Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Grizzly Bear]

10 times so 3g ?
May be in compression but when you have a progressive collapse, of course, this is what happened ! And the bolts have failed when the bending moment was too strong... See the wreckage !...

20% maximum

Can I see the calculation ? Thank you...

I don't know where he gets the 20% figure, although I have a feeling he bases it on his assumption that temperatures overall remained below 600oC. Wrong to begin with since he bases that assumption on cherry-picking the NIST report...

And the load capacity of a column is dictated partly by the cross-sectional area. This of course is meaningless if the load becomes eccentric (eg out-of-plane as you suggest) as was the case when the fire region columns buckled.

 

[bill smith]

I for one would be quite interested to hear if Tony agrees with Heiwa... The latter has been in contact with Ron Wieck before and declined offers to appear on Hardfire. However, we could certainly discuss his "ideas" if Tony supports them. But somehow I doubt that he does.

Well?

Hmmm...From reading Heiwa'a post it does sound like bit of a bear-pit. I will be curious to see if the host pretends to be impartial like the last time. I sure hope he doesn't make any more unfortunate mispeakings like the plane weighing'hundreds of thousands of tons' or some such.

 

[FineWine]

Hmmm...From reading Heiwa'a post it does sound like bit of a bear-pit. I will be curious to see if the host pretends to be impartial like the last time. I sure hope he doesn't make any more unfortunate mispeakings like the plane weighing'hundreds of thousands of tons' or some such.

I have watched several editions of 'Hardfire.' The host announces at the start of the show that he rejects the conspiracy nonsense. Why is that "pretending" to be impartial? Looks like you have been caught lying again.

 

[boloboffin]

Hmmm...From reading Heiwa'a post it does sound like bit of a bear-pit. I will be curious to see if the host pretends to be impartial like the last time. I sure hope he doesn't make any more unfortunate mispeakings like the plane weighing'hundreds of thousands of tons' or some such.

Ron doesn't ever pretend to be impartial. He always relates his own feelings on 9/11 Truth at the very outset of all of these programs. Please stop lying about him.

Mocking him for a silly mistake after lying about him shows your hypocrisy as well. You'd do best to knock it all off.

 

[bill smith]

Ron doesn't ever pretend to be impartial. He always relates his own feelings on 9/11 Truth at the very outset of all of these programs. Please stop lying about him.

Mocking him for a silly mistake after lying about him shows your hypocrisy as well. You'd do best to knock it all off.

If he does make that clear at the start of his shows then of course I take it back and apologise. ...So that makes up the four then.

 

[FineWine]

If he does make that clear at the start of his shows then of course I take it back and apologise. ...So that makes up the four then.

The reason some of us know that he makes his position known at the outset is that we have actually watched the shows in question. You advance an outright lie as a factual assertion, then reveal that you haven't even bothered to watch the shows you're criticizing.

 

[GlennB]

Bjorkman is far too busy running "The European Agency for Safety at Sea" (contracts thus far : zero) from his 2-bedroom apartment in Beausoleil to take part in radio debates, dont'cha know? Any spare time he has is taken up counting the stars on his EU logo and wondering whether he updated it to include Lithuania.

 

[newton3376]

If he does make that clear at the start of his shows then of course I take it back and apologise. ...So that makes up the four then.

Perhaps you should.....um....WATCH THE SHOWS before you make claims about them?

 

[bill smith]

The reason some of us know that he makes his position known at the outset is that we have actually watched the shows in question. You advance an outright lie as a factual assertion, then reveal that you haven't even bothered to watch the shows you're criticizing.

I watched a couple of them but may have missed the beginnings.

 

[FineWine]

I watched a couple of them but may have missed the beginnings.

Your befuddled guru admits he would never attempt to defend his spectacular idiocy in a debate with a real engineer. Why doesn't his credibility (please, no jokes) suffer in your eyes?


Will Heiwa's certain repudiation by the real engineers at the ASCE journal mean that they are all in on your imaginary conspiracy? Is there anything that could shake your blind faith in the preposterous errors of an agenda-driven incompetent?

 

[bill smith]

Your befuddled guru admits he would never attempt to defend his spectacular idiocy in a debate with a real engineer. Why doesn't his credibility (please, no jokes) suffer in your eyes?


Will Heiwa's certain repudiation by the real engineers at the ASCE journal mean that they are all in on your imaginary conspiracy? Is there anything that could shake your blind faith in the preposterous errors of an agenda-driven incompetent?

I have never blindly followed anybody in my life and I never will. Tell me this though ? What will be yur position when Heiwa's paper is published ? Will you then say that the ASCE engineers who judged it worthy of publication are crazy or frauds ?

 

[beachnut]

I have never blindly followed anybody in my life and I never will. Tell me this though ? What will be yur position when Heiwa's paper is published ? Will you then say that the ASCE engineers who judged it worthy of publication are crazy or frauds ?

When Heiwa's letter is published it will be exposed as fraud and failure to understand structural engineering concepts, physics and gravity.

You have blindly followed Heiwa. A most ironic post in a Jolt thread where Szamboti failed to see he could not see a jolt due to the lack of resolution in time and space in the video he is using; events that happen between the frames and pixels he has available. Events that are averaged out by the chaotic collapse of the WTC and Tony's failure to understand the model is not the actual collapse. A double failure on Tony's part.

Your posts prove you blindly follow by not posting your work, numbers, concepts, engineering, physics, and logic to back up the what are false conclusions and failed ideas on 911.

 

[FineWine]

I have never blindly followed anybody in my life and I never will. Tell me this though ? What will be yur position when Heiwa's paper is published ? Will you then say that the ASCE engineers who judged it worthy of publication are crazy or frauds ?

Heiwa's ravings do not qualify as an academic paper. The real engineers at the ASCE journal will rip him a new one (another new one, to match the ones he's acquired here), and he will shriek that they're all religious fundamentalists in the tank for the NWO. You will, of course, bleat your agreement.

My position when Heiwa is trashed again by real engineers will remain unchanged from my current position. Funny, your position will also remain unchanged.

 

[alienentity]

FineWine and beachnut - I don't get why you even bother replying to bill smith. IMHO it's not worth the time.

 

[beachnut]

FineWine and beachnut - I don't get why you even bother replying to bill smith. IMHO it's not worth the time.

Another beer owed. True; posting to someone who refuses to comprehend engineering concepts or sampling theory is a waste of time since the person is not discussing but spewing woo about Tony's refusal to comprehend the same.

 

[GlennB]

Heiwa's ravings do not qualify as an academic paper. The real engineers at the ASCE journal will rip him a new one (another new one, to match the ones he's acquired here), and he will shriek that they're all religious fundamentalists in the tank for the NWO. You will, of course, bleat your agreement.

My position when Heiwa is trashed again by real engineers will remain unchanged from my current position. Funny, your position will also remain unchanged.

Heiwa didn't even submit a 'paper' as I recall. It was a commentary on a paper, or somesuch.

However, there must be some lower limit of technical competence and credibility below which this will not even be entertained for publication. I'd be amazed if Heiwa's stuff achieved this minimum level, so wouldn't expect to see his guff in print anywhere reputable. If this is what happens then it will - naturally - be portrayed by the Ctists as 'running away' or 'cover up'.

 

[240-185]

Bjorkman is far too busy running "The European Agency for Safety at Sea" (contracts thus far : zero) from his 2-bedroom apartment in Beausoleil to take part in radio debates, dont'cha know? Any spare time he has is taken up counting the stars on his EU logo and wondering whether he updated it to include Lithuania.

The number of stars on the EU flag will always be 12

 

[GlennB]

The number of stars on the EU flag will always be 12

You think he knows that ?

 

[ozeco41]

A new paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti contest NIST's and Bazant's collapse hypothesis, finding that there was no deceleration of the rigid 12 story block when it impacted the rest of the North Tower.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

The paper is based on a wrong starting premise. That premise is that the falling "top block" struck the lower section of tower as if it was a rigid block falling on a rigid structure so that there would be a single "jolt" as the falling mass was significantly slowed in its fall.

That premise is false.

The falling top structure impacted on the lower structure as a series of member on member contacts. Whatever "jolt" there was consisted of multiple little jolts. Therefore not measurable by Szamboti's technique.

Another false assumption related to the above was that the falling top block fell onto the full structural resistance of the lower tower.

That is not true - the top block wedged inside the outer wall tubes, did not have end on end contact of outer wall columns. The core contact is not as clear but both probability and structural considerations are sufficient to claim very little strength of core involved - it would be mostly bypassed.

So Szamboti's paper is based on nonsense assumptions as to how the falling top block struck the lower tower. He therefore follows through to equally ridiculous conclusions.

And his wrong assumptions are biased towards the high numbers needed to justify his pre-determined conclusion. The way the towers actually fell was the path of least resistance.

Central to that is that the falling mass essentially landed on one floor at a time and the falling TOTAL MASS of upper section was an overwhelming load to place on the single floor designed to support a single floor set of loads plus FOSafety.

More details by me and others on this forum. Comprehensive explanations by me on another forum.

 

[leftysergeant]

Was there a noticeable jolt in the Balzac-Vitry demolition?

We know there were far more potentially arresting structures in Balzac-Vitry, so I would assume that there would have been an impressive jolt, on which to establish our baseline when discussing what WTC1 and 2 should have looked like.