Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Dave Rogers]

But how did your measurements end up contradicting the G Urich, R Mackey and the NIST?

As Charles Babbage put it, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Let me try and explain it at a simple enough level for Major Tom to comprehend. Several measurements show that the top block of the North Tower rotated 8º before it began to descend (a very vague statement, since its CoG must have descended for any rotation to occur, but we'll let that pass). Now, since it's impossible for the top block to have rotated from 0º to 8º without passing through all the angles in between, there must at some point have been an instant at which it had rotated only 2º. Are we clear on that so far, or is Major Tom suggesting that the angle of the top block changed abruptly and discontinuously from 0º to 8º without rotating through all the intervening angles?

OK, now let's remember what Tony Szamboti was claiming. He was claiming that the top block could not have rotated at all before the first impact (assuming that any such event as "the first impact" can even be defined). My aim was not to determine the exact angle that the top block rotated, but to demonstrate that Tony was wrong in that claim.

So, I found a clear pair of pictures, from video screen captures, and was able to measure the following features from them: in both, the height of fixed features was the same, indicating a constant scale; the vertical separation from the nearest fixed object (another building) to the topmost corner of the top block differed by less than two pixels, which from the scale of the building corresponded to half the height of a single storey; and a line drawn through the corner of the top part of the structure was vertical in one, and inclined at 2º in the other.

From these pictures I was able to determine, and illustrate beyond possible doubt (which was my aim all along), that the top block rotated through at least 2º before it had fallen through a distance equivalent to the height of one storey. Quoting other authorities is all very well, but Tony will happily reject any sources he doesn't agree with; posting pictures is a bit more difficult to refute without resorting to outright denial of visible reality.

I hope that's clear enough even for Major Tom, and that I don't have to explain that a measurement of at least two degrees rotation at some instant prior to descent does not contradict a measurement of eight degrees rotation at some other instant prior to descent. I doubt whether a five-year-old would have too much trouble grasping this point.

Dave

 

[TjW]

Follow me through on this: If the tilt started at 0 degrees, and eventually became 8 degrees, at some point it would pass through 2 degrees. This does not contradict measurements made at other times.

It does contradict the idea that it couldn't have rotated as much as one-half degree.

AIUI, Tony did not accept NIST measurements or conclusions. If he had, this would be a much shorter thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Follow me through on this: If the tilt started at 0 degrees, and eventually became 8 degrees, at some point it would pass through 2 degrees. This does not contradict measurements made at other times.

It does contradict the idea that it couldn't have rotated as much as one-half degree.

Got it exactly. Thanks, I thought it might be me that was being stupid.

Dave

 

[Major_Tom]

Got it exactly. Thanks, I thought it might be me that was being stupid.

Dave

Your thought seems to be on the mark. Thanks for the explanation for future quotes. I like to get your thoughts in writing. Priceless information.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your thought seems to be on the mark. Thanks for the explanation for future quotes. I like to get your thoughts in writing. Priceless information.

No problem. I'm sure it was extremely stupid of me to think it was obvious that 8 > 2.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

deleted.

 

[ergo]

It is actually even more basic than the geometric issues of rotation causing misalignment.

Recall that the instant of time we are discussing is as the top block starts to fall.

At that moment all the columns not previously severed by aircraft contact have either failed (most of them) OR are in the process of failing (relatively few). That failure and the fact that the top block is falling means that all the top block column ends are already bypassing their lower tower other part (or for the few still failing are in process of folding/buckling/bending to bypass).

It is interesting how many people miss that simple fact.

Probably because it's not fact. It's conjecture necessitated by the refusal to consider other mechanisms.

NIST estimates only 15% of the columns to be severed after plane impact. You are handwaving away 85% of the remaining column structure, simply because NIST needs you to. That's your engineering talking?

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes, even after I posted a picture that showed about 2º of rotation of the top block of WTC1 before the top corner had dropped through a full storey. But who am I going to believe, Tony or my own lying eyes?

Dave

Dave, this was what you said. Which top corner are you referring to? Please specify NW, NE, SW or SE and we can check together whether it was really you being stupid, as you suggested.

 

[carlitos]

For your convenience:

No, it doesn't.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644ac9bc9ba5dd1.jpg[/qimg]

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, this was what you said. Which top corner are you referring to? Please specify NW, NE, SW or SE and we can check together whether it was really you being stupid, as you suggested.

Here's the picture. Figure it out for yourself.



The highest visible point has dropped by less than 2 pixels. The corner has tilted by two degrees at this point. This is visible proof that the top block rotated by more than half a degree before a part of it had fallen through a distance equal to the height of one storey, and that therefore no jolt greater than 1G would be expected.

I await with breathless anticipation your next pointless and irrelevant question.

Dave

ETA: Yep, carlitos, that's the one.

 

[Major_Tom]

Here's the picture. Figure it out for yourself.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644ac9bc9ba5dd1.jpg[/qimg]

The highest visible point has dropped by less than 2 pixels. The corner has tilted by two degrees at this point. This is visible proof that the top block rotated by more than half a degree before a part of it had fallen through a distance equal to the height of one storey, and that therefore no jolt greater than 1G would be expected.

I await with breathless anticipation your next pointless and irrelevant question.

Dave

ETA: Yep, carlitos, that's the one.

You seem to be clueless that you have just contradicted the NIST understanding of the initiation movement. Thanks for the image.

TFK, do you remember your own measurements? Reactor Drone, can you see how easily Dave did that? Do you see how easily Dave can spot a correct approximate angle?

I don't disagree with your estimate, Dave.
................

What about those grey 88th fl ejections from the south from about the same time? It seems to show damage lower in the building, which shows early damage to be distributed far away from the 98th fl. This also shows something Tony didn't consider (or the NIST).

 

[femr2]

Let me try and explain it at a simple enough level for Major Tom to comprehend.

You'd best get it right with that kind of opener...

Several measurements show that the top block of the North Tower rotated 8º before it began to descend

Oh dear.

Incorrect. The "top block" of WTC 1 rotated about 1 degree before it began to descend.

You have participated in ENTIRE THREADS on this subject, and are seemingly STILL stuck in NIST/MACKIE land

Why have the extensive discussions about the rotation-before-descent-angle not sunk in ?

(a very vague statement, since its CoG must have descended for any rotation to occur, but we'll let that pass)

No need to let that pass, it's correct. HOWEVER, as has been discussed countless times the 8 degree value is plain WRONG. All four corners (and the rest of the "upper section") enter into vertical descent after about 1 degree of rotation.

Would you like me to remind you of the various methods previously provided to easily validate such, in more detail than your chosen route (which is better than NIST, but pretty inaccurate) ?

My aim was not to determine the exact angle that the top block rotated

Yet you have, yet again, stated a proven false value, again. "8 degrees rotation before descent" is the very LAST thing you should be asserting at this stage.

From these pictures I was able to determine, and illustrate beyond possible doubt (which was my aim all along), that the top block rotated through at least 2º before it had fallen through a distance equivalent to the height of one storey.

Does "it" involve all four upper corners ? I can provide you rather more accurate values if you like. Your chosen imagery does not provide enough resolution to state the values you have with confidence imo.

posting pictures is a bit more difficult to refute without resorting to outright denial of visible reality.

Absolutely, if handled correctly. Something I have been criticised for, on many occasions. Strange, isn't it ?

I hope that's clear enough even for Major Tom, and that I don't have to explain that a measurement of at least two degrees rotation at some instant prior to descent does not contradict a measurement of eight degrees rotation at some other instant prior to descent. I doubt whether a five-year-old would have too much trouble grasping this point.

Ew. Seems you still have "8 degrees" burned-into your mind by someone-or-other. Suggest you fix it.

Especially when including the "five-year-old" jibes more expected from the likes of tfk. Not clever.

Dave

femr2

ETA - Dave, if you have measured vertical descent of the upper block at a rotation of approx. 2 degrees, then how exactly do you suggest that vertical descent does not begin until 8 degrees rotation... ? ...

 

[ergo]

You have participated in ENTIRE THREADS on this subject, and are seemingly STILL stuck in NIST/MACKIE land

Hmm, now would that be Ryan or Bob? Bob Mackie is an expert in his field, as well. Perhaps we should consult him?

 

[ozeco41]

For the record, and before we drift totally away from the point that started this recent round:

Dave I think your context setting was quite clear.

...OK, now let's remember what Tony Szamboti was claiming. He was claiming that the top block could not have rotated at all before the first impact (assuming that any such event as "the first impact" can even be defined). My aim was not to determine the exact angle that the top block rotated, but to demonstrate that Tony was wrong in that claim....

(My emphasis)
Does anyone suggest that Dave did not meet his objective of "...demonstrate that Tony was wrong in that claim..."

 

[femr2]

For the record, and before we drift totally away from the point that started this recent round:

Assuming Dave Rogers will finally wipe the FALSE "8 degree rotation before descent" rubbish from his head, stop repeating it, and agree it's wrong...

Does anyone suggest that Dave did not meet his objective of "...demonstrate that Tony was wrong in that claim..."

The Missing Jolt assumes zero rotation iirc, but Tony has conceded the small amounts (not the 8 degree nonsense) of rotation prior to vertical descent did occur in subsequent discussions. He doesn't think it would make "enough" difference to his expected "jolt". As I've said to Tony (and others) repeatedly, I don't expect the "jolt", and have provided much data and insight into why I don't expect it.

So whilst I'm not recently in the habit of defending Tony, I don't think Dave has validated his initial assertion (was claiming that the top block could not have rotated at all).

If Dave cites Tony's claim (that the top block could not have rotated at all), then, sure.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Assuming Dave Rogers will finally wipe the FALSE "8 degree rotation before descent" rubbish from his head, stop repeating it, and agree it's wrong...

Frankly, I don't much care. Given that the rotation was clearly enough to preclude any actual deceleration at the moment of the mythical first impact, for this purpose it's irrelevant.

So whilst I'm not recently in the habit of defending Tony, I don't think Dave has validated his initial assertion (was claiming that the top block could not have rotated at all).

If Dave cites Tony's claim (that the top block could not have rotated at all), then, sure.

I do not deny that the upper section of the building tilted. The argument is about when it tilted. The video evidence shows the tilt occurred after the upper block had vertically descended several stories.

I said that Tony had claimed that "the top block could not have rotated at all before the first impact (assuming that any such event as "the first impact" can even be defined)" (my words from post #1521, scroll up a bit and you'll see them). As you can see, Tony claimed, in effect, exactly that.

Please feel free to quibble about whether the 8 degree number is correct or not, but don't expect me to take any interest.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

...assuming that any such event as "the first impact" can even be defined...

And there is a can of worms down that track also.

 

[femr2]

Frankly, I don't much care.

You have been told (many times), and shown (many times) data and imagery proving and confirming that the "8 degree rotation before descent" assertion is false, yet you "care" enough to continue to repeat it.

Why still repeat the false value ?

Given that the rotation was clearly enough to preclude any actual deceleration at the moment of the mythical first impact, for this purpose it's irrelevant.

Rotation is pretty irrelevant to your assertion. Only if you treat "the upper block" as some kind of virtual rigid structure, and ignore the actual initiation mechanism, would you say such uninformed silliness.

I said that Tony had claimed that "the top block could not have rotated at all before the first impact

Where did Tony say that ?

I've had numerous discussions with him within which he accepts a small amount of rotation for "the first impact".

(assuming that any such event as "the first impact" can even be defined)"

I'm sure that it can, but it is not "a storey" vs "a storey".

(my words from post #1521, scroll up a bit and you'll see them). As you can see, Tony claimed, in effect, exactly that.

I only see you saying such. Nothing from Tony.

Please feel free to quibble about whether the 8 degree number is correct or not

It is not a quibble, and the figure is not correct.

That you choose to be ignorant and blind to the previously highlighted information which I am sure you have seen is rather interesting.

It seems you choose to repeat falsehoods

Shocking

but don't expect me to take any interest.

I assume you will stop asserting it as true, until you have verified it.

To do otherwise would not be wise.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I only see you saying such. Nothing from Tony.

Read the quote. Then look up the words "after" and "vertically" and find out what they mean. And if you're feeling like questioning my motives, then maybe I'll question yours for denying the existence of part of the post you've just responded to.

Oh, and by the way, it was Major Tom who brought up the 8 degrees figure, not me. As I said, it's irrelevant to the point we were actually discussing. But I see you've chosen to continue obsessing about it.

Dave

 

[newton3376]

Whatever the initial "tilt" was of WTC1.....it was enough to be noticed from the NYPD helicopter and reported back at 10:20 am and 10:21 am.

Whether it was 8 degrees.....2 degrees.....or 1 degree I'm sure that if it was enough to be seen then it was enough to guarantee that the damaged section(s) of the upper and lower block would NOT experience a perfect axial "column on column" collision.

Of course the fact that there was already damage seems to suggest a perfect column on column impact is unlikely.....a small tilt then guarantees it.

And after that....kinetic energy takes over and we know the rest.