Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[NoahFence]

So 10 years on, you are not remotely familiar with the limits on visual evidence of south wall inward bowing which came from that helicopter?

He probably thinks, like the rest of the known universe, that it doesn't matter.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Have always rejected eyewitness statements that are not corroborated with specific visual confirmation for these kind of details.

why just "visual confirmation"? and always reject? are you saying you assume its wrong unless proven right? Isn't that bias?

 

[ergo]

You said this before, and recently. I challenged it, and you ignored that.

So, ergo, given collapse initiation what would be the 'best case scenario' for collapse arrest apart from the theoretical Bazant scenario?

This question is irrelevant until you declare which collapse progression model you support. Bazant's columnar one-way crush "limiting case" or ROOSD (aka FEMA pancakes)?

When you answer this, I'll answer your question.

 

[WildCat]

This question is irrelevant until you declare which collapse progression model you support. Bazant's columnar one-way crush "limiting case" or ROOSD (aka FEMA pancakes)?

Neither was meant to be an actual model of the actual collapse progression, as far as the purpose of them goes they are both valid.

When you answer this, I'll answer your question.

No you won't.

 

[GlennB]

This question is irrelevant until you declare which collapse progression model you support. Bazant's columnar one-way crush "limiting case" or ROOSD (aka FEMA pancakes)?

When you answer this, I'll answer your question.

You just scrambled logic so badly that your question is like asking me to turn it back into whole eggs.

It was your claim, so you support it. Otherwise you're just evading the issue. We were talking about Bazant at the time, nothing else.

 

[femr2]

could sync the time pretty much down to the second

This image...

...has a timestamp of 10:27:41

WTC descent began around 10:28.

Anyone got a second-accurate initiation time for WTC1 ? 10:28:23 is the only value I have with a fractional minute.

Assuming 10:28:23 is accurate, then I should be able to get pretty much second-perfect. Quick stab with a 14s descent time, plus 2 or 3s for the initial section of the core to fall sideways...

The image timestamps are ~1 minute early.

More than close enough to folks on a helicopter saying around 10:21.

 

[carlitos]

Cool. The record of their saying that it was tilting - what time-tracking system was keeping track of that, I wonder? Was it from the transcripts of the FDNY radio chatter? I looked in the "Progressive Tilt" thread and it was not particularly illuminating.

 

[carlitos]

Never mind.

From the NIST PPT:

10:21 am NYPD aviation unit first reports that the top of the tower might be
leaning, then confirms that it is buckling and leaning to the South.
NYPD aviation unit reports that the North tower is leaning to the
Southwest and appears to be buckling in the Southwest corner.
NYPD officer advises that all personnel close to the building pull back
three blocks in every direction.
• 10:28 am NYPD aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very
shortly.

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

Information that was critical to informed decisionmaking was not shared among agencies. FDNY chiefs in leadership roles that morning have told us that their decision making capability was hampered by a lack of information from NYPD aviation. At 9:51 A.M., a helicopter pilot cautioned that "large pieces" of the South Tower appeared to be about to fall and could pose a danger to those below. Immediately after the tower's collapse, a helicopter pilot radioed that news. This transmission was followed by communications at 10:08, 10:15, and 10:22 that called into question the condition of the North Tower. The FDNY chiefs would have benefited greatly had they been able to communicate with personnel in a helicopter.

 

[femr2]

From the NIST PPT

So, in summary, the images are confirmed to have been taken in very close proximity to the time of the witness statements of tilt, and yet detailed checking of the clear, focussed and high resolution photographs shows no indication of any tilt.

There are numerous visual cues (such as off-vertical soot streams, and IB) which could easily fool eyewitness observers (even those suggested to have high quality observational powers due to their role) into making erronious visual assessments in the heat of the moment.

I suggest that image-based analysis (the entire photoset is available) should be provided from anyone wishing to continue to assert WTC1 tilt around 10:21/10:22. I found no tilt.

 

[ergo]

Neither was meant to be an actual model of the actual collapse progression, as far as the purpose of them goes they are both valid.

Gee, I almost missed this, on account of you being on my Ignore list.

