Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Newtons Bit]

In essence, you can look at the situation as though the columns have to carry their initial load (Lo), plus the extra load no longer carried by the lost & damaged columns (∆L) plus the load associated with resisting the tilting moment (Lm).

tfk:

Buildings do not work that way. The beams,which carry the floor loads, span from column to column. When a column fails, the beams do not magically span to the next column. The column will fall and them beams will rotate at their connections and eventually go into tension (aka catenary action) and this puts a large amount of "pull-in" force on the lateral system. Eventually the lateral system will fail (like in WTC 1&2) or the beams will (Windsor Tower) and the structure will begin to collapse. The order in which the lateral system fails (and thus the gravity system just moments later) will determine the magnitude and direction of the tilt.

 

[tfk]

Newt,

I agree with everything that you say.

I've got a bunch of work to do before the end of the day. I'll drop a note after hours.

Tom

 

[BasqueArch]

It seems there is no trick Tony will not attempt to save face, including the above, known as "Strawman."

I made numerous arguments, all of which are still valid. The above is not one of them. In brief:

• Your claim that Dr. Bazant says there must be a "jolt," and that it must be of 31 g in magnitude, is based on an incorrect reading of his work -- and you have not bothered to check with him
• The geometry of the problems causes a multitude of minor impacts, not a single, simultaneous one, that we do not have the resolution to observe as discrete "jolts"
• Your calculation of energy dissipation is based on (a) incorrect estimate of safety factor, (b) incorrect estimate of spring constant, (c) indefensible assumption that the impact would all be carried by the lower columns (not just "they don't completely miss," rather "they don't miss at all"), (d) indefensible estimate that the structural strength during failure is equal to the correctly loaded, intact, static case, (e) exaggerated estimate of failure strain under these conditions, and (f) totally unsupported estimate that additional dissipation due to sound, heating, etc. exceeds 20% of that due to strain energy
• As little as 40% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, will cause utter failure of the floor systems and precipitate the collapse anyway, even without building up any momentum
• As little as 5% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, is expected to cause local failures of the floors, again leading to collapse of the structure anyway
• Even with total explosive demolition of every single support of the structure, your model predicts a measurable "jolt" through mere momentum transfer, ergo your model is wrong no matter what
• A deliberate, competent demolition would also have produced a "jolt," so your claims can logically only conclude that an insane, incompetent, massive overkill demolition affecting numerous floors simultaneously was to blame -- with no justification at all
• You still have not acknowledged the well documented tilt of the structure prior to the downward collapse phase, or the significant inward bowing of the perimeter wall well before collapse, or the consequences thereof to conspiracy ideas
• You still refuse to present your work to any neutral expert or any ordinary scientific verification process

Your newest response to these arguments is, apparently, to ignore them. We've all seen strawman arguments before, Tony. Like I said, you're just another garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and therefore of no significance whatsoever. So after years you put your real name on your nonsense. Big deal. You're still avoiding the scientific method, and thus a charlatan.

Bingo.
Simple without being simplistic.
----------------------------------------------------------
You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into- Swift​

 

[DGM]

Newt,

I agree with everything that you say.

I've got a bunch of work to do before the end of the day. I'll drop a note after hours.

Tom

I hope you guys keep us "in on" the discussion. Some of this goes over my head (by a long way) but none the less this is what I like about this forum, Knowledge!

 

[newton3376]

It seems there is no trick Tony will not attempt to save face, including the above, known as "Strawman."

I made numerous arguments, all of which are still valid. The above is not one of them. In brief:

• Your claim that Dr. Bazant says there must be a "jolt," and that it must be of 31 g in magnitude, is based on an incorrect reading of his work -- and you have not bothered to check with him
• The geometry of the problems causes a multitude of minor impacts, not a single, simultaneous one, that we do not have the resolution to observe as discrete "jolts"
• Your calculation of energy dissipation is based on (a) incorrect estimate of safety factor, (b) incorrect estimate of spring constant, (c) indefensible assumption that the impact would all be carried by the lower columns (not just "they don't completely miss," rather "they don't miss at all"), (d) indefensible estimate that the structural strength during failure is equal to the correctly loaded, intact, static case, (e) exaggerated estimate of failure strain under these conditions, and (f) totally unsupported estimate that additional dissipation due to sound, heating, etc. exceeds 20% of that due to strain energy
• As little as 40% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, will cause utter failure of the floor systems and precipitate the collapse anyway, even without building up any momentum
• As little as 5% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, is expected to cause local failures of the floors, again leading to collapse of the structure anyway
• Even with total explosive demolition of every single support of the structure, your model predicts a measurable "jolt" through mere momentum transfer, ergo your model is wrong no matter what
• A deliberate, competent demolition would also have produced a "jolt," so your claims can logically only conclude that an insane, incompetent, massive overkill demolition affecting numerous floors simultaneously was to blame -- with no justification at all
• You still have not acknowledged the well documented tilt of the structure prior to the downward collapse phase, or the significant inward bowing of the perimeter wall well before collapse, or the consequences thereof to conspiracy ideas
• You still refuse to present your work to any neutral expert or any ordinary scientific verification process

Your newest response to these arguments is, apparently, to ignore them. We've all seen strawman arguments before, Tony. Like I said, you're just another garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and therefore of no significance whatsoever. So after years you put your real name on your nonsense. Big deal. You're still avoiding the scientific method, and thus a charlatan.

Everything you said there makes sense to me but I do have a question about this comment....."incorrect estimate of spring constant".

What was Tonys estimate of spring constant? I can't seem to remember or find it....

 

[newton3376]

Newt,

I agree with everything that you say.

I've got a bunch of work to do before the end of the day. I'll drop a note after hours.

Tom

I have to second the request to keep us in on the discussion....watching you and newtons bit and mackey talk about this stuff is educational for those of us without a mechanical background....

As an EE I am learning lots of interesting stuff....

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It seems there is no trick Tony will not attempt to save face, including the above, known as "Strawman."

I made numerous arguments, all of which are still valid. The above is not one of them. In brief:

• Your claim that Dr. Bazant says there must be a "jolt," and that it must be of 31 g in magnitude, is based on an incorrect reading of his work -- and you have not bothered to check with him
• The geometry of the problems causes a multitude of minor impacts, not a single, simultaneous one, that we do not have the resolution to observe as discrete "jolts"
• Your calculation of energy dissipation is based on (a) incorrect estimate of safety factor, (b) incorrect estimate of spring constant, (c) indefensible assumption that the impact would all be carried by the lower columns (not just "they don't completely miss," rather "they don't miss at all"), (d) indefensible estimate that the structural strength during failure is equal to the correctly loaded, intact, static case, (e) exaggerated estimate of failure strain under these conditions, and (f) totally unsupported estimate that additional dissipation due to sound, heating, etc. exceeds 20% of that due to strain energy
• As little as 40% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, will cause utter failure of the floor systems and precipitate the collapse anyway, even without building up any momentum
• As little as 5% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, is expected to cause local failures of the floors, again leading to collapse of the structure anyway
• Even with total explosive demolition of every single support of the structure, your model predicts a measurable "jolt" through mere momentum transfer, ergo your model is wrong no matter what
• A deliberate, competent demolition would also have produced a "jolt," so your claims can logically only conclude that an insane, incompetent, massive overkill demolition affecting numerous floors simultaneously was to blame -- with no justification at all
• You still have not acknowledged the well documented tilt of the structure prior to the downward collapse phase, or the significant inward bowing of the perimeter wall well before collapse, or the consequences thereof to conspiracy ideas
• You still refuse to present your work to any neutral expert or any ordinary scientific verification process

Your newest response to these arguments is, apparently, to ignore them. We've all seen strawman arguments before, Tony. Like I said, you're just another garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and therefore of no significance whatsoever. So after years you put your real name on your nonsense. Big deal. You're still avoiding the scientific method, and thus a charlatan.

The initial collapse of WTC 1 happened far too fast for a number of separate discreet impacts to be compensated for by a continuing fall. The velocity loss even in that situation would have been observable and that can be shown.

Additionally, you keep saying that I overestimate the strength of the columns. That is nonsense. We used the actual strength of the columns in the Missing Jolt paper. The core columns were either 36,000 or 42,000 psi yield strength and the perimeter columns at the 98th floor were 65,000 psi yield strength. Your attempted use of the factor of safety argument here is a diversion and a false argument.

Try using some calculations to show it could happen the way you say it could. Of course, it appears that you can't or you would have done it, and that is why you stick to bare assertions using as much an authoritative voice as you can muster. In reality, most of what I have seen you say on this subject would be best defined as bluster.

You also seem unable to control your urge to project your own behavior onto others here by calling someone else a charlatan. I believe you are the person who coined the term irreducible delusion, which you like to say others are guilty of, and yet it is you we find who has the greatest irreducible delusion of all.

 

[TruthersLie]

The initial collapse of WTC 1 happened far too fast for a number of separate discreet impacts to be compensated for by a continuing fall. The velocity loss even in that situation would have been observable and that can be shown.

Additionally, you keep saying that I overestimate the strength of the columns. That is nonsense. We used the actual strength of the columns in the Missing Jolt paper. The core columns were either 36,000 or 42,000 psi yield strength and the perimeter columns at the 98th floor were 65,000 psi yield strength. Your attempted use of the factor of safety argument here is a diversion and a false argument.

Try using some calculations to show it could happen the way you say it could. Of course, it appears that you can't or you would have done it, and that is why you stick to bare assertions using as much an authoritative voice as you can muster. In reality, most of what I have seen you say on this subject would be best defined as bluster.

You also seem unable to control your urge to project your own behavior onto others here by calling someone else a charlatan. I believe you are the person who coined the term irreducible delusion, which you like to say others are guilty of, and yet it is you we find who has the greatest irreducible delusion of all.

GREAT.

That means you have published your "paper" in some sort of real peer reviewed journal right? I mean someone who is just making bald faced claims with no support...

So what journal is going to touch this?

Or did you publish another paper in a real journal which refutes NIST? Which one is it, and where can I buy a copy?

Until then Tony, either produce that paper and get it through peer review, or get busy writing said paper. I for one eagerly await your published (and peer reviewed paper).

 

[carlitos]

I know that it's just a misspelling, but Tony nails it with "discreet impacts." That's actually closer to reality than his paper. Unfortunately, you can't measurably observe these discrete, relatively subtle impacts on grainy youtube from a mile off, but there you go.

Oh, and what about WTC2?

 

[tfk]

Newt,

Sorry, busy last (& next) 24 hours.

I agree that the model suggested captures none of the detail of columns-to-truss connections & interactions. And therefore, what happens within a floor, how the various columns are tied together, etc. None of those critical details.

But it does seem that it gives an accurate GROSS model of a real phenomenon: the load shifting that happens amongst the columns with respect to the sum total of the loads from all the floors above the damaged floors. And it seems that it matches the results from NIST.

For example, NIST gives the results for WTC2 in NCSTAR1-6D.

Here is the pre-impact loading on all the columns:


Pre-Impact Loads

[Aside: Note that the parts with the larger loads are physically larger columns. The important parameter that determines how much you are asking of a column is its stress level, or force per unit area. You can see how the engineers beautifully equalized the stress in this "Pre-impact strain" figure. Note that this figure is for WTC1, but is just as applicable to WTC2. Note also that, even tho it gives you "strain" (i.e., specific deformation), since the columns are in their linear elastic region, the strain is a direct reflection of the stress in each column. Simply multiply the strain by E (28,000,000) to get Stress. So you can just as validly interpret the size of the dots as "stress".]

[Obviously, the aside is for all the Electron Jockeys, Newt. Not for you. ]

Pre-Impact Strain (and proportional to stress)

So you can see how the stresses are nicely balanced between all the columns.

And here is what NIST shows for the loads (compare with the "Pre-Impact LOAD" chart above) 41 minutes after the impact:

Post-Impact Loads (41 minutes post impact)

You can see all the effects that Wierzbicki talks about in the load redistribution.

Within the central zone of tilt, the load numbers go up. Above & to the right of that zone, they go up, but less than within the zone. Some of the "outer fiber" columns in the upper right actually decrease in load.

And the columns below the axis of symmetry really have to start carrying excessive loads. (It does not explain the reduction in the loads of the East external wall, tho.)

Again, I agree with you 100% that all the cross bracing & floor trusses and the floors themselves are going to mitigate this effect to some degree. The biggest mitigation factor, it seems to me with cursory examination, is that differential creep is going to tend to re-equalize the loads somewhat. But that doesn't seem to me to be able to eliminate this effect altogether.

Simply summing the moments & forces requires that the forces (i.e., loads) on the side towards the tilt be higher.

Again, I'll be interested in how you see it. It's one of those things that takes some experience and fiddling with the real numbers to see. And frankly, this is far more in your baliwick (and Wierzbicki's) than mine.

Tom

PS. But again, I'll be busy today...

 

[R.Mackey]

The initial collapse of WTC 1 happened far too fast for a number of separate discreet impacts to be compensated for by a continuing fall. The velocity loss even in that situation would have been observable and that can be shown.

There is peer-reviewed literature from three teams, with three different approaches, that says otherwise.

And the velocity loss is observed. Just not in the precise manner you insist.

Additionally, you keep saying that I overestimate the strength of the columns. That is nonsense. We used the actual strength of the columns in the Missing Jolt paper. The core columns were either 36,000 or 42,000 psi yield strength and the perimeter columns at the 98th floor were 65,000 psi yield strength. Your attempted use of the factor of safety argument here is a diversion and a false argument.

Wrong. Your calculation is pathetically inadequate.

The Try using some calculations to show it could happen the way you say it could. Of course, it appears that you can't or you would have done it, and that is why you stick to bare assertions using as much an authoritative voice as you can muster. In reality, most of what I have seen you say on this subject would be best defined as bluster.

It's been done. My proposal fits well within the bounding cases already published. Yours does not.

The You also seem unable to control your urge to project your own behavior onto others here by calling someone else a charlatan. I believe you are the person who coined the term irreducible delusion, which you like to say others are guilty of, and yet it is you we find who has the greatest irreducible delusion of all.

You claim to have a science paper that stands the world on end, yet you refuse to do anything with it except tout it on message boards, and you claim support from no one but conspiracy theorists. That is the textbook definition of a charlatan.

Need another demonstration? In your last post regarding me, you said this:

Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and everything landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible.

This is wrong. I did not make this claim, not then or ever. Do you acknowledge your error? Yes or no?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There is peer-reviewed literature from three teams, with three different approaches, that says otherwise.

And the velocity loss is observed. Just not in the precise manner you insist.

There is never any velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. If you think there is show your data. You can't just make things up.

Your calculation[/URL] is pathetically inadequate.

It is telling that you don't back up your statement here. Your habit of making claims without backup is becoming increasing clear.

It's been done. My proposal fits well within the bounding cases already published. Yours does not.

If you are speaking of Dr. Bazant's papers he does not show his calculations for the axial stiffness of the columns or the energy dissipation. His results in both cases have been shown to be grossly erroneous and when I asked him for his calculations through Dr. Frank Greening I got no response. After a period of time had passed I asked Dr. Greening if he had indeed passed on my request to Dr. Bazant, and he assured me that he had. He also mentioned that he had discussed the paper with Dr. Bazant. It is interesting that there has been no rebuttal to the paper, other than inane pronouncements that it is wrong. Like what you are doing here.

You claim to have a science paper that stands the world on end, yet you refuse to do anything with it except tout it on message boards, and you claim support from no one but conspiracy theorists. That is the textbook definition of a charlatan.

The paper is published. Your lack of acceptance does not constitute a valid criticism, nor is your calling individuals conspiracy theorists and charlatans a valid point.

Need another demonstration? In your last post regarding me, you said this:

This is wrong. I did not make this claim, not then or ever. Do you acknowledge your error? Yes or no?

You are on video in our debate claiming the full 69 million lb. mass of the upper section of WTC 1 fell on the floors which could only support 29 million lbs. Of couse, we can see you on video saying this can be shown by a simple geometric illustration. It is telling that when that geometric illustration was actually done it refuted your claim.

Since you now seem like you want to revise your claim it would be interesting for you to tell us just what percentage of the columns you think would be involved in the collision between the first two floors. You should also provide us with some energy dissipation calculations to back up any claim you might continue to want to make that only 0.3g of resistance could be expected.

 

[Furcifer]

There is never any velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. If you think there is show your data. You can't just make things up.

Geez Tony, the velocity loss was observed and was consistent with an acceleration close to 0.7g. The velocity loss was about 10 f/s for every second of the collapse.

 

[Furcifer]

Since you now seem like you want to revise your claim it would be interesting for you to tell us just what percentage of the columns you think would be involved in the collision between the first two floors.

Aside from the ones that were damaged during the impact, ever single column was involved.

I think the point here is that you have no way to simplify what happened and take it as a percentage. Some were in compression, some were in tension, some met face on, some didn't.

 

[TruthersLie]

If you are speaking of Dr. Bazant's papers he does not show his calculations for the axial stiffness of the columns or the energy dissipation. His results in both cases have been shown to be grossly erroneous and when I asked him for his calculations through Dr. Frank Greening I got no response. After a period of time had passed I asked Dr. Greening if he had indeed passed on my request to Dr. Bazant, and he assured me that he had. He also mentioned that he had discussed the paper with Dr. Bazant. It is interesting that there has been no rebuttal to the paper, other than inane pronouncements that it is wrong. Like what you are doing here.

Where is this "paper" published again? What peer reviewed engineering journal has touched this piece of crap? What? I can't hear you?

Dr. Bazant wouldn't waste his time to provide a "rebuttal" to any paper that is NOT published in a respected peer reviewed journal. AGain, when will you post this ground breaking "paper" in ANY peer reviewed journal?

The paper is published. Your lack of acceptance does not constitute a valid criticism, nor is your calling individuals conspiracy theorists and charlatans a valid point.

Ummm you have admitted (in this thread) that it wasn't "published" in any peer reviewed engineering journal. You have stated it in reply to my question.

So where did you "publish" it, and in what peer reviewed journal is it in?

 

[R.Mackey]

There is never any velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. If you think there is show your data. You can't just make things up.

Vectors, Tony. Learn them.

It is telling that you don't back up your statement here. Your habit of making claims without backup is becoming increasing clear.

I gave you links. I did back them up.

If you are speaking of Dr. Bazant's papers he does not show his calculations for the axial stiffness of the columns or the energy dissipation. His results in both cases have been shown to be grossly erroneous and when I asked him for his calculations through Dr. Frank Greening I got no response. After a period of time had passed I asked Dr. Greening if he had indeed passed on my request to Dr. Bazant, and he assured me that he had. He also mentioned that he had discussed the paper with Dr. Bazant. It is interesting that there has been no rebuttal to the paper, other than inane pronouncements that it is wrong. Like what you are doing here.

This is just double stupid all over. The bolded part is what is sometimes called "The Ostrich Strategy." You've been rebutted eighteen ways to Sunday, and you either know it, or are completely insane.

The paper is published. Your lack of acceptance does not constitute a valid criticism, nor is your calling individuals conspiracy theorists and charlatans a valid point.

Your paper has not been published. Your friends put it on a website, one with a lower fact-to-claim ratio than some fictional works.

You are on video in our debate claiming the full 69 million lb. mass of the upper section of WTC 1 fell on the floors which could only support 29 million lbs. Of couse, we can see you on video saying this can be shown by a simple geometric illustration. It is telling that when that geometric illustration was actually done it refuted your claim.

Since you now seem like you want to revise your claim it would be interesting for you to tell us just what percentage of the columns you think would be involved in the collision between the first two floors. You should also provide us with some energy dissipation calculations to back up any claim you might continue to want to make that only 0.3g of resistance could be expected.

If you won't acknowledge that your claim, about what I said, is wrong, then you are a liar. Not that we didn't know that about you already.

BLBG provides those calculations, as you well know.

It's been over a year, Tony. You're actually getting observably stupider during that time period.

 

[WildCat]

The initial collapse of WTC 1 happened far too fast for a number of separate discreet impacts to be compensated for by a continuing fall. The velocity loss even in that situation would have been observable and that can be shown.

Still haven't figured out the difference between velocity and acceleration, eh Tony?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There is never any velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. If you think there is show your data. You can't just make things up.

The velocity loss is evident in your own data, Tony.

You're the one who's been making things up. Five of your six figures contain fabricated graphs that don't match your own numerical data.

Confronted with an honest graph, you denied the validity of your own data.

Those facts can be verified by anyone who knows how to compute differences and to graph the function represented by a table of numbers. Indeed, Dave Rogers verified those facts just last Monday.

It is telling that you don't back up your statement here. Your habit of making claims without backup is becoming increasing clear.

It is telling that your only responses to the facts noted above were

1. To deny that our graphs were constructed from your own data.
2. To deny the validity of your own data.
3. To ignore the fact that you've been caught fabricating graphs.
4. To pretend no one noticed.

The paper is published. Your lack of acceptance does not constitute a valid criticism, nor is your calling individuals conspiracy theorists and charlatans a valid point.

Your graphs do not match your data. That is a valid criticism.

When the graphs are drawn honestly and competently, they show the velocity loss you continue to deny. That is a valid criticism of both your paper and of your conduct in this forum.

Your ad hominem attacks on the anonymity of your critics are not valid. Your ad hominem attacks would not be valid even if critics such as Dave Rogers and myself were truly anonymous.

Your ostrich strategy is not valid. Pretending you cannot see what is wrong with your paper does not fix what is wrong with your paper. Pretending you cannot understand what is wrong with your argument does not fix what is wrong with your argument. Finding a camera angle from which you cannot see any tilt before the collapse does not obviate the camera angles from which that tilt is obvious.

Why did you hide the jolts, Tony?

William D Clinger

 

[BasqueArch]

Thank you Ryan Mackey, W.D.Clinger, Dave Rogers.
(And of course all the others on this thread too numerous to mention.)
Game over Tony.
Will the last one out of this irreducible delusion room please turn off the lights.​

 

[LashL]

​