Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[R.Mackey]

Your points about the verinage and jolt, etc, is a good one. But even there, my understanding of verinage and jolt, etc, relies on floor to floor contact being the only possible way of supplying any kind of jolt, since the verinage technique relies on pulling the columns out of alignment, which of course means that column to column contact couldn't be a contributor.

Which of course means that if we discard the obvious lunacy of hiding these hydraulics, etc, and take it at face value, then the columns at the WTC CAN'T contribute to any kind of "jolt" since like in verified verinage demo, the columns would ALSO be out of alignment.

Also, verinage as far as I know has only been applied to concrete-framed structures. They behave quite a bit differently, and the bearing surfaces between the descending and lower portions are much larger.

I haven't done an exhaustive survey of the technique, so feel free to correct me.

 

[Disbelief]

Ah, yes--Fudd's principle: "There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be overcome by application of brute force and ignorance"
ETA:
And I wouldn't bet on the "probably", either...

When all else fails, get a bigger hammer.

 

[funk de fino]

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?

You are either blind or lying. It's been shown to you enough times.

 

[CORed]

They've had this conceptual issue for a long time - the Truther mind seems unable to comprehend that a giant, loose pile of rubble could cause an intact floor below it to fail.

I bet they'd have a real hard time believing an avalanche could knock down a house.

"It's just snow. Obviously the NWO planted explosives in the house."

 

[Edx]

Also, verinage as far as I know has only been applied to concrete-framed structures. They behave quite a bit differently, and the bearing surfaces between the descending and lower portions are much larger.

What sort of differences specifically?

 

[rwguinn]

BTW-
For those who want to know, a "jerk" (which Tony calls a "Jolt")is the technical term for a time rate change in acceleration. In the f-16 example, there is a rate change in acceleration--the acceleration decreases with velocity (but it also increases with loss of mass (fuel)), so it is very complex--and irrelevant.
But with an airplane taking off, or a rocket launching, there is a continuous "jolt"-AND YOU CAN"T SEE IT. You can measure it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

You're a bald-faced liar typical 9/11 truther, Tony. These are my actual words (relevant part bolded).

This means there was almost no damage to the cores by your magic therm*te bombs.

Of course the cores would have been severely damaged by the collapse of a half-million ton skyscraper. But if your magic thermite bombs were placed in the cores, the cores wouldn't have remained standing at all.

Next time you tell a lie, try making about something a little more obscure than the post immediately above the one where you lie. It would still be morally and ethically corrupt, but you won't get nailed for it so quickly and easily.

As for the need for torches in a demolition setup that is nonsense.

It's standard procedure, Tony. You should really look things up before you spout off. You're just humiliating yourself here.

It is not necessary to pre-weaken columns by cutting them with torches to perform a successful demolition.

Not, not technically at least. In order to bring down a building, you need to remove a certain number of supports. You would have the choice of either using charges on all of them or pre-cutting or weakening some of them.

Now your mythical evil legion of PNAC ninjas (pninjas?) would have had a powerful motive to use as much pre-weakening and pre-cutting as they could. This would have cut down the number of mystery explosions that your idiot brigade have been JAQing off over and it would have cut down on the number of detonators and such to be found after the attacks.

Ten thousand ninjas crawling all over the outer ring of the twin towers hacking away at it in the "city that doesn't sleep" without getting noticed... that's just pure insanity.

That might be done occassionally in legal demolitions to keep the blast pressure down but it is not mandatory.

That's what I said. You went from calling it nonsense to saying I might be right in just three sentences.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ten thousand ninjas crawling all over the outer ring of the twin towers hacking away at it in the "city that doesn't sleep" without getting noticed... that's just pure insanity.

And now I have that song bouncing around inside my head.

Start spreading the neeeeewwwss...
I'm leavin todaaaayyy...

 

[bardamu]

I'll save you the trouble. In the debate, he suggested that the WTC could have been sabotaged just like the Balzac-Vitry structure was demolished, in verinage fashion, by using "jacks" or "cables."

He then suggested all this monstrously large and complicated equipment could be hidden above the false ceilings...

Furthermore, he's complaining here that Balzac-Vitry did experience a "jolt" as part of his core argument. But if the WTC was similarly demolished, but it didn't experience a "jolt," then obviously that proves nothing. Either way, he's painted himself into a logical corner, a very small one.

He's not saying the WTC was similarly demolished, liar.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Answer key:

A) When pigs fly
B) When Sylvia Brown collects the $1 million challenge prize
C) When Taylor Swift declares her undying love for me
D) When Ron Paul is elected President of the USA
E) All of the above

 

[Tony Szamboti]

An F-16 sits on the runway with the brakes on. The pilot applies full afterburner, or 30000 lb_f of thrust. A drag force, which is a function of Velocity come in to play as the plane begins to move, so the applied forces are F=30000-f(v).
30 seconds later the aircraft is at v=M=1.0
where is the "decelleration", Tony? There was a force applied opposite the thrust--why no "jolt", Tony?
You are no engineer I would trust, Tony...

I don't see how you can call yourself an engineer if you think this example has any bearing on the issue.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'll save you the trouble. In the debate, he suggested that the WTC could have been sabotaged just like the Balzac-Vitry structure was demolished, in verinage fashion, by using "jacks" or "cables."

He then suggested all this monstrously large and complicated equipment could be hidden above the false ceilings...

Furthermore, he's complaining here that Balzac-Vitry did experience a "jolt" as part of his core argument. But if the WTC was similarly demolished, but it didn't experience a "jolt," then obviously that proves nothing. Either way, he's painted himself into a logical corner, a very small one.

How's that new paper you promised coming, champ? I thought you were done here.

You are leaving out the part where I said I believe the column strength was mostly removed or rendered ineffective for the nine stories we were able to measure, so there would not be a jolt. Your logic is really a non-sequitur here.

I also suggested joints could be weakened thermally and that Dr. Astaneh said he saw beam and column ends which were melted like Salvador Dahli paintings. I also said I don't know exactly how it was done, but that something was unnaturally removing the strength of the columns for those nine stories we measured. Did you forget?

The paper is coming along. Since I brought it up several individuals have measured the tilt vs. drop timing and there is no discernable tilt until after the upper section has dropped vertically about two stories. It is a shame that excuse for the lack of deceleration didn't work out for some of you here and it seems those who insist there is nothing unnatural about the way those buildings came down are going to need a new excuse to maintain their irreducible delusion unless they come to their senses and accept the data and deal with it realistically.

Did you notice the recent post on this forum by Dr. Henry Couannier? http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html. It seems that based on his observations he doesn't think those collapses occurred due to natural circumstances either.

As far as being done here I guess I underestimated the draw of debating with guys like yourself on this forum.

 

[beachnut]

You are nuts if you think this example has any bearing on the issue.

Bardamu is with you with his extra special Balsamo 2,223 G physics! You guys are cooking now.

Does your college of engineering know you are full blown delusional on 911? Have you tried to take a sampling theory class to cure you inability to see you lack the resolution in time and space to support your failed theory? Brush up on why models are different than reality and you could cure the delusion you have on this issue.

Have you published your paper in a respectable journal? What did they say when they turned you down?

 

[WildCat]

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.

All 3 New York City daily newspapers were on strike at the time...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

BTW-
For those who want to know, a "jerk" (which Tony calls a "Jolt")is the technical term for a time rate change in acceleration. In the f-16 example, there is a rate change in acceleration--the acceleration decreases with velocity (but it also increases with loss of mass (fuel)), so it is very complex--and irrelevant.
But with an airplane taking off, or a rocket launching, there is a continuous "jolt"-AND YOU CAN"T SEE IT. You can measure it.

A "Jerk" is the change in acceleration with respect to time and it is not what I am calling a "Jolt".

A deceleration is a negative change in velocity with respect to time and that is what happens during an impact when momentum is transferred. Bazant referred to it as a Jolt.

Are you confused?

 

[AZCat]

I don't see how you can call yourself an engineer if you think this example has any bearing on the issue.

I don't see how you can call yourself an engineer if you think your delusions of explosives have merit.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All 3 New York City daily newspapers were on strike at the time...

Were the TV and radio station news crews on strike also?

 

[AZCat]

A "Jerk" is the change in acceleration with respect to time. A "Jolt" is the change in velocity with respect to time.

Are you confused?

Uhhh, no - we call that an acceleration, not a jolt. Perhaps you're forgetting your basic physics, Tony?

 

[WildCat]

Were the TV and radio station news crews on strike also?

TV news has what, 10 minutes (probably less) of air time a day devoted to local news? I doubt "let's see what all that welding is going on at Citicorp" was on the A-list.

 

[AZCat]

TV news has what, 10 minutes (probably less) of air time a day devoted to local news? I doubt "let's see what all that welding is going on at Citicorp" was on the A-list.

They might have carried blurb from the August Citicorp press release, but that's about it. The Wall Street Journal did. Reporters working for other New York papers were aware of the additional welding, but the strike cut off any articles they might have written.