Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[ozeco41]

My problem was keeping the first point in when I wrote the second point.

I understand - it would be a rare occasion If you and I saw the "big picture" differently. The challenge comes in explaining the complex mechanisms simply.

For "jolt" the columns must see separation, either by removal of a section of each column,

Correct. The point I keep emphasising here is to be clear whether we are discussing THE "Big Jolt" which Bazant used for the "Limit Case' argument OR one or more of the hundreds/thousands of "little jolts" which occurred with the real event.

The mechanism for THE "big jolt" never happened - the real mechanism had to and did result in many little jolts.

And the discussion is clouded or led astray deliberately by Szamboti and those of his supporters who persist in confusing the two. One is a feature of the fantasy scenario. The others are features of the real event. And "never the twain shall meet".

We need a "rule" which says 'Always identify whether you are discussing the Bazant scenario OR the real event - and NEVER mix up the two OR "change horses" from one to the other in mid post.'

... or by allowing buckling column knees to settle straight down, AND the upper and lower sections must also be aligned prior to either occurring.

True - and that is the "real event" NOT the Bazant scenario which T Sz misuses for the "Missing Jolt" argument.

If they pass each other, no big jolt is possible.

True. And let's take the correct next step - the big step that Szamboti gets wrong. IF there was no "big jolt" THEN:
A) they must have passed each other; AND
B) Bazant's assertion in B&Z is correct - the "real event" was NOT the one leading to any "big jolt".

With the big disclaimer:

Unless T Szamboti et al can prove CD. Which they cannot - or in proper scientific method terminology - unless they can post a valid hypothesis which falsifies the extant "no CD" hypotheses - which they cannot do either.

 

[ozeco41]

Not hard to do. They were both at the event so some of their posts contain personal insight between the two.

Did you mean "insight" OR "infight"?






Sorry Sander - couldn't resist the temptation.

 

[JSanderO]

Not a problem... It was the same old same old... nothing new. Hard to take it, frankly after all these years... I was a bit of a loose canon, but no biggie.... the show went on... and it was in the Q&A period where the mic wasn't working anyway.

 

[ozeco41]

What sort of jolt would occur if the columns all moved laterally... the connection between the top and bottom sheared and the top dropped and hit the bracing beams on the lower columns about 4' below?

Stated that way Sander your loosely defined scenario actually incorporates what actually happened. And what actually happened was "Three Mechanisms" of runaway progression - led by "ROOSD".

It's an unknown. The problem is, the data point for recognizing the "jolt" is too far away from the source. This is not a rigid structure, even if Tony want's to pretend it is.

Not quite. The scenario as described in the Sander's preceding post #153 is speculation about the real event - which by definition cannot be the Bazant scenario which is the setting for the "Big Jolt".

This is where Tony relies on Bazant to make his fantasy (seam) real.

Yes. And he fails - mostly. Tony has clearly succeeded implanting two confusions viz:
1) Confusion between the real event which actually happened and the Bazant non-event which did not happen. (And could not happen - but that is another challenge. )
2) The confused idea that somehow the "Top Block" fell through a gap to then - later - after it dropped - come into impact. That is arse about logic as I may have said on other occasions. The "Top Block" only fell because the columns had already failed which necessarily means that they had already missed the axial impact needed by the Bazant/Szamboti "Big Jolt".

Tony has debunker side supporters for both of those bits of confused foundations.

It is a rigid structure... and I suspect there could be a noticeable jolt when the 40 something columns hit the intact bracing at the same instant. I don't know that it's possible... but it's conceivable.

Be explicitly clear Sander. That is a conceivable happening BUT it is emphatically and explicitly NOT the Bazant "Big Jolt" scenario ex-Bazant purloined and misused by T Sz.

The real event did have "falling bits" landing on (mostly) "horizontal bits" - more likely beam on beam not column on beam but the difference matters not.

It is barely conceivable that 40 could hit at nearly the same time. Go back to basics - what caused the top bit to start falling was a sequenced cascade failure - which by definition is NOT "all at the same time" - it MUST be spaced out in time. So unless you are postulating something other than "sequenced" you have an uphill battle ahead. And remember all the visual details show a progression over time. Including the bits which moved very fast BUT were still sequenced not coinciding/instantaneous.

BUT you are still speculating about the real event. So it cannot cause a Bazant/Szamboti type "one single big jolt". Take care to discuss EITHER "Bazant/Szamboti scenario" OR "real event". Avoid getting the two mixed up - it was one or the other.

AND what mechanism other than cascading sequenced failure do you envisage which could cause 40 columns to hit at the same time? I cannot conceive of any. But it is your speculation - what do you have in mind?

 

[ozeco41]

Not a problem... It was the same old same old... nothing new. Hard to take it, frankly after all these years... I was a bit of a loose canon, but no biggie.... the show went on... and it was in the Q&A period where the mic wasn't working anyway.

 

[Notconvinced]

This is the part Criteria has not seen. If you raise your hand to ask a question during Q&A there are people that aproach you first and quiz you to determine if Gage will want to address your question. How you ask is not in question, it's what you are going to ask.

You've been there and so have I. Am I wrong JSanderO about my statement about screening questions?

I went to a recent Gage presentation, met him for the first time, and yes.... You are wrong. All sorts of questions were asked, and Gage is quite good at redirecting the topic to the factual evidence for controlled demolition.

 

[Notconvinced]

Remember that from the perspective of academia the collapse mechanisms have been explained in the accepted formal manner of reports and published papers which agree as to (a)principal mechanisms and (b) no case for CD. With the expected divergence of opinions over details which is the norm for scientific publishing.

The ASCE's control of access to the topic does not mean it has been explained in an accepted formal manner. If the explanation is wrong, it hasn't been explained in an acceptable manner.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I went to a recent Gage presentation, met him for the first time, and yes.... You are wrong. All sorts of questions were asked, and Gage is quite good at redirecting the topic to the factual evidence for controlled demolition.

I suppose if he ever happens to sweep by my university I'll have to take a yonder and see for myself (with footage to document). AFAIK however, he hasn't been to the South Florida area. Or maybe some one could tape the whole thing? I don't know what their general policy is at those presentations.

True. And let's take the correct next step - the big step that Szamboti gets wrong. IF there was no "big jolt" THEN:
A) they must have passed each other; AND
B) Bazant's assertion in B&Z is correct - the "real event" was NOT the one leading to any "big jolt".

With the big disclaimer:

Unless T Szamboti et al can prove CD. Which they cannot - or in proper scientific method terminology - unless they can post a valid hypothesis which falsifies the extant "no CD" hypotheses - which they cannot do either.

I maintain that the questions' not whether the "jolts" took place, but a question of how many, and to what magnitude. We've had many discussions in the past that the rationale behind the jolt argument is the literal application of a limiting case model; one that assumes a maximal culmination of circumstance and impact dynamics in which all of the scenarios are perfectly unskewed. The real event was skewed which drastically reduced the real world potential and therefore there was never any possibility of expecting a "perfect case" in the likes that are purported by the CD bunch..

Folks like Chandler who presume the "no dynamic load" or "1/3 resistance" model have reversed the most basic Newtonian physics, something which is in most people's capability to quantify without complicated mathematics. This is why I have zero sympathy anymore...

 

[ozeco41]

I maintain that the questions' not whether the "jolts" took place, but a question of how many, and to what magnitude.

With respect that seeks to perpetuate the core confusion which my posts have sought to remove. There are two very different and incompatible scenarios.

"Missing Jolt" is - as you correctly state - a misapplication of the Bazant "Limit Case" scenario.

The question about "how many jolts and what magnitude" refers to the scenario of the real event.

We've had many discussions in the past that the rationale behind the jolt argument is the literal application of a limiting case model; one that assumes a maximal culmination of circumstance and impact dynamics in which all of the scenarios are perfectly unskewed.

All true in the context of the Bazant scenario as portrayed by Szamboti. It refers to the supposed "Missing Jolt" and valid arguments about THAT specific jolt in that specific scenario which never existed.

Now we change to the real scenario - the one which actually occurred:

The real event was skewed which drastically reduced the real world potential and therefore there was never any possibility of expecting a "perfect case" in the likes that are purported by the CD bunch..

Correct also for the real event.

Which scenario do you wish to discuss? One did not happen - the other actually happened. I've argued that the Bazant/Szamboti scenario could not happen - "impossible" in lay person language. ("No valid hypothesis" in the language of scientific method.)

Do you have a reason for mixing the two? Do you disagree with my assertions that the two should be kept separate and not "mixed and matched"?

The difficulty I see with these ongoing discussions is that debunkers play into Szamboti's hands by helping him maintain the confusion.

It certainly helps to keep the "discussion" going round in circles. Maybe that is the objective at this late stage of 9/11 CT discussion.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

With respect that seeks to perpetuate the core confusion which my posts have sought to remove. There are two very different and incompatible scenarios.

"Missing Jolt" is - as you correctly state - a misapplication of the Bazant "Limit Case" scenario.

The question about "how many jolts and what magnitude" refers to the scenario of the real event.
All true in the context of the Bazant scenario as portrayed by Szamboti. It refers to the supposed "Missing Jolt" and valid arguments about THAT specific jolt in that specific scenario which never existed.

Now we change to the real scenario - the one which actually occurred:
Correct also for the real event.

Which scenario do you wish to discuss? One did not happen - the other actually happened. I've argued that the Bazant/Szamboti scenario could not happen - "impossible" in lay person language. ("No valid hypothesis" in the language of scientific method.)

Do you have a reason for mixing the two? Do you disagree with my assertions that the two should be kept separate and not "mixed and matched"?

The difficulty I see with these ongoing discussions is that debunkers play into Szamboti's hands by helping him maintain the confusion.

It certainly helps to keep the "discussion" going round in circles. Maybe that is the objective at this late stage of 9/11 CT discussion.

The whole point is too keep the money circulation into Gage's pocket, that's the only circle that matters too them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

With respect that seeks to perpetuate the core confusion which my posts have sought to remove. There are two very different and incompatible scenarios.

My stance has more to do with the "infinite" possibilities "in-between" the best case and the worst case. Not any particular one - In other words the "imperfect scenario" invalidates the practicality of discussing a "perfect" case scenario when the real world events serve as the context of discussion. The fact that the "counter argument" to the model, is such an assumption that the model tried to deal with the real events all the way... is the theories own downfall. When dealing with absolutes it takes only one error to invalidate the intent.

Do you have a reason for mixing the two? Do you disagree with my assertions that the two should be kept separate and not "mixed and matched"?

The difficulty I see with these ongoing discussions is that debunkers play into Szamboti's hands by helping him maintain the confusion.

It certainly helps to keep the "discussion" going round in circles. Maybe that is the objective at this late stage of 9/11 CT discussion.

My non-TL;DR comment is, the muddling is unecessary when it's understood that the base argument - the missing jolt - is premised on treating the limiting case as a complete substitute to the real event. Not simply confusing bits and pieces (as is commonly the issue with people not completely reading the nuances and intersections in the real and model world applications). This is what I mean when I'm mentioning "both" albeit I can't blame you if you got a little lost... I don't explain things super well verbally

 

[ozeco41]

The ASCE's control of access to the topic does not mean it has been explained in an accepted formal manner. If the explanation is wrong, it hasn't been explained in an acceptable manner.

Try again when you understand the rules and processes of public and scientific discourse in a constitutionally governed community - in this case USA.

The issue has been explained in accord with due process under "Rule of Law" in a country which has a form of governance prescribed by a constitution. One subset of "due process" is the processes of professional discussion. The NIST reports as one example met standards higher than those applied to professional publication.

You last sentence is nonsense. If the explanation is wrong - it is arse about in process and obviously "begs the question". Those asserting that it is wrong need to both "prove" the assertions and to do so in the appropriate manner.

Telling lies and playing debating tricks on internet forums is way down the list of credible processes.

Step one - formulate a description of the alleged errors. Step two formulate supporting hypotheses which pass "prima facie" test or such other thresholds as are required for the selected due process of pursuit.

And that due process ain't via unsupported or false claims padded with personal insults on Internet forums.

