Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Telltale Tom]

Niels Harrit is from Denmark and a co-author to Jones.
He is a Chemistry Professor
I wrote him this letter on tuesday 2/24

Dear Mr. Harrit.
I have read your article in question, looked at the graphs and pictures.
It is fairly understandable, although it is in English.

You have a few different samples that show different results, but since they are collected in different places, it is hardly surprising.

However, I think that as soon as there are other substances in the sample than Al an FE, you say they may have been contaminated.

Fair enough!

You claim you have found the following elements from samples according to your article:

C, O, Fe, Zn, Al, Si, S, Ca, Cr, Na, K.

But common to all these elements WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS is that they are part of the manufacture of cement / concrete.

Na and K are parts of salts, which should be avoided in concrete, since they react with metals.

Toxic elements like Cr + many others are found in coal power plants ashes. (fly ash)

Sulfur is not wanted in concrete, but is also a component in fly ash

Organic C or unburned C is something you are trying to avoid in concrete.

See now, I think your theory is beginning to slightly limp.

You claim that Fe and Al are contained in Nanotermit, perhaps one word you coined for this occasion and therefore you highlight them. There was no one in the Danish demolition industry who has heard of it before you brought it up.

Jones and you have worked on this theory for 2 ½ years I read the article today, and ran over this coincidence.

Don't you find this strange?

ALL SUBSTANCES found in the samples are present in the proces of making cement/concrete!

The evidence can be found at the links below.

Watch out ! People might believe that you and your co-authors have a political agenda rather than scientific research.

... "In modern cement industry it is common to use one of three principal raw materials, and in addition one to three correction inputs. Limestone is still the main ingredient in cement manufacture, as only a 65-75 weight percent CaO produces the right cement minerals. In addition, the raw powder must contain 20-25 weight percent SiO2, 3-6 weight percent Al2O3, and 2-5 weight percent Fe2O3 "...

So:

65-75% CaO
20-25% SiO2
3-6% Al2O3
2-5% Fe2O3

In addition, In Denmark we started adding ashes from coal power plants to concrete in 1978 after watching abroad that other countries had good experiences with it.

In coal power plant ashes are Chromium present as well as C, S, Na, K, Zn.

... "Before 1973 power plants in Denmark used almost exclusively oil as fuel, but oil crisis of 1973 began a rapid conversion of power plants from oil to coal as fuel media.

This meant that there was a growing amount of fly ash from coal combustion.
Fly ash are blended into concrete from 1978 and still going on..
The US started many years before Denmark.

So, Mr. Harrit you have spent 2 ½ years to find the composition of cement / ashes / concrete.
Why did'nt you call F.L. Smidt? (Danish worldwide concrete and factory manufacturer.)
You have been analyzing ”heated powder concrete”
But maybe you can't wait to go on national TV again.

If you still claim that you are right on your theory, then all of Denmarks houses are built on a ticking bomb.

I hope for a reply here on my mail
email: carsten-bn

Best regards. C.B. Nielsen (bachelor engineer, construction)

MR. HARRIT REPLIED: (within the hour)

Dear C. B. Nielsen
It is therefore not a question of just element content, but the way the elements involved chemical reactions.
You will notice that the chips we have found, react upon heating to form elemental iron, which has been floating.
There is no concrete, capable of attaining that.
Come to my lecture in Aarhus on 2/28.
Best regards
Niels

BLA BLA BLA
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN ORDINAIRY CONCRETEDUST AND JONES' AND HARRITS SAMPLES.?
TELL HIM
I SAY FRAUDS!!!!!!

links were in danish

I think you posted this on the wrong thread. This is Szamboti's Missing Jolt and it is not Szamboti is Missing a Dolt

Perhaps it was the Danish Translation?

 

[carlitos]

Carsten,
I think that you should go to Aarhus with some friends, have a couple of beers and Akvavits, and laugh loudly at Dr. Harrit.

 

[Carsten from Denmark]

I think you posted this on the wrong thread. This is Szamboti's Missing Jolt and it is not Szamboti is Missing a Dolt

Perhaps it was the Danish Translation?

I tried to write to another thread, but I could not get through. Jeg think it was because I had links and Barrits e-mail in the letter (first time post???)
Google Translate can be used to find fault, but it is not nearly good enough yet.
To listen to Barrits crap requires an enormous amount of beer plus entry ticket
But he has fans in Denmark (400 on facebook), he is not accustomed to, but he gets his 15 minutes of fame, so I hope he gets 15 minutes of the opposite. For his lecture will be only about 100 persons and many of them are leftists who really do not like GWB and the entire capitalist world. Everyone can discuss with Barrit after his lecture but you sit quite alone with one's opinions, I have been told. one of his colleagues call him a crazy on tv or gakgak in Danish. He has made a short film in which actors and semi-known public opinion on whether to make a new investigation. What do they know about buildings that have been exposed to fire, but all are known as left-wings.
The man is a joke even when he speaks danish.
I will try to find the right thread

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You won't be able to post links until you have 15 (or is it 25? I forgot) posts.

