Care to Comment
- Thread starter rsalinger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The west side of the west penthouse actually fell when the rest of the building exterior fell. The east side of it couldn't have fallen more than about twenty feet when the entire exterior came down. So much for your "the exterior was left unsupported" point, as the collapse of the exterior started down near the bottom of the building.
The deformation of the exterior due to the interior collapsing should have been happening all over the building, like it does in the NIST model, if the interior had actually collapsed east to west and somewhat completely before the exterior came down. It doesn't because it didn't happen that way.
The tilt of WTC 1 to the south did not occur until it had collapsed about 25 stories. The kink was a result of a slight pull towards center with most of the interior collapsing just tenths of a second before the exterior.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
No. It fell significantly earlier
Why? Your guess, or do you have evidence and reason for this?
Wrong. Look at
This shows the beginning of the collapse several times from several cameras.
At 1:41/1:42, you see that at the very beginning of the collapse, the left side in that shot goes down a little faster than the right, resulting in a tilt pretty much immediately, discernable ebven in that low resolution after maybe 5-7 stories.
Tilt increases after that, for sure. But that is of little interest.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
No, you had it right the first time. it fell a split second before. That's proof positive that those columns buckled down below.
Now explain to us why a split second isn't enough time for the load transfers to take place, and commence the ext falling.
Ok.
You still haven't supported your position. Stating that the east side of the west penthouse couldn't have fallen more than 20' in no way refuted the notion that those int columns didn't buckle down lower. Nothing at all.
And no, it in no way refutes the notion that the ext columns were unsupported down below. When we realize that the core columns were in the process of buckling down below, anyone rational realizes that those columns, since they're now in the process of folding up, are no longer providing the as designed lateral support for the ext columns.
To boil it down, your whole premise depends on denial that the visual evidence given by the penthouses is meaningless.
Even worse, you're trying to suggest that the west penthouse collapse starts from the top, with zero evidence to back this.
The rational here realize that this belief of yours in theory may be true. But we also realize that you have zero data to support that it SHOULD have happened.
Indeed, what the NIST model shows is not a complete collapse to the ground of the west core columns, but only the beginnings of their buckling. Therefore, there is no reason for you to state that there should have been deformations all over the building when the floors may still have been somewhat intact and providing some bracing against these deformations in the part we see - the upper part.
On the east side, there is zero doubt that the ext columns would be lesser braced, and so we see some ext deflection - the kink.
Liar.
So?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
On 8 June:
On 5 July, Tony Szamboti made that new data available to DGM, who posted it in "The physics toolkit" thread. In that thread, I wrote:
Five minutes later, in that same thread, Tony wrote:
So when Tony wrote "we" on 8 June, he meant David Chandler. Chandler's data had already been published in February:
David Chandler. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics. Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 28, February 2010. http://journalof911studies.com/
On 5 July, Tony Szamboti made that new data available to DGM, who posted it in "The physics toolkit" thread. In that thread, I wrote:
Five minutes later, in that same thread, Tony wrote:
So when Tony wrote "we" on 8 June, he meant David Chandler. Chandler's data had already been published in February:
David Chandler. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics. Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 28, February 2010. http://journalof911studies.com/
Telltale Tom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 384
So Tony, why do you think that only 2 professional structural engineers in NY State, out of several thousand support your theories and have signed the ae911truth petition. Is it because
a) they don't know?
b) they don't care?
c) they are not smart enough to understand your theory?
d) they are too frightened? ( in case whatever has happened to you happens to them... what has happened to you?)
e) all of the above?
f) they disagree?
NIST method to measure WTC7 fall / implication
NIST used the upper edge of the windows of the 29th floor.
According to NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2 12.5.3. NIST used the "camera 3" from NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol1 5.7.1.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4614/image00020.png
I have no idea how NIST managed to defined the roofline correctly because the roof line disappears in the middle of the north face due to a lack of contrast. At the same time the upper edge of the fl29 windows is approx. aligned with the white roof in the foreground.
Even if NIST was able to track the roofline correctly they still have to deal with another problem!!! This motion in the middle of the north face ...
... looks like and will be measured as "downward motion". That's false or a deliberate falsification. NIST should be aware that (from any usable perspective) the roofline stayed vertically straight while falling.
Hence, that motion seen from street level West St is the bowing of the north face towards south while the NE corner starts leaning towards north. In other words, the entire hollowed east half of the building apparently twisted like jackstraws.
The entire motion could be (imo with a very high probability) the result of the falling core acting on the perimeter walls via the floor slaps. The perimeter would have to escape the stress and probably opened the gash much wider while twisting the column tops around the hole.
However, the NIST way to measure the downwards motion without eliminating the perspective error due to south bowing is false.
So the best (and maybe the only) way to measure the fall of the middle of the north wall is to measure the outermost windows of the 47th floor and to calculate a straight line between the windows (red).
That line crosses the vertical line measured by NIST and can be calculated as well. The motion of the intercept point can be calibrated by the elevations used by NIST (roof and 29th floor).
The following image shows the difference. The bright blue curve is the apparent downwards motion without correction of the perspective failure (upper edge of the louver at 47) and the yellow curve shows the corrected motion (line between the upper edge of the windows at 47).
The calibrated measurement results in the following vertical velocities:
The velocities implicate an onset of downwards motion above free fall acceleration. Obviously the spanned floor slaps "shot" the perimeter downwards faster than free fall acceleration until core and perimeter fell as a unit after about 1 second. After one second the entire visible building part fell at exactly free fall - not "near" or "about" but "exactly" free fall.
[Somewhere in this thread I read about the "limitation of preciseness" due to video resolution. Well thats a myth. A video is virtually a matrix of sample points similar to the samples of a digital sine replication. The major difference between a sound sample and a video is that every pixel changes the color and brightness over the time. Color and brightness are virtually an average for the "measured" pixel area. In other words, a black/white border passing one pixel from edge to edge will cause a fade from black to white during the time the border passes that pixel. Today there are very good software solutions to analyze those fading changes "area based". That means that areas of pixels will be analyzed over the time. The failure of those area base analysis will be far below pixel size since we have millions of colors every single pixel can represent.]
So let's have a look at the uncorrected raw measurements!
Most interesting is the thin bright blue curve BUT!!! that curve is the symmetrical averaged velocity over 9 frames of the West Penthouse disappearing behind the roofline and the subsequent fall of the roofline of the north perimeter.
[Notice that the symmetrical averaging over 9 frames will change any kink into a slow change that starts 4 frames prior to the event and ends 4 frames after the even. A slower "real change" will also extend 4 frames in both directions in the timeline.]
According to the averaged velocity the West Penthouse "switched" over about 10 frames from its unchanged stationary position into free fall acceleration and disappeared behind the roofline. In other words, we deal with a struggle of maximum 1 frame duration - frame 155 - for the entire core to fail totally.
When the Penthouse disappeared behind the roofline, the north face already started to bow south. The transition between penthouse and north face measurement looks like a "deceleration" until the north face dropped.
NIST measures 5.4 seconds for the drop of the north face until the roofline reached the elevation of the former 29th floor?
This is what NIST measured:
Finally you may notice the sudden end of acceleration. What's the implication?
NIST used the upper edge of the windows of the 29th floor.
According to NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2 12.5.3. NIST used the "camera 3" from NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol1 5.7.1.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4614/image00020.png
I have no idea how NIST managed to defined the roofline correctly because the roof line disappears in the middle of the north face due to a lack of contrast. At the same time the upper edge of the fl29 windows is approx. aligned with the white roof in the foreground.
Even if NIST was able to track the roofline correctly they still have to deal with another problem!!! This motion in the middle of the north face ...
... looks like and will be measured as "downward motion". That's false or a deliberate falsification. NIST should be aware that (from any usable perspective) the roofline stayed vertically straight while falling.
Hence, that motion seen from street level West St is the bowing of the north face towards south while the NE corner starts leaning towards north. In other words, the entire hollowed east half of the building apparently twisted like jackstraws.
The entire motion could be (imo with a very high probability) the result of the falling core acting on the perimeter walls via the floor slaps. The perimeter would have to escape the stress and probably opened the gash much wider while twisting the column tops around the hole.
However, the NIST way to measure the downwards motion without eliminating the perspective error due to south bowing is false.
So the best (and maybe the only) way to measure the fall of the middle of the north wall is to measure the outermost windows of the 47th floor and to calculate a straight line between the windows (red).
That line crosses the vertical line measured by NIST and can be calculated as well. The motion of the intercept point can be calibrated by the elevations used by NIST (roof and 29th floor).
The following image shows the difference. The bright blue curve is the apparent downwards motion without correction of the perspective failure (upper edge of the louver at 47) and the yellow curve shows the corrected motion (line between the upper edge of the windows at 47).
The calibrated measurement results in the following vertical velocities:
The velocities implicate an onset of downwards motion above free fall acceleration. Obviously the spanned floor slaps "shot" the perimeter downwards faster than free fall acceleration until core and perimeter fell as a unit after about 1 second. After one second the entire visible building part fell at exactly free fall - not "near" or "about" but "exactly" free fall.
