Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[bill smith]

I tried searching "bill smith" and "video", but for some reason there were too many hits to get anything sensible. Never mind, I remember it as clearly as you remember the Chopper 5 feed being shown live on 9/11, so if there isn't a link that just proves that you've hacked the forum and removed it.

I seem to remember your argument was that if one video shows a rotation, and another doesn't, then there's no rotation. You didn't seem to get much further than that.

Dave

if you find the post I think you will find that what I actually said was that the video that is about ten times clearer will carry the day.(or words to that effect)

 

[newton3376]

Ego investment. His theory is utterly dependent on lack of tilt to produce the 'jolt' that might (note might) result from a pure axial impact, and he's put so much public work into it that accepting his mistake is now itself impossible. If he backed off, then his credentiials would be zilch on both sides of the 9/11 debate. This way he retains a following of a few CT dolts.

I have to agree with this....

I can honestly say that if I was a truther for as long as some of these people have been truthers....it would be tempting to resist admitting I was wrong due to plain and simple pride. I would feel like such a fool afterwards that it might be easier to remain a truther. While I wouldn't actually do that...I could understand the attraction.

Fortunately, for me, I am someone who corrects my position if there is sufficient evidence/argument to show me wrong. Truthers do not take such a position though and I suspect it is largely due to ego as Glenn states above.

 

[GlennB]

if you find the post I think you will find that what I actually said was that the video that is about ten times clearer will carry the day.(or words to that effect)

1. A clear video of a toppling object, but taken in the plane of the topple. In the 2 secs available before the scene is obscured there is no discernable topple because of the perspective.

2. A less clear video of the very same object, taken at right-angles to the plane of topple, clearly showing the tilt.

"Clarity" is taken to define the actual nature of the event? No. That doesn't work, except in troll-land.

There are perfectly clear stills in the NIST reports showing the tilt of WTC1 beyond any shadow of doubt.

 

[tsig]

He may assume a tilt in one video but I will not accept the assumption of course. I would be happy to review he other video where he claims that he can show a tllt. Then I will shoot it down.

Very doubtful.

 

[bill smith]

1. A clear video of a toppling object, but taken in the plane of the topple. In the 2 secs available before the scene is obscured there is no discernable topple because of the perspective.

2. A less clear video of the very same object, taken at right-angles to the plane of topple, clearly showing the tilt.

"Clarity" is taken to define the actual nature of the event? No. That doesn't work, except in troll-land.

There are perfectly clear stills in the NIST reports showing the tilt of WTC1 beyond any shadow of doubt.

No I want to see the rotation of the top portion of WTC1. A still is of no particcular use unless the tilt is very exggerated- which it was not (being non-existent). If you feel you are up to disputing this with video evidence the floor is yours...

 

[GlennB]

.... A still is of no particcular use unless the tilt is very exggerated- ....

A still photo settles the case if it shows a tilt. End of story.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony brought his own video to the debate. In this video, the tilt is clearly visible to both Ron and myself. This should be evident in the show when it's assembled.

After the debate sinks to that point, what is one to do? Some Irreducbile Delusions are so strong, they apparently manifest as actual hallucinations.

In one of my discussions with him in July IIRC I brought up a paper by him and Maqueen (sp?) in which he treated all of the columns as if they failed via crushing. If he was saying there was no tilt I'll assume that's a rough equivalent but I'm just curious if he said anything like that directly (where he rules out any notion that the columns in the impact regions buckled). Gravy sent me a history of his posts from a couple years back so I know he's said some weird things before...

 

[Furcifer]

No tilt? Possibly the most retarded thing yet. Don't let the video evidence get in the way of a stupid theory.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In one of my discussions with him in July IIRC I brought up a paper by him and Maqueen (sp?) in which he treated all of the columns as if they failed via crushing. If he was saying there was no tilt I'll assume that's a rough equivalent but I'm just curious if he said anything like that directly (where he rules out any notion that the columns in the impact regions buckled). Gravy sent me a history of his posts from a couple years back so I know he's said some weird things before...

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details and we need to know when it actually occurred. It is not proven that it occurred immediately.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

 

[A W Smith]

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

What? toggle the video from 16 seconds to 18 seconds and you can see the top of the tower and antenna tilt to the southeast, this camera is from the west slightly north in Hoboken




again this time about the same northern latitude but from the east

http://video.baamboo.com/watch/2/video/722802

 

[alienentity]

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details and we need to know when it actually occurred. It is not proven that it occurred immediately.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

Tony, I don't get the relevance of this observation; WTC1 didn't accelerate all that fast, I think it was about 64% of freefall, very unlike a verinage, for example, where you have a brief period of freefall and then a distinct aligned impact.
Compare to WTC2, which tilted a lot, damaged by the same general mechanism (plane impact and random fire damage) but with a significantly different result: 2 collapses, 1 with lots of tilt, the other with a bit less.

What makes the tilt so important given those facts? I think you're reading things into it which aren't there, and aren't necessary to explain the collapses.

 

[alienentity]

Neither collapse behaves like any controlled demolition I've ever seen anyway. If you remove the CD obsession for a moment, there's really nothing going on apart from fire-driven collapse, IMHO.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I don't get the relevance of this observation; WTC1 didn't accelerate all that fast, I think it was about 64% of freefall, very unlike a verinage, for example, where you have a brief period of freefall and then a distinct aligned impact.
Compare to WTC2, which tilted a lot, damaged by the same general mechanism (plane impact and random fire damage) but with a significantly different result: 2 collapses, 1 with lots of tilt, the other with a bit less.

What makes the tilt so important given those facts? I think you're reading things into it which aren't there, and aren't necessary to explain the collapses.

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

 

[Reactor drone]

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

I'm not sure the reasons are that obvious.The fact that there was a rotation of the upper section shows one of two things,either the block descended symmetrically and then encountered uneven resistance or it collapsed asymmetrically and then continued on.Either way you aren't getting an even column to column hit so the impact force will be spread out over time,smoothing the deceleration.

 

[JamesB]

I'm derailing my own thread with this post, which is dumb of me, but I just happened to be alerted to this little coincidence over at Screw Loose Change. Frank Legge at the Journal of 9/11 Studies has some thoughts on the Pentagon, responsive to that little needling attack about Craig Ranke and his truly insane delusions:



He also cites my own calculations on the subject, including this:

Source

Understatement of the year, but maybe, micron by micron, some of these people are starting to get it.

I don't have to pay attention to them. Even other Truthers don't buy their crap. Their work is stupendously horrible. Please don't bring it up in my threads ever again.

I e-mailed Legge about his claim that the hijackers targetted the West side of the Pentagon, asking him if he had heard of the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. He refused to discuss the issue because I didn't believe the WTC was a controlled demolition (non sequitur anyone?) Then I discovered that this claim was then quietly removed from one of the next 3 versions of his paper. He is up to 6 now apparently, after undergoing a rigorous peer-review process.

 

[alienentity]

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

The reasons are not that obvious to me, anyway - apart from wanting to get the details.

 

[Mancman]

No I want to see the rotation of the top portion of WTC1. A still is of no particcular use unless the tilt is very exggerated- which it was not (being non-existent). If you feel you are up to disputing this with video evidence the floor is yours...

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Hokulele]

*Thinks about angular momentum for a bit*

What would induce a rotation to the upper block part of the way into the collapse?

 

[rwguinn]

*Thinks about angular momentum for a bit*

What would induce a rotation to the upper block part of the way into the collapse?

Differential forces at opposite edges of the block--If one edge was hitting column to column and the other was hitting only floor pans--but that would also mean a rotation of some sort had already occurred.
More likely the rockets to bake the collapse happen faster than gravity would allow were mis-aimed...

 

[Hokulele]

Differential forces at opposite edges of the block--If one edge was hitting column to column and the other was hitting only floor pans--but that would also mean a rotation of some sort had already occurred.

Even if there was a difference in resistence at opposite sides of the block during the collapse, the differential would have to be fairly huge to impart the amount of tilt seen in the time implied here by Tony once the top block began moving, yes? Bah, this will all end in math, I just know it.

*Wanders off to search for my calculator*

More likely the rockets to make the collapse happen faster than gravity would allow were mis-aimed...

Ah, that makes far more sense.