Care to Comment

[Thunder]

the force of gravity is, at most, a bit player in the annihilation of the WTC complex and it is absurd to assert otherwise.

gravity makes things go down.

what do you think made the WTC go down? magnetism?

radiation?

heat?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Appeal to Ryan Mackey to admit his errors

As many here feel it is important to admit errors one has made during a debate, I have to wonder why there has been no response to my entreaty to Ryan Mackey to admit that his comments on the factor of safety and the amount of tilt in WTC 1 before it descended were in error during our debate last September.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that his comments, that the factor of safety of the central core columns in the twin towers were much less than 3.00 to 1 and that WTC 1 upper section tilted 8 degrees before the north face hinge let go, were both incorrect.

One would assume that Ryan would be professional and admit these errors, which he apparently made due to his trust in the NIST report.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that the basis for saying there was no deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper section is that there was no measureable velocity loss during the time it would take the velocity to recover to what it was pre-impact, over a significant period where 4 data points were taken.

It sounds as though Tony is still counting the expected resistance twice: once to produce the sudden jolt he expects, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g. For discussion and a link to the relevant graph, see
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5664602&postcount=78

The problem for your point is that it isn't necessary to take a second derivative and it is less precise than the first derivative, which shows very clearly that there was no velocity loss.

Tony's right about the second derivative being unnecessary here (albeit instructive), but his highlighted statement is completely false. Computing the first derivative by simple differencing definitely shows a velocity loss. That graph can be seen just a few posts above.

Tony's data and analysis aren't good enough for anyone to tell whether that apparent velocity loss is real or an artifact of measurement and quantization error. What's certain, however, is that no competent scientist would claim that Tony's data exclude the possibility of an actual velocity loss.

Any small error in the symmetric differentiation of the distance vs. time of those four data points in the velocity recovery period would not possibly allow one to say a velocity loss was being smoothed out.

Tony has just confirmed the suspicion expressed by Dave Rogers:

Quite simply, his data analysis is appallingly bad. He seems to understand nothing about experimental errors or the effects of data smoothing; indeed, he seems unaware of whether he's smoothing his data at all!

Another proof for this is the Verinage demolitions. The same methodology used there shows a deceleration and velocity loss in every one of them. Nothing was smoothed out in any of those measurements.

From which a reasonable person would conclude that the collapse of the WTC towers was not a well-controlled Verinage demolition. Earlier in this thread, Tony Szamboti grudgingly agreed with Dave Rogers' estimate of a 2-degree tilt at the beginning of the collapse. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that much tilt smears out the jolt to such an extent that we would not really expect to see it through the poor resolution of Tony's data.

 

[AZCat]

As many here feel it is important to admit errors one has made during a debate, I have to wonder why there has been no response to my entreaty to Ryan Mackey to admit that his comments on the factor of safety and the amount of tilt in WTC 1 before it descended were in error during our debate last September.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that his comments, that the factor of safety of the central core columns in the twin towers were much less than 3.00 to 1 and that WTC 1 upper section tilted 8 degrees before the north face hinge let go, were both incorrect.

One would assume that Ryan would be professional and admit these errors, which he apparently made due to his trust in the NIST report.

That's rich, coming from you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that the basis for saying there was no deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper section is that there was no measureable velocity loss during the time it would take the velocity to recover to what it was pre-impact, over a significant period where 4 data points were taken.

You are introducing more noise here by taking a second derivative and then trying to extrapolate that a 2g deceleration could be missed. The problem for your point is that it isn't necessary to take a second derivative and it is less precise than the first derivative, which shows very clearly that there was no velocity loss.

Two points here. First, acceleration is the second derivative, so if you don't look at the second derivative you're not measuring acceleration. Second, even the velocity data clearly shows a drop in velocity at about 1.7 seconds, as anyone can see by scrolling up the thread; it's only because you're smoothing your data that you can't see it.

Keep trying Dave. I was wondering today if you have a job other than posting on this forum. Do you?

Argumentum ad hominem is pretty much in keeping with your usual quality of debate.

Dave

 

[jammonius]

gravity makes things go down.
what do you think made the WTC go down? magnetism?

radiation?

heat?

The above is a gross over simplification in the context of the unprecedented annihilation of 4 skyscrapers, don't you think? Perhaps your attempt to keep things simple served some other purpose?

For sake of proper context, by 5:20PM, two 110 story skyscrapers had been reduced to a single pile of about 2 story height on average, here and there a bit higher where previously, within a few feet of one another had stood an aggregate total of 220 storys of skyscraper.

Add to that what had been a 22 story hotel WTC3 which disappeared and disappeared utterly, leaving barely a trace and leaving no discernible debris pile at all.

Then, across Vesey street a remnant pile of about 5 story height, easily exceeding the height of the remains of the Twin Towers was a neat pile of what had been a 47 story skyscraper.

Gravity had next to nothing to do with that unprecedented annihilation.

No one was burned by the enveloping cloud of dust and there was no remnant fire, therefore heat of a conventional nature can be ruled out..

No one came down with radiation sickness, however, that, in and of itself, does not rule out all types of radiation. Nonetheless, radiation associated with nuclear weaponry may be ruled out.

While magnetism easily overwhelmes the comparatively puny force of gravity, the observable evidence did not appear to be consistent with ordinary magnetism.

Among the many first responders from whom we have reliable, first-hand accounts as to what forces were involved there is this from EMT Rene Davila:

File No. 9110075
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
LIEUTENANT RENE DAVILA
Interview Date: October 12, 2001
[Emphasis added.]
A. ...He goes (inaudible). I said, "Ramos?" He said, "What?" I said, "I left my wallet and my refund check in the *********** vehicle. I don't think Uncle Sam is going to give me another refund check."

Q. At this point was your vehicle lost?
A. Basically all we to do is go around the building, came around. But it took longer than usual because you're walking in like this ****.
Like you move and it's this soot like heavy dust.
While we're walking I realize that we only have two people. I see my vehicle. The seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I hold it like a trophy. Like people collect basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever the force was, it was so strong that it went inside of the bag.

So, clearly we are dealing with a force, but it obviously did things that gravity absolutely cannot do; it was inconsistent with magnetism, with radiation and with heat, as per the account quoted above from someone who was there and who experienced it.

It was DEW.

 

[TJM]

You mean the same Lt. Davila who saw flight 175 before it flew behind 2 WTC and crashed into it?

Oh, and if you're still having a problem finding 3 WTC, here you go.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WTC1.jpg

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Two points here. First, acceleration is the second derivative, so if you don't look at the second derivative you're not measuring acceleration. Second, even the velocity data clearly shows a drop in velocity at about 1.7 seconds, as anyone can see by scrolling up the thread; it's only because you're smoothing your data that you can't see it.




Dave

For readers who may not be familiar, the slope in the velocity curve is indicative of the acceleration and deceleration or rate of change of the velocity, with a positive slope being acceleration and negative slope being deceleration, so it is present in the velocity curve itself. There is never a negative slope in the velocity curve derived from the distance vs. time measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

Dave is incorrect here when he says there was a velocity drop at 1.7 seconds into the fall. The velocity never decreases at any time and there is only a drop in the rate at which velocity is being gained. They are not the same things.

To have an amplified load velocity must actually decrease. This never occurs in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, so there was no amplified load.

What is interesting here is that those who would argue against what I am saying do not address why the same measurement methods show a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss in all of the Verinage demolitions, but none in WTC 1.

The reason the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration and velocity loss is that they used the amplified loading gained with impact in a natural gravity collapse after the columns of a couple of stories in the middle of the building were removed with hydraulics to gain the required momentum. There is no evidence for the deceleration and velocity loss required for the amplified loading necessary for a naturally propagated collapse in WTC 1, so it appears much of the column strength was continually being removed for the nine stories the fall was measureable. I would think this was done for reliability, to ensure those buildings came down.

It is nothing more than blowing smoke to say the measurement technique doesn't have the resolution to see the deceleration and velocity loss in WTC 1, since it certainly does in all of the Verinage demolitions.

 

[leftysergeant]

No one was burned by the enveloping cloud of dust and there was no remnant fire, therefore heat of a conventional nature can be ruled out..

Bull flops. There was not enough oxygen in the dust clouds to sustain a fire in the paper that may have been ejected while burning. Dust makes a pretty good extinguishing agent. There was enoguh still-burning material buried in the rubble to rekindle later.

So, clearly we are dealing with a force, but it obviously did things that gravity absolutely cannot do; it was inconsistent with magnetism, with radiation and with heat, as per the account quoted above from someone who was there and who experienced it.

It was DEW.

No. It was wind. If the bag was open, dust would have gotten inside it. You must never have been caught in a serious sand storm.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There is never a negative slope in the velocity curve derived from the distance vs. time measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

Dave is incorrect here when he says there was a velocity drop at 1.7 seconds into the fall. The velocity never decreases at any time and there is only a drop in the rate at which velocity is being gained. They are not the same things.

It's hard to tell whether Tony is denying the reality of arithmetic or the reality of his own data.

In the table on page 7 of (what I presume to be the 7th revision of) his paper, the roof fall distances in feet at 1.500, 1.667, and 1.834 seconds are listed as:

1.500 25.52
1.667 32.56
1.834 38.72

The following equations are facts of arithmetic:

32.56 - 25.52 = 7.04
38.72 - 32.56 = 6.16

In other words, Tony's raw unsmoothed data show the roof travelling 7.04 feet between 1.5 and 1.67 seconds, but only 6.16 feet between 1.67 and 1.83 seconds. It is a fact of arithmetic that 7.04 > 6.16.

That means the velocity actually drops: the velocity during the 1.67-1.83 interval really is less than it was during the preceding 1.5-1.67 interval.

The table on page 8 of Tony's paper hides that drop because Tony and his distinguished co-author calculate the velocity using symmetric (balanced) differencing, which is a form of data smoothing.

Tony is free to argue that balanced differencing is an appropriate way to reduce the effects of measurement and quantization error in his data, but he cannot make that argument without admitting that his data contain measurement and quantization error. Once he admits that, however, the natural question to ask is whether those errors are large enough to mask a jolt of the size he has predicted. As Dave Rogers explained so well just a few posts above, the errors are indeed large enough to hide the jolt.

That is why no competent scientist would ever use Tony's data to argue for the absence of a jolt.

 

[fess]

So, clearly we are dealing with a force, but it obviously did things that gravity absolutely cannot do; it was inconsistent with magnetism, with radiation and with heat, as per the account quoted above from someone who was there and who experienced it.

It was DEW.

Would you mind, using your apparent vast wealth of knowledge about the subject, where this DEW weapon was launched from? A simple answer will suffice.

 

[AZCat]

To have an amplified load velocity must actually decrease.

It's nice to see you've finally understood at least part of what we have been pointing out to you (that a zero acceleration still creates load), even though it took an incredible amount of explaining from many different people for it to happen. Now, if you could just understand that the load amplification is also dependent on the impact footprint, you'd be even closer to a correct understanding!

 

[carlitos]

As someone who dropped out of the university calculus regimen somewhere before we got to diffy q, I want to thank Dave Rogers and W.D. Clinger and others for explaining this in terms (and charts) that I can understand. I do understand data smoothing, and the basic arithmetic in post 290 is crystal clear. I thought that I understood this before, with the derivatives, but I 100% understand it now, with simple subtraction. Thanks!

 

[fess]

File No. 9110075
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
LIEUTENANT RENE DAVILA
Interview Date: October 12, 2001
[Emphasis added.]
A. ...He goes (inaudible). I said, "Ramos?" He said, "What?" I said, "I left my wallet and my refund check in the *********** vehicle. I don't think Uncle Sam is going to give me another refund check."

Q. At this point was your vehicle lost?
A. Basically all we to do is go around the building, came around. But it took longer than usual because you're walking in like this ****.
Like you move and it's this soot like heavy dust.
While we're walking I realize that we only have two people. I see my vehicle. The seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I hold it like a trophy. Like people collect basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever the force was, it was so strong that it went inside of the bag.

I see that you like to post statements out of context. The actual interview of Lt. Davila is a 50 page document that blows most of your assumptions out of the water.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's nice to see you've finally understood at least part of what we have been pointing out to you (that a zero acceleration still creates load), even though it took an incredible amount of explaining from many different people for it to happen. Now, if you could just understand that the load amplification is also dependent on the impact footprint, you'd be even closer to a correct understanding!

I never said that zero acceleration does not apply a load, but that it is only a static load and that is far from sufficient to collapse a structure below designed to handle several times that load.

Why do you make these silly comments? Who do you think you are kidding?

 

[Profanz]

It's nice to see you've finally understood at least part of what we have been pointing out to you (that a zero acceleration still creates load), even though it took an incredible amount of explaining from many different people for it to happen. Now, if you could just understand that the load amplification is also dependent on the impact footprint, you'd be even closer to a correct understanding!

Yup. Same load it always was. Nothing magical. Nothing out of this world. Falling from a dead set position does not equate picking the top of the WTC up with the hand of God and dropping it. That's not what happened. In fact that wouldn't have even been enough to do what was witnessed anyway. It was just sitting there like it always had been. Even if one corner had failed, and then the rest of the corners failed because of that first failure, it wouldn't have been as uniform of a collapse that was witnessed. How instantaneous do some of you people think that kind of failure happens all the way around without incendiary assistance or explosives? Really?

 

[BasqueArch]

My bolding

For readers who may not be familiar, the slope in the velocity curve is indicative of the acceleration and deceleration or rate of change of the velocity, with a positive slope being acceleration and negative slope being deceleration, so it is present in the velocity curve itself. There is never a negative slope in the velocity curve derived from the distance vs. time measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 …..

Wrong -TS’ own data (W.D.Clinger’s velocity vs time chart) shows this negative slope therefore deceleration occurred (assuming TS data) therefore the Missing Jolt paper based on no deceleration is wrong.

Tony Szamboti
The reason the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration and velocity loss is that they used the amplified loading gained with impact in a natural gravity collapse after the columns of a couple of stories in the middle of the building were removed with hydraulics to gain the required momentum.

If there is a loss of velocity in the Verinage demolitions it is because unlike at the Towers, the falling loads of the block above are equally distributed onto the block below . And TS knows this.

The Verinage demolition technique removes the columns of a couple of stories to allow a drop of the upper section and to build momentum …..

I think one can say there was some pre-weakening in the Balzac-Vitry building since there were obviously three floors in the middle of the building which had been visibly modified. The demolition only pulled the columns of the upper two modified stories….

.

Wrong – Balzac-Vitry was not a column and beam structure. It was a precast concrete loadbearing wall structure.
.
Balzac -Vitry Tower
[qimg]http://www.cg94.fr/files/diaporama/11190/11199p.jpg[/qimg]


Tannen Towers
“Architectural precast concrete wall panels that act as loadbearing
elements in a building are both a structurally efficient and
economical means of transferring floor and roof loads through the
structure and into the foundation. …

The 32-story Tannen Towers condominium project in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, completed in 1987 uses portal frames at the base, and bearing walls
in the upper levels (see Fig. 36). The building is subdivided from top to bottom by a central corridor. A row of 37 ft (11.3 m) long bearing walls, which are typically 8 in. (203 mm) thick, runs along either side of the corridor.
The walls cantilever 11 ft (3.35 m) beyond the face of the base structure on
both sides of the building. To stabilize the structure, the design links pairs of
bearing walls across the corridor with steel ties back-to-back angles rein -
forced with a continuous plate.
The entire structure was built using precast, prestressed concrete hollow core slabs, balcony slabs, precast load bearing walls, stairs and landings.”

http://www.pci.org/view_file.cfm?file=PR-24.PDF


Another example of a concrete loadbearing wall structure
[qimg]http://www.cpci.ca/images/sectionpics/potm/22005/1.jpg[/qimg]

 

[AZCat]

I never said that zero acceleration does not apply a load, but that it is only a static load and that is far from sufficient to collapse a structure below designed to handle several times that load.

Why do you make these silly comments? Who do you think you are kidding?

Really, Tony? This has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, at democraticunderground, and even at Gregory Urich's forum. Don't think you can rewrite history, because there's plenty of evidence documenting your claims. The only thing silly was your contorted defense of those claims. I'm glad you've given at least one of them up, but don't pretend you never made it.

 

[Profanz]

Really, Tony? This has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, at democraticunderground, and even at Gregory Urich's forum. Don't think you can rewrite history, because there's plenty of evidence documenting your claims. The only thing silly was your contorted defense of those claims. I'm glad you've given at least one of them up, but don't pretend you never made it.

So is there difference or not between the two? What is your opinion? There is zero acceleration and then there is the other. What is your claim? Because if it is zero then you have zero as far as your beliefs go.

 

[AZCat]

So is there difference or not between the two? What is your opinion? There is zero acceleration and then there is the other. What is your claim? Because if it is zero then you have zero as far as your beliefs go.

The difference is between what Tony now claims he said, and what he really did.