• 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

Newtons Bit said:
Actually, the part where Tony Szamboti says that Cos(1 deg) is the same as 3*Cos(1 deg) is what I was laughing at.
Click to expand...

I kinda glossed over it when he said something to the effect that it wasn't constant in the one direction? I can't follow Tony's logic anymore. I don't know if he's kidding or what.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Actually, the part where Tony Szamboti says that Cos(1 deg) is the same as 3*Cos(1 deg) is what I was laughing at.
Click to expand...
As I recall, he was calculating 1-cos(3 deg) as though it were approximated by 3*(1-cos(1 deg)).

The derivative of the sine function is 1 at 0, so sin(3 deg) is pretty close to 3*sin(1 deg). Were it not part of a much larger pattern, assuming a similar approximation for cosine could be passed off as little more than a brain fart.

3bodyproblem said:
I kinda glossed over it when he said something to the effect that it wasn't constant in the one direction? I can't follow Tony's logic anymore. I don't know if he's kidding or what.
Click to expand...
My money's on "what".
 
The tilt also produces a horizontal thrust of the upper block towards the “hinge” side, causing additional columns displacement.

Calculated by Bazant, January 2002 Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base? and Bazant, et al ,2008, What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.

“However, rotation about a point at the base of the upper part (Fig. 6c) would cause a horizontal reaction approximately 10.3 times greater than the horizontal shear capacity of the story, and the shear capacity must have been exceeded already at the tilt of only 2.8 deg.”

WTC2 top block displacement towards west wall. Overhang seen at 3- 4. sec. into the video.

 
W.D.Clinger said:
As I recall, he was calculating 1-cos(3 deg) as though it were approximated by 3*(1-cos(1 deg)).

The derivative of the sine function is 1 at 0, so sin(3 deg) is pretty close to 3*sin(1 deg). Were it not part of a much larger pattern, assuming a similar approximation for cosine could be passed off as little more than a brain fart.


My money's on "what".
Click to expand...

Well you go to the link and one guys carrying 50 decimal places and the next guys trying to reinvent trigonometry. Tony has a knack for complicating things to say the least.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Well you go to the link and one guys carrying 50 decimal places and the next guys trying to reinvent trigonometry. Tony has a knack for complicating things to say the least.
Click to expand...

The purpose was to highlight your original error...
3bodyproblem said:
It amounts to a very simple calculation in which the angle of the tilt offsets the column ends greater than their width. Even in the core this amounts to no more than 4". This equates to an angle of tilt approximately 0.17 degrees.
Click to expand...
3 degree tilt produces 3.4" displacement across the full width of the tower.

0.17 degrees is pretty drastically wrong.

Good to see accuracy is paramount here.
 
femr2 said:
The purpose was to highlight your original error...

3 degree tilt produces 3.4" displacement across the full width of the tower.

0.17 degrees is pretty drastically wrong.

Good to see accuracy is paramount here.
Click to expand...
8 years and 911 truth conclusions remain firmly in the pit of ignorance, just delusions and evidence free; a perfect record of stupid, 8 years and counting. Why can't 911 truth earn a Pulitzer Prize for their conclusions on 911? Why?, because they are moronic delusions.

What is the velocity loss Tony, the real CD deal, is looking for? Got physics?
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
The purpose was to highlight your original error...

3 degree tilt produces 3.4" displacement across the full width of the tower.

0.17 degrees is pretty drastically wrong.

Good to see accuracy is paramount here.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your doing, and i'm not sure if you're accounting for sway or what, but a 0.2 degree tilt is enough to move the exterior panels 4" out of the plane and ensure they don't impact face to face. It's simple trig.

There was a measurable tilt in the upper sections, on both WTC 1 and WTC 2. That's more than enough to ensure the columns don't meet up. If you want to say 3.000000239847238497234987398759387429847239487240987534857349857349572985729847239427492 degrees fine, at this point I could care less.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
The purpose was to highlight your original error...

3 degree tilt produces 3.4" displacement across the full width of the tower.

0.17 degrees is pretty drastically wrong.

Good to see accuracy is paramount here.
Click to expand...

Actually, a torsional rotation of about 0.17 degrees would be enough to move the upper block off the lower block columns.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Actually, the part where Tony Szamboti says that Cos(1 deg) is the same as 3*Cos(1 deg) is what I was laughing at.
Click to expand...

That is true with the sine for small angles and I forgot it wasn't true with the cosine for small angles. I admitted I was wrong. However, it didn't make much difference to the point being made.

If I remember correctly I caught a mistake you made concerning rotation angles, so I don't know what all the laughter about.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
That is true with the sine for small angles and I forgot it wasn't true with the cosine for small angles. I admitted I was wrong. However, it didn't make much difference to the point being made.

If I remember correctly I caught a mistake you made concerning rotation angles, so I don't know what all the laughter about.
Click to expand...

That was what amounted to a typo, not a conceptual problem. But people are starting to find humor in the systemic nature of your errors. This may be a good time to step back and slow down for your own sake.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If I remember correctly I caught a mistake you made concerning rotation angles, so I don't know what all the laughter about.
Click to expand...

Like Newton said, it's the culmination of errors leading to a crescendo of failure that's amusing. Not only that but you're doing it with this air of superiority. It's a compound effect.

Out of curiosity what do you expect to prove with your missing jolt? Doesn't it just complicate the issue? How exactly do you weaken the building just enough to not have it collapse but still offer some resistance? It just adds another level of complexity that you simply can't rationalize. I'm not sure if you've even considered the consequences of what you are trying to prove.
 
Newtons Bit said:
That was what amounted to a typo, not a conceptual problem. But people are starting to find humor in the systemic nature of your errors. This may be a good time to step back and slow down for your own sake.
Click to expand...

The point I made in that post was that there is very little horizontal shift due to the tilt and that it was only a matter of subtracting the cosine from the hypotenuse to see what the shift was and see if the columns would miss or not. So conceptually I was right.

I then make a very minor math error in treating the cosine like the sine for small angles (a lot of engineers use the relation for the sine of .017/degree because it is somewhat linear) and you want to make a big deal out of it. You don't comment on the fact that I was right about the small horizontal shift. How telling.

It really sounds like you are looking for anything you can get on me and if this is all you can get you don't have much.

By the way, I was the one who caught your typo remember and it did cause a significant difference in your calculations so I wouldn't go too far with the "it was just a typo" thing. You apparently weren't aware of it while doing the calculations.

Not to worry as Dr. Bazant has a typo in his calculation of the axial stiffness for the columns in the towers which he then carried through his calculations. He hasn't even fixed it in the paper even though it has been brought to his attention. At least you fixed yours.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
Like Newton said, it's the culmination of errors leading to a crescendo of failure that's amusing. Not only that but you're doing it with this air of superiority. It's a compound effect.

Out of curiosity what do you expect to prove with your missing jolt? Doesn't it just complicate the issue? How exactly do you weaken the building just enough to not have it collapse but still offer some resistance? It just adds another level of complexity that you simply can't rationalize. I'm not sure if you've even considered the consequences of what you are trying to prove.
Click to expand...

He hasn't shown any errors. He just says he does. Saying isn't the same as doing and unfortunately much of what I see here is just saying.

The reality is that the tilt does not obviate a need for a jolt as the impacts happen too quickly and the velocity loss cannot be compensated for by a continued fall. If you notice most of these guys here just say it but won't dare do any calculations. I am going to show the calculations in a paper on this issue.

You seem to be one of those adding complexity to the issue. A purely gravity driven collapse needs to have an amplified load caused by impact and decleration. The Verinage Technique demolitions are perfect examples. They show deceleration and velocity loss on impact.

If there is no deceleration and velocity loss there was most likely something else removing the strength of the columns prior to impact. See it really isn't hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
He hasn't shown any errors. He just says he does. Saying isn't the same as doing and unfortunately much of what I see here is just saying.

The reality is that the tilt does not obviate a need for a jolt as the impacts happen too quickly and the velocity loss cannot be compensated for by a continued fall. If you notice most of these guys here just say it but won't dare do any calculations. I am going to show the calculations in a paper on this issue.

You seem to be one of those adding complexity to the issue. A purely gravity driven collapse needs to have an amplified load caused by impact and decleration. The Verinage Technique demolitions are perfect examples. They show deceleration and velocity loss on impact.

If there is no deceleration and velocity loss there was most likely something else removing the strength of the columns prior to impact. See it really isn't hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Tony, I stopped caring about what you were trying to argue after you were debunked by 10 different people (including me).

I just follow this thread for the LOL's now.
 
Really not much to say when any reality that the impacts were non-uniform is thrown out the window. I grew tired of the repetition ages ago.
 
Tony,

I've brought up several very specific points in post 1198.

Would you be so kind as to reply to those points, please.


Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom