Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[GlennB]

It's very hard to see how Mr Szamboti can show his face here again, unless it's to hurl abuse to gain 'suicide by mod' and then run away crying foul.

Never has a truther come up with such absurdity since Heiwa's '3 mile drop' fiasco. And mini nukes. And maybe space beams and falling snooker balls.
Possibly other stuff too, but he has certainly elevated himself to the Truther Hall of Fame with his acceleration guff.

 

[Seymour Butz]

It's very hard to see how Mr Szamboti can show his face here again, unless it's to hurl abuse to gain 'suicide by mod'

He was being encouraged to do just that over at Greg's forum...

 

[GlennB]

He was being encouraged to do just that over at Greg's forum...

Greg Urich? Do you have a link?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I thought Gregory Urich crossed the aisle and became one of us after doing a crap-load of calculations and finding the numbers really did add up?

EDIT: Here's a copy of Urichs open letter to Dick Gage wherein he says "There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by the truth movement" and then completely blows away all of Dicks controlled demo talking points.

If he isn't one of us, he's clearly gone back in under (very thin) cover.

 

[DGM]

I thought Gregory Urich crossed the aisle and became one of us after doing a crap-load of calculations and finding the numbers really did add up?

EDIT: Here's a copy of Urichs open letter to Dick Gage wherein he says "There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by the truth movement" and then completely blows away all of Dicks controlled demo talking points.

If he isn't one of us, he's clearly gone back in under (very thin) cover.

I always thought he was still a "truther" just not one that believes in CD or anything like that. I think he's more of a LIHOP.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's very hard to see how Mr Szamboti can show his face here again, unless it's to hurl abuse to gain 'suicide by mod' and then run away crying foul.

Never has a truther come up with such absurdity since Heiwa's '3 mile drop' fiasco. And mini nukes. And maybe space beams and falling snooker balls.
Possibly other stuff too, but he has certainly elevated himself to the Truther Hall of Fame with his acceleration guff.

If this is just your little attempt at a smear and to pile on it won't work.

TFK is doing nothing more than obfuscating the fact that a deceleration greater than 1g needs to occur for a force amplification of an insufficient static load to break up a structure below which is designed to handle several times that load. This is how shock loads apply more force than a static load.

TFK is simply looking to discredit anyone who has cast a serious doubt upon the seriously flawed official story on how those buildings collapsed, in any way he can. He is not being honest.

As for weight being a force it certainly is as it has the components of mass and acceleration. It is the force of gravity attempting to accelerate the mass of a building sitting on its columns. The mass stays in equilibrium due to an equal and opposite force applied by those columns which also have a reserve.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,



How long has it been, and you are STILL this clueless.

The towers did NOT collapse because of lack of strength, Tony. They did not fail because they were heated & got weak. (There was a loss of strength, but that was not the major cause of the collapse.) The major cause of the collapse was the creep. (See next post.)

Therefore your analysis that only considers the reduced strength due to the heating as the explanation for the collapse ALSO fails.

[Actually, it doesn't fail at all. It accurately reflects your lack of understanding of what NIST said.]

You can tell that the above is true by looking at the temperatures at which each effect emerges and the time constants associated with each effect.

Temperature weakening: starts at about 350°C, loss to ~50% strength at ~550°C, down to about 20% strength at about 800°C. Time constant = immediate.

Creep: starts at about 200°C. Increases rapidly with rising temperature. Time constant: minutes to hours.

The columns were exposed to large, not long duration fires. Without insulation, they came up to temperature quickly. The temperature, and temp related loss of strength, happened relatively quickly. But they did not collapse quickly.

Creep takes time. The fires were not getting hotter. They got big fast, and then they were spreading and moving, some areas getting hot & others cooling down. The creep was increasing continuously & slowly. The collapse happened after 1 & 2 hours.

If you kept everything else the same, and just got rid of the creep, the buildings would likely be still standing.



Hey Tony.

I've got a pop quiz for ya, with an instructive message that shows that your math here sucks.

A weight, supported by 3 equally spaced columns.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2257[/qimg]

You remove the right-most column.

The question is, which of these diagrams becomes the true representation of the new force balance?

A.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2258[/qimg]

or

B.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2259[/qimg]


Now think about it, and apply it to the question: "When you heavily damage or severe 15% of the columns, does it simply increase the loads on the remaining columns by a proportionate amount?"

Of course, it is B. However, this in no way represents a load redistribution from 15% failed columns onto the remaining 85% intact columns. You are joking here aren't you?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Stop this charade, Tony.

You can not POSSIBLY be this incompetent. Therefore, you have clearly decided to simply obfuscate in order to pander to a very few clueless truthers.

The first 3 or 4 times you dodged and mislead, it was simply hand-waving & obfuscation. Now is has elevated to simpl lying, Tony. Why?

You did give your real name, Tony. And then you besmirch your own name, Tony, with a High School FAIL like this. In Public...!

How humiliating, Tony, to voluntarily reduce your credibility to zero, because you choose to not simply say "OK, you're right."

Weight is NOT acceleration, Tony.
Weight is a force.
A force is NOT an acceleration.

You do NOT need an acceleration in order to generate a force, Tony. Walk up to the side of any building. Push as hard as you can. What is your acceleration, Tony? It is zero. What is the building's acceleration, Tony? It is zero. Zero acceleration. And yet you still are generating a force between you & the building.

BY DEFINITION, a rigid body can have any number of forces (and any number of moments).
BY DEFINITION, a rigid body can have only ONE linear acceleration (and one angular acceleration), Tony. That is the linear (& angular) acceleration of the center of gravity.

Say that to yourself over & over & over again.

The ONE linear acceleration of any rigid body is the result of the sum of all forces.
The ONE angular acceleration of any rigid body is the result of the sum of all moments.

BY DEFINITION, a rigid body in static equilibrium has all of its forces (& moments) sum to zero.
BY DEFINITION, a rigid body in static equilibrium has one, AND ONLY ONE, linear acceleration, which equals ZERO. (So does the angular acceleration.)
___

Here is your claimed case, Tony. An object with mass & weight.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2255[/qimg]

How many forces can this rigid body have? Any number.
How many does this one have? 1.
How many linear accelerations can a rigid body have? 1.

∑forces = m a
∑forces = W
a = W / m = mg / m = g

Result #1: This object is falling with an acceleration = g
Result #2: This rigid body is not in static equilibrium.
___

Here is the real situation we are discussing. A mass in static equilibrium.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2256[/qimg]

How many forces can this rigid body have? Any number.
How many does this one have? 3.
How many linear accelerations can a rigid body have? 1.

∑forces = m a
∑forces = W + F1 +F2
Static equilibrium ➔ ∑forces = 0
W + F1 + F2 = 0
Static equilibrium ➔ ∑Moments = 0
∑Moments = 0 ➔ F1 = F2
F1 = F2 = -W/2

-W + F1/2 + F2/2 = 0
∑forces = 0 = m a
a = 0

Result #1:
This object is in static equilibrium.
Its one and only linear acceleration: a = 0
___

You have already shown everyone what a coward you are, Tony, by refusing to answer these very simple questions the last 3 times I've asked them. You've also shown everyone what a weasel you are by your repeated claims that I'm wrong, while you KNOW that this isn't true. And yet you choose to say it anyway.

Will you continue to show everyone what a coward & weasel are you are, by choosing, ONCE AGAIN, to refuse to answer them? These simple questions that answer this issue with simple clarity & certainty.

My bet is "yes, you will". Prove me wrong, Tony.

1. What was the vertical velocity of the upper block in 1975?
2. What was the vertical velocity of the upper block in 2000?
3. What was the CHANGE IN VELOCITY between 1975 & 2000?
4. What is the "change in velocity with respect to time called"?
5. What was the linear acceleration of the upper block between 1975 & 2000?

Why are you smearing your own name, Tony?



I am providing you with my credentials by producing simple & accurate explanations of rudimentary terms like force & acceleration & static equilibrium.

I don't give a flying fig about your name, Tony. That is yours to drag thru the mud of incompetence.

I care about accurate, competent engineering.

WHY DON'T YOU TRY GIVING US SOME OF THAT, Tony? Instead of the crap that you've been shoveling.

I think it is obvious that the charade is yours and it really is your shovel that probably has a stench.

You are doing nothing here. Weight is a force as it has components of mass and acceleration. It is the force of gravity attempting to accelerate the mass which causes weight to be a force. You are just trying to twist words here to gain an advantage because you can't defeat my main point about the lack of deceleration being a serious problem for a natural collapse explanation.

The interesting thing here is you have gone off on a complete tangent trying to take something away from the points I have made. Anyone who knows anything can see your silly ploy.

The bottom line is that for an insufficient static load to break a structure designed to handle several times the mass above it, the mass needs to have a deceleration significantly greater than 1g as that would only cause a load equal to the static load.

You are fond of talking about competent engineering but your comments remind me of the old saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull****".

Additionally, you have a lot of nerve asking others who give their real names to debate you while you use a pseudonym.

 

[R.Mackey]

I thought Gregory Urich crossed the aisle and became one of us after doing a crap-load of calculations and finding the numbers really did add up?

EDIT: Here's a copy of Urichs open letter to Dick Gage wherein he says "There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by the truth movement" and then completely blows away all of Dicks controlled demo talking points.

If he isn't one of us, he's clearly gone back in under (very thin) cover.

Gregory Urich (unlike Tony) actually learned and followed his own results to their logical conclusion. I won't speak for him but I don't think he considers himself a Truther any longer.

He hosts a forum where he tries to foster scientific discussion among Truthers and non-Truther but suspicious people (i.e. Dr. Greening), with some success. He has my full support. I am fairly sure it is someone else, not him, encouraging Tony to suicide-by-mod, as if that would make any difference at this point.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gregory Urich (unlike Tony) actually learned and followed his own results to their logical conclusion. I won't speak for him but I don't think he considers himself a Truther any longer.

He hosts a forum where he tries to foster scientific discussion among Truthers and non-Truther but suspicious people (i.e. Dr. Greening), with some success. He has my full support. I am fairly sure it is someone else, not him, encouraging Tony to suicide-by-mod, as if that would make any difference at this point.

Ryan the columns would not miss each other due to the tilt. Your hypothesis does not work and you and some of the others here seem to have been forced to use ad hominem.

Why don't you join Gregory's forum where there is no adhominem?

 

[R.Mackey]

Bare assertion fallacy.

I asked you a series of questions, with no malice whatsoever. You ignored them. You're not participating, and that's up to you. Nothing more I can say.

Your request for a change of venue is therefore superfluous. Have fun over there, maybe you'll listen to them for a change.

 

[RedIbis]

Bare assertion fallacy.

I asked you a series of questions, with no malice whatsoever. You ignored them. You're not participating, and that's up to you. Nothing more I can say.

Your request for a change of venue is therefore superfluous. Have fun over there, maybe you'll listen to them for a change.

You have to admit, that's a much more civil and productive discussion over there.

This jref subforum is a bit goofy in comparison.

 

[beachnut]

You have to admit, that's a much more civil and productive discussion over there.

This jref subforum is a bit goofy in comparison.

The missing jolt is goofy, and it is goofy you can't support Tony's failed missing jolt engineering. The other forum has the crazy ideas flowing freely. You must be posting at the wrong forum since you are not very skeptical of 911 truth, and here you are posting at a skeptics forum and you can't even figure out after tons of clues that Tony's paper is junk.

But go ahead do some engineering stuff and prove me wrong? Can't, you have wasted 8 years halfway trying to support the lies of 911 truth and you failed. But good luck, you have a great signature as you are hung up on Gravy, obsessed with Gravy but you can't do anything to save Tony from being wrong.

Goofy you can't explain the missing jolt and why tony failed.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The bottom line is that for an insufficient static load to break a structure designed to handle several times the mass above it, the mass needs to have a deceleration significantly greater than 1g as that would only cause a load equal to the static load.

Using Tony's numbers and a 65 millisecond duration consistent with the deflections calculated in Tony's paper, my back-of-the-envelope calculations estimate the resisting force would have to be almost 25 times Tony's own estimate of what the impacted floor and its connections can withstand, while producing a brief deceleration of about 10g. Bazant and Zhou calculated an overload ratio of 31, which Tony disputes; applying Tony's correction to their value of C reduces the overload ratio to about 10. The floor's gonna break.

What's more, Tony's statement above suggests his misunderstanding of acceleration^WP may have led him to omit a big chunk of force from his calculations. Here's why:

If the upper structure were in free fall, accelerating downward at 1g, then exerting an upward force sufficient to eliminate the downward acceleration^WP, without reducing its downward velocity^WP in the slightest, would already reproduce the static load of the descending upper structure.

To decelerate the descending structure at 1g would require an upward force equal to double the static load: half of that force would go toward cancelling the force of gravity, and the other half toward the 1g deceleration.

Tony's "deceleration significantly greater than 1g" therefore requires a force significantly greater than twice the static load. But that assumes Tony actually means deceleration when he writes "deceleration", and I must admit there is little evidence for that surmise.

You are fond of talking about competent engineering but your comments remind me of the old saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull****".

 

[Seymour Butz]

Ryan the columns would not miss each other due to the tilt.

Your twoof friends at Greg's forum disagree.

Matter of fact, they seem to be of a rough concensus that clean column impact is not possible.

 

[GlennB]

As for weight being a force it certainly is as it has the components of mass and acceleration.

Nobody doubts that. It's fundamental. They deny, however, that static objects are accelerating as these are mutually exclusive terms in this context. That's also fundamental.

If you're standing by this absurd claim how on earth can you ever let go of anything more complex that also happens to be wrong?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nobody doubts that. It's fundamental. They deny, however, that static objects are accelerating as these are mutually exclusive terms in this context. That's also fundamental.

If you're standing by this absurd claim how on earth can you ever let go of anything more complex that also happens to be wrong?

It should be obvious that I was saying that the force of gravity is attempting to accelerate the upper mass, but it can't due to the equal and opposite force provided by the structure below.

TFK is simply taking that out of context and twisting words, in a desperate attempt to try and minimize my points, since he can't defeat the actual argument.

 

[Furcifer]

It should be obvious that I was saying that the force of gravity is attempting to accelerate the upper mass, but it can't due to the equal and opposite force provided by the structure below.

TFK is simply taking that out of context and twisting words, in a desperate attempt to try and minimize my points, since he can't defeat the actual argument.

No, the actual argument was defeated as well. Your attempt to find an instantaneous negative acceleration of the entire upper block is ridiculous.

If you're going to use Force you need to consider pressure Tony. Then you need to determine an area of contact. Good luck with that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, the actual argument was defeated as well. Your attempt to find an instantaneous negative acceleration of the entire upper block is ridiculous.

If you're going to use Force you need to consider pressure Tony. Then you need to determine an area of contact. Good luck with that.

You seem to be just saying what you would like to believe here without a basis.

Please provide a basis for what you are saying.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, static objects are being accelerated otherwise they couldn't apply the force we call weight.

It should be obvious that I was saying that the force of gravity is attempting to accelerate the upper mass, but it can't due to the equal and opposite force provided by the structure below.

That would translate to "static objects are not being accelerated", no? Or are you arguing that attempting to do something, but failing, is the same as doing it? [1]

Sorry, Tony, but you made a mind-bendingly stupid statement and everybody knows it. Take your hand out of the cookie jar and admit you got caught, if you want to retain a shred of respect.

Dave

[1] Actually, that would be the only way the truth movement could declare itself successful. Might be worth a try.