But really?? Neither of those models was meant to explain how the collapse progressed, demolishing both towers in under 15 seconds each - a fact which shocked not just structural engineers but the rest of the world as well? There's no official collapse progression model? Even though NIST endorses Bazant's one-way crushing model?

I guess that means bedunkers really don't know how global collapse ensued if the discussion has been left wide open like this....hm... you wouldn't guess it by the way they talk.

So anyway, what collapse progression model do you think best explains the global collapses of the Twin Towers?

 

[GlennB]

Neither was meant to be an actual model of the actual collapse progression, as far as the purpose of them goes they are both valid.

Gee, I almost missed this, on account of you being on my Ignore list.

Why do you bother putting people on ignore only to take them off ignore in order to read their posts?

 

[ozeco41]

...So anyway, what collapse progression model do you think best explains the global collapses of the Twin Towers?

....errr....Mine!

 

[carlitos]

So, in summary, the images are confirmed to have been taken in very close proximity to the time of the witness statements of tilt, and yet detailed checking of the clear, focussed and high resolution photographs shows no indication of any tilt.

There are numerous visual cues (such as off-vertical soot streams, and IB) which could easily fool eyewitness observers (even those suggested to have high quality observational powers due to their role) into making erronious visual assessments in the heat of the moment.

I suggest that image-based analysis (the entire photoset is available) should be provided from anyone wishing to continue to assert WTC1 tilt around 10:21/10:22. I found no tilt.

For sake of argument, let's say the above is true (I still haven't exhaustively gone through the photos to assure myself that perspective isn't a factor). Let's say there was no discernible tilt of the upper portion of the North Tower at 10:21.

The observers were still observing an apparently failing building, deforming in numerous ways. If they were wrong about tilt 7 minutes before collapse, they sure weren't wrong about "looks like it's about to go" at 10:28. Maybe there was some tilt in between. What does all of this prove, other than one observation in a chaotic situation may have been incorrect?

The far bigger story is that the police helicopter radio observations weren't patched into FDNY frequencies, which could have potentially saved a lot of lives by getting the lower floors of the Tower evacuated.

 

[ozeco41]

For sake of argument, let's say the above is true (I still haven't exhaustively gone through the photos to assure myself that perspective isn't a factor). Let's say there was no discernible tilt of the upper portion of the North Tower at 10:21.

The observers were still observing an apparently failing building, deforming in numerous ways. If they were wrong about tilt 7 minutes before collapse, they sure weren't wrong about "looks like it's about to go" at 10:28. Maybe there was some tilt in between. What does all of this prove, other than one observation in a chaotic situation may have been incorrect?

Within this thread the discussion of tilt is a derail which arose because Dave Rogers commented on it in explaining why Tony Sz was wrong on (at least one aspect of) "Missing Jolt". From there discussion of the side track took over from discussion of what had been the primary issue. Now where have I seen that happen before.

...The far bigger story is that the police helicopter radio observations weren't patched into FDNY frequencies, which could have potentially saved a lot of lives by getting the lower floors of the Tower evacuated.

Yes to the identification of the problem but not quite for the solution.

At risk of another diversion.

The issue of inter-agency communication routinely arises in debrief of major emergency events. The lay person/general media "solution" tends to want the different agencies to work on each others front line operational radio frequencies. Therein lies a recipe for even worse confusion. The better solution is to recognise that all such emergencies need an oversighting headquarters function - a single point of overall control comprising one "big boss" with minimum but necessary staff. That staff includes a "liaison officer" from each agency. That "LO" has direct communication with his/her agency's on site commander. The "Agency 1" information goes up "Agency 1's" command path to the headquarters where it is passed to "Agency 2" and goes down the Agency2 command structure translated into new orders - in this case probably orders to "bug out". The key issue is enabling the one "big boss" to maintain situational awareness without overloading him/her with detail.

 

[carlitos]

Fair point, and I apologize for the derail. I defer to experts on radio protocols, but in any case, I had forgotten that the radios really weren't working anyway that day. Also, remembering the physical location of the OEM, such a "big boss" radio office, were it co-located there, could only have helped for a few hours at best.

/derail

 

[femr2]

If they were wrong about tilt 7 minutes before collapse, they sure weren't wrong about "looks like it's about to go" at 10:28.

Given that prior to descent of WTC2 beforehand, "no-one" thought that was going to go, suggesting WTC1 was about to go doesn't necessarily imply any specific technical observation, more like pre-positioned thinking, especially given that, as I've said, there's no indication of the tilt they claim to have seen.

Maybe there was some tilt in between.

Motion of WTC1 became detectable during/immediately following the period of camera shake in the Sauret footage.

No motion was detectable before that point from the available video resources.

What does all of this prove, other than one observation in a chaotic situation may have been incorrect?

The discussion ensued following claim from 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.

As I've highlighted, there's somewhat of a problem with the above claim.

The far bigger story is that the police helicopter radio observations weren't patched into FDNY frequencies, which could have potentially saved a lot of lives by getting the lower floors of the Tower evacuated.

I disagree. Given that WTC2 had already descended, one would assume from that point onward getting the hell away from the base of WTC1 )and evacuate the lower floors) would be rather high on the priority list, regardless of communication from one helicopter crew.

Are you suggesting that folk stayed in the lower floors because they thought WTC1 was safe ?

Are you suggesting folk in the lower floors were not evacuating as rapidly as possible ?

Most of the more "snarky" self-proclaimed "debunkers" around here speak loudly of the obviousness of global collapse from the moment of aircraft impact, suggesting that anyone who thinks otherwise is a certifiable mentally ill retard.

Surely evacuation was already under way...

 

[newton3376]

Given that prior to descent of WTC2 beforehand, "no-one" thought that was going to go, suggesting WTC1 was about to go doesn't necessarily imply any specific technical observation, more like pre-positioned thinking, especially given that, as I've said, there's no indication of the tilt they claim to have seen.

Actually....there were some people that believed early on that the towers would collapse...not many but I remember reading a few.

In fact myself and a few other guys in my Engineering classes (Electrical) thought the towers would fall as we watched it on TV....we were wrong about why they would collapse though.

I disagree. Given that WTC2 had already descended, one would assume from that point onward getting the hell away from the base of WTC1 )and evacuate the lower floors) would be rather high on the priority list, regardless of communication from one helicopter crew.

Surely evacuation was already under way...

This is true....people did indeed evacuate WTC1 after WTC2 collapsed.....

 

[ozeco41]

Fair point, and I apologize for the derail....

I didn't mean to give the impression that you caused the multi page derail - sorry for that.

... I defer to experts on radio protocols, but in any case, I had forgotten that the radios really weren't working anyway that day. Also, remembering the physical location of the OEM, such a "big boss" radio office, were it co-located there, could only have helped for a few hours at best.

/derail

It is "CCC" protocols actually. [Control Command Coordination] I don't know the emergency management set-up which applied in New York on that day. The Aussie version - scaling up from "local" to "district' to "state" to "Federal" - would have had one agency in charge - Fire Service in this case - and the other agencies required to provide liaison. The US being at least as switched on as us Aussies would have had similar plans. But when the faeces hits the fan in such a big way.....you are well on your way to plan Foxtrot with original plan Alpha and fall back plan Bravo already lying in the dust. Adaptability under stress is a key requirement for successful emergency commanders at all levels.


Meanwhile back on our topic....

 

[carlitos]

I thought I remembered reading in the 9/11 Commission Report that, if they had known there were signs of imminent collapse of WTC1 (for instance, a tilted top section or top section "glowing red"), or even if they had gotten word of the South Tower collapse to firefighters sooner, they could have saved many lives that were lost by doing a more "urgent" evacuation of the North Tower. I could be wrong, and it's off topic here anyway.

 

[ozeco41]

Actually....there were some people that believed early on that the towers would collapse...not many but I remember reading a few...

I had a different introduction to WTC collapse. Saw it as a "plane hits" followed immediately by "tower collapses" on BBC TV in Wales whilst on a touring holiday. So presumed that collapse came immediately after plane strike.

I didn't realise till years later that there was an hour between those two real events.

So no basis for me to pretend or boast how clever I had been predicting (or not predicting) collapse.