Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[A W Smith]

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.

Show it to thjis guy Tony, I double down dare you. Hes right in your state.

http://www.stevens.edu/ses/me/People/faculty_profile.php?faculty_id=76

Here's his e-mail
cchassap@stevens.edu

Or any one of these guys

http://www.stevens.edu/ses/me/People/me_faculty.php

Orv a little closer to you. further south. Set up an individual appointment here
http://libblogs.princeton.edu/englib/instruction-consultations/individual-consultations/

Be sure to

To arrange for a research consultation contact Adriana Popescu or Willow Dressel. Before we meet to work on a research topic, please make sure that you send me the following information:
1. In a sentence or two, describe your thesis (research) topic.
2. What materials (if any) have you collected so far?
3. Please give me an example of a relevant book, article or paper that you found so far or that was recommended by your advisor.
4. What library resources have you searched (if any)?

 

[beachnut]

...
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 a 430mph and 11° downwards AA11 impact!

Show me a momentum transfer collapse at about free fall acceleration!

Show me the whole core survived as a spire!

...
Once again Prescott Bush?

...and boxcutters.

Bye guys and thanks for the non-conversation.

Like your anti-intellectual junk videos on 911, that have nothing to do with the missing jolt. Or are you going to tie this in this post to ... no, just ranting about how you know all and your engineering skills are from...?

Show me a 430mph and 11° downwards AA11 impact! What are you talking about? Flight 11 hit at 470 mph, did you get it wrong? Are all your facts made up?

Show me a momentum transfer collapse at about free fall acceleration!

The free-fall of the WTC would be 9 seconds. The real fall time was over 12 seconds. Maybe the small numbers have you confused since you are not an engineer. A 9 second free fall is fast, a 12 seconds momentum transfer for one of the towers is extremely not as fast as free-fall.
Let me explain in a real time event; suppose all the nut case 911 dolts who spew fell at free fall were talking about 100 meter race, and they were saying 12.08 second time was close to the world record 100 meter race! LOL !!!! NO, the world record is like free-fall speed of the WTC under 10 seconds. So 12 seconds is not close to the record and 12 seconds is not close to free-fall for the WTC. The momentum transfer show over 12 seconds, I can do it, you can do it even if you are not an engineer.

I showed you two ways your "at about free fall acceleration" is bogus and just another excuse for you to spew lies about 911 which you do with many videos on youtube.

Your Bush junk again? That is another big lie you seem to love paranoid conspiracy theories based on lies.

Box-cutters, small knives, you know a way to prevent being killed when your throat is cut? Do you? Plot too complex for you? Kill pilots, take planes, crash into big buildings; anyone can do the flying the biggest skill on 911 was cutting throats; much too complex for you? So you make up lies and spread them on the internet, 20 years ago you would not have an audience, now your anti-intellectual claptrap is published and your ignorance is exposed on 911 issues.

Is this post in defense of Tony's missing jolt paper?

 

[Telltale Tom]

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.

I love your paper Tony, and I dont understand why it has no popular support in the structural engineering community. Less than 80 licensed structural engineers have signed the ae911petition.

It would be really good if you could come down to this years ASCE conference in Orlando where 10,000 building engineers will discuss issues like this and present papers. If you come down then you can talk to real experts and get them signed up.

 

[rwguinn]

I love your paper Tony, and I dont understand why it has no popular support in the structural engineering community. Less than 80 licensed structural engineers have signed the ae911petition.

It would be really good if you could come down to this years ASCE conference in Orlando where 10,000 building engineers will discuss issues like this and present papers. If you come down then you can talk to real experts and get them signed up.

You are a cruel person.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Hey Tony,
I just read your paper and it seems to me to really prove that NIST are liars, especially if you ignore the other comments in this thread.

But I am worried that it also proves that Richard Gage is a liar, as you are calculating accelerations of less than 70%g for the first 25% of the collapse, which is not consistent with our claims that it fell a freefall speed. Would you please change your paper so it doesn't prove Richard is a liar or I will no longer support it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hey Tony,
I just read your paper and it seems to me to really prove that NIST are liars, especially if you ignore the other comments in this thread.

But I am worried that it also proves that Richard Gage is a liar, as you are calculating accelerations of less than 70%g for the first 25% of the collapse, which is not consistent with our claims that it fell a freefall speed. Would you please change your paper so it doesn't prove Richard is a liar or I will no longer support it.

Is Telltale Tom a real truther or is he mocking truthers by posting incredibly insane things such as this? I can't tell.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think that's the whole point.

Best troll ever, I says.

 

[dafydd]

Is Telltale Tom a real truther or is he mocking truthers by posting incredibly insane things such as this? I can't tell.

It is hard to tell sometimes,I'm still on the fence with this one.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I love your paper Tony, and I dont understand why it has no popular support in the structural engineering community. Less than 80 licensed structural engineers have signed the ae911petition.

It would be really good if you could come down to this years ASCE conference in Orlando where 10,000 building engineers will discuss issues like this and present papers. If you come down then you can talk to real experts and get them signed up.

His paper isn't approved because he lacks evidence to support it.

Deal with it, there is no evidence to support what Tony says.

 

[Furcifer]

Telltale Tom tells tales. Cat feesh?

 

[tsig]

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.

I didn't see your paper there Tony but I did see this:

"It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust…Sincerely,
Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones, co-editors"

 

[achimspok]

Flight 11 hit at 470 mph, did you get it wrong?

The plane, which weighs 283,600 lb and is traveling at an estimated speed of around 430 mph ... [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 5-9, 20, 22 pdf file]

The plane hit at 492mph.

 

[tsig]

The plane hit at 492mph.

Plus or minus .001 MPH

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey Tony,
I just read your paper and it seems to me to really prove that NIST are liars, especially if you ignore the other comments in this thread.

But I am worried that it also proves that Richard Gage is a liar, as you are calculating accelerations of less than 70%g for the first 25% of the collapse, which is not consistent with our claims that it fell a freefall speed. Would you please change your paper so it doesn't prove Richard is a liar or I will no longer support it.

Richard Gage has said for a while now that the upper section of the North Tower accelerated at 2/3rds the rate of gravity during its visible fall.

 

[beachnut]

The plane hit at 492mph.

Math never was the high point of moronic delusions from 911 truth, the only people on earth who can't figure out 911 in minutes or years.

Remember the standard for figuring out 911 and taking action is minutes by a few, the heroes on Flight 93; you have had 8 years and the best you can do is mess up 911 when you could have earned a PhD in structural engineering to save you exposing yourself as another failed 911 truther.

You can't save your work, you can't save Tony's failed paper, and Tony can't save Gage or keep Gage from spreading moronic lies.

Can you and the engineering school you went to help get Tony's paper you disagree with published?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You sound like a fool...
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.

You really shouldn't go around saying others sound like a fool, when you are making comments like this.

The weaker (upper) part did not weigh more than the lower part could hold per floor. If that were the case it couldn't be built. The structure at each floor could support significantly more than the static load above it.

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.

You are a little closer to reality here when you say "if the top of the WTC falls on the lower floor", but what you obviously don't understand is why it applies more load than its static load.

It is because during the impact the deceleration is greater than gravity and that requires velocity loss which is not observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

No velocity loss means no amplified load and generally means no mechanism for natural collapse. It really is that simple unless the columns miss each other as Ryan Mackey tried to claim occurred due to the tilt in our debate. I countered that the tilt needed to be quantified to see if it would cause the columns to miss. Well that has been done and the columns don't miss each other due to the tilt, so that theory is out.

I will be honest here and tell you that I am looking at another possibility that Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, and others have brought up. That is if the impacts are spread out over a long enough period of time then the continued fall could compensate for the velocity loss. This needs to be done with the precise measurements of the tilt vs. drop timing, which we now have. So we will see. I have to admit that I am rather dissappointed that those who have brought this up haven't done any precision measurements and calculations to prove the point, other than Dave Rogers' claim that he did while refusing to show his data.

 

[WildCat]

You really shouldn't go around saying others sound like a fool, when you are making comments like this.

The weaker (upper) part did not weigh more than the lower part could hold per floor. If that were the case it couldn't be built. The structure at each floor could support significantly more than the static load above it.

Are you still claiming the floors could hold 725 lbs/ft²?

 

[Telltale Tom]

Richard Gage has said for a while now that the upper section of the North Tower accelerated at 2/3rds the rate of gravity during its visible fall.

Oh thanks Tony, I haven't been fortunate to hear the great man speak. We better get that changed on our web sites then since all of them say the three towers fell at nearly free-fall speed. Can you ask him?

 

[tsig]

You really shouldn't go around saying others sound like a fool, when you are making comments like this.

The weaker (upper) part did not weigh more than the lower part could hold per floor. If that were the case it couldn't be built. The structure at each floor could support significantly more than the static load above it.



You are a little closer to reality here when you say "if the top of the WTC falls on the lower floor", but what you obviously don't understand is why it applies more load than its static load.

It is because during the impact the deceleration is greater than gravity and that requires velocity loss which is not observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

No velocity loss means no amplified load and generally means no mechanism for natural collapse. It really is that simple unless the columns miss each other as Ryan Mackey tried to claim occurred due to the tilt in our debate. I countered that the tilt needed to be quantified to see if it would cause the columns to miss. Well that has been done and the columns don't miss each other due to the tilt, so that theory is out.

I will be honest here and tell you that I am looking at another possibility that Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, and others have brought up. That is if the impacts are spread out over a long enough period of time then the continued fall could compensate for the velocity loss. This needs to be done with the precise measurements of the tilt vs. drop timing, which we now have. So we will see. I have to admit that I am rather dissappointed that those who have brought this up haven't done any precision measurements and calculations to prove the point, other than Dave Rogers' claim that he did while refusing to show his data.

I'm sure you just missed this the first time:

"I didn't see your paper there Tony but I did see this:

"It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust…Sincerely,
Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones, co-editors"

 

[tfk]

Hey Man,

Gee, I can say that to you, only you, with out sounding like Maynard G. Krebs. If it weren't for Wikipedia, the kids would never get that reference.

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).

You're right that there were two major indicators of huge trouble: the tilting (which started almost immediately after the impact & grew over about 100+ minutes after impact) and the inward bowing of the external columns (starting at around 80 minutes) that preceded the buckling of the south wall (which happened at about 100 minutes). But that buckling did not lead to an immediate failure. The building hung in for another 2 minutes or so before global collapse began.

But the buckling showed that the failure was imminent.

And, sure emough, 2 minutes later, it happened.

That was my point.

WTC2 had a similar event happen with the east wall around 42 minutes after its impact. (See the sudden drop in load carried at this time in fig 5-11of NCSTAR1-6D.