Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[NutCracker]

I think the desperation actually belongs to those who can't explain the lack of deceleration in WTC 1's upper section, while attempting to hold onto their belief that it was a natural collapse.

It is not surprising that it is mostly anonymous posters here continuing to just make an unsupported claim that there is nothing to what I am saying. If you give your name people expect you to back up what you say.

Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible. It has now been shown that the columns could not miss each other with the actual observed tilt and drop. Ryan could not back up what he said there and has no credibility on this point.

Pleeease, Tony.

Dismissing the arguments of your opponenent on the ground of a personal trait (in your case them being anynomous) is pretty much the defenition of an Ad Hominem. You in recent days maintaining your position frequently invoking this particular fallacy does leave the disticnt impression that you are left without real arguments.

This impression is compounded by your insistance on your "the columns collided head-on" argument and, here , even going as far as declaring the converse "impossible."

This "head-on" argument is just as poor as our below everage intellegent moon-hoaxer "parrallel shadows" argument (*): you simply declare the special to be "obvious" and the expected to be "impossible.". Even a 4 year old, having played with wooden blocks and built towers out of them, knows your position on this to be silly.

Please Tony, be a man. If you really believe your conclusions have merit, bring them to an respected, academic, peer reviewed journal.

You might also, and that might be a better time investment, simply start realising that you are simply.. wrong.


*) This moon-hoaxers' argument is only valid if the moons surface where flat. This cannot be expected to be the case, even without prior knowledge of the moons surface, because out of the set of a-priori, possible moon surfaces, the set of flat surfaces is a very small subset.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Pleeease, Tony.

Dismissing the arguments of your opponenent on the ground of a personal trait (in your case them being anynomous) is pretty much the defenition of an Ad Hominem. You in recent days maintaining your position frequently invoking this particular fallacy does leave the disticnt impression that you are left without real arguments.

This impression is compounded by your insistance on your "the columns collided head-on" argument and, here , even going as far as declaring the converse "impossible."

This "head-on" argument is just as poor as our below everage intellegent moon-hoaxer "parrallel shadows" argument (*): you simply declare the special to be "obvious" and the expected to be "impossible.". Even a 4 year old, having played with wooden blocks and built towers out of them, knows your position on this to be silly.

Please Tony, be a man. If you really believe your conclusions have merit, bring them to an respected, academic, peer reviewed journal.

You might also, and that might be a better time investment, simply start realising that you are simply.. wrong.


*) This moon-hoaxers' argument is only valid if the moons surface where flat. This cannot be expected to be the case, even without prior knowledge of the moons surface, because out of the set of a-priori, possible moon surfaces, the set of flat surfaces is a very small subset.

Have you looked at the model animations on the 911freeforum showing the actual column trajectories based on the actual measured tilt and drop?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-3d-model-t308-15.html

The columns do not miss so please start discussing reality.

Anonymous posters generally don't have to worry about reality or being proven wrong so they have no standing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think the desperation actually belongs to those who can't explain the lack of deceleration in WTC 1's upper section, while attempting to hold onto their belief that it was a natural collapse.

If there were anyone in that category, they might indeed be desperate. Since the tilt of the upper block indicates a series of smaller jolts rather than a single one, and since this series of smaller jolts is actually observed in the data, there isn't anything left that requires explanation.

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

Have you looked at the model animations on the 911freeforum showing the actual column trajectories based on the actual measured tilt and drop?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-3d-model-t308-15.html

The columns do not miss so please start discussing reality.

Anonymous posters generally don't have to worry about reality or being proven wrong so they have no standing.

Fine. Take this model to a respected peer reviewed academic journal.

ETA: Sorry, when I saw graphics showing columns that appeared to be pre-cut, showing no signs of buckling etc., I sensed some truther-circular-logic, and lost all interest to read yet again another piece of truther nonsense. If I am wrong, bring in the peer-reviewed journal.

 

[TruthersLie]

I think the desperation actually belongs to those who can't explain the lack of deceleration in WTC 1's upper section, while attempting to hold onto their belief that it was a natural collapse.

It is not surprising that it is mostly anonymous posters here continuing to just make an unsupported claim that there is nothing to what I am saying, in what appears to be an attempt to develop a chorus of consent. Since they don't give their names they apparently don't feel the need to back up what they say. If you give your name people expect you to back up what you say.

Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and everything landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible. It has now been shown that the columns could not miss each other with the actual observed tilt and drop. Finally, Ryan could not back up what he said there so he has lost some credibility on this point. He at least had the temerity to attempt to argue his beliefs while putting his credibility on this issue on the line, as his identity is known.

Anonymous posters could have multiple pseudonyms so they have no standing as there is no fear of a loss of credibility on a particular issue.

ROFLMAO.

Dear Tony.

Here is the easiest way possible. Please publish your thesis in ANY real engineering journal. They have REAL people as part of their peer review panels. If you can get it past the peer review of a REAL journal then we can discuss it.

Until then, your "analysis" has the same weight and merit as my toilet paper. When will you produce any peer reviewed paper? If your analysis is correct (and it isn't, as has been shown to you repeatedly) your bleatings about it being in any way scientifically (or engineerigly) valid are baloney.

So why don't you stop posting drivel here, and get to work on that paper. I for one eagerly await any paper you can write which will pass muster at ANY peer reviewed engineering journal.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In addition to my post above, I want to make the point that my argument against anonymous posting on a criminal legal issue is not Ad Hominem.

The law gives no standing to anonymous witnesses, expert or otherwise, for the very reasons I stated above and more.

 

[NutCracker]

In addition to my post above, I want to make the point that my argument against anonymous posting on a criminal legal issue is not Ad Hominem.

The law gives no standing to anonymous witnesses, expert or otherwise, for the very reasons I stated above and more.

JREF is not a court. Determining what caused a building to collapse is science not law.

Dismissing the argument of opponents on the ground of personal traits (them being anonymous for instance) is an Ad Hominem. No matter what.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In addition to my post above, I want to make the point that my argument against anonymous posting on a criminal legal issue is not Ad Hominem.

Anonymity is a property of the arguer, not of the argument advanced. Therefore, any rebuttal of an argument based on the fact that the person advancing it has chosen to remain anonymous is, by definition, ad hominem, as it addresses only the individual presenting the argument and not the content of the argument itself. This should be clear to anyone who understands logic.

Dave

ETA: The fact that criminal law rules argumentum ad hominem admissable in this respect does not make it anything other than fallacious.

 

[A W Smith]

Tony. Not the big man on campus he imagines himself to be.

In addition to my post above, I want to make the point that my argument against anonymous posting on a criminal legal issue is not Ad Hominem.

The law gives no standing to anonymous witnesses, expert or otherwise, for the very reasons I stated above and more.

Right now as far as the scientific world is concerned Tony. YOU are the anonymous nobody. When will you be publishing your paper in respected scientific journals? Have you visited Stanford or Princeton engineering departments in NJ as I had suggested and shown your work to their professors Tony? Or are you afraid to put your foot in the door? If this is such a criminal and legal issue Tony why are you content just to entertain gullible teens on the internet?

 

[newton3376]

Tony,



How long has it been, and you are STILL this clueless.

The towers did NOT collapse because of lack of strength, Tony. They did not fail because they were heated & got weak. (There was a loss of strength, but that was not the major cause of the collapse.) The major cause of the collapse was the creep. (See next post.)

Therefore your analysis that only considers the reduced strength due to the heating as the explanation for the collapse ALSO fails.

[Actually, it doesn't fail at all. It accurately reflects your lack of understanding of what NIST said.]

You can tell that the above is true by looking at the temperatures at which each effect emerges and the time constants associated with each effect.

Temperature weakening: starts at about 350°C, loss to ~50% strength at ~550°C, down to about 20% strength at about 800°C. Time constant = immediate.

Creep: starts at about 200°C. Increases rapidly with rising temperature. Time constant: minutes to hours.

The columns were exposed to large, not long duration fires. Without insulation, they came up to temperature quickly. The temperature, and temp related loss of strength, happened relatively quickly. But they did not collapse quickly.

Creep takes time. The fires were not getting hotter. They got big fast, and then they were spreading and moving, some areas getting hot & others cooling down. The creep was increasing continuously & slowly. The collapse happened after 1 & 2 hours.

If you kept everything else the same, and just got rid of the creep, the buildings would likely be still standing.



Hey Tony.

I've got a pop quiz for ya, with an instructive message that shows that your math here sucks.

A weight, supported by 3 equally spaced columns.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2257[/qimg]

You remove the right-most column.

The question is, which of these diagrams becomes the true representation of the new force balance?

A.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2258[/qimg]

or

B.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2259[/qimg]


Now think about it, and apply it to the question: "When you heavily damage or severe 15% of the columns, does it simply increase the loads on the remaining columns by a proportionate amount?"

Just quoting this so Tom doesn't forget to get back to it......it's an important point....

 

[Grizzly Bear]

An anonymous person has no fear of accountability and is not putting their credibility on the line.

Credibility does not discriminate between a written forum alias and a person's given name. Your content is either accurate or it's not regardless of the name, or profession that it's attached to. If the claim is wrong then the credibility is offset all the same.

As for your take on my credibility it isn't surprising that you give no basis for it, so it is just your opinion, which amounts to nothing coming from an anonymous person.

That's nice and all, but I don't have to look far to show you... in your own words no less...

I have watched Gene Corley try to say the energetic jets seen coming out of the towers, below the demolition wave, are due to air being compressed by the collapse. I find it hard to believe he is that stupid.

I have to believe that any honest engineer, who has looked at the collapses of the towers and Bldg. 7, would have to think something is at least fishy, and would probably not want to go out on a limb backing up the fire and damage theory. The buildings simply came down too fast and explaining the visible highly energetic squib blowouts, that made it past the perimeter, as just puffs of debris and dust from the collapse, probably strains credulity to an honest person.

^^^^^
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11646?page=2

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3171772#post3171772

Perhaps the idea that your indiscrimination between reality and limiting case models and an inability to process information from an investigation has some truth to it afterall. Especially given this history

 

[rwguinn]

ROFLMAO.

Dear Tony.

Here is the easiest way possible. Please publish your thesis in ANY real engineering journal. They have REAL people as part of their peer review panels. If you can get it past the peer review of a REAL journal then we can discuss it.

Until then, your "analysis" has the same weight and merit as my toilet paper. When will you produce any peer reviewed paper? If your analysis is correct (and it isn't, as has been shown to you repeatedly) your bleatings about it being in any way scientifically (or engineerigly) valid are baloney.

So why don't you stop posting drivel here, and get to work on that paper. I for one eagerly await any paper you can write which will pass muster at ANY peer reviewed engineering journal.

Can't do it. The peer review has no validity, as the reviewers prior to publication are anonymous! If you don't know who they are, there is no accountability, and thus invalid...[/tonymode]

 

[tsig]

I think the desperation actually belongs to those who can't explain the lack of deceleration in WTC 1's upper section, while attempting to hold onto their belief that it was a natural collapse.

It is not surprising that it is mostly anonymous posters here continuing to just make an unsupported claim that there is nothing to what I am saying, in what appears to be an attempt to develop a chorus of consent. Since they don't give their names they apparently don't feel the need to back up what they say. If you give your name people expect you to back up what you say.

Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and everything landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible. It has now been shown that the columns could not miss each other with the actual observed tilt and drop. Finally, Ryan could not back up what he said there so he has lost some credibility on this point. He at least had the temerity to attempt to argue his beliefs while putting his credibility on this issue on the line, as his identity is known.

Anonymous posters could have multiple pseudonyms so they have no standing as there is no fear of a loss of credibility on a particular issue.

Tony It's not the name on the argument but the content of the argument that counts.

You argument has been beaten to shreds by many right here on this thread so here is where you ought to respond.

Accusing others of using sock puppets is frowned upon here so I'll ask you to quit doing it.

 

[TruthersLie]

Rw..

and he can tell that it will be rejected do to his super duper "they will reject the hypothesis because they are in on it" meter.

As I have stated... in the past 8 years I have 3 peer reviewed journal articles dealing with 3 different fields. And I didn't have to pay for any of them.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and everything landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible. It has now been shown that the columns could not miss each other with the actual observed tilt and drop. Finally, Ryan could not back up what he said there so he has lost some credibility on this point. He at least had the temerity to attempt to argue his beliefs while putting his credibility on this issue on the line, as his identity is known.

It seems there is no trick Tony will not attempt to save face, including the above, known as "Strawman."

I made numerous arguments, all of which are still valid. The above is not one of them. In brief:

• Your claim that Dr. Bazant says there must be a "jolt," and that it must be of 31 g in magnitude, is based on an incorrect reading of his work -- and you have not bothered to check with him
• The geometry of the problems causes a multitude of minor impacts, not a single, simultaneous one, that we do not have the resolution to observe as discrete "jolts"
• Your calculation of energy dissipation is based on (a) incorrect estimate of safety factor, (b) incorrect estimate of spring constant, (c) indefensible assumption that the impact would all be carried by the lower columns (not just "they don't completely miss," rather "they don't miss at all"), (d) indefensible estimate that the structural strength during failure is equal to the correctly loaded, intact, static case, (e) exaggerated estimate of failure strain under these conditions, and (f) totally unsupported estimate that additional dissipation due to sound, heating, etc. exceeds 20% of that due to strain energy
• As little as 40% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, will cause utter failure of the floor systems and precipitate the collapse anyway, even without building up any momentum
• As little as 5% of the upper mass bypassing the lower columns, impacting the floors, is expected to cause local failures of the floors, again leading to collapse of the structure anyway
• Even with total explosive demolition of every single support of the structure, your model predicts a measurable "jolt" through mere momentum transfer, ergo your model is wrong no matter what
• A deliberate, competent demolition would also have produced a "jolt," so your claims can logically only conclude that an insane, incompetent, massive overkill demolition affecting numerous floors simultaneously was to blame -- with no justification at all
• You still have not acknowledged the well documented tilt of the structure prior to the downward collapse phase, or the significant inward bowing of the perimeter wall well before collapse, or the consequences thereof to conspiracy ideas
• You still refuse to present your work to any neutral expert or any ordinary scientific verification process

Your newest response to these arguments is, apparently, to ignore them. We've all seen strawman arguments before, Tony. Like I said, you're just another garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and therefore of no significance whatsoever. So after years you put your real name on your nonsense. Big deal. You're still avoiding the scientific method, and thus a charlatan.

 

[tfk]

Have you looked at the model animations on the 911freeforum showing the actual column trajectories based on the actual measured tilt and drop?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-3d-model-t308-15.html

The columns do not miss so please start discussing reality.

... And you believe that this animation is a true reflection of the behavior of the columns - especially the column ends - at the moment of failure, Tony?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do for starts.

Feel free to elaborate as much as you'd like.

Anonymous posters generally don't have to worry about reality or being proven wrong so they have no standing.

... says the self-styled emperor, standing in all his buck-ass nakedness.


Tom

 

[R.Mackey]

Funny how he's not complaining about anonymous posters at Gregory's forum...

 

[beachnut]

In addition to my post above, I want to make the point that my argument against anonymous posting on a criminal legal issue is not Ad Hominem.

The law gives no standing to anonymous witnesses, expert or otherwise, for the very reasons I stated above and more.

... Your off topic attack on anonymous posters is due to your failure promoting your realcddeal to real skeptics?

I am not anonymous, if you can do research you can find my flying credentials at the FAA after you figure out my name. I am an engineer with a masters degree and find your missing jolt paper an insult to all engineers; your defense of your paper is a failure. You can't answer the amount of velocity loss you are looking for, or state the required fps and feet/pixel required to sense your jolt.

 

[tfk]

Just quoting this so Tom doesn't forget to get back to it......it's an important point....

Newton PM'd me about this point. I think it's worthy of an explanation.

This effect caught me by surprise, too. I first came across it in a paper by Prof. Wierzbicki at MIT.
See http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/c/civenv/wtc/

Look at the figure below. In (a), each column must carry W/3 load.

Then one column gets removed or damaged.

Figure (b) shows damage the columns symmetrically, then there will be no tendency for the tower to tilt. The load in the remaining columns will have to rise proportionately to the lost load of the damaged ones. This is exemplified by case (b). Both remaining columns must carry W/2 load.

However, if you damage the columns asymmetrically, as exemplified by WTC2, then there will be a tendency for the upper structure to lean. In this case, the remaining columns will have to counter-act the lean as well as to supply the lost load carrying capability.

Well, how does any structure counteract a lean? It pushes up on the side towards which the structure is leaning, and pulls down on the side away from the lean. In case (c), the requirement for the columns to counteract the moments means that the left column carries zero load, while the center column carries all of the load.

In fact, if the center column were placed slightly to the left of center, then the left column would go into tension to prevent the weight from tipping, and the center column would have to carry MORE than W. It would have to carry W plus the magnitude of the tensile force of the left column.

The principle above extends to an array of columns like the WTC. Below is a graphic that shows the damage to WTC2. This damage not only removed or severely compromised the columns within the swath cut by the plane, shown in the center figure. It also reduced the actual loads carried by the second, mirror image swath of columns shown in the left figure, because those columns were then required to reduce their loads in order to counteract the tipping moment.

In essence, you can look at the situation as though the columns have to carry their initial load (Lo), plus the extra load no longer carried by the lost & damaged columns (∆L) plus the load associated with resisting the tilting moment (Lm).

For the columns away from the direction of tilt, the force resisting the tilt will be tensile. This results in a new load given by:
Lnew = Lo + ∆L - Lm

The negative sign in front of the Lm term actually reduces the max load.


But for the columns toward the direction of tilt, the new load is given by:
Lnew = Lo + ∆L + Lm

The positive sign in front of the Lm term means that these columns see the max loads.

The buildings were capable of withstanding the Lo and ∆L terms.

But that Lm factor is one that grew & grew as the building's tilt increased. And that is the factor that eventually exceeded the capacity of a column (resulting in a buckling failure) or a connection (resulting in a snapped connection) and destroyed the buildings. [Note: this is a simplified rendition of a complex set of circumstances. But the general idea is absolutely correct.]

If you examine the pre & post impact loads described in NCSTAR1-6D, you will see this effect clearly for WTC2.

Tom

PS. Hey Tony. Does all this become incorrect because you don't know my last name?

 

[tfk]

Funny how he's not complaining about anonymous posters at Gregory's forum...

I wonder how many anonymous posters' SUPPORT he rejected until they would disclose their identity...??

"I am thinking of a number ...."