• 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.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

What exactly is the purpose of this nit-picking anyway? If the conclusions don't change one iota, which they don't - why spend so much time nit-picking between an 8 degree tilt or a 2 degree tilt, when in either case the end result is collapse of the building?

Seems counter-productive. Unless of course the only purpose is to show us unwashed masses how dumb we all are.
 
femr2 said:
newton3376 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
They took photographs at 10:20 and 10:21? From what angle?

Is it possible that the video (and, apparently, photo) analysis that you have done was from a different angle than this eyewitness testimony? If so, that change in perspective could explain the discrepancy in the drop of the antenna and the quibbles about "tilt" as well.

In any case, it always struck me that this was Major_Tom's biggest stumbling block, no pun intended.
 
femr2 said:
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" ?
Click to expand...
Is it working?

When you confronted NIST with this, what did they say?
 
pgimeno said:
Why do you snip the (very important) context here?
Click to expand...
Because it is irrelevant to Dave's repeated statements asserting...
Dave Rogers said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both assertions are false.
 
femr2 said:
Because it is irrelevant to Dave's repeated statements asserting...


Both assertions are false.
Click to expand...

and the flogging continues............

Dead_Horse_T_Shirt_by_Foxbane.jpg
 
carlitos said:
They took photographs at 10:20 and 10:21? From what angle?
Click to expand...








Is it possible that the video (and, apparently, photo) analysis that you have done was from a different angle than this eyewitness testimony?
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, though it doesn't change the fact that no discernable tilt is evident in any of the relevant photographs.

If so, that change in perspective could explain the discrepancy in the drop of the antenna
Click to expand...
You are getting confused. The tilt drop mentioned is between the two photo's used by Dave during initiation, a second or two apart, not pre-initiation photos from the helicopter crew.

and the quibbles about "tilt" as well.
Click to expand...
No. Tilt of incredibly small scale would be detectable on the photographs available. None was found.
 
Hi femr2,

  • Were those photos indeed taken at 10:20 and 10:21?
  • How did you determine this?
  • Did you match the EXIF data (or photographer's claims or film sequence, if they weren't digital) to any known reference point, in determining the exact time they were taken?
  • Especially in the 3rd and 4th photo, what reference from the other side did you use to eliminate the possibility that the top section was tilting away from the photographer?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Hi femr2,

  • Were those photos indeed taken at 10:20 and 10:21?
Click to expand...

  • Yes.

    [*]Did you match the EXIF data (or photographer's claims or film sequence, if they weren't digital) to any known reference point, in determining the exact time they were taken?
    Click to expand...
    EXIF data, corroborated to the statements from the helicopter crew.

    Timestamps...
    • September 11, 2001 10:21:37AM
    • September 11, 2001 10:21:33AM
    • September 11, 2001 10:21:52AM
    • September 11, 2001 10:21:43AM

    [*]Especially in the 3rd and 4th photo, what reference from the other side did you use to eliminate the possibility that the top section was tilting away from the photographer?
    Click to expand...
    Any "tilt" actually visible to the naked eye from a moving helicopter from photos taken from numerous angles over a minute period is going to be detectable from one of those angles. The amount of tilt detectable by analysis of the images is very very low. Tilt in any direction would be detectable.

    Also, direction of tilt during initiation is known.

    It's not there.

    There's no detectable tilt at all. The eyewitnesses were caught up in the moment, and were mistaken.

    By all means perform your own analysis on the photos. There's a thread kicking around with additional details. "Progressive tilt".
 
Last edited:
beyond proving how stupid people are, femr, what is the purpose of nit picking details?
Click to expand...

I am assuming that the only reason you nit pick is to prove to yourself how superior you are to everybody not named Major_Tom.

Unless you man up and actually answer that question, that is the default answer.
 
NoahFence said:
What exactly is the purpose of this nit-picking anyway? If the conclusions don't change one iota, which they don't - why spend so much time nit-picking between an 8 degree tilt or a 2 degree tilt, when in either case the end result is collapse of the building?

Seems counter-productive. Unless of course the only purpose is to show us unwashed masses how dumb we all are.
Click to expand...

Your inability to read the NIST description of early WTC1 movement for years while defending it certainly shows how dumb and vulnerable anyone is who beleived in it.

Considering how my threads that actually measure these things was removed while you contilue to make verifiably false statements about this same movement shows the same.

My question for for Dave was why he grossly contradicts the NIST in his own measurement while not noticing it.
 
Thanks femr2.

I really do apologize for the quibble, but you seem to have missed the point of this question:

Did you match the EXIF data ... to any known reference point [in time], in determining the exact time they were taken?
Click to expand...
In other words, did that photographer sync his camera to an atomic clock on Sept. 11, or was his date / time imprecise like mine usually is? (on edit - the video has SMPTE data which tracks time, but how could we sync photos to that data? Haven't read the other thread yet)
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
What exactly is the purpose of this nit-picking anyway? If the conclusions don't change one iota, which they don't - why spend so much time nit-picking between an 8 degree tilt or a 2 degree tilt, when in either case the end result is collapse of the building?

Seems counter-productive. Unless of course the only purpose is to show us unwashed masses how dumb we all are.
Click to expand...

Your inability to read the NIST description of early WTC1 movement for years while defending it certainly shows how dumb and vulnerable anyone is who defended it.

Considering how my threads that actually measure these things were removed while you continue to make verifiably false statements about this same movement shows the same.

My question for Dave was why he grossly contradicts the NIST in his own measurement while not noticing it. Why not just use the measurements of the real pros at the NIST?
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Your inability to read the NIST description of early WTC1 movement for years while defending it certainly shows how dumb and vulnerable anyone is who beleived in it.
Click to expand...

Produce the post where I defended NIST's description of early movement, or retract that satement.

Considering how my threads that actually measure these things was removed while you contilue to make verifiably false statements about this same movement shows the same.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
femr2 said:
Are you suggesting that Dave Rogers is stupid for stating known false values ?


Again, to stop people stating falsehood.
Click to expand...

So the ONLY reason you and MT nit pick on meaningless details is to show off how others make meaningless errors.


Got it.

How's the weather in that ivory tower?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom