Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper
- Thread starter RedIbis
- Start date
Why the hell would anybody read a JONES paper after they have already proved their fraudulence and incompetency?
ETA: Is it a coincidence that the acronym JONES is the same as the last name of the infamous Steven Jones or did he do that one purpose?
ETA: Is it a coincidence that the acronym JONES is the same as the last name of the infamous Steven Jones or did he do that one purpose?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I sent Tony (realcd or something like that) an email (we have exchanged private emails in the past) inviting him to defend his paper. He is still a member here as far as I know.
If you read the paper and study the video carefully you will see that the upper part above floor 98 up to the roof of WTC1 implodes during 3.17 seconds, i.e. becomes 33 meters vertically shorter without damaging the structure below floor 93. The roof line of the upper part moves down 33 metres. The floor 98 line remains static!!
The weight of the upper part evidently remains the same during this strange transformation apart from any debris being thrown out in the smoke expelled from the lower area of the upper part.
The weight of the upper part only compresses the lower structure primary members - the columns - <0.3 of yield at any time. The transformation of the upper part during 3.17 seconds does not visibly affect the structure below.
NIST suggests that the upper part remains intact and near free falls and impacts on the lower structure and then crushes down the lower structure. None of these events can be seen in the 3.17 seconds described in the paper.
If the upper part had remained intact, dropped and impacted the lower structure, the columns of both the upper part and the lower structure would just damage the floors of both upper part and lower structure that happen to be in the way of the columns ... and the destruction would soon be arrested. Like when two ships collide.
Last edited:
OMG...Steven Jones was the mastermind behind 9/11. He chose the date and how to do it so he could create a stupid trash rag with his name as the acronym.
Actually it is just a coincidence. Jones doesn't have the brains to engineer 9/11 or figure out an acronym on purpose.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Hey Heiwa:
I asked before, Why can a "rogue wave" damage a ship? It's only water. Don't derail this thread please go back and defend your others.
I asked before, Why can a "rogue wave" damage a ship? It's only water. Don't derail this thread please go back and defend your others.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
This is complete and utter rubbish and invalids anything else you post. The top part did not implode,it disappeared behind the cloud dust. The weight was then funnelled down the inside of the external columns onto the floor trusses.The floors cannot stop this weight and fail, the external columns are then no longer braced to the core by the floors so they simply fall away. As more and more floors fail more and more of the external columns fall away, leaving guess what? The core. The reason the floor line appears to remain intact is because the massive dynamic weight is broken up and then carries on down, inside the towers, smashing the floors as it meets them. Your absurd assertion that it imploded in mid air is ridiculous and frankly the most stupid theory I have ever seen.
The collapse was nothing like two ships colliding. When two ships collide, gravity is not involved. When a massive dynamic weight falls on floors that cannot arrest it, it will continue under the pull of gravity until it meets something that can arrest it. In this case the only thing that could stop this massive weight not only falling but gaining mass as it smashed through the floor trusses was the ground.
I normally clear my ignore list now and again. You will be pleased to know you are the first back on it. Nonsense like yours is best ignored. I genuinely feel sorry for you.
End of derail , sorry folks, welcome back to ignore, Heiwa
Last edited:
CurtC
Illuminator
So you're saying that if no part of the building broke apart, then it would not have collapsed.
OK, thanks for that.
You can’t?
I got 31 Gs for just the momentum transfer speed change at 2.15 ms for just the first impact. These loons at Jones’ Thermite-fantasyland lack skill at thinking, and engineering.
Where do these guy pull 13 ms from? I did not find it. RedIbis, do you know?
Looks like these guys fail to understand 911 when there are papers to help them. Given the answer, they fail the test?
Addressing the paper after reading the tripe, but you failed to address the paper; why? BTW the two terrorist apologists missed the jolt, it occurred in the first 0.87 seconds. They are so funny.
I ask again. You failed to address the paper; why?
You could model the WTC falling as a simple overload. If there are 25,000,000 pounds of upper building coming in contact with any lower floor, the floor fails and then falls to the next floor. Oops, 25,000,000 pounds plus one more floor and the nest floor fails. This happens as fast as the floors can fall. This simple impact model would give 12.08 seconds for the WTC to fall. Darn, I get this is the same as other models. Why? Gravity? Physics? How do you find these papers of failed ideas?
Don't forget... You failed to address the paper; why?
Last edited:
NutCracker
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 654
Insufficient resolution
Dave Rogers hit the nail on the head: they don't plot the acceleration at a particular point in time,. Rather they plot the average acceleration until a particular point in time, smoothing out fluctuations in the acceleration. Not good when you want to build a case for a sudden change in acceleration being absent: if it is present you obscure it.
A 17 ms time resolution is insufficient to draw conclusions on events that took place at a 13 ms time scale.
A few more points on accuracy:
Given the 17ms sample frequency, it appears the DVD they used was in NTSC format, having 60 interlaced fields per second, giving 30 frames per second. The interlacing halving their effective spatial resolution in the vertical direction (the one that counts) to 2 pixels, or 1.76 feet.
That the they took a DVD a starting point doesn't do the accuracy good either. The format, mpeg, used on DVD's uses a lossy compression algorithm: in the conversion to mpeg detail is lost.
That they converted this ripped movie to mpeg raises questions. Unless they mean 'renaming to a file named *.mpg' , this could have involved a recoding of the ripped file, resulting in further loss of detail and thus accuracy.
Furthermore, at best they contradicted BZ., a simplified analysis in the first place. Not a big blow to the overall thesis that the towers collapsed onto themselves.
Dave Rogers hit the nail on the head: they don't plot the acceleration at a particular point in time,. Rather they plot the average acceleration until a particular point in time, smoothing out fluctuations in the acceleration. Not good when you want to build a case for a sudden change in acceleration being absent: if it is present you obscure it.
A 17 ms time resolution is insufficient to draw conclusions on events that took place at a 13 ms time scale.
A few more points on accuracy:
Given the 17ms sample frequency, it appears the DVD they used was in NTSC format, having 60 interlaced fields per second, giving 30 frames per second. The interlacing halving their effective spatial resolution in the vertical direction (the one that counts) to 2 pixels, or 1.76 feet.
That the they took a DVD a starting point doesn't do the accuracy good either. The format, mpeg, used on DVD's uses a lossy compression algorithm: in the conversion to mpeg detail is lost.
That they converted this ripped movie to mpeg raises questions. Unless they mean 'renaming to a file named *.mpg' , this could have involved a recoding of the ripped file, resulting in further loss of detail and thus accuracy.
Furthermore, at best they contradicted BZ., a simplified analysis in the first place. Not a big blow to the overall thesis that the towers collapsed onto themselves.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Bottom line:
To do the type of analysis they claim they would need video with hundreds of frames per second? Such as the type that would be used to stop a bullet. Hey too bad I-Max wasn't filming the towers that day.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
I'm not quite sure what you're rambling on about in your rant, but the primary question the paper is addressing is how did the rigid upper block separate itself entirely from the lower portion of the building and then crush everything below it, maintaining freefall speed?
Why didn't the other 90% of the building offer any resistance to slow the descent?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
You choose Beachnut's post to respond to? Did you just read the last post of the thread, or perhaps you'd like to answer the detailed issues with the paper earlier in the thread?
No, you posted a paper, it is worthless and you have no idea why. You just proved it.
You can’t tell me where they got 13 ms from, and you have no clue what I am talking about because you have not read or comprehended the paper you posted. LOL
You can’t answer simple questions when asked! Why?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Don't hesitate to quote your reference to "13 ms" from the paper. That's usually how this is done.
I don't think he read his own paper.
Besides taking care of my work today, I was able to read the paper and have questions. I expect RedIbis can discuss and support since he presented the paper. I was wrong.
He will make up some statement and avoid your post, my post, and all posts. He will instead be asking us to do his research so he can ignore it too.
Last edited:
;lol … page 10 of the paper you requested comment on, the paper you requested people address. Good job.
The paper you posted. The OP. Please tell me how they came up with 13 ms. If you read and comprehended the paper you know what I am talking about, if you have not read the paper, you have no clue.
Where did the 13 ms come from? How did they come to use 13 ms for the time of the jolt, the 31 G jolt they talk about in the paper you presented for comment but seems you have no clue what it says! Why?
The paper from your OP, the paper you presented, and you know zip about the very paper you presented for us to address.
No wonder you get, hello paper. It make more sense than you ignoring the very paper you posted. (try page 10 of the paper you posted)
Last edited:
It did, the building did offer resistance, the collapse was about 12.08 seconds, not freefall due to the building. But you must have missed that on your extensive research on this subject. Just like you have no clue about the 13 ms, or the 31 G jolt. You have not read this paper to understand any of the many topics they covered to make false ideas, and insane explosive claims.
So can you help me see how they came up with 13 ms for the 31 G jolt? Or are you going to call a simple question a rant? Gee, you asked for someone to address the paper, I have a simple question; you have no clue what I am talking about on a paper you presented for us to address. I am addressing the paper by asking a question, why 13 ms, why not 2.13 ms? Do you speak physics, or engineering?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Not according to NIST.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Engineers/architects, please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand things, the answer to Red's question is: It did. On a floor by floor - or to be more specific, on a distance defined by vertical column length - basis. There was indeed some resistance as it met the lower sections, the energy was absorbed by the "unit" immediately below it, gave at the column connections, but did not slow the upper section by a big enough margin to significantly impact
- The kinetic plus gravitational potential energy already available in the collapse, and
- The additional energy (or is momentum the better way to think about this?) from the accretion of the now failed "floor".
I know that's an oversimplification, guys, but again, I'm a layman. Does that about describe it, in simplified terms?