The physics toolkit

[funk de fino]

This is shown by the fact that everyone who has measured the Verinage demolitions has observed the serious deceleration and velocity loss required in a natural collapse.

The WTC towers were not verinage. They were not demolitions.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Remind me where you "showed" me that your Tracker data doesn't show any decelerations; I seem to have missed the post where you presented your raw data for inspection.

Post #407 of the Care to Comment thread here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175536&page=11.

To Tony, "raw data" apparently means 4 data points cherry-picked from 90+ frames.

Suppose, just for grins, we take those 4 data points seriously. We must then conclude that the measurement error for data presented within the MacQueen-Szamboti "Missing Jolt" paper was more than 25 times larger than what that paper claims to be the largest possible measurement error.

We can't do much with only those 4 new data points, but we can use them to replace the corresponding data points from the MacQueen-Szamboti paper. Running that modified data through the computer program I described above yields a jolt of more than 40g just before 1.5 seconds.

I am not suggesting that this jolt (or any other result that can be derived from Tony's data) is real.

You need to get real.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The WTC towers were not verinage. They were not demolitions.

Funk, the collapses in the Verinage demolitions occur after the columns of a couple of floors are removed artificially, but they are caused by momentum transfer only. This is a natural mechanism and the only one which could continue the collapse of WTC 1 if it had been natural.

The problem for those inclined to believe that WTC 1 was a natural collapse is that it does not exhibit the deceleration and velocity which is required for momentum transfer and load amplification, which is apparent in the Verinage demolitions.

You really should try to understand the argument before making a comment on it and calling anyone a liar and making a fool of yourself.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm fully aware of, and have repeatedly made clear, that I know you don't think the low magnitude decelerations are big enough.


You are assuming a rigid body, and impact between elements which did not collide.


Again, apples and oranges. I do not have any reason to think that the jolts you suggest should be there for WTC1 are in any way supported by metrics of verinage demolition. The structures are entirely different, and the mode of destruction is also different.


They are.


Wrong end of the chain Tony.


There's only partial collision between a minority of perimeter columns, very unlikely that there will be much collision between core columns and anything but floor assemblies or core cross-bracing, and only around the 70MJ mark is required to separate an entire floor from its connections to both core and perimeter.

You've seen the FEA of column impacts and *jolt* magnitude clearly diminishes the further you get from the contact point even in ideal conditions.

What is colliding with what that you think should propogate all the way to the NW corner through the non-rigid flexible and compressible structure of the upper block of WTC 1 ?


(oh I really shouldn't have asked that. Tony, PLEASE don't go on autopilot and suggest core column impacts. The graph I included above should make you think before you leap there)

The reality is that the perimeter walls would have had a serious deceleration if it was a natural collapse, so there is no need for rigid behaviour between perimeter and core.

The natural frequency of the perimeter walls was sufficently high in the vertical direction to transfer the majority of the shock and deceleration to the roofline.

Your attempts to say column misalignment and non-rigid behaviour are the reasons no serious deceleration was observed have no basis and seem to be simply more of an attempt to muddy the waters.

Who do you think you are kidding?

 

[funk de fino]

Funk, the collapses in the Verinage demolitions occur after the columns of a couple of floors are removed artificially, but they are caused by momentum transfer only. This is a natural mechanism and the only one which could continue the collapse of WTC 1 if it had been natural.

The problem for those inclined to believe that WTC 1 was a natural collapse is that it does not exhibit the deceleration and velocity which is required for momentum transfer and load amplification, which is apparent in the Verinage demolitions.

You really should try to understand the argument before making a comment on it and calling anyone a liar and making a fool of yourself.

You are a liar.

Also Verinage was different in many ways and you know it.

 

[femr2]

it does not exhibit the deceleration and velocity which is required for momentum transfer and load amplification, which is apparent in the Verinage demolitions.

I asked you very clearly Tony...

What is actually colliding with what ?

The reality is that the perimeter walls would have had a serious deceleration if it was a natural collapse, so there is no need for rigid behaviour between perimeter and core.

The upper and lower perimeter sheets only partially made contact with each other. Simply watching the avaiable footage shows this.

The reality is that you have very little in the way of external COLLISION to cause decelleration of the NW corner.

