On 9/11, Larry Silverstein talked with his insurance carrier about controlled demolition of WTC7

[spooked911]

I did not know this. But apparently this is evidence against WTC7 being a controlled demolition.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

Note, the author says "authorize"-- as if the devices are already in place. Silverstein wanted "authorization" for controlled demolition.

But since there was no sound as the building went down, we can be assured it was NOT controlled demolition.

Riiight.

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. "the author says 'authorize'-- as if the devices are already in place"

:eyes:

And if I call my health insurance company to see if they will authorize, I dunno, a liver transplant, I wonder what you'll infer from that. That I'm already in surgery? That it's a decoy to distract everyone from my secret hip replacement?

I'm not especially interested in what Jeffrey Scott Shapiro has to say on FoxNews.com. I'm just scratching my head over your response.

[PufPuf23]

9. I would check the NYC High Rise Building Codes circa 2002

One might be surprised at what might one might find for public and property safety.

Wasn't WTC7 built considerably after the Twin Towers? -- I am not sure of this.

[scott75]

17. Some interesting information

Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert, was highly skeptical of the notion that they could set up explosives in a few hours with the building on fire. This suggests it was set up well in advance. Here's his take on it when he discovered that WTC 7 collapsed on September 11:
Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition


One key claim that Shapiro made on Fox News was that the collapse was quiet. He used this claim to discredit the idea that WTC 7 was taken down by controlled demolition:

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

However, Shapiro’s claim is contradicted by NYPD officer Craig Bartmer, who stated in a 27 minute interview conducted by the creator of loose change, Dylan Avery, that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse:

I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest"

Later in the film, Bartmer highlights the possibility that the attack was run from Building 7, as former German technology minister Andreas von Buelow has also postulated, and that it was then demolished to destroy the evidence

[LARED]

18. Oldies for sure

Nothing better in the last, say... 6 years? Not surprised.

[scott75]

19. Shapiro's article is new...

As to the rest, I suppose some people will never be persuaded, no matter how much evidence they see.

[LARED]

20. The day I see evidence is the day I'll start taking truthers

seriously.

[scott75]

21. If you don't want to see evidence...

You may never see it.

[LARED]

22. It's really not a question of my ability to see or to understand

what is known. The problem is after nearly nine years no one in the truther community has put together a coherent rational basis for something other than what is referred to the official story (whatever than is)

If you have such a argument please let me in on it.

[scott75]

25. I think it's already been presented...

But I know you don't agree. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

[hack89]

26. But it hasn't

can you show me any detailed, comprehensive theory that puts all the pieces together and explains just what happened on 911? The truth community refuses to answer basic questions like how much explosives were used, how they got in the towers undetected, and where they were placed.

[scott75]

32. Whoa there...

The information on 9/11 is enormous. Numerous books have been written on the subject, but no one that I know have has ever claimed to have put all the pieces together. We do the best we can with the information we've gathered to date. I put up some links in the post of mine that started this little sub thread, but other than Lared's comment that it was old news, there was absolutely no comment on whether or not the material was valid, which meant that I had nothing further to offer; I can't agree or disagree with someone if they don't make an argument. If you'd like to look at some of the most comprehensive work out there, I'd recommend that you take a look at one of the books on 9/11 by David Ray Griffin or Jim Marrs. I've read some books on 9/11 from both of these authors and I know that there's still many things to learn. Not only that, but the mind doesn't retain information perfectly, and I've found that sometimes you have to read things many times over before finally absorbing it so well that you can recall the information at a moment's notice.

[hack89]

34. There is plenty of endless speculation in those books and links

but trust me on this - no one has said "this is how it was done ..." and proceeded to present a rational and plausible scenario and timeline on how the WTC were rigged for demolition.

Griffin lost me when he wrote about the automated Pentagon missile systems - he makes things up. He also requires you to ignore the accounts of many eyewitnesses (as do most Pentagon 911 CTs) to accept his theory that a missile hit the Pentagon.

I have been in this forum discussing 911 since 2005 - there is not a single 911 theory that has not been discussed in great depth here. As a matter of fact there has not been anything new here for a very long time - just the same CTs endlessly recycled. That is most likely why LARED didn't engage - it wears thin when we have to start all over again with each shiny new Truther that has just discovered the "truth".

[scott75]

36. I wouldn't call it speculation...

And no, he doesn't say "this is how it was done". The arguments are complicated and require a lot of work to understand. I've been in this forum before. As a matter of fact, for a brief period of time I persuaded Tony Szamboti to contribute some of his engineering expertise. He didn't feel his talents were appreciated, however, and has decided to dedicate his time on 9/11 over in The 9/11 Forum instead.

[AZCat]

40. He didn't feel his talents were appreciated?

What talents? He made himself look foolish, but I don't regard that as a talent.

[scott75]

52. Tony is a mechanical engineer...

...with a good understanding of structural engineering. Are you an engineer with a good understanding of structural engineering? I sincerely doubt you could follow his points. He now spends his time in a forum where people who can follow his arguments.

[LARED]

56. I am, and Tony

is seemingly well intentioned but wrong on many points.

[scott75]

62. If you are truly an engineer...

Then perhaps Tony would be willing to listen to arguments you make. What arguments of Tony's do you think are mistaken?

[LARED]

66. Try the archives

it's not worth my time. One liners are about as much effort as I can muster these days for 9/11 CT'ers

[scott75]

73. Then I suppose this discussion is over.

[SDuderstadt]

61. You should correct your last sentence to read...

"with people who fall for Tony's arguments".

[scott75]

63. Do you claim to be an engineer like LARED?

Or is it more that you simply can't follow Tony's arguments yourself?

[SDuderstadt]

68. Dude, neither are you...

why would you trust Tony more than, say, Frank Greening, Zdenk Bazant or Mete Sozen, all of whom are distinguished structural engineers?

With all due respect, your credibility here is pretty low.

[scott75]

71. I believe Frank Greening over in the 9/11 forum as well..

I believe he goes under Dr G over there. I think he started the thread that's got the most recent response at the moment in the WTC forum there right now:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/physical-models-of-the-twin-towers-and-collapse-mechanisms-t62.html

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

78. How would you know?

You don't possess the technical skills to evaluate Tony's understanding of any type engineering. You just think he has a good understanding of structural engineering. I may be an anonymous poster on the internet (at least as far as you're concerned) but I've seen Tony's arguments and they're crap. I've pointed out why they were crap (and so have many, many others), and Tony ran away. If he'd rather have people confirm his delusions than approach a solution that resembles reality, then he's welcome to his echo chambers.

[scott75]

81. Not quite

I admit that I have struggled with some of the things that he's brought up, but he took the time to explain some points to me as well. In any case, if you think that he made a mistake, point it out, and I'll try to bring it to his attention. You can claim that Tony's arguments aren't good, but like you said, you're an anonymous poster and your own level of expertise has never been established. This argument that people who leave are "running away" has been made before, but it doesn't make it true. Tony told me he'd just got tired of the amateur writings here. If you consider yourself to be a serious 9/11 researcher and have enough knowledge to disprove Tony's arguments, feel free to apply for a membership at The 9/11 Forum.

[AZCat]

84. I brought up the mistakes back when Tony was posting here...

and again over at the JREF and he didn't bother to respond to them then, so why would you think it would be any different now? Not that I'd need to make an argument from authority - his mistakes were pretty basic (surprising, really - I almost didn't believe them at first). Tony can make whatever claims he wants about his reasons for leaving this forum and the JREF, but it was obvious he wasn't getting the response he wanted, whatever that might have been. It wasn't because the writings were amateurish, because there are plenty of professionals here and at the JREF with more credentials and experience than Tony who made reasoned arguments that he ignored repeatedly. Maybe it's because his arguments were so amateurish and our rejection of them so harsh that he went running away with his tail between his legs.

I already have a membership at the 9/11 Forum, but I have been so disgusted with Tony's inability to engage in reasoned argument that I'd rather not waste time in yet another forum when he's just going to ignore my points again.

[scott75]

90. Can you tell me a point that you think Tony got wrong?

I'm also in The 9/11 Forum and if I don't know how to address it, perhaps I could ask him about it.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. Mistaking Bazant's limiting case as an actual description of what happened, for one.

The paper Szamboti bases his on, Bazant's first paper, describes a limiting case. It sketches out an approach to understanding the collapses. It sets up the problem in a way that overstates how the building could resist the falling block, and then Bazant and Zhou show that the building STILL would have fallen under that circumstance.

Tony is running his numbers as if the building actually fell the way Bazant simplifies it in his paper, but the upper section tilted and twisted as it fell. This completely changes how the upper structure would impact the lower structure.

The best that can be said for Tony is that he showed Bazant's limiting case did not actually happen that way, but every competent structural engineer reading Bazant's paper already knew that. It does nothing to disprove Bazant's paper because Bazant was't trying to show exactly what happened. He was trying to show how the building could never have survived the upper section descending under any circumstances whatsoever.

Tony missed the point. He turned Bazant's limiting case into a massive straw man.

[scott75]

125. Bolo, perhaps this linked post may address your concerns...

It was a post in response to William Seger, who also mentioned the issue of tilt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=286789&mesg_id=287057

[Bolo Boffin]

131. No. You are playing silly games.

That link does nothing at all to address Tony Szamboti's grievous error. Szamboti read Bazant Zhou as a 100% depiction of reality, when it was only a limiting case. Your link does nothing to address that at all.

Please stop playing silly games. I understand that's what you're pretty much left with in order to defend Szamboti and his silly papers, but it still isn't something you should be doing. I guess you get bonus points for sounding oh, so reasonable. But you are defending bullshit and playing silly games to do so, and that's something no amount of reasonable tone can make up for.

[scott75]

139. femr2 responds

femr2 responded to your post. Following is most of his response:
*****

The paper Szamboti bases his on, Bazant's first paper, describes a limiting case. It sketches out an approach to understanding the collapses. It sets up the problem in a way that overstates how the building could resist the falling block, and then Bazant and Zhou show that the building STILL would have fallen under that circumstance.

Different folk will give different answers, as some of the simplifying assumptions (such as rigid upper block) act very much in favour of collapse, so this is a slightly grey area for me. Swings and roundabouts. They omit initiation, which is a big problem for me, but I do agree that once started descent would progress.

Tony is running his numbers as if the building actually fell the way

That's fair. Tony ? Object to that ?

Bazant simplifies it in his paper, but the upper section tilted and twisted as it fell. This completely changes how the upper structure would impact the lower structure.

Agreed, though there are lots of incorrect assumptions about that *twisting and tilting* kicking around. The effect of which *could* swing the door both ways. Yeah, go not to the elves for advice eh.

but every competent structural engineer reading Bazant's paper already knew that.

Think most folk, structural engineer or not, know that the actual descents did not match the behaviour of a 1D mathematical model incorporating rigid bodies. I guess some *structural engineers* have a few inter-personal issues, and might need to get out a bit more.

It does nothing to disprove Bazant's paper because Bazant was't trying to show exactly what happened.

That's not really the point. Tony is expecting a big initial jolt...in the real world. It's not there. I think there may be reasons why not, but he's not directly trying to disprove Bazant as far as I'm concerned. If initiation was deliberate (which does not affect Bazant at all, as it skips that bit) then that could negate the initial jolt, or perhaps the mode of initiation (deformation of the upper block and hidden internal behaviours) resulted in the jolt being smoothed, lessened, hidden, ...

He was trying to show how the building could never have survived the upper section descending under any circumstances whatsoever.

Don't agree with under *any* circumstances.

Tony missed the point. He turned Bazant's limiting case into a massive straw man.

I suspect the debate has gone on for so long, each *side* has become backd into a corner full of layers of misinterpretation.
*****

[scott75]

140. Response from tony to femr's response

Tony's response:
******

It does nothing to disprove Bazant's paper because Bazant was't trying to show exactly what happened.

That's not really the point. Tony is expecting a big initial jolt...in the real world. It's not there. I think there may be reasons why not, but he's not directly trying to disprove Bazant as far as I'm concerned. If initiation was deliberate (which does not affect Bazant at all, as it skips that bit) then that could negate the initial jolt, or perhaps the mode of initiation (deformation of the upper block and hidden internal behaviours) resulted in the jolt being smoothed, lessened, hidden, ...

[William Seger]

142. Not much of a "response" to what femr2 actually said

As usual, Tony dismisses valid criticism of his thesis and just keeps repeating the same thesis.

[scott75]

143. I'm guessing you'll be interested in femr's response to Tony's post...

Here it is:
***************************

If the initiation was artificially generated over several stories then it is easy to see why there would be no jolt. That is the point I am trying to make.

The issue out there is with interpreting the observations and the conclusion imo.

It's perfectly valid to state there was no large magnitude jolt observable by tracing the position of elements of the external structure, such as the NW corner and Window Washer. Tracing those elements reveals only smaller magnitude variations in velocity.

Taking a leap from there and declaring that in itself *proves* demolition, regardless of my viewpoint, is not going to wash.

There can be all SORTS of things going on internally within the upper block that could result in jolts that *are* taking place not showing up on a trace of features on the North face, EVEN in the scenario of demolition. With demolition, there's STILL going to be some mighty big jolts that would be traceable if not for the *shielding* I'm trying to get across to you.

What is important is getting a *picture* of how the upper block actually behaved, and relating the trace findings to that.

A jolt is seen in every situation where a falling object naturally breaks a structure under it which could normally withstand several times the falling object's load at rest.

But that's not the situation for WTC 1 Tony. We just DON'T KNOW what is impacting what internally (although we here are doing a bloody good job of piecing it together in recent times), and we don't know the orientation of internal members. I've just recently found a video which looks like it shows the entire south wall of the upper block being ripped off very early in descent. What would that behaviour do to your jolt hypothesis ? What if the first failure is a floor assembly falling from it's supports, so the first jolt being entirely internal ? Same with all other observed behaviours...you have to go back to the data and reinterpret it with knowledge of the actual behaviour of the object you've traced a couple of points on.
***************************

[scott75]

144. As well as Tony's response to femr's response...

Tony's response:
***
Since it seems you believe a large deceleration could somehow be masked in a natural collision of a mass with a structure designed to handle several times the static load of that mass, I would like to offer you, and anyone else who shares your opinion, the challenge of providing a real world example separate from the WTC events. I don't know of one.
***

[scott75]

145. Subsequent responses

Can be seen here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-small-point-t358-60.html

[hack89]

42. Without hard evidence it is speculation

when you have to discount hundreds of eyewitnesses it is speculation. When you depend on a massive conspiracy to silence millions of engineers and scientists it is speculation.

[scott75]

55. You haven't shown any evidence that either of thse things has been done

[LARED]

27. Yes, we will agree to disagree, but I

must say not much has been presented. If there was a rational coherent theory about 9/11 being something different, every 9/11 CT'er web page would have it front and center.

And you would have a link for me in about 30 seconds.

[scott75]

31. This is where we disagree, laugh :-p

You think not much has been presented, I think a lot has been presented. As to links, I presented you with some. Your only response was that the information was old, which is fine, but it says nothing of the quality of the information. Clearly I think the information is good stuff, clearly you don't, and it seems that you're also not interested in saying why you don't think it's good. When one party isn't interested in debating a point, the other party should just leave; you can't have a discussion by oneself.

[LARED]

43. All I've asked for is a coherent, rational, narrative to back up

the claims of the 9/11 CT'ers. No CT'er has to date provided this. No one. Why? Because one does not exist.

The quality of the stuff you've presented is just junk. It's been debated countless times here and elsewhere and determined to be of very low quality. Just because you posted it one more time, doesn't improve it's quality one iota, so if you want to debate the specifics of this nonsense once again I will not be the guy to do this.

[scott75]

50. I disagree, but I think you know that.

[LARED]

60. Well, I know that, but we can disagree all day long

about a host of things, but there is one thing we do seem to agree about and that is your inability to provide s coherent rational 9/11 CT. If there was one you would have posted by now.

[scott75]

64. What happened on 9/11 can't be summed up in a little post...

Read a few books on the subject as I have and perhaps you'll realize this.

[LARED]

67. No one is asking for a short summary

A detailed coherent rational argument based on evidence is all I'm asking for. I would think the whole thing should not take more than ten or twenty pages. If you have one, I'll be glad to read it.

[scott75]

70. 10 or 20 pages is far too short as well

Honestly, have you read any books on 9/11? If you have, I have no idea why you would think 10 or 20 pages could possibly be enough. I personally recommend 9/11 and American Empire, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. It has a collection of essays by various authors, each touching on a different aspect of 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Have you read the NIST report?

It's about 10,000 pages long...

[scott75]

74. No, though I have read parts of it

From what I've heard, most of it is irrelevant material, much as I believe the Warren Report was. Steven Jones gets to many of its flaws, however. Have you read any of his work?

[SDuderstadt]

76. Most of a 10,000 page report by actual scientists...

is "irrelevant"? Dude, this is pointless.

[scott75]

80. Scientists don't always have to talk of relevant stuff

Have you read Steven Jones critique of NIST's report as well as others who support the official story version of the WTC collapse, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?? If not, I seriously recommend it.

[William Seger]

28. I've seen the WTC7 evidence over and over and over

It consists of a few videos showing the top third of the building falling down. From that evidence, conspiracists "reason" that if that looks like a controlled demolition then it must be a controlled demolition. But not a one of those videos picked up any noise remotely resembling a controlled demolition, which in the case of a building that large would have been a sound loud enough to be easily heard in New Jersey, so the only thing that really resembles a controlled demolition is that gravity pulled the top of the building straight down. Duh. Other evidence presented includes a report of someone near the building hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom," but there's nothing unusual about hearing something like that in a building suffering a progressive collapse, and nothing like even that much noise is heard on videos shot just a few blocks away. We have a video of some firemen on the phone a few blocks away hearing what sounds like a single explosion, but that was 7 hours before the collapse, around the time of the tower collapses when lots of stuff in the streets was on fire, and there is no particular reason to think that sound came from WTC7. Richard Gage deliberately tries to confuse his "marks" over this issue with a shell game: claiming thermite must have been used when he wants to explain why there weren't any noises similar to a conventional demolition, then claiming explosives when he wants to explain the suddenness of the collapse, and yet he can't produce any convincing evidence for either contradictory explanation.

Meanwhile, the closest conspiracists have come to any reasons for the conspirators demolishing WTC7 is claiming Silverstein made a fortune in insurance (demonstrably false), and noting that there were government offices in the building so the conspirators must have wanted to destroy evidence of... something or other.

Then, NIST comes up with a alternate explanation: The building simply wasn't designed to withstand thermal expansion from a prolonged fire, or withstand a progressive collapse once critical columns buckled when expanding girders broke free from flimsy connections. Anyone even vaguely familiar with structural mechanics can look at the design details showing huge, long girders held in place laterally by four bolts and see why that's a very reasonable explanation. At the beginning of every talk, Richard Gage deliberately deceives his "marks" about his knowledge and experience, claiming to have "worked on" many steel buildings, not mentioning that most of his experience was as a project manager, not even as an architect, and especially not mentioning that he is simply not qualified to do any structural engineering. He also doesn't put much emphasis on the fact that his own 9/11 "epiphany" is not even based on his limited experience as an architect, but rather from falling under the thrall of theologian David Ray Griffin citing "evidence" promoted by the likes of computer programmer Jim Hoffman, water tester Kevin Ryan, and nuclear physicist Steven Jones.

What evidence, exactly, do you think people aren't seeing when they call bullshit on this nonsense?

[scott75]

33. Have you read David Ray Griffin's latest book, on WTC 7 specifically?

I admit I haven't yet read it, but I certainly believe that there's a lot of evidence out there. Apparently the last holdout for official story believers is that video recordings don't show any explosive sounds; honestly, I don't have an answer for this one, although it may be that the explosions were somewhat softer due to an exotic explosive such as thermate being used. I can see that you don't respect the work of Dr. Griffin, or 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman, to say nothing of Kevin Ryan, who was formerly a manager at Underwriter Laboratories, the place that certified the steel assemblies that were in the World Trade Center. Seeing as how this is the case, I think that the prospects of persuading you that you are mistaken are rather slim, but I thought I'd atleast make this effort.

As to people who have a strong knowledge of structural engineering, I recommend you take a look at the work of someone who at one time debated at my side over in a forum called sciforums.com, Tony Szamboti. He's a mechanical engineer, with a good understanding of structural engineering, and has written several peer reviewed papers, with the likes of Steven Jones who wrote such papers before 9/11 even occurred. He continues to study the engineering details of the WTC collapses over in a forum dedicated to researchers who like studying technical details over in http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php">The 9/11 Forum.

[AZCat]

35. Tony Szamboti is a member here.

He has demonstrated time and time again here and at other forums that he does not understand simple physics fundamentals. Kevin Ryan was a manager of the water testing division of U.L. and has proven multiple times that he too is ignorant of many things, including what his company (U.L.) did for the WTC towers. Neither of these people are worthy of being labeled authorities on September 11th-related issues.

[scott75]

37. Yes, I know he's a member here

I was the one who introduced him to this forum. You can say he doesn't understand physics fundamentals all you want; the fact of the matter is that he's worked with physics professor Steven Jones, so I think I'll trust him rather then an anonymous poster. I know that Kevin Ryan was a manager of the water testing division at Underwriter Laboratories; what you fail to mention is all the research he did after 9/11 in order to determine whether or not the steel assemblies that Underwriter Laboratories certified were good. It seems that you are the one who's ignorant of what U.L. did for the Towers; his company initially agreed that they'd done good work in the Towers, only to later pretend that they didn't certify the WTC steel, which was an outright lie. They fired him because he exposed this lie in a letter to Frank Gayle's NIST.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scott75]

47. No, you're the one who is mistaken

Perhaps one day you'll realize this. He revealed the truth and the company he worked for couldn't handle it. He wrote a very clear message to NIST's Frank Gayle and that's why he was fired. I suggest you properly inform yourself; here's a good article on the subject:

9/11 Whistleblower Kevin Ryan Fired

He was right regarding U.L.'s role regarding the towers and I find it unfortunate that you're still misinformed on the subject. Perhaps in time you'll learn. Tony Szamboti has worked with Steven Jones, a well known physicist. Tony has explained many things to me in the past for which I'm thankful for. Perhaps if you spent more time trying to understand what he has to say, you'd see the wisdom in his work. Steven Jones is a physicist; what happened to the twin towers has a lot to do with physics, which you'd known if you'd studied the subject enough. Steven Jones knows a whole lot more then simple physics, which should be obvious given that he's a physicist, but apparently you haven't realized this yet.

[LARED]

53. I think you're approaching rather weak satire, rather than irony

at this point.

[scott75]

57. If you think that's response enough...

then I doubt it's worth continuing this discussion.

[AZCat]

77. Your ignorance is sad, really.

You've chosen to believe one set of authorities over another without any ability to differentiate poorly constructed technical arguments from good ones. Any appeals to authority I might make will be dismissed because you can't differentiate various technical credentials, and any arguments I might make will be dismissed because you yourself can't understand them and your chosen authorities will interpret them for you in a way that places them and their arguments in the best light. You're locked into a particular perspective because you think of science like religion, and no argument of mine will ever sway your belief because you'll ignore any conflicting "interpretations" of your gospel. Kevin Ryan is a colossal idiot, but you'll never understand why because you simply can't see where he's gone wrong. Tony's even more pathetic, because he should possess the technical skills and background to avoid stupid mistakes. After all, his technical training is far more relevant than Steven Jones' (another issue you don't seem to grasp).

[scott75]

82. How about we get a bit more specific here?

Let's here these arguments of yours. I may even be able to rebut them alone. If not, I am in various 9/11 forums, including The 9/11 Forum, where people like Tony Szamboti spend time, and I could ask them to help me rebut the argument(s).

I see that you spend the second half of your post insulting various esteemed members of the 9/11 truth movement, but you spend no time at all in truly explaining why you feel that way. Seriously, have you read any of Steven Jones' work concerning the WTC collapses? It's easy to criticize when you don't really know what you're talking about.

[AZCat]

85. You want to rehash this stuff AGAIN?

Tony failed to properly apply simple physics principles multiple times even after multiple people pointed it out. The most recent argument was over at the JREF. Tony started out with this post, to which I responded here. The rest of the discussion went forward from there.

I've read plenty of non-canon September 11th material. Steven Jones' work is just as lacking as any other.

[scott75]

91. What I see is a long discussion there...

It looks like near the end Tony left it. It's clear that the discussion got somewhat emotional which, I think, doesn't help in getting to the bottom of things. I see where the discussion left off, but it wasn't with one of your posts; if there are any particular points that you think that Tony didn't address, by all means mention them and I'll see if I can get him or someone else over in The 9/11 Forum to address them.

[AZCat]

118. Yeah, Tony left it. I remember that much.

What I don't remember, though, is him recanting the assertion he made in the post I referenced. It is an incorrect assertion, as I (and several other people) pointed out in that thread.

[scott75]

122. I took another look at your post..

I'll quote it, for clarity:

Originally Posted by AZCat

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
The deceleration has to be greater than 1g to amplify the load. This is another point that is frequently missed here.

