I'm sorry. My Gibberish-to-English translator is down at the moment.
Would you care to try again. Perhaps with complete sentences & thoughts.
Tom
Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper
- Thread starter RedIbis
- Start date
I'm sorry. My Gibberish-to-English translator is down at the moment.
Would you care to try again. Perhaps with complete sentences & thoughts.
Tom
What is your point? Are you supporting Tony's failed paper?
The falling WTC was slower than free fall, and can be modeled with momentum transfer, which clearly has velocity changes; the actual WTC gravity collapse clearly behaves near that model in timing. This is simple physics.
Yes, you can model it if you include upwards collapse and the loss of mass. I did so.
The collapse did not accelerate after about 3 sec in the collapse. If you model an "equilibrium" that fits that feature then you get a problem to bring it all the way down.
This might be a problem of quasi fluid behavior of the inner avalanches. Nevertheless, with a little help at exactly time and position of the dust jets you get an almost exactly matching momentum transfer model.
It's no problem to create a momentum transfer model that hammers down the tower. But that's not what happen.
One question. Do you calculate the energy for crushing the core columns for every floor or every 3rd floor or not a bit because of misalignment of the columns?
The collapse did not accelerate after about 3 sec in the collapse. If you model an "equilibrium" that fits that feature then you get a problem to bring it all the way down.
This might be a problem of quasi fluid behavior of the inner avalanches. Nevertheless, with a little help at exactly time and position of the dust jets you get an almost exactly matching momentum transfer model.
It's no problem to create a momentum transfer model that hammers down the tower. But that's not what happen.
One question. Do you calculate the energy for crushing the core columns for every floor or every 3rd floor or not a bit because of misalignment of the columns?
Achim,
OK, I understand now.
I had written a note to you, asking if English was your native language. And offering to make the extra effort to decipher your posts if it was not. I can't find that note over at the911 forum, so I must have not sent it.
My apologies for any misunderstanding over that matter. Your English is quite good. Far, far better than my (non-existent) German.
You may (or may not) find it amusing to find out that, to me, your English sounded indistinguishable from some of the off-their-medications, talking to voices in their heads nuts that respond to these threads periodically. (No disrespect intended.)
Now that I know the reason, I'll make the an extra effort to understand the points that you are making.
I would make a request: This was your first post to me (at the911forum):
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post8489.html#p8489
In it, you cover about 20 different topics. This is simply too many. (And is the primary feature of those "voices-in-the-head" crowd.) The communication is difficult enough, please keep it to just a couple of topics.
Next subject: If you are going to post my name onto ridiculing threads over at the911forum, common courtesy (even German courtesy) would require that you at least inform me of your actions. You've done it twice, and the only reason that I've found out was I made the effort to find out if your native language was not English. (And as a result, saw your recent posts to those forums.)
So, in spite of the fact that I will give you more latitude for misinterpretation (in both directions), you are not, currently, on my most-favored-poster list.
Replying to your post above, with a bit of interpretation required:
I didn't assume anything. Asking if you can think of a way that the columns can hit end to end does not assume that you agree with the theory.
BTW, you posted your first post above:
I replied.
You ignored my reply, and start out on a whole new tack. I don't know about Germany, but in the US, ignoring someone else's comments is considered impolite. Perhaps you'd care to address the comments that I made.
Even tho the group over there likes to say this, it is not true. Just to be certain that I understood this specific point, I asked femr here [http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post8487.html#p8487] to:
tfk said:
He did, and I listened carefully. Here is what he said:
femr said:
He has also stated:
His purpose is clear. He wants to create a model (a visualization) of the core columns in order to examine (support or refute) various collapse initiation mechanisms. He also wants to look at the first couple of seconds of collapse to investigate how the various components might collide.
This is his purpose. This is clear. I understand this. I understood it from reading his very first post.
My point is: he can't get to where he wants to go with the model that he is creating.
He has all his columns in their pristine, as built alignments. He has no damage. He shows no deformation of the beams as they bent under moment loads. He includes no dynamics into his "fractures".
I understand perfectly well that those things are unknowns. I understand that they will be difficult (or likely impossible) to determine.
My point is that the SPECIFIC THINGS that he claims to want to learn from the model are CRITICALLY dependent upon those specific details that he has left out of the model.
And I understand that femr thinks that posting "I never claimed it was a simulation", and "I SAID that I wasn't going to include those details" absolves him of the lack of judgment displayed by pushing forward with a model that has no hope of providing him the answers that are the reason for creating the model in the first place.
Now, that's my interpretation of the purpose of the visualization. Please tell me what you think that I've "completely misunderstood".
While you're at it, why don't you tell me YOUR interpretation of the purpose of the visualizations. And elaborate on whether or not you think that he'll be able to determine the things that he wants to determine from the model that he has produced.
And in the interests of keeping the topic counts down, I'll stop here.
Regards,
Tom
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And the Germans used to be renowned for engineering.
How sad.
What makes you think 49 core columns had to fail at the same time?
Last edited:
WC,
Excuse me if I'm reiterating old news to you...
Take WTC1 for example.
The whole sequence, moving from first gross external evidence of impending collapse (gross buckling of the south wall @ 100 min) to collapse initiation (@ 102 minutes) in about 2 minutes.
And of course, all of the core columns that were still intact (whatever that number might have been) at the moment of total collapse initiation did fail in very rapid succession, perhaps about 1-2 seconds. Close enough to be considered "at the same time". As did all the external columns that were still intact.
Of course, the failures were not independent events. They failed at approximately the same time because one failure led to all the rest.
Tom
Best short synopsis: NCSTAR1-6D, Sec E1, Executive Summary
No need to crush the core, the core can't stand without the shell and floors providing the lateral support. Darn, this is so easy after studying the WTC towers and reading everything you can on Robertson's design. I don't need to do any work since it is completely obvious the WTC collapse happened as the design would fail; it also helps to know the designer of the WTC towers agrees with me. Gee, if he agreed with the 911 truth dolts we would have had a few Pulitzer Prizes for exposing the massive conspiracy and controlled demolition with silent explosives and super-nano-thermite with holographic planes fooling thousands of eye witnesses.
So you don't agree with Tony's failed paper; or you can save Tony's failed paper? Can you get Tony's paper published in a real Journal?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
I believe the point is that TM members assume that all of the structural failure events during that incident happened simultaneously, when it took more than an hour for all of the conditions to assimilate into one final rapid succession of failures. In other words they leave variables out.It reminds me of Richard Gage telling people that the slow sagging of heat accelerated creep is the equivalent of a critical failure. Either way it's a grossly incompetent way to think of the collapses :\
NutCracker
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 654
Simple circular logic, I'm afraid.
A W Smith
Philosopher
from their damp dark basement laboratories, Truthers will figure it out.
Oh yeah. Truthers spending a few evenings huddled over home computers with their pirated "mawdulling" software will figure out what all these people couldn't.
Oh yeah. Truthers spending a few evenings huddled over home computers with their pirated "mawdulling" software will figure out what all these people couldn't.
You think the model should give answers about what happened during the first seconds? I would say the interesting part is about the first 10th of a second.
I would not expect some extreme alignment problems of the core columns especially at 98. One major question - and imo still unsolved - is the extreme inward bowing. No test could replicate at least nearly the necessary extend of floor sagging (about 3m downwards). Even NIST - so far as I know - had to apply extreme extra forces to simulate the effect. Hence, the question remains: What caused these extra forces?
Imo only a deformation of the core could be responsible but - for any unknown reason - NIST shun like a mule (just to use one of your metaphors) to touch the question of core failure.
@A W Smith
I hope your insight into human nature is not that parochial like your comment suggest. Otherwise your philosophy might be not worth the paper. Otherwise thanks for your diligence to link all studies e.g. Purdue. Btw, Purdue simulated the damage and fuel distribution. The damage is out of question even beneath "troofers", au contraire! Femr and me have shown that AA11 was much faster and much more near to perpendicular. Any question about it? No one beneath "troofers" ever questioned more damage than NIST applied.
Btw, Ph.D. Mete Sozen (Purdue) talked about his opinion on the collapse initiation. If I got him right - and I really think so - then he is convinced that the core failed first. So he was nice to NIST but in the end it is a completely different scenario.
@beachnut
Sorry but read what you have written and think twice.
@Grizzly B
Am I a TM member? Don't know. If so, you are completely wrong. You should deal a little bit with the arguments instead of labeling any different opinion.
Btw, there is no way i can imagine to tilt the top of the tower without affecting all core columns at once. Can you? Insofar it might be interesting that the top rotated about the damaged north face at 98 - above the airplane damage, opposite to the airplane damage, at a floor without major damage to the fireproofing and probably near to zero kerosene.
I know, your first argument will be inward bowing but the source of that extreme IB isn't explained so far, is it? That IB occurred very fast after the WTC2 collapse. The behavior of the fire changed dramatically at the very same moment WTC2 started to collapse (not as a result of it). The measured maximum of IB occurred in an area without any significant fire condition during the 75 minutes prior to the WTC2 collapse. NIST estimated no damage to the fireproofing in that area (shielded by the core). The fireproofing was renovated at these floors. Hence, the undamaged areas should withstand for a while.
Occurred all failures at once? No. Some early failures probably occurred in the basement. How and why? Obviously not due to falling kerosene.
What's Chicago known for, fat sad cat?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
But wasn't that because the size of the WTC trusses greatly exceeded the capacity of the test equipment? I believe they explained this. I'll need to look up the reference but I suspect you already know this.
achim,
Started any threads about me lately?
Tell Tony that I love the fact that he's crowing about my failure to answer questions that were asked of me ... after I was banned. LoL.
Remind him that I never avoided a single question that he ever asked me. (The only ones over there that I hadn't responded to were the ones I hadn't gotten to yet.) Remind him that only ONE of the two of us is infamous for running away from awkward, inconvenient questions.
Now to your comments...
1. Last time I checked, 0.1 seconds was contained within the range "-1 seconds < t < 2 seconds".
2. femr & OWE & Major_Tom think that the model should give answer about what happened during the first seconds. They are wrong.
3. I have said explicitly that I think that THIS model should give answers about what happened at NO TIME whatshoever.
Oh really. You have an array of columns spread laterally over approximately 40 x 20 meters, vertically over 24 meters (just 2 lengths) that is bent into an arc thru that array.
And femr is modeling this with straight, unchanging, undeformed lengths.
And you think that there will not be any "extreme alignment problems"?
Let me ask you two questions:
1. If femr ever gets his columns accurately represented, how the heck is he going to be able to model the beams with fixed lengths, a curve to the whole structure, and NOT have "extreme alignment problems" with the vertical spacings between columns?
2. IF femr continues down his current path, and does not produce a model that represents the ACTUAL condition of the columns just prior to collapse, what imaginable significance can it hold whether he does or doesn't have severe alignment problems with his beams?
Do you deny the existence of the inward bowing?
If yes, you are foolish, and this conversation is pointless.
If no, then in a very real mechanical sense, (i.e., to the load carrying capacity of the columns), it does not matter one iota what was causing that bowing.
Perhaps, to demonstrate that you have read what NIST really said, and are not just repeating hear-say, you should come back here with the excerpt from the NIST report where they explain WHY they feel that they could not get that amount of inward bowing from the floor sag.
If there really is a question at that point, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
You got that slightly wrong.
I've referred to "attitudes that'd choke a mule". Mules are actually quite intelligent, gregarious and quite calm creatures. Unlike horses, there are not many things that they "shun".
NIST did not shun any aspect of this incident. Your suggestion that they did belies a unwarranted animosity towards a large group of engineers, some of whom were at NIST. But the majority of the engineers who produced the NIST reports were in academia & industry.
Can you give me ONE valid, supportable reason that you feel entitled to smear the reputations of these extraordinarily accomplished people?
So that I understand the qualifications that you possess to make that judgment, would you be so kind as to reveal your engineering background & years of experience. I don't need to know who you are. I just need to know if you possess the qualification to distinguish ******** [I guess that should have read "donkeys" -tk] from elbows.
Thank you,
Tom
Started any threads about me lately?
Tell Tony that I love the fact that he's crowing about my failure to answer questions that were asked of me ... after I was banned. LoL.
Remind him that I never avoided a single question that he ever asked me. (The only ones over there that I hadn't responded to were the ones I hadn't gotten to yet.) Remind him that only ONE of the two of us is infamous for running away from awkward, inconvenient questions.
Now to your comments...
1. Last time I checked, 0.1 seconds was contained within the range "-1 seconds < t < 2 seconds".
2. femr & OWE & Major_Tom think that the model should give answer about what happened during the first seconds. They are wrong.
3. I have said explicitly that I think that THIS model should give answers about what happened at NO TIME whatshoever.
Oh really. You have an array of columns spread laterally over approximately 40 x 20 meters, vertically over 24 meters (just 2 lengths) that is bent into an arc thru that array.
And femr is modeling this with straight, unchanging, undeformed lengths.
And you think that there will not be any "extreme alignment problems"?
Let me ask you two questions:
1. If femr ever gets his columns accurately represented, how the heck is he going to be able to model the beams with fixed lengths, a curve to the whole structure, and NOT have "extreme alignment problems" with the vertical spacings between columns?
2. IF femr continues down his current path, and does not produce a model that represents the ACTUAL condition of the columns just prior to collapse, what imaginable significance can it hold whether he does or doesn't have severe alignment problems with his beams?
Do you deny the existence of the inward bowing?
If yes, you are foolish, and this conversation is pointless.
If no, then in a very real mechanical sense, (i.e., to the load carrying capacity of the columns), it does not matter one iota what was causing that bowing.
Perhaps, to demonstrate that you have read what NIST really said, and are not just repeating hear-say, you should come back here with the excerpt from the NIST report where they explain WHY they feel that they could not get that amount of inward bowing from the floor sag.
If there really is a question at that point, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
You got that slightly wrong.
I've referred to "attitudes that'd choke a mule". Mules are actually quite intelligent, gregarious and quite calm creatures. Unlike horses, there are not many things that they "shun".
NIST did not shun any aspect of this incident. Your suggestion that they did belies a unwarranted animosity towards a large group of engineers, some of whom were at NIST. But the majority of the engineers who produced the NIST reports were in academia & industry.
Can you give me ONE valid, supportable reason that you feel entitled to smear the reputations of these extraordinarily accomplished people?
So that I understand the qualifications that you possess to make that judgment, would you be so kind as to reveal your engineering background & years of experience. I don't need to know who you are. I just need to know if you possess the qualification to distinguish ******** [I guess that should have read "donkeys" -tk] from elbows.
Thank you,
Tom
Last edited:
The bombs in the basement? lol, real scientific stuff. 8 years of failure for 911 truth and you support nothing you want to clearly define.
What is your scenario you are tying to back in with hearsay and junk science like Tony's missing jolt?
Chicago? While NAZI Germany was persecuting Jews and driving out the best minds in their country, Chicago had the first self-sustaining, nuclear chain reaction on December 2, 1942. Like NAZIs, 911 truth has driven out all rational thought to settle on pure stupid as their only goal and product, and they have exceeded their goal by orders of magnitude.
Did you go to engineering school? Is there enough resolution to find Tony's missing jolt in the video? Is the velocity reduced due to impacts? Is Tony wrong in the first place; what is your point? WWSD
If you can explain your basement statement have at it, but, can you explain Tony's problem with the jolt and his velocity issue? Can you with your great knowledge expand on Tony's paper? Where did you get your PhD?
Last edited:
Prior to tilting? 0.1sec in the collapse? No way!
Yes, with a little fantasy you can imagine what has to be done. Ik chains etc. are a lot of work. That model is still a baby. Come back when it's done.
Noop and you know it. 3m sagging in 20 min of fire is nonsense anyway.
If so then it doesn't matter who the terrorists are.
It doesn't matter one iota what they feel.
Logic.
Let's get it right. Nazi Germany supported by Grandpa Bush. That's what you are talking about. Are you talking about the immigrated scientist prior to the war or about the Nazi scientists the CIA took to USA e.g. to Fort Dettrick (source of Antrax for Irak for example)?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I think I've finally gotten to the point where truthers like achimspok can make me life instead of just piss me off. Pathological ignorance is amusing.
Don't fall for it! darn, you exposed your goal, to spew moronic consracy theories when the topic is the missing jolt. Wait, maybe this is connected...
Your engineering expertise, expose us to the paranoid rant of conspiracy theories on Grandpa Bush. How does this help Tony's missing Jolt Paper?
Can you, Explain how Grandpa Bush is involved in Tony's missing jolt? What engineering school is responsible for your vast engineering skills needed to expose grandpa bush? Google School of Engineering Conspiracy Theories for the Paranoid?
Perfect summary of your engineering skills; commenting on junk about Chicago. Instead of presenting college credentials, or supporting Tony, or digging up engineering precepts to support your position (whatever it is, but you can't explain), you jump on bashing Bush which is cute, but exposes a propensity to spew moronic conspiracy theories based on political bias.
Your engineering expertise, expose us to the paranoid rant of conspiracy theories on Grandpa Bush. How does this help Tony's missing Jolt Paper?
Can you, Explain how Grandpa Bush is involved in Tony's missing jolt? What engineering school is responsible for your vast engineering skills needed to expose grandpa bush? Google School of Engineering Conspiracy Theories for the Paranoid?
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
The birthplace of the skyscraper, and it was a Chicago firm that designed the Burj Khalifa.
Not that you'd know anything about skyscrapers, or you wouldn't be a truther.
Maybe you can understand pizza though, we make some excellent pizza here.