 

[newton3376]

You can't even read your own paper?

The numbers in the relevant part of your table beginning on page 6 are shown below. The first number in each row is from the last column (time in seconds), and the second is from the fifth column (distance in feet).

1.50 25.52
1.67 32.56
1.83 38.72

32.56 - 25.52 = 7.04 (that's 1/6 the velocity graphed at 1.67 seconds)
38.72 - 32.56 = 6.16 (that's 1/6 the velocity graphed at 1.83 seconds)

Hence the distance travelled between 1.67 and 1.83 seconds was less than the distance travelled between 1.50 and 1.67 seconds. Multiplying by 6 gives the velocities measured for those intervals. That's a drop in velocity, Tony. Those velocities are shown in my graph. They're from your own data.

Did Tony ever provide an answer to this? How does he explain a decrease in velocity using his own data? Seems like a self refuting paper to me....

I have been searching the forum and I can't find any.....

Oh and another question....how does he explain the fact that the collapse fell at less than free fall if there weren't any jolts? If all of the structural support was removed via nano-thermite or whatever wouldn't the entire collapse time be equal to that of free fall?

So even if the truthers believe in nano-thermite or whatever....how could they claim there wasn't any resistance from the structure?

 

[ozeco41]

Did Tony ever provide an answer to this? How does he explain a decrease in velocity using his own data? Seems like a self refuting paper to me....

I have been searching the forum and I can't find any.....

Oh and another question....how does he explain the fact that the collapse fell at less than free fall if there weren't any jolts? If all of the structural support was removed via nano-thermite or whatever wouldn't the entire collapse time be equal to that of free fall?

So even if the truthers believe in nano-thermite or whatever....how could they claim there wasn't any resistance from the structure?

There is really no point in asking Tony to clarify details of his Missing Jolt hypothesis. The hypothesis was faulty from the initial premises on which is was built. Tony's starting assumptions were wrong and are still wrong so anything which follows is nonsense. He does not address the mechanism of collapse which actually happened with both towers WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.

So no point chasing details based on wrong foundations.

 

[newton3376]

There is really no point in asking Tony to clarify details of his Missing Jolt hypothesis. The hypothesis was faulty from the initial premises on which is was built. Tony's starting assumptions were wrong and are still wrong so anything which follows is nonsense. He does not address the mechanism of collapse which actually happened with both towers WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.

So no point chasing details based on wrong foundations.

Agreed....

I was just curious how one explains what sure as heck looks like a "jolt" in a paper claiming the jolts are missing....

 

[femr2]

There is really no point in asking Tony to clarify details of his Missing Jolt hypothesis. The hypothesis was faulty from the initial premises on which is was built. Tony's starting assumptions were wrong and are still wrong so anything which follows is nonsense. He does not address the mechanism of collapse which actually happened with both towers WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.

So no point chasing details based on wrong foundations.

I agree that there are "mini jolts" detectable from the NW corner traces of WTC1, but from prior discussion with Tony,I think hisresistance stems from two very different positions...

1) He doesn't "want" to address the issues, as the jolts that have been found are not, in his opinion, big enough. I disagree.

2) The faulty premise of descent mechanism is based upon that proposed by Bazant and co. Yes, I'm fully aware of the scope of applicability of that. But without an "official" alternative mechanism, he's locked himself in.

Given the details of ROOSD he has been presented with, and the specific additional information given directly to him, there's really no excuse for him not to have re-done the calcs with the ROOSD mechanism, but in the same breath I do't think it's entirely fair to point at faulty foundadtions without highlighting that they come not directly from Tony, but from Bazant and co.

What alternate "official" mechanism should he use ?

 

[Major_Tom]

2) The faulty premise of descent mechanism is based upon that proposed by Bazant and co.

It interprets the 1-D mechanics of "buckle down, buckle up" literally. In the 1-D mechanics there should be a big collision after a 1 floor drop.

Buckle down, 12 ft fall, collision........buckle down, 12 ft fall, collision.........



Life in 1 dimension. Many people vewed the towers in terms of "block mechanics", not just Tony.

The whole group of "upper blockers", or blockheads emerged as a result.

Block mechanics based on the assumption of an homogeneous crush front is a peer reviewed idea in BV, BL and BLGB (therefore, it must be true).

ROOSD or the Ozeco description is not peer reviewed and it doesn't appear in any peer reviewed literature on the subject.
....................

The assumption of a homogeneous crush front is the easiest way to spot a block approach to crush mechanics.

ROOSD, or what Ozeco describes, is a logical result once the constraint of homogeneity is relaxed.

 

[tmd2_1]

I agree that there are "mini jolts" detectable from the NW corner traces of WTC1, but from prior discussion with Tony,I think hisresistance stems from two very different positions...

1) He doesn't "want" to address the issues, as the jolts that have been found are not, in his opinion, big enough. I disagree.

2) The faulty premise of descent mechanism is based upon that proposed by Bazant and co. Yes, I'm fully aware of the scope of applicability of that. But without an "official" alternative mechanism, he's locked himself in.

Given the details of ROOSD he has been presented with, and the specific additional information given directly to him, there's really no excuse for him not to have re-done the calcs with the ROOSD mechanism, but in the same breath I do't think it's entirely fair to point at faulty foundadtions without highlighting that they come not directly from Tony, but from Bazant and co.

What alternate "official" mechanism should he use ?

If I can interject for one second. I think the point of a missing "jolt" or lack of deceleration fits perfectly with respect to WTC 7. It is another way of looking at the free fall drop. There are those on this site that will say it doesn't mean the simultaneous destruction of support, but clearly this is not true. Almost all of the support had to give way at the same time, because there is no deceleration what so ever until it nears the very bottom. This is simply impossible without the simultaneous destruction of most of the support. In fact WTC 7 is eerily familiar to the verinage technique. With of course the mechanism for removing the support being different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

 

[pgimeno]

Block mechanics based on the assumption of an homogeneous crush front is a peer reviewed idea in BV, BL and BLGB (therefore, it must be true).

It is a true idea under the assumption: the math is correct. Where's your math?

 

[ergo]

It interprets the 1-D mechanics of "buckle down, buckle up" literally. In the 1-D mechanics there should be a big collision after a 1 floor drop.

Buckle down, 12 ft fall, collision........buckle down, 12 ft fall, collision.........

Life in 1 dimension.

Freakishly enough, this occurs in real, 3-D collapses and collisions as well. Whether something is impacting another thing uniformly or at an angle. I believe it's still called Newton's Third Law.

Even with an ROOSD-type collapse, with building contents funneling through the perimeter and core structures, we would see pauses and punctuations in this kind of collapse. It would not proceed at the rapid and uniform pace we see. Twice. There are the MER floors, for one, as well as all manner of other widely ranging variables which will have a visible influence on the rate of destruction.

You guys know this. I don't why you would pretend otherwise.

 

[DGM]

Freakishly enough, this occurs in real, 3-D collapses and collisions as well. Whether something is impacting another thing uniformly or at an angle. I believe it's still called Newton's Third Law.

Even with an ROOSD-type collapse, with building contents funneling through the perimeter and core structures, we would see pauses and punctuations in this kind of collapse. It would not proceed at the rapid and uniform pace we see. Twice. There are the MER floors, for one, as well as all manner of other widely ranging variables which will have a visible influence on the rate of destruction.

You guys know this. I don't why you would pretend otherwise.

If I drop a brick on an egg and you cant detect the "jolt" (with a regular video camera), did the brick defy Newtons law?

 

[ergo]

a brick on an egg

As usual from DGM, this analogy is not even worth a response.

 

[DGM]

As usual from DGM, this analogy is not even worth a response.

And you can explain why it doesn't? Would it be because the building was bigger?

 

[ergo]

Would you prefer anvils vs. kittens?

 

[DGM]

Would you prefer anvils vs. kittens?

Same valid analogy. How is it wrong?

 

[newton3376]

I guess what I am asking is this....

In the missing jolt paper the authors use "symmetric differencing" to approximate the velocity using the raw data...

W.D. Clinger is using a slightly different method from the raw data to calculate the velocity...

So my question is this.....since the two different methods appear to me to yield different results...which one is "more" correct?

Or are neither technically "correct" due to measurement error inherent in the raw data?


Now don't get me wrong....I don't think the real life "jolts" that caused the structure to fall at less than free fall acceleration would be measurable using Tony's method ANYWAY...so my question is more of a math one.

From what I remember using this equation:

(f(a+h)-f(a-h))/2h


Is generally more accurate of an approximation that this equation:

(f(a+h) -f(a))/h

 

[GlennB]

As usual from DGM, this analogy is not even worth a response.

DGM's analogy is fine. The point being whether any jolt is detectable with the equipment available.

 

[femr2]

If I can interject for one second. I think the point of a missing "jolt" or lack of deceleration fits perfectly with respect to WTC 7.

Have you spent any time looking at the WTC7 NW corner acceleration profile ? "The Missing Jolt" is about WTC1.

It is another way of looking at the free fall drop.

Have you spent any time looking at the WTC7 NW corner acceleration profile ? There's only a short period of "freefall".

There are those on this site that will say it doesn't mean the simultaneous destruction of support, but clearly this is not true.

If support was nullified instantly, why does the acceleration profile not resemble a step function ? It takes about 0.75s to reach "freefall".

Almost all of the support had to give way at the same time, because there is no deceleration what so ever until it nears the very bottom.

Acceleration peaks after about 2s (only about 10ft descent).

From that point on acceleration is gradually reducing.

In fact WTC 7 is eerily familiar to the verinage technique.

No. Verinage exhibits a very large "jolt" after the first storey descent.