Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Tony Szamboti]

Well that's not exactly true, now. Is it?


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting.

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

It wasn't. Liar.

It was shipped to Fresh Kills landfill where it was extensively examined by the investigating authorities.

Here's that part I added I added to the post above again while you were appearantly failing to respond accurately:

EDIT: I forgot about this part:

"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."

So the building lost 25% of its strength from the impacts, plus as much as 90% of the remaining strength from the subsequent fires. That adds up to well over 90% of it's total starting strength.

 

[Furcifer]

Geez Tony, maybe if we dumb it down a little you'll get it. You say 3g capacity, which is about right. You weaken the steel by 1/3rd and physically damage the support in an area by 1/3rd there goes your reserve capacity and it comes down. You can shuffle the numbers around all you want but that's all you need for global collapse.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, static objects are being accelerated otherwise they couldn't apply the force we call weight.

I'm going to track down my old physics teachers and demand a refund. They taught me that acceleration was rate of change of velocity, where velocity includes direction. With the towers static prior to collapse it looks like dv=0 here, so dv/dt is zero for any positive value of dt. So average acceleration=0. Or maybe my Messrs Jenkins and Wright can drop you a line, Tony, to clear this all up?

Have you been talking to Heiwa lately? That's enough to scramble any brain.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

WTFPWNED again, Tony:

Astaneh-Asl -- who has had access to 40,000 tons of scrap -- said his findings confirm the widely held theory about the buildings' demise: that the impact of the planes did relatively little damage to the Towers. Rather, it was 1,000-plus-degree heat from the burning jet fuel that caused key outer beams to buckle, and floor after floor to fall.

How much of the debris from the buildings have you examined, Tony?

What's that you say? Absolutely none whatsoever?

Here's the funny part... neither I nor many of the others here are even remotely close to being engineers. This must make it doubly embarrassing and humiliating for you, huh?

 

[NutCracker]

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting.

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

Tony. Sorry to say, your arguments are just the same is the average IQ < 5 Joe Truther Nutcase. Except you put them more eloquently. But that doesn't make them any less transparent.

Here you declare the intellectually expected (structure being compromised by damage and fire and therefore losing strength) to be the extraordinary claim in need of special proof. Whereas you handwave away demands for physical evidence in support of your theories with a paranoid and false "the evidence was shipped quickly for a reason."

Why can't you make out the cut columns, det chord etc etc from the numerous GZ images available? Why can't you get ayone invloved with the rescue and clean up operation to give detailed and credible testimony to the presence of this evidence?

Tony, it is painful to watch a man, who obviously is intelligent, being caught in a web of delusions. And pointing you to the facts and detailing your errors obviously isn't getting you out of said web. Au contraire, it seems.

Let me conclude in saying that I hope fore you that one day in the future you come to your senses. What is needed to bring that change about, I do not know.

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>
By the way Tom, you are anonymous. Sorry to say that providing your first name only does not qualify as giving your real name. Why don't you provide us with your full name Tom?

And how would that change the evidence in the postings?

You are being disingenuous Tony. You first elected to post here under a pseudonym and began using your name after you were outed. I don't see any revealing personal information on your profile.

The murderers, the ill, those with personal criminal problems, those who have threatened members here and been prosecuted, those who have threatened members here anonymously and not been prosecuted, those who show up unannounced at witnesses' homes and then publicly call them shills and liars, those who threaten arrests and execution come the revolution, are on the truther side.

Most truthers here do not post their real names.
Not using real names here is prudent condomwebbing if one wants to reduce the risk of truther creepness

Going to Suspect Dick Cheney's House.
http://www.infowars.com/sheehan-leads-march-to-dick-cheneys-house/

 

[leftysergeant]

It can't straighten itself unless there's more resistance on the side that's tilting downwards than there is on the side that's tilting upwards.

There were fewer damaged perimeter columns on the other side of the building. There are fewer broken floors on the imapct side. This caused the bottom of the tiltingstructure to slide in that direction, probably moving some of the core columns in that direction as well. As the top of the building moved right, the weight at the bottm
moved left. Probably moved the top core columns off the lower columns at the same time, and in the same direction.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting

Repeated always... yet always confusing how you can then turn around and call for thermite after saying this...
Forget about quote mining if you're going to make your cherrypicking this obvious what in the hell's the point in making the contradiction in the first place?

You're too predictable.... :\

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, static objects are being accelerated otherwise they couldn't apply the force we call weight.

Stundied. Tony, how can your calculations of acceleration possibly be taken seriously when you clearly don't even understand what acceleration is?

Dave

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity

What rubbish. Weight^WP is the magnitude of the gravity-opposing force needed to prevent acceleration due to gravity.

Acceleration^WP is the first derivative of velocity^WP. The word "acceleration" can also refer to a change in velocity, but delta-V is the less confusing term for that.

That's basic Newtonian mechanics, as taught in freshman physics, with which you have been having so much trouble.

You are either confused about or attempting to obfuscate these simple facts. Either way I hope what you are saying does not fool anyone.

By the way Tom, you are anonymous. Sorry to say that providing your first name only does not qualify as giving your real name. Why don't you provide us with your full name Tom?

The anonymous Tom got it right, and Tony Szamboti continues to get it wrong.

William D Clinger

 

[Furcifer]

Stundied. Tony, how can your calculations of acceleration possibly be taken seriously when you clearly don't even understand what acceleration is?

Dave

Tony knows- "Acceleration is the result of the Farce known as gravity"

 

[leftysergeant]

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting.

Bull flops. The paint was burned off some of the columns that were not buried in the fires under the pile.

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

False assumption, based on lies.

 

[AZCat]

Yes, static objects are being accelerated otherwise they couldn't apply the force we call weight.

This quote is far more significant than any credentials you might have. Anonymous or not, this reflects poorly on your ability to understand basic physics.

 

[R.Mackey]

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting.

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

Tony: No reaction to my last post? None at all?

And you return to post idiotic, mainstream Truther platitudes?

You're no different from the rank-and-file, Tony. Not at all. Like them, be Ignored.

 

[rwguinn]

What rubbish. Weight^WP is the magnitude of the gravity-opposing force needed to prevent acceleration due to gravity.

Acceleration^WP is the first derivative of velocity^WP. The word "acceleration" can also refer to a change in velocity, but delta-V is the less confusing term for that.

That's basic Newtonian mechanics, as taught in freshman physics, with which you have been having so much trouble.


The anonymous Tom got it right, and Tony Szamboti continues to get it wrong.

William D Clinger

"Hats off, gentlemen-- a genius"

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting.

Why was over 99.5% of the steel gotten rid of prior to the investigation?

"Hats back on, gentlemen..."

 

[tfk]

Weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity

Yes, static objects are being accelerated otherwise they couldn't apply the force we call weight. They are held in equilibrium by an equal and opposite force. In the case of a building, the lower structure is designed with reserve strength making it capable of providing several times that equal and opposite force to ensure equilibrium is maintained. To break that lower structure with an upper part of the structure requires the upper mass to be decelerated at a rate significantly greater than that due to gravity to increase the force to what is necessary.

You are either confused about or attempting to obfuscate these simple facts. Either way I hope what you are saying does not fool anyone.

Stop this charade, Tony.

You can not POSSIBLY be this incompetent. Therefore, you have clearly decided to simply obfuscate in order to pander to a very few clueless truthers.

The first 3 or 4 times you dodged and mislead, it was simply hand-waving & obfuscation. Now is has elevated to simpl lying, Tony. Why?

You did give your real name, Tony. And then you besmirch your own name, Tony, with a High School FAIL like this. In Public...!

How humiliating, Tony, to voluntarily reduce your credibility to zero, because you choose to not simply say "OK, you're right."

Weight is NOT acceleration, Tony.
Weight is a force.
A force is NOT an acceleration.

You do NOT need an acceleration in order to generate a force, Tony. Walk up to the side of any building. Push as hard as you can. What is your acceleration, Tony? It is zero. What is the building's acceleration, Tony? It is zero. Zero acceleration. And yet you still are generating a force between you & the building.

BY DEFINITION, a rigid body can have any number of forces (and any number of moments).
BY DEFINITION, a rigid body can have only ONE linear acceleration (and one angular acceleration), Tony. That is the linear (& angular) acceleration of the center of gravity.

Say that to yourself over & over & over again.

The ONE linear acceleration of any rigid body is the result of the sum of all forces.
The ONE angular acceleration of any rigid body is the result of the sum of all moments.

BY DEFINITION, a rigid body in static equilibrium has all of its forces (& moments) sum to zero.
BY DEFINITION, a rigid body in static equilibrium has one, AND ONLY ONE, linear acceleration, which equals ZERO. (So does the angular acceleration.)
___

Here is your claimed case, Tony. An object with mass & weight.

How many forces can this rigid body have? Any number.
How many does this one have? 1.
How many linear accelerations can a rigid body have? 1.

∑forces = m a
∑forces = W
a = W / m = mg / m = g

Result #1: This object is falling with an acceleration = g
Result #2: This rigid body is not in static equilibrium.
___

Here is the real situation we are discussing. A mass in static equilibrium.

How many forces can this rigid body have? Any number.
How many does this one have? 3.
How many linear accelerations can a rigid body have? 1.

∑forces = m a
∑forces = W + F1 +F2
Static equilibrium ➔ ∑forces = 0
W + F1 + F2 = 0
Static equilibrium ➔ ∑Moments = 0
∑Moments = 0 ➔ F1 = F2
F1 = F2 = -W/2

-W + F1/2 + F2/2 = 0
∑forces = 0 = m a
a = 0

Result #1:
This object is in static equilibrium.
Its one and only linear acceleration: a = 0
___

You have already shown everyone what a coward you are, Tony, by refusing to answer these very simple questions the last 3 times I've asked them. You've also shown everyone what a weasel you are by your repeated claims that I'm wrong, while you KNOW that this isn't true. And yet you choose to say it anyway.

Will you continue to show everyone what a coward & weasel are you are, by choosing, ONCE AGAIN, to refuse to answer them? These simple questions that answer this issue with simple clarity & certainty.

My bet is "yes, you will". Prove me wrong, Tony.

1. What was the vertical velocity of the upper block in 1975?
2. What was the vertical velocity of the upper block in 2000?
3. What was the CHANGE IN VELOCITY between 1975 & 2000?
4. What is the "change in velocity with respect to time called"?
5. What was the linear acceleration of the upper block between 1975 & 2000?

Why are you smearing your own name, Tony?

By the way Tom, you are anonymous. Sorry to say that providing your first name only does not qualify as giving your real name. Why don't you provide us with your full name Tom?

I am providing you with my credentials by producing simple & accurate explanations of rudimentary terms like force & acceleration & static equilibrium.

I don't give a flying fig about your name, Tony. That is yours to drag thru the mud of incompetence.

I care about accurate, competent engineering.

WHY DON'T YOU TRY GIVING US SOME OF THAT, Tony? Instead of the crap that you've been shoveling.

 

[newton3376]

Yes, static objects

I've bolded a very, very important word for you to consider when thinking about the WTC collapse versus the situation before the collpase....

The answers await your discovery Tony.....

 

[tfk]

Tony,

It was not compromised nearly enough to provide only 0.3g of resistance to the fall of the upper section when the structure was originally capable of providing ten times that amount. It wasn't compromised to the point of losing 90% of its strength.

In WTC 1 the percentage of heavily damaged or severed columns was approximately 15%. There is also no evidence of high temperatures in the steel needed to reduce the strength by an additional 75%.

How long has it been, and you are STILL this clueless.

The towers did NOT collapse because of lack of strength, Tony. They did not fail because they were heated & got weak. (There was a loss of strength, but that was not the major cause of the collapse.) The major cause of the collapse was the creep. (See next post.)

Therefore your analysis that only considers the reduced strength due to the heating as the explanation for the collapse ALSO fails.

[Actually, it doesn't fail at all. It accurately reflects your lack of understanding of what NIST said.]

You can tell that the above is true by looking at the temperatures at which each effect emerges and the time constants associated with each effect.

Temperature weakening: starts at about 350°C, loss to ~50% strength at ~550°C, down to about 20% strength at about 800°C. Time constant = immediate.

Creep: starts at about 200°C. Increases rapidly with rising temperature. Time constant: minutes to hours.

The columns were exposed to large, not long duration fires. Without insulation, they came up to temperature quickly. The temperature, and temp related loss of strength, happened relatively quickly. But they did not collapse quickly.

Creep takes time. The fires were not getting hotter. They got big fast, and then they were spreading and moving, some areas getting hot & others cooling down. The creep was increasing continuously & slowly. The collapse happened after 1 & 2 hours.

If you kept everything else the same, and just got rid of the creep, the buildings would likely be still standing.

Granted the NIST says they only got between 0.25 and 0.5% of the steel from the towers and go on to say this might not be representative. However, people need to ask themselves why the NIST only got that paltry amount of this critical evidence to use in their investigation.

Hey Tony.

I've got a pop quiz for ya, with an instructive message that shows that your math here sucks.

A weight, supported by 3 equally spaced columns.

You remove the right-most column.

The question is, which of these diagrams becomes the true representation of the new force balance?

A.

or

B.

Now think about it, and apply it to the question: "When you heavily damage or severe 15% of the columns, does it simply increase the loads on the remaining columns by a proportionate amount?"

 

[tfk]

Unbelievable...

Where is the physical evidence that the steel actually experienced these temperatures? Oh, you don't have any. Interesting.

The unequivocal, incontrovertible proof that the steel attained the temperatures needed to collapse the building is contained in about 300 video records.

It is proven in the slow, progressive tilt of the buildings & the slow, progressive bowing of the outer columns.

This evidence alone proves that the steel got hot enough to cause the building to collapse.

Because the failure was a MECHANICAL failure, Tony. Not a thermal one.

The temperature was hot enough to allow the steel to creep. That is unequivocal, from the video.

ANY AND ALL buildings that undergo continuous, progressive leaning WILL collapse. That is also unequivocal. The ONLY way in which a building does NOT collapse is to bring the progressive leaning to a halt.

As the leaning increased, the loads were shifted further & further away from "evenly distributed".

As this was happening, components failed. Parts snapped, but there was enough margin in the remaining members to absorb the extra loads required.

Finally, when the leaning had progressed far enough, the margins were gone. Something failed (snapped or buckled). The remaining supports could no longer absorb the added load required. And the failure rapidly progressed thru the remaining supports.

By focusing on the temperature, or the initial damage, and ignoring the creep (& the redistribution of loads that come with creep), you prove that you fundamentally do not understand why the building fell down.

These are from NIST NCSTAR1-6D.

This set of figures show the strain of the columns for WTC1. (There are additional figures for WTC2 in the report.)

Elastic and plastic strains only

Below are the strains on the columns before impact. Everything is nice & balanced:

Below are the strains after impact. Damage, but the extra strains (& loads) asked of the other columns is not outrageous.

Next, fires move thru the building, and the parts deform elastically & plastically. With increasing strains as time goes by.

Below are the calculated elastic and plastic strains at 40 minutes.

Below are the calculated elastic and plastic strains at 80 minutes.

Below are the calculated elastic and plastic strains at 100 minutes.

Notice that there is very little change after 40 minutes if you don't consider creep.

___

Next, watch what happens to the strains (in the computer models AND IN REAL LIFE), when you add in considerations of creep...

Since creep is a time dependent phenomenon, nothing different happens initially. So we take up the graphs at 40 minutes after impact.

Elastic and plastic AND CREEP strains.

Below are the calculated elastic and plastic AND CREEP strains at 40 minutes. Compare them to the strains above, when you did not consider creep.

Below are the calculated elastic and plastic AND CREEP strains at 80 minutes.

Below are the calculated elastic and plastic AND CREEP strains at 100 minutes.

Notice the enormous difference at each time step due only to creep. Notice that, not only are the magnitudes much greater, but they continue to grow with time when you consider creep. They do NOT continue to grow (significantly) with time if you do not consider creep.

These drawing PROVE that, if you don't appreciate the crucial importance of what relatively low-temperature creep did to the loads, they you SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND why the buildings fell down.