Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[GlennB]

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

Can we take it, then, that he has amended or retracted his Missing Jolt "paper"?

 

[ozeco41]

...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....

I am probably a heretic for daring to suggest it but....

...the "tilt" was a consequence not a cause.

So the column ends were already bypassing due to failure which led to tilt....

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

...all over bar the shouting.


PS This easy technical stuff sure as hell beats feeding the trolls.

 

[Major_Tom]

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

Actually it is the NIST that does. That is your official explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC1 which G Urich and R Mackey illustrated.

Don't you recognize the NIST explanation? G Urich and R Mackey do.

After 10 years, that is your official explanation for the early movement of WTC1. When arguing against Tony, why not use your own official description of movement from the professionals at the NIST?

(Because it sucks?)

 

[femr2]

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.

What nonsense. Your post contains no quotes from Tony at all, simply something that YOU are saying Tony said.

I've tracked back through the thread to the last thing Tony actually said, and it contained...

the measurement of the tilt and drop vs. timing shows this should have occurred if it was natural.

...which does not match your assertion that he denies any tilt before impact.

So, again, please validate your assertion by quoting something that Tony actually said, rather than your own assertion about what you think he might have said.

Again, the quote above appears to contradict your assertion.

Oh, and by the way, it was Major Tom who brought up the 8 degrees figure, not me.

Major_Tom has (more than) repeatedly highlighted that the 8 degree figure is WRONG.

You are stating it as actual behaviour, and in the process contradicting your own assertion of vertical descent at 2 degrees of tilt.

This isn't rocket science you know.

Again, 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... ?

As I said, it's irrelevant to the point we were actually discussing. But I see you've chosen to continue obsessing about it.

No obsessing. Simply attempting to get you to stop using false values. You seem reluctant to do so. It is interesting to question why you would continue to do so after all the prior discussion on the very simple point. Could it be that you do not wish to appear to contradict ANYTHING NIST/MACKIE have said ?

If so, you already have in your earlier post, though you appear to have failed to understand why.

 

[femr2]

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.

More "eyewitness testimony" taken as gospel. I've checked all of the photographs taken by those very folk, in that very helicopter, at that time, and there's zero indication of any tilt at all.

I suggest they were mistaken. If you want to contest that opinion, I suggest you prove pre-initiation tilt via imagery. I can point you to the photographs they took at the time.

Whether it was 8 degrees

It was not.

I'm sure that if it was enough to be seen

It was not.

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.

Such would not occur even if absolutely zero tilt occurred.

When are you folk going to step outside of the virtual "block-head" (as MT puts it) environment ?

There's no way for clean flat "column ends" to contact each other at all.

Of course the fact that there was already damage seems to suggest a perfect column on column impact is unlikely

No. Perfect column on column impact is impossible, regardless of damage.

.....a small tilt then guarantees it.

Incorrect. It makes little difference.

Try visualising column ends of a buckled column meeting up in any scenario you please

 

[femr2]

Can we take it, then, that he has amended or retracted his Missing Jolt "paper"?

No. He refuses to take the extensive list of issues provided to him onboard.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Here we go again... oh brother...
Does this always have to happen when the Bazant topic comes up? I get what you' guys are saying already... the "8 degrees" is mentioned in the NIST as a maximal tilt measure that happens after the tower had already started to descend... But screw it I ain't trying again when it gets quibbled to death over the timing or the happening. I still think the entire nit picking on the single detail is stupid, as it's based on confusion over what is said in the report, rather than anything malevolent... AFAIK. The conclusions regarding the reality of the columns and whether or not they meet end to end or not I'm fine with already.

 

[femr2]

column ends were already bypassing due to failure which led to tilt

Very unlikely, unless columns "split" along bolt seams prior to tilt. Possible for a couple of columns following impact, but given the direction of tilt, not really applicable here.

In all other practical scenarios, depending upon what length of column buckles (either over 1 storey, 3, 6, or 9) then the minimum descent distance of an external face is a bit over 12ft before "column ends" could come into contact (assuming a normal buckle).

More probably there were 3 storey column buckles, meaning that column ends would have about 36ft between them...

 

[femr2]

Does this always have to happen when the Bazant topic comes up? I get what you' guys are saying already...

No. It must ensue when folk make false statements, such as...

Several measurements show that the top block of the North Tower rotated 8º before it began to descend
...
measurement of eight degrees rotation at some other instant prior to descent.

Descent began after about 1 degree of tilt.

Every time someone restates the false 8 degree nonsense, appropriate discussion will ensue.

Dave Rogers seems reluctant to let go of his false value. Ho hum. I don't mind correcting him every time he states it...

Much simpler if he simply stops restating the false value, and accepts the more accurate data provided many months ago though...

 

[Dave Rogers]

What nonsense. Your post contains no quotes from Tony at all, simply something that YOU are saying Tony said.

The quote is in the post you replied to; how incompetent do you have to be not to be able to see that? Look at post #1536 again, and try to learn how the forum works. Here's the quote again, in case you can't figure out how the scroll bar works.

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.

Which is the statement Tony made that I posted the picture in response to.

I measured a movement of 1±1 pixel, without making any attempt to trace sub-pixel movement; the lower bound for the movement between these photos is zero. The observation of a 2º tilt with zero movement within the measurement range does not contradict the claim by NIST of an 8º tilt before downward movement, although, as I said, it's irrelevant to this point.

Now, either you understand this, in which case there's nothing more to be said, or you're not capable of understanding it, in which case there's no point in saying anything else. Either way, I'm done with this pointless waste of time.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

When arguing against Tony, why not use your own official description of movement from the professionals at the NIST?

(Because it sucks?)

Because Tony will deny the validity of any statement that's inconvenient to him, and will reject any statement from NIST, solely because it comes from NIST. He finds it a little harder, though by no means impossible, to reject clear and unambiguous pictorial evidence.

I should also point out that I am in no way affiliated to NIST, nor is the precise figure of 8º rotation prior to descent of any significance to the question of whether collapse will propagate, or of whether a jolt will be observed.

And, having said that, I'm done with this waste of time too.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Such would not occur even if absolutely zero tilt occurred.

When are you folk going to step outside of the virtual "block-head" (as MT puts it) environment ?

There's no way for clean flat "column ends" to contact each other at all.

No. Perfect column on column impact is impossible, regardless of damage.

Try visualising column ends of a buckled column meeting up in any scenario you please

Everyone here - with the exception of Szamboti and possibly ergo - have agreed on this for a long time, so it's not entirely clear why you conclude your remarks with a rolleyes.

 

[femr2]

Look at post #1536 again

I was looking at your indicated post #1521...the post we were discussing.

Your later post contains a quote from Tony on a separate thread, October 2009.

The quote I provided above was from this thread, Feb 2010.

It appears Tony has subsequently changed his stance.

I don't play the "use old quote" game I'm afraid.

I suggest Tony "used to" say "no tilt before impact" in 2009, but changed his stance by 2010. We're in Autumn 2011 now...

I measured a movement of 1±1 pixel, without making any attempt to trace sub-pixel movement; the lower bound for the movement between these photos is zero. The observation of a 2º tilt with zero movement within the measurement range does not contradict the claim by NIST of an 8º tilt before downward movement

...ahem...

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.

You contradict yourself to attempt to retain the FALSE 8 degree nonsense. Bizarre.

Have you noticed how much the antenna has descended vertically in your own image comparison ?

Have you noticed how you yourself have highlighted "less than 2 pixels" of vertical descent ?

You are now adding a +/- 1 pixel modifier to try and shoe-horn the 8 degree nonsense into something which doesn't contradict your own measurements ?

Tragic.

Now, either you understand this, in which case there's nothing more to be said, or you're not capable of understanding it, in which case there's no point in saying anything else. Either way, I'm done with this pointless waste of time.

Dave

ROFL.

 

[GlennB]

What nonsense. Your post contains no quotes from Tony at all, simply something that YOU are saying Tony said.

I've tracked back through the thread to the last thing Tony actually said, and it contained...

...which does not match your assertion that he denies any tilt before impact.

So, again, please validate your assertion by quoting something that Tony actually said, rather than your own assertion about what you think he might have said.

Advanced search on "Tony Szamboti" + "tilt" quickly reveals some horrors that (at least) strongly suggest Szamboti clinging to his Bazantian-axial-collision-in-real-life delusion.. Here's just a few -

Bill, there was no tilt like you show immediately. The tilt did not actually start until after a two story vertical drop. It has been precisely measured now.

The reality is that even with a tilt the collapse was nearly simultaneous across the area of WTC 1. The columns were all interconnected and would not stray enough horizontally to avoid a steel on steel collision and for the load path to be somewhat unaltered down through the tower's columns.

The only way to explain the collapse continuation naturally is with a powerful impact occurring when the first two floors collided. There aren't many ways around it and that is why Dr. Bazant thought one had to have occurred.

 

[femr2]

8º rotation prior to descent

Dave, just stop it eh

The 8 degree figure is WRONG. Stop repeating it.

The upper section of WTC1 entered into vertical motion after about 1 degree of tilt.

Even your own simplistic visual comparison indicates that vertical descent was under way at around 2 degrees of tilt.

 

[Major_Tom]

Since the term "8 degrees" has nothing to do with the movement of WTC1, why do people keep repeating it like some mantra or hypnotic suggestion?


Where the heck did that term come from? And why the love affair with it?

 

[femr2]

Advanced search on "Tony Szamboti" + "tilt" quickly reveals some horrors that (at least) strongly suggest Szamboti clinging to his Bazantian-axial-collision-in-real-life delusion.. Here's just a few -

As highlighted above for Dave Rogers choice of historic quote, Tony's latest post on this thread (Feb 2010) indicates he has accepted an amount of tilt prior to impact.

You are using quotes even earlier than Dave did, circa April 2009.

I don't play underhand historic quote mining games.

There was, of course, a time when Tony was perfectly rigid on the assertion of zero rotation before impact, that being the premise of the calcs and inherited Bazantian scenario.

However, Tony's more recent discussions indicate that his stance changed.

In discussions I have personally had with Tony, he accepts a small amount of tilt before "impacts" begin.

Hasn't changed his "jolt" views unfortunately, but stating in Sep 2011 that Tony still asserts "zero tilt before collision" is false.

 

[DGM]

Since the term "8 degrees" has nothing to do with the movement of WTC1, why do people keep repeating it like some mantra or hypnotic suggestion?

Because we know how much it irks you (and femr2).

Personally I don't think the NIST quote has any impact on their conclusions.

 

[femr2]

Because we know how much it irks you (and femr2).

Are you suggesting that Dave Rogers is stating the known false "8 degree tilt before descent" nonsense, simply to "goad" a couple of members of the forum ?

You are suggesting deliberate falsehood "for fun" ?

 

[pgimeno]

8º rotation prior to descent

Dave, just stop it eh

The 8 degree figure is WRONG. Stop repeating it.

Why do you snip the (very important) context here?

I should also point out that I am in no way affiliated to NIST, nor is the precise figure of 8º rotation prior to descent of any significance to the question of whether collapse will propagate, or of whether a jolt will be observed.

(While on it, Dave raises an important point there, a point similar to one I have also repeatedly made: the precise figure of rotation prior to descent is of no significance to the question of whether collapse will propagate. May that be why NIST didn't include that figure in their conclusions principal findings?)