Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[RedIbis]

But this proves three things:

1. The "peer-review" at the JONES is inadequate;
2. Our analysis of their work is better than theirs is, including that of the authors; and
3. The authors are still wrong, since they fail to understand (or deliberately misrepresent) the proper inference.​

As I explained before, and is summarized very neatly elsewhere, even if the math was all done correctly, and gave you the same answers, the interpretation is still wrong. What they would prove, in this unlikely event, is that the "best case" situation of Bazant & Zhou did not happen. The non-existence of a "Big Jerk" does not mean the structure would not have collapsed without a nefarious and unseen agent. It means that the collapse was not started with a simultaneous, axial impact as the upper block fell squarely and rigidly on the lower portion.

Again, we already know this. We know the collapse started as a tilt, and we know this is even harder for the lower portion to resist. Bazant & Zhou present the best case, and show that even the best case leads to a collapse. Mr. Szamboti and his silent partner have actually shown that the best case was far too optimistic, which we always suspected. Yet, incredibly, they claim this means the collapse shouldn't have happened at all.

Even more incredibly, you're still a willing, proud dupe.

By issuing an un-announced "correction" that still misses the central point, I can only assume they are stringing the likes of you along. The change is an admission that they're incompetent. The part they didn't change is a fascinating example of Irreducible Delusion -- where all data leads to the same conclusion. And you're a sucker for it.

You really don't have to resort to namecalling. If anyone is curious what a civil, productive discussion on this subject looks like, please check what I believe is Gregory Urich's forum.

It's obviously not going to take place here.

 

[R.Mackey]

"Dupe" is scientifically accurate in this case.

You've thus far offered no argumentation either pro or con this paper. I've explained why it fails. And, incidentally, the forum discussion you're referring me to came to the same conclusion. I've linked to it myself already in this thread, if you bothered to check.

So, again, why do you keep falling for this tripe?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How horrible that they would admit an error and then correct it.

Errr... Quietly replacing one flawed paper with another paper is an admission of error in your world?

How odd...

 

[RedIbis]

"Dupe" is scientifically accurate in this case.

You've thus far offered no argumentation either pro or con this paper. I've explained why it fails. And, incidentally, the forum discussion you're referring me to came to the same conclusion. I've linked to it myself already in this thread, if you bothered to check.

So, again, why do you keep falling for this tripe?

I don't see how a forum discussion can come to a singular conclusion, but that one happens to be far more interesting than your incessant sniping.

It's B&Z's most optimistic scenario that seems to take the worst beating.

 

[The Big Dog]

You really don't have to resort to namecalling. If anyone is curious what a civil, productive discussion on this subject looks like, please check what I believe is Gregory Urich's forum.

It's obviously not going to take place here.

yawn

Hey Champ, I asked you the following question about 12 hours ago:

"Dear Lord, did RedIbis just make a claim that can be verified?? In fact, he made two: 1. that our intrepid authors admitted an error; 2. they corrected that error. . . . . can you kindly provide a link to where they disclosed that they withdrew their first paper and substituted this new paper?? I simply don't see it."

Where did they admit their error, Red. Because their failure to have disclosed it is tantamount to intellectual fraud. So time to back up your claim, RedIbis.

Or admit they are frauds.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't see how a forum discussion can come to a singular conclusion, but that one happens to be far more interesting than your incessant sniping.

It's B&Z's most optimistic scenario that seems to take the worst beating.

"My incessant sniping," huh.

You asked for feedback on the paper. I gave it to you. Lots of feedback.

You've learned nothing from those comments, and hardly bothered to discuss them. Instead, you'd rather complain about your hurt feelings.

Why I bother with the likes of you, I have no idea.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And, incidentally, the forum discussion you're referring me to came to the same conclusion. I've linked to it myself already in this thread...

I'm not actually responding to Mackey's discussion of Bazant here; I'm just using his quote as a jumping-off point for my own post. Which, BTW, is admittedly a derail, since I'm not talking about the MacQueen-Szamboti paper either. Rather, I'm indulging in a moment of exasperation:

Re: New JONES paper by Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen

by T_Szamboti on Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:36 am

Yes, Heiwa, your spongy cage was not as strong as you think. It was not designed for asymmetric impacts. Column splices failed long before full elastic behavior was realized - just look at the debris pile! WTC 1 was closer to a house of cards than a bird cage.

You mean the asymmetric impacts there is no evidence of? But I guess since you can have rapid creep buckling the impacts can have unobservable deceleration, simply because they are asymmetric. Am I getting the gist of the now evolving apologetics for the Bazant/NIST explanation for the collapse of the twin towers?

(My bolding)

(*Facepalm*)

Okay, I think Dr. Greening could've said "eccentric" or "off-axis" instead of saying "asymmetric", because at least to me, those two terms get the point across better. But regardless of that admittedly minor, picky quibble, Szamboti seems to have understood Greening quite well, and that's where my facepalm comes from. Truthers argue against Bazant's scenario as being impossible - which it of course is, with perfectly vertical impacts directly on lower columns and all (reminder to readers to view Mackey's description of this scenario as being a limiting case, not a reflection of reality) - but then Szamboti turns around and states incredulity at the very case that is being argued for when criticizing Bazant & Zhou's "perfect vertical impact"? Am I reading that right? "You mean the asymmetric impacts there is no evidence of", quote endquote?? I mean, if you don't buy into perfectly on-axes collisions, and you deny asymmetric/eccentric/off-axis collisions, what are you arguing for? Heiwa's "misses everything loadbearing" argument?

I'm just... amazed... In fact, I'm so amazed I'm wondering if I'm missing something, so I'm submitting to other members interpetations of that statement as a sanity check. Am I misreading Szamboti? Is he indeed talking about something else? Have I mistakenly thought he's arguing against the only other kind of collisions possible outside of Bazant & Zhou's "perfect vertical" scenario?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Aieeeee... he keeps editing his post. Now it reads:

You mean the asymmetric impacts there is no evidence for? But I guess since you can have rapid creep buckling the impacts can have unobservable deceleration. Is it simply because they are asymmetric or is there a more convoluted or complex part, which hasn't been explained yet? Am I getting the gist of the now evolving apologetics for the Bazant/NIST explanation for the collapses of the twin towers and especially WTC 1?

So his statement keeps evolving. Ah, well... maybe he's the victim of first-draft-itis, like I many times am, and didn't get his point across correctly in his first try. Eh. I have to admit, he's not the only one. I mess up like that quite often myself.

Still though... "... You mean the asymmetric impacts there is no evidence for?". That's still a loaded sentence, and I still hold the same question I did in the previous post: Am I correctly understanding what he means by that? Because it's almost like he's casting that concept into doubt, even though he appears to be allowing for it two sentences away.

Meh... parsing truther statements can be headache inducing.

 

[beachnut]

The paper of "the missing jolt" uses a video with samples at 30 times a second. The sample rate to see the jolt is 1000 times a second.

This would be like a CD with 1,323 samples per second instead of 44,100 samples per second. So we miss out on 5 out of 10 octaves of music. And we miss all the hi-frequency content and we miss the jolt.

And this is only part of the story; what about them pixels!

Why are 911Truth scientists, so called experts in their fields (must be fields of delusions) not capable of rational thought when it comes to 911?

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I explained before, and is summarized very neatly elsewhere, even if the math was all done correctly, and gave you the same answers, the interpretation is still wrong. What they would prove, in this unlikely event, is that the "best case" situation of Bazant & Zhou did not happen. The non-existence of a "Big Jerk" does not mean the structure would not have collapsed without a nefarious and unseen agent. It means that the collapse was not started with a simultaneous, axial impact as the upper block fell squarely and rigidly on the lower portion.

I've pointed this out to Tony Szamboti, over in the 9/11 Forum thread that Heiwa is currently trying to relegate from its exemplary status by flinging insults (in response to being corrected by Frank Greening and David Benson). Tony simply reiterated his belief that Bazant and Zhou's model is intended to represent the actual behaviour of the towers and asked me to re-read the paper. I replied to this with quotes from the paper that demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it was intended to represent a limiting case. Tony has yet to respond. I am currently able to contain my surprise.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

You really don't have to resort to namecalling. If anyone is curious what a civil, productive discussion on this subject looks like, please check what I believe is Gregory Urich's forum.

I'd particularly recommend Heiwa's contribution to that thread at the bottom of page 10 as a fine example of how not to resort to namecalling.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

I'd particularly recommend Heiwa's contribution to that thread at the bottom of page 10 as a fine example of how not to resort to namecalling.

Dave

I love Heiwa’s political diatribes to support his anti-gravity delusions. It is funny to see Tony post and try to support CD in his constant “what would cause that” rant when ever he can to support the evidence free paranoid CD 911Truth platform delusion of CD. Anything he thinks is evidence for CD makes him say, “what would cause that”?

911Truth members are in a cult, religious cult where dirt dumb ideas based on delusion rule.

 

[Horatius]

Still though... "... You mean the asymmetric impacts there is no evidence for?". That's still a loaded sentence, and I still hold the same question I did in the previous post: Am I correctly understanding what he means by that? Because it's almost like he's casting that concept into doubt, even though he appears to be allowing for it two sentences away.

Meh... parsing truther statements can be headache inducing.

I think you're focusing too much on the "symmetric vs. asymmetric" distinction in trying to understand him. I suspect it is the "impacts" part for which he claims there is no evidence. That is, the Truthers think there were no "impacts", as the explosives were destroying the building's structure in advance of the collapse wave. So there was nothing there for the debris to impact upon.

 

[Slayhamlet]

"The structure is quite flexible. Like a sponge!" -Heiwa

The hell...?

 

[The Big Dog]

yawn

Hey Champ, I asked you the following question about 12 hours ago:

"Dear Lord, did RedIbis just make a claim that can be verified?? In fact, he made two: 1. that our intrepid authors admitted an error; 2. they corrected that error. . . . . can you kindly provide a link to where they disclosed that they withdrew their first paper and substituted this new paper?? I simply don't see it."

Where did they admit their error, Red. Because their failure to have disclosed it is tantamount to intellectual fraud. So time to back up your claim, RedIbis.

Or admit they are frauds.

And having not received a response, I believe it is:

RESOLVED, that Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen are intellectually dishonest;

RESOLVED: that the Journal of 911 Studies is pathetically ridiculous.

Hearing no objection, such Resolutions pass UNANIMOUSLY.

And I want to extend a warm round of applause to Red Ibis for demonstrating the complete uselessness of the Truth Movement. Well, done Red, Well Done!

 

[Dave Rogers]

What I found really rather amusing about this is that I was the one who originally pointed out the mathematical error, but Szamboti just brushed it off. OneWhiteEye and unhyphenated on the 9/11 forum pointed out to Tony Szamboti that I was right, so he acknowledged them as the source of the correction and revised the paper.

I don't think I'm on dear Tony's Christmas card list, do you?

Dave

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"The structure is quite flexible. Like a sponge!" -Heiwa

The hell...?

He's previously claimed that the towers were rigid structures incapable of being destroyed by anything. And before that they were like bails of cotton.

He's clearly unwell.

 

[beachnut]

And having not received a response, I believe it is:

RESOLVED, that Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen are intellectually dishonest;

RESOLVED: that the Journal of 911 Studies is pathetically ridiculous.

Hearing no objection, such Resolutions pass UNANIMOUSLY.

And I want to extend a warm round of applause to Red Ibis for demonstrating the complete uselessness of the Truth Movement. Well, done Red, Well Done!

Seconded

 

[Seymour Butz]

Actually, I have an issue with the statement that the upper block should have seen a 31g jolt in the first place.

Bazant's statement is that the lower columns would have been overloaded by a factor of 31. I believe this is weight, and I'm not sure that it would take a 31g jolt to offset this KE.

But so what? The lower block, assuming a FOS of 3, could only deliver a 3g jolt back at the descending upper block, right?


ETA: ok, Dave already addressed this last page.

 

[boloboffin]

Tony Szamboti's paper The Missing Jolt (pdf) is being discussed in this Heiwa thread about why a crush-up is impossible, but I felt it deserved its own thread. I'll also include this link to some charts Szamboti built showing his measurements of velocity and acceleration changes for both WTC1 and the Balzac-Vitry demolition.

Szamboti assumes that floor 98 is hitting floor 96 for the first "jolt." By his calculations, he expects to see a 90% reduction in velocity, but there isn't even a reversal of acceleration in the first drop. Acceleration does slow tremendously off and on during the drop of the upper section, but since acceleration doesn't go into the negative, there can be no loss of velocity.

However, his calculations are based on the failure of every core and perimeter column in floor 96. There is no accounting for damage from the airplane impact and no accounting for damage from this:

As you can see, there is severe displacement on the perimeter columns of floor 96 (and 95 as well) due to the massive fires. Furthermore, the yield strength of these columns, both core and perimeter, would be drastically reduced at fires burning at 250 degrees Celcius. Szamboti doesn't account for this loss of yield strength either.

Szamboti is also measuring the fall of the upper section from the roofline of the north face. However, the building failed first on the south side. The assumption is that the building is falling as a rigid block, but no one who has viewed the rotation of WTC 7 before its final descent could believe that the upper section of WTC 1 would maintain utter rigidity after beginning to fall and lean. Some aspect of the jolt would have been absorbed by the structure twisting, and not all of its downward motion on the lower south edge would have been transmitted perfectly to the upper north edge of the block.

Szamboti also neglects to note that most of the perimeter columns were never put to buckling stress but were simply pushed out by the falling debris and fell out. This would take some energy to do as well, but nothing like what would be needed to buckle the column panels.

Is there anything else to note or correct?