I don't think this is correct. An upper block deceleration of 1g means the net resistance from the lower block is 2g, which is a load amplification. If the upper block were not accelerating at all (or accelerating at less than 1g) then there would not be an amplified load.

Tony is correct though. 1g deceleration is a static load; it's the force that an object exerts on whatever is beneath it when at rest and is considered the normal load. To amplify the load, you need to have a deceleration greater than 1g.

[AZCat]

137. No, you and Tony are incorrect.

I explained further in a later post:

...At rest, the sum of the forces on the upper block is zero, because the gravitational force (of magnitude F=mg) acting on the upper block is offset by a force from the lower block of the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. If the upper block is moving at some velocity but the acceleration/deceleration is zero, then the gravitational force (of magnitude F=mg) acting on the upper block is offset by a force from the lower block of the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. This opposing force is F=mg. In order to produce a deceleration in the upper block, the force from the lower block must be greater than mg.

link to post at JREF

I can't draw a diagram right now because I'm away from the office for the next few days, but if you think it would help I can make one when I get back. Regardless, I don't expect laypeople to understand this concept without a little help. Tony, on the other hand, should have understood it from the beginning.

[scott75]

146. I started a thread with our dialogue on this issue in The 9/11 Forum...

To your credit, the discussion is now 17 posts long. You may wish to take a look:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/simple-physics-principles-t360.html

[AZCat]

148. Interesting responses.

I have an account over at that forum, but I probably won't be able to post much for a couple of days - I am away from the office on an assignment and only have a little time on the computer.

Unfortunately, OneWhiteEye is correct when he says "There seems to be an eternal schism between those who either understand elementary physics or want to, and those on the other side who don't understand and don't want to." I am perfectly willing to give credit to those who make logical technical arguments regardless what side they are on, but Tony and you are not correct in this case. Hopefully the discussion over at that forum will help you understand why. Again, I'll create some explanatory diagrams when I get back to the office if you think it will help you grasp my point.

[scott75]

150. Well put me in as one who wants to ;-)

It would be nice to see you post over there, it would make my job of message messenger unnecessary, laugh :-). As you may have seen from the posts, Tony himself has yet to contribute to the thread, but I think it's safe to say that he's well respected over in The 9/11 Forum.

[kbw]

120. Tony's physics arguments pretty much worthless

The problem with Truthers like Tony, Ryan, and Jones, and add to the list, is that their physics arguments are a waste of time in many cases because their starting point is incorrect.

for example. I'm probably repeating this but... Once the top block started to fall, the only resistance provided by the floors would be at the truss seats. There were only 3 bolted truss seats per 20 feet at the perimeter. (and 3 smaller bolted seats directly under those main truss seats).

At the core there were also only 3 bolted truss seats pro 20 feet. The core did not have he smaller seats that were under the perimeter seats. The four corners of each building were not even connected to the core but instead were connected to truss seats on the adjoining trusses and the seats on the perimeter.

It doesn't take a Doctorate in Physics or a structural engineer degree to realize that these few seats per floor would not offer any resistance, much less any meaningful resistance. Tony's deceleration argument is a waste of time.

Bad data in...bad data out.

[scott75]

133. femr2 responds

Here is his response:
*********
The connections between the floor assemblies and the core/perimeter are definitely a *weak link*, relatively. Top of head I'm not sure whether his values are accurate, but we worked out the energy required to shear the floor connections and it was quite *low*, again relatively.

Tony's argument is based upon core and perimeter columns impacting each other, but I feel is oversimplified (and essentially 1D), and assumes perfect alignment of columns, does not account for the effect of tilt/internal deformation, and does not include the possibility that the internal structure may be somewhat disconnected from the visible external structure.
*********

[scott75]

134. psikeyhackr responds

Here is his response:
********

Once the top block started to fall, the only resistance provided by the floors would be at the truss seats. There were only 3 bolted truss seats per 20 feet at the perimeter. (and 3 smaller bolted seats directly under those main truss seats).

This is the problem with the tube in tube design of the WTC. People want to put the blame on that.

But the core of the top falling portion must come down on the core of the lower stationary portion and most people have disappeared the BEAMS connecting the core columns. Ryan Mackey says the columns would miss each other and then somehow manages to make no mention of the BEAMS.

What we have here is emotional propaganda physics not a true rational attempt to solve the problem objectively.

A snow job to keep the ignorant believing what they prefer.

The core alone would make an 11 second collapse impossible. Even a pancaking of all of the floors outside of the core would take more than 11 seconds. 90 floors in 11 seconds is 1/8th of a second per floor. The conservation of momentum alone would prevent that.

Why haven't most of the physicists in the country been pulling their hair out over this for the last eight years? But so much silence from so many sources. :D

psik
********

psikey actually got a response from femr2 himself over at the 911 forum himself, but I'll just provide the link to it, in case you'd like to see that:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-small-point-t358-30.html

[scott75]

135. OneWhiteEye responds

Here is his response:
******
kbw's assertion fails to account for many energy sinks that could, and did, act to slow the descent. Cite Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson.

The 11 second nonsense (which it is) comes from NIST, I believe. Here I will also cite BLGB, and femr2, out of convenience.

As to Balzac-Vitry, Tony's graph shows that jolt is a misnomer as it was a pronounced and sustained deceleration. Not like the tower at all, on a meter-for-meter displacement comparison. But I'm not so sure such a comparison is meaningful, for the reasons femr2 indicated but also because of the number of stories involved above and below.

Even the standard 1D models predict a cutoff of arrest for the towers with an initial upper block of around 6-story size (if I recall - excludes cap mass). This would have been brief crush down by a small number of stories, with concurrent or subsequent crush-up of that smallish chunk. I suspect the dynamics would be fairly unsurprising against the standard model run with Balzac-Vitry parameters. It really is apples and oranges. I can test that and I will, just need to stop spinning wheels on crude arguments elsewhere!
******

psikey has since stated the source of his 11 second claim:
"11 seconds is what Dr. Sunder says in his PBS podcast. I should have said 18 seconds. Since I think total collapse is impossible even that is too long."

[LARED]

44. The irony

It seems that you are the one who's ignorant of what U.L. did for the Towers

Is quite good.

Kevin Ryan is nothing more than a struggling sophist. But hey a guys got to make a living somehow.

[scott75]

48. One day I hope you realize the truth

[LARED]

51. Spoken like a true believer.

I've long maintained that many 9/11 truthers should really call themselves "9/11 believers", as the belief system of a truther has many similarities to faith based doctrines.

[scott75]

58. I suppose all this forum is generally good for...

Is 1 liners like the one you just made. What the point of it is, I'm not really sure, but there you have it.

[SDuderstadt]

54. I hope that one day you learn....

to evaluate evidencee properly and stop being enthralled with comspiracist nonsense.

[scott75]

59. Yet another 1 liner...

If it were a 1 liner with an actual argument that could be rebutted it would be one thing, but it's basically just an insult.

[hack89]

38. Tony Szamboti had his ass handed to him

when he ventured into this forum. Kevin Ryan was a water tester with no involvement (or expertise for that matter) in testing steel structures. Griffin is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology with no engineering experience and expertise. Hoffman is a software engineer with no engineering experience and expertise. Steven Jones "research" also includes "proving" that Jesus visited the Americas as told by Mayan carvings.

We are all familiar with this entire cast of characters and their theories - why not considering it has been 9 years since 911 and we are still getting the same CTs recycled time and time again.

[scott75]

49. Tony Szamboti got tired of the amateur posters here...

He's now moved on to people with more technical expertise over in the 9/11 Forum.

[hack89]

69. No - he went looking for an echo chamber

where no one had the expertise to question him. Look at the archives here - it is very clear that he had no clue what he was talking about.

[scott75]

75. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for that...

And I'm not interested in looking for your evidence for you. I have spoken to Tony many times in the past and I have found that it's those who disagree with him who generally have little understanding of the subject matter. LARED seems content to dwell in the past, but the discussion is ongoing in the 9/11 forum.

[AZCat]

79. Of course you won't!

You'll take the word of Tony (and those who agree with him). No wonder he comes out smelling like a rose, once he's "explained" to you why he is right.

[scott75]

83. Perhaps some specifics..

Right now we're not really talking about anything other than our viewpoints. How about delving into some specific disagreements? Have you read Steven Jones paper http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html">Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?? If so, can you name any part of it that you disagree with?

[AZCat]

86. How about you deal with Tony's physics problem upthread first? n/t

[scott75]

92. A lot of posts...

Please point out the message you're referring to.

[hack89]

95. Every one of Jones' 13 points has been discussed in great detail

here over the past 8 years - every one has been debunked. Instead of pestering us to summarize 8 years of discussion, why don't you simply take the time to read the archives? I know it is all new and exciting to you but to be frank it is a big bore when I have to post the same arguments for the 20th time in response to the same CTs. Since the Truth community has not come up with anything new in a very long time have you considered that what you believe may not be the Truth? For example, I would certainly expect by now that you could name at least one low level conspirator.

[scott75]

97. I think Lloyd England fits the bill for a low level conspirator...

I recommend you take a look at this video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278&hl=undefined#

As to your claim that all Jones' 13 points have been debunked, you can claim it, but unless I see this to be true, I won't take your word for it. And sorry, but I'm not interested in going through 8 years of discussion to see if you're right. I would hardly expect you to go through the years of discussions that have been had in forums I've been in for you to find out that -I'm- right. In essence, I believe that if I want to persuade someone that I'm right, I have to present them with the evidence myself.

[zappaman]

98. "I'm not interested in going through 8 years of discussion to see if you're right"

So, getting to the "truth" is not that big a deal for you after all, is it?
Far too taxing to actually look anything up, huh?
Much easier just to read some BS here or there and make an uniformed decision, eh?
Seriously, if you really thought there was a conspiracy, you would take a few minutes to actually check out some real evidence.
Keep digging, scott...you're almost there.

[scott75]

103. Getting the truth is a big deal...

However, I'm fairly sure that it's not just a big deal for me. I would never make someone wade through 8 years of posts to find it if I felt I knew the answers already, and I'm simply expecting the same treatment that I would give to others. And by the way, wading through 8 years of posts would take more than "a few minutes".

[hack89]

101. So they staged a phony car accident on a busy highway

right in the middle of rush hour and no one saw it? Is that what you really believe? Not a single a eyewitness to collaborate the idea that it was all staged? Can't you see the problem here?

[scott75]

104. They stopped traffic...

Blocked off the highway in fact. Ask yourself this; who, aside from Wayne, claims to have seen a light pole hit his car? I don't mean say that they heard it happen, it was reported in the news, so clearly many would say it happened, I mean actually see it with their own eyes.

[hack89]

109. Who saw them stage it?

extra-ordinary claims should have some actual evidence, don't you think?

Don't give me a CT and then tell me it has to be true if I can disprove it - that is intellectually dishonest. I will not believe you until you provide some evidence.

[William Seger]

87. "little understanding of the subject matter" ?

The question I've been waiting for Tony to answer really had nothing to do with structural mechanics, but rather just ordinary logic, and I do believe a "little understanding of the subject matter" can go a long way. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at it: If the following diagram were a static situation rather than dynamic, approximately what percentage of the weight of the top block would be resting on the perimeter columns on the right side?



I'm not looking for an exact number here, because it isn't necessary; a ballpark number will do. Tony's initial answer was to calculate that it would only have been about 7% more than if the structure were intact, because of the shifted center of mass. When I explained to him why I thought he was quite wrong -- i.e. he was completely overlooking something rather important -- and what effect the correct answer has on a basic premise of his "missing jolt" theory, he apparently decided he didn't want to discuss it anymore. And you claim that's because he "got tired of the amateur posters here" and "moved on to people with more technical expertise?"

You can believe that if you like, but afraid I have a very different opinion, which is: If his theory can't even stand up to a little scrutiny by "amateur posters" then I'm certainly not impressed by it, or by your fawning over it. And this is just one of a rather long list of unanswered issues he left behind, both here and on the JREF forum, when he "moved on to people with more technical expertise."

[SDuderstadt]

88. "fawning"

THAT'S the word I was looking for to describe Scott's adulation of Tony...it's actually rather cloying.

[scott75]

93. Thank you William...

I'll see if I can get someone over at the 9/11 Forum to address your point.

[scott75]

96. Tony's response, as well as that of another 9/11 Forumer

Here is Tony's response:

Scott, this argument that William Seger tries to make to negate the requirement for a jolt is nonsense. The building was not in this situation when the north wall let go and the entire upper section began to descend. It was only tilted about 1 degree and that has been shown here. It has also been shown that the columns would not miss each other with the actual tilt and descent geometery of the collapse.

If a building section was tilted at 4 degrees the extra load on the section it tilted towards would be about 7%, basic trignometry will show that, but that is a moot point as the building was not in the situation Seger shows when a collision should have occurred between the first contacting floors of the upper and lower sections.

There is only one reason the jolt is missing and the upper section continuously accelerates at about 70% the rate of gravity, and that is because the column strength had been removed artificially prior to the collision taking place....

What you should ask Seger in return is how WTC 1 could ever get to the point he shows with a failure of the south wall, as the NIST report doesn't show the overloads required to cause the east and west perimeter walls to fail and really has no way of explaining how the central core columns would be caused to collapse. These problems for the NIST report have been demonstrated on this forum in a disciplined and rigorous way.

And here is the response of SanderO, another 911 Forumer:

Let me take a crack at this.

As the top is rotated the core columns of the upper block are no longer bearing on the corresponding ones of the lower section. The perimeter columns on the front and back have parted and the left side facade columns will be seeing over loading as are the right side. However this assumes that in the rotation the right side columns of the upper block feel down some how to bear on the lower block columns. However by rotating 4% they are now about 50% mis aligned with the block below. So in the best world neither web is aligned and only half the flange area.

I think in this rotation the core columns would be bent and buckled as shown and if this was at a splice it would fail and those columns would support a significant smaller load.

The moving center of mass is not significant because the columns are no longer continuous. I have no number for what percentage the load increase would be on the remaining one able to transfer load but it seems that it would carry the loads of the front and back that would increase it by perhaps 50%.

Just a guess. I don't see it standing very long.

[William Seger]

99. OK, I'm convinced...

... that Tone is either even dumber than I thought or he is intellectually dishonest enough to try to confuse the issue, then dodge it. The diagram I show is actually a better situation for producing the maximum "jolt" than the 1^o tilt Tony claims before the top began descending.

In the diagram I show, please note that all the columns across floor 97 have failed except for the perimeter columns on the left (the north wall). Otherwise, there could be no tilt. That means that if my diagram were a static situation, then Tony's estimate of a 7% increase is absurdly wrong. Approximately half the entire weight of the top block would be on the floor 96 perimeter columns on the right and the other half would be on the remaining floor 97 perimeter columns on the left.

Do you or do you not understand why that's so? If you or Tony care to try to refute that assertion, then please tell me what else could possibly be supporting any significant weight. Those failed columns across floor 97?

And if the perimeter columns on the left also failed and the top block began descending before it impacted the perimeter columns on the right, then the effective weight bearing down on those impacted columns would be the entire weight of the top block! And again, if you or Tony care to try to refute that assertion, then please tell me what else would be resisting that falling weight, if all the columns across floor 97 have failed and no other columns at level 96 have yet been impacted.

As I said, Scott, this is fairly simple logic and it's not "nonsense."

Now, what effect would that have on Tony's "missing jolt" theory? Anyone who actually grasps the fundamental premise of Tony's theory should immediately see the point I'm getting at: No "load amplification" is necessary if the impacted columns couldn't even resist the static weight of the load bearing down on them. And if there is no load amplification necessary to fail those impacted columns, then those columns simply can't decelerate the falling mass. The flaw in Tony's logic is to assume that all of the lower columns would act together, at their maximum strength, to resist the falling mass. He then compares that total resistance of all the lower columns to the weight of the top block and concludes that that much resistance should cause a deceleration. But any tilt, whether it's 1^o or 4^o, means that this fundamental premise in his theory is an imaginary condition.

And by the way, I have told Tony at least three times that my argument here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the tilt would cause an off-center collision of those perimeter columns on the right. As I said, he either still doesn't "get it" or he's intentionally offering a bogus rebuttal. That offset collision does happen to be another serious problem with his theory -- that's one of the other issues that I was referring to that Tony keeps running away from -- because it would mean that the impacted columns could not possibly offer the same resistance that they could to symmetric axial loading. Tony's response to that issue has been to just repeat over and over and over that he doesn't think that obvious fact would make any significant difference. But for some bizarre reason, he thinks he can use that same repeated yet unsubstantiated denial to pretend to refute my argument about another -- but different -- flaw in his theory. If Tony would like to try to seriously correct those flaws and then claim that there should still be an observable deceleration, he's welcome to try, but as far as I'm concerned, just calling my argument "nonsense" and digressing into smokescreens such as disagreeing with the angle I show is equivalent to conceding the issue.

I don't really see any answer to my specific question in the other poster's response, but I agree with the final sentence: I don't see it standing very long, either, and the reason is the very same reason why it could not decelerate the falling mass as Tony claims is should have.

[scott75]

102. Seger, I fully admit that the discussion you're now having with Tony...

...is way over my head. I feel somewhat like a scribe, hoping that I'll learn something by writing down the words of an argument. I think that with time I will. In the meantime, I've transcribed what you've written over to The 9/11 Forum.

[scott75]

106. Another question asked over at The 9/11 Forum...

Someone there was curious as to your profession and education level. I fully admit that I'm neither an architect, engineer with structural engineering knowledge or physicist, I'm just someone who is trying to learn more on these issues.

[William Seger]

107. Why?

Is there someone over there who thinks it's relevant to the issue? I fail to see why it matters, but I attended an engineering school for a year-and-a-half before dropping out to play bass in a rock band, and when that didn't pan out, I worked as a structural draftsman for about 5 years before going back to school to study computer science. I'm now a software engineer.

[enik_1]

108. I asked...

the question over at physics forum because before I start looking at your questions, I would like to know if the person actually attended 4 years in a college taking statics, dynamics, vibrations, materials, differential equations, etc. etc. and graduating. It helps me to establish a common basis on which to communicate.

The first question I usually have is can you do solid modeling? A lot of questions presented can easily be answered if you do some solid modeling. Three dimensional models tell a much different story than two dimensional.

My next question is where did you get this statement? No "load amplification" is necessary if the impacted columns couldn't even resist the static weight of the load bearing down on them.?

[William Seger]

115. LOL, and is there any particular reason...

... why I should care whether or not you "start looking at {my} question?"

Did you happen to ask Tony if he can do solid modeling? Because some of the major flaws in his theory are because it's based on a one-dimensional model: all the top block mass colliding with all the lower columns and being resisted by the full design strength of those lower columns, acting together. My two-dimensional diagram is quite sufficient to show one of the flaws in that premise: If the top block is tilted when it falls, we don't have all the lower columns acting together to resist the fall.

Where do I get my statement that no "load amplification" is necessary if the impacted columns couldn't even resist the static weight of the load bearing down on them? Well, if a 1000-ton weight is placed on a column capable of supporting 999 tons, just how much "load amplification" do you think is necessary to crush the column?

No need to present your credentials when you answer. :eyes:

[enik_1]

119. You don't need to care about anything I say...

unless you respond to this note.

I don't know if Tony can do solid modeling but he unknowingly verified one of my FEA's over at Physics Forum with hand calculations. So he knows what he is talkig about.

So I can assume the statement "no "load amplification" is necessary if the impacted columns couldn't even resist the static weight of the load bearing down on them" came solely from you?

Now the statement "If the top block is tilted when it falls, we don't have all the lower columns acting together to resist the fall." Again, is this quote solely from you?

Basically, if your first statement can be proven true then the second statement is moot. If the impacted columns couldn't resist the static weight, who cares if the lower columns acted together or not. You need to prove your first statement true.

[William Seger]

123. I need to prove a tautology?

If a column cannot resist a static weight that's placed on it, then that static weight will cause the column to fail with no "load amplification" being necessary. If we gently place a weight on a column such that there is no "load amplification" from momentum and the column fails, then the column couldn't resist that static weight. Since that's just saying the same thing in different words, I have no idea what you're asking me to prove.

> Now the statement "If the top block is tilted when it falls, we don't have all the lower columns acting together to resist the fall." Again, is this quote solely from you?

You're starting to worry me. Since you asked about my formal training, may I ask if yours included any courses in logic? Yup, that's a quote from me. That's also my diagram to show why, which I made specifically because Tony didn't seem to understand the English version: If the top block is tilted when it falls, then the lowest part will impact one part of the lower structure before it impacts the rest, and if only one part is impacted, then the remainder of the structure can't contribute resistance to the impact. If you think a 3D model would tell a "different story," here's your chance to shine.

[enik_1]

124. So, are you saying...

"No "load amplification" is necessary if the impacted columns couldn't even resist the static weight of the load bearing down on them" --is what happen in the World Trade Center #1 collapse? Or are you just making a general statement?

How about you give me some actual parameters and we'll give your theory a test for a column structure.

[William Seger]

126. In the ACTUAL collapse of WTC towers

... I'm simply saying that Tony's one-dimensional model doesn't take into account that a tilted falling block would mean that different parts of the lower structure would be impacted at different times. That means he shouldn't be assuming a uniformly distributed static load impacting a uniformly distributed resistance when he estimates how much of a "jolt" should be expected. Because I've followed the debate elsewhere, I've also said that that's only one of the factors his theory doesn't account for. If Tony wants to demonstrate that any jolt is "missing" then he first needs a realistic estimate of what kind of jolt should be expected, and then he needs to demonstrate that his measurement and analysis methods would detect such a jolt. Does that clear it up for you?

[enik_1]

127. So, if I were to

construct a 3 dimensional FEA model of the WTC upper structure dropping down on a lower structure and determine the amount of acceleration loss, and Tony's number is less than that value, we can conclude that Tony's analysis is correct (the missing jolt)?

[William Seger]

129. Well, if you came up with a number even larger than Tony's...

... my first guess would be that you did something wrong, given how Tony got that number.

[enik_1]

132. So if my value is larger than Tony's...

then I did something wrong. But if my number is less than Tony's, then Tony did something wrong?

Coincidently, what did Tony get and his methodology?

[William Seger]

136. Um, no, that's not quite how it works

I'm saying Tony's expectation of a 5 or 6g jolt is much too large because he took a maximum capacity for the lower structure of 5 or 6 times the static load (which is probably about twice the actual capacity), then assumed an unrealistic symmetric collision and no loss of structural integrity. If you do an FEA that gives a deceleration number less than Tony's, that might or might not be wrong, too, but Tony would still be wrong regardless. If instead it gives a larger number, then as I said, my first guess will be that you did something wrong, by the transitive axiom of inequality.

I hate to sound impatient, but is there any chance that you might be getting anywhere near making some point?

[enik_1]

138. Yes,

on the one chance in 10 trillion quadrillion...could you, quite possibly be wrong?

[William Seger]

141. Uh-huh

... but I try to press on despite the constant angst.

[scott75]

111. Another response to your post...

This one from psikeyhackr, who I've also had the privilege of debating side by side over in sciforums.com in the past:
*******
I agree with Tony's 7%.

I began reading the top post and thinking about what the answer should be before I got to Tony's answer. I concluded it should be close to the sine of 4%.

That is: 0.069756474

That picture is two dimensional and it tends to make us focus our attention on the perimeter columns on the left and right. But the building was 3 dimensional. There were perimeter columns across the front and back and there was the core. A tilt that small would not change the distribution tremendously. Under normal circumstances the perimeter columns had about 50% of the weight and with 4 sides that is 12.5% on each side all of the time. But FEMA said the perimeter columns were under only 20% of their load capacity. So as long as the Center of Mass was still over the core the perimeter columns should not have had a problem. The top should have just gone to a state of bent equilibrium.

After 9 years too many people want to believe the collapse could happen and are trying to rationalize the physics.

Why should we listen to physicists talk about Black Holes and String Theory if they can't explain how an airliner can destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?
*******

[scott75]

112. And yet another response from The 9/11 Forum...

I think this one is from one of the moderators, here goes:
****************
Scott, the rigid tilt model cannot be applied to WTC1.

We have done the best available mapping of WTC1 early movement in this thread
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/early-movement-of-wtc1-made-simple-t346.html

We show that a rigid model cannot be used to describe early movement. There was no rigid tilt motion around a north face axis. Also, an estimate of 4 degrees of tilting before global falling is at least 800% off from the actual measurements.

No rigidity and no 4 degree tilt makes William Seger's argument moot.

I don't criticize the guy because the rigid pure tilt model was the same one that I used in a couple of threads in this forum, but now that we know better I will stop using it.

I suggest William do the same.
****************

[scott75]

113. One more response from The 9/11 Forum

This one from femr2:
********
In a static situation in the diagram we still have to take account of the *failures* in the structure...

1) The vast majority of the core support has already failed, say 10% remaining.
2) The right hand perimeter has failed, but *assuming* there's still contact between the upper and lower edges, we can assume a load on that side.
3) The two invisible perimeters would also have failed, more so at the right hand edge, so a finger in air estimate could be that they's still support, what, 20% of their original load ?
4) The left hand perimeter is *bent* but essentially intact, so we'll leave that at 100%

Ignoring the effect of the tilt itself...

...and assuming a 50/50 load split between core and perimeter...

...and a very dodgy estimation method...

each perimeter originally support a load of (1), and the core a load of (4).
Core now supports 0.4
The two invisible perimeters now support 0.2
And I'll split the remainder between the two perimeters, yeah, I said it was dodgy ;)

6 - 0.4 - 0.2 - 0.2 = 5.2
5.2 / 2 = 2.6

43% ;)
********

[William Seger]

114. There ya go

Femr2 caught the point that Tony and psikeyhackr missed: To get any reasonably accurate number, you would need to take into account that those buckled columns are no longer carrying much load. If Femr2 were to include the effect of the shifted center of mass into his rough approximation, then his 43% number would be somewhat larger -- "approximately half," as I said.

The "one of the moderators" guy seems to have missed my point completely, if he thinks it's moot. I'm not representing my diagram as any particularly accurate depiction of the angle of the tilt -- I don't claim to know that with any precision -- but rather as a simple illustration of one serious flaw in Tony's logic. Unless and until Tony comes up with a more realistic estimate of how much deceleration those perimeter columns on the right could have provided to the falling top block, then I'll continue to take his "missing jolt" as moot. Since he doesn't yet seem to understand why he needs to do that, I won't be holding my breath.

[scott75]

116. Hm

Well I'll bring your point up over at the forum. In the meantime, femr has realized that he made a small gaff. He explains it thusly:
*****************
Just noticed a very foolish gaff...6 ? 6 !? 4 + 4 = 6 ? Nice.

I'll try that again...

8 - 0.4 - 0.2 - 0.2 = 7.2
7.2 / 2 = 3.6

45% ;)
*****************

I didn't understand where he got the 4+4 from, he explained it like so:
*****************
I simplified the mass distribution between the core and perimeter.

Perimeter having 50%, core having 50%.

each perimeter wall load was set to (1), so in total all four perimeter walls carried (4).
And the core was set the same...(4)

Total load...8.
*****************

I finally understood ;-)

[scott75]

117. Major Tom responded

The man who I believe is a moderator at The 9/11 Forum, Major Tom, has responded to your post:

*********************
He is showing perimeter columns on the right side collide while the left side acts as a pivot. For the first collision to take place he needs about 4 degrees of tilt.

I don't think William's point is moot, but would his point change if the upper part began to fall downward globally at a tilt of only 0.5 degrees and not 4?

What if the core sagged for about 2 feet in the seconds leading up to the visible collapse? What if the columns on the right side started to fall to earth only about 1/5th of a second before the hinge on the right side broke completely, falling with a tilt of less than 0.5 degrees? (That is close to what the data currently shows.)


Of course it makes a difference if there was minimal tilting measured, much less than the 4 degrees shown in the image.


William, some people on this forum have measured early nw corner falling and antenna falling with such accuracy that we can detect jolt-like movement. One of the graphs in the link you probably didn't bother to read<:>


The jolts show up in the antenna and in the nw corner in different frames. We do not know what they are but they are there. Some of us believe that some of the jolts are floor-floor collisions but we don't know.

The argument you are giving to Tony must depend upon tilt angle at the first collision, a subject some of us have been studying for a while. You cannot give the same argument if there was near zero tilt angle during the first anticipated collision. William mentions

I'm not representing my diagram as any particularly accurate depiction of the angle of the tilt -- I don't claim to know that with any precision --

You are assuming it is sufficiently non-zero. This is why the actual measurements are important. The actual angle in much closer to zero than you may realize.
*********************

[William Seger]

128. Interesting, but...

Yes, I'm "assuming it is sufficiently non-zero" that Tony's estimate of an expected jolt is not valid. If the north wall began collapsing when the tilt was only half a degree, then the top block would have still continued rotating before colliding with the south wall, due to angular momentum. Yes, I do believe the tilt would still be sufficient at the time of the collision that the south wall would receive virtual no help from the rest of the structure to resist the fall. As I mentioned before, if all the columns at floor 97 have collapsed at that point in time, that makes the situation even worse for Tony's estimate of the expected jolt since almost none of the static load of the top block would have been carried by any intact columns.

[scott75]

151. I relaid what you said...

...over in The 9/11 Forum, but got no responses, as the conversation went somewhere else. Sorry about that :-/.

[scott75]

121. Tony responded

Here is his response:
*****
Scott, ask William Seger if he is familiar with the Verinage technique demolitions, where a couple of stories are removed using hydraulics and the upper section falls onto and impacts the lower section, with gravity being the only energy input after the initial drop. Tell him that it is proven that they ALL show a definitive deceleration and velocity loss.

This happens in the Balzac-Vitry building even though the upper section shifts slightly to the left and the columns are obviously somewhat misaligned.

Since he thinks there should have been no deceleration and velocity loss in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 in a natural collapse, ask him if he can explain why he thinks these Verinage technique situations would differ from WTC 1.
*****

Update: femr2 has questioned some of Tony's points and challenged others, won't include that dialogue, but can be seen here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-small-point-t358-15.html

[William Seger]

130. Well...

Tony has had that question answered numerous times. Anyone who has followed the debate on JREF would probably know of Ryan Mackey's answer, for example.

In Balzac-Vitry (and Verinage demolitions in general), the situation is much closer to the condition he assumed in his theory: a square hit. If "the upper section shifts slightly to the left and the columns are obviously somewhat misaligned" in the Balzac-Vitry, then I would expect the measured "jolt" to be less than any estimate made by assuming a square hit, which appears to be the case.

[scott75]

152. Again, no response...

Again, I relaid your response, but the conversation veered elsewhere.

[William Seger]

41. It was a simple question: Where is this evidence you think someone isn't seeing

Thermite is not an explosive; it melts steel, and nobody has shown any practical method for using it in a controlled demolition, not the least reason being that there would be no way to insure that all the columns failed at the same time. Nanothermite might or might not be explosive, depending on how fast it burns, but "softer explosive" would be an oxymoron, since explosives destroy things by high-pressure, supersonic shock waves. If it isn't a very loud explosion, then it also isn't very powerful, period, so it's not going to cut through steel columns. Gage can't have it both ways; the lack of loud explosions and seismic waves proves that the collapse was not caused by explosives, and demolition by thermite is ridiculously implausible and unsupported by any credible evidence.

Ryan did not work for Underwriters Laboritories -- he worked for a subsidiary and has exactly zero experience with fire testing -- and it doesn't matter anyway, since UL did not "certify the steel assemblies that were in the World Trade Center." Ryan would have known that if he actually knew anything about what he was pretending to know when he wrote the letter to NIST that got him fired.

Steven Jones is nuclear physicist, not any kind of structural mechanics expert, and he is apparently so ignorant of simple mechanics that he claims that it would be easier to make the WTC towers topple over to the side than to fall straight down, so the collapse violated some bizarre misconception he has about conservation of momentum. You don't even need a degree in structural mechanics to figure out what conditions would need to be met in order for the towers to topple over to the side and then figure out why they didn't, but Jones is apparently not up to the task.

Griffin is a propagandist who sells books, pure and simple, but he tries to pass himself off as some kind of objective scholar. From his prior life as a theologian, he believes in something called a "cumulative argument" which basically is his excuse for throwing any sort of nonsense "evidence" he comes across into his books, even though he must be aware that it's weak or worse.

And yes, I've argued with Tony Szamboti on this very forum, and on the JREF forum. He is a mechanical engineer, by the way, not a structural engineer. On JREF, he didn't do so well defending his "missing jolt" theory against numerous objections from knowledgeable people, including several other engineers. I'm just a software engineer, but I'm still waiting for his response to my very simple explanation for why a tilt of the falling block would mean that little or no "load amplification" would be necessary, since a tilt would mean that the lower columns could not act all together to resist the collapse, which is what his flawed theory presumes. He tried to dodge it a couple of times with irrelevancies, and when I finally explained it in a way that (I think) he finally understood, he apparently decided that ignoring it was his better option. I don't feel left out, however; that seems to be his preferred defense against all serious challenges to his theory, and then he just keeps repeating the same flawed arguments over and over. You'd probably do better to appeal to David Chandler's finding of a period of freefall, since that was at least a valid observation -- except that if you look at the details of that, it's really a much better fit to NIST's theory than any controlled demolition.

You've been deceived, and you've put your finger on the very reason that I have no respect for those guys: They don't know what they're talking about, but they present themselves as some kind of knowledgeable experts and then present bullshit for evidence.

[scott75]

147. You're right, thermite isn't an explosive...

However, thermate is.

[William Seger]

149. Nope

Thermate is thermite with sulpher added to lower the melting point of iron, so the same amount of thermate will melt more iron or steel than thermite. You're thinking of Steven Jones' "super-duper nanothermite," but as I already said, explosives go BOOOOM!

[scott75]

153. From my understanding...

Thermate -is- nano thermite.

[William Seger]

156. Nope

Thermate is ordinary thermite with sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate added, and it's an incendiary, not an explosive.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. umm...

First of all, I don't see what this has to do with my comment to which you (nominally) replied.

Second, if Bartmer "clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7," it's hard to understand why he appears to report seeing the building collapsing before the "booms" start.

Playing Shapiro off against Bartmer just seems like a waste of time. I have no idea whether Shapiro is credible, and I don't see why it matters. Questions could be raised about Bartmer, too. But it's not hard to understand how two different witnesses could have different perceptions of whether the collapse was surprisingly quiet or amazingly loud.

[sabbat hunter]

29. Craig Bartmer

doesn't say he heard bombs. He said he heard explosions. Many things can cause explosions or sound like explosions.

[Subdivisions]

46. 'Many things can cause explosions or sound like explosions.'

Yea, especially actual explosions. :eyes:

[sabbat hunter]

65. that still does not

equal bombs

[SDuderstadt]

2. "as if the devices are already in place"....

Jesus, Spooked...now you're really stretching. You're taking evidence that contradicts your claim and trying to reframe it (actually, it's more like turning it completely in its head) to support your goofy claim.

Fucking unbelievable.

[jberryhill]

3. LOL

Yah spooked, he wired the building with explosives, with no permits or anything, and then asked for permission to blow it up. Demolitions are always handled that way.

Good thing the insurance companies never figured this out, eh?

[brettjv]

159. I'd say it's reasonable to assume ...

if the conspiracy theory being promulgated around the collapse of building se7en WERE true, that it's unlikely any such permits were acquired (given that the whole thing was a huge criminal enterprise), and in turn it's unlikely that the person on the other end of the phone was an ACTUAL insurance adjuster. More like a handler.

Now, I am not saying this article necessarily provides proof of said conspiracy theory, only that the subject of permits would likely be moot if we were indeed talking about a black op that killed 3,000 Americans being 'run' from out of this building.

I do think that 'authorization' is a strange word choice, given that there's no way reasonable way the building could've been demo-rigged in the hours after 9/11. There's an implication there that the building was already rigged to be demolished.

There's really no way IMHO to reasonably argue that *IF* this story is an accurate reflection of events, wherein Silverstein at that time was communicating with ANYONE, asking for 'authorization' to demolish the building ... that it doesn't raise some valid and serious questions.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

5. So evidence that it didn't happen

is now evidence that it did happen?
keep digging, Spooked. You're almost there...

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Aaaaaand... hearsay evidence.

This is not evidence Larry Silverstein was on the phone to anybody. Tell us you understand this.

[k-robjoe]

8. Hearsay

It is hearsay. If we knew that it was true, it would be hard not to wonder why he would spend his time at that point, asking about something that would be weeks, if not months, into the future. ( First the building would need to cool down, then it would take some time to get everything rigged for demolition. )

Maybe he just didn´t have anything more pressing to worry about.

[spooked911]

16. of course

but tell me this is not news.

And this "A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."

LOTS of people were aware of this option? Really?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Is it news that people on the street were talking about possibly tearing down the building?

No. The building's likely collapse was hampering rescue efforts. I'm not surprised the notion to knock the building down already was on the streets. However, this is not evidence that Silverstein was talking to anyone about knocking the building down. And the reporter's entire point is that the building fell down without explosives.

No explosives, no controlled demolition. The building fell down because of the unfought fires.

[Make7]

7. Larry Silverstein was the property developer of One World Financial Center?

That doesn't sound right. I thought the majority owner of the World Financial Center was outbid by Silverstein Properties and Westfield America for the lease of the World Trade Center in 2001.

[k-robjoe]

10. dermatologist

"Firstly, you can watch a recent CBS interview in which Silverstein claims that he should have been in the WTC on 9/11, but his wife insisted he go to a dermatologist’s appointment, thereby saving his life:

http://dprogram.net/2010/04/23/silverstein-was-calling-lawyer-to-get-double-insurance-on-wtc-on-the-evening-of-911/

( videoclip :

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=dCJDTFzLiEO_a32xTRfMdMMYQd1nHV1N&play= )

[LARED]

11. Perhap Silverstien's wife was part of the plot nt

[LARED]

12. This makes lots of sense now

If his insurer approved and authorized the demolition the payoff would be a given. That guy is smart. :sarcasm:

[k-robjoe]

13. Two good posts from you there

But it seems like it´s not fair to give spooked911 all this heat for saying that what Jeffrey Scott Shapiro says, makes most sense if the setup to demolish the building was allready in place :

"A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."

Or would it be possible to just rig the explosives for demolition while the building was burning, and, as it says, coming to an "imminent collapse"?

[LARED]

14. I didn't realize I would need a sarcasm tag.

I've edited my post

[k-robjoe]

15. I didn´t realize I had to point out that I got the sarcasm

You can tell by the way the rest of my post starts with a *But* :)

[k-robjoe]

30. Column 20?

I tried asking about this on another forum, but got no reply.

In this videoclip, they believe that column twenty had collapsed before the rest of the building. That doesn´t make sense to me. But what is that gap(?) in the building, does anyone know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a94uWPzl3zg&feature=player_embedded

[William Seger]

45. YouTruth: World's Largest Collection of Stupid

NIST may have "ignored" the "obliterated column 20" because it's a figment of this YouTruther's fevered imagination. However, NIST does discuss the damage to the facade between columns 19 and 20 in the very pages the YouTruther cites.



I'm gonna take a wild guess that the damage is related to having WTC1 fall on it.

[k-robjoe]

89. WTC1 falling

Yes, here is a videoclip, starting up with WTC1 falling, with WTC7 in the foreground :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A&feature=player_embedded

The "gap" will be on the south side of WTC7, which will be the right hand side of the building, seen from the viewer, in this video?

Edit : Correction, it must be the side facing the North tower.
That makes a lot more sense.

[William Seger]

94. Fine, but the issue here is simply...

... was column 20 "obliterated" as your YouTruther claimed, or was the dark band damage between columns 19 and 20 as NIST claims? Have you tried to arrive at your own determination of that?

[k-robjoe]

100. I started up with saying

about the theory about column 20 : "That doesn´t make sense to me."

What I wondered about, was if there was some explanation why it looks so "clean cut". More like it was build that way in the first place. Or build in such a way, that there was a shaft there or something to explain the "clean cut" appearance.

[William Seger]

105. The "curtain wall" hanging between the two columns has been ripped off

Looks to me like the blow on the top of the building simply drove that whole section of curtain wall panels downward, breaking their connections to the building.

[deconstruct911]

157. column 20, tough one but

maybe it's from tower 1's antenna or fire.
ROFL

[James_Madison_Lives]

154. If one was wired, they were all wired

is the realization that wakes people up.

[SDuderstadt]

155. Jesus, just what we need...

another uninformed conspiracy theorist joining the fray.

Dude, you've obviously never seen a medium sized building wired for controlled demolition, let alone two 110 story towers. If they had been "wired", there's simply no way people in the building would not have known it.

Go to howstuffworks.com and educate yourself. This just gets dumber and dumber.

[deconstruct911]

160. Considering once the dust cloud past

all 7 buildings were gone....

[SDuderstadt]

161. Dude...

you can't even get basic facts straight. No, once the duct cloud PASSED (not "past"), all 7 buildings were NOT "gone". WTC 7 was not "gone" until much later that day and several of the buildings had to be demolished in the days after.

Again, this is why you're an object of derision here, dude.

[deconstruct911]

162. it's magic tricks

Black magic

[SDuderstadt]

163. No...you get caught in your goofy bullshit and...

you just make up more goofy bullshit.

Again, it's why you're regarded with such derision,, dude.

[deconstruct911]

164. No dude just magic

Muslim magic

[SDuderstadt]

165. No, dude...

just more of your bullshit. Nothing magical about that. Perhaps one day, you'll wake up to the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.