The natural frequency of the perimeter walls was sufficently high in the vertical direction to transfer the majority of the shock and deceleration to the roofline.

Perhaps, not my field....but they barely collided Tony. They overlapped. The collision is therefore between perimeter and floor assemblies.

Your attempts to say column misalignment and non-rigid behaviour are the reasons no serious deceleration was observed have no basis and seem to be simply more of an attempt to muddy the waters.

What ? I lean MIHOP. You know that. Folk here know that.
What on earth would I gain from muddying the waters ?
I'm simply pointing you to OBSERVABLE behaviours.

Show me what impacted what Tony.

Or, here you are, what EXACTLY is the cause for the lack of jolts ? I'm currently looking at the north face of WTC 1 on the Sauret footage, and the upper and lower perimeter slide over each other. What exactly are you suggesting that I am looking at ?

(Again, my previous graph should be of interest to you. Couple of feet of horizontal movement of the upper block prior to release. Any thoughts on what that would do for CC alignment eh ?)

 

[Edx]

Wow a MIHOP truther debunking Tony? That's gotta be embarrassing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I asked you very clearly Tony...

What is actually colliding with what ?


The upper and lower perimeter sheets only partially made contact with each other. Simply watching the avaiable footage shows this.

The reality is that you have very little in the way of external COLLISION to cause decelleration of the NW corner.


Perhaps, not my field....but they barely collided Tony. They overlapped. The collision is therefore between perimeter and floor assemblies.


What ? I lean MIHOP. You know that. Folk here know that.
What on earth would I gain from muddying the waters ?
I'm simply pointing you to OBSERVABLE behaviours.

Show me what impacted what Tony.

Or, here you are, what EXACTLY is the cause for the lack of jolts ? I'm currently looking at the north face of WTC 1 on the Sauret footage, and the upper and lower perimeter slide over each other. What exactly are you suggesting that I am looking at ?

(Again, my previous graph should be of interest to you. Couple of feet of horizontal movement of the upper block prior to release. Any thoughts on what that would do for CC alignment eh ?)

It isn't hard to reconcile your claim to be MIHOP while putting forward what appear to be MIHOP frustrating positions. Anyone who really wanted to muddy the waters might claim to be MIHOP while offering confusing data and positions, which is all I have really seen you attempt to do.

I am sure you will come back with you are just trying to get it right, but you aren't. To anyone with real technical ability your positions are obvious nonsense, and are probably put forward hoping to confuse just like those of the majority of the hacks on this forum who insist that the buildings could not have been controlled demolitions and that 911 was not an inside job.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You are a liar.

Also Verinage was different in many ways and you know it.

They aren't different at all and it is obvious that you sir are the real LIAR.

 

[DGM]

It isn't hard to reconcile your claim to be MIHOP while putting forward what appear to be MIHOP frustrating positions. Anyone who really wanted to muddy the waters might claim to be MIHOP while offering confusing data and positions, which is all I have really seen you attempt to do.

I am sure you will come back with you are just trying to get it right, but you aren't. To anyone with real technical ability your positions are obvious nonsense, and are probably put forward hoping to confuse as those of the majority of the hacks on this forum who won't admit that 911 was an inside job.

Just out of curiosity. Is there a reason why one couldn't be MIHOP and think that CD was ridicules?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow a MIHOP truther debunking Tony? That's gotta be embarrassing.

Hardly.

Do you wear a skirt when you cheerlead?

 

[femr2]

It isn't hard to reconcile your claim to be MIHOP whilst putting forward what appear to be MIHOP frustrating positions.

Not at all Tony. Your position on jolts implies all manner of explosives both in the core and around the perimeter.

There are clearly no explosions going on around the perimeter...

...unless you're saying the ejecta along the line of separation on the West face is the perimeter being *blown*. FAR too slow if you ask me.

Anyone who really wanted to muddy the waters might claim to be MIHOP while offering confusing data and positions, which is all I have really seen you attempt to do.

Oh dear Tony. I think you're alone on that.

To anyone with real technical ability your positions are obvious nonsense.

To anyone with eyes, you're not taking observables into account, at all, and you've avoided my question again...

What is actually colliding with what ?

Once you accept that the collisions you have in your rigid-body mental picture of the thing didn't happen (and that's what you are saying , yes ?), you can move on to what you actually think moves the various members so that they DON'T collide. (But you MUST ensure your explanation matches what we can SEE)

Geez. It's clear there were NO large magnitude jolts. The ones in my trace are tiny. No-one is arguing that point.

The point is why not.

What is actually colliding with what ?

And why not ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just out of curiosity. Is there a reason why one couldn't be MIHOP and think that CD was ridicules?

While femr2 claims to be MIHOP, his positions are nonsensical and tend to try to refute the evidence for intentional demolition, so it is strange that he claims to be MIHOP.

The only thing that would make sense is that he claims to lean MIHOP to gain credibility there, with the real intent of watering down the MIHOP arguments.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Not at all Tony. Your position on jolts implies all manner of explosives both in the core and around the perimeter.

There are clearly no explosions going on around the perimeter...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/856742123.gif[/qimg]...unless you're saying the ejecta along the line of separation on the West face is the perimeter being *blown*. FAR too slow if you ask me.


Oh dear Tony. I think you're alone on that.


To anyone with eyes, you're not taking observables into account, at all, and you've avoided my question again...

What is actually colliding with what ?

Once you accept that the collisions you have in your rigid-body mental picture of the thing didn't happen (and that's what you are saying , yes ?), you can move on to what you actually think moves the various members so that they DON'T collide. (But you MUST ensure your explanation matches what we can SEE)

Geez. It's clear there were NO large magnitude jolts. The ones in my trace are tiny. No-one is arguing that point.

The point is why not.

What is actually colliding with what ?

And why not ?

Weakening of structural joints can be done in a variety of ways and is all that would be necessary.

Without the integrity of those joints providing resistance to the fall of the upper section there would be no deceleration and velocity loss.

 

[DGM]

While femr2 claims to be MIHOP, his positions are nonsensical and tend to try to refute the evidence for intentional demolition, so it is strange that he claims to be MIHOP.

The only thing that would make sense is that he claims to lean MIHOP to gain credibility there, with the real intent of watering down the MIHOP arguments.

I could be wrong but, isn't the I in MIHOP the whole event that is 9/11? Couldn't the planes causing the collapse still fit into this if the USG made the planes hit?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I could be wrong but, isn't the I in MIHOP the whole event that is 9/11? Couldn't the planes causing the collapse still fit into this if the USG made the planes hit?

It really is clear that the collapses of these buildings were not caused by impact damage and fire and that all three buildings were actually brought down via controlled demolitions, which could certainly not be set up that day. That issue is paramount and needs to be investigated.

Who flew or controlled the planes is a separate issue.

 

[Edx]

I could be wrong but, isn't the I in MIHOP the whole event that is 9/11? Couldn't the planes causing the collapse still fit into this if the USG made the planes hit?

No TRUE truther would not believe in demolitions!

 

[Edx]

It really is clear that the collapses of these buildings were not caused by impact damage and fire and that all three buildings were actually brought down via controlled demolitions, which could certainly not be set up that day.

So then if its so obvious when do you plan on getting this research of yours in a legitimate journal?

Oh yes I forgot... the conspwasy!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I am sure you will come back with you are just trying to get it right, but you aren't. To anyone with real technical ability your positions are obvious nonsense, and are probably put forward hoping to confuse just like those of the majority of the hacks on this forum who insist that the buildings could not have been controlled demolitions and that 911 was not an inside job.

Evidence?

Tony seldom agrees with people who possess real technical ability, so we can't just take his word for it.

No competent scientist would ever use the MacQueen-Szamboti data to argue that no jolts occurred during the collapse. Even Tony appears to have acknowledged that the data presented in his paper do not support that argument.

Despite its obvious nonsense, that paper has not been retracted, repudiated, or withdrawn by its authors.

 

[DGM]

It really is clear that the collapses of these buildings were not caused by impact damage and fire and that all three buildings were actually brought down via controlled demolitions, which could certainly not be set up that day. That issue is paramount and needs to be investigated.

Who flew or controlled the planes is a separate issue.

You didn't really answer my question. Is CD really a requirement for MIHOP? I really don't think so, LIHOP on the other hand definitely excludes it.