• 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

You've said this about a hundred times, but repetition won't make it true.

Again, why won't you answer the questions put to you? It's not like they're unreasonable. You're the one selling a story here, you should expect some questions.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The Missing Jolt considers the first collision between floors so they are in place there chief. Nice try but no cigar.

To all you believers in a natural collapse
No deceleration and no velocity loss = an unnatural event

I hope that isn't too complex for you.

Keep trying to prop up your irreducible delusion. That was one projection by Ryan Mackey which is hard to forget.
Click to expand...
For all you with delusions of the realcddeal, the velocity is much slower than a free gravity falling object. So your lack of engineering skills and inability to resolve the difference between models and reality is your failure which is confirmed by reality based engineering instead of conspiracy based delusions.

If you make a model, the model does have momentary steps in velocity which matches the average velocity some of the real falling mass achieves. Sorry, the model is correct, you are wrong.

8 years and you hold on to delusions of explosives or even dumber, super-nano-thermite and no real scenario. What school did you graduate from? When will you realize you are full of junk ideas?
 
R.Mackey said:
You've said this about a hundred times, but repetition won't make it true.

Again, why won't you answer the questions put to you? It's not like they're unreasonable. You're the one selling a story here, you should expect some questions.
Click to expand...

I answered plenty of questions on this subject and if some of these guys don't get it maybe it is because they don't want to.

You should explain to those who don't understand that a static load is actually being decelerated at 1g and any load amplification would come from deceleration greater than that. You should help your friends here and answer that for them as it doesn't sound like some of them want to hear it from me.
 
No, you've ignored a great deal of questions. Pretending they don't exist, while de rigeur for a Truther, is pretty damn poor showing for someone trying to convince us he's smarter than the entire scientific establishment.

If you won't answer, what will you do? Just keep repeating yourself? Why should I care?
 
T Szamboti
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.
Click to expand...

The unnatural impact of a 500 mph 130 ton airliner combined with the natural redistribution of loads and heat damage removed the strength of the surviving columns and caused the collapses. NCSTAR 1-6 exhaustively tracks this initial collapse process.

At WTC2 the east perimeter columns gradually bowed over a period of 36 minutes. This is a sign of a progressively failing structure and the gradual bowing cannot be explained by the instantaneous effects of thermite, explosives or any other mechanism you have yet to invent.

The initial collapse sequence is well understood and all peer reviewed engineering publications confirm this. The subsequent global collapse is a separate issue.

No amount of your mistaken math or discombobulating can contradict the recorded evidence of the natural initial collapse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Szamboti about Mackey -'...You only have what you claim to be a lack of sound as a means to argue against explosives. Nano-thermite is tailorable and can be formulated to minimize sound. The joints could be heat weakened and I told you that Dr. Astaneh mentioned melting at the ends of beams and columns. I also don't think it is out of the realm of possibility the core columns in the upper stories could be taken out in ways similar to what is done in the Verinage Technique.
Click to expand...

You started out with explosives removing core columns every three floors.
No explosives sounds = no explosives . I understand your frustration, it's pretty hard to shake that one off. Can't math your way out.of this.one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The initial collapse sequence is well understood and all peer reviewed engineering publications confirm this. . No amount of your mistaken math or discombobulating can contradict the recorded evidence of the natural initial collapse..

2) The subsequent global collapse is a separate issue with different inputs. You have not yet disproved the initial collapse sequence before you continue with the global collapse.

3) High Explosives have been ruled out due to the recorded evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can not reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Swift[/QUOTE] ...
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I answered plenty of questions on this subject and if some of these guys don't get it maybe it is because they don't want to.
Click to expand...

You still have not answered one very important question. Given that the towers failed on the floor which were then on fire and given that, according to your delusions, the columns were destroyed by explosives, how come we do not see any flames ejected by those explosives.

And don't wave your bloody degree at me. It is not in arson investigations, so my credentials as a fire fighter outweigh yours.

Explain yourself.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You should explain to those who don't understand that a static load is actually being decelerated at 1g and any load amplification would come from deceleration greater than that. You should help your friends here and answer that for them as it doesn't sound like some of them want to hear it from me.
Click to expand...

Is deceleration defined as "A jerk going nowhere fast"?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Who mentioned flinging things around? Are you imagining things?
Click to expand...

Richard Gage and David Chander, your friends at AE911Truth, remember?

They love saying that steel and material was flung around.

Heres my video on Richard Gage contradicting himself in that regard:



Steven Jones also says that nano thermite acted as matches or fuses for conventional explosives like C4. And they all say that many times the amount of explosives would have to be in the buildings compared to a normal demolition.

It seems you don't agree with most of what the heads of your group say, right?

But Im sure you'll ignore this.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
obviously, the building was blown up at the base, and it took off like a rocket ship.
Click to expand...

3bodyproblem said:
Is deceleration defined as "A jerk going nowhere fast"?
Click to expand...
All seriousness aside, one can figure the "decelleration" as a function of time:
Delta(V)=ajolttjolt
yes, it is possible (even likely) for that to be >1. What he fails to note, however, is that when ajolt*massfalling becomes greater than the rupture (failure) load of whatever it hits, the structure fails and his "jolt" quits, right there.
However, he says it is a shock load, which puts it in the frequency domain, then he uses the time domain to calculate.
It's relatively easy to go from time to frequency domain with a PSD.
It is impossible (n equations, n+m unknowns) to go the other way with any accuracy.
He hasn't a clue, so he is resorting to the engineering standard:
"If you can't bewilder 'em with brains, baffle 'em with ********"
 
linearity and its limits

Lewis Carroll once wrote a wonderful little essay on the folly of assuming linearity holds outside a model's region of linearity. Its conclusion:
If a cat can kill a rat in a minute, how long would it be killing 60,000 rats? Ah, how long, indeed! My private opinion is that the rats would kill the cat.

-- Lewis Carroll, On Cats and Rats
http://www.uz.ac.zw/science/maths/zimaths/catrat.htm
(Warning: that page contains a couple of typos.)
Click to expand...

I see that rwguinn has already given a similar answer to 3bodyproblem's question while I was writing this, but I'm going to post my answer anyway:
3bodyproblem said:
OK, I'm lost. Can someone tell me how you can have a deceleration greater than unity?
Click to expand...
If you hold a book at eye level and drop it smack on the floor, it accelerates downward at 1g until it collides with the floor, at which point it decelerates at a rate far greater than 1g for a correspondingly briefer time. That's the (controversial part of) Tony's missing jolt.

If you drop the twelve upper floors of a WTC tower onto the floor below, then the upper section accelerates downward at a little less than 1g until it collides with the floor below, at which point that floor and its connections smash into pieces, cease to bear the loads they were capable of bearing in their undamaged state, heed the call of gravity, and the upper section continues its descent with only a small loss of downward velocity.

Tony disagrees, of course. He likes to calculate the size of the jolt as though the floor's failure has absolutely no effect on the total impulse it is able to deliver in opposition to the upper section's descent. He likes to imagine that the pieces of the smashed floor continue to exert significant upward force long after their connections to each other have been broken by the initial shock. On the other hand, Tony doesn't appreciate it when people call attention to that aspect of his argument.

Unfortunately, the experiment has already been performed. The rats killed the cat.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Lewis Carroll once wrote a wonderful little essay on the folly of assuming linearity holds outside a model's region of linearity. Its conclusion:


I see that rwguinn has already given a similar answer to 3bodyproblem's question while I was writing this, but I'm going to post my answer anyway:

If you hold a book at eye level and drop it smack on the floor, it accelerates downward at 1g until it collides with the floor, at which point it decelerates at a rate far greater than 1g for a correspondingly briefer time. That's the (controversial part of) Tony's missing jolt.

If you drop the twelve upper floors of a WTC tower onto the floor below, then the upper section accelerates downward at a little less than 1g until it collides with the floor below, at which point that floor and its connections smash into pieces, cease to bear the loads they were capable of bearing in their undamaged state, heed the call of gravity, and the upper section continues its descent with only a small loss of downward velocity.

Tony disagrees, of course. He likes to calculate the size of the jolt as though the floor's failure has absolutely no effect on the total impulse it is able to deliver in opposition to the upper section's descent. He likes to imagine that the pieces of the smashed floor continue to exert significant upward force long after their connections to each other have been broken by the initial shock. On the other hand, Tony doesn't appreciate it when people call attention to that aspect of his argument.

Unfortunately, the experiment has already been performed. The rats killed the cat.
Click to expand...

You started out well but finished off with a bad turn.

The shock load is what is necessary to break and fail the lower structure and accelerate it. It occurs due to this is happening not after. After being broken and failed the floors and columns will not continue to exert a significant upward force. In order for the shock to be of sufficient magnitude there must be a significant amplification of the insufficient static load and this requires deceleration and velocity loss. If this did not happen it means the lower structure was broken before impact.
 
Last edited:
Begging. Begging!

Tony, DO YOU HAVE A FRIGGING HYPOTHESIS THAT EXPLAINS THE EVENTS OF 9/11?

WILL YOU SUBMIT YOUR "WHITE PAPER" FOR PEER REVIEW IN ANY WAY?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You started out well but finished off with a bad turn.

The shock load is what is necessary to break and fail the lower structure and accelerate it. It occurs due to this is happening not after. After being broken and failed the floors and columns will not continue to exert a significant upward force. In order for the shock to be of sufficient magnitude there must be a significant amplification of the insufficient static load and this requires deceleration and velocity loss. If this did not happen it means the lower structure was broken before impact.
Click to expand...
And there is your fundamental error--your irreducible delusion.
The Earth is acting on it to accelerate it. Once broken, it don't need no steenking jolt-gravity takes over and gets the assist.
 
rwguinn said:
And there is your fundamental error--your irreducible delusion.
The Earth is acting on it to accelerate it. Once broken, it don't need no steenking jolt-gravity takes over and gets the assist.
Click to expand...

Sorry chief, but you sound confused.

The static load is being decelerated at 1g while it is being supported. Gravity is at work there trying to accelerate it and the structure below is decelerating it.

To actually break the structure below with the static load mass it which was designed to handle several times over, there needs to be a deceleration of that mass sufficiently greater than 1g to generate the force amplification necessary.

I don't know what planet you are on but that is how it works here.
 
Avoidance of obvious common-sense questions noted.

Tony, you are pathetic and irrelevant. Congratulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom