I found the missing Jolt.

[jaydeehess]

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.

Only if, somehow, a portion of the columns is magically removed AND the upper part of the columns meets the lower parts axially. However you continue to ignore the evidence that this collapse was characterized by the destruction of the FLOORS which then caused massive instability in the columns.

The strength of the columns was all but completely bypassed by this mechanism of collapse, and since the overloading of FLOORS was so very great, the façade shows little or no loss of velocity or decrease in acceleration.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Only if, somehow, a portion of the columns is magically removed AND the upper part of the columns meets the lower parts axially. However you continue to ignore the evidence that this collapse was characterized by the destruction of the FLOORS which then caused massive instability in the columns.

The strength of the columns was all but completely bypassed by this mechanism of collapse, and since the overloading of FLOORS was so very great, the façade shows little or no loss of velocity or decrease in acceleration.

The deceleration issue is answered far more easily...the towers' overall collapse progression was less than "G". That means there was deceleration. Just not enough to override grVitational acceleration completely

 

[skyeagle409]

I don't think any of the telltale signs of coherent discussion are observed in what you and many others write on this forum trying to deny the three obvious high-rise controlled demolitions that occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

From my own experience, I can safely say that there were no high-rise controlled demolitions regarding the WTC buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, and that fact can be confirmed by the Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Protec Documentation Services, Inc., operators of seismic monitors that day.

Not one seismic monitor detected the shock signals that are associated with controlled demolition implosions as those buildings collapsed which explains why demolition explosions were not heard on a number of video cameras.

In addition, there was no way that the WTC buildings could have been properly prepared for controlled demolition in secret for almost a year if not longer.

 

[tfk]

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.

Why the hell are you writing a paper on this with a Professor of Religious Studies & Philosophy???????

What the hell does Richard Johns know about video recording, video compression for broadcast video (in 2001), video interlace, digital sampling theory, Nyquist criteria, and solutions of ill-posed mathematical analysis (such as taking multiple derivatives of poorly digitized data)??

For that matter, what do YOU know about all of those?

Why are you 2nd author to this clown on some of your papers??

 

[tfk]

Tony,

Let's get very basic.

From a universal frame of reference, is momentum conserved in an object that is falling?

From the frame of reference of the ground, is momentum conserved in an object that is falling?

Reconcile your answers to these two questions.

 

[ozeco41]

Could someone explain why jolts, missing or not, matter?

They don't matter. Specifically the "Missing Jolt" that Tony rants on about was never "Missing" - it was a fantasy which he invented from a scenario which never existed and never could exist.

BasqueArch put it succinctly and with crystal clarity:

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.

Exactly - and concisely stated.

BasqueArch also identifies the consequences of Tony's persistence in publishing his 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.

From the Truth Movement and AE911 perspectives Tony has succeeded in maintaining a level of confusion over what should be simple realities.

BUT he would never survive formal cross-examination in the para-legal setting of a "New Investigation" - his falsehoods and debating tricks would quickly be exposed.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.

0.2 seconds, and then the energy is lost to disunification not deceleration.

You have no way to observe it.

 

[FalseFlag]

I tend to disregard statements of those clearly affected by explosions which there isn't a shred of evidence of.

https://youtu.be/c2cViy34b1A?t=268

Like him?

 

[FalseFlag]

And I'm going to want Tony to provide some sort of a cogent narrative that explains, in his opinion, the whole thing.

No, I'm not Tony, but can you define "the whole thing"? Do you want him to explain how they rigged WTC7 with explosives or what they used? That is an impossible task. That is why we need a new investigation.

Also, why does anyone have to prove or disprove CD? Why can't you just debate on whether the NIST report is accurate or not? If it's not accurate, we need a new investigation. Simple.

 

[FalseFlag]

The pathetically small numbers of actual professionals who've sign A&E911Troof's petition is a prime indicator of opinion.

No, it's not. You have no proof whatsoever that every architect, engineer, or other industry professional has seen the video of WTC7 collapsing.

 

[FalseFlag]

It’d be no contest.
Loiseaux was on site, at Ground Zero, 3 days after the attack, and stayed there for months.
Danny Jowenko never set foot at GZ.

Are you really claiming an expert can't look at a video and tell that a building was brought down by CD?

Jowenko idiotically proclaimed WTC7 a CD … solely based on a doctored video that a couple of Twoofers showed him. The “doctoring” was removing the sound.

Proof? And are you really claiming that sound is the only way you can tell if a building was demolished by CD?

Wait for it...

You’ve got a serious memory malfunction.
Just a week ago, we PROVED that you haven’t the slightest clue about the laws of physics.

How? I must have missed this, or you have a serious issue with the definition of "proof".

Once again, you are invited to state the law of physics that you THINK was violated.

Once again, the laws of physics can never be violated. You can ignore them, as you have chosen to do, but they can never be violated.

 

[skyeagle409]

https://youtu.be/c2cViy34b1A?t=268

Like him?

There were no bombs involved. They are mistaken. Case in point.


The Elevator Man's Tale

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.


Craig Carlsen

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.


In other words, the sounds they heard had nothing to do with explosives. I might add that manhole explosions are common in New York City and that non-bomb related explosions have occurred at the WTC even before 9/11 because New York City experiences over 2000 explosions each year. Other explosions were attributed to exploding gas lines as confirmed by FDNY firefighters during an NBC news playback two years ago on TV.

A couple of examples in the following reports.


Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center

July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said.


The Day The World Shook

February 26, 1993
"...Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

No, I'm not Tony, but can you define "the whole thing"? Do you want him to explain how they rigged WTC7 with explosives or what they used? That is an impossible task. That is why we need a new investigation.

With a lack of physical evidence to support the idea of CD, a new investigation is somewhat futile.

Also, why does anyone have to prove or disprove CD? Why can't you just debate on whether the NIST report is accurate or not? If it's not accurate, we need a new investigation. Simple.

Why can't 9/11 truth disprove the NIST report thus supplying the necessity for a new investigation? There has been no justification for a new investigation thus far, and with CD being quite an irrational hypothesis, some evidence might be warranted before anyone ponies up with the funds. Moreover, 9/11 truth would want an independent investigation as they are suspicious of government, so what group supplies the funding? If the government supplied the funding, and the findings didn't support the truthers' claims, you'd be bleating for another investigation, and so on, and so on....

Who would be on the committee? Who would chair it? 9/11 truth would only support a panel stacked in their favour, and then we'd have a circus, not an investigation.

 

[FalseFlag]

Debater 1 is an idiot.
NISt would NEVER say that any bolt used in the WTC towers was a 3/5” bolt.

I guess the term "hypothetical example" is also a new term for you.

I'm not surprised at your response, though. You have to take every opportunity you can to attack me. It's part of your game.

 

[FalseFlag]

There were no bombs involved. They are mistaken.

Yeah, he looks mistaken, doesn't he?

Wait for it...

 

[skyeagle409]

No, I'm not Tony, but can you define "the whole thing"? Do you want him to explain how they rigged WTC7 with explosives or what they used? That is an impossible task. That is why we need a new investigation.

There is no need for a new investigation because it has been determined and proven, that demolition explosives were not used during the 9/11 attack and I know that as a fact.

 

[skyeagle409]

Yeah, he looks mistaken, doesn't he?

Wait for it...

Why should I wait when I know the answer already? The answer is very simple: No CD!

 

[FalseFlag]

Posted long, long before you every showed up here: tinyurl.com/canv4kn

From your link:

"design of connectors & switches, including the failure analysis & process re-spec for the main power transfer switch for the space shuttle & Inertial Upper Stages.

design of fuel metering valves for large turbine generators, including explosion-proof electronics."

There you go. You have a background working for the government in some capacity. That is how "they" got to you.

Can I prove this? No. Even though I can't prove it, I am going to make the claim. You outted yourself, buddy, not me.

Oops.

Wait for it...

 

[FalseFlag]

Why should I wait when I know the answer already? The answer is very simple: No CD!

Hey, if your delusions help you sleep at night then whatever. They still are not true, no matter how hard you try to make them true.

 

[skyeagle409]

Hey, if your delusions help you sleep at night then whatever. They still are not true, no matter how hard you try to make them true.

It is all very simple and experts; firefighters, architects, structural engineers, and even demolition experts, have confirmed that CD was not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.