Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Dave Rogers]

Can you tell us where to find this spreadsheet data of yours, with the energy dissipations and the tilt angle at each separate impact location, as the collapse proceeds? I have been asking you for it for a while now.

I don't have a website that I can put it online at. It's pretty trivial stuff anyway; I'd have thought that anyone claiming to be an engineer could (a) work out the co-ordinates of a series of points on an inclined plane using trigonometry and (b) construct a function that increases linearly with displacement to a set value, then maintains that value up to a given displacement. If you can't understand it from a simple description, having 47 replicas of it in a spreadsheet won't help you.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

They simulated the fire. All that confirms that the trusses wouldn't sag 3 meters in that short time. If they would or could then it should be easy to calculate the catenary forces. It should be possible to simulate or calculate the necessary forces bow a grid of perimeter columns 20 minutes in a "office fire". Nobody ever said that the WTC was immune to fire.

NIST said the WTC without damage would survive ordinary fire loads. And due to the insulation being dislodge, the WTC could not survive an office fire started with 10,000 gallons of accelerant on multiple 1 acre floors.

If you disagree with NIST why are you unable to get support, where is your paper and credentials to prove anything about the collapse? You can use any of the paranoid conspiracy theory engineers spewing lies to help you; take Tony and his jolt. I will use just one engineer to refute all your work; he built the WTC structurally and says your ideas on 911 are nonsense. I have to agree your work is nonsense and clearly posted on youtube to expose your lack of engineering skills which is reflected in your repeating moronic likes like grandpa Bush was, what did you say?

... Let's get it right. Nazi Germany supported by Grandpa Bush. ...

, and this is your best engineering skill, spewing lies and failed conspiracy theories you found with google; your primary research tool? "Let's get it right", cool.


The cool part is after 8 years the youtube engineers like you have not made progress past delusional paranoid conspiracy theories you can't even express because you know they are crazy.

I like the engineering tool of bringing up a Bush grandpa lie as support for your failed conclusions on 911, all your conclusions. What is the velocity Tony was looking for in the jolt, and is there sufficient resolution and fps to measure that with the video Tony used? And what is your cause of the collapse of the WTC? Which of your many youtube videos is the key?

 

[tfk]

Achim,

Well, I'll tell ya what. I just finished an elaborate reply to your post. But I'm gonna hold onto it for a bit.

For the fifth time, you've written a long, involved posting, but have conspicuously avoided telling me what your background is in engineering. femr wouldn't discuss the issue either. My experience has been that very, very few truthers will discuss this. Do you see the same pattern that I do?

This is a simple, respectful request that you tell me what background you have in engineering. The background that you employ to tell you that there is something wrong with the non-breakage of the windows. And then, of course, you leverage your engineering to lay out a clear, concise and complete argument how your discovery about these windows disproves the NIST analysis.

If, and only if, you tell me what your background is, then I'll continue this discussion with you. Whether or not it includes some engineering.

Waiting patiently for your reply...

Tom

 

[GlennB]

I'm a little puzzled as to why a window would inevitably break at 600°C. Surely it depends on rate of heating, temperature gradient, glass quality and thickness etc.

The melting point of glass is way above 600C, so how could we ever make glass if it's bound to shatter while solid yet still cooling?

 

[AZCat]

I'm a little puzzled as to why a window would inevitably break at 600°C. Surely it depends on rate of heating, temperature gradient, glass quality and thickness etc.

The melting point of glass is way above 600C, so how could we ever make glass if it's bound to shatter while solid yet still cooling?

Glass breakage from heating is quite possible, due to induced stresses from unequal expansion of the glass. It can happen even when the building isn't on fire. There's an ASTM standard (E2431) that covers procedures for determining the resistance of architectural glass to thermal stresses for this reason.

 

[newton3376]

This pretty much sums it up....

Ahhh, ignore the PhDs in Structural Engineering, but listen to ... Professors of Comparative Religions? Radio shock jocks? A stock broker?

I have listened to both sides. The Structural Engineers know what they are talking about. The religious studies professors, the radio shock jocks, the stock brokers (& you) don't.

Tom

Yep.........that pretty much sums it up....

Religious studies professors.....radio shock jocks....and lets not forget pizza boxes, lemons, and just plain old cardboard boxes....

 

[Mangoose]

The whole sequence, moving from first gross external evidence of impending collapse (gross buckling of the south wall @ 100 min) to collapse initiation (@ 102 minutes) in about 2 minutes.

I'm confused of what you mean here. By "first gross external evidence of impending collapse", are you referring to the documented inward bowing of south wall columns? The Greg Semendinger photos showing very pronounced bowing were taken approximately 6 minutes before collapse (EXIF data date them to 10:21 and the collapse photos from the same camera at 10:27). And if the bowing was very pronounced by then, the process presumably progressed for quite some time before the photos were taken (understandably, photos showing South Face of WTC1 after the WTC2 collapse are scarce because of the evacuation of Lower Manhattan after the WTC collapse).

 

[TruthersLie]

Can you tell us where to find this spreadsheet data of yours, with the energy dissipations and the tilt angle at each separate impact location, as the collapse proceeds? I have been asking you for it for a while now.

Can you tell us where to find this "paper" yet? I have been asking you for it for a while now.

When will you submit it to any peer reviewed journal? Still waiting.

 

[WildCat]

Can you tell us where to find this "paper" yet? I have been asking you for it for a while now.

When will you submit it to any peer reviewed journal? Still waiting.

His paper is far too important for peer review in a respected engineering journal.

Straight to YouTube it goes!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you tell us where to find this "paper" yet? I have been asking you for it for a while now.

When will you submit it to any peer reviewed journal? Still waiting.

The Missing Jolt paper is publicly available at http://www.journalof911studies.com.

Your silly remark here does not compare to my question for Dave Rogers, who has made a claim yet refuses to show his work.

I have shown my work and it is in the public domain. Apparently you don't understand it, as you never argue the details and won't accept it unless someone you approve of tells you it is correct. The fallacy of what you are saying here is obvious.

 

[achimspok]

Is there any argument to explain at least ONE of my questions (e.g. by simple logic or otherwise)? No, I first have to fax my personal data to someone who claims that he is what he claims but don't want to say his name. Next, I have to debunk the whole NIST report peer reviewed. If I would have success in at least one engineering paper then you probably would answer. At least you claim you would.
Well, if 9/11 would be the biggest and most important part of my life then I probably would exactly try to do that. No. I would have to start with some FOIA requests but I expect it impossible for a German for some good reason. That's why guys I spent a good part of my time to look at your investigation disaster including the 9/11 Commission Report and the No-Plane-theory. Imo, there is not that much difference but the expenditure.
Feel free to debunk any one of the results. Feel free to do it peer reviewed in a serious paper or on YouTube. It should be pretty simple because 99% of my work is nothing but measurement and comparing available data.
Show me 3m sagging!
Show me a 430mph and 11° downwards AA11 impact!
Show me a 5 hour fire around column 79 WTC7!
Show me a momentum transfer collapse at about free fall acceleration!
Show me the consistent upper block!
Show me the whole core survived as a spire!
Show me that a rain of unburnt kerosene fell down like a stone, exploded at 21 to destroy the communication system + MER and roof access, passed the out of service cabins at B1 and subsequently exploded just to leave the impression that a falling cabin crashed in the basement and exploded!
Show me how to end the seismic vibration in less than 6 seconds!
Show me one usual capture of the Portland surveillance videos and hopefully without the jumping second time stamp!
Show me the passport of Alomari that allegedly was found in Attas baggage just 3 years after 9/11!
Show me Attas parking lot in front of the house of the wrong Alomari like sworn by FBI agent Lechner in the morning of 9/12.
Anyone? Anything?

Tfk, it was a little problem for you to say who you are and what you did and so on. You had to find a straw man you can trust and should be trusted in reverse, didn't you? Don't expect that I show you my underpants. (...after half a crate of American beer, may be.)

Trigonometry? If you use trigonometry then you will see that the displacement is pretty small. (Btw, what's your engineering background? Show it to tfk!)

Once again Prescott Bush? It's worth than you are able to think. Do you have any valid argument or document that refutes the investigation of John Buchanan? Write an article in response in any serious news paper! (Try to turn off FOX TV just once a day for some minutes.)

...and lets not forget pizza boxes, lemons, and just plain old cardboard boxes....

...and boxcutters.

I'm a little puzzled as to why a window would inevitably break at 600°C.

It's not inevitably. It depends on a lot of factors.
Fire Spread in Multi-Storey Buildings with Glazed Curtain Wall Facades,
Loss Prevention Council, Borehamwood, England (1999).

Bye guys and thanks for the non-conversation.

Keep on-topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[GlennB]

The Missing Jolt paper is publicly available at http://www.journalof911studies.com.

Your silly remark here does not compare to my question for Dave Rogers, who has made a claim yet refuses to show his work.

I have shown my work and it is in the public domain. Apparently you don't understand it, as you never argue the details and won't accept it unless someone you approve of tells you it is correct. The fallacy of what you are saying here is obvious.

Fallacy?
Having a technical study peer-reviewed and published in a recognised engineering journal is standard procedure for professionals, surely? Requesting that you do exactly that is fallacious? Why?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Missing Jolt paper is publicly available at http://www.journalof911studies.com.

Your silly remark here does not compare to my question for Dave Rogers, who has made a claim yet refuses to show his work.

The critical minded may note that the asymmetry Tony is referring to here does not, in fact, exist. The paper available at JO-NES presents the results of a series of measurements and calculations, and a description of the methodology; it doesn't present every detail of the calculations as spreadsheets and numerical data. I've published the results of a series of calculations, and a description of the methodology, on this forum. Tony is therefore asking me to publish something very much in excess of what he's published; in fact, I've published results to more or less the same level of detail as he has.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

The Missing Jolt paper is publicly available at http://www.journalof911studies.com.

Oh... got it.

"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies."

That is the level of your academic submission. Got it. ROFLMAO.
oh that hurts.
Now that I am done with laughing so hard, where can I find this "paper." You know, a REAL journal which engages in something called "peer review." I'm sure you have heard of it.

Hmmm???

Your silly remark here does not compare to my question for Dave Rogers, who has made a claim yet refuses to show his work.

My remark does certainly compare. You have made ******** claims, in a ******** journal and refuse to provide it to any academic with real peer review.

Exactly the same thing.

I have shown my work and it is in the public domain. Apparently you don't understand it, as you never argue the details and won't accept it unless someone you approve of tells you it is correct.

Not at all tony. I understand about 2/3 of it outright, and the rest I can understand with some oversight by the engineers I work with. What is extremely amusing is noticing afraid you are of doing any real peer review.

It is that simple. I will go after your conclusions, once you show me that you have passed peer review with anyone else.

First things first. Get it through peer review somewhere and in some real journal.

Try again.

The fallacy of what you are saying here is obvious.

Boo hoo. Poor widdle tony can't get it past peer review, and that is MY problem. Egads. I really do want to know what you designed so I can make sure I NEVER use it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Show me 3m sagging!
Show me a 430mph and 11° downwards AA11 impact!
Show me a 5 hour fire around column 79 WTC7!
Show me a momentum transfer collapse at about free fall acceleration!
Show me the consistent upper block!
Show me the whole core survived as a spire!
Show me that a rain of unburnt kerosene fell down like a stone, exploded at 21 to destroy the communication system + MER and roof access, passed the out of service cabins at B1 and subsequently exploded just to leave the impression that a falling cabin crashed in the basement and exploded!
Show me how to end the seismic vibration in less than 6 seconds!
Show me one usual capture of the Portland surveillance videos and hopefully without the jumping second time stamp!
Show me the passport of Alomari that allegedly was found in Attas baggage just 3 years after 9/11!
Show me Attas parking lot in front of the house of the wrong Alomari like sworn by FBI agent Lechner in the morning of 9/12.
Anyone? Anything.

Do truthers have anything new? Are they unable to use the search function? Why must they all ask the same questions over and over again?

I am now certain that truthers are part of a covert 4chan movement to do nothing more than waste peoples time on the internet.

 

[Furcifer]

Is there any argument to explain at least ONE of my questions (e.g. by simple logic or otherwise)? No, I first have to fax my personal data to someone who claims that he is what he claims but don't want to say his name. Next, I have to debunk the whole NIST report peer reviewed. If I would have success in at least one engineering paper then you probably would answer. At least you claim you would.
Well, if 9/11 would be the biggest and most important part of my life then I probably would exactly try to do that. No. I would have to start with some FOIA requests but I expect it impossible for a German for some good reason. That's why guys I spent a good part of my time to look at your investigation disaster including the 9/11 Commission Report and the No-Plane-theory. Imo, there is not that much difference but the expenditure.
Feel free to debunk any one of the results. Feel free to do it peer reviewed in a serious paper or on YouTube. It should be pretty simple because 99% of my work is nothing but measurement and comparing available data.
Show me 3m sagging!
Show me a 430mph and 11° downwards AA11 impact!
Show me a 5 hour fire around column 79 WTC7!
Show me a momentum transfer collapse at about free fall acceleration!
Show me the consistent upper block!
Show me the whole core survived as a spire!
Show me that a rain of unburnt kerosene fell down like a stone, exploded at 21 to destroy the communication system + MER and roof access, passed the out of service cabins at B1 and subsequently exploded just to leave the impression that a falling cabin crashed in the basement and exploded!
Show me how to end the seismic vibration in less than 6 seconds!
Show me one usual capture of the Portland surveillance videos and hopefully without the jumping second time stamp!
Show me the passport of Alomari that allegedly was found in Attas baggage just 3 years after 9/11!
Show me Attas parking lot in front of the house of the wrong Alomari like sworn by FBI agent Lechner in the morning of 9/12.
Anyone? Anything?

Tfk, it was a little problem for you to say who you are and what you did and so on. You had to find a straw man you can trust and should be trusted in reverse, didn't you? Don't expect that I show you my underpants. (...after half a crate of American beer, may be.)

Trigonometry? If you use trigonometry then you will see that the displacement is pretty small. (Btw, what's your engineering background? Show it to tfk!)

Once again Prescott Bush? It's worth than you are able to think. Do you have any valid argument or document that refutes the investigation of John Buchanan? Write an article in response in any serious news paper! (Try to turn off FOX TV just once a day for some minutes.)

...and boxcutters.

It's not inevitably. It depends on a lot of factors.
Fire Spread in Multi-Storey Buildings with Glazed Curtain Wall Facades,
Loss Prevention Council, Borehamwood, England (1999).

Bye guys and thanks for the non-conversation.

lol, "Show me!". You've been shown and you refuse to look. Please show me 1 legitimately publishe paper that casts the slightest doubts on what you people call the OCT. Show me molten steel! Show me explosive residue! Show me a column cut by thermite!

I love this Truther entitlement syndrome.

 

[WildCat]

Show me 3m sagging!
Show me a 430mph and 11° downwards AA11 impact!
Show me a 5 hour fire around column 79 WTC7!
Show me a momentum transfer collapse at about free fall acceleration!
Show me the consistent upper block!
Show me the whole core survived as a spire!
Show me that a rain of unburnt kerosene fell down like a stone, exploded at 21 to destroy the communication system + MER and roof access, passed the out of service cabins at B1 and subsequently exploded just to leave the impression that a falling cabin crashed in the basement and exploded!
Show me how to end the seismic vibration in less than 6 seconds!
Show me one usual capture of the Portland surveillance videos and hopefully without the jumping second time stamp!
Show me the passport of Alomari that allegedly was found in Attas baggage just 3 years after 9/11!
Show me Attas parking lot in front of the house of the wrong Alomari like sworn by FBI agent Lechner in the morning of 9/12.

Have you considered moving to Missouri?

 

[twinstead]

Nothing worse than somebody who has the burden of proof demanding we "show them". Why don't they "show us" some evidence instead of blindly trying to find fault, real or imagined, with the "OCT".

 

[R.Mackey]

Do truthers have anything new? Are they unable to use the search function? Why must they all ask the same questions over and over again?

I am now certain that truthers are part of a covert 4chan movement to do nothing more than waste peoples time on the internet.

Bingo.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Since all the proponents have expressed their profound aversion to moving the discussion to proper professional and scientific circles, that's all it is, a game.

 

[beachnut]

The Missing Jolt paper is publicly available at http://www.journalof911studies.com.

Your silly remark here does not compare to my question for Dave Rogers, who has made a claim yet refuses to show his work.

I have shown my work and it is in the public domain. Apparently you don't understand it, as you never argue the details and won't accept it unless someone you approve of tells you it is correct. The fallacy of what you are saying here is obvious.

You have shown your work and your conclusion is pure poppycock.
your conclusion...

We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

You wave your hands, and pronounce you win. You can't even answer simple questions after you immense study. What fps do you need to see the jolt if there would be one visible in the real world? Or in the model? Resolution to see, feet/pixel?

You sound like a fool...

What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground.

Weaker part weighed more than the lower part could hold per floor. The WTC is a system and if you understood the WTC tower structure you could stop spewing nonsense. There needs to be no jolt because if the top of the WTC falls on the lower floor, the next lower floor it fails instantly and then guess what? The mass does not disappear.

This is why your paper will never be in a real journal, only the journal of woo has no standards; started by a fired fool who is crazy and made up thermite; your paper is the product of insanity started by Jones.