Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[NutCracker]

Aliententity is right to ask the fantasy peddlers this. So what? What difference does it indeed make?
[...]
Tell me how the missing FDRs are so central a problem that they negate all the other independent lines of evidence. Tell me why their absence puts all those other lines of evidence in doubt. And tell me what alternate narrative encompasses all the other observations - and yes, I mean all; the evidence exists, regardless of how convenient it may or may not be to anyone's favorite alternative - and is better supported than the one that stands now.

Agreed 100%

As far am I concerned that's what we should do here more, way more.

But we are scientist, we like details, we are good at them and we know a lot about them, and by getting into the details we play right into their hand. We allow them to play the game by their rules.

CT's like to create a debate where there is none to give their position the appearance of legitimacy. They are playing a PR game.They are not bound by reality, the body of established knowledge nor logic. The volume of arguments they can put forward is therefore virtually infinite. They can drag on debate infinitely, giving the impression their position has merit. And that's what we see them doing. Endless supposed "anomalies." Endless "questions", that are really are "anomalies" in disguise.

The reality is they cannot even begin to build their case. They have got noting. No evidence, not even circumstantial. Nada. Zilch.

On several occasions I have been able to end the debate very quickly, I've been able to press them to build their case, avoiding evasions, avoiding being dragged into details. They started tapdancing in the space of a few posts, Very rewarding, and I hope, convincing to a neutral fence sitter to the voidness of their position.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok...that was funny.....truthers riding on the coat tails...and epic failing.

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.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The real fail in the collapse of WTC 1 is the constant acceleration observed in the measurable drop of the roof.

it's called "gravity". Look it up.

There is no chance it could be purely gravity driven without the upper section decelerating during collisions with floors below.

You pinheads with your asinine backyard experiments where you drop a brick on top of another brick and declare the "official story" disproven are constantly lying about the forces involved in the collapses of the Twin Towers.

The upper block coming down on the floors below wasn't like a brick falling on a brick, it was more like an anvil falling through a pane of glass.

In fact... why don't you try that? Stack 80 sheets of glass with a foot of space between them and then drop an anvil on top of them.

Then tell us if you observe a lack of acceleration.

We'll wait here for your results.

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.

Of course it was intentional. Al-Queada did it with hijacked airplanes and raging fires. Don't you read newspapers at all?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

it's called "gravity". Look it up.



You pinheads with your asinine backyard experiments where you drop a brick on top of another brick and declare the "official story" disproven are constantly lying about the forces involved in the collapses of the Twin Towers.

The upper block coming down on the floors below wasn't like a brick falling on a brick, it was more like an anvil falling through a pane of glass.

In fact... why don't you try that? Stack 80 sheets of glass with a foot of space between them and then drop an anvil on top of them.

Then tell us if you observe a lack of acceleration.

We'll wait here for your results.



Of course it was intentional. Al-Queada did it with hijacked airplanes and raging fires. Don't you read newspapers at all?

Anvil on glass. Right!! LOL is about all I can do to this little bit of inanity. You are proving my point.

 

[NutCracker]

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.

Given the context of the thread, I'll take Mr. Szamboti's display of not understanding smoothing as an attempt at humour.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Say Tony, like a missing jolt? A jolt that might be missing?
You should write an article about that!

You should call it: The Theroy that Does Not Understand Gravity Starring Low Res Videos.

/This is the absloute worst one of these videos I have ever seen. Man talk about missing the point.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Given the context of the thread, I'll take Mr. Szamboti's display of not understanding smoothing as an attempt at humour.

Explain why there are observable decelerations in the demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building and every other Verinage Technique demolition, which are purely gravity driven. Why aren't they smoothed as you like to say?

 

[Edx]

Explain why there are observable decelerations in the demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building and every other Verinage Technique demolition, which are purely gravity driven. Why aren't they smoothed as you like to say?

Maybe its not 100% exactly the same is because Verinage is controlled. They prep the building so that they know where the top block will fall.

The WTC collapses werent at all controlled, but what the Verinage demolitions show is that when columns in an upper block of floors dont sit firmly on the columns of floors below it then it will crush it down.

Truthers have been saying for years and years that this cant happen, which is why you have them implying the WTC buidings were virtually indistructable. Like the guy who says it would take the energy of 3.2 ATOM bombs to destroy the WTC and that the upper block would have to be raised 120 miles in the air and dropped for 200 seconds in free fall onto the block below it to crush it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Explain why there are observable decelerations in the demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building and every other Verinage Technique demolition, which are purely gravity driven. Why aren't they smoothed as you like to say?

Seriously? You don't understand a damn thing about video resolution and distance, do you?

 

[WildCat]

Seriously? You don't understand a damn thing about video resolution and distance, do you?

If he understood those things and many, many other things he wouldn't be a truther.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Explain why there are observable decelerations in the demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building and every other Verinage Technique demolition,

No decelerations are observed in verinage demolitions. Verinage only works if the mass continually accelerates throughout the collapse event. The rate of acceleration may change, but never will you see any deceleration in a successful verinage demolition.

You should be careful here, Tony. I'm already all but convinced that Anders Bjorkman has been impersonating an engineer. There's always room on that list for other truthers, especially if they show that they have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No decelerations are observed in verinage demolitions. Verinage only works if the mass continually accelerates throughout the collapse event. The rate of acceleration may change, but never will you see any deceleration in a successful verinage demolition.

The roofline drops of the Verinage Technique demolitions have been measured and there is a very definitive deceleration and accompanying velocity loss observed in every one of them once they pass through the stories where the columns were removed. So you are wrong.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

GREAT. What peer reviewed engineering journal have you submitted these analysis to?

I eagerly await your published refutation of NIST which shows that NIST is wrong.

When and where can we expect it?

 

[TruthersLie]

The roofline drop of the Verinage Technique demolitions have been measured and there is a very definitive deceleration and accompanying velocity loss observed in every one of them once they pass through the stories where the columns were removed. So you are wrong.

and as it has been explained to you (numerous times) unlike the verinage technique where you have columns impacting at the same time uniformly, with the tilts in BOTH towers, that is NOT there. Nor are the columns striking end on, they are striking the floor pans...

epic fail tony.... truely epic.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

and as it has been explained to you (numerous times) unlike the verinage technique where you have columns impacting at the same time uniformly, with the tilts in BOTH towers, that is NOT there. Nor are the columns striking end on, they are striking the floor pans...

And your proof for this is?

 

[NutCracker]

Explain why there are observable decelerations in the demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building and every other Verinage Technique demolition, which are purely gravity driven. Why aren't they smoothed as you like to say?

Aaah.. it wasn't humour!?

Resort to proven "compare dissimilar events under different conditions" 14-yr old truther nutcase logic noted.

Shift of burden of proof noted.

Well, Mr. Szamboti, how about you finally show the remnants of detonation chords, remnants of cutting charges, and structural members that show the tell tale signs of the mode of failure that your hypothesis requires?

9 years and counting, you've got plenty of time to come with this stuff, don't you think?

Come on, Mr. Szamboti, where is the physical evidence? Come on Mr. Szamboti, show it to us!

Oh, wait! You have got nothing. You can't produce nothing! That why you have to resort to the nonsense that you spout to support, cough cough, your claims.

 

[NutCracker]

And your proof for this is?

Truther in defense mode (tautology btw) . Makes claim without a shred of evidence . Demands evidence for counterclaim.

 

[TruthersLie]

And your proof for this is?

Irreducible delusions tony?

How many times does it have to be explained to you? How many different ways?

I am eagerly awaiting your upcoming publication in any peer reviewed engineering journal which shows your "missing jolt" is accepted by any real engineers...

why is it you try to pass it off to twoofs, but can't manage to get past real professionals into a real journal?

Please, pretty please submit it to any journal, and let us knwo what they say about your theories. I'd love to read it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Aaah.. it wasn't humour!?

Resort to proven "compare dissimilar events under different conditions" 14-yr old truther nutcase logic noted.

Shift of burden of proof noted.

Well, Mr. Szamboti, how about you finally show the remnants of detonation chords, remnants of cutting charges, and structural members that show the tell tale signs of the mode of failure that your hypothesis requires?

9 years and counting, you've got plenty of time to come with this stuff, don't you think?

Come on, Mr. Szamboti, where is the physical evidence? Come on Mr. Szamboti, show it to us!

Oh, wait! You have got nothing. You can't produce nothing! That why you have to resort to the nonsense that you spout to support, cough cough, your claims.

You didn't answer my question. I didn't think you would.

The fact that there was no deceleration of the roof line of WTC 1 is proof in and of itself that its continued collapse was not due to natural causes.

It is a shame most of the steel was not saved for analysis. It doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out why it wasn't.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Irreducible delusions tony?

How many times does it have to be explained to you? How many different ways?

I am eagerly awaiting your upcoming publication in any peer reviewed engineering journal which shows your "missing jolt" is accepted by any real engineers...

why is it you try to pass it off to twoofs, but can't manage to get past real professionals into a real journal?

Please, pretty please submit it to any journal, and let us knwo what they say about your theories. I'd love to read it.

Aren't you one of the guys who originally promoted Dr. Bazant's paper which called for a jolt and dynamic load and now that it has been shown there wasn't one are willing to accept an explanation such as the tilt making the jolt unnecessary?

You keep talking about peer reviewed papers but I don't see any showing how a tilt would obviate a need for a jolt in a gravity driven collapse propagation.

It would seem you and some others here are the ones with an irreducible delusion since it is you who refuse to accept more accurate information which negates your original hypothesis.