Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[rwguinn]

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?

yup

Bah, this will all end in math, I just know it.

*Wanders off to search for my calculator*

well, there is a 110 foot moment arm involved, assuming the Center of Gravity is in the middle.
We could get into "See-saw analogies" which render mathematics moot...

Ah, that makes far more sense.

Occam's Razor wins again!

 

[Furcifer]

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories.

This is even worse than saying there was no tilt at all. Good luck with that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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 took a couple of quick screen caps from the second video A W Smith referenced, at zero and about 2 seconds. The height of a feature at the top of the tower was 213 pixels above a convenient reference feature on another building in the first, and 212 pixels in the second. Measuring the right hand edge of the building, I found it to be vertical in the first picture, and inclined at about 2º in the second. I don't know the vertical scale exactly, but assuming the darker region upwards from about 77 pixels below the roof starts at about the 93nd storey then a storey appears to be about 4.5 pixels. I would therefore conclude that the upper block acquired a tilt of at least 2º before the highest point had fallen more than about a quarter of a storey. Any component of tilt about an axis perpendicular to the line of sight will not be visible despite bill smith's inability to comprehend the reason why, so this is a minimum value for the tilt at that point in the collapse.

Or, to put it more simply, it tilted significantly before it began to fall.

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This is even worse than saying there was no tilt at all. Good luck with that.

I'll reserve my reaction to TS for when I have the chance to see how the show came out. However, with reference to the tilt... it tells me that the structure failed first where the fires or accumulated damage was most severe. This was the case for the south tower... so I'm not sure I see any significance in the tilt. The story it tells is straight forward...

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I'm confused......isn't the "tilt" part of the Truther's basic collapse premise?

IE. The top section would topple off to the side of the undamaged lower section once collapse began, thus leaving most of both tower's intact.

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

 

[uk_dave]

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

Better even than that, for years now 'truthers', in their customary humble way, have been telling us that the collapse of the towers was obviously the work of controlled demolition.

But now they're reduced to arguing over tilts and looking for jolts in grainy youtube videos.

Too funny. 'Truth', the movement that couldn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm confused......isn't the "tilt" part of the Truther's basic collapse premise?

No. It isn't anyone's premise, it's an observation about the collapse, i.e. something that actually happened. Like everything that actually happened on 9/11, it's accepted as fact by sane people, and alternately accepted, questioned, rejected or misinterpreted - sometimes simultaneously - by those who want to shore up their own pet theory.

IE. The top section would topple off to the side of the undamaged lower section once collapse began, thus leaving most of both tower's intact.

Most of us can understand the difference between a rotation of the upper block, as its centre of gravity falls more or less vertically, and the top falling off like a felled tree. If you think that there is a general acceptance that the latter actually happened on 9/11, then you may be a little more confused than you realise.

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

Since the overwhelming majority of the population still recognises that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Jihadists, you can rest assured that the tables are still the right way up, as they always have been.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

I'm confused......isn't the "tilt" part of the Truther's basic collapse premise?

IE. The top section would topple off to the side of the undamaged lower section once collapse began, thus leaving most of both tower's intact.

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

It's a form of 'confirmation bias' that, in this case, might be better described as 'confirmation creation'.

Tony Szamboti - and about a jillion other people - noticed that the top of WTC1 fell at less than freefall acceleration in the early stages of collapse. Assuming the theoretical Bazantian configuration for the fall/initial impact, he supposed that there would have to be a 'jolt' when top part impacted bottom part square-on.

After some extremely crude measurements he detected no such jolt , and used this to support his joltish CD belief - that explosives were paving the way for the smooth fall of the WTC1 top. However, this staggering insight falls flat if the top section tilted initially because - as was explained to him till the cows came home in the "Missing Jolt" thread - a tilted impact causes the single large theoretical jolt to be smoothed out by thousands of localised small jolts, none of which would cause a measurable jolt at his reference point, the roofline.

Szamboti is now inextricably wedded to this theory (which is his) and has no option but to deny the presence of an initial WTC1 tilt.

In short - he's an imbecile.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Thanks Glenn....

Thanks for nothing Dave....

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's a form of 'confirmation bias' that, in this case, might be better described as 'confirmation creation'.

Tony Szamboti - and about a jillion other people - noticed that the top of WTC1 fell at less than freefall acceleration in the early stages of collapse. Assuming the theoretical Bazantian configuration for the fall/initial impact, he supposed that there would have to be a 'jolt' when top part impacted bottom part square-on.

After some extremely crude measurements he detected no such jolt , and used this to support his joltish CD belief - that explosives were paving the way for the smooth fall of the WTC1 top. However, this staggering insight falls flat if the top section tilted initially because - as was explained to him till the cows came home in the "Missing Jolt" thread - a tilted impact causes the single large theoretical jolt to be smoothed out by thousands of localised small jolts, none of which would cause a measurable jolt at his reference point, the roofline.

Szamboti is now inextricably wedded to this theory (which is his) and has no option but to deny the presence of an initial WTC1 tilt.

In short - he's an imbecile.

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

[ot]Speaking of names (and forgive me if this is a wee bit off topic) Tony, have you ever considered changing your last name to Shazam? I mean really, that would be so cool. Perhaps have Shazam as a middle name and have your last name Boti. (booty)

Tony Shazam Boti ... now that's hot.[/ot]

back on topic... how do you think you did on the debate? Did you have access to cardboard boxes?

 

[rwguinn]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

Lots and lots of pictures of it, Tony. It's even mentioned in the report(s)
I'm just speculating, here, but it might have had something to do with massive damage to one side of the building due to a massive ****ing airplane hitting it at 500+ MPH.
"There is none so blind/ as he who will not see..."

 

[A W Smith]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation

I took a couple of quick screen caps from the second video A W Smith referenced, at zero and about 2 seconds. The height of a feature at the top of the tower was 213 pixels above a convenient reference feature on another building in the first, and 212 pixels in the second. Measuring the right hand edge of the building, I found it to be vertical in the first picture, and inclined at about 2º in the second. I don't know the vertical scale exactly, but assuming the darker region upwards from about 77 pixels below the roof starts at about the 93nd storey then a storey appears to be about 4.5 pixels. I would therefore conclude that the upper block acquired a tilt of at least 2º before the highest point had fallen more than about a quarter of a storey. Any component of tilt about an axis perpendicular to the line of sight will not be visible despite bill smith's inability to comprehend the reason why, so this is a minimum value for the tilt at that point in the collapse.

Or, to put it more simply, it tilted significantly before it began to fall.

Dave

and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset

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

and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname (realcddeal), doesn't help to solve the problem either.

 

[BasqueArch]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

WTC2 videos show upper block columns bending in and smashing directly onto the puny 2.5" (at pan ribs) to 4" thick concrete floor slab below, therefore "no jolt". Upper columns did not hit columns below. Szamboti's "no jolt" unintentionally supports gravity collapse.

Same for WTC1 per Dave Rogers pixel analysis.

Note collapse without explosion, without expulsion of structural items.

[qimg]http://911stories.googlepages.com/ST1.jpg/ST1-full.jpg[/qimg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into-Swift

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Note to Ryan

During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.

The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis, the publicly available core column cross sections, an estimate of the perimeter cross sections at a given story based on weight from Urich's analysis, and the fact that the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter. I estimated the 98th floor perimeter columns to have a 15.6 sq. inch cross sectional area, which would then have an average wall thickness of .289 inches for an approximate 14 inch square column. While it does not give the actual wall thicknesses of the perimeter columns over the height of the towers, the NIST report does say that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never drops below .250 inches.

You should look at it yourself.

 

[Mancman]

Tilt clearly seen in these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bfPaRRK90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53taT7FSFIk

 

[funk de fino]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

Says the man who makes up lies about an imaginary documentary to back up his CD claims!!

Unless you magically produce this video on the show, your credibility will always be shot. Even a lowly electrical/electronic guy like me proved you had not read the NIST reports fully, and were making false claims based on the premise you had read them.

 

[alienentity]

Says the man who makes up lies about an imaginary documentary to back up his CD claims!!

Unless you magically produce this video on the show, your credibility will always be shot. Even a lowly electrical/electronic guy like me proved you had not read the NIST reports fully, and were making false claims based on the premise you had read them.

Correction: the History of Business show did feature Larry Silverstein, but nobody has been able to confirm what he really said. You'll have to take Tony 'no tilt' Szamboti's word for it.

 

[Furcifer]

During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.
The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysi.

I've got a text book that says that the allowable ASD is 0.6 the yield or 0.5 the ultimate for static loads. (AISC) for an N value of 1.67 and 2.00 respectively. "Applied Strength of Materials. Mott"

Is it possible the core was constructed with a safety factor of 3? Possibly. But inflating it to 3 using Greg's mass calculation seems a stretch. What this amounts to is taking any extraneous mass and saying it went into core steel plate. That's a nice way of saying yur off yur rocker Tony. But I'd like to her one of the engineers weigh in on this.

 

[BasqueArch]

Note to Ryan
During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.

The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis, the publicly available core column cross sections, an estimate of the perimeter cross sections at a given story based on weight from Urich's analysis, and the fact that the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter. I estimated the 98th floor perimeter columns to have a 15.6 sq. inch cross sectional area, which would then have an average wall thickness of .289 inches for an approximate 14 inch square column. While it does not give the actual wall thicknesses of the perimeter columns over the height of the towers, the NIST report does say that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never drops below .250 inches.

You should look at it yourself.

Neither here nor there. WTC1,2 planes damage + fires + gravity = collapse.
Columns were not crushed. Visual evidence shows that after initial perimeter columns failure floors pancaked then remainder of columns toppled.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into-Swift