3rd Hardfire show of debate with Ryan Mackey

[Tony Szamboti]

Below is the link to the 3rd and final Hardfire show of the debate I had with Ryan Mackey concerning the collapses of the twin towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk

The first two shows are at

1st http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE

2nd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY

[eomer]

1. Regarding the analysis of the tilt of the antenna and a purported tilt of the upper block.

Movement of the antenna cannot necessarily imply a corresponding movement of the entire upper block. Look at the first two frames of this video:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:35:./temp/~c111PlzmYh:e131553:

You can see that the antenna drops in the time between frames 00:00:00 and 01:00:15 but that the top of the tower doesn't move at all during that same time. So the antenna is already disconnected somehow from the rest of the upper block. A tilt of the antenna cannot therefore be used to demonstrate a tilt of the entire upper block as Mackey attempted to do in his slide #7.

Watching this same video frame by frame I have to agree with you, Tony, that the upper block does not appear to tilt during the early part of the collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. NCSTAR1-6, page 162 (pdf 244) shows the tilt to the south

Your analysis is in error because you are looking from the north of the building for a tilt in the upper section to the south of the building.

[eomer]

20. Here it is from approximately the same vantage point as NIST used.

The last frame in my sequence appears to correspond roughly in time with the frame that you referenced in NIST 1-6 (the third frame on that page). So you can see that the top section has already dropped noticeably by the time of that frame.

Whether there is enough tilt to make a difference (or any tilt) by this point looks debatable to me.



http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_fs.aspx?fs=1&cid=89124597D41F46C6B2BB63BD330347D8

Don't have anymore time right now but will look at it some more later.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Go to the video, folks. You can see the tilt begin before the drop.

Thanks for the link that once again shows Tony to be wrong.

[eomer]

29. No, it does not tilt before it drops.

You're talking about this video, right?
http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_fs.aspx?fs=1&cid=89124597D41F46C6B2BB63BD330347D8

If you overlay another window over the video in just the right place to serve as a straight edge you can see that it does not tilt before it drops.

From the very start of the video there is the appearance of tilt but this is caused by a slight tilt of the camera, which you can tell because the entire height of the building, not just the upper block, shows the same apparent tilt.

Maybe you are looking at the antenna, which I do believe tilts a bit before there is any drop. But this just shows that the antenna becomes somewhat disconnected from the rest of the upper block just before the drop begins.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Go to the video, folks. Eomer's blinded himself. n/t

[eomer]

33. No, it does not tilt before it drops. Here it is frame by frame.

The following are frames 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180 captured from the video, zoomed in a bit. You can see from the guides at the upper right corner and comparing them with both the bright white object and the vertical right edge of the tower that the movement at each frame is as follows (in pixels):

140: origin
150: down 0, left 0
160: down 1, left 0
170: down 2.5, left 0
180: down 4.5, left 0.5

So the first movement is down with no tilt.







Below are the same frames zoomed in even further. The area in the zoom is the upper right corner of the tower.

I picked a particular pixel in the bright white object at the upper right corner. Here are the coordinates of that object in frame sequence:

( x, y)
(294, 57)
(294, 57)
(294, 58)
(294, 59)
(294, 62)

The horizontal coordinates (x) do not change, while the vertical coordinates (y) indicate a drop of 5 pixels over this sequence, so it drops first without tilting.

I think you could argue that the last frame does move one pixel to the left if you look at the right edge of the tower instead of the bright object on the roof. But even so it has already dropped first without tilting before that last frame.







Finally, below are the corresponding frames at a normal zoom so you can tell what you're looking at. All of the zooms are of the upper right corner of the tower.

[William Seger]

35. Baloney. Watch it in motion.

The resolution obviously isn't good enough to allow accurately measuring the movement in whole pixels, but when you watch it in motion and try to see what's going on in the whole picture, your brain will try to see an object in motion, not just pixels. The movement is down and to the left, right from the start of your 5 frames:



Watching the whole top at once from farther back, it's quite clear that that's because the top is tilting:



How much it tilted before the "hinge" also gave way might be debatable -- and accurately determining that from a shot that is still not perpendicular to the tilt is no simple matter -- but if insisting there was "no tilt" is the only way to salvage Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory (and it is), then it's game over.

ETA: For reference, Szamboti claims the top fell several floors before tilting.

[eomer]

36. Several points.

The claim I was refuting is that it tilts first and then drops. NIST says this and so does Bolo Boffin. This is clearly disproved by my frame-by-frame. There is no tilt prior to the start of the drop. Tilt that occurs simultaneously with the drop is not the same as tilt that occurs before the first drop.

Regarding the object in motion that your brain wants to see, watching the whole picture is exactly what you can't do. The only part of the upper section that can actually be seen is a small sliver on the right -- essentially just the corner of the building. All the rest of the building is hidden by smoke that is being blown toward the left.

The other thing you can see in the whole picture is the antenna. But the antenna is moving independently of the upper block. The antenna is moving to the left on its own so if you let your brain interpret it as an integral part of the upper block and moving in concert with the upper block (which is what you are doing), then you're going to misinterpret the motion of the upper block.

In order to isolate the only part of the whole picture that is actually part of the upper block we're trying to gauge the movement of, you can mask your animated version with some other window so that you see only the left corner of the building. If you do that then your brain will not see much movement, if any, to the left. This is clear proof that the movement you see without the mask is something other than movement of the upper block. It is movement of the smoke and movement of the antenna, neither of which are truly indicative of movement of the upper block. The right corner maintains roughly the same 1 pixel distance from the guide line throughout the 5 frames of your animation. This is the only part of the whole picture that delivers any useful information with regard to movement of the upper block.

[William Seger]

38. NIST seems to have looked at ALL the videos, eomer

... something you and Tony don't seem to think is necessary.

The video I already linked to shows that the top did indeed start to tilt before the top began to fall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_f3d-gETnk&feature=PlayList&p=0C4DF480E31D901F&index=11

And there are others. Sorry, but since my eyes work fine, I'm not terribly interested in what you guys can't see, whatever the reason for that.

[eomer]

40. The video I've been analyzing is roughly from the ENE.

It is not possible for the entire top section to have tilted 8 degrees to the south and yet have objects on the roof remain rock steady in a view from the ENE (in other words, mostly from the east). An 8 degree tilt to the south would have produced a significant movement to the left by the top of the building.

On page 156 (pdf 238) of http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf">NCSTART 1-6 NIST says that the building tilted 8 degrees to the south before it began dropping:

WTC 1 began to collapse. The first exterior movement was at floor 98. Rotation of the building section above the impact and fire zone to at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically.

My review frame-by-frame shows that the bright white object just above the NW corner (to the right in the video) does not move left until it begins moving down. Movement to the south would have to show up from this vantage point as movement to the left. You don't have to look at more videos to prove that such a movement did not happen.

Here is the link to the video I've been using:

http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_fs.aspx?fs=1&cid=89124597D41F46C6B2BB63BD330347D8

The video you posted is blurry and the camera is moving around. If you look closely you will notice that the building below the collapse zone appears to tilt to the right (to the south) just before the collapse. Clearly what you think you see in your video as tilt to the right is actually movement of the camera, not tilt of the building.

The video that I'm using, on the other hand, is from a camera that is fixed and not moving around. Tilt of the building would have to show up as movement in the video from that vantage point. No movement in the video = no tilt.

[William Seger]

57. And your video from the ENE shows the tilt

And it shows that the tilt began before the downward collapse, and curiously before the 5 frames you selected.



If you want to argue that it wasn't an 8-degree tilt before collapse, I have no idea how NIST came up with that, and I have no interest in defending it. My claims are that it did tilt and that a tilt explains why there was no "jolt," and it looks like we're about finished what that.

> Clearly what you think you see in your video as tilt to the right is actually movement of the camera, not tilt of the building.

"Clearly?" What I clearly see is a kink in the corner.



That would be consistent with other videos showing the tilt before collapse, and unexplained by your "tilted camera" speculation.

And actually, even the videos from the north are consistent with that tilt: All the claims that the tower fell before the top section were based on videos from the north. Videos from the sides, including the ones we've been looking at here, show that the tower did not sink into the building; they both move together. That indicates that the tower did in fact lean away from the camera before the north wall collapsed.

I have no idea why you are determined to fight this hopeless battle, but you give the impression of someone clinging desperately to a delusion.

[eomer]

26. Corrected link to video.

The antenna starts dropping by frame 01:00:15. The rest of the upper block doesn't start dropping until the next frame, 02:01:00. This proves that the antenna is disconnected from the rest of the upper block (or at least from the outer shell of it that we can see) and therefore tilt of the antenna cannot be taken to demonstrate tilt of the entire upper block.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html

[William Seger]

3. One question

Do you accept that if there was a tilt, then that would explain why there was no noticeable jolt? I don't see much point in arguing about the tilt if you're going to claim it doesn't make any difference to your theory, anyway. On the other hand, if you agree that it makes a difference, then it's an issue worth settling.

[Tony Szamboti]

4. No I don't think a tilt obviates a need for a jolt

And that hasn't been shown analytically. It is simply a talking point that some official story supporters try to get away with.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. The pictures are at my citation, Tony. The tilt is palpable from the very beginning. n/t

[William Seger]

6. Oh? Seems to me it's a "talking point" because it WOULD explain why there is no jolt

But if you don't see why, then there's not much point in arguing (with you, anyway) about whether or not there was a tilt.

Nonetheless, I'll give it a shot. Simply stated, the tilt would mean that there was never a time when the lower structure offered enough resistance to decelerate the top block (or at least not enough to be detectable using your method), for two reasons:

(1) Even if we assume that the columns were simply stressed vertically until they buckled, a tilting fall would mean they would be crushed in succession, laterally, not all at once as your "three times safety factor" assumes. Looking at the diagram Mackey presented, the lower edge of the tilting top block would contact just the columns on that side of the building first. Even if we stop the action at that point and ignore the momentum, and instead assume a static condition, then roughly half of the weight of the entire top block would be brought to bear on those columns. Those columns would be crushed by just the dead load, so they could not exert enough force to decelerate the falling block. All they could do would be slow the acceleration to something less than g. And, as I pointed out before, they would offer very little resistance after they buckled, so when they buckled, successive columns at that same level would suffer the same fate.

(2) As Mackey pointed in your debate (and as I also mentioned before), a tilt would mean that symmetric vertical loading is not what happened, anyway. A tilting, rotating top block would mean: (a) an asymmetric force on the columns, which would cause buckling with less energy than symmetric axial loading; and (b) probable loss of restraining floor structure in many cases, before buckling occurred, and therefore a failure mode that required even less energy than buckling. Again, there would not be the "three times safety factor," so there is no reason to expect enough resistance to decelerate the falling block. There could easily be only enough to slow the acceleration, which appears to be what we see.

Understand that I don't think anyone is offering this as "proof" that that's what happened, but rather as a counter to your argument that column demolition would be required to cause the kind of collapse we see in the videos. Parsimony.

[Tony Szamboti]

7. Can you show a diagram to prove what you say?

Seger, you are not correct and are taking liberties when you say the dead load would have crushed the columns.

Show or explain a load diagram, otherwise you are talking out of your hat.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. And your diagram showing how you think the buildings would have acted will be forthcoming? n/t

[Tony Szamboti]

9. Bazant said there was a jolt and there is none

So now the deniers with the real irreducible delusions (or worse) are scrambling for a new mechanism to obviate the need for a jolt.

Interestingly, you use two methods. One an assertion of an initial tilt and if that doesn't work that the columns completely missed and just hit the floors.

This sounds vaguely familiar to the hilarious attempts at an explanation for JFK's back and to the left head movement not being an indication of a shot from the front, once the public got to see the long suppressed Zapruder film. In that case it was neuromuscular spasm LOL, or the jet effect, which might work on a soft melon but will not work on a human skull as the shear force in the direction of the bullet is greater than any jet effect force to the rear.

Bottom line here is that the present official explanation has been shown to be wrong as the NIST depends on Bazant and went along for the ride with his jolt explanation. If you think you have a better theory write it up and submit it to a journal.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Bazant Zhou is a limiting case and

you know this.

The tilt is there in both buildings. Everybody can clearly see it in WTC 2. The tilt in WTC 1 can be seen at my citation. This is not an unproven assertion, Tony. This is fact.

And JFK's head does move forward first in the Zapruder film.

Have you submitted "The Missing Jolt" to the journal Bazant submits his work to, Tony?

ETA: So that's a no on submitting your own diagram?

[Tony Szamboti]

12. There is no chance you can take out the core naturally without a jolt

and that is why Bazant said there would have to be a jolt.

There is nothing but Internet jockeys like you trying to make the case that the tilt obviated the need for a jolt or that the columns all missed and landed on the floors.

There is no paper supporting the present official theory other than Bazant's and his is proven wrong as far as no jolt whatsoever being present.

You are trying to say what happened is the complete opposite extreme of what Bazant said in his "limiting case" and your extreme is quite impossible.

Talk about Irreducible Delusions!

[Bolo Boffin]

14. The core had zero design to deal with lateral loads.

All lateral loads were handled by the perimeter. Twisting and tilting the upper section means it contacts the core laterally, pushing individual columns aside

Bazant has several papers furthering his work on the towers. You know this as well.

It is not the "complete opposite extreme" of what Bazant put into his limiting case. Perhaps you don't really know that. You certainly do resist that knowledge.

[William Seger]

16. Tony, that is nonsense

Bazant says in his paper -- quite clearly, even for we non-technical "intenet jockeys" -- that he is analyzing the maximum energy that the columns could absorb under the best-case scenario, and his clearly stated logic is that if the structure would fail under those conditions, then it would fail under any others that would require less energy. Even us "internet jockeys" understand what a limiting case is; why don't you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. as my daughter likes to say, "REAL-ly?"

Have you really convinced yourself that if you can 'rebut' a single word quoted out of context from Bazant and Zhou, the whole Official Theory will fall apart, sort of like you're Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star?

Sorry, no. There are reasons why you haven't won this argument.

You might want to glance at Figure 4 of Bazant and Zhou. They don't go into the dynamics, but it's clear that even then, they didn't think that the towers collapsed through column-on-column impacts. Not that it's material what they thought at that point, but it underscores the silliness of your approach.

Your best play here is probably to try to convince people that, indeed, the tilt did not begin until after global collapse began. I don't think you can possibly win that way, but.... Well, perhaps your best play is to try to convince people that you're the only one in the room who knows anything ("Internet jockeys"). You can't win that way, either, but it might work for someone, at least.

[eomer]

22. I think the point is that there is not a paper that addresses reality.

Bazant, Zhou is an idealized case (not demonstrated to be a limiting case IMO). That the idealized case did not obtain is both proved and admitted. Where that leaves us is with nothing having been demonstrated by anyone.

Edit to add: my occasional reminder that this point of argument (that the towers would not have collapsed without CD) is sufficient but not necessary for CD to have occurred. The conspirators may have used explosives even if the towers would have collapsed without them. Because, how would they know?

[Realityhack]

32. I was wondering...

could you explain what you mean by:
"(not demonstrated to be a limiting case IMO)"?

In what way do you think Bazant, Zhou is not a limiting case? What is it that they missed etc. (specifically)?

[eomer]

34. It is not demonstrated as a limiting case...

due to the lack of any demonstration that it is a limiting case. It is a bare assertion with no support.

How much more would it be possible to say than that? The lack of any support is as unsupported as anything can possibly get.

[William Seger]

39. You don't understand Bazant's analysis and logic

... well enough to understand why what you're saying is a bunch of meaningless double-talk.

Bazant calculated the maximum energy that the columns could absorb by buckling under symmetric loading. If you don't think that's limiting case for the maximum energy the structure could absorb and still remain standing, then please tell me what the hell you think the limiting case is -- magical forces holding up the building? Nowhere in his analysis does Bazant claim that that's what did happen, and in fact quite the opposite. The point of the analysis -- which you seem to be determined to not understand -- is that if the collapse was unavoidable with the columns providing their maximum theoretical resistance to buckling, then it was unavoidable under failure modes that would require less energy. Your imaginary physics don't have jackshit to do with anything.

[eomer]

41. There is no such thing as maximum energy a building can absorb.

Over infinite time a building can absorb infinite energy.

Over some finite time interval the amount of energy a building can absorb depends on the amount of time over which the building must absorb that energy.

Here is my proof: if you could take the individual elements of the upper section (to some fairly fine-grained piecing up of it) and drop them from a helicopter, one by one, onto the lower section with, say, one second between each element and from, say, one story higher than whatever their actual position was in the upper section, then the lower section will obviously not fail. If you still think it will fail then piece the upper section into even smaller pieces -- so small, if necessary, that I can pick each one of them up and drop it out of the helicopter myself. No way will the building fail under such an application of energy. Now notice that I've applied all of the energy that you and Bazant claim must inevitably collapse the lower structure and yet the lower structure does not collapse. The only difference between my model and Bazant's model is the distribution over time of the application of the energy.

Clearly there is a component of time that must be taken into account. Bazant focuses the application of the energy into a split second. But in order to accomplish that he has to assume something we know not to be true: that the upper section is rigid. In other words, he assumes that the upper section does not follow the laws of physics (is magical) and is therefore able in his model to do something it is incapable of doing in reality: to focus the application of the energy into an extremely small time interval. Since this simplification skews extremely in favor of collapse, there is no way you can logically use Bazant's model as a limiting case in the way he attempts to.

[William Seger]

42. That reasoning would apply ONLY if the steel had time to rebound

... from the elastic compression. It did not. The velocity of the falling mass was never stopped, much less reversed. That much, at least, is confirmed by Szamboti's analysis, and that IS the consideration for time that you claim is missing: The falling mass pushed the steel through its elastic limit into plastic deformation in a continuous motion. Your argument is simply irrelevant.

[eomer]

43. You're still working from Bazant's magical assumption.

You're still assuming that the entire upper block is a magical rigid block and is therefore able to apply all its energy focused at one instant. Under that assumption it would be true that the steel would not have time to rebound. But that assumption is magical and not of this world.

It is your magical scenario that is irrelevant. Demonstrate how it has anything to do with what happened in the real world. That is the demonstration you haven't provided. You just insist on living in your magical assumption, but it is of a magical world, not real.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. So that's your last goalpost? Demonstration of this one last thing and you're convinced? n/t

[eomer]

45. Convinced of what?

This whole discussion about progressive collapse is IMO not the central issue as I've pointed out a couple of times. What Bazant, Zhou is trying to prove is that progressive collapse was inevitable once the one-story drop was initiated. If someone can demonstrate that then that is what they will have demonstrated (though I doubt they can).

What they will not have demonstrated is that explosives weren't used. Just because explosives weren't theoretically required (if such a thing could be proved) that does not prove that they weren't used. The conspirators could have thought they needed to use them even if they were mistaken.

And even if progressive collapse was inevitable, that still doesn't prove that collapse initiation would have occurred without explosives.

So this is, at most, just one minor piece of the overall puzzle.

So let's take it a step at a time. If someone has a demonstration they want to proffer then let's look at it, see what it proves or doesn't prove, and go from there.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Are you willing to submit a CD theory just as detailed as the NIST and Bazant explanation

and be willing to submit it to the plausibility test?

I double dog dare you.

[eomer]

47. I don't claim that.

It is people who make claims who owe demonstrations.

NIST and Bazant owe demonstrations because they have claimed that they can tell everyone what happened.

I've made no such claim.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. LMAO

Of course you don't make any claims. You're Just Asking Questions.

[eomer]

53. I don't have the time, the budget, or access to the evidence

that I would need in order to work through with due diligence the question of whether explosives were used.

What is funny, actually, is that you spend most of your time complaining about people claiming things they can't prove but then turn around and complain that I won't make claims that I wouldn't be able to prove (or disprove). LMAO back at you.

[William Seger]

58. Here's a thought

Write up your hypothesis in a coherent form and run it by a few structural engineers. I don't see any point in us endless repeating ourselves here.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. you think that's the point?

That may be your point, and I freely concede that your points tend to make more sense than anyone else's on your side. From Tony, I'm just not feeling it.

[William Seger]

15. Sure I can, but I would have thought...

... that a mechanical engineer would be able to visualize a little better.

I'll modify Gregory's diagram from the video to show a 4-degree tilt, instead of 6, which is approximately where the floors would have contacted if one level collapsed. I'll also add the floors all the way up to show an important detail: The tilt would move the center of mass of the top block outward, exacerbating the problem for the columns on that side:



The point I made is that the columns at floor 97 -- the core and most of the side perimeter columns -- have failed progressively almost all the way across that level; otherwise there could be no tilt. Therefore, if this were a static situation, approximately half the weight of the top block would be on the perimeter columns on the right, because the only other columns providing any sensible support are the ones on the other side of the building.

When those columns failed, you would soon get to the situation in Gregory's 6-degree diagram, and that diagram shows that the core columns on the right side would next get to an overloaded condition -- i.e. a progressive horizontal failure with sequential column overloading and failure, and not the case you imagine where all the columns would act together to provide a "three times safety factor."

[Tony Szamboti]

18. There you go taking liberties with reality again Seger

The upper block was not tilted at 4 degrees after the first story into the fall. In fact, it wasn't tilted at all.

People should take a good hard look at this video and after letting it fully load use the slider to move the slow motion image at a speed where they can discern just what is happening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k&feature=related

They will see the northwest and southwest corners move simultaneously for the first several stories.

The tilt doesn't occur until after the upper block has dropped straight down for several stories.

[William Seger]

25. I'll take that as a "no"

... you can't defend your assertion that the tilt wouldn't matter to your "jolt" theory. That means we really are down to arguing whether or not there was a tilt. So:

(1) The top is tilting away from that camera shot (and the one you used for your "jolt" analysis), which has been pointed out to you numerous times. Should I draw you a picture showing why that matters?

(2) You can't clearly see the southwest corner (or actually, much of the roofline at all) in that shot because it's enveloped in smoke. Smoke that's already roiled away from the building when the tilt began would not tilt with the building.

(3) Because of the camera angle and the smoke and the low resolution, you can't see much action in the top block in that shot until it all starts descending, which would be after the tilt "hinge" columns on the north side also failed, as shots from the east and west side show. As it descends, you can't easily tell from that angle whether or not the tilting is continuing, again because it's tilting away from the camera.

To tell if the building is tilting to the south at the very beginning of the collapse, you need to look at camera angles from the east or west. I know for a fact that they've been shown to you before; why do you persist in ignoring them and looking at shots from the north?

E.g., from the west: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_f3d-gETnk&feature=PlayList&p=0C4DF480E31D901F&index=11

[Bolo Boffin]

27. And thus Tony gets irreducible

He must ignore all the visual evidence you've provided and NIST has provided to maintain his belief.

[freedom fighter jh]

11. Way to go Tony!

You did a great job standing up to them, keeping the discussion on track, answering them with physical arguments, repeating as much as you had to repeat when they could not process what you were saying.

[Tony Szamboti]

13. Looking back I am surprised I was able to do what I did

After reviewing the videos I am surprised I was able to answer as much as I was, as it was really two on one.

There are a couple of places I wish I had called them on. One was where Ryan Mackey shows the exterior columns and just one truss. He didn't show the entire structure and I wasn't able to show my slides which would have shown the core.

I am hopeful that any viewers that are curious will google my name and read my papers.

[Realityhack]

17. That was some of the worst BS I have ever seen.

I had to stop watching because Tony's arguments are so stupid and uninformed that they are downright painful to listen to.

[icee2]

19. "That was some of the worst BS I have ever seen."

And if there's anyone who knows how to recognize BS when they see it, YOU do, isn't that right?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Yeah...

that's why we notice yours so quickly.

[icee2]

31. Dude

And if there's any TC that knows how to promote BS when they can't deny the truth, YOU do, isn't that right?

[SDuderstadt]

51. "deny the truth"...

dude, if you're promoting the "truth", you should be able to produce actual evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

24. I woould like to take a moment out from all the sniping on this issue....

and express my appreciation to Tony for his contributions outside of mechanical engineering. I don't know about anyone else, but when I am at a hockey game, it's always a thrill between periods when the driver maneuvers the Szamboti machine onto the ice and makes the ice so smooth and playable.

My hat is off to you, Tony!


P.S. I would like to talk to you about my idea to essentially combine the wonderful Szamboti machine with one of those shaved ice machines that make wonderful treats when topped with fruit-flavored syrup (my favorite is cherry....yum!). Anyhow, I am stuck on a few of the details, however, I am sure they can be figured out with your mechanical engineering skills. I am also assuming that you have patented the Szamboti machine; I just don't know if we'd have to apply for a new patent for the Szamboti/shaved ice machine combo. Whatever, I am SURE it would be a winner! I also have a number of other ideas ready to go! We just need to get these projects greenlighted.


(with a tip of my hat to Don Novello and Laszlo Toth)

[Tony Szamboti]

49. The engineer who designed/invented the ice smoothing machine was Frank Zamboni

However, I did have a famous father.

His name was Gus Szamboti and he was considered the top custom billiard cuemaker of his day and was famous in the pocket billiard world.

I do have a patent but it is for a variable antenna support structure.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Tony....

do the words "tongue in cheek" mean anything to you?

[Tony Szamboti]

52. You didn't pull it off right though and that is why I answered the way I did

You screwed up your little joke when you said "Tony's contributions outside of mechanical engineering". The ice smoothing machine would in fact be a mechanical engineering project.

Your joke was disjointed and seeing that provides insight into why you can't put all of the pieces of evidence together and understand that the collapses of the towers and WTC 7 could only have been caused by controlled demolitions.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. And your testable explanation of how the towers were taken down with explosives will be available

when?

[Tony Szamboti]

55. My explanation of removal of column strength by artificial means can be replicated with a model

It is yours that cannot, and this is the reason that those with the resources (NIST) did not build a physical model and show how it could happen with their theory. They didn't even say whether they attempted to prove their theory of how the collapse propagated with a computer model. They had no choice but to depend on Bazant's hypothesis, which we now know does not conform to observation and cannot be rescued by Internet jockeys like you in spite of your fallacious "it was a limiting case" rhetoric.

Realistic situations can always be replicated by calculation also. Show some calculations to back up your rhetoric.

Bolo, while you are at it why don't you give us your explanation as to why after collapse initiation of the 98th floor in WTC 1, which was above the aircraft damage, that the next floors to collapse were 99 through 102? Please tell us why you think fully intact floors above the aircraft damage would collapse before the damaged floors. Don't forget this happened without any observed velocity loss, so no jolt was involved. If you want to use fire as a reason for these four higher floors collapsing first, please provide a citation for them even having large fires let alone being fully involved enough to cause their collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Your "explanation of removal of column strength by artificial means" is no such thing

You haven't suggested any such thing, much less accounted for how it could be employed in two office towers operating at 95% occupancy.

The calculations behind my "rhetoric" are the papers of Bazant and the NIST reports. You've haven't produced 1/100th of the calculations and explanations of those two sources, and there are many other actual scholarly papers besides.

You have also presented zero evidence that "the next floors to collapse were 99 through 102." It's your assertion alone that this is so. Please present your evidence for such a thing.

[Tony Szamboti]

61. What floors do you think collapsed after initiation in WTC 1?

Bolo, I am curious to see what you think you observe here.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Tony, this is all your show. We're discussing your theory or lack of one.

Present your evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Well, you just proved you have no sense of humor either.....

I plead guilty to one count of providing a disjointed joke.

[Tony Szamboti]

62. If the joke was told right then I would have laughed

SDuderstadt,

How often have you found yourself wondering when somebody blows a punch line? Most people don't laugh when that happens, because it didn't hit them right.

You are welcome to try again. I would certainly laugh if it was funny, even if the joke was on me.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Well. this whole discussion is a joke on you....

given your weak argument and your repeating of "truther points" that have been consistently debunked. I don't know why you'd be so demanding of my punch line, when you aren't demanding of anything else.

[Tony Szamboti]

65. You are simply projecting

and making unsupported assertions. That is the real joke. Unfortunately, that is all that is heard far too often from those who adamantly support the present official story and reject anything which shows there are serious problems with it.

Ryan Mackey's Iredducible Delusion belongs to you fellows. Ryan Mackey included. He seems to be good at projecting also.

First we had Bazant's dynamic load scenario with a jolt, and when a jolt is shown not to have occurred it becomes, well it tilted and smoothed out the jolt, and when it is pointed out that the energy dissipation from the columns would still cause a serious cumulative velocity loss, it becomes all the columns missed each other and everything fell on the floors.

It seems attempting to project your own faults onto those you disagree with is what you are expert in, and not legitimate research to discern reality.

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. I'm still looking for evidence that you believe your own theory

I honestly don't see how any reasonable reader could believe that negative acceleration is a sine qua non for Bazant and Zhou's argument that the towers could not withstand the collapse. It's as if you can't bring yourself actually to read the paper.

I also don't see how you miss the fact that your analysis documents a "serious cumulative velocity loss" compared to free fall.

And I don't see how you could portray "well it tilted" and "all the columns missed each other" as two distinct steps in an argument, when the first practically implies the second (depending, of course, on the degree of tilt).

But, Tony, if you really and truly believe you have a winning argument here, then by all means, get an established mainstream journal to publish it. What have you been waiting for?

[AZCat]

81. The truly sad thing...

is that as much as Tony rails against the "internet jockeys" he's the one who hasn't made a foray into the more traditional forums for technical engineering discussions (and no, I don't mean shady bars - they're for non-technical engineering discussions). There are plenty of engineering journals willing to publish articles but as Steven Jones and others found out you have to play silly little games to sneak crackpot theories like controlled demolition through the door.

[William Seger]

59. Seems there are a few other points

... in this thread more worthy of your attention.

[BeFree]

66. So, thanks Tony

You take out the core columns with explosives and the subsequent drop of the columns would draw in the perimeter just like the NIST claims.

And a collapsing core makes the tilt possible. The only way it would be possible.

Saw a video many years ago with the CNN stamp on it of great clouds of smoke at the bottom of the towers preceding any collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Tony Szamboti's Missing Tilt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S66l28KveFw

[Tony Szamboti]

69. You are being gullible here Bolo

The video of the collapse used in this clip is taken from 3.5 miles away and cannot resolve the initial vertical drop of a couple of stories of the upper section of WTC 1 before it tilts.

The guy who made this video refuses to consider any evidence that might contradict the present official story, so I am not surprised he would use this poor video in a sophmoric attempt to debunk the problem I have raised.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. That's precisely the video used by eomer up above to show that there's a drop first

So you're saying he's gullible too?

[Tony Szamboti]

71. This video shouldn't be used by anyone to determine when the tilt occurred

As it does not have the ability to see what is happening to the roofline and initiation area for the first couple stories of the collapse.

The videos which should be used are the much more close up videos taken from the west side, and the more normal to the tilt axis they are the better.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. How about the video used to produce the stills in NCSTAR!-6, page 162 (pdf 244)? n/t

[Tony Szamboti]

73. They are from the video I am talking about not being up to the task

The NIST stills on the page you reference are from the 3.5 mile away video that I say can't tell us what we are looking to discern.

We are going to do an analysis of several more close up videos with software like Matlab's video image processor to see just when the tilt occurs and to what degree over time and then use that information to determine structural effects.

I would prefer to hold off on making any other statements on it until that study has been completed.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. So in Tony's world, NIST is using the wrong video, eomer's using the wrong camera angle, everybody's

using the wrong camera angle but Tony.

Sorry, eomer, you have dazzling footwork, but Tony has to throw you under the bus to get NIST there.

Your preferred video angle, Tony?

[Tony Szamboti]

75. I already told you

In engineering the phrase "normal to" means at a right angle to the object. The best view of the tilt would be at right angles to the tilt, which is from north to south or in the same direction as the east and west walls in the case of WTC 1, so a closeup from a right angle to either the entire east or west wall would work best.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Can you point to a preferred video with your preferred angle, since the NIST video

which is as perpendicular as any I've seen, doesn't suit your fancy?

Provide a link to a video, Tony.

[Tony Szamboti]

77. Seger already did

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Seger uses the NIST-eomer video as well.

And you are hardcore about not providing anything asked of you, Tony. So far in this thread we've got: no diagram, no link to a video, no testable hypothesis on how your suggestion of CD happened, nothing. You can't even provide a link to Seger's post showing the video you prefer.

[Tony Szamboti]

79. You will have to wait until the study is complete

Seger posted several links to videos. They are all here.

I also do not want to be pigeon holed into the use of one video at this point and would like to honestly determine just when the tilt occurs and it's magnitude over time and then perform an analysis to see what the effects of it would be on the structure.

I will be honest with it but you will have to wait until the study is complete. I do not see any point to additional argument without some precise analysis. What I did on the Hardfire show was raise the issue. The upper block certainly did not tilt 8 degrees or even 4 degrees before descending vertically. We will see what actually happened and do an analysis.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. The study, for folks who don't know, was mentioned by Tony at JREF

He's part of an analysis of a video (which is apparently one that Seger linked to) or perhaps more than one video to determine the tilt as best they can.

Q: Do you think the WTC structure could deal with a 1 degree tilt beginning at that floor?

[AZCat]

82. Kick for a response from Tony.

We wouldn't want Tony to think we've abandoned him.