Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[TruthersLie]

If by your own admission you don't have the skills to understand how would you possibly be able to determine who is getting "owned" technically?

There is no need for cheerleading in this debate and that type of thing should be kept to the sidelines.

ROFLMAO.

Poor tony. With 3 years of engineering classes, I can follow the arguments being made. I can follow the math and the assumptions made in the arguments.

and you have been getting your ass handed to you REPEATEDLY. I mean a $5 whore doesn't get it in the ass as much. It has been absolutely hillarious to watch and see how you have to twist, distort and do mental gymnastics to try to justify your positions.

Again, and again which journal published this "paper" you keep spewing? Which peer review board did it go through? Or did you present it in a conference? Who reviewed this "paper?"With 3 years of engineering, I can see that you have been misrepresenting Bazant (repeatedly, not understanding a LIMITING CASE, and that you keep using an UNDEFINED TERM (jolt). A lack of understanding that the videos you are measuring are NOT good enough to measure anything accurately. Add to that the misunderstanding and misapplication of the 31g impulse... Wow... Tony you need to go back to your professors and show them your work... then duck as they hand you your ass. I know mine would for the craptacular work you keep trying to pass off)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"quasi-static load." inventing your own terms are we?

It is a real engineering term.

If you don't understand it Google the term and you might learn something, if you have enough of the basics to build on, which seems questionable with many who are making unsupported and inaccurate comments here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

ROFLMAO.

Poor tony. With 3 years of engineering classes, I can follow the arguments being made. I can follow the math and the assumptions made in the arguments.

and you have been getting your ass handed to you REPEATEDLY. I mean a $5 whore doesn't get it in the ass as much. It has been absolutely hillarious to watch and see how you have to twist, distort and do mental gymnastics to try to justify your positions.

Again, and again which journal published this "paper" you keep spewing? Which peer review board did it go through? Or did you present it in a conference? Who reviewed this "paper?"With 3 years of engineering, I can see that you have been misrepresenting Bazant (repeatedly, not understanding a LIMITING CASE, and that you keep using an UNDEFINED TERM (jolt). A lack of understanding that the videos you are measuring are NOT good enough to measure anything accurately. Add to that the misunderstanding and misapplication of the 31g impulse... Wow... Tony you need to go back to your professors and show them your work... then duck as they hand you your ass. I know mine would for the craptacular work you keep trying to pass off)

In engineering we have a saying that "the devil is in the details", which basically means you need to get into the details to flush out and understand the problems. It is always a red flag when people discussing an issue don't delve into details and simply make unsupported arguments. I don't see you discussing details whatsoever. You seem to be all bluster with nothing to really show.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Remember Bazant sets Po = mg and then calculates Pdtn/Po. He finds that ratio to be 31. The fact that Bazant's Pdyn is 31 times greater than mg means a 31g amplification was what he calculated.

Tony, the point is that Bazant's P_dyn is the force due to mass times acceleration, and Bazant divided by the design load, P₀, to get what he called an "over-load ratio." The fact that the dynamic force was 31 times greater than the design load cannot be used to infer that there was a 31g deceleration in the upper block -- which is precisely what you did in your paper -- because the columns below could not offer a resistance 31 times greater than the design load. And yet you continue to insist that I'm misunderstanding something about Bazant's calculation and don't know what I'm talking about?

You didn't get anybody. I said straight out in that paper that a 31g amplification would have been impossible.

No, you didn't say that. You said the upper block couldn't tolerate a 31g impulse, which is certainly true, but that's not the same thing as saying that "a 31g amplification would have been impossible."

Here is a question for you. Using Bazant's theoretical Pdyn to mg ratio of 31, what would the actual overload ratio have been when considering the actual strength of the columns if they had a factor of safety of three?

W.D.Clinger already provided that answer by quoting the next sentence in the paper:

In spite of the approximate nature of this analysis, it is obvious that the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude

This reminds me of how you reacted when it was pointed out that your original calculation of decelerations from your data points was completely wrong.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have a question for you that I have not seen you answer in any meaningful way. Why do you think the towers fell down?

I have said repeatedly that I believe some unnatural mechanism was removing the strength of the columns in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 and causing their respective collapses.

 

[TruthersLie]

In engineering we have a saying that "the devil is in the details", which basically means you need to get into the details to flush out and understand the problems. It is always a red flag when people discussing an issue don't delve into details and simply make unsupported arguments. I don't see you discussing details whatsoever. You seem to be all bluster with nothing to really show.

Tony, tony, tony.

Is there a reason you keep choosing to dodge the simple question? I mean I even highlighted it for you.

Let me repeat it, or rephrase it.

what journal did you publish this "paper" in? It is a rather small and insignificant detail (you know the devils in the details right?). I just want to know which peer review board gives any credence to your bs claims.

I know that in the last 6 years I have published 3 peer reviewed journal articles in 3 different fields. I just want to know which journal has a peer review board who supports your claims, or even will publish to create a discussion.

As a mechanical engineer, I'd expect you to put this in an engineering journal.. maybe even one dedicated to structural engineering (which it is, which is extremely outside your area of expertise)... so please, pretty please let me know which journal published this "paper" or you might want to stop trying to equate it to a real peer reviewed journal article.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, the point is that Bazant's P_dyn is the force due to mass times acceleration, and Bazant divided by the design load, P₀, to get what he called an "over-load ratio." The fact that the dynamic force was 31 times greater than the design load cannot be used to infer that there was a 31g deceleration in the upper block -- which is precisely what you did in your paper -- because the columns below could not offer a resistance 31 times greater than the design load. And yet you continue to insist that I'm misunderstanding something about Bazant's calculation and don't know what I'm talking about?



No, you didn't say that. You said the upper block couldn't tolerate a 31g impulse, which is certainly true, but that's not the same thing as saying that "a 31g amplification would have been impossible."



W.D.Clinger already provided that answer by quoting the next sentence in the paper:
This reminds me of how you reacted when it was pointed out that your original calculation of decelerations from your data points was completely wrong.

You don't even have a point here Bill.

 

[WildCat]

If by your own admission you don't have the skills to understand how would you possibly be able to determine who is getting "owned" technically?

There is no need for cheerleading in this debate and that type of thing should be kept to the sidelines.

TruthersLie is smart enough to know what he doesn't know.

You, not so much.

As the movie character Josey Wales said "a man's got to know his limitations". Unfortunately, you don't.

For most people, a complete inability to get your "paper" published in anything other than tinfoil hat conspiracy sites and youtube would cause them to have serious doubts and reflect on what the problem may be, but not Tony Szamboti! You just keep plugging away, seemingly oblivious to the fact there is no support at all for your nonsense from any professional engineering group.

Have you figured out the diference between velocity and acceleration yet?

Do you still think each floor could handle a weight of 725psf?

 

[NutCracker]

If you could argue the details I could understand how you might be able to determine what a respected peer-reviewed journal would be concerning this issue, but I haven't seen you or others making these types of comments argue any details here.

So you chose the derail option, heading into AH territory.

You haven't published your findings in a respected journal because I am neither able to identify a respected journal nor understand the details? That can't hardly be the reason for you not publishing, are they? Well, Tony, you don't need me to identify a respected academic peer reviewed journal. You are perfectly capable of doing that on your own. You understand the details. So I'll repeat my question: why haven't you published your findings in a respected academic peer-reviewed journal?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, tony, tony.

Is there a reason you keep choosing to dodge the simple question? I mean I even highlighted it for you.

Let me repeat it, or rephrase it.

what journal did you publish this "paper" in? It is a rather small and insignificant detail (you know the devils in the details right?). I just want to know which peer review board gives any credence to your bs claims.

I know that in the last 6 years I have published 3 peer reviewed journal articles in 3 different fields. I just want to know which journal has a peer review board who supports your claims, or even will publish to create a discussion.

As a mechanical engineer, I'd expect you to put this in an engineering journal.. maybe even one dedicated to structural engineering (which it is, which is extremely outside your area of expertise)... so please, pretty please let me know which journal published this "paper" or you might want to stop trying to equate it to a real peer reviewed journal article.

The obvious answer to your question here is that it seems some do not want to get involved in this controversy at this point. I have had first hand knowledge of several papers written by respected engineering people on this issue, which would support my point of view, that have simply been rejected for nonsensical reasons or left to languish by at least one of the better known journals in engineering.

After seeing this I did not even bother to submit my paper to them. You can call my paper a "white paper" if you want to and remove its peer review status, but you can't discount it for that reason. Facts are still facts regardless of peer review. You need to discuss the facts and details if you want any credibility yourself, although those who use pseudonyms have a deficit there to start with.

The fact that Bazant's papers were published in JEM would not be controversial to that journal since they supported the present official story.

It is when one is bucking the official line that controversy is generated and some people shy away from it and don't want to be involved in an initial struggle. It goes with what Mark Twain said In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have said repeatedly that I believe some unnatural mechanism was removing the strength of the columns in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 and causing their respective collapses.

"Unnatural?" ELF weapons? Pixie dust?

As much evidence for any of those as for explosives or therm*te, regular or soopernanobanano.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You don't even have a point here Bill.

Yes, I do: Your original paper contains a serious error in logic that you persist in falsely attributing to Bazant and Zhou. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"Unnatural?" ELF weapons? Pixie dust?

As much evidence for any of those as for explosives or therm*te, regular or soopernanobanano.

There are several real ways it could be done.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, I do: Your original paper contains a serious error in logic that you persist in falsely attributing to Bazant and Zhou. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your point is nonsensical and it appears that you just want to diminish the influence of my paper disingenuously. I think the shame belongs to you Bill.

 

[leftysergeant]

There are several real ways it could be done.

Without leaving detectable residues or dispalying characteristic phenomena, such as a god-awful BOOM! that takes out half the windows in Manhattan,
{BLEEP!} NO.

 

[NutCracker]

Your point is nonsensical and it appears that you just want to diminish the influence of my paper disingenuously. I think the shame belongs to you Bill.

"[D]iminish the influence of [your] paper?". Please, Tony, do a reality check. It has been pointed out to you by several people on several occasions that your paper is riddled with flaws. Flaws that a ten year old is able to spot. Your paper is a piece of junk. To get confirmation submit it to a respected academic peer reviewed paper. Of course, you know full well that they are going to tell you that is a flaw fest. That's why you refrain from submitting it.

 

[GlennB]

There are several real ways it could be done.

Please describe one of them.

That is - possible materials used, possible locations, the effect and so on. Please describe the application of these devices/materials within a working building.
While you're at it perhaps you could describe the interaction between these devices and a crashing plane followed by extensive building fires.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I have had first hand knowledge of several papers written by respected engineering people on this issue ..........or left to languish by at least one of the better known journals in engineering.

Dear God.

I believe he's referring to that lunatic Heiwa here.

That has GOT to be the bottom of the barrel when one needs to refer to that assclown.

Where's that laughing dog again??????????

 

[rwguinn]

"quasi-static load." inventing your own terms are we?

Nope-misusing it, yes, but that's a perfectly good term. It generally is used to define dynamic loading which has a period far greater(say, a factor of 10) than the structure's natural frequency.
A step-function does not have a period greater than ANY structure. It has a period of 0 seconds...

 

[TruthersLie]

The obvious answer to your question here is that it seems some do not want to get involved in this controversy at this point. I have had first hand knowledge of several papers written by respected engineering people on this issue, which would support my point of view, that have simply been rejected for nonsensical reasons or left to languish by at least one of the better known journals in engineering.

Tony... there are hundreds of REAL peer reviewed journals ALL OVER THE WORLD. If you don't get accepted to one, then you submit to another. In fact, please show me a single peer reviewed engineering journal from anywhere in the world which supports your nuttiness?

Please provide examples of "several papers written by respected engineering peole on this issue." Where are these papers? If the engineering is correct, then it doesn't matter, and in fact a real journal will be rather pissed that they passed on this topic.

After seeing this I did not even bother to submit my paper to them. You can call my paper a "white paper" if you want to and remove its peer review status, but you can't discount it for that reason.

So then it is a white paper and is not peer reviewed? Is that correct? So then you haven't submitted it to any type of scrutiny, but instead when shown how and where you are wrong by people who are knowledgable you just ignore them? Is that correct?

So then let me get this straight. You have (you think) a easy to show proof that NIST is wrong, yet you don't even bother to submit it to ANY journal, anywhere in the world?

Facts are still facts regardless of peer review.

That is a correct statement. And one of the easiest ways to see if your "facts" are accurate is to pass it through a strict battery of peer review. So you didn't send it to any of the engineering journals in the world. Ok. Who did you run it by? Which structural engineers have read your work and support your claims? Who reviewed it for obvious mistakes, and leaps of logic?

You need to discuss the facts and details if you want any credibility yourself, although those who use pseudonyms have a deficit there to start with.

Ah...the old "you hide behind the internet therefore you aren't a valid criticism." ROFLMAO. As I have stated before Tony, I live in a small community (it is right under my avatar), and I have had truthers track me down before and even email people in town (who I don't work with) and lie about me. sorry tony.. but it happens.

And since I am not the one accusing innocent individuals of murdering 3,000 people and then covering it up, I dont' need to establish my identity. I am fully happy with 95% of the common narrative, and the 5% I have questions about do not change the fact that 19 hijackers took over 4 jets and crashed them into 3 buildings and a field. You are making the claims, you need to provide the evidence.

The fact that Bazant's papers were published in JEM would not be controversial to that journal since they supported the present official story.

You seem to miss the point. Bazants papers were published in the BEST journal because they EXPLAINED what happened. If you can provide an example of how Bazant is wrong, I'd bet my pay check vs yours that they would publish it. There is NOTHING a publishing firm likes more than contraversy and debate.

Did you not learn the easiest way to write papers Tony? Or to earn a PhD? Find someone in the field who is respected and find an ERROR in their work. either an error in the grunt work, or an unsupported claim which you can SHOW is wrong. Slam dunk publication. Where is this refutation of Bazant?

It is when one is bucking the official line that controversy is generated and some people shy away from it and don't want to be involved in an initial struggle. It goes with what Mark Twain said In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

ah yes... argument ad mark twainium... ranks right up there with argument ad youtubium and the lack of peer review.

You aren't a patriot. Just deluded and incorrect (as has been repeatedly shown to you.)