Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[Grizzly Bear]

I do not like tangentially siding with him on anything, but are we expecting anything new to arise out of the tried and tested exchanges? We have undergone these discussions so often for so long i can practically link to the things that were stated and they still apply to even this, unless TS has changed his stance since he last responded to anything. All i see happening is repetition when people i think instinctively know how the answer goes these days

 

[ozeco41]

Things are a little more nuanced than your simple words here explain.

First, a jolt will occur anytime there is an impact and that has to happen in a natural collapse [and can happen in a controlled demolition....].

The only time there can be a no jolt situation in a collapse is where the structural integrity is continuously removed artificially.

Prove both, or are readers just to take your word as gospel?

Ackcherly BOTH his statements are arguably true. Probably by accident rather than intent.

The central assertion of the first one says "a jolt will occur anytime there is an impact" - true enough. The additional comments contrasting natural and CD is merely more of Tony's lies by implication. The base statement is true - the implied lies moving towards Tony's "Missing Jolt" claims are obviously untrue. If there is a momentum reducing impact there will be a jolt. But it is irrelevant whether the collapse incorporating that jolt causing impact was initiated "naturally" or by "CD" or any other cause. Two objects impacting will jolt.

The second one is similar - the core truth being "...there can be a no jolt situation in a collapse is where the structural integrity is continuously removed..." He adds two untruths which seem obvious viz "The only time..." and "...artificially".

Reality is that it is (barely) plausible to set up a CD for "No jolts detectable" and it is highly improbable that a "natural collapse" would qualify as "No Jolts". So he is close to correct claiming "The only time...artificially".

BUT those are not the main bit of deception Tony is playing.

He is playing "Switch a Jolt" - he is using "Jolt" here to label the wide range of "Lesser Jolts" which can and will occur in any collapse - whether it was initiated by "natural" means or CD. He is implying that it is somehow relevant to "Missing Jolt" - AKA "The Jolt that Never Could Be". Argument about "Real Jolts" cannot support claims for "The Jolt That Never Could Be"

The scenario for "Missing Jolt" is a specific "big" jolt which he claims should have arisen in an assumed situation. He is wrong. That situation NEVER occurred and the starting premise assumptions for "Missing Jolt' are wrong. And Tony knows that objection has been raised many times and he consistently declines to address it. It is demonstrably true.

But it could explain why Tony is earnestly trying to debate those "other Jolts" and untruthfully asserting and implying that the arguments are relevant to "The Jolt That Never Could Be" - AKA the "Missing Jolt".

 

[ozeco41]

I do not like tangentially siding with him on anything, but are we expecting anything new to arise out of the tried and tested exchanges? We have undergone these discussions so often for so long i can practically link to the things that were stated and they still apply to even this, unless TS has changed his stance since he last responded to anything. All i see happening is repetition when people i think instinctively know how the answer goes these days

Me too - mostly AND also - True - mostly.

Reality is that a number of debunkers have become supporters of the T Szamboti "mechanism" - which he bastardised from Bazant.

The bit about "Falling to impact" is wrong - the reality was (mostly) "Folding to Impact".

That lack of comprehension has historically led and continues to lead to ongoing confusion in two or three related areas because it introduces an error of sequencing.

Take the arguments about "Tilt causing/preventing axial impact" - anyone arguing EITHER side of that dispute has the wrong model. And that wrong model is the same one Tony presents and the misunderstanding can probably be attributed to persons half falling for Tony's nonsense. By the time "tilt" exists the ends of the offending columns have already missed each other. It is that simple given a moments clear thinking. But Tony has vehement supporters on that part of his false claims. And it is the same false premise which underpins "Missing Jolt". It wasn't the "Jolt" that was missing - it was the "Missing Opportunity". Given Tony's starting point - dropping Top Block - by the time you have "dropping" in the real event you have "Missed the Opportunity" - it is too late for the big Jolt. The "impacting column ends" have already missed.

Bottom line is - Few here accept "Missing Jolt" but some accept Tony's false starting scenario, So there is still a need to be met by these discussions. I doubt it will ever happen given the obvious desire to play "Tit-for-Tat" with Tony - who, in my experience, will never engage on the real issues .

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The incredible irony of the statement is that the load automatically qualifies as a dynamic load once the mass is in motion and allowed to accelerate... But the claim is that there is supposed to never be a dynamic load in any scenario "CD" or none in the critique...

@.@
god almighty...

There is no dynamic load of the type needed unless there is an impact. You apparently don't have the right definition of a dynamic load.

Let me be more specific. For a load above to defeat a structure below supporting it with reserve strength an amplified load needs to be applied. That is what the dynamic load needed to do and the amplification can only happen when the impacting object decelerates because then you have

F = mg + m(deceleration)

where the m(deceleration is the amplified load.

Without deceleration the upper section could not have defeated the lower section. The upper section would also fall in place due to its enormous inertia. This is the problem people like Ozeco have when trying to claim everything missed. The evidence of no deceleration shows the columns were not involved and that can only mean they were removed. The only way to match the evidence is to remove the core columns artificially for a large number of stories and split the perimeter at its corners.

 

[ozeco41]

Without deceleration the upper section could not have defeated the lower section.

True.

The upper section would also fall in place due to its enormous inertia.

True in macro. Partial truth and lie by innuendo at the level of individual column failures. As each column fails it misses - folds - bends - shears matters not which. As the structure above moves down the space for the original length of column decreases. So that individual column does what it needs to do for both "halves" to miss. That is the bleedingly obvious simple fact you refuse to face Tony. And the rest of your falsehoods flow from that denial.

This is the problem people like Ozeco have when trying to claim everything missed.

More that "trying" Tony - I've demonstrated why in exact detail on many occasions. They are there for you to rebut - go for it. Reality is that you have never responded to my arguments. You have variously made false bare assertions with zero support. Told untruths. Insulted me in various ways OR ignored. Inconvenient being wrong isn't it Tony? I have successfully explained the real mechanism to high school students - lay person adults and experienced professionals. Relatively easy for a capable trainer/explainer who happens to be correct. Any time you decide to get serious try reading my explanations and asking about any bits you don't understand.

The evidence of no deceleration shows the columns were not involved and that can only mean they were removed.

Hogwash. It means EITHER "the columns were removed" OR "T Szamboti doesn't understand the engineering physics" (OR "someone is not being truthful.")

The only way to match the evidence is to remove the core columns artificially for a large number of stories and split the perimeter at its corners.

Tony even if your assertion was correct your logic is wrong - that should be "One way to match the evidence..." - and as I recall you failed to support that assertion. Then the first Chandler video I came across back in the day disproves the "corner split" assertion. It was a good video - despite the comedy narration.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ackcherly BOTH his statements are arguably true. Probably by accident rather than intent.

The central assertion of the first one says "a jolt will occur anytime there is an impact" - true enough.

I had no issue with that statement

The additional comments contrasting natural and CD is merely more of Tony's lies by implication.

or at the very least a baseless assertion.

The base statement is true - the implied lies moving towards Tony's "Missing Jolt" claims are obviously untrue. If there is a momentum reducing impact there will be a jolt. But it is irrelevant whether the collapse incorporating that jolt causing impact was initiated "naturally" or by "CD" or any other cause. Two objects impacting will jolt.

Transfer momentum over time and distance and yes, delta V therefore 'jolt'.
1st year physics, although we never referred to it as the colloquial 'jolt' in class.

The second one is similar - the core truth being "...there can be a no jolt situation in a collapse is where the structural integrity is continuously removed..." He adds two untruths which seem obvious viz "The only time..." and "...artificially".

Actually there will be a 'jolt' unless all floors are demolished simultaneously. If block A starts moving and when it just about reaches block B, the columns holding block B are severed, the B is moving slower than A therefore transfer of momentum from A to B and thus , technically, a 'jolt'.

BUT those are not the main bit of deception Tony is playing.

His semantic play probably ropes a few in.

As demonstrated by Verinage, a massive jolt can be engineered to occur. As you point out its also possible to engineer a 'no jolt'. Simply destroy all columns on all floors and all simultaneously. The only jolt will be everything hitting the Earth.

All this proves is that there are various sequences of collapse that can produce a spectrum of 'jolt' severity. It demonstrates absolutely nothing about so-called 'natural collapse' sequences.

The scenario for "Missing Jolt" is a specific "big" jolt which he claims should have arisen in an assumed situation. He is wrong. That situation NEVER occurred and the starting premise assumptions for "Missing Jolt' are wrong. And Tony knows that objection has been raised many times and he consistently declines to address it. It is demonstrably true.

But it could explain why Tony is earnestly trying to debate those "other Jolts" and untruthfully asserting and implying that the arguments are relevant to "The Jolt That Never Could Be" - AKA the "Missing Jolt".

Of course I was addressing it as if he were speaking of the 'big jolt', the one he says is missing, as you say, the one that could not be.

More to the point then:
"a jolt will occur anytime there is an impact and a large jolt has to happen in a natural collapse .........."
is baldly asserted and not proven.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let me be more specific. For a load above to defeat a structure below supporting it with reserve strength an amplified load needs to be applied.

OR the dynamic load fails to impinge significantly upon the lower structure's vertical load bearing components. When that happens the 'reserve strength' of those vertical components is not even in play any longer.

That is what you continue to fail to understand, That is how these structures collapsed. It quite obvious when one sees that the floor failures led the perimeter failures(internal destruction visible as debris blow outs well in front of perimeter destruction) and that core failure lagged perimeter destruction (as evidenced by the so-called 'spire').

Without deceleration the upper section could not have defeated the lower section. The upper section would also fall in place due to its enormous inertia.

Yet this enormous inertia failed to stop the upper block from rotating as collapse initiated, most visible for tower 2 it would also apply to tower 1. Such rotation , illustrated time and again in the gif that ozeco has posted, shows that the columns cannot have settled/fallen straight down onto their counterpart in the lower section.

This is the problem people like Ozeco have when trying to claim everything missed. The evidence of no deceleration shows the columns were not involved and that can only mean they were removed. The only way to match the evidence is to remove the core columns artificially for a large number of stories and split the perimeter at its corners.

how odd that you cite one way for no major jolt to occur and then claim another way for no major jolt to occur is the only way a major jolt could occur. Try to stay internally consistent.

 

[ozeco41]

I had no issue with that statement

or at the very least a baseless assertion.
Transfer momentum over time and distance and yes, delta V therefore 'jolt'.
1st year physics, although we never referred to it as the colloquial 'jolt' in class.


Actually there will be a 'jolt' unless all floors are demolished simultaneously. If block A starts moving and when it just about reaches block B, the columns holding block B are severed, the B is moving slower than A therefore transfer of momentum from A to B and thus , technically, a 'jolt'.


His semantic play probably ropes a few in.

As demonstrated by Verinage, a massive jolt can be engineered to occur. As you point out its also possible to engineer a 'no jolt'. Simply destroy all columns on all floors and all simultaneously. The only jolt will be everything hitting the Earth.

All this proves is that there are various sequences of collapse that can produce a spectrum of 'jolt' severity. It demonstrates absolutely nothing about so-called 'natural collapse' sequences.


Of course I was addressing it as if he were speaking of the 'big jolt', the one he says is missing, as you say, the one that could not be.

More to the point then:
"a jolt will occur anytime there is an impact and a large jolt has to happen in a natural collapse .........."
is baldly asserted and not proven.

-- to all parts.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The North Tower collapse initiated at the 98th floor and the northeast and southwest corners can be observed to be falling within no more than a second of each other. That pours very cold water on your notion that the columns cannot buckle all together if you are going to stick with a natural collapse scenario.

I actually don't believe they buckled altogether, but I don't need to, because I don't think the collapse was initiated by buckled columns to begin with. I think the core was removed and that pulled the exterior inward where buckle did then occur but not as the initial cause.

No it only proved the steel obeyed the laws of physics and fractures!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OR the dynamic load fails to impinge significantly upon the lower structure's vertical load bearing components. When that happens the 'reserve strength' of those vertical components is not even in play any longer.

That is what you continue to fail to understand, That is how these structures collapsed. It quite obvious when one sees that the floor failures led the perimeter failures(internal destruction visible as debris blow outs well in front of perimeter destruction) and that core failure lagged perimeter destruction (as evidenced by the so-called 'spire').


Yet this enormous inertia failed to stop the upper block from rotating as collapse initiated, most visible for tower 2 it would also apply to tower 1. Such rotation , illustrated time and again in the gif that ozeco has posted, shows that the columns cannot have settled/fallen straight down onto their counterpart in the lower section.


how odd that you cite one way for no major jolt to occur and then claim another way for no major jolt to occur is the only way a major jolt could occur. Try to stay internally consistent.

It is sad to see your level of sophistication is so low that you would somehow find the above inconsistent. However, it isn't surprising, given that you actually still claim to believe the NYC building collapses were due to natural causes after seeing a large amount of evidence that they had to be deliberately demolished.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is sad to see your level of sophistication is so low that you would somehow find the above inconsistent. However, it isn't surprising, given that you actually still claim to believe the NYC building collapses were due to natural causes after seeing a large amount of evidence that they had to be deliberately demolished.

And there's stage 2. Now let's watch Tony accuse someone of being part of the conspiracy, and we'll have been round yet another complete cycle.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

It is sad to see your level of sophistication is so low that you would somehow find the above inconsistent. However, it isn't surprising, given that you actually still claim to believe the NYC building collapses were due to natural causes after seeing a large amount of evidence that they had to be deliberately demolished.

Step 2 already? [/sorry Dave Rogers]

 

[Dave Rogers]

Step 2 already? [/sorry Dave Rogers]

Neener neener.

Dave

 

[DGM]

I wonder, Is Tony the biggest believer in the Bazant papers being representative of reality? Obviously he needs them to be, because his paper is crap without the "rigid block".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Without deceleration the upper section could not have defeated the lower section.

Rubbish. Only in the case of a single impact across the entire structure is this true, and this could only possibly be achieved by a controlled initiation of collapse. In the chaotic collapse that actually happened, even if it were possible for column ends to align well enough to contact each other, any variation in lengths of the initial buckles would result in a series of smaller impacts distributed over time, none of which need result in actual deceleration. But Tony is emotionally unable even to consider this, and will throw another tantrum every time it gets mentioned.

Dave

 

[Redwood]

There were jolts. Let's do some "back of the envelope" math. As Tony points out, the impacting mass cannot destroy the floor-column connections unless it decelerates. So how big is each jolt?

David Chandler has thoughtfully given us the info on the total effect of all the jolts as each floor was impacted: WTC 1 fell at the equivalent of a constant acceleration of 0.64g. There were roughly 95 floors below the impact zone. So the average effect of the floor impacts was roughly (0.36g/95) or ~0.004g.

Show me a 30fps video camera that can resolve a 0.004g acceleration and all I'll have to say is:

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Rubbish. Only in the case of a single impact across the entire structure is this true, and this could only possibly be achieved by a controlled initiation of collapse. In the chaotic collapse that actually happened, even if it were possible for column ends to align well enough to contact each other, any variation in lengths of the initial buckles would result in a series of smaller impacts distributed over time, none of which need result in actual deceleration. But Tony is emotionally unable even to consider this, and will throw another tantrum every time it gets mentioned.

Dave

Dave, the North Tower collapse initiated at the 98th floor (a full two stories above the aircraft impact between the 95th and 96th floors) and it propagated across the entire floor in no more than one second. This is measureable on video, so you can't deny it, and can't say it was "chaotic" like you are attempting to do.

You can't deny a jolt is needed to destroy the lower section, so you try to assert that there were mini-jolts which would be distributed over time diminishing any observable jolt. The separate jolts would still slow things down as there would not be enough time to regain the momentum. This is clearly why Zdenek Bazant did not use your argument for his paper, which was ultimately proven to be dishonest.

 

[beachnut]

... after seeing a large amount of evidence that they had to be deliberately demolished.

Where is the large amount? What happened to the overwhelming amount that 911 truth use to have? Is this the conspiracy of the disappearing evidence? Who is taking it, and why can't you list the large amount of evidence?

Is there a jolt in CD? Who showed that big jolt CD stuff? Logically that debunks the missing jolt BS. Guess why?

Why does Robertson fail to support your CD stuff?

https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Br...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx
Why do 99.9 percent of engineers not support the CD fantasy?
https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345
Why is no steel from the WTC damaged by explosives or thermite?

How did come up with the wrong speed reduction for the momentum transfer when the collapse begins? It was off by an order of magnitude... why are you off so far in the "missing jolt" BS paper?

What is the time it takes the upper floors to fail a lower floor?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There is no dynamic load of the type needed unless there is an impact. You apparently don't have the right definition of a dynamic load.

Let me be more specific. For a load above to defeat a structure below supporting it with reserve strength an amplified load needs to be applied. That is what the dynamic load needed to do and the amplification can only happen when the impacting object decelerates because then you have

F = mg + m(deceleration)

where the m(deceleration is the amplified load.

Without deceleration the upper section could not have defeated the lower section. The upper section would also fall in place due to its enormous inertia. This is the problem people like Ozeco have when trying to claim everything missed. The evidence of no deceleration shows the columns were not involved and that can only mean they were removed.

Your deceleration argument relies on the belief that Bazant tried to model what should have actually happened in the collapses; and that had the towers followed that model there should have been a dramatic change in the momentum of the collapses. The latter might be a feasible conclusion but only if the collapses actually followed that course... and somehow you've driven yourself into a corner by suggesting that's the ONLY way a "natural collapse" could have taken place.

I've also told you countless times over the years that relying on that methodology is fatal because Bazant's model intentionally set the stage for an ideal axial collapse with the maximum possible loads attainable in a simplified limiting case. The fact that you invest so much interest in mixing a limit case model too much with a much less ideal reality alone is grounds to be skeptical of your angle, but I've all but given up explaining this to you considering I know what your answer is going to be to that.

 

[ozeco41]

And there's stage 2. Now let's watch Tony accuse someone of being part of the conspiracy, and we'll have been round yet another complete cycle.

Dave

I feel left out. In my case Tony these days goes straight to insults.

Can't remember if I've ever been privileged to receive the full cycle.

Main course - no entrée, no desert.