• 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.

Tony harasses Bazant

ozeco41 said:
Wrong Tony. The "One Note" that you keep playing is YOUR deliberate misuse of the Bazant & Zhou "limit case" when you have been advised many times as to YOUR error and the true explanation.

And it has nothing to do with any possible errors by NIST or any false claims you may make about NIST. So no point playing your #1 favourite red herring.

Strawman, begging the question AND lie by innuendo Tony - those three most obvious.

The only "nonsensical story" in current consideration here is your nonsense. You have NEVER proved a significant flaw or weakness in the official narratives.

Neither you nor any other truther has ever put a "strong argument" for any significant WTC 9/11 claim. You rarely present ANY argument other than bare assertion and back those few years when you did occasionally engage in argument I don't recall you winning one or presenting a strong argument ever.

And this must rank as the most blatant example of projection:
No way does your confused inaccurate open letter count as making anyone "fully aware" - when you open the comments by leading with your "one note lie". (And I am probably the only debunker who would give and has given you credit for ONE possible bit of true valid criticism. And even that one is past its use by date and irrelevant.)

Tony when you persist in making blatant false claims when you have been made aware by professionals of your source error you are in no position to criticise Bazant on the basis of false or dubious claims.

That is ridiculous not the least because it is "circularly self rebutting". What you mean by "correct them" is that he joins you in promulgating deliberate professional dishonesty.

So you would be lauding him for dishonesty?

Neither is going to happen Tony.
Click to expand...

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco. I have to wonder how long it takes before a new reader's eyes glaze over when they first attempt to read one of your posts. After that experience it seems ignoring them is the option taken, as I don't see many responses to your posts other than from a faithful few wherever I see you post.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?
 
Last edited:
Wife? I am assuming they got married prior to the 9/11 woo infection? Gage's wife gave him his walking papers soon after his illness. Mrs. Z must be a saint.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco. I have to wonder how long it takes before a new reader's eyes glaze over when they first attempt to read one of your posts. After that experience it seems ignoring them is the option taken, as I don't see many responses to your posts other than from a faithful few wherever I see you post.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?
Click to expand...

Hey Tony why didn't you attach a copy of Mark Basile's test results on the Red Gray chips to
The letter To Banzant, I am sure that would have gotten everyones attention.:D
 
NoahFence said:
The biggest one being your ability to tie in the entire days events.

When are you people going to work on that?
Click to expand...

Why do truthers have to tie in the day's events? That is what a new investigation should do. You want answers, so support a new investigation.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why do truthers have to tie in the day's events? That is what a new investigation should do.
Click to expand...

Since it's completely illogical to believe anyone other than duped 9/11 truthers would be even remotely interested in a New InvestigationTM, you've answered your own question.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Why do truthers have to tie in the day's events? That is what a new investigation should do. You want answers, so support a new investigation.
Click to expand...

Why not your the one wanting a new investigation, why can't you give an actual
Logical reason for it?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco. I have to wonder how long it takes before a new reader's eyes glaze over when they first attempt to read one of your posts. After that experience it seems ignoring them is the option taken, as I don't see many responses to your posts other than from a faithful few wherever I see you post.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?
Click to expand...

Nothing you have ever written in regards to the events of 9/11 approach anything other than comical ineptitude. Sure, you may use industry terms that laymen don't understand - but stepping back and looking at the big picture? I see Bozo.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why do truthers have to tie in the day's events? That is what a new investigation should do. You want answers, so support a new investigation.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING is connected.

Maybe if you people figure out who did the damage at the Pentagon and Shanksville, you can follow the trail to the Trade Towers?
Make too much sense for you??

I don't want answers. I have them, junior. You're the one clamoring for a new investigation. Get off your lazy ass and do it. But please, remember to tie in the entire day's events.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the 0.64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame, as we did, would give at least 4 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever observed in the measurements.
Click to expand...

"Impulse" is not the same thing as jolt. Impulse is the total (vector) change in momentum due to the integral of an acceleration (i.e. over time or using a delta function for instantaneous acceleration). "Jolt" is the derivative of acceleration, as from a sudden brake. If you brake a car from 90 mph to 0 mph, you get the same impulse no matter what, but a high jolt if you brake it quickly, and a low jolt if you brake it slowly.

A high jolt, or jerk, is typically what causes people to stumble on a tram (the acceleration itself is rarely high enough and is typically constant for a while, but it may very suddenly goes from zero to a few mph).
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the 0.64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame, as we did, would give at least 4 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever observed in the measurements.

Your error with the frame rate itself shows you do not have all of the parameters right to even contemplate what you are trying to say. You really should get those things right before saying someone else isn't dealing with reality. Your indulgence in making these types of claims, which contain easily provable inaccuracies, is precisely why this forum cannot be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

TubbaBlubba said:
"Impulse" is not the same thing as jolt. Impulse is the total (vector) change in momentum due to the integral of an acceleration (i.e. over time or using a delta function for instantaneous acceleration). "Jolt" is the derivative of acceleration, as from a sudden brake. If you brake a car from 90 mph to 0 mph, you get the same impulse no matter what, but a high jolt if you brake it quickly, and a low jolt if you brake it slowly.

A high jolt, or jerk, is typically what causes people to stumble on a tram (the acceleration itself is rarely high enough and is typically constant for a while, but it may very suddenly goes from zero to a few mph).
Click to expand...

I'd like to understand why TSz assumes that the acceleration after jolt must be the same as after jolt (0.64g). Supposedly this is a time at which the columns have broken (my understanding is that this is a fracturing not a buckling failure).

Although this is assuming that Bazant's scenario of column failure is correct. IMH(non-engineer)O, column failure lagged floor failure. There is substantial circumstantial evidence for this(debris expulsion ahead of exterior collapse front, and the "spire")
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
"Impulse" is not the same thing as jolt. Impulse is the total (vector) change in momentum due to the integral of an acceleration (i.e. over time or using a delta function for instantaneous acceleration). "Jolt" is the derivative of acceleration, as from a sudden brake.
Click to expand...

And neither of these quantities can be expressed in multiples of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. "6g impulse (jolt)" is, in its own special way, as scientifically illiterate a description as "freefall speed". More so, in fact, because it describes two dimensionally different quantities as the same and expresses them in a way dimensionally incompatible with either.

Dave
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I'd like to understand why TSz assumes that the acceleration after jolt must be the same as after jolt (0.64g). Supposedly this is a time at which the columns have broken (my understanding is that this is a fracturing not a buckling failure).

Although this is assuming that Bazant's scenario of column failure is correct. IMH(non-engineer)O, column failure lagged floor failure. There is substantial circumstantial evidence for this(debris expulsion ahead of exterior collapse front, and the "spire")
Click to expand...

Actually it is physicly impossible for the columns to fail on a single one story, le
vel, that shows that both Tony and Banzant got it wrong, but Banzant never intended to get it right and said so in the limited case declaration.

Tony is arguing pure fantasy, banzant's limited case was solely a look at energy potentials in a hypothetical event.

Tony's letter to Banzant is just nuts.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And neither of these quantities can be expressed in multiples of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. "6g impulse (jolt)" is, in its own special way, as scientifically illiterate a description as "freefall speed". More so, in fact, because it describes two dimensionally different quantities as the same and expresses them in a way dimensionally incompatible with either.

Dave
Click to expand...

Though if one assumes no change in mass, at least delta acceleration can be assumed to be directly proportional to force(impulse) or delta force(jolt), which is what TSz is getting at.
However, very much yes, its bad enough that most of the general public doesn't understand thing one about physics, or completely balls it up, having scientifically literate people, including engineers, take liberties with dimensions doesn't help.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Though if one assumes no change in mass, at least delta acceleration can be assumed to be directly proportional to force(impulse) or delta force(jolt), which is what TSz is getting at.
Click to expand...

No. Impulse is an absolute change in momentum, which at constant mass can be used to derive an absolute change in velocity. If a car is travelling at 30 metres per second at one instant and 40 metres per second at another, later instant, what acceleration has it experienced? The answer is, you have insufficient data to know. And jolt is a rate of change of acceleration; if a car experiences a rate of change in acceleration of 1m/s^3, what is its acceleration afterwards? Again, insufficient data. Tony is claiming a first and a third differential are the same quantity and expressing them in units of a second differential. It's scientifically illiterate.

Dave
 
jaydeehess said:
ok mv/dt In units mass*velocity/time or Kg*meter/sec2same as force. Similar for jolt.
What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Impulse is not rate of change of momentum with time, it's absolute change of momentum. There's no time value to divide by. A given impulse can be imparted by causing a large acceleration for a short time, or a small acceleration for a long time. Expressing an impulse in units of acceleration, therefore, is nonsense.

Jolt is not acceleration or absolute change in acceleration, it's rate of change of acceleration. There's an extra time value to divide by. A given value of jolt applied for a longer time produces a larger change in acceleration than the same value of jolt applied for a shorter time, and without knowing the acceleration before applying the jolt we don't know what it is after applying the jolt. Expressing a jolt in units of acceleration, therefore, is also nonsense.

And finally, applying a given value of jolt for a given value of time produces a final acceleration that depends on the initial acceleration, and an average acceleration that is the average of the two, neither of which is related to the value of the jolt. The impulse resulting is the product of that average acceleration and the duration of the jolt, so it cannot be calculated from the value of the jolt. Claiming that impulse and jolt are the same thing, therefore, is yet again nonsense.

Tony will no doubt, if he's even reading my posts, claim that this is pointless quibbling that has no relevance to the point he's trying to support with an appeal to his own authority. If he does so, he will in effect be claiming that his complete lack of understanding of basic physics is irrelevant to his level of understanding of basic physics, another piece of nonsense which, in addition, will be tantamount to plagiarizing FalseFlag.

Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom