Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[johnny karate]

I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one

And yet you insist on arguing science with people that actually are scientists.

 

[JamesB]

I don't have the paper open in front of me right now, but did they even estimate the error anywhere? Seems like that would be pretty crucial in making observations of this type, otherwise you would have no idea as to whether your conclusions were even significant.

 

[R.Mackey]

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video. The rate at which the roof falls did not experience any deceleration, which NIST admits was at essentially freefall. This is measurable regardless of the resolution of this video.

So here we are, a day later, and you are still trying to save face. Forget it. Dave Rogers quite irrefutably demonstrated that the method used is inadequate to detect any such jolt, if it indeed existed (one nitpick, Dave -- the labels on your Excel graph are transposed, but otherwise, good stuff). I also demonstrated why a jolt or no jolt doesn't threaten the conclusions of the paper at all.

This, of course, has had no effect on your beliefs, or your rhetoric. Well, maybe this will. I sincerely thank metamars for bringing this up on another forum, as he noted on the first page. In the discussion there is the following gem:

I was asked to review this paper and recommended against publication unless of the conflation you so rightly identify could be resolved.

I don't think this really throws cold water on B and Z. B and Z is a special case (i.e. the most optimistic) and not intended to model what actually happened. The tilting caused the wham to be spread out in time so there was no 31g impulse.

Source (Emphasis added)

I don't know who Hambone is, but assuming he's telling the truth -- I have no reason to doubt the above -- this is particularly damning to the JONES. Apparently one of their own reviewers found exactly the problem that I did, and offered the correct explanation for why this paper doesn't challenge Bazant & Zhou at all.

And they "published" it anyway.

Why would they do this? RedIbis, your answer, please?

If you ask me, either Dr. Jones is playing a practical joke on his "journal"'s few remaining dupes, or he and his fellow "editors" are quite, quite mad. This (again, if Hambone is telling the truth) is the stake through the heart. And anyone who continues to give them any benefit of any doubt, after reading the above, is simply masochistic.

 

[funk de fino]

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video. The rate at which the roof falls did not experience any deceleration, which NIST admits was at essentially freefall. This is measurable regardless of the resolution of this video.

Complete and utter, 100% fail.

You should stick to snide and nasty accusations directed at innocents instead of commenting on things you have absolutely no clue about.

You have just made yourself look very, very silly.

 

[NutCracker]

170 ms time resolution

For the sake of accuracy: I was mistaken about the time resolution in post #50.

As soon as a read 0.*17 second increments 'NTSC 60 half frames per second' jumped to my mind and apparently I assumed that anyone trying to detect a 13ms spike would make use of the highest time resolution available. I was wrong . Matters turn out to be even worse. They use every 1 out of 5 frames, giving them a time resolution of 170 ms. Now, where a time resolution of 17 ms already is insufficient to detect a 13 ms spike, a time resolution of 170 ms does not quite improve matters.

Why anyone would want to do such a thing is beyond me. If present. such a spike will be thoroughly hidden, that's for sure.

 

[NutCracker]

In my opinion, which I'm sure impresses many around here, is that the resolution is not a consideration since the jolt of impact between the two blocks should have been discernible on the video.

Reality does not reshape itself to match the opinions you have on it.

A video format having a 17 ms field interval will average out events happening at a shorter time frame. That the video format used, mpeg, is lossy, ie it smooths, doesn't help.

The situation for the paper is even worse: the authors of the paper use only 1 out of every 5 frames. As a frame consists of 2 fields, that gives them a sample interval of 170 ms. Any 13 ms event occurring within this 170 ms interval will be thoroughly averaged out.

 

[Mancman]

If you read the paper and study the video carefully you will see that the upper part above floor 98 up to the roof of WTC1 implodes during 3.17 seconds, i.e. becomes 33 meters vertically shorter without damaging the structure below floor 93. The roof line of the upper part moves down 33 metres. The floor 98 line remains static!!

Liar.

See? You are a liar.

 

[~enigma~]

The problem is that the 'weight' of the roof line drops 33 meters during 3.17 seconds, while there is no damage to floor 93 and structure below floor 93.

Must be some weird type of xray resolution you have that can see there is no damage inside the towers yet at the same time bypass the extreme bowing and snapping of the exterior columns. Are you ever going to stop lying?

How to find out?

Oh....I know...use pizza boxes...

 

[~enigma~]

regardless of the resolution of this video.

Here is the problem for every single idiotic notion of the trutherbots. Their fantasies are true (to them and them alone) REGARDLESS of evidence that says otherwise, REGARDLESS of science, REGARDLESS of witnesses, REGARDLESS of logic, need I go on?

 

[twinstead]

I'm ever so anxious to see Heiwa's response to Mancman's pretty pictures

 

[RedIbis]

Reality does not reshape itself to match the opinions you have on it.

A video format having a 17 ms field interval will average out events happening at a shorter time frame. That the video format used, mpeg, is lossy, ie it smooths, doesn't help.

The situation for the paper is even worse: the authors of the paper use only 1 out of every 5 frames. As a frame consists of 2 fields, that gives them a sample interval of 170 ms. Any 13 ms event occurring within this 170 ms interval will be thoroughly averaged out.

Whereas the actual impulse itself might not be picked up, I think the paper is trying to identify the effects, which would be the velocity drop, which should be discernible on the video.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Is anyone going to actually address the paper?

"I think it sucks."

 

[Blender Head]

Whereas the actual impulse itself might not be picked up, I think the paper is trying to identify the effects, which would be the velocity drop, which should be discernible on the video.

Care to address Dave or Ryan, Red?

Probably not.

 

[deep]

I don't know who Hambone is, but assuming he's telling the truth -- I have no reason to doubt the above -- this is particularly damning to the JONES.

Umm, aren't you supposed to be a skeptic (i.e., a doubter)? You "have no reason to doubt the above", when you (admittedly) don't even know who's making the statement? What reason do you have to believe it, other than the fact that it fits nicely into your preferred worldview?

I feel sorry for anyone who visits this forum looking for a profoundly skeptical point of view. This isn't a debate; it's a perpetual group therapy session.

 

[R.Mackey]

Umm, aren't you supposed to be a skeptic (i.e., a doubter)? You "have no reason to doubt the above", when you (admittedly) don't even know who's making the statement? What reason do you have to believe it, other than the fact that it fits nicely into your preferred worldview?

You've got it quite backwards, as usual. As a skeptic, I went ahead and identified the only alternative for you. As in, rather than assume some yahoo on the Internet must be correct -- like the dupes who parrot Mr. Szamboti and Dr. MacQueen, for instance -- I raise the issue that the claim should be verified.

However, since I did this, I have found out who Hambone is: He is GregoryUrich. This checks, since he has been associated with the JONES in the past, and he has a pretty good grip on the science.

So, now, it's up to you guys to prove that he's lying. Because if he's not, the JONES is. We've already proven that it's wrong. Hambone/Gregory's comment also proves that they knew they were wrong. There's no plausible deniability anymore.

I really shouldn't have to explain this in such simple terms to you people.

I feel sorry for anyone who visits this forum looking for a profoundly skeptical point of view. This isn't a debate; it's a perpetual group therapy session.

The above is not debate, that's for sure. It's simple insult. Move along.

 

[Pardalis]

Umm, aren't you supposed to be a skeptic (i.e., a doubter)?

Herein lies the whole problem. A Skeptic isn't necessarily a "doubter". It's not about doubting at all costs. It's about assessing critically the available information, not doubting just for the sake of doubting.

If the evidence is satisfying and conclusive, then there is, ideed, no reason to doubt that evidence.

 

[NutCracker]

Whereas the actual impulse itself might not be picked up, I think the paper is trying to identify the effects, which would be the velocity drop, which should be discernible on the video.

There is noise in the data. The limited spatial resolution gives an error margin in the RFD. The 13ms, being an estimate, has an error margin.

The data shows sub free-fall: any two consecutive data points show an increase in RFD that is less than it would have been had the top section been in free-fall. The effect is there, but the point is, can you rule out that any such decrease in fall distance is due to a 31g jolt? A sample interval of 170 ms doesn't help you here: a 10ms range temporal virtual stop will manifest itself as a decrease in fall distance wrt free fall blurred by the data noise. The error margins give sufficient wiggle room to allow for the jolt.

If one would have, say, a 1ms resolution video, at the same spatial resolution, one could have hopes that a 10ms range plateau in the RFD data would stand out to the noise. Then one can start to say, well, if it's there is this jolt, the plateau should be there. If such a plateau is absent in one's data one would have supported one's case.

Temporal resolution does matter.

Please note that as Dave Rogers demonstrated in post #90, that even if the 13.13ft/s decrease in velocity due to the jolt where present, the algorithms used by the authors of the paper are such that it wouldn't show up in their plots.

 

[Heiwa]

Liar.

[qimg]http://i35.tinypic.com/153652h.jpg[/qimg]

See? You are a liar.

Not at all. Say that the lower red line of your box is floor 98 - the bottom floor of the upper, rigid, part. This floor is supposed to be super strong - indestructible.
On the second photo it is suggested that super strong floor 98 of the upper part has crushed about four floors of intermediate, fire affected area between floors 98-92 but you cannot see that - too much smoke in the way. And on the next photo super strong floor 98 of the upper part has crushed eight floors down to floor 90, etc. Not seen of course due to too much smoke.
Simply speaking - there is no evidence at all that floor 98 of the upper part is the lower red line of your box representing the upper part. Nice try, though.

Look at the same thing from other directions and you will find you are wrong.

 

[A W Smith]

liar liar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA

 

[Blender Head]

This is heading down familiar territory.