• 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

Tony Szamboti said:
I just want to mention to people here that I had agreed to debate you via e-mail through DGM and allow you to maintain your anonymity. The one stipulation I made in return was that nothing would be posted publicly without a resolution.
Click to expand...

As sloppy & misleading as your usual comments, Tony.

You did not "agree to debate me". The word "agree" suggests that we reached a consensus on what you offered. You "offered" to debate me in private, only so long as what was said was never publicized until your (never-to-be-expected) permission. I declined. There was no agreement.

You also, unilaterally, changed the entire purpose for getting DG involved. Your initial complaint about my anonymity was that "you weren't sure that I was a real engineer". I offered to disclose my identity to someone agreeable to us both. You chose DG. I agreed & disclosed my ID to him. He confirmed to you that I am who I say I am.

In other words, he confirmed that your stated reason for avoiding my questions is baseless.

And that your continuing to avoid answering them is a fraud.

Then you start playing games, moving goal posts, (i.e., deciding that instead of an "ID confirmation", the purpose now is a completely new mode of communication with DG as the wire between us) and adding irrelevant conditions (all the communication will remain confidential until you are happy with it) that guarantee that it would never see the light of day.

I see zero reason for non-public discussion. What ever happens to twoofer championship of open, public debate, Tony? Where does it always go whenever open, public debate becomes inconvenient?

Tony Szamboti said:
You refused and now you act like I won't answer you.
Click to expand...

LMFAO, Tony.

I "act as if" you won't answer me...?!

"... ACT AS IF ..." ??

You won't answer Ryan Mackey.
You won't answer Dave Rogers.
You won't answer Will Clinger.
You won't answer Newton's Bits.
You won't answer TruthersLie.
You won't answer 3bodyproblem.
You won't answer carlitos.

And I'm sure that I'm leaving out several more.

Oh yeah, and you won't answer me.

Allow me to demonstrate. Once Again:

I asked you several, very specific question here and here and here and here.

Thusfar, Zero response to the technical questions.

Now, tell me again, With Feeling, but more so with your (glaring obvious in it absence) response to this posting, how my (Damn Right!) assertion that "you won't answer me" ...

... is an act.

Tony Szamboti said:
You aren't genuine. It is obvious that you simply want to score cheap points with no accountability since you insist on being anonymous.
Click to expand...

I'm not genuine?

I am not the one who posted a crap paper, Loaded with dozens of ludicrous, rudimentary errors. And is now sticking his head in the sand, pretending that everyone within earshot doesn't KNOW that it's full of crap.

Everyone sees the massive flaws in your offering, Tony.

Those who are technically proficient see it easily from the arguments clearly laid out.

Those who aren't technically proficient understand it by virtue of your running away from simple questions.

Your reputation's toast.

Tony Szamboti said:
I'll provide public answers to you when you provide your real name and have some level of accountability. Until then you are off the screen as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

I HAVE provided my name. To DG. I have far, far more accountability to myself than I'd ever have to you or the assembled hordes that read this discussion board.

And you'll "provide public answers" when hell freezes over, Tony.

Because you're a coward.

And you lack the honor to face the painful truth and admit that you're wrong.
__

W.D.Clinger said:
The velocity loss is evident in your own data, Tony.

You're the one who's been making things up. Five of your six figures contain fabricated graphs that don't match your own numerical data.

Confronted with an honest graph, you denied the validity of your own data.

Those facts can be verified by anyone who knows how to compute differences and to graph the function represented by a table of numbers. Indeed, Dave Rogers verified those facts just last Monday.


It is telling that your only responses to the facts noted above were

1. To deny that our graphs were constructed from your own data.
2. To deny the validity of your own data.
3. To ignore the fact that you've been caught fabricating graphs.
4. To pretend no one noticed.


Your graphs do not match your data. That is a valid criticism.

When the graphs are drawn honestly and competently, they show the velocity loss you continue to deny. That is a valid criticism of both your paper and of your conduct in this forum.

Your ad hominem attacks on the anonymity of your critics are not valid. Your ad hominem attacks would not be valid even if critics such as Dave Rogers and myself were truly anonymous.

Your ostrich strategy is not valid. Pretending you cannot see what is wrong with your paper does not fix what is wrong with your paper. Pretending you cannot understand what is wrong with your argument does not fix what is wrong with your argument. Finding a camera angle from which you cannot see any tilt before the collapse does not obviate the camera angles from which that tilt is obvious.

Why did you hide the jolts, Tony?

William D Clinger
Click to expand...

Super summary, Will.

There's nothing left to this story.

Except the lone buffoon & his "one-note song".

Sad.

As Basque says, "Time to turn out the lights".

LashL, let's have a lifting of glasses and a toast to the wondrous, and seriously missed, Harold Edgerton.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Accountability?
WTF does THAT mean, Tony?
And when the hell are you going to define terms?
Click to expand...

Someone giving their real name will be accountable for what they say in public in the sense that if they are shown to be wrong their credibility on the issue will suffer. Anonymous people do not take that risk and are therefore not truly worthy of engaging in debate.

Some anonymous posters here are now complaining that I won't answer them. Of course, I have answered them much more than their anonymity deserves.

The terms are all there in the Missing Jolt paper.
 
Last edited:
Tony responds to the one-liners and ignores the substantive rebuttals to his posts (and his paper). Ryan Mackey has it right; he's just another garden-variety truther, not to be taken any more seriously than the other truthers and their drive-by posts.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Someone giving their real name will be accountable for what they say in public in the sense that if they are shown to be wrong their credibility on the issue will suffer. Anonymous people do not take that risk and are therefore not truly worthy of engaging in debate.

Some anonymous posters here are now complaining that I won't answer them. Of course, I have answered them much more than their anonymity deserves.

The terms are all there in the Missing Jolt paper.
Click to expand...

The Missing jolt what?

again, which peer reviewed engineering journal published this load of crap? Until you get it published in ANY peer reviewed engineering journal it isn't a "paper." It is your theory. Great. The Missing Jolt Theory has quite a bit that is wrong with it.

So either 1. publish it. or 2. STFU about it since it is just you flapping your gums. Which one will it be Tony?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Someone giving their real name will be accountable for what they say in public in the sense that if they are shown to be wrong their credibility on the issue will suffer. Anonymous people do not take that risk and are therefore not truly worthy of engaging in debate.

Some anonymous posters here are now complaining that I won't answer them. Of course, I have answered them much more than their anonymity deserves.

The terms are all there in the Missing Jolt paper.
Click to expand...

Tony your "paper" has no more validity than any other piece of internet flotsam and jetsam.
 
BasqueArch said:
Thank you Ryan Mackey, W.D.Clinger, Dave Rogers.
(And of course all the others on this thread too numerous to mention.)
Game over Tony.
Will the last one out of this irreducible delusion room please turn off the lights.​
Click to expand...


I concur. This farce has gone on long enough.

Tony, you're on Ignore. If you have anything to say, say it in the engineering press -- that I continue to read. Sayonara.
 
tfk said:
You won't answer Ryan Mackey.
You won't answer Dave Rogers.
You won't answer Will Clinger.
You won't answer Newton's Bits.
You won't answer TruthersLie.
You won't answer 3bodyproblem.
You won't answer carlitos.

And I'm sure that I'm leaving out several more.
Click to expand...

Yes. Tony also refuses to answer the following well respected geniuses:

Doc
Grumpy
Happy
Sleepy
Bashful
Sneezy
Dopey
Santa
and the Easter Bunny
 
Well, it appears that Tony has taken his ball, and gone home.

[sarcasm] THERE's a real search for the truth... [/sarcasm]

You have yet to show ANY plausible mechanism for direct "column-to-column" impact after 1 story fall, Tony. Those graphics over at the911forum show nothing of the sort.

I'm eagerly awaiting your demonstration of a PLAUSIBLE way for that to happen.

Tom (aka "Grumpy")
 
Tom, that's what I'm taking about.
I asked you several, very specific question here and here and here and here.
Click to expand...
You linked 4times the same question including the note that you will not discuss until answered these "questions".
You are just asking for the interface. No interface = no transfer of energy to the lower columns, right?

Next you link this in your 4 times-same-question-post:

When the graphs are drawn honestly and competently, they show the velocity loss you continue to deny.
Click to expand...

Voila! There is your interface. Bye than! See you over there to discuss your WTC7 inward bowing. I guess it will be a lot of fun.
 
achimspok said:
Tom, that's what I'm taking about.

You linked 4times the same question including the note that you will not discuss until answered these "questions".
You are just asking for the interface. No interface = no transfer of energy to the lower columns, right?

Next you link this in your 4 times-same-question-post:



Voila! There is your interface. Bye than! See you over there to discuss your WTC7 inward bowing. I guess it will be a lot of fun.
Click to expand...
Could you post this again, and this time in a way that makes sense?

I'll give you a pass if English isn't your first language.
 
Achim,

Perhaps jumping into the middle of a long, long-standing discussion, with little understanding of the history, ain't the best choice for a first post.


achimspok said:
Tom, that's what I'm taking about.
Click to expand...

"That's what you are talking about" ... where?

I assume over at "the911forum".

WHAT are you talking about?

achimspok said:
You linked 4times the same question including the note that you will not discuss until answered these "questions".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I linked to the same question. Because Tony won't answer it.

Meanwhile, he says, indignantly, that I "act like [he] won't answer
".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5558988#post5558988

Well, the fact is that he won't answer me. Or my question.

I ask this question because it is, IMO, the simplest core question that dismantles Tony's "Missing Jolt" nonsense.

It's so simple that even Tony understands it. And he understands that he has no answer for it.

And that is precisely why he refuses to answer it.

And instead has taken the laughable, ludicrous position of merely asserting that "it's been proven that the beams don't miss".

Tony Szamboti said:
Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and everything landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible. It has now been shown that the columns could not miss each other with the actual observed tilt and drop.
Click to expand...

And his "proof" for this laughable statement...?

femr's "kinetic models"...!!!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5560051#post5560051

LMAO.

You'll notice a couple of teensy-tiny little problems with Tony's assertion:

1. He's using a model that captures NONE of the damage features of the towers.

2. He's basing his conclusion on a model by someone who is clearly an amateur at creating meaningful mechanical models.

3. He's basing his conclusion about the DYNAMICS of the interactions on a model that the model creator asserts contain NO dynamic detail or information.

4. [And the one that he likes to really skip over...] Tony's allegedly "missing jolt" happens after 1 story's fall. Not after 0" of fall.

Perhaps you'd like to step in for Tony & explain how those columns are going to collide end to end after 1 story's fall. Oh, please don't forget the problem that, after 1 story's fall, there ARE NO ENDS with which to collide. Since the columns are 3 stories tall.

And the most ludicrous part of this whole charade (for both Tony & femr) is the claim that you can bend dozens of 36' long columns to their breaking point (loaded down with 50,000 tons of teetering building), and when they snap, the ends just stay serenely in place. No whipping. No return of the enormous amount of elastic deformation energy that has been stored in bending those beams. The whole assembly just peacefully begins to descend. One column thru another.

Oh, excuse me. I forgot. You guys think that you can ignore all this crappola by issuing the self-absolving excuse "the model was never intended to be a simulation. It's just a visualization".

Yup, it's a "visualization" of a bunch of stuff that did not happen & has zero bearing on what really happened.

There's no wonder that Tony is building his technical argument on such a solid foundation... ?!!

achimspok said:
You are just asking for the interface. No interface = no transfer of energy to the lower columns, right?

Next you link this in your 4 times-same-question-post:

tfk said:
When the graphs are drawn honestly and competently, they show the velocity loss you continue to deny.
Click to expand...

Voila! There is your interface. Bye than!
Click to expand...

This is your idea of an argument, achim? Hit & run?

The acceleration of the upper blocks were around 0.7g. After one second, an object in free fall would have been doing 32 ft/sec. And object at 0.7g will be doing approximately 22.5 ft/sec. THERE is your missing velocity, achim. From a bunch of small collisions.

With NO jolt.

Do some homework. Try to understand the issues. The jolt that Tony claims should be present brings the upper block to a VIRTUAL STANDSTILL.

Once again, no ability to store that energy in the lower column structure = no jolt.

Tell me how there is going to be a surface to surface collision after 1 story's fall, please.

Tom
 
Same problem, Tom. Your arrogance just assuming that I agree with the missing jolts theory. You completely misunderstood the intention of the "visualizations". The features of the animations were given by the observable and some public data. The observable is a tilting top that rotates about an axis along the (damaged) north face at 98. The top rotated about 0.7 seconds before the north face started to descent. There was no significant east component. The west face opened up like a zipper. Whats left?
Even an experienced animator of "meaningful" mechanical models just could speculate about damage features. These features at and above 98 were probably too small for modeling in the range of your failure "obsession". (Your are right about the failure of the blueprints. Your problem with the NIST SAP data are absurd because irrelevant.)

Btw, I don't believe that your 6 floor buckling works. Your statements about detaching floor connections and snapping columns are simply wrong. Watch the videos instead of NOVA animations!
In that context you obviously believe that perimeter columns can break but core columns cannot. No one knows because so far I know FEMA/NIST "found" not one single core column from these floors.
Nevertheless, 49 columns had to fail at the very same time. Considering a 6 floor buckling there is a lot of lateral barcing that had to fail as well.

around 0.7g - agree

My missing velocity? What are you talking about? I was probably the first one here who simply measured it. Do you use my numbers? Or just confirm? Fine.
I did it a long time ago to defend those ridiculous theories of unbelievable kinetic energy of a consistent upper block that must have hammer down the tower. (wasn't a troofer idea)
Therefore I doubt that you or anyone of the pet shop measured a "velocity loss". Less than free fall acceleration isn't a velocity loss, right?

May I see your data?

May I see your Chandler debunking?
(I think I found it already. It's just a rhetorical mix of presumptions.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom