Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[tfk]

Tony,

Can you share your raw data: Position vs. time.

tom

 

[TruthersLie]

Hey AE.
I just took a good look at the balzac CD, and it is only 2 floors which were weakened (at least that is how it looks on this video

http://strimoo.com/s12509995

it is amazing how you can see the crush down crush up effect...
and I love the pyroclastic cloud.

 

[moorea34]

About the missing jolt...

If you take the Szamboti's data (displacements/time), you can determine all the the supposed jolts with the the height of one story. You have the time for each one...


Then you can create a the curve of speed with jolts (acceleration = 0.69 G as determined by Szamboti, deceleration = 6 G)



(In the first jolt, you loose 50% of kinetic energy...)

Then, we plot (blue color) all the points for the time interval given by datas... Calculus gives the speed average between two blue points (integrating between the two points). It's the red point.



Finally we join the points...So, this is the theoric curve (red) obtained with the method used by authors...





And now we compare with curve given by authors' data ....




Are the jolts really missing ?

(As the core has begun to fall before exterior columns (the refence point for mesure) it is probably the reason why the first jolt occurs before the theoric curve...)

 

[tfk]

About the missing jolt...

If you take the Szamboti's data (displacements/time), you can determine all the the supposed jolts with the the height of one story. You have the time for each one...
View attachment 14510

Tony,

Tell me that this is NOT your raw data...!!

Is it??

You are looking for high freq transients in the acceleration that happen (according to your theory) during the very brief intervals (say ~10 msec or so) during collision of the floors.

Yet, in your data set, you take samples at 167 msec intervals...!!

I am 100% certain - even without looking - that MANY of the posters here have pointed this out to you. And your response is ...??

During the first floor freefall, you have 7 data points. Not horrible.

You have 1 data point before the floor collision, and one after 1/3 of the next floor's collapse. And you're looking for evidence of a divergence from "continuous acceleration" (i.e., a jolt) between these two points ... with zero data to analyze between those points?!! This IS horrible.

For the next three floors, you've got two data points per floor, none of them clustered around the collision events.

For the next 5 floors, you have one data point per floor.

This isn't a "sparse data set". This is a "NON-data set".

And then you force an empirical curve fit of this data ... and claim that you can see the "absence of a momentary, very brief (~10 msec) derivative of acceleration" (aka, Jolts) within this data???

Surely you're joking, Mr Szamboti.

The top of that building could be stopping, reversing direction, pirouetting, waving to the crowd, doing the flippin' Macarena during its descent and your data would be incapable of detecting it.

Do you know about "sampling theory" in data acquisition? Do you have experience in this field? If so, it sure as hell is not evident.

The sad thing is that you MIGHT, just barely, have the info that you need locked up in your raw data to detect the presence or absence of any sort of a jolt. Not that it matters of course. But it might be at the edge of detectability, IF you plot every point from every frame on either side of each collisions. AND you pulled some sophisticated image processing tricks out of a competent photogrammeter's hat.

I see at least one blatant error in your analysis, too. You have not allowed for the compaction of each floor. This debris, in effect, causes each successive collision to happen slightly earlier than you'd expect without allowing for it. Bazant has suggested a compaction factor of 0.2.

That means that, after the first 12.5' fall, the next collisions happens at 12.5' + n * 12.5' * 0.8 feet (where n = 1, 2, ... n).

So the 2nd thru 5th collisions happen at 22.5', 32.5', 42.5', 52.5' ... (Note: for comparison, by your 5th collision, you have accumulated 10' of error in the "expected location of the collision" (62.5 feet vs. 52.5').

Because you don't really know what this number is, you'd best not try to predict it. And instead, plot every data point in every frame of your video.

Next "interesting" point(and this one skirts dangerously close to "fraudulent" territory): Your graph curve is suspicious, Tony. It is suspiciously "too damn good". Is the interpolated line a power curve? Some empirical equation? Or is it a series of straight line segments between your data points? IF it is the last, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Your data set is too sparse by AT LEAST an order of magnitude to support your conclusion of a "missing jolt". This is not surprising. This sort of thing happens all the time when trying to tease conclusions out of extemporaneous sources. The fact that you went thru your whole analysis and clearly did not realize this, proven by the fact that you ignored about 80% of your data points, does not speak well of your understanding of the whole process.

That is, as they say, not good.

Tom

 

[moorea34]

Tony,

Tell me that this is NOT your raw data...!!

...

That is, as they say, not good.

Tom

Euh... I'm not Tony Szamboti...

But I've used his raw data ...

That's why I say : his conclusion is exactly at the opposite of the obtained results with this sample of data (too large intervals) !!!


We clearly see the jolts, as we can expect them with this very bad sample resolution !!


Another conclusion is either a joke or dishonesty

 

[alienentity]

About the missing jolt...

If you take the Szamboti's data (displacements/time), you can determine all the the supposed jolts with the the height of one story. You have the time for each one...
View attachment 14510

Then you can create a the curve of speed with jolts (acceleration = 0.69 G as determined by Szamboti, deceleration = 6 G)

View attachment 14511

(In the first jolt, you loose 50% of kinetic energy...)

Then, we plot (blue color) all the points for the time interval given by datas... Calculus gives the speed average between two blue points (integrating between the two points). It's the red point.

View attachment 14512

Finally we join the points...So, this is the theoric curve (red) obtained with the method used by authors...

View attachment 14513



And now we compare with curve given by authors' data ....

View attachment 14514


Are the jolts really missing ?

(As the core has begun to fall before exterior columns (the refence point for mesure) it is probably the reason why the first jolt occurs before the theoric curve...)

Very interesting. Posted link to current Heiwa thread with subdiscussion of Tony's theories.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Euh... I'm not Tony Szamboti...

But I've used his raw data ...

That's why I say : his conclusion is exactly at the opposite of the obtained results with this sample of data (too large intervals) !!!


We clearly see the jolts, as we can expect them with this very bad sample resolution !!


Another conclusion is either a joke or dishonesty

I think your eyes need checking if you are seeing jolts in the velocity curve of WTC 1's upper block.

The point is that there is no jolt or series of jolts of anywhere near the magnitude necessary to continue the collapse.

I think it is a joke or huge lack of understanding on the part of many here to try and use the 0.3g resistance as evidence that it couldn't have been controlled demolition. The reality is that the columns could resist more than 10 times that and the fire and impact damage would have only affected that by 20% maximum.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Tell me that this is NOT your raw data...!!

Is it??

You are looking for high freq transients in the acceleration that happen (according to your theory) during the very brief intervals (say ~10 msec or so) during collision of the floors.

Yet, in your data set, you take samples at 167 msec intervals...!!

I am 100% certain - even without looking - that MANY of the posters here have pointed this out to you. And your response is ...??

During the first floor freefall, you have 7 data points. Not horrible.

You have 1 data point before the floor collision, and one after 1/3 of the next floor's collapse. And you're looking for evidence of a divergence from "continuous acceleration" (i.e., a jolt) between these two points ... with zero data to analyze between those points?!! This IS horrible.

For the next three floors, you've got two data points per floor, none of them clustered around the collision events.

For the next 5 floors, you have one data point per floor.

This isn't a "sparse data set". This is a "NON-data set".

And then you force an empirical curve fit of this data ... and claim that you can see the "absence of a momentary, very brief (~10 msec) derivative of acceleration" (aka, Jolts) within this data???

Surely you're joking, Mr Szamboti.

The top of that building could be stopping, reversing direction, pirouetting, waving to the crowd, doing the flippin' Macarena during its descent and your data would be incapable of detecting it.

Do you know about "sampling theory" in data acquisition? Do you have experience in this field? If so, it sure as hell is not evident.

The sad thing is that you MIGHT, just barely, have the info that you need locked up in your raw data to detect the presence or absence of any sort of a jolt. Not that it matters of course. But it might be at the edge of detectability, IF you plot every point from every frame on either side of each collisions. AND you pulled some sophisticated image processing tricks out of a competent photogrammeter's hat.

I see at least one blatant error in your analysis, too. You have not allowed for the compaction of each floor. This debris, in effect, causes each successive collision to happen slightly earlier than you'd expect without allowing for it. Bazant has suggested a compaction factor of 0.2.

That means that, after the first 12.5' fall, the next collisions happens at 12.5' + n * 12.5' * 0.8 feet (where n = 1, 2, ... n).

So the 2nd thru 5th collisions happen at 22.5', 32.5', 42.5', 52.5' ... (Note: for comparison, by your 5th collision, you have accumulated 10' of error in the "expected location of the collision" (62.5 feet vs. 52.5').

Because you don't really know what this number is, you'd best not try to predict it. And instead, plot every data point in every frame of your video.

Next "interesting" point(and this one skirts dangerously close to "fraudulent" territory): Your graph curve is suspicious, Tony. It is suspiciously "too damn good". Is the interpolated line a power curve? Some empirical equation? Or is it a series of straight line segments between your data points? IF it is the last, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Your data set is too sparse by AT LEAST an order of magnitude to support your conclusion of a "missing jolt". This is not surprising. This sort of thing happens all the time when trying to tease conclusions out of extemporaneous sources. The fact that you went thru your whole analysis and clearly did not realize this, proven by the fact that you ignored about 80% of your data points, does not speak well of your understanding of the whole process.

That is, as they say, not good.

Tom

I would really prefer to not continue answering these types of questions until after the Hardfire debate. In fact, questions like these are bound to come up during that debate and it is probably best if you hand Ryan Mackey your questions to ask on the shows. In fact, you could probably appear on the show yourself TFK as I know Ron Wieck was looking for someone else to pair with Ryan and he mentioned you.

 

[R.Mackey]

You'll note I'm staying out of it... however, I would strongly counsel you to consider these questions and have a much better answer ready for the debate. Otherwise, it'll be a quick skewering. The questions have merit, and I have yet to see a valid response.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You'll note I'm staying out of it... however, I would strongly counsel you to consider these questions and have a much better answer ready for the debate. Otherwise, it'll be a quick skewering. The questions have merit, and I have yet to see a valid response.

If you noticed, I told these guys to forward their questions and objections to you. You/they will have your chance.

 

[boloboffin]

Tony,

Tell me that this is NOT your raw data...!!

Is it??

You are looking for high freq transients in the acceleration that happen (according to your theory) during the very brief intervals (say ~10 msec or so) during collision of the floors.

Yet, in your data set, you take samples at 167 msec intervals...!!

I am 100% certain - even without looking - that MANY of the posters here have pointed this out to you. And your response is ...??

A challenge to you, Mr. Szamboti: Go back and measure the roofline of each frame of the Sauret video between 1.6667 s and 1.8334 s. You said in your paper that you had only measured every five frames. This is four frames more - not that onerous a task.

It is at that point that the roofline increases in velocity from 39.59 f/s to 39.60 f/s. That is a velocity gain of 0.01 f/s, not a heck of a lot, and it corresponds to the 75% dip in acceleration from g.

After all, your own calculations say... Oh, let me just quote:



The impulse duration would have been 113 milliseconds, and yet you took measurements every 167 milliseconds. Wouldn't you be more likely to catch a 113 millisecond impulse by having measured every 3 frames, or at least having gone through every frame of this crucial time period?

A friendly wager is in order here. If you don't find a period of deceleration between 1.6667 s and 1.8334 s, I will use the image of your choice as an avatar here for a month (within JREF protocol, of course). However, if you do find a period of deceleration, you must wear the avatar of my choice for a week.

You will do us the favor of showing your work.

I wasn't the person who did the actual measurements. Two others did. Measuring every five frames is about the best resolution you can get so every three frames isn't viable.

I have mentioned to you previously that it is not possible to see the impulse itself only the effects of it which are a velocity drop.

What would you expect to see even if you could measure reliably every millisecond? This is possible with a high speed camera but unfortunately we don't have high speed video of the towers coming down.

The lower acceleration does not provide for an impulse. The upper block was just gaining velocity a little more slowly during that time frame due to resistance which was a little greater than experienced in the preceding part of the fall. It was not giving up any of it's earlier gained kinetic energy.

...

 

[tfk]

I would really prefer to not continue answering these types of questions until after the Hardfire debate. In fact, questions like these are bound to come up during that debate and it is probably best if you hand Ryan Mackey your questions to ask on the shows. In fact, you could probably appear on the show yourself TFK as I know Ron Wieck was looking for someone else to pair with Ryan and he mentioned you.

.
Tony,

Isn't the proper goal to find the truth?

Isn't the goal of finding the truth advanced by sharing your information with everyone? Don't you guys get all upset with NIST because you think that they are withholding some of their data.

In the interests of reciprocal disclosure, the questions that I would ask you are:

1. You mention that you didn't publish the acceleration data "because it was 2 steps removed from your raw data. And yet, you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about the derivative of acceleration, which is 3 steps removed. This seems a touch inconsistent.

2. You say that taking data every 5 frames was "the best that you could do". This, of course, makes no sense whatsoever. There is no difference in visibility or resolution from one frame to the next. "The best you can do" is taking data every frame. It may, or may not, have the resolution to give you the data that you want, but it sure would be far better than the data that you've presented.

3. You haven't answered my question about whether your curve is an interpolated function or a series of straight line segments. Could you answer that, please.

4. You really need to produce an error analysis to go along with this. Done right, that would put all these questions to rest.

Tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

.
Tony,

Isn't the proper goal to find the truth?

Isn't the goal of finding the truth advanced by sharing your information with everyone? Don't you guys get all upset with NIST because you think that they are withholding some of their data.

In the interests of reciprocal disclosure, the questions that I would ask you are:

1. You mention that you didn't publish the acceleration data "because it was 2 steps removed from your raw data. And yet, you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about the derivative of acceleration, which is 3 steps removed. This seems a touch inconsistent.

Impulse is related to the derivative of the velocity, which is the change in velocity with respect to time. We are not using the derivative of the acceleration.

2. You say that taking data every 5 frames was "the best that you could do". This, of course, makes no sense whatsoever. There is no difference in visibility or resolution from one frame to the next. "The best you can do" is taking data every frame. It may, or may not, have the resolution to give you the data that you want, but it sure would be far better than the data that you've presented.

The upper block does not move enough to resolve with one pixel in each consecutive frame.

3. You haven't answered my question about whether your curve is an interpolated function or a series of straight line segments. Could you answer that, please.

The points are the actual discrete measurements taken every 167 milliseconds and if you look at the graphs it is obvious that a linear regression or least squares fit is used. The R squared value is quite high indicating a very good fit.

4. You really need to produce an error analysis to go along with this. Done right, that would put all these questions to rest.

The measurements were taken several times with no variation. Essentially the same velocity values have been measured by several other people. Do you doubt that the upper block of WTC 1 fell at a rate of 70% of gravity?

 

[bill smith]

You'll note I'm staying out of it... however, I would strongly counsel you to consider these questions and have a much better answer ready for the debate. Otherwise, it'll be a quick skewering. The questions have merit, and I have yet to see a valid response.

You should have had Heiwa on too. Perhaps his paper will have been published by the JEM by then and it would have made an interesting talking point.

 

[R.Mackey]

I for one would be quite interested to hear if Tony agrees with Heiwa... The latter has been in contact with Ron Wieck before and declined offers to appear on Hardfire. However, we could certainly discuss his "ideas" if Tony supports them. But somehow I doubt that he does.

Well?

 

[moorea34]

I think it is a joke or huge lack of understanding on the part of many here to try and use the 0.3g resistance as evidence that it couldn't have been controlled demolition. The reality is that the columns could resist more than 10 times that and the fire and impact damage would have only affected that by 20% maximum.

10 times so 3g ?
May be in compression but when you have a progressive collapse, of course, this is what happened ! And the bolts have failed when the bending moment was too strong... See the wreckage !...

20% maximum

Can I see the calculation ? Thank you...

 

[boloboffin]

The video is so crappy that you can only take measurements (you being whoever did them for you) every five frames, but those measurements were done without any variations multiple times????

I suggest to you that these premises cancel each other out.

 

[Heiwa]

I for one would be quite interested to hear if Tony agrees with Heiwa... The latter has been in contact with Ron Wieck before and declined offers to appear on Hardfire. However, we could certainly discuss his "ideas" if Tony supports them. But somehow I doubt that he does.

Well?

Well, I know Tony and it seems he agrees with me that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of A + gravity is impossible. So you'll have the opportunity to discuss that at Hardfire.

Re any contacts me/Ron Wieck following are messages from Ron to me:

1 (26 March 2009). Anders, Let us know when you find a physicist or engineer who agrees with you.
Ron

2 (27 March 2009). I’m afraid not. Richard Gage is a liar and a fool. He was exposed and demolished by Mark Roberts. The frauds on his list are insignificant ciphers. You’ll have to do much, much better. Ron

3. (27 March 2009). You have established a pattern. People remind you of absurd statements you’ve made; you deny making them; it is proved that you made them; you turn on a dime and proceed to defend the statements you denied making. Really, you need to pay attention to your own words. Yes, MacQueen and Szamboti have been exposed as liars and fools. You don’t understand anything about scale. Find another engineer who agrees with the nonsense you promote. RW

4. (27 March 2009). Anders, Liars and fools ignore very specific corrections to their work provided by competent, highly qualified people. You have stated that dropping the top third of a 110-story building onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two merely establishes “a new equilibrium.” You are absurdly wrong. Find another engineer who agrees with such nonsense. Can I assume that you have no interest in defending your indefensible foolishness on ‘Hardfire’? You can appear on a webcam, or you can simply phone-in your contribution. Bear in mind, you will be facing Mackey. Your mindless admirer Bill Smith thinks we are afraid to invite you. In reality, you are afraid to participate. RW

5. (27 March 2009). Anders, What you wrote is utter nonsense. Of course A is completely destroyed. Your intellectual peers, the children you write for, have no problem understanding that C, while it is being crushed, does indeed crush A. I know you “explain” things in your papers, but no competent engineers agree with your explanations. Are you willing to phone-in to ‘Hardfire’? I promise to be very nice to you. Ron

6. (28 March 2009). Anders, Amazingly, you got something right. Yes, the jihadists are very dangerous. We won’t be sending anyone to interview you, but you are welcome to confront Mackey over the phone with your fantasies. It’s the safest bet in the world that none of Gage’s other frauds will dare to show their faces. RW

It seems Ron is an OCTist of the worst kind. I would not waste my time with him.

 

[FineWine]

You should have had Heiwa on too. Perhaps his paper will have been published by the JEM by then and it would have made an interesting talking point.

Heiwa wouldn't dream of taking on a real engineer in a public debate. He preaches to hopeless morons who hear only what they desperately want to hear. Why do you think he runs away whenever he's asked what his reaction will be to his inevitable smackdown by the real engineers at the ASCE journal.

Let's try a test. You are noted for your extreme obtuseness, dishonesty , and cowardice. Heiwa's lunatic garble of basic physics will certainly be trashed by the ASCE people. Are you prepeared to go on record as stating that you will close your ears to any verdict that rejects your failed myths? Will you state that the respondents at the ASCE journal must be in on your imaginary conspiracy?

Bye, Bill. Sorry you had to run again.

 

[FineWine]

Well, I know Tony and it seems he agrees with me that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of A + gravity is impossible. So you'll have the opportunity to discuss that at Hardfire.

Re any contacts me/Ron Wieck following are messages from Ron to me:

1 (26 March 2009). Anders, Let us know when you find a physicist or engineer who agrees with you.
Ron

2 (27 March 2009). I’m afraid not. Richard Gage is a liar and a fool. He was exposed and demolished by Mark Roberts. The frauds on his list are insignificant ciphers. You’ll have to do much, much better. Ron

3. (27 March 2009). You have established a pattern. People remind you of absurd statements you’ve made; you deny making them; it is proved that you made them; you turn on a dime and proceed to defend the statements you denied making. Really, you need to pay attention to your own words. Yes, MacQueen and Szamboti have been exposed as liars and fools. You don’t understand anything about scale. Find another engineer who agrees with the nonsense you promote. RW

4. (27 March 2009). Anders, Liars and fools ignore very specific corrections to their work provided by competent, highly qualified people. You have stated that dropping the top third of a 110-story building onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two merely establishes “a new equilibrium.” You are absurdly wrong. Find another engineer who agrees with such nonsense. Can I assume that you have no interest in defending your indefensible foolishness on ‘Hardfire’? You can appear on a webcam, or you can simply phone-in your contribution. Bear in mind, you will be facing Mackey. Your mindless admirer Bill Smith thinks we are afraid to invite you. In reality, you are afraid to participate. RW

5. (27 March 2009). Anders, What you wrote is utter nonsense. Of course A is completely destroyed. Your intellectual peers, the children you write for, have no problem understanding that C, while it is being crushed, does indeed crush A. I know you “explain” things in your papers, but no competent engineers agree with your explanations. Are you willing to phone-in to ‘Hardfire’? I promise to be very nice to you. Ron

6. (28 March 2009). Anders, Amazingly, you got something right. Yes, the jihadists are very dangerous. We won’t be sending anyone to interview you, but you are welcome to confront Mackey over the phone with your fantasies. It’s the safest bet in the world that none of Gage’s other frauds will dare to show their faces. RW

It seems Ron is an OCTist of the worst kind. I would not waste my time with him.

Do you get the idea that you are not trying to convert the host? The purpose of presenting a case in a public debate is to establish the soundness of your views. We understand very well why you will never confront a real engineer with the idiotic, agenda-driven crapola you peddle.