I found the missing Jolt.

Tony Szamboti said:
Unbelievable nonsense you are posting here, fantasizing that I am somehow making up the fact that there is no deceleration observed when the descent of the North Tower is measured.

Nobody who has measured it has claimed to observe it, other than an anonymous poster (femr2) whose claim was laid to rest when it was pointed out that the jolt he claimed to have measured occurred between stories, which is impossible.
Click to expand...

Physics points out the Jolt occurred at a rate that was too fast to be observed that is what this thread is all about Tony, don't you get that?

There were in fact multiple Jolts all confirmed by the Seismic recordings on that date.

There is no freaking way your paper or your's and Cole's or Gage's testimony would be anything but purgeous in a Court of law.

So I support your call for a new investigation based on your providing evidence under oath
for such an investigation.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Physics points out the Jolt occurred at a rate that was too fast to be observed that is what this thread is all about Tony, don't you get that?
Click to expand...

No, it does not and we show that the velocity loss from the impulse required would be observed in both the missing jolt paper and the paper by Richard Johns and myself about our dealings with the Journal of Engineering Mechanics available here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

Your physics are lacking and if it ever went to court your point would be laughed out of it.

I encourage everyone to measure the descent of the North Tower for themselves and to do the math for the resistance that should have been there while also accounting for a continued fall (like Richard Johns and I did) and they will surely see that in a natural collapse there should have been an observable deceleration.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Could someone explain why jolts, missing or not, matter?
Click to expand...

A natural collapse would require a significant and observable deceleration to generate the amplified load needed to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below. A static load cannot do this as the columns below are designed to resist several times the static load above them.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
No, it does not and we show that the velocity loss from the impulse required would be observed in both the missing jolt paper and the paper by Richard Johns and myself about our dealings with the Journal of Engineering Mechanics available here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

Your physics are lacking and if it ever went to court your point would be laughed out of it.

I encourage everyone to measure the descent of the North Tower for themselves and to do the math for the resistance that should have been there while also accounting for a continued fall (like Richard Johns and I did) and they will surely see that in a natural collapse there should have been an observable deceleration.
Click to expand...

Since you papers are based on video evidence and the frame rate of the videos is to slow to capture the jolts your paper is thous falsified.

Have a wonderful Day.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Since you papers are based on video evidence and the frame rate of the videos is to slow to capture the jolts your paper is thous falsified.

Have a wonderful Day.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the impulse itself, which does indeed occur too fast to measure with the frame rate.

I am talking about the velocity loss the impulse would cause if it occurred, which is much longer lasting and would require a number of frames to recover, and is what would be observed.

You do not address the velocity loss and that is where you don't have the full picture and why your point is not valid. While you and some here might not listen to what I am saying an honest courtroom certainly would, because what I am saying has scientific merit. So get it into court. I would welcome it. Unfortunately, it is just fantasizing on the part of some of you here.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You are talking about the impulse itself, which does indeed occur too fast to measure with the frame rate.

I am talking about the velocity loss the impulse would cause if it occurred, which is much longer lasting and would require a number of frames to recover, and is what would be observed.

You do not address the velocity loss and that is where you don't have the full picture and why your point is not valid. While you and some here might not listen to what I am saying an honest courtroom certainly would, because what I am saying has scientific merit. So get it into court. I would welcome it. Unfortunately, it is just fantasizing on the part of some of you here.
Click to expand...

Er, isn't it your job to get it into court?
 
NoahFence said:
Could someone explain why jolts, missing or not, matter?
Click to expand...
The lack of a “significant jolt” proves that for WTC1,2 the columns above did not hit the columns below axially nor simultaneously, both which are required to produce this effect. The videos used for this claim show that it took almost a second for all the columns on one floor of the Towers to fail sequentially. The asymmetric tilt of the top sections as a result of the delayed sequential failure of the columns was observed for both Towers and the cause of this sequential, not simultaneous, failure of the remaining columns on the failed floor was technically explained by Bazant.

It also matters because there are many ways to be wrong and this is one example that pseudoscience can persuade the gullible and technically uneducated to believe false claims. Another lesson from this example is that one can believe and repeatedly broadcast false claims and successfully pass these memes along to others because natural selection doesn’t work fast enough.
 
FalseFlag said:
Proof?

This could be true. You can't prove it and I can't disprove it. I also can neither prove nor disprove you are here because you are being forced to.

The reality is this simple:

1. Skeptics are paid to be here.
2. Skeptics are forced to be here.
3. Skeptics are here because they suffer from serious mental deficiencies or conditions which prevent them from processing facts and coming to sensible, reasonable conclusions.

If I were you, I would do everything I could to avoid being accused of being here for reason number 3.
Click to expand...

Rationals know why they are sane.
Conspiracists don't know why they are nuts.

What recent studies indicate:

Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. 2011
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886911001036
Abstract
Surveys indicate that belief in conspiracy theories is widespread. Previous studies have indicated that such beliefs are related to agreeableness, low levels of self esteem, certain negative attitudes towards authority, and paranoia. The current study investigated the relationship between conspiracy theory beliefs, paranormal belief, paranoid ideation, and schizotypy, in a study involving 60 females and 60 males aged 18–50. Sex differences were found in paranormal belief, with females scoring significantly higher than males in spiritualism, precognition, psi, and overall paranormal belief. Partial correlations controlling for sex showed that conspiracy beliefs were significantly and positively correlated with paranormal beliefs, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Confirmatory analysis revealed a best fit model to explain conspiracy beliefs that included schizotypy and paranoid ideation, but not paranormal beliefs. These findings suggest that paranoid ideation and schizotypy are strongly associated with belief in conspiracy theories.

_________________________________________________

Measuring Belief in Conspiracy Theories: The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale, 2013.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659314/
One robust finding to emerge from the limited existing literature is that individuals who endorse one conspiracy theory tend to endorse others, including unrelated theories (Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010, 2011, 2013), fictitious theories made up by psychological researchers (Swami et al., 2011), and even mutually contradictory theories (Wood et al., 2012). In total, these findings suggest that endorsement of conspiracy theories is not exclusively a result of rational evaluation of the evidence relating to each specific conspiracist claim; rather it appears there are stable individual differences in the general tendency to engage with conspiracist explanations for events. This trait has been termed “conspiracist ideation” (Swami et al., 2011).
A conspiracist belief can be described as “the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable” (Aaronovitch, 2009)
 
Debate is over, CD is a fantasy.

Tony Szamboti said:
... I am talking about the velocity loss the impulse would cause if it occurred, which is much longer lasting and would require a number of frames to recover, and is what would be observed. ...
Click to expand...
Last time you waved your hands to make up a time, "over a second to regain the velocity"; BS you made up. Did you make an error? Ten time off? Why are you unable to do simple physics?

Better luck with Bigfoot Tony, your realcddeal failed due to zero evidence. With Bigfoot, you can wave your hands and make up fantasy, like your CD delusion.

You project...
Your physics are lacking and if it ever went to court your point would be laughed out of it.
Click to expand...
You are right, you would be laughed out due to being wrong by a factor of ten.

How long does Tony think it takes to regain the lost velocity?
Tony Szamboti said:
... It is the velocity loss which is observable and it would take over a second to regain the velocity, ...
Click to expand...
Over a second. Off by a factor of 10, that is significant fail. It would take 0.07 to 0.1 seconds to regain the velocity in a perfect system...

The debate is over, Tony has a fantasy of CD. Proved and closed
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8,

comparing a Verinage demolition to the North Tower, says it all
Click to expand...

You lied, it takes 0.07 to 0.1 second to regain speed. Why do you lie and say it takes over a second? Why can't you do simple physics, to support your lie of CD, or fool 9/11 truth cult members in the religion of CD?

Tony Szamboti said:
... It is the velocity loss which is observable and it would take over a second to regain the velocity, ...
Click to expand...
Over a second, failed to do physics, you did BS. Where did you get your number, it stinks.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You lied, it takes 0.07 to 0.1 second to regain speed. Why do you lie and say it takes over a second? Why can't you do simple physics, to support your lie of CD, or fool 9/11 truth cult members in the religion of CD?

Over a second, failed to do physics, you did BS. Where did you get your number, it stinks.
Click to expand...

The video frames are 29.97 per second, so each frame takes approximately 33 milliseconds. We measured every five frames or 165 milliseconds.

This means in 1 second we would have seen a velocity loss in five of our measurements. In 0.7 seconds we would have seen a velocity loss in three measurements. There are none.

There is no velocity loss in the descent of the North Tower and it would be detectable if an impulse occurred to destroy the columns below naturally.

There is only one answer for the lack of deceleration and it is that the columns are being destroyed artificially and not by a natural force, which requires deceleration.
 
Last edited:
BasqueArch said:
The lack of a “significant jolt” proves that for WTC1,2 the columns above did not hit the columns below axially nor simultaneously, both which are required to produce this effect. The videos used for this claim show that it took almost a second for all the columns on one floor of the Towers to fail sequentially. The asymmetric tilt of the top sections as a result of the delayed sequential failure of the columns was observed for both Towers and the cause of this sequential, not simultaneous, failure of the remaining columns on the failed floor was technically explained by Bazant.

It also matters because there are many ways to be wrong and this is one example that pseudoscience can persuade the gullible and technically uneducated to believe false claims. Another lesson from this example is that one can believe and repeatedly broadcast false claims and successfully pass these memes along to others because natural selection doesn’t work fast enough.
Click to expand...

I fit perfectly into the highlighted. However - not the gullible. This is the challenge Tony Sz and his kind need to step up to the plate for.

They need to provide, to the layperson, a plausible scenario where CD is even possible. Don't start with the conclusion, show me the path.

None of them has even attempted that.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The video frames are 29.97 per second, so each frame takes approximately 33 milliseconds. We measured ever five frames or 165 milliseconds.

This means in one second we would have seen a velocity loss in five of our measurements. There are none.

There is no velocity loss in the descent of the North Tower and it would be detectable if an impulse occurred to destroy the columns below naturally.

There is only one answer for the lack of deceleration and it is that the columns are being destroyed artificially and not by a natural force, which requires deceleration.
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
... It is the velocity loss which is observable and it would take over a second to regain the velocity, ...
Click to expand...
You said over a second, you lied, it takes 0.07 to 0.1 second to regain velocity, and you failed to do the physics.

Are you saying you were wrong, and it only takes .1 second or less to regain velocity?

Who made up the idiotic paranoid claim the aircraft were a ruse?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You said over a second, you lied, it takes 0.07 to 0.1 second to regain velocity, and you failed to do the physics.

Are you saying you were wrong, and it only takes .1 second or less to regain velocity?

Who made up the idiotic paranoid claim the aircraft were a ruse?
Click to expand...

It takes a lot more time than 0.07 to 0.1 seconds to regain the velocity if there had been a jolt. I believe I showed it would take at least 0.8 seconds in the missing jolt paper.

Where is your math for your claim?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It takes a lot more time than 0.07 to 0.1 seconds to regain the velocity if there had been a jolt. I believe I showed it would take at least 0.8 seconds in the missing jolt paper.

Where is your math for your claim?
Click to expand...
Simple physics, and you were off by 10. No wonder the missing Jolt paper failed.
t=v/g : first "jolt" due to momentum transfer floor failure, velocity change 0.66 m/s change
Solve for t=v/g gives 0.0673 second to regain the lost velocity. Why are you off by a factor ten, off by an order of magnitude = big fail.

Tony you are quibbling now, do you stand by your claim, over a second to regain velocity?

You now change to .8 second, and are still off by a factor of 10; you can't do physics. How will you debate your fantasy of CD, the silly fantasy the aircraft were a ruse? How? Did the flight crew lie about the aircraft being taken?
Tony Szamboti said:
... It is the velocity loss which is observable and it would take over a second to regain the velocity, ...
Click to expand...
You said over a second; now .8, and are still off by 10. Big fail, not a good sign.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom