Tony Szamboti's Missing Tilt

[Bolo Boffin]

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

[Tony Szamboti]

1. You are being gullible here Bolo

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

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

[Bolo Boffin]

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

So you're saying he's gullible too?

[Tony Szamboti]

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

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

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

[Bolo Boffin]

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

[Tony Szamboti]

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

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

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

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

[Bolo Boffin]

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

using the wrong camera angle but Tony.

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

Your preferred video angle, Tony?

[Tony Szamboti]

7. I already told you

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

[Bolo Boffin]

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

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

Provide a link to a video, Tony.

[Tony Szamboti]

9. Seger already did

[Bolo Boffin]

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

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

[Tony Szamboti]

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

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

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

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

[Bolo Boffin]

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

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

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