Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[GStan]

Read something about a buildings collapse that was compiled by over two hundred highly qualified experts in their field. The same people who acquired and organised over 7000 segments of video footage and over 7000 photographs. The same guys who reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents, interviewed over one thousand people who were at the scene or involved in the buildings design and actually analyzed over 236 pieces of steel taken from the scene, performed lavatory tests, measured materials properties and performed computer simulations.

Dang! You caught it. It was alot funnier this way.^

ETA: And probably far more synonymous with what a JONES paper might be useful for.

 

[stateofgrace]

Dang! You caught it. It was alot funnier this way.^

ETA: And probably far more synonymous with what a JONES paper might be useful for.

That’s what you get for using spell checkers and then not reading it afterwards. But hey you are correct this is exactly where this stuff belongs .

 

[CurtC]

Isn't this a restatement of Heiwa's silly analysis? The weight flows downward regardless of rigidity, and I've yet to see an analysis presented that convinces me that being non-rigid affects the impact any.

They've had this conceptual issue for a long time - the Truther mind seems unable to comprehend that a giant, loose pile of rubble could cause an intact floor below it to fail.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The actual velocity calculation done in the paper is rather bizarre, and mathematically invalid. The authors are calculating the acceleration required to reach each point in the elapsed time, assuming constant acceleration, and from that deriving the velocity at that point relative to the velocity at the previous point. What they are therefore calculating is not the true velocity; in effect, they're applying a smoothing algorithm based on averaging all the previous points. Looking at their results in rather more detail, it turns out that the reason for this is that they are measuring movements of small numbers of pixels, so a velocity graph obtained by numerical differentiation - which would give a correct velocity - would show pronounced steps in the velocity. This in itself invalidates the entire analysis. The authors are taking a dataset which consists of discontinuous steps in velocity, applying a smoothing algorithm so as to produce a continuous function, then pointing out that the first derivative of this function contains no discontinuities.

Quite simply, the resolution of the data is insufficient to carry out the analysis, and the attempt to rectify this by effectively smoothing the data renders the conclusion invalid. I'll be charitable and describe this as lack of understanding of data resolution and experimental error issues by the authors, rather than deliberate intent.

Dave

 

[ref]

JONES = Journal Of Never Ending Scam

Dave's first post couldn't be more on point.

 

[WildCat]

Oh look, RedIbis is fluffing MIHOP again!

 

[beachnut]

Is anyone going to actually address the paper?

Sorry, this means nothing for 911. The WTC fell due to gravity after fire destroyed the strength of steel. Reality. All the other conclusions on explosives and thermite are insane fantasy ideas based on hearsay, lies and false information.

Why do you fail to understand 911? If you understood this topic and read the paper you could see they failed to make their point. They attack a model on how the WTC could fall as fast as it did, and come up with woo.

Too bad the idiots who did the paper fail to understand a floor in the WTC center will fail with 25,000,000 pounds of material on it. I bet they forgot to weigh the upper floors.

Do they make up this stuff? In a class of building structures what score would they earn? Failure. They made up their conclusion based on failed work.

presumably through planted explosives or other means of demolition--

I thought they were chicken to say it. But you got pure insanity in a scientific paper backed with ZERO evidence. I grade the paper F, for fantasy, or S for stupid.

What did you give it? 7 years of failure. How can anyone be dumb enough to fall for this tripe?
LOL

You need to take this work to the nearest University engineering department, get permission from Tony to be a co-author (it is done for someone who supports the work and does what you will do) and you can garner the awards for exposing explosives were used at the WTC. A Pulitzer Prize is the minimum award I suspect a real work would get on this topic! Go get it you will be the hero of 911Truth. Don’t be coy, take some action.

But too bad, you are just a cheerleader for the terrorists apologists. Great job.

Did you read that paper? Did you understand it? No
Otherwise you would comment more than you have and explain it carefully so we can understand it.

 

[Brainster]

Is anyone going to actually address the paper?

Hello, Paper!

(Hat Tip to Art Carney)

 

[Heiwa]

Isn't this a restatement of Heiwa's silly analysis? The weight flows downward regardless of rigidity, and I've yet to see an analysis presented that convinces me that being non-rigid affects the impact any.

I think it is a very good paper! Of course it only analyses the first 3.17 seconds of the displacement of the WTC1 roof line and the upper part below down to floor 98, BUT we can learn a lot from that.

During these 3.17 seconds the roof line displaces say 33 metres downwards ... but nothing happens to the structure below floor 93!

Strange, isn't it. When the roof line has dropped 33 meters, evidently 33 meters of structure below floor 93 should have been completely crushed down then by the rigid upper part crushing down.

BUT - the structure below floor 93 remains undamaged!

What you see instead is the upper part - floor 98 to the roof - being compressed or imploding during these 3.17 seconds.

I have described it before at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ... and no JREF member has managed to debunk my observations there.

The paper under discussion does not analyse what happens after the 3.17 seconds. The paper assumes that the upper part columns actually contact the lower structure columns during these 3.17 seconds, BUT, as soon as the the columns have sheared off (or whatever), the two ends of all columns never meet again.

The upper part columns should then start to punch holes in the floors below or just hit air outside the structure below AND the lower structure columns should start to punch holes in the upper part floors.

It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.

NIST assumes of course that the upper part of WTC1 remains completely undamaged during the whole collapse and applies its PE on the lower structure that lacks SE, etc. BUT it is just silly nonsense.

Reason for NIST staff suggesting such nonsense is that if anybody does not do it, he or she is a terrorist according to president GWB. We will see if things change after 20 January!

 

[Hokulele]

Is anyone going to actually address the paper?

From:
Journal of 9/11 Stundies
123 Fail Lane
Fraudulence, Freedonia

To:
Rubbish Bin

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, actually having to work at work today . So I'm not going to be addressing any further points until much later.

But folks like Dave Rodgers, Architect, rwguinn, etc. could do so far better than me anyway. To anyone who's not familiar with this forum yet (yes, any of you new folks lurking ), there are some engineering, architectural, or just plain trained-better-in-physics-than-most-people types hanging around here. And I personally find it telling that they're dismissing the paper; Dave Rogers in particular is highlighting a very basic problem that by itself invalidates the conclusions. To me, who's not educated in engineering or architectural concepts, and who's physics only extends to the required courses level in college, this paper still smells fishy, just for the things I've objected to so far. And that's even before taking into account Dave Rogers post. Combining my own personal sense that something feels wrong with the utter dismissal by other trained types here may not add up to a full refutation, but it does indicate that there are very core problems with the paper. Others can elucidate those core issues later, and with better clarity than I. For now, this layman's read of the paper is setting off alarm bells.

 

[beachnut]

It would be cool if RedIbis could show us the 31 G calculation or state the duration of the deceleration. There are many decelerations to pick from, the first one is almost instant and the velocity slows down .66 m/s. Over 0.02 second that is more than 31 G. And since the failures are essentially instantaneous, this first 31 G jolt, or whatever, is possible. The paper in question is not debunked, it is BUNK.

hi paper

The decelerations continue to grow in velocity results to 1 m/s then taper off as the mass grows that is falling. This process is much more complicated than a the failed paper presented and clams explosives did it. So sad to see Jones' insanity continue after it started from simply dropping cinder blocks in his back yard and making a false conclusion and making up thermite. The moment of insanity leading to his journal where he can publish trash:
9.16.05, 16 September 2005 was the day Jones dropped science and became a fraud so he could bring us a paper to address and posted by people who don’t understand science but love to spread lies, fantasy, and false information.

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

Why this current paper made it to publication. Jones lost it in September 2005.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I think it is a very good paper! Of course it only analyses the first 3.17 seconds of the displacement of the WTC1 roof line and the upper part below down to floor 98, BUT we can learn a lot from that.

During these 3.17 seconds the roof line displaces say 33 metres downwards ... but nothing happens to the structure below floor 93!

Strange, isn't it. When the roof line has dropped 33 meters, evidently 33 meters of structure below floor 93 should have been completely crushed down then by the rigid upper part crushing down.

BUT - the structure below floor 93 remains undamaged!

What you see instead is the upper part - floor 98 to the roof - being compressed or imploding during these 3.17 seconds.

I have described it before at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ... and no JREF member has managed to debunk my observations there.

The paper under discussion does not analyse what happens after the 3.17 seconds. The paper assumes that the upper part columns actually contact the lower structure columns during these 3.17 seconds, BUT, as soon as the the columns have sheared off (or whatever), the two ends of all columns never meet again.

The upper part columns should then start to punch holes in the floors below or just hit air outside the structure below AND the lower structure columns should start to punch holes in the upper part floors.

It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.

NIST assumes of course that the upper part of WTC1 remains completely undamaged during the whole collapse and applies its PE on the lower structure that lacks SE, etc. BUT it is just silly nonsense.

Reason for NIST staff suggesting such nonsense is that if anybody does not do it, he or she is a terrorist according to president GWB. We will see if things change after 20 January!

Sorry, Heiwa, but you endorsing their paper is the equivalent of Samuel Shenton advocating a paper on geology: The viewpoint advocated by such an individual renders any analysis suspect by virtue of the known starting biases and flawed basic preconceptions embraced and forwarded by said personality. It would take as much argument from you to validate this viewpoint as it would take from a flat earther to validate theirs. I'd rather accept conclusions from demonstrably trustworthy individuals. You are not on that list.

ETA: Oh, and for the record: No. People have in fact debunked your work. You're just pretending it doesn't exist when you make that claim. I would in particular look up the posts of Architect, Dave Rogers, rwguinn, R.Mackey, and others as proof of this. It's one thing to make an argument, it's another thing to present a demonstrably wrong claim. And claiming that no one's debunked you is a demonstrably wrong claim.

 

[beachnut]

I think it is a very good paper! ...
We will see if things change after 20 January!

You have no clue about gravity, you would think anything is a good paper as long as your kids can bounce on a bed. The WTC/kids jumping on bed analogy comes to mind as your credibility is as good as a pizza box talking.

After 20 January, the President will have the intelligence to tell you your doltish work on 911 is.

It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.

Oops, no it is not. Gravity! Hi paper.

 

[stateofgrace]

I think it is a very good paper! Of course it only analyses the first 3.17 seconds of the displacement of the WTC1 roof line and the upper part below down to floor 98, BUT we can learn a lot from that.

During these 3.17 seconds the roof line displaces say 33 metres downwards ... but nothing happens to the structure below floor 93!

Strange, isn't it. When the roof line has dropped 33 meters, evidently 33 meters of structure below floor 93 should have been completely crushed down then by the rigid upper part crushing down.

BUT - the structure below floor 93 remains undamaged!

So where did it go Sherlock?

What you see instead is the upper part - floor 98 to the roof - being compressed or imploding during these 3.17 seconds.

Where did the upper weight go, Sherlock?

I have described it before at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ... and no JREF member has managed to debunk my observations there.

It as been debunked your failure to see this is your problem. Post a link to your website again and I will report you for spamming.

The upper part columns should then start to punch holes in the floors below or just hit air outside the structure below AND the lower structure columns should start to punch holes in the upper part floors.

The upper columns? What about the upper floors, the hat truss, the upper core, all the concrete on the upper floor trusses, all the machinery on the upper floors, where did it all go, Sherlock?

It is like a collision of two ships! Both ships are damaged, and after a while the local destruction is arrested, etc.

Rubbish.

NIST assumes of course that the upper part of WTC1 remains completely undamaged during the whole collapse and applies its PE on the lower structure that lacks SE, etc. BUT it is just silly nonsense.

Wrong, complete garbage.

Reason for NIST staff suggesting such nonsense is that if anybody does not do it, he or she is a terrorist according to president GWB. We will see if things change after 20 January!

More garbage, grow up or go away.

 

[T.A.M.]

Is anyone going to actually address the paper?

Tell me where you agree with it Red? lol, just kidding.

As a non physicist/engineer, here is my reply.

"The paper is likely incorrect."

TAM

 

[alexi_drago]

I don't understand much of this and want to know it it's correct that the deceleration during the impulse would be a constant for the duration and then end abruptly (in this case a constant 31g for 13ms), anyone know?
Not that i'll make much difference to the paper, just curious.

 

[twinstead]

So let me get this straight, Heiwa. All you have to do is claim not to have been debunked, and you can declare anything you say as true, no matter what anybody else says or if any evidence to the contrary has been presented?

I LIKE it. I think you're on to something here.

 

[rwguinn]

I don't understand much of this and want to know it it's correct that the deceleration during the impulse would be a constant for the duration and then end abruptly (in this case a constant 31g for 13ms), anyone know?
Not that i'll make much difference to the paper, just curious.

1. Deceleration is not a term we use. What you mean is "Acceleration opposing current motion"
2. If by "constant" you mean "continually changing", then, yes.
3. IF by abruptly, you mean rapidly increasing to a limit, yes.
As for the values given, I am not wasting my time to look over another chunk of "Matrimonial advice by an unmarried marriage counseler"

 

[alexi_drago]

1. Deceleration is not a term we use. What you mean is "Acceleration opposing current motion"
2. If by "constant" you mean "continually changing", then, yes.
3. IF by abruptly, you mean rapidly increasing to a limit, yes.
As for the values given, I am not wasting my time to look over another chunk of "Matrimonial advice by an unmarried marriage counseler"

1. ok, but you knew what I meant.
2. again, ok [edit] but in what manner does it change?
3. lost me there, I mean at the end of the duration of the impulse the acceleration opposing current motion instantly drops from it's continually changing constant value to 0.