Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I don't necessarily think 'sway' is the best term for it, personally. I would stick to a more generic terms like 'motion' or 'deformation'.

(courtesy femr2)

The horizontal axis is seconds. I trust your eyeballs are keen enough to see where global collapse commences.


Did the penthouse collapse precede the global collapse by >160 seconds? So I think your feeling is wrong.


YOU are the one who doesn't look at images and videos to see what actually happened. For someone who seems to be making a career out of evangelizing your own personal beliefs (and frequently pseudoscience), you don't look at evidence very much.

Case in point: have you showed Korol or Szuladzinski this?

So much for your precious and mandatory alignment! If Korol or Szuladzinski have seen this image and others like it yet still maintain the towers had 100% residual capacity in early descent like you do, then I don't much care for their "expertise", anonymous or otherwise. If they haven't seen it, I wonder what business they have opining on the subject.

Which is pretty much where you're at. You ignore readily available evidence and then pronounce what's "impossible" and "insane gibberish"! Ignoring evidence is even worse than your overreach in the theoretical realm (you bandy about the term 'mechanics' but it's apparent you've never had a mechanics class in your life). Lack of physics background needn't fatally handicap anyone, but if you can't even open your eyes and look you should definitely keep your mouth shut.

It is hard to understand what would have caused the motion you are claiming in WTC 7 160 seconds before the collapse commenced. Has anyone besides you or femr2 observed the same motion at that time? Was this alleged motion from east to west as SanderO stated? What do you think caused what you are claiming? What is interesting in femr2's measurement is the vertical scale is pixels and it seems he finds it to perturbate by about 0.2 of a pixel. How is that possible to measure?

What do you think would have overcome the inertia of the upper section of the building and caused the misalignment in WTC 1 you claim? The view you are showing is at least two if not three stories into the fall. What video is it from?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Why yes, yes they have.

Then why don't you show a video of something other than a suspension bridge collapsing due to wind?

and comparing your model to the wtc is hilarious.:mrgreen:

My model is of a sequential collapse with supports of a strength proportional to the weight they hold. And the collapse arrests. So where is your model of a complete collapse since you think it is possible?

I am wholeheartedly in favor of engineering schools building bigger and heavier and better models than mine. How about you?

psik

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

For anybody interested in whether or not the columns are observed to misalign in the first couple of stories of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 they can watch this slow motion video WTC1 Antenna Drop (Greyscale) - Slowmotion: - YouTube to see for themselves. It shows the fall initiation and a number of stories into it very clearly.

I do not think the claims by individuals like Kat Dorman are on solid ground. Any immediate misalignment would have to be caused by significant lateral forces and I don't see where they would come from. This video does not bear out the extraordinary claims of immediate column misalignment made by these individuals either. It seems the still shown by Kat Dorman was actually more than I thought and about 4 or 5 stories into the fall, at which point the upper section was tilting about 8 degrees to the south and one could understand that misalignment would then occur. However, the tilt in the first couple of stories is no more than one degree and even on the opposite side of the building one degree of tilt only produces an offset of about 3/8 of an inch.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It is hard to understand what would have caused the motion you are claiming in WTC 7 160 seconds before the collapse commenced.

It may be hard to understand but there it is.

Has anyone besides you or femr2 observed the same motion at that time?

Why don't you ask achimspok?

What do you think caused what you are claiming?

I don't know. But there it is, and you said it couldn't/didn't happen. It's not up to me to explain why, it's up to you to recognize what actually happened.

What do you think would have overcome the inertia of the upper section of the building and caused the misalignment in WTC 1 you claim?

You mean the misalignment you can see before your very eyes? You're asking me why you can see it? Because it's there.

You seem to have a fetish for inertia, like things with large inertia can't be moved. Scale the force properly, and it doesn't matter. But, mostly, you're looking at the whole thing from a bass-ackwards perspective: once it begins to move, what's going to stop it?

You saw the significant rotation of the upper section of WTC2 - which had even greater mass/inertia, but for some reason you don't question it. The upper section of WTC1 rotated, too, only less:

You can see the distortion on the north wall due to reaction force from tipping - once again, with your very own eyes.

Once that north wall fractures, the only thing to stop all that inertia from moving the upper perimeter out beyond the lower perimeter is AIR. This is simple physics; conservation of momentum. Stand a broom on end upside down on a smooth, slippery floor and let it fall over. Notice the end slides across the floor in the opposite direction the top falls. If the fulcrum were fixed, the reaction force from the fuclrum would prevent slippage. In the tower, the fulcrum disappeared at fracture, and was never immutable in the first place, as you can see in the above graphic.

The view you are showing is at least a couple of stories into the fall.

Well, if it is, then it's exactly where you say it should arrest. Now, how can that be when it's so severely misaligned? You know the bevel corner is six feet across and it's misaligned by nearly that amount at this point in the descent. Based on story heights being approximately 16 pixels in the image at that location, I'd put it at about a story and a half into the drop, but whatever. It did not get that far out of line instantly, did it? Inertia, you know.

How far does it need to be out of line for column ends to miss entirely? On the perimeter, just over a foot. So let's say that it is two stories or 25 feet into descent, but it's at least 5 feet off axis at this point. Does that suggest the column ends would be in perfect alignment - as you claim - after only one story's drop? No, it suggests very strongly that they would completely miss each other after a story's drop.

This notion is corroborated by this image from later:

There's that corner, all the way up to floor 98, looking for all the world like nothing hit it from above.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

God, why don't you put a blurb at the end of your post that indicates you're done with substantial editing? I replied to your second version above. Now there's a third?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

God, why don't you put a blurb at the end of your post that indicates you're done with substantial editing? I replied to your second version above. Now there's a third?

Poor baby.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

God, why don't you put a blurb at the end of your post that indicates you're done with substantial editing? I replied to your second version above. Now there's a third?

What I also find interesting here is no matter what time I get on here it seems you are ready and able to reply. Kind of like an alarm goes off for you.

I went over my sister's tonight and came back eight hours after my last post and you were right there ready to reply.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It is hard to understand what would have caused the motion you are claiming in WTC 7 160 seconds before the collapse commenced.

Maybe it's the $64,000 question.

Was this alleged motion from east to west as SanderO stated?

It certainly had an east-west component.

What is interesting in femr2's measurement is the vertical scale is pixels and it seems he finds it to perturbate by about 0.2 of a pixel. How is that possible to measure?

You didn't see my Subpixel Resolution for dummies above? Why not? If you don't believe me, ask achimspok. If you're sincerely interested in how the techniques works, I'll be happy to go into more detail than my example.

What video is it from?

NIST identifies it as Camera 3.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

What I also find interesting here is no matter what time I get on here it seems you are ready and able to reply. Kind of like an alarm goes off for you.

I get an email from shill central that tells me when you sign on, another when you start to post, another for each time you view a draft, and one for each subsequent edit. And a ****ing siren goes off in the room, in case I'm sleeping or off taking a ****.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It may be hard to understand but there it is.


Why don't you ask achimspok?


I don't know. But there it is, and you said it couldn't/didn't happen. It's not up to me to explain why, it's up to you to recognize what actually happened.


You mean the misalignment you can see before your very eyes? You're asking me why you can see it? Because it's there.

You seem to have a fetish for inertia, like things with large inertia can't be moved. Scale the force properly, and it doesn't matter. But, mostly, you're looking at the whole thing from a bass-ackwards perspective: once it begins to move, what's going to stop it?

You saw the significant rotation of the upper section of WTC2 - which had even greater mass/inertia, but for some reason you don't question it. The upper section of WTC1 rotated, too, only less:

You can see the distortion on the north wall due to reaction force from tipping - once again, with your very own eyes.

Once that north wall fractures, the only thing to stop all that inertia from moving the upper perimeter out beyond the lower perimeter is AIR. This is simple physics; conservation of momentum. Stand a broom on end upside down on a smooth, slippery floor and let it fall over. Notice the end slides across the floor in the opposite direction the top falls. If the fulcrum were fixed, the reaction force from the fuclrum would prevent slippage. In the tower, the fulcrum disappeared at fracture, and was never immutable in the first place, as you can see in the above graphic.


Well, if it is, then it's exactly where you say it should arrest. Now, how can that be when it's so severely misaligned? You know the bevel corner is six feet across and it's misaligned by nearly that amount at this point in the descent. Based on story heights being approximately 16 pixels in the image at that location, I'd put it at about a story and a half into the drop, but whatever. It did not get that far out of line instantly, did it? Inertia, you know.

How far does it need to be out of line for column ends to miss entirely? On the perimeter, just over a foot. So let's say that it is two stories or 25 feet into descent, but it's at least 5 feet off axis at this point. Does that suggest the column ends would be in perfect alignment - as you claim - after only one story's drop? No, it suggests very strongly that they would completely miss each other after a story's drop.

This notion is corroborated by this image from later:

There's that corner, all the way up to floor 98, looking for all the world like nothing hit it from above.

Why does your video seem to have a lot more lateral movement than the greyscale I linked to?

People who are interested should watch the greyscale video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k in full screen and decide for themselves.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I get an email from shill central that tells me when you sign on, another when you start to post, another for each time you view a draft, and one for each subsequent edit. And a ****ing siren goes off in the room, in case I'm sleeping or off taking a ****.

I would not doubt that the truth is close to this. So there is at least something where I do believe what you say.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

For anybody interested in whether or not the columns are observed to misalign in the first couple of stories of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 they can watch this slow motion video WTC1 Antenna Drop (Greyscale) - Slowmotion: - YouTube to see for themselves. It shows the fall initiation and a number of stories into it very clearly.

Same video. My still frame corresponds to about the 37 second mark of that video. If you capture the first frame and compare with the matching time for the still, you'll see the top corner has descended about 20 pixels. If you measure the story heights, you'll find them to be approximately 9 pixels.

Any immediate misalignment would have to be caused by significant lateral forces and I don't see where they would come from.

Rotation, not center of mass displacement. Explained above.

This video does not bear out the extraordinary claims of immediate column misalignment made by these individuals either.

Nothing extraordinary. Just like the south tower, only less. Doesn't need to be much.

It seems the still shown by Kat Dorman was actually more than I thought and about 4 or 5 stories into the fall...

The rest of the upper block has descended more; this corner advanced the least of any area in the initial descent. As you can tell from the pixel figures, it's around two stories of descent for that region. The fact that it may be a lot more on the south and east sorta makes your minimal tilt argument look like the bull**** it is.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Why does your video seem to have a lot more lateral movement than the greyscale I linked to?

It doesn't. They show exactly the same thing. Are you blind?

People who are interested should watch the greyscale video here WTC1 Antenna Drop (Greyscale) - Slowmotion: - YouTube in full screen and decide for themselves.

Yes, by all means. Here are the two frames:

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I went over my sister's tonight and came back eight hours after my last post and you were right there ready to reply.

I've been working all day. I work at my computer. The page has been sitting up since my last reply. When I take a smoke break, or otherwise get bored, I hit refresh. Besides, your posts tend to be clustered around certain times. You're very predictable.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I've been working all day. I work at my computer. The page has been sitting up since my last reply. When I take a smoke break, or otherwise get bored, I hit refresh. Besides, your posts tend to be clustered around certain times. You're very predictable.

It was time for another cigarette break. Whaddya know? I'm not responding to a post of yours, Tony. You're not even here! I'm still working. I'll probably still be working when you get up at ungodly o'clock EST and check this forum before you go off to work.

Wait, tomorrow's a holiday. Must be nice having banker's hours. So you'll probably deviate from your normal pattern, unless you're compulsive about getting up early. Within a few hours, I'll have my answer to that.

Then I will report this to my masters.:lamo

 

[yobarnacle]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

911 was due to global warming!
More disasters to follow!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It doesn't. They show exactly the same thing. Are you blind?


Yes, by all means. Here are the two frames:

The second frame you show is at least four to five stories down and that is being generous. There is no immediate misalignment and there should have been a serious decelerations after the drop through the first, second, and third stories, at the least, which were also before any rotation occurred. There was no deceleration at any time.

You have been trying to say there wouldn't be a jolt due to misalignment and it is clear that argument has no validity.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Maybe it's the $64,000 question.


It certainly had an east-west component.


You didn't see my Subpixel Resolution for dummies above? Why not? If you don't believe me, ask achimspok. If you're sincerely interested in how the techniques works, I'll be happy to go into more detail than my example.


NIST identifies it as Camera 3.

What is the size of a pixel for Camera 3?

 

[mike2810]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Then why don't you show a video of something other than a suspension bridge collapsing due to wind?



My model is of a sequential collapse with supports of a strength proportional to the weight they hold. And the collapse arrests. So where is your model of a complete collapse since you think it is possible?

I am wholeheartedly in favor of engineering schools building bigger and heavier and better models than mine. How about you?

psik

you didn't specify. Lighten up. I was joking with you.

How does your model take into account added mass/weight as the tower collapses down?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Comparing bridges to skyscrapers is like comparing bananas to oranges....

Everybody PLEASE!! Stop and catch your breath. Slow down and gather your senses (particularly those of common )
We could go on forever in disagreement about how the buildings collapsed. Let's try a different approach - all that is needed is a bit of rationale. That's all I ask. Please be rational when you consider the following:

Has anybody stopped to consider why we have to argue endlessly about how the buildings fell? It's because NIST didn't do their job. This is very important so please hear me out. If NIST had performed a thorough and accurate investigation as they were hired to do, we would not be here today arguing about it. Plain and simple, they did not do a complete investigation. The result is that we have to sit here analyzing it ourselves - but....do we really need to, or can we look at it from another angle and find other evidence that is factual, doesn't require any knowledge of physics, yet proves beyond a reasonable doubt, what the role of the government was on 911?

Imagine for a moment that you are the head of NIST, and you are to oversee the entire investigation. You have to conduct the investigation in a manner which will allow you to form a conclusion as to how and why the buildings collapsed.
You have all these facts to work with. The key components are:

1. Two skyscrapers in NYC were each struck by planes

2. Three buildings completely collapsed in an unprecedented structural failure for skyscrapers of this type.

3. The event was determined to be an act of terrorism by a terrorist organization which is known for its use of bombs

4. A controversy begins because many (including experts) agree that all 3 buildings that came down looked exactly like and displayed

all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Given these circumstances, you, as the head of operations, decide not to test any material at ground zero for evidence that explosives were used in this attack. I don't know how you would arrive at this decision - how you would feel this to be unnecessary, considering the whole "controlled demo" controversy that is ongoing, and the history of terrorists and bombs, but it is what it is - and you and your NIST investigation made that decision not to perform these tests (which is strange because not only is it what you were hired to do, but if you did it you could end the controversy with the results of the tests. Again, you made a conscious decision not to complete what is arguably the most important part of the investigation.

Okay, so fast forward a little bit to where NIST publishes its preliminary findings, and the world is shocked to find that the possibility of explosives were NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the report. There is also a new development. You, as the head of NIST, receive letters from the families of victims DEMANDING that these tests be performed. There's a demonstration outside the NIST headquarters and the controlled demo controversy rages on. You, as head of NIST, REFUSE to perform the tests, deliberately failing the investigation, leaving the victims families in anguish, and the controversy to continue to this day.

Think long and hard about this and tell me why you would need anything more to prove who was behind 911. Forget everything else. To believe the official story, you have to dismiss this entirely, as well as the testimony of hundreds of firemen, law enforcement, and other survivors that describe in full detail the explosions that continued until the buildings collapsed. You have to pretend that these things did not occur. How do you do that?

You do that by selling your soul to the devil. Or his designated representative.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

you didn't specify. Lighten up. I was joking with you.

How does your model take into account added mass/weight as the tower collapses down?

I am not joking about 9/11. This is the most obviously stupid scientific problem in history.

It is not about who did it. It is about the scientists and engineering schools that have not resolved it. What if physicists had held a convention in New York in 2002 for discussion of 9/11 and then announced that the physics dictated that it was extremely unlikely that airliner impacts and fire could do what we see? Could the media ignore that? So what would the alternate history of the last 11 years be like?

The added mass/weight is just defective analysis of physics in your head.

There is the Conservation of Momentum and the energy required to destroy the supports. The mass falling from the top must accelerate the stationary mass below. The conservation of momentum would make the falling mass slow down. In addition to that all of the supports below had to be strong enough to support the static load. But crushing, bending, breaking or dislocating those supports requires energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So level by level it had to slow down. Even though the total falling weight increased it had to lose kinetic energy faster than it gained weight. So it should have arrested. That is what happens in my model. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop in my model.

That is what should have happened to the north tower. The fact that it did not is proof that something else destroyed the supports below. But how can this be tested in a bigger and heavier model than mine if we do not have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers? My model is based on making the supports "as weak as possible". I tested the paper loops relative to the weight of the washers. I do not no of any other model using that method. So if a small structure as weak as possible won't collapse why would a large structure with a safety factor collapse?

So why should anyone object to having accurate data on the towers regardless of what they think caused 9/11?

The south tower is somewhat different because in my opinion the most important issue is the tilting of the top 30 stories. What caused that? But our experts do not even discuss the centers of mass and rotation. I consider that to be proof that airliner impact and fire could not have done it. But most of the "Conspiracy Theorists" do not even bring that up. There seems to be more talk about holographic planes.

And I did specify. I said:

Has any bridge other than a suspension bridge ever collapsed because of wind?

psik

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

There is the Conservation of Momentum and the energy required to destroy the supports. The mass falling from the top must accelerate the stationary mass below. The conservation of momentum would make the falling mass slow down. In addition to that all of the supports below had to be strong enough to support the static load. But crushing, bending, breaking or dislocating those supports requires energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So level by level it had to slow down. Even though the total falling weight increased it had to lose kinetic energy faster than it gained weight. So it should have arrested. That is what happens in my model. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop in my model.

That is what should have happened to the north tower. The fact that it did not is proof that something else destroyed the supports below. But how can this be tested in a bigger and heavier model than mine if we do not have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers? My model is based on making the supports "as weak as possible". I tested the paper loops relative to the weight of the washers. I do not no of any other model using that method. So if a small structure as weak as possible won't collapse why would a large structure with a safety factor collapse?

While there is some data which has not been publicly released, such as beam sizes in the core, and precise perimeter column grade locations, we do have enough information about the construction of the towers to prove what you are saying here. That is that a natural collapse of the North Tower would have arrested. It is very likely it would have occurred after the first story drop if the columns were even able to buckle to start it. The reality is that was unlikely also, and the rapid acceleration through the first story of the fall shows it wasn't buckling that caused the initiation.

It is clear that the initiation and propagation of the collapses were accomplished with some form of devices and that the three buildings were demolished. Anyone continuing to stay on the fence about it, or denying it, is simply not being honest.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

While there is some data which has not been publicly released, such as beam sizes in the core, and precise perimeter column grade locations, we do have enough information about the construction of the towers to prove what you are saying here. That is that a natural collapse of the North Tower would have arrested. It is very likely it would have occurred after the first story drop if the columns were even able to buckle to start it. The reality is that was unlikely also, and the rapid acceleration through the first story of the fall shows it wasn't buckling that caused the initiation.

It is clear that the initiation and propagation of the collapses were accomplished with some form of devices and that the three buildings were demolished. Anyone continuing to stay on the fence about it, or denying it, is simply not being honest.

So why aren't the majority of physicists and structural engineers saying this and the issue resolved?

But then they would have to explain why they didn't resolve it 10 years ago.

So what is the story with all of the new engineers getting degrees since 2005 or so?

psik

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The second frame you show is at least four to five stories down and that is being generous.

Oh, really?

Are you daft?

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

What is the size of a pixel for Camera 3?

About 21" per pixel.