Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Thank you for answering my previous questions. This leads to progress, I believe. (I'm busy today. I'll be able to respond later.)

Please answer precisely. Engineering terms.

What, exactly, determines the instantaneous magnitude of the acceleration?

What, exactly, determines the sequence (i.e., the timing) of the successive accelerations?

Tom

Instantaneous acceleration is the derivative of the velocity or dV/dT at a given point.

If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that we measure distance vs. time of the roof's fall. This is then differentiated to find velocity at each measurement point using

Vn = Dn-Dn-1/Tn-Tn-1 where D is distance and T is time.

With the velocity known at each point in the overall measurement time it can be graphed. Acceleration and deceleration are the derivative of velocity and thus comprise the slope of the velocity curve. If the slope is positive that is acceleration, if it is negative that is deceleration.

In the case of WTC 1's upper block fall there is no negative slope in the velocity curve and the velocity was increasing continuously, there was no deceleration.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony! This is the whole purpose of my efforts at JREF. Simple topics, simple challenges, simple critical thinking, science, structural analysis in a friendly and lively way. I get a lot of useful feedback which I put together for a paper for the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which I was told last month will be published soon.
Evidently it is not popular among the 'people in power'. I have plenty of experience of the latter; a ship sinks, 850+ people die, people in power order a cover-up of the tragedy = a conspiracy!, the poor conspirators make a mess of the cover-up, more people are killed, the people in power order more cover-ups, people are bribed or threatened to shut up, etc, etc. The people in power get away with it as they control the media that just support the cover-up/conspiracy. Normal people get afraid and keep silent. Democracy dies. I have described it all in my book DISASTER INVESTIGATION at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/DIP.pdf .

I have only heard bits and pieces about the Estonia tragedy over the years and I know you got quite involved with it and eventually wrote this book about it. I am curious as to what the motives were for a cover-up. What was being covered up, incompetence or something more?

 

[FineWine]

So YOU said, quote:

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

un-quote.

LOL!

Part C is going to gather debris ... ! LLOL.

A solid mass of impacted debris ... LLLLLLOL!

This lower solid mass of debris ... protects the upper Part C ... Hilarious.

Sorry Tom! You don't know anything about structures and what happens when you drop a part C on a part A of same structure. Haven't you ever dropped something?

No, you're the one who knows nothing about tall buildings.

Let's pretend that directly below floor 97 is a solid mass of almost indestructible granite. We all agree that the collapsing mass, floors 98-110, gets arrested by this formidable obstacle. Please tell us how that helps save floor 97 from being crushed.

Don't run away, as Bill would. Don't babble incoherent gibberish in a futile attempt to deceive us into thinking you understand the question. Just stop and try to think.

 

[FineWine]

What evidence?



I don't ignore solid evidence. What basis do you have for that?



The reality is most engineers haven't looked into it and don't know either way.



The only reason a new investigation isn't taking place is political. There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete collapses of those buildings.





I am not naive and fully appreciate that political motives may well squelch any future investigation. However, that doesn't mean I can't say what the reality was. It is living in a fairy tale land to believe these building collapses were caused by anything other than controlled demolitions.

You appear to have some knowledge of engineering, although the other engineers have shown that your bizarre assumptions about the collapse of the towers are wrong. You know nothing at all about demolition. Why isn't it living in a fairy tale land to insist that every demolition expert is wrong about the collapses? There is absolutely no evidence for demolition--nothing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You appear to have some knowledge of engineering, although the other engineers have shown that your bizarre assumptions about the collapse of the towers are wrong. You know nothing at all about demolition. Why isn't it living in a fairy tale land to insist that every demolition expert is wrong about the collapses? There is absolutely no evidence for demolition--nothing.

If you have something to debate by all means please bring it up with what you think supports your argument.

But just making inane pronouncements like the above is ridiculous.

I just can't understand why anyone would write something like this on a debating forum.

 

[bill smith]

Bill,

You've picked up some technical words.

Please don't confuse yourself that you understand what they mean...



Hmmm,

How many "dozens of orders of magnitude", bill.

1 dozen?
2 dozens?
5 dozens?

I assume that you acknowledge that you see at least one foot of your missing mesh.

Your vacuous patter has more technical words in it, bill. It's still technobabble. And, if imaginable, it makes you sound even dumber...

Tom

Hello hello T.

I don't suppose ypu have a clue where the three-quarters of a square mile of mesh reinforcing is gone either ? Well, considering that you don't know much about structures I suppose that more cannot be expected. Toaster design is a different area of ngineering anyway I suppose though here is some mesh involved I believe.

 

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by alienentity
'Agreed, except there WAS evidence of dynamic load in the case of the towers. Just because it didn't fulfill some particular criteria that you wish to impose on it doesn't make it go away.'

Tony S What evidence?

Gee, Tony, just the obvious and unmistakable loads imposed by the movement of the upper blocks of the towers.

Ignore the obvious much?

As I suggested before, you need to convince well-trained, competent engineers of your pet theories. You aren't even close to doing this - have you submitted your calculations and hypothesis to LEADING experts in structural engineering and received their assessments yet?

I didn't think so. It's way past time you should have done this, but you seem to prefer the wallow of the truthersphere. Unfortunately it's a bad place to hang out.

Find a few leading SE's preferably with lots of experience building very tall buildings (you could start with Leslie Robertson if you dare) and get back to us when you have their responses.

Until then,

ciao.

 

[alienentity]

You appear to have some knowledge of engineering, although the other engineers have shown that your bizarre assumptions about the collapse of the towers are wrong. You know nothing at all about demolition. Why isn't it living in a fairy tale land to insist that every demolition expert is wrong about the collapses? There is absolutely no evidence for demolition--nothing.

I would wager that Mr. Szamboti did not bother to run his hypothesis by any leading demolition expert, nor any leading structural engineering firm with relevant experience, before committing himself to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony, but which demolition experts did you consult with as you developed your ideas? And how did they respond to your calculations?

Please tell us you didn't just come up with this stuff on your own.

The other major issue with Mr. Szamboti's strange obsession with CD is his insistence (a matter of truther doctrine, actually) that some form of exotic, never-before-seen-or-tested (that's right! Neither Mr. Szamboti, nor Dr. Harrit, nor Dr. Jones has ever seen this mythical material) nanothermite sol-gel? or paint? would have been one of the main ingredients.

There's no evidence at all to show that such hypothetical materials, only obliquely referred to in the literature as 'promising' in weaponry, actually have any chance of producing any of the effects he's staking his claim on.

Worse, the so-called 'active thermitic materials' are not even well understood enough to provide a serious correlation with the hypothetical nanomaterials. To whit, Dr. Jones readily admits that they do not know what the grey layer is, or what it might do. Nor does Dr. Jones understand what the organic 'binder' actually is.

In several cases, the ATM's possess a higher energy density than allowed by the thermite reaction, and as pointed out by Ryan Mackey, nanothermite must have a LOWER energy density, below 2 MJ per Kilogram.

Mr. Szamboti has once again hitched his wagon to the wrong horse, and is compelled to ride it into intellectual oblivion. That's his prerogative, of course.

 

[Heiwa]

No, you're the one who knows nothing about tall buildings.

Let's pretend that directly below floor 97 is a solid mass of almost indestructible granite. We all agree that the collapsing mass, floors 98-110, gets arrested by this formidable obstacle. Please tell us how that helps save floor 97 from being crushed.

Don't run away, as Bill would. Don't babble incoherent gibberish in a futile attempt to deceive us into thinking you understand the question. Just stop and try to think.

According Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! Floor 98 gathers the debris of floor 97 under itself and makes it into a solid mass of impacted debris??? Floor 97 was already pretty solid (concrete + steel but thin!) but it apparently becomes thinner and more solid. I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting. Floor 97 - compacted - also protects floor 98 from being damaged. Why that is necessary is not clear! Floor 98 is superstrong! And then floor 98 - still undamaged - with a compressed floor 97 gathered below it - continues to damage floor 96 in the same manner. What happens to the columns in between is not clear. And so on 97 times!

It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest. It is only floor 98 - superstrong (rigid according to Bazant) - bottom of part C - that one-way crushes down anything below. Floors 99 -110 above floor 98 just displace down peacefully. Evidently it is all nonsense.

It is a modified pancake theory - one pancake (no. 98) - crushes 97 pancakes below. And when super pancake no. 98 has crushed 97 pancakes below, pancake no. 98 decides to crush pancakes 99-110 above! Crush-up. LOL.

Actually my paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics describe the same Bazant nonsense in a more serious manner + math.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I would wager that Mr. Szamboti did not bother to run his hypothesis by any leading demolition expert, nor any leading structural engineering firm with relevant experience, before committing himself to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony, but which demolition experts did you consult with as you developed your ideas? And how did they respond to your calculations?

Please tell us you didn't just come up with this stuff on your own.

The other major issue with Mr. Szamboti's strange obsession with CD is his insistence (a matter of truther doctrine, actually) that some form of exotic, never-before-seen-or-tested (that's right! Neither Mr. Szamboti, nor Dr. Harrit, nor Dr. Jones has ever seen this mythical material) nanothermite sol-gel? or paint? would have been one of the main ingredients.

There's no evidence at all to show that such hypothetical materials, only obliquely referred to in the literature as 'promising' in weaponry, actually have any chance of producing any of the effects he's staking his claim on.

Worse, the so-called 'active thermitic materials' are not even well understood enough to provide a serious correlation with the hypothetical nanomaterials. To whit, Dr. Jones readily admits that they do not know what the grey layer is, or what it might do. Nor does Dr. Jones understand what the organic 'binder' actually is.

In several cases, the ATM's possess a higher energy density than allowed by the thermite reaction, and as pointed out by Ryan Mackey, nanothermite must have a LOWER energy density, below 2 MJ per Kilogram.

Mr. Szamboti has once again hitched his wagon to the wrong horse, and is compelled to ride it into intellectual oblivion. That's his prerogative, of course.

Well, as you surmised you just might be, you are wrong.

I did the calculations for the Missing Jolt paper with a retired civil engineering professor. I would also hope you are aware that I am a mechanical engineer who designs structures in the Aerospace industry. You know a place where dynamic loads are designed for everyday.

 

[alienentity]

I can't help it today. The more Tony Szamboti writes, the more problems I see.

Here are three examples:

'there is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.' Wrong on the second count. There is obvious evidence of velocity loss, since the block didn't fall with the acceleration of freefall. Relative to 9.8 m/s2, there was loss. Case closed.

Tony offers an excuse as to why the engineering community isn't jumping all over the evidence for controlled demolition (or the other random truther nonsense I guess) 'The reality is most engineers haven't looked into it and don't know either way.'

Really. Which is precisely why you've sent your calculations to leading experts, to make sure they get the info, right? You wouldn't be avoiding them, would you?

'the only reason a new investigation isn't taking place is political. There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete collapses of those buildings.'
Or it just shows that you're not following good science. When you say 'the only reason' you're making a bold, bold statement. Unfortunately it's as fact-free as the rest of 9/11 'truth'.

 

[alienentity]

Well, as you surmised you just might be, you are wrong.

I did the calculations for the Missing Jolt with a retired civil engineering professor.

Read my statement again very carefully, Mr. Szamboti. I was very specific.

'I would wager that Mr. Szamboti did not bother to run his hypothesis by any leading demolition expert, nor any leading structural engineering firm with relevant experience, before committing himself to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony, but which demolition experts did you consult with as you developed your ideas? And how did they respond to your calculations?'

Since you just admitted you didn't meet the criteria I suggested, it seems rather disingenuous to call me wrong. You go beyond defensiveness into dishonesty sir.

Why does this not surprise me?

 

[alienentity]

Again, Tony evades my challenge with obfuscation:

'Find a few leading SE's preferably with lots of experience building very tall buildings (you could start with Leslie Robertson if you dare) and get back to us when you have their responses.'

Tony is apparently afraid to submit his work to those with that type of experience and qualification. No surprise there.

 

[alienentity]

You could always ask Heiwa for an introduction to Dr. Sunder, who peer-reviewed Heiwa's 'famous' paper. Isn't that so, Heiwa?

Oh, yeah... Heiwa was lying about that. I forgot.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I can't help it today. The more Tony Szamboti writes, the more problems I see.

'there is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.' Wrong on the second count. There is obvious evidence of velocity loss, since the block didn't fall with the acceleration of freefall. Relative to 9.8 m/s2, there was loss. Case closed.

It isn't called a velocity loss because something isn't accelerating at freefall.

A velocity loss would be considered to have occurred if there was a reduction in velocity relative to the velocity just prior to any impact.

You seem to not only stretch things but you out and out get them wrong. One shouldn't make loud comments in areas were they obviously have no expertise. You apparently don't here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Again, Tony evades my challenge with obfuscation:

'Find a few leading SE's preferably with lots of experience building very tall buildings (you could start with Leslie Robertson if you dare) and get back to us when you have their responses.'

Tony is apparently afraid to submit his work to those with that type of experience and qualification. No surprise there.

You are joking here aren't you? Do you actually believe that an engineering firm could sign up to calling a government report a lie? Just how would that serve their interest at the moment? They cannot get involved.

There have been many structural engineers who, as individuals, agree with the conclusions of the Missing Jolt paper.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if you are even competent to read and understand it, based on your comments here.

 

[alienentity]

You seem to not only stretch things but you out and out get them wrong. One shouldn't make loud comments in areas were they obviously have no expertise. You apparently don't here.

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle (cough! nanothermite cough!controlled demolition! cough!)

What a hypocrite.

The rate of change of velocity is acceleration. There was loss of acceleration relative to freefall, because of the structural resistance. There's your lost velocity Tony. You can't see it because it's too obvious for you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them. The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

As has been explained to you before this applies only to a static condition in which the building is intact. How strong is a column once it's buckled? How strong is a column when you apply the same load outside of its vertical plane? Just why do you that accidental loads are so dangerous to built structures?

A natural collapse scenario, without evidence of a dynamic load, does not satisfy the Occam's Razor criteria. What I think is wishful thinking is how one could believe these buildings fell apart like a house of cards in a natural way with no evidence of a dynamic load.

You seem fond of this assertion despite having having absolutely no basis for it. Since you seem to have your own practice of determining whether a load was present or not why don't you take a moment to explain it? What does one have to do to prove the existence of a dynamic load according the known architectural and engineering practices?

 

[alienentity]

You are joking here aren't you? Do you actually believe that an engineering firm could sign up to calling a government report a lie? Just how would that serve their interest at the moment? They cannot get involved.

You write some paranoid apologia like that and you have the audacity to question my judgment? That's sad.

 

[alienentity]

There you have it folks. Tony has safely tucked away the engineering community from his sacred knowledge by these logical contortions:

1) Most engineers haven't looked into it, but presumably would eagerly endorse Mr. Szamboti's pet theories, if they only had the chance.
2) They wouldn't dare contradict a government report, so it's pointless for Mr. Szamboti to send leading firms or experts his work for evaluation.

Either way, Tony hopes to inoculate himself from the obvious problem that the greater scientific and engineering communities are ignoring his theories. I guess it makes him feel better, but it does make him look rather foolish.