• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

I will be honest here and tell you that I am looking at another possibility that Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, and others have brought up. That is if the impacts are spread out over a long enough period of time then the continued fall could compensate for the velocity loss. This needs to be done with the precise measurements of the tilt vs. drop timing, which we now have. So we will see. I have to admit that I am rather dissappointed that those who have brought this up haven't done any precision measurements and calculations to prove the point, other than Dave Rogers' claim that he did while refusing to show his data.

This is the most promising thing you've ever said here. I look forward to your calculations.

I've said before that I didn't make any measurements of the collapse rate. All I did was look up the column positions, approximate column strengths using an overall FoS of 3x, and approximate column resistance assuming a linear increase to the ultimate strength at 0.15% compression and then constant strength up to 15% compression. The rest is simple trigonometry and Newtonian mechanics. It's a trivial piece of arithmetic, and I've shown the methodology and results here. This is how papers are generally written; the methodology is described in sufficient detail for another worker to replicate the results, and the results are then published. I don't recall you publishing the intermediate steps of any of your calculations; it's simply not necessary.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Oh thanks Tony, I haven't been fortunate to hear the great man speak. We better get that changed on our web sites then since all of them say the three towers fell at nearly free-fall speed. Can you ask him?

The great man lol.I'm off the fence now,you are trolling.
 
You really shouldn't go around saying others sound like a fool, when you are making comments like this.

The weaker (upper) part did not weigh more than the lower part could hold per floor. If that were the case it couldn't be built. The structure at each floor could support significantly more than the static load above it.
...
Engineer? Engineer, first grade kids can figure this out.

A floor can only hold about 11 floors if carefully placed, no impact on the floor below. When the next floor is placed without impact, the floor fails. Your plan requires thermite or some new super silent RDX explosive like charges to destroy the WTC after the evil people you blame and have no clue who they are killed people using terrorist to fly a plane into the same building they set up with explosives. It is so silly and nonsensical it make me laugh all day about the engineer who can't explain his own moronic delusions.

Your idiotic ideas on 911 must be the office joke and I doubt anyone at your office supports your paranoid conspiracy theory which you can't define past your failed paper.

What fps do you need to see your jolt if it was as modeled? What resolution in feet/pixel do you need to see your jolt if as modeled?

There is a velocity drop if you model the WTC as a floor by floor momentum transfer; In a model of the WTC, not the real collapse. (now you agree)

The funny part is there were no explosives, and not thermite on 911, and you and Jones are looking for junk science to save your paranoid conspiracy theories; Jones seems to be the old guy who congers up insane ideas; what is our excuse?

But in the end you finally agree the impacts were not one big jolt, but you can't grasp that each floor below the impact area were over loaded and destroyed the building because the floors hold the core to the shell. We hear on 911 the floors accelerating as they hit the next floor as the building is destroyed, the witnesses remaining us with bang, bang, bang, for the number of floors falling from the impact area.


The weaker upper part? The weight of the weaker upper part exceeded the capacity of the lower stronger section floor by floor shell section by section, and core by core. This is not some transformer against transformer. The WTC is building with parts and they failed part by part due to the mass and kinetic energy of the parts above.

The strong lower sections could only only hold the same weight at the weaker upper floors, making your weak strong per floor argument nonsense. Failure, total delusion like Heiwa's idiot junk.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm
How much can a floor hold in your fantasy world of thermite and the realcddeal.
 
Last edited:
Richard Gage has said for a while now that the upper section of the North Tower accelerated at 2/3rds the rate of gravity during its visible fall.

OMG Tony, you'd throw away your years of knowledge away for a stupid conspiracy theory & jeapordize your career because you think differently?

Gage is a practicing architect (20 years) into fire supression in highrise buildings and he throws all his 20 years out the door for his pathetic hunch that fire wasn't the cause of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse.
 
Richard Gage has said for a while now that the upper section of the North Tower accelerated at 2/3rds the rate of gravity during its visible fall.

Well Tony I am not sure I believe you now. I have searched the truth website and I cant find any mention of falling at 70% freefall speed. The whole basis of ae911truth is that we have integrity and we tell the truth. So I think it’s very unlikely that Mr Gage would support your theory that says the accelerations were 70% freefall, and not update the ae911truth website. You know you call NIST liars for publishing false statements, and we should not do the same.

Even our home page, the top reason for proving CD, was that it fell at near freefall speed, and there must be more than 20 slides in the long presentation that show the dramatic “freefall” effects. So I am sure Richard would not mislead us.

It seems more likely to me that Mr Gage doesn’t support your theory and that people like you are trying to undermine the truth movement.
 
Well Tony I am not sure I believe you now. I have searched the truth website and I cant find any mention of falling at 70% freefall speed. The whole basis of ae911truth is that we have integrity and we tell the truth. So I think it’s very unlikely that Mr Gage would support your theory that says the accelerations were 70% freefall, and not update the ae911truth website. You know you call NIST liars for publishing false statements, and we should not do the same.

Even our home page, the top reason for proving CD, was that it fell at near freefall speed, and there must be more than 20 slides in the long presentation that show the dramatic “freefall” effects. So I am sure Richard would not mislead us.

It seems more likely to me that Mr Gage doesn’t support your theory and that people like you are trying to undermine the truth movement.

Tony Szamboti is the leading authority on the WTC collapse. He is highly revered as the most cutting edge scientist looking to expose the cover up which occured on 9/11. He's not bound by conventional standards. Tony doesn't answer to anyone. Please don't forget this.
 
Well Tony I am not sure I believe you now. I have searched the truth website and I cant find any mention of falling at 70% freefall speed. The whole basis of ae911truth is that we have integrity and we tell the truth. So I think it’s very unlikely that Mr Gage would support your theory that says the accelerations were 70% freefall, and not update the ae911truth website. You know you call NIST liars for publishing false statements, and we should not do the same.

Even our home page, the top reason for proving CD, was that it fell at near freefall speed, and there must be more than 20 slides in the long presentation that show the dramatic “freefall” effects. So I am sure Richard would not mislead us.

It seems more likely to me that Mr Gage doesn’t support your theory and that people like you are trying to undermine the truth movement.

Telling the truth from the Truth Movement is nothing more than spin doctors having a great time coming up with no evidence to support their theories. Even though they have been on National TV plenty of times, people will still say that the Truth Movement & their followers are a bunch of kooks, which they are.

Richard Gage will mislead you Truthers because he needs your money. That's Gage's main goal is to sucker gullible people into giving him their money. Gage is a scammer!

I just love how you Truthers tell each other how other Truth Members are "undermining" the Truth Movement when the TM has been undermining themselves without any evidence to back them up.
 
Well Tony I am not sure I believe you now. I have searched the truth website and I cant find any mention of falling at 70% freefall speed. The whole basis of ae911truth is that we have integrity and we tell the truth.


The bios of AE911 members are exaggerated in cases I have checked. I have in mind the NASA project director that AE911 promoted to NASA Director and the architect that was younger than the buildings he was said to have designed. Neither said anything new or that makes sense.

Essentially all quotes of firemen used by AE911 are fraudulent in that AE911 leaves out the bits that contradict Truther claims. It's called cherrypicking.
 
Well Tony I am not sure I believe you now. I have searched the truth website and I cant find any mention of falling at 70% freefall speed. The whole basis of ae911truth is that we have integrity and we tell the truth. So I think it’s very unlikely that Mr Gage would support your theory that says the accelerations were 70% freefall, and not update the ae911truth website. You know you call NIST liars for publishing false statements, and we should not do the same.

Even our home page, the top reason for proving CD, was that it fell at near freefall speed, and there must be more than 20 slides in the long presentation that show the dramatic “freefall” effects. So I am sure Richard would not mislead us.

It seems more likely to me that Mr Gage doesn’t support your theory and that people like you are trying to undermine the truth movement.

You are simply wrong as Richard Gage does support my theory. If you think I am trying to undermine anything you are out in left field.

Watch this video and listen to what he says between 4:50 and 5:00 minute marks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUaDtIbLow

2/3rds or 70% of freefall acceleration is near freefall. Your argument here is nonsensical.
 
The freefall argument is stupid anyway :\
Gage thinks that viscoelastic creep behavior IS critical failure as opposed to buckling and crushing behavior seen when the load capacity is completely gone. The fact that he makes such a basic error alone is enough to tell me he ain't credible.
 
Say What? 70% is near 100%. How bout your employer give you 70% of your pay because after all. It is near 100%. its almost 2 am in NJ Tony. Are you drunk?

No, I fell asleep watching TV after eating supper and woke up after midnight. I'll be going to bed soon.

Anyway, 70% can be described as near full with a glass of water and you have to know this is a relative statement. Using a paycheck is not a good example as nobody wants to hear that getting even 1% less is nearly the same as what they are owed.

Personally, I prefer using the actual figures, but was just responding to the fellow above who thought Richard Gage did not support what I have said about the tower collapses.
 
Last edited:
No, I fell asleep watching TV after eating supper and woke up after midnight. I'll be going to bed soon.

Anyway, 70% can be described as near full with a glass of water and you have to know this is a relative statement. Using a paycheck is not a good example as nobody wants to hear that getting even 1% less is nearly the same as what they are owed.

Personally, I prefer using the actual figures, but was just responding to the fellow above who thought Richard Gage did not support what I have said about the tower collapses.

Water? Well how bout we use a building tony?. A 110 story one. Know what the difference is Tony? 33 STORIES!!. I cant believe you typed that. Go back to sleep. Drink some friggin coffee before you think of typing and posting again.
 
Water? Well how bout we use a building tony?. A 110 story one. Know what the difference is Tony? 33 STORIES!!. I cant believe you typed that. Go back to sleep. Drink some friggin coffee before you think of typing and posting again.

70% of freefall acceleration can certainly be legitimately described as near freefall acceleration.

You guys are barking at the moon here and there is really nothing to argue about, so I won't continue in this vein.
 
Tony 2/3 = 66.66

The measurements we took for the Missing Jolt paper show the upper section of WTC 1 falls at just over 70% of freefall acceleration. Some others have measured it's descent at approximately 2/3rds of freefall acceleration. What the sentence says is that either can be considered to be near freefall acceleration. While the figures 2/3rds and 70% are close in value, there was no intent to imply that that they were exactly the same, only to show that those levels of acceleration were sufficient to say the term near freefall is justified.

Nevertheless I'll rewrite the sentence to be sure it is clear. If the acceleration is in the range of 2/3rds to 70% of freefall acceleration it can be considered near freefall acceleration and that is what people like Richard Gage mean when they say it. I posted a link to a video where he makes this clear.
 
Last edited:
Tony, are you still claiming the floors could cary 725 lbs/ft2?

I never made the statement you are claiming.

I have said that the floor vertical connection capacity was 29 million lbs.. You are apparently trying to make a superfluous argument that the floors would fail before this because each square foot could not take the area load that implies. I do not intend to engage you on this for more than this reply as your argument is not cogent, you have not provided any real basis for it, and you have distorted my point.

If you have a problem with the calculation of the floor vertical connection capacity you are going to have to talk to the NIST about it as they made that statement in their Dec. 2007 FAQ. See the answer to question #1 here http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

This is also essentially a moot point, as it has now been proven that the columns would not miss each other due to the tilt observed, and at the 98th floor could take well over 200 million lbs. of vertical force before failure. The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs..
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom