Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Furcifer]

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.

I can't wait to see the paper. Make sure you dot your sines and cross your tans.

It is so much more complex. Not only the logistics of planting something to weaken the structure, but doing it so that it happens at just the right time, in just the right order, with just the right "uhmpf".

You've complained in the past about the upper section remaining rigid and yet this whole "jolt" relies on the upper section remaining perfectly intact. Any weakening of the upper section would have seen it crumble with the "jolt". This introduces the notion that the impacts were deliberately targeted at different heights in each tower. Doing so is no small feat.

If they were pre-weakened then NIST's damage analysis was grossly under estimated. Damage in the impact areas would have been significantly more pronounced.

Shall I continue or will you just admit you're shortsighted in your quest for the "missing jolt"?

 

[carlitos]

If the tilt does not obviate the need for the jolt, then.........? What exactly?


(lemme guess - need new investigation?)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

Sure that is the only reason you follow the thread.

Like I said, there is a lot of saying going on here but not a lot of doing. Just talking tall doesn't get the job done.

I am sure there is nobody outside of this little forum that would give any credence to your comments here.

 

[beachnut]

Like I said, there is a lot of saying going on here but not a lot of doing. Just talking tall doesn't get the job done.

I am sure there is nobody outside of this little forum that would give any credence to your comments here.

Like your paper in the Jones Journal of Kool-Aid and Woo.

But on topic; what is the change in velocity you are looking for? Speed at impact, and speed after impact? Any chance you actually have some numbers to go with your long standing real CD deal?

When you do break through with your delusional conclusion of CD, what will you do? Disneyland? Apply for the Pulitzer Prize for your missing jolt paper? What do you have to say about the lack of resolution in time and space of the video (frames per second; feet per pixel)? When will your engineering school pile on to help your credibility?

Have time to define the value of the lost velocity?

 

[tsig]

Sure that is the only reason you follow the thread.

Like I said, there is a lot of saying going on here but not a lot of doing. Just talking tall doesn't get the job done.

I am sure there is nobody outside of this little forum that would give any credence to your comments here.

We're sure the same about you.

Odd thing is a lot of the people who disagree with you actually have responsible positions in their professions and their arguments are clear and cogent while yours are "a maze of twisty passages all alike".

 

[rwguinn]

We're sure the same about you.

Odd thing is a lot of the people who disagree with you actually have responsible positions in their professions and their arguments are clear and cogent while yours are "a twisty maze of twistypassages all alike".

fixed it...
Actually, they are "a maze of twisty little passages, all different"

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Just talking tall doesn't get the job done.

Tony's proved that, if nothing else.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

We're sure the same about you.

Odd thing is a lot of the people who disagree with you actually have responsible positions in their professions and their arguments are clear and cogent while yours are "a maze of twisty passages all alike".

What you are leaving out here is that 99% of those who disagree are anonymous, which makes your comment about them having responsible positions somewhat worthless.

There are far more people who actually give their names and actually show they have responsible positions who agree with me.

 

[R.Mackey]

Interesting that 99% of those who disagree are anonymous so your comment about having responsible positions in their professions doesn't land too well.

That's only because legitimate professionals don't even know your work exists. Your topic is only noticed in the world of Internet discussion forums, which (surprise!) tend to be mostly anonymous.

ETA: Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine. You claim to have supporters, and you brag that they aren't anonymous, yet in this thread you've declined to identify them...

This is your own fault. You refuse to take it to neutral professors or conferences or journals, and you do so without even an excuse.

Epic fail, Tony.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Sure that is the only reason you follow the thread.

Like I said, there is a lot of saying going on here but not a lot of doing. Just talking tall doesn't get the job done.

The job here is to laugh. "Saying" generally proceeds laughing where I'm from.

I am sure there is nobody outside of this little forum that would give any credence to your comments here.

I stopped caring about the truth movement awhile ago. Do you know why? It's because people like you are now the only people writing remotely sensible papers in support of 9/11 quackery. I did what I set out to: debunk Gordon Ross.

 

[carlitos]

Like I said, there is a lot of saying going on here but not a lot of doing. Just talking tall doesn't get the job done.

I am sure there is nobody outside of this little forum that would give any credence to your comments here.

My God, that is funny. Truthers really do not understand irony. It happens over and over and over again.

Tony, ae911truth has DONE (not said) what, exactly?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's only because legitimate professionals don't even know your work exists. Your topic is only noticed in the world of Internet discussion forums, which (surprise!) tend to be mostly anonymous.

ETA: Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine. You claim to have supporters, and you brag that they aren't anonymous, yet in this thread you've declined to identify them...

This is your own fault. You refuse to take it to neutral professors or conferences or journals, and you do so without even an excuse.

Epic fail, Tony.

The people I am talking about are members of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. There are huge numbers of professionals in those groups who all give their real names and none of them disagree with me on this issue.

Additionally, every engineer I work with and who I have discussed this with agrees it is a serious problem for the present official story concerning those collapses.

I think a real epic fail was the columns missed and hit the floors proposition that you used in our debate.

I am sure you know that the actual tilt and drop timing has now been measured and modeled.

The columns don't miss Ryan.

It also happens way too fast for a lack of velocity loss to be compensated for by a continuing fall and this can be shown.

Are you going to finally accept that there is a serious problem here for the present official story or are you going to look for another way to possibly explain why we shouldn't expect a jolt? I really think you are out of ammo here and it is time to recognize reality and leave the irreducible delusion behind.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, Tony, your big breakthrough is right around the corner.

And when you prove "tilt does not obviate the need for a jolt" that will do what, exactly?


ETA - "this can be shown" = LOL. How many decimal places are you measuring with those youtubes, Tony? Margin of error?

On edit - wow, it happened to me too. Do you edit every single post, so that when people quote you, the words change?

 

[R.Mackey]

The people I am talking about are members of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. There are huge numbers of professionals in those groups who all give their real names and none of them disagree with me on this issue.

Biased people. Got it.

Additionally, every engineer I work with and who I have discussed this with agrees it is a serious problem for the present official story concerning those collapses.

No names, I see. Curious, that.

Could also be they're just humoring you. It doesn't take long to figure out discussing with you is pointless.

I think a real epic fail was the columns missed and hit the floors proposition that you used in our debate.

I am sure you know that the actual tilt and drop timing has now been measured and modeled.

The columns don't miss Ryan.

Even at Gregory's forum, with a high population of Truthers, they don't seem to be swallowing this.

It also happens way too fast for a lack of velocity loss to be compensated for by a continuing fall and this can be shown.

Skipping record, you sound like.

Are you going to finally accept that there is a serious problem here for the present official story or are you going to look for another way to possibly explain why we shouldn't expect a jolt? I really think you are out of ammo here and it is time to recognize reality and leave the irreducible delusion behind.

"I really think you are out of ammo," he says. You haven't even stepped into the ring yet! The entire scientific establishment unanimously disagrees with you. Every paper, every single one concludes there was no mystery to the collapses.

In that whole long tirade, not one promise to submit your work to proper authorities. Not one step towards doing so. Not one excuse for not doing so.

It's almost like you want to be made fun of. Some of the more pathological Truthers are indeed of this sort. Is this you? Is that your deal?

 

[LashL]

Okay, 30+ pages in, this just has to be said.

The 'jolt' isn't actually "missing" - it's merely been forgotten over time as it occurred some 50 years ago when Tony's mother dropped him on his head as an infant.

That is all.

 

[dtugg]

okay, 30+ pages in, this just has to be said.

The 'jolt' isn't actually "missing" - it's merely been forgotten over time as it occurred some 50 years ago when tony's mother dropped him on his head as an infant.

That is all.

I lol.

 

[beachnut]

The people I am talking about are members of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. There are huge numbers of professionals in those groups who all give their real names and none of them disagree with me on this issue.

Real names who believe moronic delusions of CD; give me a break. These fringe few have zero evidence to support your work. Proof your work is a fraud, it is not published in a real journal. ... the fringe few engineers and Architects are 0.001 percent of the huge number of professionals who don't believe in your fantasy. Proof 911 truth is a fraud, not a single member of your fringe few paranoid conspiracy theories have earn a Pulitzer Prize for what would be orders of magnitude bigger than Watergate solved in a couple of years; all you have is the same delusion after 8 years of failure punctuated with hearsay, lies and fantasy.

Poppycock, if you had professionals you guys could do a real paper and be published; you must have a bunch of failed engineers who can't think for themselves. Why can't the huge number of professionals do a paper to break this massive story? lol, because you guys are just conspiracy theorists.

Additionally, every engineer I work with and who I have discussed this with agrees it is a serious problem for the present official story concerning those collapses.

They are being polite and proof is they have not signed to the cult of parnoind conspracy theorists; and you have no proof anyone you work with supports your delusion of CD (like your proof of CD). ... they are being polite, or you work in a one man shop...

It also happens way too fast for a lack of velocity loss to be compensated for by a continuing fall and this can be shown.

Right, is there a second missing jolt paper coming? What journal is going to publish it?

Are you going to finally accept that there is a serious problem here for the present official story or are you going to look for another way to possibly explain why we shouldn't expect a jolt? I really think you are out of ammo here and it is time to recognize reality and leave the irreducible delusion behind.

Jolt? You can't say the velocity before and after your jolt you think you can measure with low resolution video. What fps do you need to see the jolt? What feet per pixels are required to see the jolt? You should have taken sampling theory. Prove your business knows you are a fringe conspiracy theorist.

Please present the number for the velocity drop you are looking for. Second call for some numbers. I know when I did my thesis I had the details available on request, on demand. So what is the velocity change you are looking for?

 

[tsig]

fixed it...
Actually, they are "a maze of twisty little passages, all different"

Well, except where they're different they are an exact match.

^{I tried googling it but got nothing}

 

[tsig]

What you are leaving out here is that 99% of those who disagree are anonymous, which makes your comment about them having responsible positions somewhat worthless.

There are far more people who actually give their names and actually show they have responsible positions who agree with me.

Names/positions?

 

[tfk]

Tony,

Third request...

I brought up some very specific technical questions here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5546482#post5546482

Would you be honest & rigorous enough to address those issues, please.

Tom