Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[rwguinn]

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You started out well but finished off with a bad turn.

The shock load is what is necessary to break and fail the lower structure and accelerate it. It occurs due to this is happening not after. After being broken and failed the floors and columns will not continue to exert a significant upward force. In order for the shock to be of sufficient magnitude there must be a significant amplification of the insufficient static load and this requires deceleration and velocity loss. If this did not happen it means the lower structure was broken before impact.

I have already calculated that the force exerted by the descending upper section greatly exceeded the force that even you claim the impacted floor structure was capable of withstanding. Bazant and Zhou did that long before me, as have many others.

Are you arguing that the "sufficient magnitude" required to break the floors and columns has units of impulse (equivalently, momentum)? If so, I could repeat a simple counterexample you ignored in another thread.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have already calculated that the force exerted by the descending upper section greatly exceeded the force that even you claim the impacted floor structure was capable of withstanding. Bazant and Zhou did that long before me, as have many others.

Are you arguing that the "sufficient magnitude" required to break the floors and columns has units of impulse (equivalently, momentum)? If so, I could repeat a simple counterexample you ignored in another thread.

It sounds like you really should do some reading on shock loading and stress before attempting any calculations.

Bazant and Zhou used energy calculations to make their point but only accounted for a small portion of the energy dissipation. Their paper is erroneous for this and a couple of other reasons I mentioned earlier.

 

[Edx]

S
To actually break the structure below with the static load mass it which was designed to handle several times over,.

Were the floors designed to handle that weight or was that the perimeter columns?

 

[beachnut]

It sounds like you really should do some reading on shock loading and stress before attempting any calculations.

Bazant and Zhou used energy calculations to make their point but only accounted for a small portion of the energy dissipation. Their paper is erroneous for this and a couple of other reasons I mentioned earlier.

So your expert engineering paper based on a paranoid delusion conclusion can't get published but the erroneous paper based on real math, physics and engineering is published.

I think you made a mistake. There are more than one way to explain events, you choose delusions. the realcddeal

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Were the floors designed to handle that weight or was that the perimeter columns?

Each floor could take a 29 million lb. static load at its connections. The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs.

The core and perimeter columns at the collapse initiation area could take at least three times that load.

Are you one of those who believes the upper section of the building missed all of the columns and just fell on the floors at the start of the collapse?

 

[carlitos]

I like how Tony is avoiding my questions because they don't contain engineering jargon. The sad thing is, they contain common sense.

Signore Szamboti, per favore:

What is your hypothesis for the events of 9/11/01 -building collapses, etc.?

Why won't you submit your 'white paper' to the JEM? (Be careful, and don't lie. We will catch you when you lie)

 

[R.Mackey]

Each floor could take a 29 million lb. static load at its connections. The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs.

The core and perimeter columns at the collapse initiation area could take at least three times that load.

Are you one of those who believes the upper section of the building missed all of the columns and just fell on the floors at the start of the collapse?

And around and around we go!

It's like some kind of memory impairment...

Again, the floors can only take that much load if it takes all the connections failing to break that floor. That will never, ever happen.

Again, if as little as 5% of the upper mass lands on the next floor, and does so with no velocity at all, it will fail the floor. Through sheer weight. And once that floor goes, the entire integrity of that story is gone.

Again, you are running from questions. That's the only non-insanity/troll reason there can possibly be for you to go in circles like this. Small circles, even.

 

[beachnut]

Each floor could take a 29 million lb. static load at its connections. The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs.

The core and perimeter columns at the collapse initiation area could take at least three times that load.

Are you one of those who believes the upper section of the building missed all of the columns and just fell on the floors at the start of the collapse?

Had to save this one, this is classic stuff. We watched the WTC fall, the steel had zero evidence of thermite, and zero evidence of explosives and you conclude explosives. This is why your paper is never making it to the real journals.

The jolt is missing and when you figure it out the real-cd-deal will be gone. Hurry and learn some practical rational engineering skills.

You could have had a PhD in 8 years in structural engineering, but you choose delusions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And around and around we go!

It's like some kind of memory impairment...

Again, the floors can only take that much load if it takes all the connections failing to break that floor. That will never, ever happen.

Again, if as little as 5% of the upper mass lands on the next floor, and does so with no velocity at all, it will fail the floor. Through sheer weight. And once that floor goes, the entire integrity of that story is gone.

Again, you are running from questions. That's the only non-insanity/troll reason there can possibly be for you to go in circles like this. Small circles, even.

You will never ever get a model to fail the way you propose the towers did.

All structures require a load amplification to use the insufficient static load above to break up the structure below. This load amplification requires deceleration and velocity loss which isn't observed in the towers. The stories immediately below and above the initiation floor had little to no damage so it is obvious the structure was weakened before the collision took place.

Your attempt to use the tilt to eliminate the need for a load amplification and deceleration above 1g is a joke.

 

[carlitos]

I like how Tony is avoiding my questions because they don't contain engineering jargon. The sad thing is, they contain common sense.

What is your hypothesis for the events of 9/11/01 -building collapses, etc.?

Why won't you submit your 'white paper' to the JEM? (Be careful, and don't lie. We will catch you when you lie)

 

[R.Mackey]

You will never ever get a model to fail the way you propose the towers did.

Dodge. Pathetic.

All structures require a load amplification to use the insufficient static load above to break up the structure below.

False.

This load amplification requires deceleration and velocity loss which isn't observed in the towers.

Many possible confounds. Explained to you a million times.

The stories immediately below and above the initiation floor had little to no damage so it is obvious the structure was weakened before the collision took place.

By fire, and by damage to the global structure. Everyone in the freaking world knows this.

Your attempt to use the tilt to eliminate the need for a load amplification and deceleration above 1g is a joke.

It was pointed out to you by your own hand-chosen reviewer before it ever saw the light of day. In response, you published anyway and ostracized the reviewer from your pathetic organization. Who's the "joke," again?

Answer the questions. Why will you not even attempt to publish this?

What evidence do you have for a vast engineering conspiracy that will automatically turn down your paper?

What do you intend to do, other than repeat your nonsense on unsuspecting message boards?

Who cares about your crap?

 

[beachnut]

You will never ever get a model to fail the way you propose the towers did.

...

So the towers can't fall, the FDR can't be missing data, the check is in the mail, the titanic can't sink, and your paper is real engineering.

I offer two full up model on 911, the both failed, and prove your real-cd-deal to be a delusion.

No engineers support your work with evidence and engineering, all your support is from paranoid conspiracy theorists.

What did your engineering school say about your paper? What school was that? Try to publish your paper in a real journal, maybe we are all wrong and E doesn't equal mgh!

So you missed the jolt and do you support the thermite in the ceiling tiles as Jones once did? How does the thermite in the ceiling keep the jolt from happening? Got a paper on that?

How long in time would the jolt last? What are the dynamics of the jolt? Guess I will have to do that myself and show you why for the n^th time your paper failed with the tools you brought to the table of the missing jolt.

 

[leftysergeant]

Your attempt to use the tilt to eliminate the need for a load amplification and deceleration above 1g is a joke.

Stop diddling around. How was the load in Balzac-Vitry amplified in a way that did not occur in the towers?

And how do you use explosives without there being any sign of their use of a floor that is totally involved in fire?

And don't try to tell a bunch of fire fighters that there were external clues to explosives. Neither you nor that idiot Canadian theologian have the credentials to tell me what I am looking at.

What evidence do you think you see of explosives on the burning floors?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Dodge. Pathetic.



False.



Many possible confounds. Explained to you a million times.



By fire, and by damage to the global structure. Everyone in the freaking world knows this.



It was pointed out to you by your own hand-chosen reviewer before it ever saw the light of day. In response, you published anyway and ostracized the reviewer from your pathetic organization. Who's the "joke," again?

Answer the questions. Why will you not even attempt to publish this?

What evidence do you have for a vast engineering conspiracy that will automatically turn down your paper?

What do you intend to do, other than repeat your nonsense on unsuspecting message boards?

Who cares about your crap?

In reality I would like to believe that the collapses actually occurred the way you propose they did. Unfortunately, my training and experience prevent me from doing that.

The NIST/Bazant explanation and what you propose simply do not work so I am obligated to say it, even though I do not take pleasure in a protracted, sometimes testy, debate with a fellow engineer.

I have also grown quite tired of this message board debating and intend to look for other avenues in which to apply my efforts to see reality brought out into the open on this issue.

 

[R.Mackey]

In reality I would like to believe that the collapses actually occurred the way you propose they did. Unfortunately, my training and experience prevent me from doing that.

It could also be delusion and paranoia. If you actually talk to real experts, instead of only Truthers, this would become clear to you.

The NIST/Bazant explanation and what you propose simply do not work so I am obligated to say it, even though I do not take pleasure in a protracted, sometimes testy, debate with a fellow engineer.

NIST and Bazant & Zhou (2002) are different papers for different purposes. You only conflate them because it gives you an excuse -- a horribly contorted and easily falsified one, but an excuse nevertheless -- to continue believing nonsense. What need this serves I have no idea, but whatever it is, it's wrong.

I have also grown quite tired of this message board debating and intend to look for other avenues in which to apply my efforts to see reality brought out into the open on this issue.

The final dodge. I knew you wouldn't answer those questions.

 

[carlitos]

I have also grown quite tired of this message board debating and intend to look for other avenues in which to apply my efforts to see reality brought out into the open on this issue.

Hey Genius, try a freaking ENGINEERING JOURNAL. Seriously. You may find that, when your **** is brought into the open, "reality" is unrelated to your arguments.

Also:

What is your hypothesis for the events of 9/11/01 -building collapses, etc.?

Why won't you submit your 'white paper' to the JEM? (Be careful, and don't lie. We will catch you when you lie)

 

[leftysergeant]

In reality I would like to believe that the collapses actually occurred the way you propose they did. Unfortunately, my training and experience prevent me from doing that.

My training and experience, and that of at least eight other members of this forum, utterly forbid us to accept the vaguest possibility that explosions of adequete strength to do any harm occurred on ANY floor that was involved in fire. That would includse ALL floors in the parts of the towers that initially failed.

I have also grown quite tired of this message board debating and intend to look for other avenues to see reality brought out into the open on this issue.

In other words, since it is clear that you are being challenged on your insistance on the use of a hushaboom, and wil not be tolewrated to go on blathering about it without proving its existance, you will just turn tail lioke Killtown, right?

Might as well. Nobody here is going to take you seriously until you explain how you think demolition charges could be set off without displaying some outward sign.

And if you point to something that you think is a sign of explosives and we do not see it, don't wave your degree at us and expect us to do obesience. It aint relevant to arson investigations.

 

[TruthersLie]

Just what do you think the retired civil engineering professor was? I'll give you a hint *****, civil engineers are structural engineers. The guy probably forgot more than the likes of you will ever know judging by your nonsensical comments and audacity. I seriously doubt you had three years of engineering courses as you don't seem able to handle the details. I think you are nothing more than an anonymous **********.

Edited due to lack of civility, breach of Rule 10.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Oh tony. You hurt my feelings.

I haven't been rude to you. I haven't called in your questionable engineering. I haven't called you names.

I have asked reasonable questions, and you have dodged them. When you finally answered them, you showed how weak your review was.

And yes tony, I'm sure a retired civil engineer would have forgotton more than I ever learned in three years of undergrad engineering courses. Yup. No doubt there.

And yes, I had it backwards. My fault there. I had forgotten that structural engineering was a subcategory of civil engineering (since I wanted to be an aerospace engineer, I wasn't too keen on civil engineering). So which subset was his speciality? This retired civil engineering professor? Did he specialize in structural engineering? Or was he one of these road engineers you truthers love so much?

I'm just asking questions here Tony. I want to see what kind of review this "paper" of yours recieved... so far it doesn't seem like much. Why won't you submit it to a REAL peer review?

 

[carlitos]

TruthersLie, I predict that Tony will be answering your questions very soon after he answers my questions. ¡Suerte, Amigo!

HEY TONY!!!!1!!!!1!!11

What is your hypothesis for the events of 9/11/01 -building collapses, etc.?

Why won't you submit your 'white paper' to the JEM? (Be careful, and don't lie. We will catch you when you lie)