Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[WildCat]

We are discussing why there was no velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of the building here. Are you trying to a rubble load to that somehow?

Here, I'll spell it for you: G-R-A-V-I-T-Y

What's that spell Tony?

 

[Seymour Butz]

We are discussing why there was no velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of the building here.

It's simple.

Because no rational person would expect that the hypothetical scenario that Bazant sets out in his paper in any way, shape, or form happened in real life.

Every sane, rational person with even a modicum of self respect, education, and professionalism agrees.

 

[WildCat]

It's simple.

Because no rational person would expect that the hypothetical scenario that Bazant sets out in his paper in any way, shape, or form happened in real life.

Every sane, rational person with even a modicum of self respect, education, and professionalism agrees.

It's even worse than that, Tony doesn't understand the difference between acceleration and velocity.

 

[beachnut]

Rubble would not have the same dynamic loading effect during impact as a connected solid. The rubble would act like a quasi-static load.

This is why shot gun blasts are unable to break the skin! Good job, sounds like the real-cd-deal is still in the delusional stages after 8 years. All those little masses can't hurt you. You don't understand modeling or physics. Does this mean your paper was shot down from all the real journals?

quasi-static shot gun blast moving at ...

The fact is the velocity of the fall does show a reduction, and if we model the collapse as impacts per floor the WTC collapse matches the model with the average velocity. But if there were velocity steps, the video did not have the resolution (sampling theory could give some insight) to see the step.

Sorry, you have failed to make a case; this is evident due to the fact no journal will take your paper save the journal of stupid woo by Jones who was fired for being cuckoo on 911.

How long does it take for model of the top section impact velocity to regain the same impact velocity after the first impact? Any clue?

There was a big jolt at the bottom. Who planted your fantasy explosives that make zero sounds of explosives? There was not thermite because thermite leaves massive evidence which was not found. No blast effects on any steel parts, no thermite on any steel. Are you going to switch to the beam weapon nonsense?

 

[leftysergeant]

I can understand your confusion somewhat as Dr. Bazant also calls Po the design load capacity but it isn't. It is just the static load. The design load capacity would be the static load x factor of safety. The 31g amplification would thus be an overload of 31/factor of safety.

None of the load was static after the collapse initiated. You have three floors lying on top of each other. More floors are arriving.

What the hell is static about that?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Seger, you did not quote the part of the Missing Jolt paper on page 12 where I state

In reality, the upper block could not have tolerated the potential 31g impulse theorized by Dr. Bazant. To get this overload he claims was possible, all of the mass of the upper block would have had to participate, and if it did so it would have come apart completely...

In other words, you are still falsely claiming that Bazant "theorized" a "31g impulse," and attempting to dodge the fact that you didn't realize that no such impulse was possible, whether or not the upper block could have "tolerated" it. Gotcha.

You apparently also can't understand that when Dr. Bazant says


P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part: where Po = mg

and he calculates Pdyn/Po as 31, that this means Pdyn is an amplification of the static load (mg) of 31 times meaning a 31g deceleration would have had to occur for that to happen. I can understand your confusion somewhat as Dr. Bazant also calls Po the design load capacity but it isn't. It is just the static load. The design load capacity would be the static load x factor of safety. The 31g amplification would thus be an overload of 31/factor of safety.

Oh, I think I understand quite well that when Bazant says P_dyn/P₀ ~ 31, he is simply saying that the dynamic force was 31 times greater than the design load. That does not imply or "theorize" that there should have been a 31g impulse and 31g deceleration in the upper block, unless the columns below were actually capable of resisting 31 times their design load! If anything, Bazant is demonstrating the absurdity of your interpretation!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh, I think I understand quite well that when Bazant says P_dyn/P₀ ~ 31, he is simply saying that the dynamic force was 31 times greater than the design load. That does not imply or "theorize" that there should have been a 31g impulse and 31g deceleration in the upper block, unless the columns below were actually capable of resisting 31 times their design load! If anything, Bazant is demonstrating the absurdity of your interpretation!

Indeed, Bazant's very next sentence sentence makes that clear:

In spite of the approximate nature of this analysis, it is obvious that the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude.

The load capacity of the upper part was no greater than the load capacity of the lower part, so Newton's third law implies the load capacity of the upper part was also exceeded. That's obvious enough to be left unstated, but Tony thinks Bazant and Zhou were unaware of it.

You apparently also can't understand that when Dr. Bazant says

P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part: where Po = mg

and he calculates Pdyn/Po as 31, that this means Pdyn is an amplification of the static load (mg) of 31 times meaning a 31g deceleration would have had to occur for that to happen. I can understand your confusion somewhat as Dr. Bazant also calls Po the design load capacity but it isn't. It is just the static load. The design load capacity would be the static load x factor of safety. The 31g amplification would thus be an overload of 31/factor of safety.

That part of Tony's argument makes no sense. Bazant and Zhou's estimated force ratio of 31 (a dimensionless number) does not imply a deceleration of 31g (with the units of acceleration) would have been achieved, and it certainly does not imply a deceleration of 31g would have been achieved for the length of time necessary to create a jolt of the magnitude Tony has imagined. To calculate the deceleration, Tony will have to estimate the duration (or a related distance from which the duration can be calculated) through which the decelerating force is applied.

Tony goes about that backwards. In the cited early version of Tony's paper, he estimates that the velocity should be reduced by 13 ft/sec; that's the size of his jolt, and it's basically the first thing he calculates. From the size of the jolt he expects, and from his baseless assumption of 31g, he calculates a 13 millisecond duration for the 31g deceleration. Even if that weren't going about it backwards, neither the upper section nor the top of the lower section is strong enough to exert anywhere near the amount of force needed to achieve a deceleration of 31g. (As I calculated earlier in this thread, using Tony's questionable numbers, those sections aren't anywhere near strong enough to achieve a deceleration of 10g, let alone 31g.) So the structures will fail long before they can achieve any more than a small fraction of that deceleration, which means the true deceleration will be nowhere near as large as Tony believes.

According to my calculations, using Tony's (questionable) numbers, the portion of the jolt attributable to the load capacity of the lower section is insignificant compared to the portion that would be attributable to conservation of momentum in an inelastic collision of two perfectly rigid objects.

The fraction of velocity lost to conservation of momentum is easy to calculate for Tony's idealized model, because it's essentially the ratio of the mass of the topmost floor of the lower section to the total mass of the upper section: less than 10% (and less than 2 ft/sec). For reasons that have already been discussed, it is doubtful whether Tony, who has a hard enough time seeing an obvious tilt, would be able to see a less-than-10% reduction in the velocity of the upper section's lower "edge" by looking at the roof line in the videos. He would have a hard time seeing that small a jolt even if the upper section were perfectly rigid and were to strike the lower section perfectly square---and those are not realistic assumptions.

 

[NutCracker]

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's the NWO alert service. Didn't you know?

 

[NutCracker]

Rubble would not have the same dynamic loading effect during impact as a connected solid. The rubble would act like a quasi-static load.

I love it how Tony argues just like the typical IQ < 50 Truther Joe.

Firstly, here is just the pixie dust argument.

Secondly, here he argues one way when it suits him in one situation and argue another way when it suits him in another context, just like our Joe.

In the 'no jolt' collapse initiation discussion, he keeps denying the presence of a jolt because he sees full well there is no hope for collapse arrest if the upper section did hit the floors directly insteed of the upper section's collumns hitting the lower section's columns head on. And in this context of collapse progression stuff, namely rubble, hitting the floors directly isn't an oh so important issue any more. And that's because he sees full well that there is no hope for collapse arrest when thousands of tons of rubble is falling on floors that weren't designed to carry much load. So the falling rubble must be declared innocuous pixie dust.

I love it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In other words, you are still falsely claiming that Bazant "theorized" a "31g impulse," and attempting to dodge the fact that you didn't realize that no such impulse was possible, whether or not the upper block could have "tolerated" it. Gotcha.




Oh, I think I understand quite well that when Bazant says P_dyn/P₀ ~ 31, he is simply saying that the dynamic force was 31 times greater than the design load. That does not imply or "theorize" that there should have been a 31g impulse and 31g deceleration in the upper block, unless the columns below were actually capable of resisting 31 times their design load! If anything, Bazant is demonstrating the absurdity of your interpretation!

Yeah sure and the sky is purple. Your own words show that you don't know what you are talking about to anyone who does.

Remember Bazant sets Po = mg and then calculates Pdtn/Po. He finds that ratio to be 31. The fact that Bazant's Pdyn is 31 times greater than mg means a 31g amplification was what he calculated.

You didn't get anybody. I said straight out in that paper that a 31g amplification would have been impossible. I did not need to look at every angle of the situation to show it was impossible and dismiss it.

Here is a question for you. Using Bazant's theoretical Pdyn to mg ratio of 31, what would the actual overload ratio have been when considering the actual strength of the columns if they had a factor of safety of three?

 

[TruthersLie]

We have been dealing with the magnitude of the shock necessary, but I did calculate durations in the Missing Jolt paper which frequency can be found from for a shock load. It is just the reciprocal of twice the duration.

I'm enjoying watching you get owned technically (as my engineering skills stopped in the 3rd year of the 5 year program, and I can't do it).

But just for those lay people here, where was this "paper" published? Who peer reviewed it? In what journal can I find it?

I think you are using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means. Just checking here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm enjoying watching you get owned technically (as my engineering skills stopped in the 3rd year of the 5 year program, and I can't do it).

But just for those lay people here, where was this "paper" published? Who peer reviewed it? In what journal can I find it?

I think you are using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means. Just checking here.

If by your own admission you don't have the skills to understand how would you possibly be able to determine who is getting "owned" technically?

There is no need for cheerleading in this debate and that type of thing should be kept to the sidelines.

 

[tsig]

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.

When a plane tears into the side of the building it changes the "reserve strength ".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

When a plane tears into the side of the building it changes the "reserve strength ".

The collapse in WTC 1 initiated on the 98th floor which had less than 1% of it's columns destroyed or severely damaged.

The 97th floor below it had less than 5% of it's columns destroyed or damaged.

The 99th floor above it had essentially no columns destroyed or damaged.

If you want to derate it by 5% be my guest. It will not change the fact that there would still have been a very large amount of reserve strength.

 

[NutCracker]

If by your own admission you don't have the skills to understand how would you possibly be able to determine who is getting "owned" technically?

There is no need for cheerleading in this debate and that type of thing should be kept to the sidelines.

To burst your bubble: there is no debate. Get of your high heels Szamboti. All you have to offer is nonsense papers and hair-splitting argument.

And damn, knock that hammer at your head, will you? Or take that ice-cold bath.. Or better, do that homework I gave you.

 

[NutCracker]

The collapse initiated in WTC 1 initiated on the 98th floor which had less than 1% of it's columns destroyed or severely damaged.

The 97th floor below it had less than 5% of it's columns destroyed or damaged.

The 99th floor above it had essentially no columns destroyed or damaged.

If you want to derate it by 5% be my guest. It will not change the fact that there would still have been a very large amount of reserve strength.

Tell me, Tony, why the hack can't you publish your earth shattering findings in a respected peer-reviewed journal?

Prediction: you are not going to respond, or if you do, you are going to derail.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tell me, Tony, why the hack can't you publish your earth shattering findings in a respected peer-reviewed journal?

Prediction: you are not going to respond, or if you do, you are going to derail.

If you could argue the details I could understand how you might be able to determine what a respected peer-reviewed journal would be concerning this issue, but I haven't seen you or others making these types of comments argue any details here.

 

[leftysergeant]

Tell me, Tony, why the hack can't you publish your earth shattering findings in a respected peer-reviewed journal?

Maybe it is the presence of that idiot MacQueen's name on the paper. Scienmtific journals are not much interested in the rantings of theologians who do not well understand their own native languages, as MacQueen has demonstrated. Boy's got blinders on. He reads the same fire fighter's oral history I read. He sees it as Karin Deshore describing bombs going off on the street. I, a fire fighter, who understand what she is talking about, see her describing cars cooking off in a fire.

When you step outside your normal area of expertise to comment on a phenomenon that more qualified people have looked at and found unremarkable, learn what the hell you are talkiong about before you flap your jaws. This is commonm sense, right? Righ....

Oh! Silly me! I forgot for a moment on whose behavior I was commenting.

 

[leftysergeant]

If you could argue the details I could understand how you might be able to determine what a respected peer-reviewed journal might be concerning this issue, but I haven't seen you or Truthers Lie argue any details here.

I have a question for you that I have not seen you answer in any meaningful way. Why do you think the towers fell down?

I know that your co-author has this absurd notion that there were explosive charges set inside the buildings, but have not yet seen him offer any evidence that stands up to examination by the typical fire fighter with a GED and a year's experience in a big city fire department.

Perhaps this is why you can't get real journals to take you seriously. When you say you know what did NOT happen, like our favorite punching bag Killtown, and then offer no clue as to what DID happen, or you dredge up some whacko theory that does not pass the smell test with people whose experience is a little broader than yours, people in the editorial office kind of laugh at you and post copies of your work around the office adorned with sticky notes to the effect of "Errrm...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?"

 

[tsig]

It sounds like you don't know the difference between a dynamic load and a quasi-static load. It has to do with response and load amplification. Nobody is saying that rubble does not apply stress. The question is whether it can apply enough.

"quasi-static load." inventing your own terms are we?