Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[AZCat]

It implies no such thing. It only implies it wasn't widely reported, not that it was unknown.

Which is exactly what happened. LeMessurier has been criticized for keeping this story quiet until the 1995 The New Yorker article, but certainly it wasn't a secret.

 

[BasqueArch]

The perimeter columns were pulled inward at collapse initiation.

Wrong.
The perimeter columns on the opposite side of the plane's impact slowly buckled before collapse initiation on both WTC1,2 not at collapse inititation.

If you cut the perimeter corners the perimeters will be thrown outward as the core collapses and causes the floors to drop and smash off their connections to the perimeters.

This sentence is garbled. What do you mean by "cut the perimeter corners."
If you mean to say both ends of the floor trusses were demoed this is indistinguishable from the floor trusses progressively collapsing due to upper columns hitting lower slabs. Except you're adding unnecessary non- evidence assumptions.

What else you got

 

[AZCat]

He never truly learned them. Only by rote.
He's wanting A step-function jerk?

It's truly pathetic, thinking how much Tony has thrown away in sacrifice of his delusions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wrong.
The perimeter columns on the opposite side of the plane's impact slowly buckled before collapse initiation on both WTC1,2 not at collapse inititation.

The east side of WTC 2 was not opposite to the aircraft impact side.

This sentence is garbled. What do you mean by "cut the perimeter corners."
If you mean to say both ends of the floor trusses were demoed this is indistinguishable from the floor trusses progressively collapsing due to upper columns hitting lower slabs. Except you're adding unnecessary non- evidence assumptions.

I am saying that if the corners of the perimeter are separated the perimeters will be pushed outward.

 

[R.Mackey]

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 was giving you the benefit of the doubt -- I assumed when you suggested "jacks" or "cables," you were suggesting them in place of other fantasies, such as explosives.

Turns out you propose "jacks" or "cables" in addition to other fantasies...

This is called inflation, and it's why your theories are worthless conspiracy theories. You're just making things up.

Anyway, if I've got it wrong, feel free to propose an even wilder idea than you already have. I won't stop you. Indeed, I've been after you for a thorough articulation of your preferred hypothesis for years. Speak up.

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?

I didn't forget, I ignored -- it's stupid. Dr. Astaneh-asl believes what he saw was totally natural, and he thinks the Truth Movement is insane. Did you forget that part? It's quite clear you never contacted him.

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.

"Several individuals," eh? Whom? Anyone not garbed in .040 aluminum?

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.

So? He believes all kinds of nutty things.

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

Sure beats dealing with a professional review team, a judge, or a legitimate media outlet, or doing anything else worthwhile with your earth-shattering evidence, doesn't it?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You seem to want to draw an analogy between the fitting of 200 pieces of steel over the bolted together chevrons in the Citibank Tower and the idea that the WTC towers could have been wired for explosives. Leaving aside the actual wiring part, at Citibank we know that the building management knew exactly what was going on. They issued a press release as the work would have been and was obvious to people passing by the building. The "secret" was the seriousness of the situation, not the existence of the work. Furthermore not that many floors were involved and many of them were unoccupied at the time (new building, not full). This is really a bad analogy to use as an argument for secretly wiring the WTC towers or even one of them. All they needed to do was to bring up 200 steel plates and weld them to the chevrons buttressing the structure. Not even close, stick to the "jolt".

By comparison, It would have taken more than forty-thousand seperate charges of conventional explosives and more than 90 miles of det-cord to wire up WTC 1, 2 and 7.

And that's with extensive pre-weakening and partial cutting of numerous beams.

It would have taken Tony's ninja squad about 200,000+ man hours to put the whole thing together and have it ready for when the planes hit. And all of this labor would have to have been done along the outer walls of the Twin Towers where it would have been most visible.

 

[Edx]

By comparison, It would have taken more than forty-thousand seperate charges of conventional explosives and more than 90 miles of det-cord to wire up WTC 1, 2 and 7.

And that's with extensive pre-weakening and partial cutting of numerous beams.

It would have taken Tony's ninja squad about 200,000+ man hours to put the whole thing together and have it ready for when the planes hit. And all of this labor would have to have been done along the outer walls of the Twin Towers where it would have been most visible.

But they used nano thermite, that solves everything

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I didn't forget, I ignored -- it's stupid. Dr. Astaneh-asl believes what he saw was totally natural, and he thinks the Truth Movement is insane. Did you forget that part? It's quite clear you never contacted him.

I didn't say what he believed just what he said he saw, and that did support what I was saying as far as the possibility of joints being targeted and weakened thermally.

Sure beats dealing with a professional review team, a judge, or a legitimate media outlet, or doing anything else worthwhile with your earth-shattering evidence, doesn't it?

You shouldn't be talking this way as there isn't a peer reviewed article using the tilt as an excuse for the lack of deceleration. At some point I believe this evidence will be in front of a professional review team and legitimate investigators.

By the way right now I am listening to a recording of the Sunday night 1/10/2010 Richard Gage and Ron Craig debate on a Canadian radio station. Richard Gage did mention that there was no jolt and deceleration observed in WTC 1, so he does use the Missing Jolt paper, which you claimed he did not in an earlier of yours attempt to minimize it. I can understand that you probably had never heard him use it and assumed he didn't. But he does use it.

 

[AZCat]

By the way right now I am listening to a recording of the Sunday night 1/10/2010 Richard Gage and Ron Craig debate on a Canadian radio station. Richard Gage did mention that there was no jolt and deceleration observed in WTC 1, so he does use the Missing Jolt paper, which you claimed he did not in an earlier of yours attempt to minimize it. I can understand that you probably had never heard him use it and assumed he didn't. But he does use it.

Then Gage is more of an idiot than I thought.

 

[R.Mackey]

I didn't say what he believed just what he said he saw, and that did support what I was saying as far as the possibility of joints being targeted and weakened thermally.

No, what he saw in no way supports you or your made-up, yet still unstated, hypothesis. The man is an expert. You are a quote-miner. You didn't see what he saw, you didn't even talk to him, yet you think you know better than he does what he really saw.

Seriously, just listen to yourself.

You shouldn't be talking this way as there isn't a peer reviewed article using the tilt as an excuse for the lack of deceleration. I don't think there will even be a paper written on it as it is unsupportable observationally.

Appeal to Silence logical fallacy. I also will have a hard time locating a peer-reviewed paper proving the world is round.

Additionally, your "missing jolt" paper, you might recall, failed its review, even though it wasn't a proper peer review to begin with. Yet you "published" it anyway.

At some point I think we will get the lack of deceleration evidence in front of a professional review team.

Sure you will. Sometime this century would be good.

By the way right now I am listening to a recording of the Sunday night 1/10/2010 Richard Gage and Ron Craig debate on a Canadian radio station. Richard Gage did mention that there was no jolt and deceleration observed in WTC 1, so he does use the Missing Jolt paper, which you claimed he did not in an earlier of yours attempt to minimize it. I can understand that you probably had never heard him use it and assumed he didn't. But he does use it.

He does use it now, you mean. I defy you to find evidence that he used it in the past.

So not only are you a crackpot, you're reasoning retroactively about a tiny bit of trivia... This just gets better and better.

 

[rwguinn]

No, what he saw in no way supports you or your made-up, yet still unstated, hypothesis. The man is an expert. You are a quote-miner. You didn't see what he saw, you didn't even talk to him, yet you think you know better than he does what he really saw.

Seriously, just listen to yourself.



Appeal to Silence logical fallacy. I also will have a hard time locating a peer-reviewed paper proving the world is round.

Additionally, your "missing jolt" paper, you might recall, failed its review, even though it wasn't a proper peer review to begin with. Yet you "published" it anyway.



Sure you will. Sometime this century would be good.



He does use it now, you mean. I defy you to find evidence that he used it in the past.

So not only are you a crackpot, you're reasoning retroactively about a tiny bit of trivia... This just gets better and better.

Before we go on and on and on, perhaps Tony will give an engineering description of just what he considers a "jolt" to be.
So far, we are at cross purposes, since the definition keeps changing... I no longer have a clue as whatinhell he's talking about (nor, I suspect, does he)

 

[AZCat]

Before we go on and on and on, perhaps Tony will give an engineering description of just what he considers a "jolt" to be.
So far, we are at cross purposes, since the definition keeps changing... I no longer have a clue as whatinhell he's talking about (nor, I suspect, does he)

Yeah, that's a bit confusing. Perhaps Tony could clarify with a definition?

On Edit: Or at least more of a definition than he provided here:

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?

I don't have a copy of the Bazant paper at home (nor can I download it easily - still on dialup) and I don't remember this definition by Bazant. Can anyone verify this or is Tony talking out of his ass?

 

[R.Mackey]

As explored before, the "missing jolt" is that Tony requires, at some point, a resisting force supplied by the lower structure that exceeds the weight of the upper portion. In other words, he must see the roofline experience a brief net positive (upward) acceleration before he decides to drop this line of nonsense and espouse some other conspiracy theory.

It's madness.

 

[AZCat]

As explored before, the "missing jolt" is that Tony requires, at some point, a resisting force supplied by the lower structure that exceeds the weight of the upper portion. In other words, he must see the roofline experience a brief net positive (upward) acceleration before he decides to drop this line of nonsense and espouse some other conspiracy theory.

It's madness.

Thanks, R.Mackey. Did Bazant define "jolt" like this or is this useage of Tony's creation?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Before we go on and on and on, perhaps Tony will give an engineering description of just what he considers a "jolt" to be.
So far, we are at cross purposes, since the definition keeps changing... I no longer have a clue as whatinhell he's talking about (nor, I suspect, does he)

If the acceleration changes with respect to time it is called a jerk. The British use the term jolt interchangeably with jerk.

Dr. Bazant was describing a shock load as he shows a deceleration of 31g was possible due to the impact based on his calculation of the stiffness of the columns in the towers.

You could say that there was a jerk or jolt since the acceleration would have changed with respect to time. However, I think Bazant used the term jolt in a confusing way when referring to a deceleration and everyone has used it since in reference to whether there was deceleration or not.

Rwguinn what are your thoughts on why there was no decleration in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1?

 

[rwguinn]

As explored before, the "missing jolt" is that Tony requires, at some point, a resisting force supplied by the lower structure that exceeds the weight of the upper portion. In other words, he must see the roofline experience a brief net positive (upward) acceleration before he decides to drop this line of nonsense and espouse some other conspiracy theory.

It's madness.

ok, that's a "jerk" d³X/dt³. He specifically said

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

I got the impression from his previous postings that he considered a "jolt" to be d³X/dt³ at dt³=0.0000

 

[R.Mackey]

Thanks, R.Mackey. Did Bazant define "jolt" like this or is this useage of Tony's creation?

You can read it yourself, it's in the addendum to his famous paper with Dr. Yong Zhou.

 

[WildCat]

Then Gage is more of an idiot than I thought.

He never learned the difference...

NSFW - language

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You can read it yourself, it's in the addendum to his famous paper with Dr. Yong Zhou.

Ryan, I just noticed that Bazant seems to agree with me and not you concerning the rubble. Here is a comment from the Addendum

In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people
could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower
part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper
part or weakening it by some ‘‘smart-structure’’ system so as to
make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting
the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body.

You just keep getting beat over the head with things like this and amazingly continue to act like you haven't been shown to be wrong. I won't be so cruel as to call you a nut but the word hardhead does come to mind.

I hope Ron Wieck is reading this thread.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, I just noticed that Bazant seems to agree with me and not you concerning the rubble. Here is a comment from the Addendum

What do you mean you "just noticed?"

Try reading the rest of the paper -- you know, the one that you think represents the Offical Theory and justifies your own contrarian viewpoint.

Some of us have.