• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

Tony Szamboti said:
The image you are using here was taken from 3.5 miles away and is looking at the north face for the most part. It does not contain the resolution to discern the initial downward drop.
Click to expand...

Yea, even at that resolution one can STILL see that WilliamSeger appears to know what he is talking about, and that you don't. What's your point?
 
Since TS seems to be forgetting I thought it a good idea to remind him that effective at the time of the plane impacts we were no longer dealing with an as-built structure. Aside from the fact that the 300% figure was closer to a more typical 125% safety factor, these factors are no longer valid after the as-built condition is disrupted and/or deteriorated. :\
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No, you shouldn't take it as a concession. The increase in vertical load on the columns on the right is equal to the sin of 4 degrees or about 7%. It wouldn't have very much of an effect on columns designed to handle at least 300% of the load above them.
Click to expand...

Then I guess I'll need to make the point again: The columns have failed across the building at floor 97 except for the perimeter columns on the left. Otherwise, there could be no tilt. If this were a static situation, the entire tower top would essentially be resisting on those unfailed perimeter columns on the left and the perimeter columns at floor 96 on the right. Would you like to revise your calculation?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The image you are using here was taken from 3.5 miles away and is looking at the north face for the most part. It does not contain the resolution to discern the initial downward drop.
Click to expand...

:confused: Are you suggesting a single pixel here represents 2 or more storeys? The white band at the roofline is somewhat less than 1 storey in height, yet seems to occupy 4 pixels. That would make roughly 10 pixels for a 2-storey drop. I suggest you're wrong, maybe willfully, but the optometrist option is still open.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The tilt could not have occurred with an intact core, so it is somewhat apparent that the core went down first and caused an initial downward drop.
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting the core was undamaged, nor that there was any particular reason why the core would fail symmetrically. In all likelyhood the core, along with the floor systems and perimeter columns, failed asymmetrically due to the random damage.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Tony seems fixated on a scenario where the tower drops straight down, even though this scenario is not what was observed. His conclusions, based on the fallacious scenario are equally erroneous.

There's nothing more to see here.

Besides, Tony has to avoid WTC2 entirely, as it clearly tilted and failed asymmetrically, demonstrating the plane impact/fire collapse perfectly with no need to impose artificial conditions on it.

His arguments completely fail to address this, and his attempts to evade the inescapable failure are laughable.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Bill, there was no tilt like you show immediately. The tilt did not actually start until after a two story vertical drop.
Click to expand...

False. The initial failure was toward one face of the building, hence the tilt was inherent in the collapse. It is physically impossible that it could be otherwise.

This is clearly and unmistakably shown in this simple video. Your denials cannot change reality. You might as well be arguing for a flat-earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S66l28KveFw

 
bardamu said:
Now that's what I call a physics presentation! No rambling on about motive. No accusations of dishonesty. No insinuating people are deluded. Just pure physics and logic.
Click to expand...

as opposed to what you bring here. Rambling on about ethical and moral deficienies of the investigating bodies, claiming that honest decent folks are part of massive conspiracy to murder then cover up the murder of 3,000 folks, accusations of dishonesty, and insinuating that folks are getting away wit hmurder.

hey pot, it is the kettle.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
..., which is pretty well summed up here http://the911forum.freeforums.org/refutation-of-nist-wtc1-collapse-initiation-scenario-t296.html
Click to expand...
Heiwa comes through and adds a touch of delusional super-nano-no-gravity engineering to ice the cake of crap you present.
When is the Pulitzer party? lol - does your college have a special award for engineer as keen as this? At least Heiwa is on your side tangentially and in a real-cd-deal way.

Seriously, what does you college of engineering say about your grand revelation? How much grant money did you gain for your great discovery? At least Balsamo takes his 2,223 g no jolt at the Pentagon tripe and makes money selling DVDs to parnoid delusional conspracy theoriest hungry for real dumbed down CTs on 911. What is your goal?
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
Now that's what I call a physics presentation! No rambling on about motive. No accusations of dishonesty. No insinuating people are deluded. Just pure physics and logic.
Click to expand...
Not to mention irrelevant for this thread. As Major_Tom says in his second post of that thread, his analysis ends before the initial collision, so it can't have anything to do with Tony's missing jolt.

As for purity of physics/logic, this JREF thread was revived when, in a typical Galileo thread devoted to Adolf Hitler's opinion of the nanothermite hypothesis, Tony contributed this gem:
Tony Szamboti said:
The real fail in the collapse of WTC 1 is the constant acceleration observed in the measurable drop of the roof. There is no chance it could be purely gravity driven without the upper section decelerating during collisions with floors below.

What is even funnier than the Hitler spoof are the tortured and inane explanations for the above attempted by some who simply refuse to believe that the collapses could have been caused intentionally.
Click to expand...
The mods moved Tony's post and the resulting discussion here.

Tony's first paragraph fails because the jolt he's been carrying on about wouldn't have been large enough to be observable in the videos anyway, even for observers whose visual acuity is more impressive than Tony's.

