• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

R.Mackey said:
You can read it yourself, it's in the addendum to his famous paper with Dr. Yong Zhou.
Click to expand...

Thanks again! 98 kb is dialup-friendly.

So I skimmed the addendum (I've read it before, but it's been over a year) and looked specifically for a definition of "jolt" as Tony claims, and it isn't there. I see where he is referencing Bazant's overload capacity calculation, but Bazant says nothing about a "jolt". Moreover, this 31g overload capacity only applies if the lower part of the structure deforms elastically to the point of maximum deflection and is "the most optimistic hypothesis to make" (in Bazant's own words).
 
Newtons Bit said:
Well? Where are they?
Click to expand...

AZCat said:
Thanks again! 98 kb is dialup-friendly.

So I skimmed the addendum (I've read it before, but it's been over a year) and looked specifically for a definition of "jolt" as Tony claims, and it isn't there. I see where he is referencing Bazant's overload capacity calculation, but Bazant says nothing about a "jolt". Moreover, this 31g overload capacity only applies if the lower part of the structure deforms elastically to the point of maximum deflection and is "the most optimistic hypothesis to make" (in Bazant's own words).
Click to expand...
He insists on using a term that has no engineering definition, in fact, no definition but that which he decides it is. Sort of a truther quantum entanglement/Schroedingers Cat sort of thing.
 
rwguinn said:
He insists on using a term that has no engineering definition, in fact, no definition but that which he decides it is. Sort of a truther quantum entanglement/Schroedingers Cat sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I see... This "Truther Quantum Entanglement" (or TQE for short) is the same paradox that governs the thermi/ate material?
 
AZCat said:
I see... This "Truther Quantum Entanglement" (or TQE for short) is the same paradox that governs the thermi/ate material?
Click to expand...
It could be Thermite, Thermate, holograms, or the Death Star. You won't know and can never know the actual State of being until the NWO collapses...
 
R.Mackey said:
:D 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.
Click to expand...

I have read the paper and addendum many times. However, I never really thought much about his rubble comment until reading it while speaking with you and remembering your comment to Ron Wieck that the rubble would be just as likely to collapse the building as an impacting rigid mass would, after I had said it would not. Remember you told Ron it made very little difference. Well it doesn't seem like Dr. Bazant agrees with you. Why don't you comment on that?
 
Last edited:
I did comment on it, and he does agree with me.

I brought this up on Hardfire. Does the phrase "elastic response" ring a bell?

Oh dear, do you mean to say you never asked Dr. Bazant either? Why on earth not? Afraid he'll tell you you're completely off the wall?
 
R.Mackey said:
I did comment on it, and he does agree with me.

I brought this up on Hardfire. Does the phrase "elastic response" ring a bell?

Oh dear, do you mean to say you never asked Dr. Bazant either? Why on earth not? Afraid he'll tell you you're completely off the wall?
Click to expand...

We have been through the elastic response bit before. You are allowing too much time.

One thing I will say is that the rubble can constitute a static overload and maybe even generate a quasi-static response but it certainly cannot generate a dynamic load and perform like an impacting rigid mass. It would not have had any effect in the towers until at least 8 to 9 stories were demolished and maybe further as a great deal of the mass fell outside of the perimeter of the towers.
 
You say all kinds of absurd things.

But we've established (again) a pattern -- you studiously avoid contact with actual experts. You quote-mine them, you misinterpret their results, but you won't bother verifying that your understanding is accurate, even though it is utterly contrary to their ultimate findings.

Why?

Do you need Dr. Bazant's telephone number or something? I have it here for you.
 
R.Mackey said:
You say all kinds of absurd things.

But we've established (again) a pattern -- you studiously avoid contact with actual experts. You quote-mine them, you misinterpret their results, but you won't bother verifying that your understanding is accurate, even though it is utterly contrary to their ultimate findings.

Why?
Click to expand...

TQE. Tony doesn't want to look into the box and collapse his reality.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
We have been through the elastic response bit before. You are allowing too much time.

One thing I will say is that the rubble can constitute a static overload and maybe even generate a quasi-static response but it certainly cannot generate a dynamic load and perform like an impacting rigid mass. It would not have had any effect in the towers until at least 8 to 9 stories were demolished and maybe further as a great deal of the mass fell outside of the perimeter of the towers.
Click to expand...
You are not a structural engineer, but you are the read-cd-deal. 8 years and this is your best engineering efforts, pure delusional conclusions based on nothing but your own ignorance. It's time like these I wish I was just a pilot and did not share your profession which you disrespect with pure woo and failed science. Did you miss a lot of physics classes?

Sorry, the main reason I posted was to save your ignorance for the future in case you recover from the stupid junk you are pushing.

oops - now we don't have to worry if someone shoots at us with a shotgun, there is no dynamic load! Good for you super engineer of woo
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tony, are you going to respond to this?

These are some of the biggest holes in your theory. You need to fill them in if you are ever find justice for the victims.

Your comparison of the installation of 200 braces in a building less than a 5th the total size of the WTC complex to the covert installation of more than 40,000 explosive charges in three different buildings far larger than the Citicorp tower is frankly just plain silly.
 
Aarggh! Reading this thread makes my brain hurt.
This is clearly a dead-end enquiry, and another 6 months or even 6 years will not reveal much more. Of that I am fairly certain.

I'm wondering though, if the gubmint chose nanothermite in 2001, why did they not use it again in the December bomber's underwear? That's the question that's nagging at me ;)
 
TS - What's your excuse for ignoring WTC2. Do you think no one notices. The initial tilt was indisputably pronounced. Top columns clearly fell atop bottom slabs, no jolt there. The perimeter columns slowly buckled before collapse initiation on both WTC1,2 not at collapse initiation.

WTC1. If the core was CD'd, the perimeter columns would have been pulled in towards the core, the forces on the perimeter columns would be towards the core, not opposite, before the truss connections break. Instead the perimeter columns toppled outwards up to 600 feet (50 stories) proving your hypothesis false.

WTC1 video at 14 sec showing perimeter wall at initial collapse floor not being pulled in or demoed , right center. Keep mouse pointer at corner of initial collapsing floor. Tilted upper columns destroy lower floor slabs, then unsupported perimeter columns topple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA

What else you got.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I LOL'd a little bit at this. Very funny. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was also jolt-free I suspect.
Click to expand...
TQE-Irreducible Delusion.
Hard to argue with an "engineer" who doesn't care to define his terms...
(Pick up an advanced Enginering Textbook. Somewhere early on, there is a "definition of terms" section. It's fundamental. Tony likes to change derfinitions when it suits his purpose, so de refuses (like all truthers) to be pinned down to anything specific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom