Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

Somebody is caught here Dave, and it isn't me. It is the NIST/Bazant line that the lower structure collapsed due to its being impacted by the upper section of the building.

The reality is you guys can't explain the lack of deceleration in a natural way so you need to obfuscate.

 

[funk de fino]

Somebody is caught here Dave, and it isn't me. It is the NIST/Bazant line that the lower structure collapsed due to its being impacted by the upper section of the building.

The reality is you guys can't explain the lack of deceleration in a natural way so you need to obfuscate.

Says the proven liar?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The reality is you guys can't explain the lack of deceleration in a natural way so you need to obfuscate.

We've explained it over and over again, so the only rational explanation for your repeated inability to accept the explanation is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic Newtonian mechanics. The fact that you believe static objects to be accelerating is more consistent with my theory than with yours.

Dave

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Your argument was defeated on the very first page of this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4349016&postcount=24

Somebody is caught here Dave, and it isn't me. It is the NIST/Bazant line that the lower structure collapsed due to its being impacted by the upper section of the building.

The reality is you guys can't explain the lack of deceleration in a natural way so you need to obfuscate.

If you'll be so kind as to take a look at your actual unsmoothed data, Tony, you will find that the distance covered between 0.83 and 1.0 seconds is the same (to within measurement error) as the distance covered between 1.0 and 1.17 seconds. Similarly for 1.17 to 1.5 seconds, 2.17 to 2.5 seconds, and 2.83 to 3.17 seconds. Given the measurement error, you cannot argue there was no actual deceleration at those points.

The interval from 1.5 to 2.0 seconds is even more interesting, because the distance covered between 1.67 and 1.83 seconds is less than the distance covered between 1.5 and 1.67 seconds and also between 1.83 and 2.0 seconds. Yes, that's an actual deceleration in your data.

For reasons I need not repeat, we do not trust your calculations of the behavior to be expected. On the other hand, it's pretty darn funny to see you talking about a "lack of deceleration" when your own data prove otherwise.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Your argument was defeated on the very first page of this thread:

Tony's twoof buddies over at Greg's forum have also tried to correct him.

They have found jolts.

They have found deceleration.

But Tony remains unmoved.

Imagine that....

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your argument was defeated on the very first page of this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4349016&postcount=24

Funnily enough, when I posted that, Tony's response was to pretend it was my misunderstanding, but then, when it was confirmed by a couple of people he was prepared to listen to, to revise the paper so as to eliminate the smoothing function. Neither he nor the Journal of 9/11 Studies offered any form of acknowledgement that they had revised the paper in the light of a valid criticism that I had made. Not very respectable behaviour, and certainly it wouldn't be tolerated by anything other than a joke journal.

But just in case anyone still believes Tony's repeated lie that there is no explanation of the lack of a jolt, let me run through the explanation.

(1) Video footage shows that the initial movement of the upper block of WTC1 was a tilt. I've shown a picture on this forum that clearly shows a 2 degree tilt before the uppermost corner has fallen more than a quarter of a storey. Tony refuses to believe that there was any rotation prior to the initial drop, but this is contradicted by the evidence.

(2) Once the upper block has rotated, even column-on-column impacts don't give a single large jolt. This is because the upper block column ends hit the lower block column ends one after another, instead of all at the same time. The result is that the jolt is broken up into a series of smaller jolts that aren't clearly visible.

(3) Once the upper block has rotated by four degrees, then the lower edge is more than a storey ahead of the upper edge, so there cannot be any large jolts; there are column-on-column impacts going on all the time. This results in a fairly constant upward force on the upper block, which is less than the force due to gravity. The result is that the upper block accelerates downwards, with only minor jolts, at something less than gravitational acceleration, as we see in the actual behaviour of WTC1.

(4) All this is backed up by calculations that have been published in this forum.

When Tony says there is no explanation, he is denying something he knows to be true, as he has had this explanation presented to him repeatedly and has responded to it. Therefore, he is lying.

Dave

ETA: Actually, Ryan Mackey had what should have been the last word on Tony's utterly worthless analysis.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623

Everything since then has been simply Tony's inability to understand how he's wrong, and our futile attempts to explain it to him. And I expect more of the same.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The reality is you guys can't explain the lack of deceleration in a natural way so you need to obfuscate.

I've attempted -- several times now -- to get your response to this explanation for the lack of deceleration in a natural way:

Even if you make the unrealistic assumptions that the columns hit squarely and the floor connections were infinitely strong, if this were a static situation then the only columns carrying the entire weight of the upper block are the perimeter columns on the left and right sides, because all the other columns at level 97 have failed. No "load amplification" is necessary to crush the remaining columns at 97 and the right perimeter columns at 96 because they wouldn't be able to support the static weight that would be on them at this point. If they couldn't support the static weight, then they also couldn't decelerate a falling upper block. When those columns failed, then the other columns at level 96 would meet the same fate, sequentially, because they cannot act all together to resist the falling mass.

If you also correct your unrealistic assumptions about the columns hitting squarely and floor connections being strong enough to distribute the forces applied to them in the chaotic collapse, it's clear to me that it's your "missing jolt" theory is the one that has no basis in reality, and you are the one attempting to obfuscate.

(ETA: Posted before I read Dave's better explanation.)

 

[Justin39640]

Somebody is caught here Dave, and it isn't me. It is the NIST/Bazant line that the lower structure collapsed due to its being impacted by the upper section of the building.

The reality is you guys can't explain the lack of deceleration in a natural way so you need to obfuscate.

Thousands of your peers came to the same conclusion. You're the odd man out. Why? Cause you have some brilliant insight? No, cause you have to have the science match your predisposition, no matter how dishonest.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

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

Just to clear up this small point.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

You might well ask, as many do, "Why do you multiply the mass times the freefall acceleration of gravity when the mass is sitting at rest on the table?". The value of g allows you to determine the net gravity force if it were in freefall, and that net gravity force is the weight. Another approach is to consider "g" to be the measure of the intensity of the gravity field in Newtons/kg at your location. You can view the weight as a measure of the mass in kg times the intensity of the gravity field, 9.8 Newtons/kg under standard conditions

It's been interesting but at this point it looks like "Game Over"!

Woof!

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

I've made the observation before that, in my opinion, many if not most Truther claims stem from an inability to utter five simple words: "Oops, I Made A Mistake."

This is because inflation often occurs as a way to avoid cognitive dissonance. If a Truther says something that is wrong, later finds out that it is wrong, and then insists he never made an error at all, he is willfully creating cognitive dissonance. Most of the time he will try to solve this Gordian knot through semantics, but sometimes a more exotic explanation is attempted to have it both ways... leading to the kind of pseudoscience we see here.

Tony, submit your work to non-Truther professors. You have to listen to them. You have no excuse not to. Yet you won't, of course.

 

[TjW]

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.

Static objects totally copied accelerating objects.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I've made the observation before that, in my opinion, many if not most Truther claims stem from an inability to utter five simple words: "Oops, I Made A Mistake."

To the casual observer of this thread in its entirety, but particularly the last few pages, that is quite a charitable observation to make.

Woof!

 

[NutCracker]

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.

Please Tony, explain what justifies the following assumptions:

1) The design safety factors still apply after the structure being compromised by the impact of a wide body jet at ~ 500 mph and fires.

2) Load was not applied after the impacts and fires to members that where not designed and did not need to bear load in the buildings.

3) The acceleration of the falling mass was uniform.

Thank you.

 

[rwguinn]

I've made the observation before that, in my opinion, many if not most Truther claims stem from an inability to utter five simple words: "Oops, I Made A Mistake."

This is because inflation often occurs as a way to avoid cognitive dissonance. If a Truther says something that is wrong, later finds out that it is wrong, and then insists he never made an error at all, he is willfully creating cognitive dissonance. Most of the time he will try to solve this Gordian knot through semantics, but sometimes a more exotic explanation is attempted to have it both ways... leading to the kind of pseudoscience we see here.

Tony, submit your work to non-Truther professors. You have to listen to them. You have no excuse not to. Yet you won't, of course.

Tony keeps forgetting the dt part of a=dv/dt.A velocity change of 1 m/sec over 1 ms is 1000 m/sec², or 102g. The structure fails at a whole lot lower load than that--and he's looking for a STEP Function.Is anyone able to discern with any accuracy a time step of <.04 seconds or so from the available videos?

 

[tfk]

Tony,

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.

So, Tony, I've just been "obfuscating", eh?

We'll see. Allow me to offer some clarification.

First, terminology.

... acceleration is not force.
... acceleration is not mass.
... mass is not force.

... force is force.
... acceleration is acceleration.
... mass is mass.

Your work is riddled with such sloppiness. And it leads you down the path of massively erroneous postulates & then conclusions.
___

Next: The five questions that you refused to answer.

1. What was the vertical velocity of the top block of the towers in 1975? Answer: 0 ft/sec.
2. What was the vertical velocity of the top block of the towers in 2000? Answer: 0 ft/sec.
3. What was the CHANGE in vertical velocity of the top block of the towers between 1975 & 2000? Answer: 0 ft/sec.
4. What do they call "the change in velocity with respect to time"? Answer: "Acceleration".
5. What was the acceleration of the top block of the towers between 1975 & 2000? Answer: 0 ft/sec/sec.

Proven: Objects that are in static equilibrium (like the top block of the towers) have a linear (& angular) acceleration of ZERO.

Virtually every technically competent person in the entire world, when challenged for using your sloppy terminology, would have immediately replied, "Of course, you're right. There is no acceleration. I was trying to get across the concept of weight, not acceleration. I'll use 'weight' from now on."

Only someone massively confused on this point would have argued it day after day after day. And still claimed that the correct explanations are "obfuscations intended to discredit you."

In case you're still inclined to shovel deeper into the black hole of technical incompetence, allow me to offer the following:

Perhaps here's an explanation that you can handle.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/U3l3c.cfm

I am making that judgment because it seems to be directed towards junior high school students.

"If an object is at equilibrium, then the forces are balanced. ... Thus, the net force is zero and the acceleration is 0 m/s/s."

Well, based on this graphic ...

... perhaps it's tailored for grammar school kids.

So much the better for you.
___


As an excellent example of your sloppy terminology leading to fundamental error is found in your "missing jolt" paper, which I reviewed last nite.

[I see that several people, including Ryan Mackey and Dave Rogers, have dismantled that piece of nonsense. There's not need for me to waste any time on it.]

You have taken Bazant/Zhou's clearly stated "approximation" that:

Pdyn / Po ≈ 31
where :
Po = nominal load
Pdyn = dynamic load after 1 story fall

And, in a typical sloppy fashion, turned it into:

"Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the upper stories, could have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story."

Your use of the term "... minimum (force) ..." is an outright lie. BZ clearly identified it as a rough estimate.

Even your attempts at honest interpretation are utterly wrong.

BZ said that this would be the load after 1 story's fall IF the columns hit face to face (utterly impossible) and IF columns could have withstood that load (impossible). BZ knew that both of these conditions were false. They never expected this condition to be realized. They never expected the "31 Fo" load to be applied.

After you made this first incorrect statement, you repeatedly (6x) used the expression "31g impulse".

Well, Tony, this is more sloppiness.

Bazant gives a ratio of FORCES.

"31g" is NOT a force.
"31g" is NOT an impulse (which is "a force integrated over a time interval".)

"31g" is an acceleration.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
___

Last point: This is about the 4th time that you've called me "a fraud" & "a liar", Tony. Trust me, you are not making any friends here.

You accuse me of:
1. "... nothing more than obfuscating".
2. "... 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"
3. "... simply looking to discredit anyone who has cast a serious doubt upon the seriously flawed official story ..."
4. ... being willing to do (3) above "... in any way he can."
5. "... not being honest"

The fact is, in all cases, I was correcting your absurdly erroneous terminology and fundamental lack of understanding.

Don't call me "a fraud" or "a liar" again, please.

You have absolutely humiliated your professional & technical reputation with the last couple days' worth of incompetence. You're not standing on ground solid enough to toss around such insults.

A simple posting of your own words in any technically-competent discussion will leave you ... irrelevant.


Tom

 

[rwguinn]

Tony,




So, Tony, I've just been "obfuscating", eh?

We'll see. Allow me to offer some clarification.

First, terminology.

... acceleration is not force.
... acceleration is not mass.
... mass is not force.

... force is force.
... acceleration is acceleration.
... mass is mass.

Your work is riddled with such sloppiness. And it leads you down the path of massively erroneous postulates & then conclusions.
___

Next: The five questions that you refused to answer.

1. What was the vertical velocity of the top block of the towers in 1975? Answer: 0 ft/sec.
2. What was the vertical velocity of the top block of the towers in 2000? Answer: 0 ft/sec.
3. What was the CHANGE in vertical velocity of the top block of the towers between 1975 & 2000? Answer: 0 ft/sec.
4. What do they call "the change in velocity with respect to time"? Answer: "Acceleration".
5. What was the acceleration of the top block of the towers between 1975 & 2000? Answer: 0 ft/sec/sec.

Proven: Objects that are in static equilibrium (like the top block of the towers) have a linear (& angular) acceleration of ZERO.

Virtually every technically competent person in the entire world, when challenged for using your sloppy terminology, would have immediately replied, "Of course, you're right. There is no acceleration. I was trying to get across the concept of weight, not acceleration. I'll use 'weight' from now on."

Only someone massively confused on this point would have argued it day after day after day. And still claimed that the correct explanations are "obfuscations intended to discredit you."

In case you're still inclined to shovel deeper into the black hole of technical incompetence, allow me to offer the following:

Perhaps here's an explanation that you can handle.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/U3l3c.cfm

I am making that judgment because it seems to be directed towards junior high school students.

"If an object is at equilibrium, then the forces are balanced. ... Thus, the net force is zero and the acceleration is 0 m/s/s."

Well, based on this graphic ...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=2269
... perhaps it's tailored for grammar school kids.

So much the better for you.
___


As an excellent example of your sloppy terminology leading to fundamental error is found in your "missing jolt" paper, which I reviewed last nite.

[I see that several people, including Ryan Mackey and Dave Rogers, have dismantled that piece of nonsense. There's not need for me to waste any time on it.]

You have taken Bazant/Zhou's clearly stated "approximation" that:

Pdyn / Po ≈ 31
where :
Po = nominal load
Pdyn = dynamic load after 1 story fall

And, in a typical sloppy fashion, turned it into:

"Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the upper stories, could have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story."

Your use of the term "... minimum (force) ..." is an outright lie. BZ clearly identified it as a rough estimate.

Even your attempts at honest interpretation are utterly wrong.

BZ said that this would be the load after 1 story's fall IF the columns hit face to face (utterly impossible) and IF columns could have withstood that load (impossible). BZ knew that both of these conditions were false. They never expected this condition to be realized. They never expected the "31 Fo" load to be applied.

After you made this first incorrect statement, you repeatedly (6x) used the expression "31g impulse".

Well, Tony, this is more sloppiness.

Bazant gives a ratio of FORCES.

"31g" is NOT a force.
"31g" is NOT an impulse (which is "a force integrated over a time interval".)

"31g" is an acceleration.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
___

Last point: This is about the 4th time that you've called me "a fraud" & "a liar", Tony. Trust me, you are not making any friends here.

You accuse me of:
1. "... nothing more than obfuscating".
2. "... 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"
3. "... simply looking to discredit anyone who has cast a serious doubt upon the seriously flawed official story ..."
4. ... being willing to do (3) above "... in any way he can."
5. "... not being honest"

The fact is, in all cases, I was correcting your absurdly erroneous terminology and fundamental lack of understanding.

Don't call me "a fraud" or "a liar" again, please.

You have absolutely humiliated your professional & technical reputation with the last couple days' worth of incompetence. You're not standing on ground solid enough to toss around such insults.

A simple posting of your own words in any technically-competent discussion will leave you ... irrelevant.


Tom

Anybody else notice that when actual numbers, textbook concepts, and real calculations are thrown at the troofer "engineers", they scurry away like cockroaches do when the light is turned on?

 

[tfk]

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?

My illustration absolutely represents a load redistribution from failed columns onto the remaining columns.

The principle is that, when a balanced load distribution is compromised locally, then the redistribution of the load is NOT uniformly spread over the remaining supports.

You can not use the approximation that an event that compromises 15% of the support columns means that the post-event load carried by the remaining columns will be 15% higher than initially.

In the example provided, the loss of the right column drove the left column to carry virtually zero load. Leaving the middle column to carry the entire load.

This is a very real effect, that DID happen in the load sharing amongst the core & peripheral columns in the towers.

Gross estimates that "15% of the columns were damaged, but since there was a FOS of 3, there was still 285% margin" are completely wrong.

In the example that I gave, assuming that there was a FOS of 3, and 33% of the columns (1 of 3) were removed, there is NOT a remaining margin of 267%. The remaining column is at a demand to capacity ratio of 1. It is teetering on the brink of collapse under purely static load.

That is the message.

Tom

 

[Furcifer]

Anybody else notice that when actual numbers, textbook concepts, and real calculations are thrown at the troofer "engineers", they scurry away like cockroaches do when the light is turned on?

If history is any indication this is where Tony disappears for a couple weeks. He returns, makes an attack on Ryan and hides behind some new resurection of a previous abortion of a theory.

 

[332nd]

Anybody else notice that when actual numbers, textbook concepts, and real calculations are thrown at the troofer "engineers", they scurry away like cockroaches do when the light is turned on?

Yeah but I like it when they are brought up because even I, a theatre major with only the basics of Algebra, Calculus, Trig... Can understand what they are saying and I learn something.

 

[tfk]

Is anyone able to discern with any accuracy a time step of <.04 seconds or so from the available videos?

NOT if they are looking at mpeg (i.e., lossy) compressions of NTSC interlaced video ...

... and they are only checking every 5th sub-frame.

Tony only took data points at 5 frames / 29.97 fps = .167 sec intervals. And he used "balanced difference method" ...

dy/dt = (y_{[t+.167 sec]} - y_{[t-.167 sec]})/(2 x .167 sec)

... to calculate his midpoint velocities.

Then he plots this "velocity averaged-over-.334 seconds" vs time, and claims to be able to see high frequency "time derivative of acceleration" dynamics.

Because they should be able to give him "velocity steps" that are based entirely on his completely bogus reading of Bazant/Zhou.

As in the discussion above (regarding his unique definition of "acceleration"), it's almost impossible to pierce thru the fog of what he did. You come upon one "Tell-me-he-did-not-do-THAT" screw-up after another, and it just leaves you shaking your head in wonder.

It's a total cluster-muck-up.

It reads as if it were written by a religious studies teacher instead of an engineer.

... oh, wait ...


Tom