer, not strength, as presented in numerous corroborating peer-reviewed papers. You know this.

and it is proof that something unnatural was removing strength from the columns or rendering them ineffective, especially in the first several stories of the collapse.

"Something" that you dare not even articulate. Gremlins, I suppose?

You will never be able to analytically show what you propose and match observation, because it did not and could not happen the way you say it did.

Circular argument. And, sadly, that really is the best you can do.

Get a new act already.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you joking?
No one would expect everything to either completely miss or hit square. Don't you see all the room in between the two ideas and the chaos that would create?
I bet some hit square and some didn't. Some hit off center and really messed stuff up pushing and pulling. Everything imaginable probably happened. (except explosives or nano-stupidity)

No, the one who has to be joking here is Ryan because the random chaotic situation you describe would cause a much higher resistance than the 0.3g observed and there would be a jolt and a step in the velocity curve, which is not observed.

 

[WildCat]

Your extreme needs to have all of the uppers section's 69 million lb. mass miss all of the columns and fall just on the floors outside of the core, which could take 29 million lbs., so you can get down to the low resistance observed.

Each floor (including that within the core columns) was approximately 40,000 ft². Typically, office building floors are designed to take 150 lbs per ft², evenly distributed. So each floor could hold a maximum of 6 million lbs, not 29 million, evenly distributed. Your scenario calls for a floor to hold 725 lbs per ft², and for the load to be evenly distributed! A ridiculous assumption.

And it gets even worse - the 69 million lb mass isn't sitting still, it's falling, so it impacts with a force far greater than 69 million lbs.

The anvil through sheets of glass scenario is much more analogous than your certifiably goofy proposition.

 

[AZCat]

I'm impressed Tony has the stones to come here again, all full of piss and vinegar, considering the trouncing he's had lately. Of course his arguments haven't improved, so I expect the same result.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Each floor (including that within the core columns) was approximately 40,000 ft². Typically, office building floors are designed to take 150 lbs per ft², evenly distributed. So each floor could hold a maximum of 6 million lbs, not 29 million, evenly distributed. Your scenario calls for a floor to hold 725 lbs per ft², and for the load to be evenly distributed! A ridiculous assumption.

And it gets even worse - the 69 million lb mass isn't sitting still, it's falling, so it impacts with a force far greater than 69 million lbs.

The anvil through sheets of glass scenario is much more analogous than your certifiably goofy proposition.

And you would be wrong. Even the NIST says the floors outside of the core could support 12 times their load which is approximately 29 million lbs.

For the 69 million lbs. to apply a force greater than 69 million lbs. requires a deceleration greater than 1g. The reality is with only 0.3g resistance the upper section continuously accelerated at 70% of gravity, even though the columns were capable of providing 300% of the resistance required. This is why Ryan's imaginary collapse scenario needs all of the columns to be missed.

 

[WildCat]

And you would be wrong. Even the NIST says the floors outside of the core could support 12 times their load which is approximately 29 million lbs.

Cite?

 

[AZCat]

No, the one who has to be joking here is Ryan because the random chaotic situation you describe would cause a much higher resistance than the 0.3g observed and there would be a jolt and a step in the velocity curve, which is not observed.

A "jolt" and a "step"? Interesting you differentiate between the two now. Care to define these terms, Tony? Or are you going to hide behind ambiguity again?

 

[WildCat]

5.4.4 Loads
Loads on the truss model consisted of dead and live loads and temperature time-histories for all truss components including the truss seats and concrete slab. The gravity loads included the weight of the structure, 8 psf superimposed dead load (including nonstructural dead loads due to architectural items and fixed service equipment), and 13.75 psf of live load equal to 25 percent of design live load of 55 psf.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6CDraft.pdf

How does this translate into them being able to support 725 lbs per ft² Tony?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Cite?

The NIST FAQ had it as 11 floors plus the supporting floors weight for a total of 12 floors. This was the static (very conservative) load. The dynamic load ability (again, very conservatively estimated) was 6 floors total. They then went on to say that a more realistic number was less than these estimates but seeing as the falling mass exceeded their most conservative dynamic estimates that it was moot to study the collapse beyond the initiation of the collapse.