Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[NutCracker]

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.

You case doesn't rest on my lack of answers. Your case rests on its own merits. Merits which equal {} (the empty set} Thank you!

The remainder of your post IS humour.

And no, low-res video don't lend themselves to draw conclusions on sub res time and space intervals. Your "fact" is a delusion, Mr. Szamboti.

When is the evidence coming, Mr. Szamboti? det chords, cut steel, that kind of stuff.. When Szamboti, when?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Untrue.

I agree with you that decelerations are possible when a rigid and intact upper structure collides with lower floors in near-ideal impacts, and that sword_of_truth was wrong when he said decelerations were impossible.

As many have explained to you, however, the impacts of the tilted upper structure were more gradual than in your ideal, the upper structure was less rigid than in your ideal, and it is very difficult to estimate instantaneous velocities from the videos in any case.

If you really want to convince anyone, you would do well to start by estimating the smallest decelerations that would be detectable in the videos, and then attempt to show by calculation that there is reason to believe the decelerations should have been larger than the threshold of observability. Your repeated refusal to pay any attention to such basic issues is one of the reasons you aren't being taken seriously.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You case doesn't rest on my lack of answers. Your case rests on its own merits. Merits which equal {} (the empty set} Thank you!

The remainder of your post IS humour.

And no, low-res video don't lend themselves to draw conclusions on sub res time and space intervals. Your "fact" is a delusion, Mr. Szamboti.

When is the evidence coming, Mr. Szamboti? det chords, cut steel, that kind of stuff.. When Szamboti, when?

The roofline drops of the Verinage demolitions were measured using the same methodology and they all show a deceleration and velocity loss. Your low resolution argument does not work.

Your no det cord or cut steel was found in the rubble argument is equally as bad. There are several ways the strength of the columns could have been removed or rendered ineffective without cutting it or using wired explosives.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As many have explained to you, however, the impacts of the tilted upper structure were more gradual than in your ideal, the upper structure was less rigid than in your ideal, and it is very difficult to estimate instantaneous velocities from the videos in any case.

Can you show what the rigidity of the upper structure was or are you just guessing that it wasn't very rigid?

If you really want to convince anyone, you would do well to start by estimating the smallest decelerations that would be detectable in the videos, and then attempt to show by calculation that there is reason to believe the decelerations should have been larger than the threshold of observability. Your repeated refusal to pay any attention to such basic issues is one of the reasons you aren't being taken seriously.

We did this in the Missing Jolt paper by showing what the velocity loss should have been due to energy dissipation and that it would have taken a certain amount of time to recover to the pre-impact velocity. During that recovery period we have several measurements and they show the velocity never decreased from what it was pre-impact. It was always higher than pre-impact which shows there was no deceleration and thus no dynamic load. The logic is there. I think the repeated refusal is on the part of certain individuals here who simply will not accept more accurate information which negates what they want to believe.

 

[tsig]

It doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out why it wasn't.

Then you are the perfect one to explain it to us.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We did this in the Missing Jolt paper by showing what the velocity loss should have been due to energy dissipation and that it would have taken a certain amount of time to recover to the pre-impact velocity. During that recovery period we have several measurements and they show the velocity never decreased from what it was pre-impact. It was always higher than pre-impact which shows there was no deceleration and thus no dynamic load. The logic is there. I think the repeated refusal is on the part of certain individuals here who simply will not accept more accurate information which negates what they want to believe.

The information couldn't be that accurate if you couldn't get you paper through a proper peer review process.

 

[tsig]

Your no det cord or cut steel was found in the rubble argument is equally as bad. There are several ways the strength of the columns could have been removed or rendered ineffective without cutting it or using wired explosives.

I'm sure you are ready to tell us what those "ways" are.

 

[Pardalis]

Then you are the perfect one to explain it to us.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

I guess to make Tony Szamboti the hero of the hour by solving the inside jobby job involving 9/11!

I love your analysis! A controlled demolition (allegedly) has deceleration, and WTC does not (allegedly)! So it is a controlled demolition!

That is some fancy thinking!

Thanks for your input.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

We did this in the Missing Jolt paper by showing what the velocity loss should have been due to energy dissipation and that it would have taken a certain amount of time to recover to the pre-impact velocity. During that recovery period we have several measurements and they show the velocity never decreased from what it was pre-impact. It was always higher than pre-impact which shows there was no deceleration and thus no dynamic load. The logic is there.

Once again, you have failed to address the threshold of observability.

I think the repeated refusal is on the part of certain individuals here who simply will not accept more accurate information which negates what they want to believe.

You must be talking about the fellow who persistently denied the obvious tilt of the upper floors.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

Ok Tony, we're going to go through this and I'm going to explain it for you. I'm going to make it nice and simple for you.

When the upper block in a verinage demolition or the WTC collapses loses its supports and starts accelerating, it starts from zero momentum. As it falls, it accumulates momentum until it reaches the floor below at which point it will have energy equal to X + Y (where X = the amount of energy needed to destroy the floor below and Y = the amount left over). Having destroyed the first floor, the falling mass now accelerates towards the second floor in line. Except it's not starting from zero, but from the non-zero amount of Y. Not only will it definitely destroy the second floor in line, but after the falling mass has done so, that left over amount of Y will be bigger than before. It will be bigger again after destroying the third floor in line, and bigger yet again after the fourth.

This is why NIST didn't simulate the full collapse. They knew, as any engineer would, that the building was doomed as soon as their numbers showed the falling mass achieving the value of X.

Assuming for a moment, the falling mass achieved exactly the value of X and no more, it wouldn't have made any significant difference. The collapsing mass would have destroyed the first floor in line and then after being brought to a halt, would have started accelerating again... except this time the mass would have added the mass of the first destroyed floor.

It doesn't matter what happens, if you get X, you get a fully destroyed tower complete with an accelerating collapse wave. Just as was observed on 9/11.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Once again, you have failed to address the threshold of observability.


You must be talking about the fellow who persistently denied the obvious tilt of the upper floors.

I don't deny that there was a tilt in the upper section of WTC 1. My point is that it does not tilt prior to a vertical drop of about two to three stories occurring.

What do you say to that?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't deny that there was a tilt in the upper section of WTC 1. My point is that it does not tilt prior to a vertical drop of about two to three stories occurring.

What do you say to that?

The video evidence indicated otherwise. You seemed to be the only person who could not see that.

As I recall, you insisted upon ignoring the video in which the tilt was obvious in favor of a different video whose viewing angle obscured the tilt: a small tilt directly toward or away from the camera isn't as evident as the same tilt at a larger angle to the line of view. That's ostrich logic: If you can find a way to avoid seeing it, then it doesn't really exist.

By the way, sword_of_truth's clarification suggests to me that he wasn't really claiming there were no momentary reductions in the instantaneous velocity, but was claiming only that the velocities at impact with successive floors were increasing at each successive floor. That makes perfect sense, and was observed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The video evidence indicated otherwise. You seemed to be the only person who could not see that.

As I recall, you insisted upon ignoring the video in which the tilt was obvious in favor of a different video whose viewing angle obscured the tilt: a small tilt directly toward or away from the camera isn't as evident as the same tilt at a larger angle to the line of view. That's ostrich logic: If you can find a way to avoid seeing it, then it doesn't really exist.

By the way, sword_of_truth's clarification suggests to me that he wasn't really claiming there were no momentary reductions in the instantaneous velocity, but was claiming only that the velocities at impact with successive floors were increasing at each successive floor. That makes perfect sense, and was observed.

The timing of the tilt vs. the vertical drop in WTC 1 has now been measured by several people using several different videos and some see no tilt before a vertical drop of two stories and nobody gets more than 1 degree before a vertical drop of at least two stories, after which it then tilts to 8 degrees.

Your statement concerning sword of truth doesn't make sense. The velocity cannot increase at impact. It has to lose velocity at impact to transfer momentum after which it can recover and start gaining velocity. I think you might mean that the velocity was actually higher at impact with each successive floor than it was at the previous one. That would make sense if the drop is far enough between impacts.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Your statement concerning sword of truth doesn't make sense. The velocity cannot increase at impact. It has to lose velocity at impact to transfer momentum after which it can recover and start gaining velocity.

Prove it.

Try the anvil and glass pane experiment.

Let us know if the glass panes prevent the anvil from accelerating.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Prove it.

Try the anvil and glass pane experiment.

Let us know if the glass panes prevent the anvil from accelerating.

What you are saying here is absurd.

If an impact occurs between any two masses, one stationary and one moving, the velocity of the originally moving mass will decrease during the momentum transfer.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What you are saying here is in no way a representation of reality.

Can you get someone who does not believe that 10,000 magic ninjas did 200,000+ man hours of demo prep-work on the worlds busiest office buildings without anyone seeing, hearing or noticing anything to come in here and say that to me? Thanks.

I'm not terribly worried if it's just you who think I'm out of touch with reality.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Your statement concerning sword of truth doesn't make sense. The velocity cannot increase at impact. It has to lose velocity at impact to transfer momentum after which it can recover and start gaining velocity. I think you might mean that the velocity was actually higher at impact with each successive floor than it was at the previous one. That would make sense if the drop is far enough between impacts.

That is certainly what I meant, and I now believe it is what Sword_of_Truth meant also.

Getting back to what is wrong with your argument, here is a succinct summary of your paper:

The actual velocity calculation done in the paper is rather bizarre, and mathematically invalid. The authors are calculating the acceleration required to reach each point in the elapsed time, assuming constant acceleration, and from that deriving the velocity at that point relative to the velocity at the previous point. What they are therefore calculating is not the true velocity; in effect, they're applying a smoothing algorithm based on averaging all the previous points. Looking at their results in rather more detail, it turns out that the reason for this is that they are measuring movements of small numbers of pixels, so a velocity graph obtained by numerical differentiation - which would give a correct velocity - would show pronounced steps in the velocity. This in itself invalidates the entire analysis. The authors are taking a dataset which consists of discontinuous steps in velocity, applying a smoothing algorithm so as to produce a continuous function, then pointing out that the first derivative of this function contains no discontinuities.

Quite simply, the resolution of the data is insufficient to carry out the analysis, and the attempt to rectify this by effectively smoothing the data renders the conclusion invalid. I'll be charitable and describe this as lack of understanding of data resolution and experimental error issues by the authors, rather than deliberate intent.

Note well that the problems noted above could be avoided by taking the steps suggested in my first post of this thread:

If you really want to convince anyone, you would do well to start by estimating the smallest decelerations that would be detectable in the videos, and then attempt to show by calculation that there is reason to believe the decelerations should have been larger than the threshold of observability. Your repeated refusal to pay any attention to such basic issues is one of the reasons you aren't being taken seriously.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That is certainly what I meant, and I now believe it is what Sword_of_Truth meant also.

It is.

Glad to see someone got it right the first time.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you get someone who does not believe that 10,000 magic ninjas did 200,000+ man hours of demo prep-work on the worlds busiest office buildings without anyone seeing, hearing or noticing anything to come in here and say that to me? Thanks.

I'm not terribly worried if it's just you who think I'm out of touch with reality.

It wouldn't take what you think.

I am wondering if you and others here know that the 915 foot tall Citicorp building in NYC had its structural frame completely retrofitted at night without the building tenants, the general public, or the media being aware during a several month period in 1978.

It was necessary due to a design oversight and field installation of weaker connections than needed to resist a diagonal wind load. It could have collapsed if a 70 mph wind hit it diagonally. The retrofit was done secretly to avoid panic.

Look up the 1978 secret retrofit of the Citicorp building. The fact that this was done wasn't made public until 1995.