I searched and didn't find any title with JOLT

Does this completely prove CD or what?

I would enjoy discussing this with you but I don't know what you are talking about.

The only JOLT I've heard about is or was an energy drink.

More information would be appreciated.

Peace

Oops Youtube was not working but now it is. No explaination now needed.

Very informative and interesting videos.

I've always been of the opinion that the towers were made to fall as they did but haven't made up my mind as who the guilty party was.

It is with horror that I even think our own government could have been the perpetrator of the collapse.

But them how would killing those people in the towers be any different than invading Iraq and now all the death and destruction we are responsible for in Afghanistan?

We average Americans are expendable. Or at least it seems the government feels this way.

It will take proof to change my mind that the fall of the towers was not an inside job. Until then I deplore the action and hope it will not happen again. But I fear it does and will continue to happen in much smaller ways.

anyone else want to comment on this?

Originally posted by patriots4truth
anyone else want to comment on this?

You can rest assured that debunkers won't be able to comment on it. They're probably working on a game-plan as we speak. But as Professional Engineer Johnathan Cole has stated at the end of his second video: anyone who thinks he or his experiments are wrong, prove him wrong with your own experiments.

Since Neformore is an engineer, I U2U'd him this thread as I would like his professional opinion on the videos in this thread.

Great thread, by the way. I don't foresee any debunkers being able to debunk this with anything factual.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You can rest assured that debunkers won't be able to comment on it. They're probably working on a game-plan as we speak.

This "missing jolt" hypothesis has been around for over a year and a 1/2. Tony Szamboti and a Dr. MacQueen wrote a paper regarding this. (for some reason they never submitted it to peer review)

So, there will be no "game-planning."

NASA Rocket Scientist- Ryan Mackey already responded in detail to the "missing jolt" theory back in January 2009.

forums.randi.org...

In addition, Licensed Engineer Dave Rogers lends his expertise:

forums.randi.org...

Indeed we see the building toppling over, and yet the explosive destruction is equal all around, despite there being NOTHING impacting on the one side,, oh well, i guess the air was too heavy.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

OK. I was asked to comment, so I will with some brief thoughts

The video says...

Both towers held the upper blocks of floors for about one hour after the planes hit meaning the total supporting force must be equal to the downward weight of the floors

Not strictly true. What it means is that the loading on the building was redistributed through the structure, increasing stress and strain on the remaining supporting structural members, which you could expect from a design that has some redundancy built into it - but that redundancy is only relevant to a point where the members begin to fail under loadings. Any bad welds, fatigued materials, sub standard bolts etc that may have already have been in place in the structure suddenly come into play, and with a combination of heating and loss of structural strength over time the ability to hold the upper floors would be lost - leading to a complete loss of structural integrity.

The experiments conducted show the use of cast cinder blocks - but the towers were not cinder blocks, they were steel structures. A cinder block is cast whole, the towers were welded and bolted. The experiment shows the block hitting from considerable height at speed - the upper floors of the towers did not fall from a great height onto a solid floor immediately below - the WTC building was a lightweight frame, and each floor comprised (approximately) 80% void and 20% bulding material .

Also, the experiment shown is junk because it does not replicate the conditions of the day, because the blocks he uses in the base "structure" are unaffected by such things as absorbing the the initial impact of the aircraft shoving them sideways, or any form of weakening as would have occured due to heating.

The upper floors of the tower would accelerate downwards as one mass, at 9.81m/s2 - the resistance below them happens on a floor-by-floor basis - they are not hitting all of the building at the same time, they are hitting an individual floor at a time and the overall falling mass increases with each floor, hence the crush-down - crush up effect. Its only when they meet the full resistance of the collpased pile underneath them en masse that the "crush up" occurs because thats when Newtons third law comes into play - they hit a much greater mass and there is a reaction.

The video states that much of the mass was thrown outwards - really? - isn't one of the claims of controlled demolition supposed to be that the buildings fell within their own footprint? - can't be both ways can it?

Finally - the guy says "A fire induced progressive collapse as claimed by Nist is totally impossible as it defy's a law of physics" - except it doesn't defy the laws of physics. What it does defy is his viewpoint on the subject - one that is skewed by his own belief in an experiment he conducted on completely the wrong premise.

Just my thoughts on what I see there - like I say 9/11 is the rule, not the exception to it. The guy has come up with something that suits his argument. Sadly, thats all it does.

what the debunkers have failed to mention: why there is uniform acceleration speed of collapse (several floors of pancaking) in the initial collapse sequence... probably for every building - not just the one shown in the video.

Do debunkers have any proof that shows that there was not uniform collapse (i.e. NO JOLTS AT ALL) i.e. the floors crashing into each other didn't effect the acceleration!. Yall are going to have to prove collapse due to fire by showing me this proof. Otherwise CD wins.

Show me jolts that caused there to be no uniform acceleration for several floors of initial collapse sequence. See the method used 1 minute into the first video to figure out how to do this.

the velocity of the roof uniformly sped up during the start of the collapse
why isn't there any reasonable sized jolts?

Proof of Controlled Demolition

here is the video analysis:

David Chandler: "The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of its weight. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. A complete analysis has been published in the article entitled "Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics," Journal of 9/11 Studies" Vol 28, Feb 2010 (link)

The only missing jolt is the one that should have shaken the windows of WTC7 when they set of Imaginary blast that severed column 79 as the "Truthers" claim.

The link below explains the errors in the video above,

www.nmsr.org...

Originally posted by patriots4truth
Yall are going to have to prove collapse due to fire by showing me this proof. Otherwise CD wins.

Show me jolts that caused there to be no uniform acceleration for several floors of initial collapse sequence. See the method used 1 minute into the first video to figure out how to do this.

You are working off a video.

There may very well have been resistance, but you will never, ever see it with the human eye in real time, and probably would not see it in slow motion either. The floors were lightweight trusses with concrete poured over them bolted/welded at either end of the truss spans - they will offer very little resistance to the dead weight of the floors above hitting them, as the joints most certainly were not built to withstand several thousand tons of weight coming downwards on to them.

I am not "debunking" by the way. You are making the outlandish claim here. 9/11 is the rule, not the exception to the rule.

reply to post by neformore


I am actually trying to work with Dave Thomas right now. He replied to a few of my questions. Unfortunately I worded some of them incorrectly. I'm hoping he will reply to my new questions here (we are having our discussion over at jref - the home of debunkers). My new question is post #262

Dave Thomas is the guy who challenged Chandler's jolt video and analysis which I posted a few posts back. waypastvne posted a link to Dave Thomas's analysis a couple posts back