Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[beachnut]

You are simply wrong as Richard Gage does support my theory. If you think I am trying to undermine anything you are out in left field.

Watch this video and listen to what he says between 4:50 and 5:00 minute marks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUaDtIbLow

2/3rds or 70% of freefall acceleration is near freefall. Your argument here is nonsensical.

That is like saying if you run a 100 meters in 12 seconds that is close to the world record speed. Or when I ran 2 miles in 9:43, and you came in at 12:40 and say you were close to my time, you are not close to me, you lost!

What numbers are you using?

WTC tower falling is not close to free-fall! Your realcddeal is nonsense as is your ability to say 2/3 or 70 percent is close to 100 percent! This is called 911 truth math, where you just make up what sounds right to paranoid conspiracy minds and forget science.

Gage spews moronic poppycock and begs for donations while spewing lies, hearsay and delusions on 911. Gage is a joke and an embarrassment to his profession.

You and Gage agree, you both think 2/3 is close to 100 percent. I can see now explaining your score of 67 on your engineering tests and tell mom and dad you are close to 100 percent. You do understand 67 percent is a D, not close to an A; or are you using Balsamo's special 2,223 gs of math, where any number you come up with is good enough to base whatever you want to say on.

Mom, I made close to an A, I made a D, but 67 percent is close to 100! Yes mom I am using 911 truth math, 11.2 gs of wonderful; Yes, I can do better I am ready with my 2,223 gs; my new loaded gun? "do you mean smoking gun"?

70 percent is not near 100 percent; you lost, your near free-fall fails. Next time say 70 percent is close to failing, and you would be closer to your goal.

2/3 is the new 100 percent, or close to it. How close? Like near beer.

 

[tsig]

I never made the statement you are claiming.

I have said that the floor vertical connection capacity was 29 million lbs.. You are apparently trying to make a superfluous argument that the floors would fail before this because each square foot could not take the area load that implies. I do not intend to engage you on this for more than this reply as your argument is not cogent.

If you have a problem with the calculation of the floor vertical connection capacity you are going to have to talk to the NIST about it as they made that statement in their Dec. 2007 FAQ. See the answer to question #1 here http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

This is also essentially a moot point, as it has now been proven that the columns would not miss each other due to the tilt observed, and at the 98th floor could take well over 200 million lbs. of vertical force before failure. The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs..

Tony are you saying that the columns hit each other and then joined having the strength of the original structure?

 

[WildCat]

I never made the statement you are claiming.

You actually repeat the claim in this very post...

I have said that the floor vertical connection capacity was 29 million lbs.. You are apparently trying to make a superfluous argument that the floors would fail before this because each square foot could not take the area load that implies. I do not intend to engage you on this for more than this reply as your argument is not cogent, you have not provided any real basis for it, and you have distorted my point.

IOW your entire theory relies on every single column being neatly severed, and the top section floating gently down and every column resting perfectly on the one below it.

Problem is nothing like this was observed on 9/11.

If you have a problem with the calculation of the floor vertical connection capacity you are going to have to talk to the NIST about it as they made that statement in their Dec. 2007 FAQ. See the answer to question #1 here http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Your inability to comprehend what NIST was saying is your problem, not mine.

This is also essentially a moot point, as it has now been proven that the columns would not miss each other due to the tilt observed, and at the 98th floor could take well over 200 million lbs. of vertical force before failure. The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs..

Can you link to the peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal that "proves" this?

Pathetic Tony. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Telltale Tom]

You are simply wrong as Richard Gage does support my theory. If you think I am trying to undermine anything you are out in left field.

Watch this video and listen to what he says between 4:50 and 5:00 minute marks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUaDtIbLow

2/3rds or 70% of freefall acceleration is near freefall. Your argument here is nonsensical.

Oh I get it now Tony. Richard says that 2/3rd's freeefall is almost freefall and so we dont have to change our web site. But isn't 2/3rd's freefall closer to almost half freefall speed?

I think we need to be carefull about that one.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You actually repeat the claim in this very post...


IOW your entire theory relies on every single column being neatly severed, and the top section floating gently down and every column resting perfectly on the one below it.

Problem is nothing like this was observed on 9/11.


Your inability to comprehend what NIST was saying is your problem, not mine.


Can you link to the peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal that "proves" this?

Pathetic Tony. Absolutely pathetic.

No, you are projecting here.

It is obviously your theory which needs the columns to come down gently.

I say there should have been a serious impact and velocity loss in any natural collapse and the measurement of the tilt and drop vs. timing shows this should have occurred if it was natural.

I also don't think most of the columns would have severed right away either. Most would have had a classic buckling shape.

 

[beachnut]

No, you are projecting here.

It is obviously your theory which needs the columns to come down gently.

I say there should have been a serious impact and velocity loss in any natural collapse and the measurement of the tilt and drop vs. timing shows this should have occurred if it was natural.

This is funny stuff, your 2/3 is close to 100 percent, all the D students will love to have you as a parent where 70 percent is good enough, close enough to claim the realcddeal. lol, this is funny and makes my day after moving all the wood around the yard early this morning. I never expected 911 truth math to continue it's faster than free-fall into the pit of ignorance.

Wait some truther math is coming...

I have said that the floor vertical connection capacity was 29 million lbs..
The upper section of WTC 1 weighed approximately 69 million lbs..

Okay, a floor can hold 29 million pounds

Dec. 2007 FAQ. See the answer to question #1 here http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

... at the 98th floor could take well over 200 million lbs. of vertical force before failure. ...

But after saying 29 million, now out of thin truther air comes 200 million pounds. What?

I have said that the floor vertical connection capacity was 29 million lbs..

Oh, 29 million pounds. ???
So if the top 69 million falls on the lower floor which can hold 29 million, you say it takes 200 million.

1984? 911 truth math, you don't need to understand it, just rinse your mind clear of science and repeat 911 was an inside job, the realcddeal.

And don't forget if you make a D, use this when the parents want to "pull it" (IE your college funding)...

70% of freefall acceleration can certainly be legitimately described as near freefall acceleration. ...

So your 70 percent score is close to 100 percent, from a 911 truth engineer. 911 truth is not only close to being 100 percent lies, they are 100 percent lies.

 

[WildCat]

No, you are projecting here.

It is obviously your theory which needs the columns to come down gently.

Uh, no.

I say there should have been a serious impact and velocity loss in any natural collapse.

You can say that elves make cookies sold in the supermarket, it doesn't make it so.

Frankly, I find it laughable that anyone could think the collapse would get slower and slower as it progressed, even though more and more weight is being added to the floors.

It's not at all surprising you are unable to get your "missing jolt" of FAIL published in an actual engineering journal. I guess you're satisfied with convincing only children and the mentally ill.

 

[WildCat]

This is funny stuff, your 2/3 is close to 100 percent, all the D students will love to have you as a parent where 70 percent is good enough, close enough to claim the realcddeal.

Yep, according to Tony a grade of "D" is nearly an "A".

 

[tfk]

70% of freefall acceleration can certainly be legitimately described as near freefall acceleration.

You guys are barking at the moon here and there is really nothing to argue about, so I won't continue in this vein.

Christ on a bicycle, Tony.

Produce something that gives the slightest indication that you appreciate SOME engineering considerations, willya? Your comments are what one would expect out of a Paris Hilton clone.

Force, acceleration & work, Tony.

I used Greg Ulrich's data for floor mass & height.

I assumed: 10 stories fall at .7g, 14 story linear transition to terminal velocity & remainder of fall at terminal velocity. (Slight error: I assumed all the mass crashed down to street level. Reality is that it stopped at a variable height, 0 to 10 meters above the street level.)

Results: The wounded building did about 4.4 x 10⁵ MegaJoules of work in resisting the collapse.

It took about 6.9 x 10⁵ MJ to hoist that mass to its various levels in the first place.

So, let's put the situation - and your portrayal of it - into context:

1) If the building came down "at free fall", then the building would have done zero work in resisting its own collapse.

2) In reality, while resisting its own collapse, the building actually exerted about 64% of the total work it took to raise its components into place.

3) Your portrayal is that the building's collapse "can certainly be legitimately described as near" situation 1) above.

Yeah, with your appreciation of engineering considerations, I really can see how you contend that the building's collapse "can certainly be legitimately described as near free fall".

And there is absolutely zero sarcasm in that statement.


Tom

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well Tony I am not sure I believe you now. I have searched the truth website and I cant find any mention of falling at 70% freefall speed. The whole basis of ae911truth is that we have integrity and we tell the truth. So I think it’s very unlikely that Mr Gage would support your theory that says the accelerations were 70% freefall, and not update the ae911truth website. You know you call NIST liars for publishing false statements, and we should not do the same.

Tom, a word from the wise: don't overdo it. If you post like this, it gets just a little too obvious what you're doing, OK?

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

2/3rds or 70% of freefall acceleration is near freefall. Your argument here is nonsensical.

Your post is nonsensical. A liar and clueless.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Tony, although I am not a qualified architect it seems some of the things in your paper are unbelieveable.

What you are saying is that the 12 story structure falls onto the bar joists below and if there was no explosives then you would expect the columns that landed on the bar joists to slow down from 22.8ft/sec to 5.4ft/sec. Wow they must be sturdy little connections!. How can a bar joist stop a column that carries 10x30x120 plf, or 16tons per linear ft of perimeter wall travelling at 15mph?

Or are we assuming that the towers above will sit directly on the columns below? But then you say the top tilts so it can’t hit the columns below, and of course then there is all that buckled steel columns inside that will need to be supported by the bar joists?

So were the explosives on the end of the bar joists or in the columns and do we think they were at every level?…Confused.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

Sorry, I,m a bit behind on this thread but,

What does "because during the impact the deceleration is greater than gravity" mean?

As for the columns missing, do you really expect that top half would come down and settle with a thud onto the lower columns that were destroyed by fire and impact? I just want to get this right, you actually mean the whole upper block, if there were no explosives used, would fall down exactly onto the lower floors columns, and stop with a thud?

I think your out of your mind. I take it back if this is not what you are suggesting though.

"No velocity loss means no amplified load and generally means no mechanism for natural collapse."

Is it just me, or does this sound like jumping (leaping) to conclusions.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Sorry, I,m a bit behind on this thread but,

What does "because during the impact the deceleration is greater than gravity" mean?

As for the columns missing, do you really expect that top half would come down and settle with a thud onto the lower columns that were destroyed by fire and impact? I just want to get this right, you actually mean the whole upper block, if there were no explosives used, would fall down exactly onto the lower floors columns, and stop with a thud?

I think your out of your mind. I take it back if this is not what you are suggesting though.

"No velocity loss means no amplified load and generally means no mechanism for natural collapse."

Is it just me, or does this sound like jumping (leaping) to conclusions.

Tony was just about to tell us how the upper column landed on the bar joists and how these bar joist instantaneously slowed down the speed of the upper section to a quarter of its pre-impact speed.

I think Tony is just trying to undermine the truth movement. The way I see it is that the perimeter wall of WTC 1 and 2 can be considered as a giant cookie cutter. Its not a block Tony; its not like a little block of ice falls on a big block. All the load is in the core columns and in the perimeter frame. And as you say the upper frame tilts, and is therefore not going to hit the lower frame, it will hit the bar joists. If you are lucky the upper square may hit the lower square in 8 locations and if you are unlucky the upper cookie cutter will hit the lower cookie cutter in 2 locations.

So if the perimeter frame is carrying 16tons/ft and travelling at 15mph, as suggested by your calculations, then the upper perimeter frame carries 16X4x208tons = 13,312 tons.

So the load per column is 13,312/208=64 tons and the column capacity according to your estimate is three times that = 192tons

So assuming best case, for the tower that is and not for you, the upper frame hits the lower frame in 8 locations. If you add a factor of 2 for a dynamic load then the column overstress factor is 13,312x2/(192x8)= 17. So at impact the walls were overstressed by a factor of 17~56 times their capacity. Even if we deduct the 50% ae911truth factor it doesn't make any sense.

If you look at the movies after the collapse has started you see the perimeter frames do not contribute to the resistance. They are just blown out. There are 3 theories about what causes the blow out
1. The internal debris, buckled columns, contents, floors etc pushing the perimeter out
2. Air escaping, some have calculated air escape velocities at 600mph...lots of air pushed out very quickly.
3. And our theory which is the explosives at every level carefully timed so that each wall on each facade is blown out at a slightly different height around the perimeter. It was so clever.

Thats why I think Tony is trying to undermine ae911truth with all this nonsense.

 

[BadBoy]

The measurements we took for the Missing Jolt paper show the upper section of WTC 1 falls at just over 70% of freefall acceleration. Some others have measured it's descent at approximately 2/3rds of freefall acceleration. What the sentence says is that either can be considered to be near freefall acceleration. While the figures 2/3rds and 70% are close in value, there was no intent to imply that that they were exactly the same, only to show that those levels of acceleration were sufficient to say the term near freefall is justified.

70% is closer to 50% than 100%. So I spose we could say equally justifialbly that they fell near to 50% of free fall speed.

 

[Telltale Tom]

nterestingly 2/3rd freefall speed is as close to 1/3rd freefall speed as it is to freefall speed

I can't wait to hear Tony explain how the bar joists should have slowed down the falling top section. He is a shill

 

[Carsten from Denmark]

niels harrit

Niels Harrit is from Denmark and a co-author to Jones.
He is a Chemistry Professor
I wrote him this letter on tuesday 2/24

Dear Mr. Harrit.
I have read your article in question, looked at the graphs and pictures.
It is fairly understandable, although it is in English.

You have a few different samples that show different results, but since they are collected in different places, it is hardly surprising.

However, I think that as soon as there are other substances in the sample than Al an FE, you say they may have been contaminated.

Fair enough!

You claim you have found the following elements from samples according to your article:

C, O, Fe, Zn, Al, Si, S, Ca, Cr, Na, K.

But common to all these elements WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS is that they are part of the manufacture of cement / concrete.

Na and K are parts of salts, which should be avoided in concrete, since they react with metals.

Toxic elements like Cr + many others are found in coal power plants ashes. (fly ash)

Sulfur is not wanted in concrete, but is also a component in fly ash

Organic C or unburned C is something you are trying to avoid in concrete.

See now, I think your theory is beginning to slightly limp.

You claim that Fe and Al are contained in Nanotermit, perhaps one word you coined for this occasion and therefore you highlight them. There was no one in the Danish demolition industry who has heard of it before you brought it up.

Jones and you have worked on this theory for 2 ½ years I read the article today, and ran over this coincidence.

Don't you find this strange?

ALL SUBSTANCES found in the samples are present in the proces of making cement/concrete!

The evidence can be found at the links below.

Watch out ! People might believe that you and your co-authors have a political agenda rather than scientific research.

... "In modern cement industry it is common to use one of three principal raw materials, and in addition one to three correction inputs. Limestone is still the main ingredient in cement manufacture, as only a 65-75 weight percent CaO produces the right cement minerals. In addition, the raw powder must contain 20-25 weight percent SiO2, 3-6 weight percent Al2O3, and 2-5 weight percent Fe2O3 "...

So:

65-75% CaO
20-25% SiO2
3-6% Al2O3
2-5% Fe2O3

In addition, In Denmark we started adding ashes from coal power plants to concrete in 1978 after watching abroad that other countries had good experiences with it.

In coal power plant ashes are Chromium present as well as C, S, Na, K, Zn.

... "Before 1973 power plants in Denmark used almost exclusively oil as fuel, but oil crisis of 1973 began a rapid conversion of power plants from oil to coal as fuel media.

This meant that there was a growing amount of fly ash from coal combustion.
Fly ash are blended into concrete from 1978 and still going on..
The US started many years before Denmark.

So, Mr. Harrit you have spent 2 ½ years to find the composition of cement / ashes / concrete.
Why did'nt you call F.L. Smidt? (Danish worldwide concrete and factory manufacturer.)
You have been analyzing ”heated powder concrete”
But maybe you can't wait to go on national TV again.

If you still claim that you are right on your theory, then all of Denmarks houses are built on a ticking bomb.

I hope for a reply here on my mail
email: carsten-bn

Best regards. C.B. Nielsen (bachelor engineer, construction)

MR. HARRIT REPLIED: (within the hour)

Dear C. B. Nielsen
It is therefore not a question of just element content, but the way the elements involved chemical reactions.
You will notice that the chips we have found, react upon heating to form elemental iron, which has been floating.
There is no concrete, capable of attaining that.
Come to my lecture in Aarhus on 2/28.
Best regards
Niels

BLA BLA BLA
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN ORDINAIRY CONCRETEDUST AND JONES' AND HARRITS SAMPLES.?
TELL HIM
I SAY FRAUDS!!!!!!

links were in danish

 

[WildCat]

I SAY FRAUDS!!!!!!

Yep.

But it's all the truth movement has...

 

[tfk]

BLA BLA BLA
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN ORDINAIRY CONCRETEDUST AND JONES' AND HARRITS SAMPLES.?
TELL HIM
I SAY FRAUDS!!!!!!

links were in danish

Ask him why did they not seek help from one of dozens of labs that regularly test for thermite for the police in arson cases?

Why they did not have one or two of those labs do the cheap ($65 US per sample), easy X-ray diffraction tests that would have identified it for certain as thermite or not thermite. And get their results in 3 weeks.

Why did they spend two years reinventing a test that ends up having no conclusion?


Tom

 

[alienentity]

70% is closer to 50% than 100%. So I spose we could say equally justifialbly that they fell near to 50% of free fall speed.

Bravo! They fell at nearly half the rate of freefall.