BUT forums such as this could be a reasonable testing ground. Some of us can match and some of us are better than the level of technical staff advice the politicians would have access to on first approach.

AND anyone who cannot persuade an audience in this setting without resort to lies and insults will certainly not succeed in the world of real politic.

 

[ozeco41]

My stance has more to do with the "infinite" possibilities "in-between" the best case and the worst case. Not any particular one - In other words the "imperfect scenario" invalidates the practicality of discussing a "perfect" case scenario when the real world events serve as the context of discussion. The fact that the "counter argument" to the model, is such an assumption that the model tried to deal with the real events all the way... is the theories own downfall. When dealing with absolutes it takes only one error to invalidate the intent.




My non-TL;DR comment is, the muddling is unecessary when it's understood that the base argument - the missing jolt - is premised on treating the limiting case as a complete substitute to the real event. Not simply confusing bits and pieces (as is commonly the issue with people not completely reading the nuances and intersections in the real and model world applications). This is what I mean when I'm mentioning "both" albeit I can't blame you if you got a little lost... I don't explain things super well verbally

At least one of us got "a little lost".

 

[ozeco41]

The whole point is too keep the money circulation into Gage's pocket, that's the only circle that matters too them.

Sure. That is the "Whole" of ONE of THEIR points. But don't make the false global assumption that it is THE - single - only - for everyone - point.

My objective was to try to help debunkers to stop playing Szamboti's game

In the "dying stages" of 9/11 discussion where so many don't want to be clear on relatively simple technical issues.

 

[jaydeehess]

Post 164 attributes to me, a quote from a post by JSO.

 

[Notconvinced]

I'd like to see the evidence that 81 columns over 8 floors were made to go poof... and the building above collapsed 104 feet at FF with no resistance.

Ok, watch the North wall just prior to collapse and observe approx 8 simultaneous charges going off at the west end.


Sent from our shared looking glass platform

 

[jaydeehess]

Ok, watch the North wall just prior to collapse and observe approx 8 simultaneous charges going off at the west end.


Sent from our shared looking glass platform

You have that video? All vids of the collapse that I have seen do not show lower floors.

So 8 supposed charges. Did each one take out ten columns?

 

[BadBoy]

True. And let's take the correct next step - the big step that Szamboti gets wrong. IF there was no "big jolt" THEN:
A) they must have passed each other; AND
B) Bazant's assertion in B&Z is correct - the "real event" was NOT the one leading to any "big jolt".

ozeco41, some quick questions.

1. We can easily see, can we not, that "all" the perimeter columns did not suddenly have a large section removed by explosives - all the way down the building. So it follows that the explosives would have to be on core columns only (presumably), or on the things fastening the floors to the core and perimeter. And any major and massive column on column impact, or floor on floor impact would have had to have happened inside the building - all the way down. So, is it therefore correct that we wouldn't see a massive jolt anyway, even if there was one or could have been one? The perimeter columns peeled away as the inside core failed (initially), or if the floors were falling around the core columns, you still wouldn't see a jolt even if it was possible to have one at all. Or did I miss something here.

2. Why does TZ suppose that explosives would not be more likely to cause column on column impacts anyway? I don't understand why he thinks applying explosives wouldn't cause any jolt, unless they were applied all the way down the building and even then I would think major column on column impact would still be more likely. Clinically removing parts of columns with explosives, on all columns, at the same time...? Also applying explosives all the way down, to presumably avoid the "big jolt" would mean timing is essential, you would need the explosives to follow the collapse progression exactly, plus it would be much more likely we would have heard and seen something in that case.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ok, watch the North wall just prior to collapse and observe approx 8 simultaneous charges going off at the west end.

Archival footage of live coverage for both collapses demonstrate the most silent, close-proximity high-speed shrapnel-free, fire-proof, high speed impact-proof use of explosives in history. Not even standing directly under tower #2 at the moment of collapse produced a series of loud bangs. The only sounds were from the falling debris of a skyscraper - if "simultaneous" failure is supposed to mean something.

 

[ozeco41]

Post 164 attributes to me, a quote from a post by JSO.

Ouch! Actually by DGM.

My apologies to all three. I should take more care when editing "multi-quotes".