[Somewhere in this thread I read about the "limitation of preciseness" due to video resolution. Well thats a myth. A video is virtually a matrix of sample points similar to the samples of a digital sine replication. The major difference between a sound sample and a video is that every pixel changes the color and brightness over the time. Color and brightness are virtually an average for the "measured" pixel area. In other words, a black/white border passing one pixel from edge to edge will cause a fade from black to white during the time the border passes that pixel. Today there are very good software solutions to analyze those fading changes "area based". That means that areas of pixels will be analyzed over the time. The failure of those area base analysis will be far below pixel size since we have millions of colors every single pixel can represent.]
So let's have a look at the uncorrected raw measurements!
Most interesting is the thin bright blue curve BUT!!! that curve is the symmetrical averaged velocity over 9 frames of the West Penthouse disappearing behind the roofline and the subsequent fall of the roofline of the north perimeter.
[Notice that the symmetrical averaging over 9 frames will change any kink into a slow change that starts 4 frames prior to the event and ends 4 frames after the even. A slower "real change" will also extend 4 frames in both directions in the timeline.]
According to the averaged velocity the West Penthouse "switched" over about 10 frames from its unchanged stationary position into free fall acceleration and disappeared behind the roofline. In other words, we deal with a struggle of maximum 1 frame duration - frame 155 - for the entire core to fail totally.
When the Penthouse disappeared behind the roofline, the north face already started to bow south. The transition between penthouse and north face measurement looks like a "deceleration" until the north face dropped.
NIST measures 5.4 seconds for the drop of the north face until the roofline reached the elevation of the former 29th floor?
This is what NIST measured:
Finally you may notice the sudden end of acceleration. What's the implication?
Last edited:
Drop of the West Penthouse WTC7
There is one more perspective issue to be considered.
The bowing of the north face and the West St perspective created the myth of a "visible" east west progression. That isn't the case either.
The west penthouse formed two plateaus during the drop. These plateaus went down horizontally (without detectable tilt towards east) while the east half of the north face bows away from the core or even the middle of the north face was pulled a little more towards the core than the sides. The change of that angle let the east side of the West Penthouse seen from the West St appear like disappearing earlier but the roofline of the north face isn't parallel to the roofline of the Penthouse anymore.
The eastern plateau seems to include the core columns 67-75. The western plateau seems to include at least 58-63 but maybe 58-66. The penthouse roofline between these plateaus kinked and stayed connected on both sides. The sloping roof between the plateaus helped the appearance of a tilting west penthouse but that's what never happened.
Obviously the core went down in 3 parts - east, middle, west.
There is one more perspective issue to be considered.
The bowing of the north face and the West St perspective created the myth of a "visible" east west progression. That isn't the case either.
The west penthouse formed two plateaus during the drop. These plateaus went down horizontally (without detectable tilt towards east) while the east half of the north face bows away from the core or even the middle of the north face was pulled a little more towards the core than the sides. The change of that angle let the east side of the West Penthouse seen from the West St appear like disappearing earlier but the roofline of the north face isn't parallel to the roofline of the Penthouse anymore.
The eastern plateau seems to include the core columns 67-75. The western plateau seems to include at least 58-63 but maybe 58-66. The penthouse roofline between these plateaus kinked and stayed connected on both sides. The sloping roof between the plateaus helped the appearance of a tilting west penthouse but that's what never happened.
Obviously the core went down in 3 parts - east, middle, west.
Sorry?
Seymour,
Nothing new here. Nothing that hasn't been said to Tony 100x before.
Doesn't matter. He invokes techno-babble. Like "inertia".
Perfect, square column end on column end collision is Tony's necessary delusion. Without it, all of his contentions evaporate.
And there were essentially zero column end on column end collisions.
And it takes no "sideways displacement of the top segment of the tower.
First, external columns:
There were zero external column collisions because, like Elvis, they had left the building. And were on their way to WTC7, the Winter Gardens, etc. By the time the upper block had fallen a mere 1/2 story, 3 full stories of external columns separated from the building as units. Plus large percentages of the external columns on 4 additional stories (2 stories above & 2 stories below that 3 story band).
For the very, very few external columns that had managed to hang on until the upper block was approaching, there were two huge impediments to collision: a multi-story thick layer of compacted debris that intervened between the upper & lower columns, and the hurricane force winds, laden with office contents, concrete and other debris being blown violently out of the building. This debris was impacting against the sides of the columns themselves and the spandrels. The chance of any one of these columns maintaining their vertical alignment thru these two effects did not come close to "slim". It was "none".
Ergo, zero external column end to column end contact.
Second, internal columns:
These columns & their cross support beams were decidedly more robust than the external columns.
But there could not possibly be a single column end to column end contact within the first 3 stories of fall for 3 reasons:
1. Once the cores had descended about 12", there were no column end to meet for another 36 feet or so. The columns were 3 stories tall, and the first splice joint, where any contact could occur, would not arrive until at least 3 stories worth of fall.
Does anything register, Tony?
2. When the upper column stubs finally arrive at the joints, the joints aren't "open", aren't flat, aren't pristine. AT BEST, the upper ends have been violently ripped apart from their connections with the columns above. They are twisted, wrenched, jagged. As are the bottom surfaces of the descending columns.
3. Again, a massive debris pile has built up between the upper & lower sections of the building.
I would challenge Tony to take charge of a crew of about 50 iron workers. His task will be to assemble an upper & lower half of a lattice-work structure identical to the WTC core, in the manner that he has proposed.
The top section will be hoisted by crane into "perfectly aligned" position, about 40' above the bottom fixed section.
The construction crew will be given guide lines tied to the bottom beams to try to intentionally guide the upper part into "column end to column end" collision with the lower section.
The crane operator is going to drop the massive top piece (oh yeah, with the full mass of the upper tower) at about 29 mph. About the speed of the upper tower (@ 0.7g) when the first column collision could possibly have occurred.
One other little "challenge" to this task. On the way down to "contact", the upper structure has to crush down an intervening 40' tall section of the same construction. An intermediate structure to which the tops of the lower columns (Tony's targets) are assembled.
So Tony's task is boocoo tougher. He has to first snap off the intermediate columns - columns that are just as robust as the remaining columns, and then have the lower column stubs return to their pristine alignment in time for their appointment to meet the rapidly approaching upper column ends.
Tony & his crew must do all the above THROUGH 3 stories worth of roiling, crushing, compacting steel, concrete, rebar, etc.
The criteria for Tony keeping his job as crew foreman is that (let's pick a number) at least 10 out of the 47 upper & lower columns surfaces have to sumultaneously impact each other squarely. (This would be far fewer than required for Tony's jolt.)
You get one shot, Tony. If 50 men ain't enough, I'll give you 1,000. Doesn't matter in the least.
You're out of a job.
As you SHOULD be, if you were to ever propose this as an even remotely possible (much less "plausible") way to assemble these two structures.
Oh yeah. You DID propose this. Not only as "plausible", but as "certain".
Oops...
Good thing you're not directing any large scale assembly projects. Those construction workers would laugh you off of the site before the work began.
Amidst joyful choruses of "... *($)#$-ing moron engineers ..."
Tom
Nothing new here. Nothing that hasn't been said to Tony 100x before.
Doesn't matter. He invokes techno-babble. Like "inertia".
Seymour Butz said:
Perfect, square column end on column end collision is Tony's necessary delusion. Without it, all of his contentions evaporate.
And there were essentially zero column end on column end collisions.
And it takes no "sideways displacement of the top segment of the tower.
First, external columns:
There were zero external column collisions because, like Elvis, they had left the building. And were on their way to WTC7, the Winter Gardens, etc. By the time the upper block had fallen a mere 1/2 story, 3 full stories of external columns separated from the building as units. Plus large percentages of the external columns on 4 additional stories (2 stories above & 2 stories below that 3 story band).
For the very, very few external columns that had managed to hang on until the upper block was approaching, there were two huge impediments to collision: a multi-story thick layer of compacted debris that intervened between the upper & lower columns, and the hurricane force winds, laden with office contents, concrete and other debris being blown violently out of the building. This debris was impacting against the sides of the columns themselves and the spandrels. The chance of any one of these columns maintaining their vertical alignment thru these two effects did not come close to "slim". It was "none".
Ergo, zero external column end to column end contact.
Second, internal columns:
These columns & their cross support beams were decidedly more robust than the external columns.
But there could not possibly be a single column end to column end contact within the first 3 stories of fall for 3 reasons:
1. Once the cores had descended about 12", there were no column end to meet for another 36 feet or so. The columns were 3 stories tall, and the first splice joint, where any contact could occur, would not arrive until at least 3 stories worth of fall.
Tony Szamboti said:
Does anything register, Tony?
2. When the upper column stubs finally arrive at the joints, the joints aren't "open", aren't flat, aren't pristine. AT BEST, the upper ends have been violently ripped apart from their connections with the columns above. They are twisted, wrenched, jagged. As are the bottom surfaces of the descending columns.
3. Again, a massive debris pile has built up between the upper & lower sections of the building.
I would challenge Tony to take charge of a crew of about 50 iron workers. His task will be to assemble an upper & lower half of a lattice-work structure identical to the WTC core, in the manner that he has proposed.
The top section will be hoisted by crane into "perfectly aligned" position, about 40' above the bottom fixed section.
The construction crew will be given guide lines tied to the bottom beams to try to intentionally guide the upper part into "column end to column end" collision with the lower section.
The crane operator is going to drop the massive top piece (oh yeah, with the full mass of the upper tower) at about 29 mph. About the speed of the upper tower (@ 0.7g) when the first column collision could possibly have occurred.
One other little "challenge" to this task. On the way down to "contact", the upper structure has to crush down an intervening 40' tall section of the same construction. An intermediate structure to which the tops of the lower columns (Tony's targets) are assembled.
So Tony's task is boocoo tougher. He has to first snap off the intermediate columns - columns that are just as robust as the remaining columns, and then have the lower column stubs return to their pristine alignment in time for their appointment to meet the rapidly approaching upper column ends.
Tony & his crew must do all the above THROUGH 3 stories worth of roiling, crushing, compacting steel, concrete, rebar, etc.
The criteria for Tony keeping his job as crew foreman is that (let's pick a number) at least 10 out of the 47 upper & lower columns surfaces have to sumultaneously impact each other squarely. (This would be far fewer than required for Tony's jolt.)
You get one shot, Tony. If 50 men ain't enough, I'll give you 1,000. Doesn't matter in the least.
You're out of a job.
As you SHOULD be, if you were to ever propose this as an even remotely possible (much less "plausible") way to assemble these two structures.
Oh yeah. You DID propose this. Not only as "plausible", but as "certain".
Oops...
Good thing you're not directing any large scale assembly projects. Those construction workers would laugh you off of the site before the work began.
Amidst joyful choruses of "... *($)#$-ing moron engineers ..."
Tom
Last edited:
I don't try. I show.
...after pages of shadowboxing about questions like if the core took down the perimeter or not, if the perimeter came down in free fall or not, if the east perimeter collapsed first and how much time prior to the west side and so on.
If you want I can go back to the point when the building started to sway but to the west instead towards the allegedly buckling column.
Or we think about the question, why did the east penthouse fall virtually at free fall acceleration inside the building without any dust from the broken windows while the middle part of the core obviously had very strong connections to the perimeter. There are a lot of questions, right?
...after pages of shadowboxing about questions like if the core took down the perimeter or not, if the perimeter came down in free fall or not, if the east perimeter collapsed first and how much time prior to the west side and so on.
If you want I can go back to the point when the building started to sway but to the west instead towards the allegedly buckling column.
Or we think about the question, why did the east penthouse fall virtually at free fall acceleration inside the building without any dust from the broken windows while the middle part of the core obviously had very strong connections to the perimeter. There are a lot of questions, right?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,728
All that is well and good, but what do you think it leads to?
What are your conclusions?
What happened on 9/11 that is different to the official line that Terrorists hijacked aircraft and used them to crash into buildings?
SLight variations in how a building might have finaly fallen down as a result of the collisions and fires isn't a whole hill of beans if you have no viable alternative.
What are your conclusions?
What happened on 9/11 that is different to the official line that Terrorists hijacked aircraft and used them to crash into buildings?
SLight variations in how a building might have finaly fallen down as a result of the collisions and fires isn't a whole hill of beans if you have no viable alternative.
I think you first have to know what really is visible/measurable before you should think about the implications. It makes not much sense to start with the implication and to look if anything could be found in support of it.
That way already failed. Btw, it's the NIST way.
But if you want my private opinion about that, I really have a problem to imagine 9 core columns in a square buckling fast enough for gravity acceleration at the upper ends. ...but that's what happened.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,728
Why does what you point out in your research cast doubt on anything? Would you expect a building damaged by fire to collapse exactly as a computer model or idealised situation would show?
I would expect there to be some deviations and diverting from the idealised modelling that an investigation would produce. real world situations are never perfect or ideal.
How does any of what you have produced cast doubt on the accepted events of 9/11?
I would expect there to be some deviations and diverting from the idealised modelling that an investigation would produce. real world situations are never perfect or ideal.
How does any of what you have produced cast doubt on the accepted events of 9/11?