Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Furcifer]

What makes you think verinage would work on a building supported by a steel core?

That's a legitimate question. There's actually some evidence to suggest a mere 1 story symmetric drop, typical in verinage, might not be sufficient to overload the structure and cause collapse. I believe NB ran the calculations in response to Gordon Ross. I think it was based on GR's erroneous assumption that the collapse was perfectly symmetrical (among other errors).

Don't you think it's kinda pointless though? It wasn't symmetrical. The verinage is meant to demonstrate that cascade failure is indeed possible under the right conditions.

I think we will have to wait a while to see a steel framed building brought down by verinage. Most are very large and I don't think even the best CD could bring a building down in its own footprint. The potential for damage to surrounding buildings is too great. That's just my personal opinion.

 

[Seymour Butz]

What makes you think verinage would work on a building supported by a steel core?

Tony thinks it would.

Ask him for his detailed analysis of how it would work, what kind of jolt one would expect, etc.

Hope you don't mind waiting.....

 

[alienentity]

What makes you think verinage would work on a building supported by a steel core?

What makes you think that I think that? I've never made a comment about it.

Verinage is a technique to remove structure using cables or hydraulics, that's all. Failures can happen for a number of reasons, including fire and plane impacts.

 

[bardamu]

Tony thinks it would.

Ask him for his detailed analysis of how it would work, what kind of jolt one would expect, etc.

Hope you don't mind waiting.....

One would expect the kind of jolt that would stop the upper block from falling to the ground. But then again, one wouldn't expect the upper block to become separated from the structure below in the first place.

 

[WildCat]

One would expect the kind of jolt that would stop the upper block from falling to the ground. But then again, one wouldn't expect the upper block to become separated from the structure below in the first place.

By "one" you mean conspiracy nutters, and not 99.999% of all structural engineers, right?

 

[WilliamSeger]

One would expect the kind of jolt that would stop the upper block from falling to the ground.

I suspect that even Tony now understands why a tilted fall would not produce the kind of "jolt" his paper postulates, which is why we now see his futile efforts to deny the tilt.

But then again, one wouldn't expect the upper block to become separated from the structure below in the first place.

Is this the way you typically deal with things you didn't expect, or is 9/11 a special case? I didn't expect the towers to stand as long as they did, but I think I now understand why I was wrong.

 

[AZCat]

I suspect that even Tony now understands why a tilted fall would not produce the kind of "jolt" his paper postulates, which is why we now see his futile efforts to deny the tilt.

There's an ongoing discussion over at Gregory Urich's forum right now on the initial movement of the upper block, and Tony seems to be realizing there is at least some initial rotation prior to any drop of the upper block.

Link: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-tilt-t235-180.html#p7873

 

[GlennB]

There's an ongoing discussion over at Gregory Urich's forum right now on the initial movement of the upper block, and Tony seems to be realizing there is at least some initial rotation prior to any drop of the upper block.

Link: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-tilt-t235-180.html#p7873

Hmmmm .. he was still repeating over there that the critical videos are fine enough to show tilt while too coarse to show a 2-storey drop (see posts above for the local version). Ooops.
Now he's saying there was an initial small tilt sufficient to register on video, then a drop, and only then some more tilt.
Methinks the man is in a bad place, but maybe he'll escape from it.

 

[Seymour Butz]

One would expect the kind of jolt that would stop the upper block from falling to the ground. .

IIRC, Tony is looking for a 31g jolt.

What could supply that jolt to counter the downward movement of the upper block?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

IIRC, Tony is looking for a 31g jolt.

What could supply that jolt to counter the downward movement of the upper block?

Actually I am not looking for a 31g jolt. That is the figure Dr. Bazant calculated in his first paper based on an error he made for the axial stiffness of the columns and failing to consider the fact that the shock intensity would be limited by the strength of the columns below. I think the maximum jolt intensity would have been in the 5 to 6g range.

An jolt is necessary to amplify the insufficient load above to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below and what tells one whether there was a jolt or not is whether a velocity loss commensurate with the column energy dissipation was observed. It was not.

 

[R.Mackey]

That's not what his paper says at all.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have to say the response time by some here is absolutely phenomenal. Either they are continuously watching or something like a buzzer goes off for them on a thread they are watching.

 

[rwguinn]

Actually I am not looking for a 31g jolt. That is the figure Dr. Bazant calculated in his first paper based on an error he made for the axial stiffness of the columns and failing to consider the fact that the shock intensity would be limited by the strength of the columns below. I think the maximum jolt intensity would have been in the 5 to 6g range.

An jolt is necessary to amplify the insufficient load above to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below and what tells one whether there was a jolt or not is whether a velocity loss commensurate with the column energy dissipation was observed. It was not.

Will you PLEASE define the goddamn term? We can't help if you refuse to let us know what the hell you are defining a "jolt" as.
It is a meaningless term the way you use it.

 

[R.Mackey]

I have to say the response time by some here is absolutely phenomenal. Either they are continuously watching or something like a buzzer goes off for them on a thread they are watching.

No, you're just predictable. No reason to be (even more) paranoid.

 

[beachnut]

I have to say the response time by some here is absolutely phenomenal. Either they are continuously watching or something like a buzzer goes off for them on a thread they are watching.

It is called wireless.

You have to be kidding; while you post anyone here can go out to lets say home depot, buy some filter material, cut it, install it and have the AC/heater back up with filtered air; make a reply to your delusions and then go back to babysitting, or finishing our work.

Typing class helps, sure saves time. But get real, you can us your iPhone to reply to your nonsense while doing 95 mph on I-90; unless there is ice.

Or are we all NWO operatives in the black helos buzzing your house?

I am 183 miles from my home where I can post from any room; the NWO furnished me with over 11 computers; I never miss a football game with my 12 tuners installed in computers and other electronic devices. This is cool as you are paranoid but fail to realize the world is wired.

Does you computer not call you when the thread is active? Gee whiz, what decade are you stuck in? Oops, you are 8 years behind understanding 911; never-mind

find the jolt yet? Pulitzer yet? real journal yet? what did the rejection letter say?

 

[Seymour Butz]

A jolt is necessary to amplify the insufficient load above to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below

.

And to flesh this out, there would have to be a direct column-to-column impact after collapse initiation, correct? Otherwise, no jolt?

But when columns buckle, or are pulled through verinage, they're not exactly in line anymore, are they?

 

[leftysergeant]

There's an ongoing discussion over at Gregory Urich's forum right now on the initial movement of the upper block, and Tony seems to be realizing there is at least some initial rotation prior to any drop of the upper block.

Every time I look at the start of collapse of the south tower, I see what looks like movement of the bottom of the upper structure toward the camera.

I would expect the steel down-wind to be a little more uniformly heated, thus more severely weakend. The steel up wind would have slightly more tensile strength.

Based on my experience cutting down trees, this would tend to pull the bottom part up wind just as the bark on the surface of a tree away from the cut would pull the bottom of the trunk in that direction.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Actually I am not looking for a 31g jolt. That is the figure Dr. Bazant calculated in his first paper based on an error he made for the axial stiffness of the columns and failing to consider the fact that the shock intensity would be limited by the strength of the columns below

That is simply not the truth, and you must know it isn't. Yes, your original paper did claim there should be 31g jolt, and you made that claim because you are the one who failed to consider the fact that the shock intensity would be limited by the strength of the columns below. Making that mistake is one thing, and a mechanical engineer should be embarrassed about it, but you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for that despicable post blaming your error on Bazant.

 

[Seymour Butz]

That is simply not the truth, and you must know it isn't. Yes, your original paper did claim there should be 31g jolt, and you made that claim because you are the one who failed to consider the fact that the shock intensity would be limited by the strength of the columns below. Making that mistake is one thing, and a mechanical engineer should be embarrassed about it, but you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for that despicable post blaming your error on Bazant.

Lawdy.....

Even I thought that to be absurd - how could a group of columns that Tony claims to have a safety factor of 3 EVER be able to produce a 31g jolt in the first place.

So now he's lying about this bit of lunacy?

Looks like he's getting straightened out over at Grerg's forum though, as regards to the tilt/no tilt claims he's been wrong about.

 

[leftysergeant]

It looks to me as though the failing core columns from the top sort of slide across the standing lower columns so that the there is never really a gap between them.