Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Tony Szamboti]

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:

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

You apparently can't explain why the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration but WTC 1 does not. You do believe they were both purely gravity driven don't you?

 

[tsig]

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.

Tony I'm sure you just overlooked my question so here it is again:


"Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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."

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

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony I'm sure you just overlooked my question so here it is again:


"Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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."

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

I mentioned them in my debate with Ryan Mackey.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You apparently can't explain why the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration but WTC 1 does not.

I'm sorry. Verinage do not show overall decelerations. They show the exact opposite. They could not work otherwise.

Try dropping an anvil through a series of glass panes and you will see what I mean.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It wouldn't take what you think.

Yes it would. You have clearly put no effort into determining what it would take to apply your feverish fantasies to the real world.

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

That's actually a great example of exactly what I'm talking about.



"Night after night, the light of welding torches could be seen high above the city streets as steel braces were welded onto the chevrons..."

In other words... people noticed.

Do you always shoot yourself in the foot when carrying on a debate like this? No wonder Ryan Mackey mopped the floor with you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm sorry. Verinage do not show overall decelerations. They show the exact opposite. They could not work otherwise.

Try dropping an anvil through a series of glass panes and you will see what I mean.

Go measure the Verinage demolitions roofline falls yourself.

They decelerate everytime after falling through the removed stories.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Go measure the Verinage demolitions roofline falls yourself.

Measure the speed when the upper block starts falling.

Measure the speed when it hits bottom.

It accelerates.

Deal with it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes it would. You have clearly put no effort into determining what it would take to apply your feverish fantasies to the real world.



That's actually a great example of exactly what I'm talking about.



"Night after night, the light of welding torches could be seen high above the city streets as steel braces were welded onto the chevrons..."

In other words... people noticed.

Do you always shoot yourself in the foot when carrying on a debate like this? No wonder Ryan Mackey mopped the floor with you.

Nobody other than those involved in the planning and implementation of the retrofit knew what was happening in the Citicorp building in 1978. I am sure you can't find a newspaper article, or any of the tenants, or even a member of the general public, who would say they knew at the time what was being done.

The video showing the light of welders torches are from those who were in the know.

Additionally, setting up demolition devices wouldn't require torches making that operation even easier to keep clandestine. Secrecy was clearly maintained in the case of the Citicorp building even with torches being visible.

Watch the longer videos about it if you want to fully appreciate it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You apparently can't explain why the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration but WTC 1 does not.

All measurements come with a margin of error. The measurement errors imply a positive lower bound for the smallest changes in instantaneous velocity that can be observed. Observations of the Verinage demolitions probably contain less noise than observations of the WTC collapses, partly because there is more time to prepare the observational apparatus for a demolition than for an unscheduled act of terror. That means you should be able to see effects in the Verinage demolitions that cannot be seen in the WTC collapses.

You have repeatedly refused to address the margin of error in your measurements and its consequences for your argument. You have also refused to recognize that a slightly tilted and structurally compromised upper section will smear the jolt over a longer period of time, as compared to a perfectly vertical upper section with uncompromised rigidity, which reduces the effect you are trying to see.

I'm not going to do those calculations for you. That's your job, because you are the one who is making an argument for which those calculations are fundamental. You have not even pretended to perform those calculations, but have instead resorted to the mathematical nonsense described by Dave Rogers.

I've seen several people attempt to draw your attention to these matters in several different threads, without success. At this point, I think it's fair to conclude you really don't understand these matters at all and have no intention of understanding them.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nobody other than those involved in the planning and implementation of the retrofit knew what was happening in the Citicorp building in 1978. I am sure you can't find a newspaper article, or any of the tenants, or even a member of the general public, who would say they knew at the time what was being done.

The video showing the light of welders torches are from those who were in the know.

Additionally, setting up demolition devices wouldn't require torches making that operation even easier to keep clandestine. Secrecy was clearly maintained in the case of the Citicorp building even with torches being visible.

Watch the longer videos about it if you want to fully appreciate it.

PEOPLE NOTICED

And if the building blew up the next day, witnesses to the strange goings on would be coming out of the woodwork. There hasn't been so much as a single witness come forward that said there were strange goings on inside the twin towers and WTC7.

NOT... A... SINGLE... ONE.

 

[Justin39640]

Nobody other than those involved in the planning and implementation of the retrofit knew what was happening in the Citicorp building in 1978. I am sure you can't find a newspaper article, or any of the tenants, or even a member of the general public, who would say they knew at the time what was being done.

The video showing the light of welders torches are from those who were in the know.

Additionally, setting up demolition devices wouldn't require torches making that operation even easier to keep clandestine. Secrecy was clearly maintained in the case of the Citicorp building even with torches being visible.

Watch the longer videos about it if you want to fully appreciate it.

He said it right in the story. Did you watch it?
He said Robertson told the bankers (you know the guys in Citicorp's HQ AKA the tenants) that the building needed to be retrofitted.

 

[beachnut]

And your proof for this is?

No Pulitzer Prize yet Tony? The real-cd-deal is a delusions, neat to see you came out for the delusional Hitler parody.

8 years of failure - 911 truth. How is the failed Jones Journal of on-line nut case ideas doing? Any new "loaded guns"?

Are videos like this Hitler Parody real tools for the experts who spew delusions in 911 truth?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Additionally, setting up demolition devices wouldn't require torches making that operation even easier to keep clandestine. Secrecy was clearly maintained in the case of the Citicorp building even with torches being visible.

Actually, this statement shows you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Demolition work requires extensive use of welding torches (shows what you know ). Demolition crews always try to reduce thier explosive use as much as possible by pre-weakening the structure being demolished. For steel framed structures, this means welding torches... lots and lots of welding torches. The twin towers would have been lit up like frakkin christmas trees at night while your 10,000 ninjas chopped and hacked away at the beams.

Another swing and a miss there Tony. Next time try studying a little before spouting off.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You apparently can't explain why the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration but WTC 1 does not. You do believe they were both purely gravity driven don't you?

Video resolution and distance, or, as W.D.Clinger puts it, "threshold of observability". You steadfastly refuse to address this issue.

It's OK to admit you have no idea how this is relevant. It would be revealing.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, this statement shows you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Demolition work requires extensive use of welding torches (shows what you know ). Demolition crews always try to reduce thier explosive use as much as possible by pre-weakening the structure being demolished. For steel framed structures, this means welding torches... lots and lots of welding torches. The twin towers would have been lit up like frakkin christmas trees at night while your 10,000 ninjas chopped and hacked away at the beams.

Another swing and a miss there Tony. Next time try studying a little before spouting off.

Addendum to the above; we know the cores remained standing for several seconds.This means there was almost no damage to the cores by your magic therm*te bombs. This in turn confines either all or nearly all the demolition prep work to the outer walls of the WTC towers, making your 10,000 ninjas and their cutting troches even more visible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Addendum to the above; we know the cores remained standing for several seconds.This means there was almost no damage to the cores by your magic therm*te bombs. This in turn confines either all or nearly all the demolition prep work to the outer walls of the WTC towers, making your 10,000 ninjas and their cutting troches even more visible.

Only the bottom half of the cores remained and even then it was only half of the columns, so about 3/4 of the central core collapsed. Your comment that there was almost no damage to the cores is ridiculous.

As for the need for torches in a demolition setup that is nonsense. It is not necessary to pre-weaken columns by cutting them with torches to perform a successful demolition. That might be done occassionally in legal demolitions to keep the blast pressure down but it is not mandatory. Nobody pre-weakens reinforced concrete columns even in legal demolitions. They just use the right amount of energy to blow the column.

 

[TruthersLie]

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?

Sorry Tony. I agree with Bazants LIMITING CASE, which shows that once it starts, it won't stop.

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.

Nice attempt to shift. Over 100 fully peer reviewed engineering journal articles which support the common narrative, and NIST. Please create and provide JUST ONE (why is that so hard? AFter 8 years I have 3 peer reviewed journal articles in 3 different fields, yet NOT ONE of the "nearly 1,000 architectural and engineering professionals" (why did they shift from degreed and licensed, to degreed or licensed, and now to "engineering professionals anyways?) have managed to publish any peer reviewed refutation of even a small part of the common narrative.

come on tony. man up, submit it and get it through peer review. I'll read it then. I'd LOVE to read it then. But the psuedo scientific claptrap that you pass off is absolutely degrading and should embarass you (and your teachers) to the core.

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.

accurate information?
You mean like ignoring the mountains of evidence of a tilt when both towers have collapsed? Really?

You mean like using poor resolution video for your measurements which have a larger error factor than what you can possibly detect? Really?

again and again, please, pretty please with pink bunny rabbits show me JUST ONE PEER REVIEWED ENGINEERING ARTICLE which supports your claptrap?

I'll take it in any language (russian, korean, chinese, arabic, even english)

 

[TruthersLie]

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



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.

Great. Where was this "missing jolt paper" published again. I am looking in JEM, and several engineering journals... which one had it pass peer review again?

It should be extremely easy to show it off...

 

[tsig]

I mentioned them in my debate with Ryan Mackey.

Tony that looks like a dodge to me. Instead of just posting the "ways" you expect someone to sift thru the entire show to find your remarks and possibly misinterpret them when you could have posted them right here.

 

[tsig]

Additionally, setting up demolition devices wouldn't require torches making that operation even easier to keep clandestine.

What type of demolition devices would those be Tony?

You say they could be set up clandestinely and wouldn't require torches then you must have some kind of idea as to what they are so please tell us.