Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Edx]

BUMP - for Tony for ignore again.

Who mentioned flinging things around? Are you imagining things?

Richard Gage and David Chander, your friends at AE911Truth, remember?

They love saying that steel and material was flung around.

Heres my video on Richard Gage contradicting himself in that regard:



Steven Jones also says that nano thermite acted as matches or fuses for conventional explosives like C4. And they all say that many times the amount of explosives would have to be in the buildings compared to a normal demolition.

It seems you don't agree with most of what the heads of your group say, right?

But Im sure you'll ignore this.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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?

No one has said that. You are a liar.

YOUR thoughts, however, RELY on every column, both core and ext, dropping a full story, and then making square contact.

Rational people realize that some columns might have hit squarely. Most probabaly hit a glancing blow, and wouldn't contribute much to a jolt. And that some would have missed entirely - especially the ones that were severed by the plane impacts.

You are not part of that rational group....

You have zero self respect. I pity you and those that even bother to debate you at this point.

 

[TruthersLie]

You have never submitted anything you have written on 911 to an established engineering journal. By your definition you are irrelevant then.

Yet again you seem to not understand the basic principles of BURDEN OF PROOF. Since Ryan Mackey isn't saying that the common narrative is wrong, he doesn't have any. He has tried to explain the science and engineering to people, but he doesn't need to have published anything to EXPLAIN the over 100 peer reviewed engineering journals which do support the common narrative.

swing and a miss.

I am a co-author of Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction paper published in the Bentham open civil engineering journal. Oh, I know that is a vanity press.

Since you bring it up, why couldn't you get even that SIMPLE paper through a real peer review?

and since you admit that bentham is a vanity press, why do you keep bringing up a nanothermite argument in the same VANITY PRESS? Why can't you point to any REAL academic journals? (round and round we go....)

However, when you pressed them to withdraw it they asked you to submit a formal rebuttal to them. Did you ever do that?

I'll make you a deal tony. You pay the accompanying fees and I"ll be happy to publish a 20 page rebuttal. I won't spend the $700 to $1000 in a vanity rag to rebutt a piss poor paper. (have you found the glaring 10 methodological errors in that paper yet tony? I have)

As for details on how a covert demolition could be done I discussed that with you during our debate on Hardfire and have mentioned other possibilities here in the past.

Your lack of understanding of basics like building prep, explosives and the basics of CD are glaringly obvious.

You only have what you claim to be a lack of sound as a means to argue against explosives.

No tony. There are several issues which show there were no explosives
1. Lack of sound is the biggest and easiest
2. lack of seismic data to support it. They would have detected anything above 4 lbs of dynamite. Do you think that it would have taken less than 4lbs of dynamite to sever columns?
3. lack of shattered windows at ground zero
4. lack of barotrauma
5. lack of debris ejected beyond ground zero (if it was explosves, it would have thrown shrapnel thousands of feet.
6. lack of any left over explosives, det cord, etc....

all of that conclusively show that there were no explosives.

Nano-thermite is tailorable and can be formulated to minimize sound. The joints could be heat weakened

And was nanothermite found in the residue? What peer reviewed engineering journal states any was found? (chirp chirp chirp) oh you mean the vanity rag which you admit is a vanity rag. Got it.

The calculations of the required nanothermite would be in the hundreds of TONS (where the artciles from 2001 AMPITAC state that they were having difficulty creating it in the hundreds of POUNDS).

And who, when and how would this be applied? The calculations by greening and others (who assume it could be painted on ROFLMAO) showed that it would raise the temperature by what? 20C?

All of that work to raise the temp by 20C in two of the largest office buildings in the world, undetected... damn. Wouldn't it just have been easier to ... I don't know.... fly jets into the buildings?

and I told you that Dr. Astaneh mentioned melting at the ends of beams and columns.

Datamined quotes... Have you written to Dr. Astaneh and asked him to come out and support 9/11 truth with his observations? I mean he is a very respected engineer (oh.... better yet, maybe you should run your missing jolt "paper" past him). What? You haven't? Why not? Oh because he thinks you all are crackpots and doesn't believe it was an inside jobby job.

I also don't think it is out of the realm of possibility the core columns in the upper stories could be taken out in ways similar to what is done in the Verinage Technique.

But tony... how is that possible? as you have so often stated, there is a "missing jolt" which would b there if it was verinage...

It would help immensely if you could just present a simple, clear narrative of what happened. As opposed to this random, throw **** against the wall and see what sticks method. With the level of proof that you have, I can just as easily claim it was MOTHRA and have JUST as much scientific validity as what you have posted.

 

[leftysergeant]

Hmmm...Maybe Killtown's name isn't Lazo. He might be Szamboti's son. Same style of reasoning.

"I don't know what happened, but I know what did NOT happen."

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

GREAT.

In which engineering journal can I look forward to seeing your papers published?

I'll take it in any language. Italian, russian, german, arabic, japanese or chinese... I'll even learn Korean if necessary.

Feel free to show me any refutation of NIST in any language.

why can't you all do that? I mean if a theologian, an unemployed architect, college drop outs, pizza delivery boys, an army deserter, a structural engineer who checks for boat safety, a mechanical engineer can figure it out, it should be patently obvious to real structural engineers who work on high rise buildings...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

Did you hear about the guy who writes about jolts and load amplifications and accelerations as though they were expressed using the same units? Who writes of a "31g impulse", and refers to acceleration-time products as though they were interchangeable with accelerations? He also complains about the big bad establishment rejecting his papers.

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.

Errors in published papers aren't unusual. I've been accepting your corrected value for C, having pointed out that its effect on their equation 1 doesn't change their conclusions or mine. You should also have noticed that my back-of-the-envelope calculations used numbers consistent with your paper, including your value for C.

As for your other criticisms of the Bazant and Zhou paper: Although you have identified other causes for energy dissipation, you have not offered any evidence that contradicts their statement that energy dissipation "may be neglected" for the purposes of their rough calculation. When they refer to mg as the "design load capacity", they are obviously referring to the nominal load, not including the safety factor, and no one who's capable of reading their paper will fail to understand that. Most importantly, you have suggested repeatedly that Bazant and Zhou were unaware of the impossibility of their calculated ratio 31 (which you continue to refer to as "a 31g load amplification", but that's your mistake, not theirs). Your suggestion is false, as is perfectly clear from their very next sentence.

In short, the problems you see with the Bazant and Zhou paper are as nothing compared to the problems I see with yours.

I'm not even an engineer, let alone a mechanical or structural engineer. Mistakes that are obvious to me would be even more obvious to professional reviewers, who would probably spot other mistakes I am not qualified to see.

You revived this thread by speaking as though the missing jolt and the significance you attach to it were an established fact instead of an opinion you've been unable to justify to the satisfaction of peer reviewers. Your defense of your opinion in this thread has convinced me it will always be your opinion, and nothing more.

 

[tfk]

You should explain to those who don't understand that a static load is actually being decelerated at 1g and any load amplification would come from deceleration greater than that. You should help your friends here and answer that for them as it doesn't sound like some of them want to hear it from me.

No, Tony. A static load is not being decelerated at 1g. Or (equivalently) accelerated at -1g.

1g = a change in velocity of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In 1973, when the WTC towers were completed, the downward velocity of the upper 15 floors of the buildings were 0 ft/sec.

In 1983, the downward velocity of the upper 15 floors of the buildings were 0 ft/sec.

In 1993, the downward velocity of the upper 15 floors of the buildings were 0 ft/sec.

In 2000, the downward velocity of the upper 15 floors of the buildings were 0 ft/sec.

On 9/10/01, the downward velocity of the upper 15 floors of the buildings were 0 ft/sec.

The change in downward velocity (aka, the acceleration) over 28 years from 1973 thru 9/10/01 was NOT -32 ft/sec/sec. It was zero ft/sec/sec.

A statically loaded structure has a FORCE applied to it that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the gravitational force mg. A force is not an acceleration.

The velocity of a static structure is, by definition, zero. If it is a stable structure, the velocity stays zero.

Therefore, the change in velocity (aka, the acceleration) of any stable, stationary supported object over any interval of time (while it is stable) is not "-g". It is zero.

This is remedial, Tony.


Tom

 

[tfk]

Sorry chief, but you sound confused.

The static load is being decelerated at 1g while it is being supported. Gravity is at work there trying to accelerate it and the structure below is decelerating it.

To actually break the structure below with the static load mass it which was designed to handle several times over, there needs to be a deceleration of that mass sufficiently greater than 1g to generate the force amplification necessary.

I don't know what planet you are on but that is how it works here.

And this is where your mistaken 1g "static acceleration" gives you a squirrelly answer.

Once the collapse begins, then an unsupported upper floors will begin to fall at 1g.

Any force applied to the upper block by the lower supporting structure will reduce the resulting acceleration to a number that is less than 1g. The measured acceleration (a) form a resisting force (Fr), that is constantly applied from the instant that collapse begins, will be given by:

a = (mg - Fr)/m = g - (Fr/m)
(where a positive "a" indicates increasing downward velocity)

The resisting force (Fr) doed NOT have to be greater than mg. And the resultant acceleration does not have to be greater than 1g.

A couple of things to note:

1. If Fr/m < g, then the upper block will be accelerating (its downward velocity will be increasing)

2. If Fr/m = g, then the upper blocks downward velocity will be CONSTANT. Not zero. That means that, if the upper block had fallen for 1 second, gaining a downward velocity of 32 ft/sec, and THEN the lower structure applied a resisting force equal to the static load (Fr = mg), then the building would STILL collapse to the street, with the downward acceleration = 0, and the downward velocity equal to 32 ft/sec.

3. The reality seems to have been that the average downward acceleration was approximately 0.6g - 0.7g. Which means that, during the collapse, the massively damaged building was able to still generate a resisting force of about 0.4mg - 0.3mg.

This resisting force is made up of many components, each acting over various time intervals: the force it takes to destroy connections, the force it takes to fling parts around, the force it takes to accelerate previously stationary (or slowly falling) mass, the force it takes to crush things, etc. The only thing that you can say is that the sum of all these forces averaged out over time to be equal to approximately 0.3mg - 0.4mg.

The fact that you don't know the time sequence, time profile or direction of all these forces is why it is easier to use scalar energy calculations rather than force calculations.

NOTE WELL, Tony, that this total resisting force is, contrary to your assertion, less than mg. And the DECREASE IN ACCELERATION that results from these forces, is approximately 0.3g to 0.4g. Which is significantly less than your claimed minimum of 1g.

The force amplification is, to a large degree, a figment of your erroneous "1g static acceleration". Plus your conflating force with acceleration, and your failure to construct correct force diagrams.

There was no need for the resisting force to be greater than mg. Nor any need for the decrease in downward acceleration to be greater than 1g.


Tom

 

[tsig]

It is a real engineering term.

If you don't understand it Google the term and you might learn something, if you have enough of the basics to build on, which seems questionable with many who are making unsupported and inaccurate comments here.

I seems to relate to vehicle engineering.


http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkj14H...ww.capetesting.com/documents/Quasi_Static.pdf

 

[alienentity]

Thanks to Clinger and TFK for some excellent posts explaining the forces.

My favorite phrase is Clinger's:

'If you admit that the force needed to arrest the descent of the upper section is impossible, but use that impossible force to calculate an impossible deceleration, and then claim that your failure to observe that impossible deceleration implies the WTC towers were brought down by unnatural means, then you shouldn't be surprised if some people are unable to suppress their laughter.'

Well said indeed.

And TFK very well summed up what most of us probably perceive about the nature of the resistance:

'This resisting force is made up of many components, each acting over various time intervals: the force it takes to destroy connections, the force it takes to fling parts around, the force it takes to accelerate previously stationary (or slowly falling) mass, the force it takes to crush things, etc. The only thing that you can say is that the sum of all these forces averaged out over time to be equal to approximately 0.3mg - 0.4mg.'

It seems Tony is the only one present who cannot fathom that a huge, complex structure subject to asymmetrical and chaotic failures is not coming down as one single unified mass onto another unified mass. Nor does Tony seem capable of conceiving the variety of structural damage that was evidently taking place prior to the total collapse.

I very much doubt most engineers will suffer the same mental blocks that Tony labors under. Such half-crazy misinterpretation of events is never going to gather momentum in a sane, informed world. That could change - and if the world morphs into a place where these kinds of ideas are dominant, we'll have a lot more to worry about than 9/11. Civilization itself will be at stake, and the age of enlightenment will be over.

On a related note, my truther associate is now enthralled with the idea that the NWO engineered the Haiti earthquake using H.A.A.R.P. technology. I know he and Tony would get along just fine, they really think in very similar ways. And I'm not joking in the slightest.

 

[tsig]

lost for words

He did say it was unnatural.

 

[tsig]

No deceleration and no velocity loss = an unnatural event

I hope that isn't too complex for you.

Keep trying to prop up your irreducible delusion. That was one projection by Ryan Mackey which is hard to forget.

You are invoking spirits. What happens is natural.

 

[Furcifer]

And this is where your mistaken 1g "static acceleration" gives you a squirrelly answer.

Once the collapse begins, then an unsupported upper floors will begin to fall at 1g.

Any force applied to the upper block by the lower supporting structure will reduce the resulting acceleration to a number that is less than 1g. The measured acceleration (a) form a resisting force (Fr), that is constantly applied from the instant that collapse begins, will be given by:

a = (mg - Fr)/m = g - (Fr/m)
(where a positive "a" indicates increasing downward velocity)

The resisting force (Fr) doed NOT have to be greater than mg. And the resultant acceleration does not have to be greater than 1g.

A couple of things to note:

1. If Fr/m < g, then the upper block will be accelerating (its downward velocity will be increasing)

2. If Fr/m = g, then the upper blocks downward velocity will be CONSTANT. Not zero. That means that, if the upper block had fallen for 1 second, gaining a downward velocity of 32 ft/sec, and THEN the lower structure applied a resisting force equal to the static load (Fr = mg), then the building would STILL collapse to the street, with the downward acceleration = 0, and the downward velocity equal to 32 ft/sec.

3. The reality seems to have been that the average downward acceleration was approximately 0.6g - 0.7g. Which means that, during the collapse, the massively damaged building was able to still generate a resisting force of about 0.4mg - 0.3mg.

This resisting force is made up of many components, each acting over various time intervals: the force it takes to destroy connections, the force it takes to fling parts around, the force it takes to accelerate previously stationary (or slowly falling) mass, the force it takes to crush things, etc. The only thing that you can say is that the sum of all these forces averaged out over time to be equal to approximately 0.3mg - 0.4mg.

The fact that you don't know the time sequence, time profile or direction of all these forces is why it is easier to use scalar energy calculations rather than force calculations.

NOTE WELL, Tony, that this total resisting force is, contrary to your assertion, less than mg. And the DECREASE IN ACCELERATION that results from these forces, is approximately 0.3g to 0.4g. Which is significantly less than your claimed minimum of 1g.

The force amplification is, to a large degree, a figment of your erroneous "1g static acceleration". Plus your conflating force with acceleration, and your failure to construct correct force diagrams.

There was no need for the resisting force to be greater than mg. Nor any need for the decrease in downward acceleration to be greater than 1g.


Tom

^^^ This.

Especially the problem with using force instead of energy.

I guess Tony thinks the load amplification on individual members in the collapse zone would translate into this "deceleration" in the upper block. I guess using the term "rigid" is confusing for some people.

 

[BasqueArch]

Tony Szamboti
<snip>
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?

Tony, are you one of those who believes the upper columns of the building fell axially and simultaneously on the columns below, and whose calculations are all based on this belief?

 

[WildCat]

Each floor could take a 29 million lb. static load at its connections.

Still claiming that the connections were the weak point Tony? Still assuming the load was evenly distributed? Still claiming that the floor system could handle 725psf, which exceeds that required to cram each floor with A1 Abrams tanks packed in tight, even excluding the length (but not the weight) of the gun? Still confused about the difference between acceleration and velocity? Still refusing to take gravity into account? Still refusing to submit your paper to actual engineering journals?

Irreducible delusion.

 

[WildCat]

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.

And where did you acquire this "traning and experience"? Youtube? The Loose Change forum? Prisonplanet? David Ray Griffin's books?

Enquiring minds want to know...

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.

And these "other avenues" won't include actual engineering journals and professional organizatons, correct?

What will it be, WeAreChange meetings?

Run away Tony!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And where did you acquire this "traning and experience"? Youtube? The Loose Change forum? Prisonplanet? David Ray Griffin's books?

Enquiring minds want to know...


And these "other avenues" won't include actual engineering journals and professional organizatons, correct?

What will it be, WeAreChange meetings?

Run away Tony!

No, I am not running away.

It is fruitless to talk with most of the people on this forum and I really do not like talking to anonymous posters.

The anonymous TFK's two posts above are utter rubbish and anonymous people here applaud him.

While I have always known that debating people using psuedonyms is a waste of time, I did it here in case there were other viewers. I think I have said enough and have no desire to continue debating people who won't give their real names.

My debate on this issue with one who did give his real name, Ryan Mackey, has taken place. There is nothing more to say for the real audience to hear.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm not anonymous, and I asked you several questions, which you've avoided answering multiple times. Seems to me there is something more for them to hear.

 

[A W Smith]

I really do not like talking to anonymous posters.

The anonymous TFK's two posts above are utter rubbish and anonymous people here applaud him.

While I have always known that debating people using psuedonyms is a waste of time, I did it here in case there were other viewers. I think I have said enough and have no desire to continue debating people who won't give their real names.

My debate on this issue with one who did give his real name, Ryan Mackey, has taken place. There is nothing more to say for the real audience to hear.

Holy **** tony!! How many years did you post here as "Realcddeal"??? talk about being a hypocrite!!!!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Holy **** tony!! How many years did you post here as "RealCDdeal"??? talk about being a hypocrite!!!!

There were a number of people here who knew my identity fairly soon after I first started posting as I had e-mail contact with them. I seriously doubt that many of the anonymous clowns here would do that.