Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Tony Szamboti]

So it can fling steel around and not make massive explosion sounds? Really?

Who mentioned flinging things around? Are you imagining things?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Name calling.

Pathetic.

There is no "vast engineering conspiracy." If you won't submit your papers to an engineering journal, you have no confidence in them or your own abilities. Period.

I don't think you have any room to try and take the high ground here as I can quote many posts of yours where you called me a liar among other things?

You are a projection artist Mackey. That is one of your ploys so it isn't name calling at all.

I'll tell you what, if you submit your paper on 911 to an established engineering journal I'll submit mine.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't think you have any room to try and take the high ground here as I can quote many posts of yours where you called me a liar among other things?

... because you lied, yes ... I'm not sure what purchase you think you have here.

You are a projection artist Mackey. That is one of your ploys so it isn't name calling at all.

Ridiculous.

I'll tell you what, if you submit your paper to an established engineering journal I'll submit mine.

Do I really have to explain this to you? Seriously, you can't figure out why I haven't submitted a paper on 9/11 mechanics??

 

[NutCracker]

Just what do you think the retired civil engineering professor was? I'll give you a hint *****, civil engineers are structural engineers. The guy probably forgot more than the likes of you will ever know judging by your nonsensical comments and audacity. I seriously doubt you had three years of engineering courses as you don't seem able to handle the details. I think you are nothing more than an anonymous **********.

The paper is flawed, as has been pointed out in detail repeatedly. Anyone with a basic appreciation of physics is able to understand the paper's flaws. We can therefore conclude that the reviewer did a poor job.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You fascination with the size of the jolt possible is not relevant. It needed to be whatever was necessary to overcome the resistance below but would produce the same velocity loss as the energy dissipation requirements are the same.

Your fascination with the jolt is not necessary to explain the loss of velocity evident from the difference between the 1g acceleration expected from gravity and the approximately 0.7g acceleration actually observed.

The only difference due to the magnitude of the deceleration would be the duration.

If you smear the deceleration over an arbitrarily large duration, then you no longer have a jolt. What you have instead is an acceleration less than 1g.

If you don't understand these things there isn't much more to tell you. Right now it would seem you are the one with the circular argument.

I'm sorry, Tony, but those two sentences did not fully convince me the WTC towers were brought down by unnatural means.

I would like to see your calculations rather than just your words. Can you post them?

From 140 posts ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5508342&postcount=723

I tried to use your numbers, and my estimated numbers aren't too far from numbers in your paper. Had you identified any of my mistakes, I'd be more impressed by your posturing.

 

[beachnut]

... Nano-thermite is tailorable and can be formulated to minimize sound. ...

Thermite leaves a product. Zero thermite products were found on steel after 911. So you delusional silent nano-thermite is a dumb choice and indicative of your missing jolt not-journal material paper.

Office fires have more heat energy than thermite! All you have to do is start the office furniture on fire after a massive kinetic energy impact knocking off the insulation - real engineers see this, what is your learning disability that has you on a quest looking for a jolt?

Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite; why use thermite when you can use jet fuel?

This why we will not be using nano-thermite for fuel in cars, gasoline has ten times the energy! When you pick delusions, they are over-the-top stupid.

I thought the ceiling tiles had the thermite with thousands of transmitters? I thought Jones, your leader and publisher for the journal of lies on 911, had dropped the thermite as only a fuse for the super silent blast free high explosives; what is up? Can't you super-nano-truther guys get a single real story of your delusional efforts? Will you slip off to the Beam weapon camp of crazy?

 

[NutCracker]

You have never submitted anything you have written on 911 to an established engineering journal. By your definition you are irrelevant then.

Fine logic. Mr. Szamboti. Brilliant. Hint: Mr Mackey ain't part of the TM. You are. You are a proponent of curtain theories, you publish about them. So why let this oppurtunity to let the truth out go to waste?

Isn't it funny that one has to explain the most basic of stuff to these Truthers? This does not only apply to the basement sub-average intelligent hobby-nutter, but to Mr. Szamboti as well.

I am a co-author of Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction paper published in the Bentham open civil engineering journal. Oh, I know that is a vanity press. However, when you pressed them to withdraw it they asked you to submit a formal rebuttal to them. Did you ever do that?
.

Not only is the publisher's status dubious. Said article is a piece of junk. 14 Truther nonsense hobby-horses like "fire isn't hot enough to melt steel." I would change my name, have plastic surgery and emigrate if my name was on that piece of junk.

 

[bardamu]

Do I really have to explain this to you? Seriously, you can't figure out why I haven't submitted a paper on 9/11 mechanics??

Mackey can't submit his papers because there's too much politics mixed in with the pseudoscience.

 

[beachnut]

... I have had first hand knowledge of several papers written by respected engineering people on this issue, which would support my point of view, that have simply been rejected for nonsensical reasons or left to languish by at least one of the better known journals in engineering.

After seeing this I did not even bother to submit my paper to them. ...

The fact that Bazant's papers were published in JEM would not be controversial to that journal since they supported the present official story. ...

It is when one is bucking the official line that controversy is generated and some people shy away from it and don't want to be involved in an initial struggle. It goes with what Mark Twain said In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

The fact is supporting your work would amount to delusional work; not usually published because real journals do not publish junk supporting junk.

... don't submit due to fear of what? Too late to hide from the man you are published on the Internet and if I teach some engineering course I am going to use your paper as an example of bias and delusions gone wild.

Bazant's paper is published due because it is engineering; your paper is paranoid delusions associated with your opinion of a realcddeal.

Quoting Twain for your work! lol, your work will not succeed it is complete garbage because your conclusions is a paranoid delusion. The only people joining your cause will be people who have no ability to see your work is flawed and your conclusions wrong. (is quoting famous people the signs of complete failure when the quotes follow an amazingly idiotic idea? at least you avoided quoting Hitler the biggest loser in the last hundred years yet he could tell lies and get millions moving!!!)

The chief structural engineer for the WTC towers calls your ideas on 911 nonsense. You could quit while you are only wrong for 8 years... where is that jolt?

 

[twinstead]

Mackey can't submit his papers because there's too much politics mixed in with the pseudoscience.

Oh, you're one to talk. 9-11 to you is as much about world view and politics than actual evidence and facts.

 

[AZCat]

Ah yes, the "vast engineering conspiracy."

I was so perturbed by this claim that I went back through all the paperwork I filed for my PE (yes I still have it, in case I have to file in another state) looking for some kind of NDA related to 9/11 that I might have signed by mistake. Imagine my shock when I found nothing of the sort. I guess it's just another example of Tony's inability to accept his mistakes and move on.

 

[BasqueArch]

(BasqueArch underlines)

<snip>
...

As for details on how a covert demolition could be done I discussed that with you during our debate on Hardfire and have mentioned other possibilities here in the past. You only have what you claim to be a lack of sound as a means to argue against explosives. Nano-thermite is tailorable and can be formulated to minimize sound. The joints could be heat weakened and I told you that Dr. Astaneh mentioned melting at the ends of beams and columns. I also don't think it is out of the realm of possibility the core columns in the upper stories could be taken out in ways similar to what is done in the Verinage Technique.

You started out with explosives removing core columns every three floors.

"You only have what you claim to be a lack of sound as a means to argue against explosives."

No sounds = no explosives . I understand, pretty hard to shake that one off, isn't it. Can't math your way out.

Does R. Gage and the others know you now consider explosive CD impossible.

 

[rwguinn]

You started out with explosives removing core columns every three floors.

"You only have what you claim to be a lack of sound as a means to argue against explosives."

No sounds = no explosives . I understand, pretty hard to shake that one off, isn't it. Can't math your way out.

Does R. Gage and the others know you now consider explosive CD impossible.

We're back to "Hush-a-Boom" again.
One would think that an ME would understand that a violent, hyper-velocity expansion of ANYTHING is going to make a lot of noise.
Unless "Evacuated the towers" extends to the air inside, of course--a condition rendered difficult by the intrusion of a very large aircraft through the outer envelope...

 

[NutCracker]

We're back to "Hush-a-Boom" again.
One would think that an ME would understand that a violent, hyper-velocity expansion of ANYTHING is going to make a lot of noise.
Unless "Evacuated the towers" extends to the air inside, of course--a condition rendered difficult by the intrusion of a very large aircraft through the outer envelope...

Sound travels through steel and concrete rather nicely. So even without surrounding air we would have heard these explosions. So this suuper-duuper silent stuffy stuff expands quickly enough to cut steel columns yet these quick expansions don't produce a sound wave in the steel being cut. Truly amazing stuff.

 

[GlennB]

... I also don't think it is out of the realm of possibility the core columns in the upper stories could be taken out in ways similar to what is done in the Verinage Technique.

lost for words

 

[rwguinn]

lost for words

It's just that he doesn't realize that they kinda were--only instead of cables and hydraulics, it was vertical structure removal by impact, resultant load path modification, and heat weakening...

 

[leftysergeant]

If you actually read the paper you would see that we use the actual yield strength of the columns. That is highly relevant to the forces required and the energy dissipation. We have already done what you ask for here.

Even a fire fighter with no college degree knows that your data about the yield strength of the columns is utterly useless if you calculated only the yield strength with the floors in place.

No floor - MASSIVELY reduced yield strength.

Have I made that comment too complex for you?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Even a fire fighter with no college degree knows that your data about the yield strength of the columns is utterly useless if you calculated only the yield strength with the floors in place.

No floor - MASSIVELY reduced yield strength.

Have I made that comment too complex for you?

The Missing Jolt considers the first collision between floors so they are in place there chief. Nice try but no cigar.

To all you believers in a natural collapse
No deceleration and no velocity loss = an unnatural event

I hope that isn't too complex for you.

Keep trying to prop up your irreducible delusion. That was one projection by Ryan Mackey which is hard to forget.

 

[R.Mackey]

There is deceleration. Lots. A near constant 0.3-0.5 g.

And you have a whole pile of unanswered questions before you. Why will you not answer?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There is deceleration. Lots. A near constant 0.3-0.5 g.

And you have a whole pile of unanswered questions before you. Why will you not answer?

Oh yeah, there is lots of deceleration. There is no deceleration above 1g which is necessary to produce a load amplification of the insufficient static load. The static load is normally decelerated at 1g when it is being supported. I hope people here are smart enough to see through what you are saying.

There should have been at least a 3 to 5g deceleration by the upper section in a natural collapse, or ten times that observed, and it should have lost at least 3/4 of its velocity if it didn't arrest completely after a one story drop.

Go ahead and repeat your mantra "the columns didn't hit squarely and the whole upper section fell on the floors and missed the columns because of the tilt".

The problem is the tilt doesn't really do what you need and most people can't go further than some random chaotic mix which would still require a large number of column impacts producing a deceleration which dwarfs the less than static observed deceleration you think is sufficiently explanatory.