• 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

RedIbis

Philosopher
RedIbis
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
6,899
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

Conclusions:
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to indulge in a direct attack on the editorial policy of JON-ES here, so truthers may want to stick their fingers in their ears.

Several months ago, Gregory Urich submitted a paper to JON-ES analysing the dynamics of the collapse, and demonstrating that the collapse times - and, clearly, the fact of collapse itself - were consistent with a gravity driven process. His paper was rejected on the grounds that JO-NES was ceasing publication, because they felt that no further evidence was necessary to demonstrate that the official story of 9/11 cannot stand up to scrutiny and must therefore be re-investigated. Please note that there was no criticism of Urich's methodology, reasoning or conclusions; the paper was simply rejected. Now, however, it appears that JON-ES is not only still publishing, but still publishing on the specific subject of the dynamics of the Twin Towers collapses. Since they have neither published Urich's paper nor, as far as I know, informed him of any adverse peer review result that would justify its rejection, it seems clear to me that their only possible motivation for its rejection is that it does not agree with their preferred conclusion concerning 9/11. I felt certain that this was already the case, but the subject matter of this latest paper places the matter beyond question. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is therefore shown to be no more than a propaganda organ of the 9/11 truth movement. Ironically, this active suppression of any dissenting opinion is exactly the behaviour of which all mainstream media are accused by the 9/11 truth movement, usually without justification.

The behaviour of this "journal" is reprehensible and repulsive.

Dave
 
On what planet do theology professors co-author peer-reviewed papers on structural engineering?
 
RedIbis said:
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Click to expand...

I'm not qualified to address it. All I know that some dudes, who may or may not be qualified to do so, studied a video and declared Bazant and NIST wrong. Fortunately, there are quite a few folks on this very forum who are qualified to address it, and I'm sure they will.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
I'm not going to analyze anything.

However, I would suggest finding a good, high-speed video of a head-on car collision. Should be easy to find.

Now, analyze that video. Do a frame-by-frame to identify the exact time that the front of each vehicle makes impact.

Next, do the same thing, but block out the middle part of the video (the fronts of each vehicle, just cover part of the screen with a piece of paper) and try to identify the time of impact by looking for the "jolt" at the rear of the vehicle.

For additional fun, do the same thing with a video of two pool balls impacting, where no damage occurs to either impactor.

Let me know how that works out.
 
RedIbis said:
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Click to expand...

I did, here.

I'm also not happy with the editorial policies of the JONES. Also, I couldn't agree with Dave Rogers more when he says

Ironically, this active suppression of any dissenting opinion is exactly the behaviour of which all mainstream media are accused by the 9/11 truth movement*
Click to expand...

Lee Smolin, author of The Trouble with Physics, has a nifty line: "Science thrives on controversy." It seems rather obvious to me that the small number of members of stj911 who are actually running it have great difficulty wearing both their "truth" and "justice" hats, simultaneously. Scientists are a special kind of truth-seeker, but the circle-the-wagon, "tribalistic" behavior one can observe at stj911 is only too reminiscent of the flawed behavior of scientists that Smolin was criticizing.

Besides the stj911/mainstream media analogy, one can also draw a stj911/NIST analogy, which is irony-squared, you might say. :)

* though he adds "usually without justification", which is nonsense; the rest of the quoted sentence makes sense, though!!
 
RedIbis said:
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Click to expand...

What does it matter if someone does or not?

No matter what objections may be raised, it will never convince you anyways.

No matter what facts are mentioned about poor quality video - which therefore make the analysis suspect - this will not affect troofer views on what kind of earth shattering news this is.

Of course, when the rest of the world has absolutely no reaction to it - including those in foreign countries, which of course includes those that would love to see Bush's cronies hurt and/or put in jail - this will mean nothing to troofers. Indeed, if anything, it'll just reinforce the trooder's delusion that the media is controlled by a $100,000 bribe.

Do you actually think that we can be convinced that you are actually interested in any rational view? We know better.

We know that troofers are either
a)politically motivated - and so, believe that any lie to protest the war/Bush is fine, no matter who it disrespects, from the FDNY, to Silverstein, to ATC's, etc. They are the lowest scum around. Sub-human.
b)insane
c)stupid/ignorant
 
Uh oh. TRUTHER FIGHT!!!!!

ETA: Sorry. Couldn't resist, metamars.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
I'm not qualified to address it. All I know that some dudes, who may or may not be qualified to do so, studied a video and declared Bazant and NIST wrong. Fortunately, there are quite a few folks on this very forum who are qualified to address it, and I'm sure they will.

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...
Actually we do know that they are not qualified to make that type of observation. They are theology professors.
 
RedIbis said:
Is anyone going to actually address the paper?
Click to expand...

It was, Red. It was conclusively demonstrated in this very thread that Jones' Journal is intellectually fraudulent, the authors are incompetent, and the methodology is pathetic.

Thanks for the link though!

You EVER gonna take a position on anything, or simply continue being 911 Blogger's waterboy?
 
Let me get this straight.

Option 1

Read something about a buildings collapse by two guys, one of whom as zero engineering experience and the other who as zero structural engineering background and try to reinforce their predetermined conclusions by looking a single video.

Option 2

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 laboratory tests, measured materials properties and performed computer simulations.

I know this a tough call for you Red, but maybe you could point me to the better option.

And the answer is no, I have no intention whatsoever of reading your link. If you think it as merit, read it, sum it up and present your own thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Hilariously this is Jones' announcement on 911 Blogger

http://911blogger.com/node/19095

The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, one of those "116 peer-reviewed papers" was an e-mail that I sent to Jones criticizing his fake photos. Hell, one of them was an e-mail that I sent to a third party that he published without my permission. Interesting definition of peer-review.
 
metamars said:
I'm also not happy with the editorial policies of the JONES. Also, I couldn't agree with Dave Rogers more when he says
Click to expand...

Oops. I meant to say:

I'm also not happy with the editorial policies of the JONES. Also, I couldn't agree more with Dave Rogers more when he says
 
Ok, just one page into the paper, and I've already got some questions/issues:

MacQueen said:
The
rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it.​
Click to expand...

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. ​


Also:​
In addition, the rigid block had to​
fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.”[5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.”[6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it, with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse?

​
Click to expand...


This simply sounds like a misrepresentation of what happened to me. The columns gradually weaken, but when they fail, they fail. I simply don't see anything that suggests an "easing" of the upper sections onto the lower ones. I do in fact see a fall.​

More to come when I get a chance to read further.​


ETA: As a side note, will compare this to what Mackey and others have said about Bazant's modelings when I get a chance to. But just from the opening paragraph alone, this looks like it doesn't address the NIST hypothesis as much as it creates a competing one and tries to argue from video analysis. Again, though, that's an initial impression; will read further soon.
 
Last edited:
MacQueen said:
What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand the momentum of the upper block, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing it to bits all the way to the ground.​
Click to expand...

GAAAAAH!! I'm tempted to dismiss it right there without reading any further! This is yet another attempt to frame the argument of the upper block competing against the strength of the lower structure as a whole, not floor-by-floor which is what was determined to have occurred!​

Global failure led to the initial drop onto the first floor beneath the failure zone. Subsequent drops were upper section plus newly failed floor, and mathematically this has been determined to be overall an accelerating one, with each individual floor not being able to negate the acceleration the upper segment! Again, this is old information!​

I'll continue to take one for the team, but when a non-engineer, non-architect like me can see the flaws - namely, that so far, just a few pages into the work that this is merely a restatement of an already refuted model of collapse - then that speaks volumes about the work.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom