Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
...I'm not sure how many more analogies would help, since the 'missing jolt' thread never got through. I guess the ignorance is willful, and tfk's suspicions regarding motive are right. After all Tony's intentionally bad engineering got him on TV, a few other appearances, etc. Wonder if ae911Truth pays him too?
I may be too forgiving or too hard to convince but I am still agnostic on his motivation or intention. As a manger of engineers I often had to deal with subordinate engineers who have the same sort of reasoning process difficulties. (Is that PC or diplomatic enough?)
On my bad days I reckon that Tony and C7 are just better than average at trolling - notice that discussions they are in go round in circles and don't progress. And "ensure the discussion doesn't progress" is the second objective of trolling after "irritate the hell out of the opposition".
And a hell of a lot of forum posting people cannot process analogies - from both "sides".
Posting here should suit you more than me. "Marketing" is about getting the message across. Us engineers are notorious poor communicators or marketers.
...Video of the tower collapses show rotation and stuff. How long skinny things could possibly perfectly line up with other long skinny things in a fall eludes me....
Since the top bit was already falling the ends of the top columns are already past the ends of their bottom sections. So it is already too late for them to line up.
... As ridiculous as it sounds, I would be more likely to believe in a perfect, symmetrical fall if there was a demolition. At least that way, multiple columns could be simultaneously removed. Given that the failure was chaotic, there is no chance.
Thanks. Maybe I should say "Bazant and Zhou's limiting case which seems to be the basis for Tony's 'jolt' claim when he says things like 'the columns of the lower and upper sections would contact each other within their cross section' " then.
That's part B&Z and part Tony's wishful thinking on "rigidity" of the two parts of tower.
BTW, and possibly a bit subtle, but what he is doing is thinking/pretending/relying on the physical context outside his subject area to remain geometrically fixed.
And that is generically the same flaw that I, tfk and a couple of others have identified in his Col79 Col44 Girder walk off claims of "impossibility". He wants to assume that everything else remains geometrically fixed around the bits he wants to think about.
I've already reduced my involvement. It is a couple of years since we saw any serious discussion in my interest areas of "How the Towers Collapsed" and "Was it CD?"
Cannot think of another Forum discussion topic that would suit my knowledge areas as well as WTC Twin Towers collapse has......so I agree "Time to find a new obsession."
Yes. That's part B&Z and part Tony's wishful thinking on "rigidity" of the two parts of tower.
BTW, and possibly a bit subtle, but what he is doing is thinking/pretending/relying on the physical context outside his subject area to remain geometrically fixed.
And that is generically the same flaw that I, tfk and a couple of others have identified in his Col79 Col44 Girder walk off claims of "impossibility". He wants to assume that everything else remains geometrically fixed around the bits he wants to think about.
I've already reduced my involvement. It is a couple of years since we saw any serious discussion in my interest areas of "How the Towers Collapsed" and "Was it CD?"
Cannot think of another Forum discussion topic that would suit my knowledge areas as well as WTC Twin Towers collapse has......so I agree "Time to find a new obsession."
It would be interesting to hear those who think no jolt should have been expected in the North Tower explain why the Balzac-Vitry building, and all other Verinage demolitions which have been measured, show a definitive deceleration of the upper section at impact.
The Verinage demolitions are essentially what the current official story claims occurred to the towers in the sense that they were destroyed without explosives. The only difference being the Verinage demolitions are admitted to have had their initiating stories removed intentionally by non-explosive means.
If you look you will notice that the building actually moves to the side some when the hydraulic rams push the vertical supports down, so there isn't full column on column contact, yet there is still a jolt.
In the case of the North Tower there has been significant analysis of the geometry of the initial fall and it shows no greater than 1 degree of tilt for the first two stories at least and no side shift. There is almost no offset of the columns in the North Tower, yet no jolt is observed at any time impacts would be expected to have occurred.
What evidence is there of failures occurring a dozen floors below the east penthouse? In the videos I only see light through windows one floor below the roofline of the main building.
The following is taken from The National Institute of Standards and Technology's youtube channel.
WTC7, just prior to the start of the 16 second collapse sequence. NIST is one of the few youtube vids that show the early part of the collapse sequence. East Mechanical Penhouse is marked.
Roofline of the EMP has buckled, the collapse is now underway, and probably has been for a few seconds prior to this. Some damage (circled in blue) has appeared on a window pane several floors directly underneath the collapsing penthouse.
Failure of the EMP continues, the majority of the structure remains on top of the building at this point, however the damage several floors below has gotten worse. three windows appear to be broken. Separated from eachother by intact windows. We know that this is not due to a blast event, because an explosive shockwave powerful enough to rend structural steel would have taken out every window on that floor, possibly others above and below. Explosive shockwaves don't pick and choose what they destroy in this manner.
The EMP is almost completely gone by this point. The damage several floors down is worse again. Having eliminated blast events as the cause, and since it started simultaneously with the beginning of the EMPs collapse, a more likely explanation is weakening and failure of nearby structural supports, twisting and distortion of the buildings frame has affected the windows closest to the initial failure. It is obviously this failure deep inside the main body of WTC7 which caused the collapse of the East Mechanical Penthouse and is directly related to the collapse of the building as whole.
Tony Szamboti will be unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of these observations that fits a blast scenario (Mr. Randi, I'll take my million in Canadian funds).
... the Balzac-Vitry building, and all other Verinage demolitions which have been measured, show a definitive deceleration of the upper section at impact....
Whilst I am tempted to say "So what?" the interesting fact is that for buildings other than WTC you are prepared to look at the actual collapse and use features of the actual collapse mechanism. Why not look at the actual mechanism for WTC1 and WTC2???
...The Verinage demolitions are essentially what the current official story claims occurred to the towers in the sense that they were destroyed without explosives. The only difference being the Verinage demolitions are admitted to have had their initiating stories removed intentionally by non-explosive means...
Confused twaddle Tony. Utter nonsense limiting your definition of Verinage to the single factor of "no explosives". And equally nonsense using that false premise to redefine the so-called "official story". And another limit to one factor in your false claim "The only difference..." No it isn't and there are several differences.
The only reason I would watch anything of Chandlers rubbish these days is if an honest truth seeker wants me to advise as to what is wrong with the video. That said back in 2008 I got a lot of mileage out of an earlier Chandler video which actually proved several factors against the nonsense Chandler was claiming and which he presumably had not recognised. So I would tell people to initially turn off the sound and read my commentary. Then re-view the video listening to Chandlers silly claims.
If you look you will notice that the building actually moves to the side some when the hydraulic rams push the vertical supports down, so there isn't full column on column contact, yet there is still a jolt....
...In the case of the North Tower there has been significant analysis of the geometry of the initial fall and it shows no greater than 1 degree of tilt for the first two stories at least and no side shift. There is almost no offset of the columns in the North Tower, yet no jolt is observed at any time impacts would be expected to have occurred.
"...almost no offset..." THEREFORE ??
"...no {BIG} jolt is observed..." - if you work on the machanism which actually happend at WTC 1 (and 2) why expect a big jolt???
PLUS your same false assumption that the top and bottom bits of tower were rigid enough to maintain geometry to the dimensions of a single coluimn. You still have to be kidding.
So the lesson I learn about your reasoning from this post:
you can use "what really happend" mechanisms for buildings other than WTC when it suits you. But you still decline to work with what really happend at WTC1 WTC2.
Mmm... not a new problem but still blocking your way forward in understanding.
If you look you will notice that the building actually moves to the side some when the hydraulic rams push the vertical supports down, so there isn't full column on column contact, yet there is still a jolt.
And we all know why. And none of the reasons apply to WTC1+2, where the buildings fell because the steel column ends had separated and bypassed each other, or were just about to. By definition. Meaning the next thing they would hit would be a lightweight rc floor, or maybe a beam, or elements of an elevator shaft or whatever.
So, what's your point?
p.s. While you're here, any progress on that diagram showing how axial column-end impacts could occur?
I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this.
The claim that an explosive couldn't have been used because it would have taken out all of the other windows on the floor is not a very good argument, as by their very nature the shaped charges used to remove columns produce a very focused and directional shockwave. Column 79 was about 45 feet away from the north face of the building and those windows were about 10 to 12 feet apart. So the initially directional and focused shockwave would have expanded conically to about 30 to 40 feet wide after traveling 45 feet and produced four blown out windows.
And we all know why. And none of the reasons apply to WTC1+2, where the buildings fell because the steel column ends had separated and bypassed each other, or were just about to. By definition. Meaning the next thing they would hit would be a lightweight rc floor, or maybe a beam, or elements of an elevator shaft or whatever.
So, what's your point?
p.s. While you're here, any progress on that diagram showing how axial column-end impacts could occur?
Are you saying you believe the columns in the North Tower separated in the plan view before first impact, even though there is little to no tilt or side shift of the structure in the first couple stories of the collapse?
And we all know why. And none of the reasons apply to WTC1+2, where the buildings fell because the steel column ends had separated and bypassed each other, or were just about to. By definition. Meaning the next thing they would hit would be a lightweight rc floor, or maybe a beam, or elements of an elevator shaft or whatever.
So, what's your point?
p.s. While you're here, any progress on that diagram showing how axial column-end impacts could occur?
Are you saying you believe the columns in the North Tower separated in the plan view before first impact, even though there is little to no tilt or side shift of the structure in the first couple stories of the collapse?
I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this.
No, it would be asymmetric structure above we are talking about.
The east penthouse had heavy equipment in it and it was asymmetrically located in the northeast corner of the building on the roof. It could have caused a topple. Bringing it down inside the building first, before bringing down the rest of the building, would prevent that possibility. Nothing surreal about that. It would have been the smart thing to do.
You really need to explain, in some level of detail, what you think the mechanism would be that could cause the columns of the upper and lower sections to be out of alignment in the plan view before the first impact.
Buckling of the columns in the initiating story and a symmetric initial collapse as observed in the North Tower won't do that.
...
The claim that an explosive couldn't have been used because it would have taken out all of the other windows on the floor is not a very good argument,
Note how thin that plate is, compared to a WTC7 column. Note the size of the charge, how it has to be positioned in a very specific fashion which would be highly visible. Also note the size of the explosion.
Plus there's no evidence the windows are blown out by a shockwave, instead of, oh, the buckling of their frames as the floor collapsed, and some of the windows in question aren't next to each other, and one is on another floor entirely.
Column 79 was about 45 feet away from the north face of the building and those windows were about 10 to 12 feet apart. So the initially directional and focused shockwave would have expanded conically to about 30 to 40 feet wide after traveling 45 feet and produced four blown out windows. ...
What floor or floors did Column 79 failed on first? How does the shaped charge break only a single window on one floor, and several non-contiguous windows at irregular intervals on another? From what source do you make these claims about the nature of shaped charges?
[]X[]X[]X[][]X[]
You are unable to provide a decent explanation for this phenomenon that first a blast scenario.
Well, these's also the lack of explosive audio or flashes of light.
Note how thin that plate is, compared to a WTC7 column. Note the size of the charge, how it has to be positioned in a very specific fashion which would be highly visible. Also note the size of the explosion.
Plus there's no evidence the windows are blown out by a shockwave, instead of, oh, the buckling of their frames as the floor collapsed, and some of the windows in question aren't next to each other, and one is on another floor entirely.
You just made all of that up.
What floor or floors did Column 79 failed on first? How does the shaped charge break only a single window on one floor, and several non-contiguous windows at irregular intervals on another?
[]X[]X[]X[][]X[]
You are unable to provide a decent explanation for this phenomenon that first a blast scenario.
A shaped charge blast at column 79 could have caused precisely the damage we observe of four adjacent broken windows on the north face. The windows are supported by the perimeter frame and the perimeter columns on the north face weren't buckled or damaged, so that is not even a plausible explanation. A scattered window or two being broken out up a little higher could have been caused by the debris falling inside after the column was severed on the floor with the four adjacent broken windows. The flash would not be likely to be seen as it is well inside the building and up at a high level. With the blast pressure emanating towards the north face it is likely that the charge was placed on the south side of column 79 and the column itself would hide the flash also.
An incendiary loaded shaped charge would have produced much less noise. The explosive only needs to be enough to drive the molten iron through the cut. This is a reason tailorable nano-thermite could have been used.
Has Tony done the math to calculate what would be needed to cause the tower to "topple," and thus the reason that "they" had to "bring it down inside the building first?"
No, it would be asymmetric structure above we are talking about.
The east penthouse had heavy equipment in it and it was asymmetrically located in the northeast corner of the building on the roof. It could have caused a topple. Bringing it down inside the building first, before bringing down the rest of the building, would prevent that possibility. Nothing surreal about that. It would have been the smart thing to do.
Has Tony done the math to calculate what would be needed to cause the tower to "topple," and thus the reason that "they" had to "bring it down inside the building first?"
The NIST report states that the east penthouse was a shelter for heavy equipment. They don't say how heavy.
What can be said is that it was a heavy eccentric load and would cause a propensity for a topple once the columns below let go. Additionally, it would have to initially cause an out of plumbness when the columns below let go and that would become a sort of p-delta effect causing more moment arm and increasing the propensity for a rotation about the center of gravity of the falling mass or what is colloquially called a topple.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