Tony's second paragraph was just another example of what bardamu deplores.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Tony's first paragraph fails because the jolt he's been carrying on about wouldn't have been large enough to be observable in the videos anyway, even for observers whose visual acuity is more impressive than Tony's.
Click to expand...

So why would the jolt be visible in the verinage videos and not in the 9/11 videos?


W.D.Clinger said:
Tony's second paragraph was just another example of what bardamu deplores.
Click to expand...

The offending paragraph wasn't taken from a physics presentation. I don't see anything to deplore in the Missing Jolt paper. In contrast, certain Hardfire shows that were meant to be focusing "entirely on the science" were remarkable for the number of diversions away from the physics and into areas such as politics, motive and the honesty or sanity of anybody who doesn't accept the story provided by the government.
 
bardamu said:
So why would the jolt be visible in the verinage videos and not in the 9/11 videos?

The offending paragraph wasn't taken from a physics presentation. I don't see anything to deplore in the Missing Jolt paper. In contrast, certain Hardfire shows that were meant to be focusing "entirely on the science" were remarkable for the number of diversions away from the physics and into areas such as politics, motive and the honesty or sanity of anybody who doesn't accept the story provided by the government.
Click to expand...

Please expand and tell us what frame rate, and what resolution we need to see the jolt on 911? Come on use some engineering skills to prove something. Include feet/pixel, and frames/second. Go ahead make my day and expose your grand engineering prowess. Can't wait.

Please post the jolt in the (omg it was how many stories) Verinage video?

... you are not an engineer; never-mind.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

  • ae911truth is nothing more than a logical fallacy (appeal to authority)
  • Engineers publish papers in engineering journals
  • Tony Szamboti refuses to publish his paper in an engineering journal
  • Much like other ae911truth members, Tony opines on non-engineering matters (e.g., Rudy Giuliani was "in on it")
  • Tony claims that videos do not show things that they clearly show

Just trying to get my perspective together.
 
bardamu said:
The offending paragraph wasn't taken from a physics presentation. I don't see anything to deplore in the Missing Jolt paper. In contrast, certain Hardfire shows that were meant to be focusing "entirely on the science" were remarkable for the number of diversions away from the physics and into areas such as politics, motive and the honesty or sanity of anybody who doesn't accept the story provided by the government.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Project much? We ALL know 911 is all about politics and world view to truthers.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
So why would the jolt be visible in the verinage videos and not in the 9/11 videos?
Click to expand...

This is a perfectly good question, and gets to the heart of the matter:

In all cases (Verinage and WTC collapses) there is no serious question that the failure of a couple of floors can lead to a complete collapse. Otherwise verinage wouldn't work!

However, since the verinage technique is carefully engineered to remove structure symmetrically (evenly) and simultaneously across the structure, the upper (crushing) block falls almost perfectly and straight on to the lower block - thus the transmission of force from the upper block is close to simultaneous, and you expect a 'jolt'.

Since the WTC towers were chaotic and asymmetrical, the upper block did not transmit one giant impulse onto the lower floors, so you don't expect a 'jolt'.

Both are collapses driven by failure and gravity, but one is engineered, the other is an accident. There is no mystery.
 
bardamu said:
So why would the jolt be visible in the verinage videos and not in the 9/11 videos?
Click to expand...
alienentity said:
This is a perfectly good question, and gets to the heart of the matter:

In all cases (Verinage and WTC collapses) there is no serious question that the failure of a couple of floors can lead to a complete collapse. Otherwise verinage wouldn't work!

However, since the verinage technique is carefully engineered to remove structure symmetrically (evenly) and simultaneously across the structure, the upper (crushing) block falls almost perfectly and straight on to the lower block - thus the transmission of force from the upper block is close to simultaneous, and you expect a 'jolt'.

Since the WTC towers were chaotic and asymmetrical, the upper block did not transmit one giant impulse onto the lower floors, so you don't expect a 'jolt'.
Click to expand...
That's reason enough, but here are three more reasons:
  1. With the verinage videos, the ratio of the upper section's mass to a single floor's mass is less than at the WTC. (With verinage, there are typically 6 to 8 floors in the upper section, but there were twice as many floors in the upper section at the WTC towers.)
  2. The WTC construction was unusual, with lightweight floors that were never intended to bear much weight. With the verinage videos, you see more conventional construction in which weight-bearing elements were distributed more evenly across each floor.
  3. The verinage videos show more detail because they were professionally filmed, using cameras set up in advance of a scheduled event.
 
^^ All good points.

The smaller upper section also means less flexibility in the upper section (think of fewer coupled springs), thus the "jolt" is more visible at the roofline than it would be at the WTC.

Also, again, as far as I know verinage has only been applied to concrete structures. Much more brittle, and with more bearing surface at impact.
 
alienentity said:
In all cases (Verinage and WTC collapses) there is no serious question that the failure of a couple of floors can lead to a complete collapse. Otherwise verinage wouldn't work!
Click to expand...

What makes you think verinage would work on a building supported by a steel core?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom