Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[TruthersLie]

There are several real ways it could be done.

Please provide just one that doesn't require 20,000 ninjas working in sekret in the fires of the towers...

 

[BasqueArch]

I have said repeatedly that I believe some unnatural mechanism was removing the strength of the columns in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 and causing their respective collapses.

A natural redistribution of loads and heat damage removed the strength of the surviving columns and caused the collapses. NCSTAR 1-6 exhaustively tracks this initial collapse process.

At WTC2 the east perimeter columns gradually bowed over a period of 36 minutes. This is a sign of a progressively failing structure and the gradual bowing cannot be explained by the instantaneous effects of thermite or any other mechanism you have yet to invent.

The initial collapse is well understood and all peer reviewed engineering publications confirm this. The subsequent global collapse is a separate issue.

No amount of your mistaken math or discombobulation can contradict the recorded evidence of the natural initial collapse.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can not reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Swift

 

[NutCracker]

The obvious answer to your question here is that it seems some do not want to get involved in this controversy at this point. I have had first hand knowledge of several papers written by respected engineering people on this issue, which would support my point of view, that have simply been rejected for nonsensical reasons or left to languish by at least one of the better known journals in engineering.

After seeing this I did not even bother to submit my paper to them.

It is good to see confirmation that our "Department of Truth Suppression" does its job well.

Agent 2791399
--
Patsy Oswald Lane 5
NWO Campus

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Remember Bazant sets Po = mg and then calculates Pdtn/Po. He finds that ratio to be 31. The fact that Bazant's Pdyn is 31 times greater than mg means a 31g amplification was what he calculated.

You didn't get anybody. I said straight out in that paper that a 31g amplification would have been impossible. I did not need to look at every angle of the situation to show it was impossible and dismiss it.

You should have just dismissed it, as Bazant and Zhou did, but you didn't. No, you used that impossible 31g as the basis for your claim that a 13 ft/sec reduction in velocity should have been achieved within 13 milliseconds (on page 10 of your paper).

Furthermore you are wrong about the P_dyn/P₀=31 ratio implying a 31g deceleration at impact. From your first paragraph quoted above, you appear to have arrived at your belief by calculating the force P_dyn=31mg, which is the impossible force dismissed by Bazant and Zhou (but not by you). You then make the mistake of arguing that the impossible 31mg force implies a 31g deceleration because "the mass of an object is constant at all times everywhere in the universe" (page 9). Although the mass of the upper section is indeed constant (neglecting disintegration), you somehow overlook the whole point, which is that the 31mg force was impossible by an order of magnitude. The lower section would fail long before that force could be exerted (hence no 31g deceleration), and the failure would happen so quickly that the delta-V you expect could not have been achieved by sustaining a much lower deceleration for far longer than the 13 milliseconds you calculated (which means there couldn't have been much of a jolt).

You are talking garbage.

Yeah sure and the sky is purple. Your own words show that you don't know what you are talking about to anyone who does.

There is no need for cheerleading in this debate and that type of thing should be kept to the sidelines.

Although examination of Tony's research record shows little more than a patent, I suspect he is entirely competent at engineering design. When designing, he follows rules of thumb and stays well within the margins of safety.

Analyzing a structural failure is another matter. It requires more than knowledge of physics: It requires the ability to reason from first principles without relying on habits of reasoning that work fine for design but not for failed and failing structures.

If you admit that the force needed to arrest the descent of the upper section is impossible, but use that impossible force to calculate an impossible deceleration, and then claim that your failure to observe that impossible deceleration implies the WTC towers were brought down by unnatural means, then you shouldn't be surprised if some people are unable to suppress their laughter.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony... there are hundreds of REAL peer reviewed journals ALL OVER THE WORLD. If you don't get accepted to one, then you submit to another. In fact, please show me a single peer reviewed engineering journal from anywhere in the world which supports your nuttiness?

Please provide examples of "several papers written by respected engineering peole on this issue." Where are these papers? If the engineering is correct, then it doesn't matter, and in fact a real journal will be rather pissed that they passed on this topic.



So then it is a white paper and is not peer reviewed? Is that correct? So then you haven't submitted it to any type of scrutiny, but instead when shown how and where you are wrong by people who are knowledgable you just ignore them? Is that correct?

So then let me get this straight. You have (you think) a easy to show proof that NIST is wrong, yet you don't even bother to submit it to ANY journal, anywhere in the world?



That is a correct statement. And one of the easiest ways to see if your "facts" are accurate is to pass it through a strict battery of peer review. So you didn't send it to any of the engineering journals in the world. Ok. Who did you run it by? Which structural engineers have read your work and support your claims? Who reviewed it for obvious mistakes, and leaps of logic?



Ah...the old "you hide behind the internet therefore you aren't a valid criticism." ROFLMAO. As I have stated before Tony, I live in a small community (it is right under my avatar), and I have had truthers track me down before and even email people in town (who I don't work with) and lie about me. sorry tony.. but it happens.

And since I am not the one accusing innocent individuals of murdering 3,000 people and then covering it up, I dont' need to establish my identity. I am fully happy with 95% of the common narrative, and the 5% I have questions about do not change the fact that 19 hijackers took over 4 jets and crashed them into 3 buildings and a field. You are making the claims, you need to provide the evidence.



You seem to miss the point. Bazants papers were published in the BEST journal because they EXPLAINED what happened. If you can provide an example of how Bazant is wrong, I'd bet my pay check vs yours that they would publish it. There is NOTHING a publishing firm likes more than contraversy and debate.

Did you not learn the easiest way to write papers Tony? Or to earn a PhD? Find someone in the field who is respected and find an ERROR in their work. either an error in the grunt work, or an unsupported claim which you can SHOW is wrong. Slam dunk publication. Where is this refutation of Bazant?



ah yes... argument ad mark twainium... ranks right up there with argument ad youtubium and the lack of peer review.

You aren't a patriot. Just deluded and incorrect (as has been repeatedly shown to you.)

A retired civil engineering professor reviewed the paper.

I have pointed out a number of errors in the Bazant and Zhou paper. One, being the axial stiffness of the columns where they are amazingly off by a factor of ten. Maybe they had a typo, but it is still incorrect and that value is used in other calculations down the road such as their calculation for the dynamic amplification. Two, the incorrect energy of dissipation as they only consider buckling on the lower section of the building and not elastic and plastic deformation and they consider none of these three for the upper section which would have recieved an equal and opposite load. Third, is their erroneous reference to the static load "mg" as the design load capacity. Fourth, is the fact that a 31g load amplification was impossible.

Being that you feel entitled to say I am deluded I would like to see you show where and how. It is a shame you fall short on details but indulge yourself in nonsense.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You should have just dismissed it, as Bazant and Zhou did, but you didn't. No, you used that impossible 31g as the basis for your claim that a 13 ft/sec reduction in velocity should have been achieved within 13 milliseconds (on page 10 of your paper).

Furthermore you are wrong about the P_dyn/P₀=31 ratio implying a 31g deceleration at impact. From your first paragraph quoted above, you appear to have arrived at your belief by calculating the force P_dyn=31mg, which is the impossible force dismissed by Bazant and Zhou (but not by you). You then make the mistake of arguing that the impossible 31mg force implies a 31g deceleration because "the mass of an object is constant at all times everywhere in the universe" (page 9). Although the mass of the upper section is indeed constant (neglecting disintegration), you somehow overlook the whole point, which is that the 31mg force was impossible by an order of magnitude. The lower section would fail long before that force could be exerted (hence no 31g deceleration), and the failure would happen so quickly that the delta-V you expect could not have been achieved by sustaining a much lower deceleration for far longer than the 13 milliseconds you calculated (which means there couldn't have been much of a jolt).








Although examination of Tony's research record shows little more than a patent, I suspect he is entirely competent at engineering design. When designing, he follows rules of thumb and stays well within the margins of safety.

Analyzing a structural failure is another matter. It requires more than knowledge of physics: It requires the ability to reason from first principles without relying on habits of reasoning that work fine for design but not for failed and failing structures.

If you admit that the force needed to arrest the descent of the upper section is impossible, but use that impossible force to calculate an impossible deceleration, and then claim that your failure to observe that impossible deceleration implies the WTC towers were brought down by unnatural means, then you shouldn't be surprised if some people are unable to suppress their laughter.

A 5 to 6g deceleration wouldn't be impossible and that is why it is discussed in the paper after the 31g deceleration is dismissed as being impossible. The energy dissipation is the same and that is what we depend on to see if the velocity loss is there showing a load amplification took place. It isn't.

Apparently your understanding here is very poor. If I were you I wouldn't be laughing.

 

[TruthersLie]

A retired civil engineering professor reviewed the paper.

I have pointed out a number of errors in the Bazant and Zhou paper. One, being the axial stiffness of the columns where they are amazingly off by a factor of ten. Maybe they had a typo, but it is still incorrect and that value is used in other calculations down the road such as their calculation for the dynamic amplification. Two, the incorrect energy of dissipation as they only consider buckling on the lower section of the building and not elastic and plastic deformation and they consider none of these three for the upper section which would have recieved an equal and opposite load. Third, is their erroneous reference to the static load "mg" as the design load capacity. Fourth, is the fact that a 31g load amplification was impossible.

GREAT. Which peer reviewed engineering journal did you submit this paper showing that Bazant and Zhou are incorrect? What was the engineering journals response, or Bazant and Zhou's response?

I would love to see this published anywhere.... where is it?

Being that you feel entitled to say I am deluded I would like to see you show where and how. It is a shame you fall short on details but indulge yourself in nonsense.

OH tony... does it make you feel better? Really?

Tony, it really is a shame on you that you don't seem to understand simple things like
1. a limiting case
2. how low resolution video is not really able to be used for pinpoint analysis
3. an error analysis.

any of those would be great, but you seem to be lacking.

You have been shown REPEATEDLY how your "missing jolt" (which you still haven't defined or been able to show a decent definition of it. Since you keep repeating the same actions and beliefs when shown to be incorrect it is a simple definition of insanity (to repeat the same action and expect different results).

 

[TruthersLie]

A retired civil engineering professor reviewed the paper.

a retired civil engineering professor reviewed a paper on structural engineering? is that correct?

So your peer review was ONE person? A person who is outside of his speciality? Who is retired and not an active civil engineer? you used video evidence where pixels are being counted and measured to show your "missing jolt" and your peer review was an older retired civil engineer? Wow... I don't know where to go with that. I do know that my old engineering professors would fail me if I only ran a paper by ONE person, and then refused to try to submit it to real peer review.

And when you have shown your "paper" to real structural engineers, what have they said? I know that Tom here has ripped you a new one, repeatedly... gee I wonder why...

 

[WilliamSeger]

A 5 to 6g deceleration wouldn't be impossible and that is why it is discussed in the paper after the 31g deceleration is dismissed as being impossible.

A 5 to 6g deceleration would also be impossible if there was never a point in time where the columns offered resistance equal to 5 or 6 times the weight of the upper block. That's why the tilt matters. You are committing a logical fallacy very similar to the one that led you to misinterpret Bazant's 31-times over-load calculation as a 31g deceleration. What leads you to persist in misrepresenting both Bazant's argument and what you actually say in your paper is another matter, but I doubt that many here have been fooled by your rhetorical flimflammery.

 

[WildCat]

Your point is nonsensical and it appears that you just want to diminish the influence of my paper disingenuously.

How could that be done? Is it possible to have negative influence?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A 5 to 6g deceleration wouldn't be impossible and that is why it is discussed in the paper after the 31g deceleration is dismissed as being impossible. The energy dissipation is the same and that is what we depend on to see if the velocity loss is there showing a load amplification took place. It isn't.

Apparently you don't understand the implications of the paragraph you wrote on page 11:

Consider a velocity graph with a 6g deceleration, very likely the minimum load amplification necessary to overcome the reserve capacity of the perimeter columns, which had a minimum factor of safety of 5.00 to 1.

If a 6g deceleration would have required enough force "to overcome the reserve capacity of the perimeter columns", then the 6g deceleration could not have been sustained either.

You're going about this entirely backwards. You're using static loads and safety factors to calculate the jolt you expect to see, and then you're searching for some deceleration that could have been sustained without failure long enough to generate that jolt, using the presumed jolt to argue for whatever deceleration (and forces) you come up with.

That's a circular argument. Your calculation of the jolt using static loads and safety factors assumes the dynamic forces lie within those safety factors so there's no failure. In other words, your calculated jolt is just an assumption; it's a reasonable assumption if you can provide an independent argument for the dynamic forces being small enough to avoid failure, but Bazant and Zhou's calculation had already dismissed the possibility of non-failure.

(BTW, your factor-of-10 correction to Bazant and Zhou's value for C reduces their 31 to about 10, because C is a factor of the dominant term under the radical. That's still too large to avoid failure.)

In short, your form of argument can't possibly prove the existence of a jolt. Assuming the jolt at the outset and then using the assumed jolt to argue that the needed forces and accelerations would have been sustained long enough to create the jolt is a circular argument.

What you really need to do is to estimate the actual forces and how long they could have been sustained before failure. From those estimates, you can calculate an estimated jolt. You haven't done that calculation.

According to my calculations, the portion of the jolt that comes from that source (as opposed to conservation of momentum) would have been insignificant. My calculations might be incorrect, but you have made no attempt to argue against them...unless we count "arguments" such as this:

Apparently your understanding here is very poor. If I were you I wouldn't be laughing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

a retired civil engineering professor reviewed a paper on structural engineering? is that correct?

So your peer review was ONE person? A person who is outside of his speciality? Who is retired and not an active civil engineer? you used video evidence where pixels are being counted and measured to show your "missing jolt" and your peer review was an older retired civil engineer? Wow... I don't know where to go with that. I do know that my old engineering professors would fail me if I only ran a paper by ONE person, and then refused to try to submit it to real peer review.

And when you have shown your "paper" to real structural engineers, what have they said? I know that Tom here has ripped you a new one, repeatedly... gee I wonder why...

Just what do you think the retired civil engineering professor was? I'll give you a hint *****, civil engineers are structural engineers. The guy probably forgot more than the likes of you will ever know judging by your nonsensical comments and audacity. I seriously doubt you had three years of engineering courses as you don't seem able to handle the details. I think you are nothing more than an anonymous **********.

Edited due to lack of civility, breach of Rule 10.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Apparently you don't understand the implications of the paragraph you wrote on page 11:

If a 6g deceleration would have required enough force "to overcome the reserve capacity of the perimeter columns", then the 6g deceleration could not have been sustained either.

You're going about this entirely backwards. You're using static loads and safety factors to calculate the jolt you expect to see, and then you're searching for some deceleration that could have been sustained without failure long enough to generate that jolt, using the presumed jolt to argue for whatever deceleration (and forces) you come up with.

That's a circular argument. Your calculation of the jolt using static loads and safety factors assumes the dynamic forces lie within those safety factors so there's no failure. In other words, your calculated jolt is just an assumption; it's a reasonable assumption if you can provide an independent argument for the dynamic forces being small enough to avoid failure, but Bazant and Zhou's calculation had already dismissed the possibility of non-failure.

(BTW, your factor-of-10 correction to Bazant and Zhou's value for C reduces their 31 to about 10, because C is a factor of the dominant term under the radical. That's still too large to avoid failure.)

In short, your form of argument can't possibly prove the existence of a jolt. Assuming the jolt at the outset and then using the assumed jolt to argue that the needed forces and accelerations would have been sustained long enough to create the jolt is a circular argument.

What you really need to do is to estimate the actual forces and how long they could have been sustained before failure. From those estimates, you can calculate an estimated jolt. You haven't done that calculation.

According to my calculations, the portion of the jolt that comes from that source (as opposed to conservation of momentum) would have been insignificant. My calculations might be incorrect, but you have made no attempt to argue against them...unless we count "arguments" such as this:

The reason an amplified load (which only a jolt or shock load can produce in this situation) is necessary is that the load above is insufficient. The calculation of the energy dissipation told us what the velocity loss needed to be. That is actually what we looked for and did not find.

If you actually read the paper you would see that we use the actual yield strength of the columns. That is highly relevant to the forces required and the energy dissipation. We have already done what you ask for here.

You fascination with the size of the jolt possible is not relevant. It needed to be whatever was necessary to overcome the resistance below but would produce the same velocity loss as the energy dissipation requirements are the same. The only difference due to the magnitude of the deceleration would be the duration.

If you don't understand these things there isn't much more to tell you. Right now it would seem you are the one with the circular argument. I would like to see your calculations rather than just your words. Can you post them?

 

[R.Mackey]

I have had first hand knowledge of several papers written by respected engineering people on this issue, which would support my point of view, that have simply been rejected for nonsensical reasons or left to languish by at least one of the better known journals in engineering.

Ah yes, the "vast engineering conspiracy." Names, please.

It goes with what Mark Twain said In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

Cloak yourself in Galileo next time, you'll score slightly higher on the crank-o-meter.

There are several real ways it could be done.

Details, please. It's not like you haven't been asked before.

A retired civil engineering professor reviewed the paper.

Name, please.

After seeing this I did not even bother to submit my paper to them.

Then why should anyone take you seriously? You are obviously impotent to the point of utter irrelevance.

 

[funk de fino]

In engineering we have a saying that "the devil is in the details", which basically means you need to get into the details to flush out and understand the problems. It is always a red flag when people discussing an issue don't delve into details and simply make unsupported arguments. I don't see you discussing details whatsoever. You seem to be all bluster with nothing to really show.

Found the show with Silversteins admission yet? That's a huge Red Flag that you are a liar.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ah yes, the "vast engineering conspiracy." Names, please.



Cloak yourself in Galileo next time, you'll score slightly higher on the crank-o-meter.



Details, please. It's not like you haven't been asked before.



Name, please.



Then why should anyone take you seriously? You are obviously impotent to the point of utter irrelevance.

You have never submitted anything you have written on 911 to an established engineering journal. By your definition you are irrelevant then.

I am a co-author of Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction paper published in the Bentham open civil engineering journal. Oh, I know that is a vanity press. However, when you pressed them to withdraw it they asked you to submit a formal rebuttal to them. Did you ever do that?

I cannot mention someone's name on a sensitive topic such as this. They will have to do so themselves if they choose to.

As for details on how a covert demolition could be done I discussed that with you during our debate on Hardfire and have mentioned other possibilities here in the past. You only have what you claim to be a lack of sound as a means to argue against explosives. Nano-thermite is tailorable and can be formulated to minimize sound. The joints could be heat weakened and I told you that Dr. Astaneh mentioned melting at the ends of beams and columns. I also don't think it is out of the realm of possibility the core columns in the upper stories could be taken out in ways similar to what is done in the Verinage Technique.

 

[Edx]

You have never submitted anything you have written on 911 to an established engineering journal yet the clowns here asking these types of questions seem to fawn all over it. What is with the double standard? What is interesting is that these anonymous people here rarely discuss details.

People who write against Creationist claims don't publish those pieces in journals either.

Nano-thermite is tailorable and can be formulated to minimize sound.

So it can fling steel around and not make massive explosion sounds? Really?

 

[R.Mackey]

You have never submitted anything you have written on 911 to an established engineering journal. By your definition you are irrelevant then. [...]

Uh, no.

I don't see an answer to any of my questions above. Try again.

And yes, Bentham is a vanity journal. The Fourteen Points paper is not even testable. No, "they" did not press me for a rebuttal paper -- Mahmood Alam did, the nontechnical publisher in Pakistan, but the editor-in-chief symapthized with me completely.

This is looking very, very bad for you, Tony.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Uh, no.

I don't see an answer to any of my questions above. Try again.

And yes, Bentham is a vanity journal. The Fourteen Points paper is not even testable. No, "they" did not press me for a rebuttal paper -- Mahmood Alam did, the nontechnical publisher in Pakistan, but the editor-in-chief symapthized with me completely.

This is looking very, very bad for you, Tony.

You are the consummate projector Mackey and you have to know it.

 

[R.Mackey]

Name calling.

Pathetic.

There is no "vast engineering conspiracy." If you won't submit your papers to an engineering journal, you have no confidence in them or your own abilities. Period.