Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.
Click to expand...

The angle it would subtend is pretty easy to figure. If w=width of the object and d= distance to the object, its angular width would be 2*arctan(w/(2*d)). For a 3" object and a 7500' distance, that works out to 0.0019 degree or about 6.875 arc-seconds.

Using the 644.5 foot height of 2 World Financial Center as a yardstick, I make the horizontal field of view of that picture to be between 1220 and 1230 feet at the distance to 2 WFC. Using a 7000 foot distance from the camera to WFC2 (using Google maps to estimate that the WFC would be about 500 feet closer to the camera than the towers), the picture's angular field of view would be just about 10 degrees.

To achieve a 3" resolution the horizontal resolution of the picture would have to be 10/0.0019 or a little over 5000 pixels wide. Even 10 Mp digital cameras typically have horizontal resolutions of no more than 3600-odd pixels.

Using a ruler on my monitor, the image of WFC2 is 4.5" high. The skinny thing sticking up near the middle of the "spire", which I assume is that Chris is calling 3" rebar, is about 1/64" wide. So that's ((1/64)/4.5)*644.5 or 2.23 feet wide.

Putting a ruler up to the monitor is no way to get precise measurements, but it's enough to make it obvious that the purported 3" rebar is nearly 9 times as thick as Chris claims.

ETA: I just noticed that the Web page image is 640 pixels wide (that was only staring at me from the browser title bar; nothing obvious, eh?). Since it's easy to work out that the field of view at the WTC complex is a bit over 1200 feet wide, nothing much narrower than 2 feet could possibly be resolved at all.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.
Click to expand...


If someone can spot for me where the photograph was taken (google earth screen cap or something?) I can roughly calculate the pixel-scale of the photo. It won't be overly accurate, but I suspect the answer is going to be metres, not inches, so it won't matter about accuracy.

-Andrew
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.
Click to expand...


I did a rough calculation based on my best-guess for the location of the photograph. I don't know NYC at all so a more accurate calculation will need to await someone else's info. The distance from my chosen location to the North Tower was about 1.2 miles.

Horizontal distance across width of frame at the point of the North Tower came up to be 15,369.83 inches (I kept it in inches since that's what is being debated).

Divided by the picture width of 640 pixels gives us:

1 pixel in that photo, at the distance of the North Tower, is approximately 24 inches squared (or 4 sq ft) (assuming a square pixel).

In other words it is quite simply photographically impossible for that image to depict an object 3" in size.

-Andrew
 
I got very similar numbers. In fact, since the width of the picture in pixels is known and there's an object of known size at very nearly the same distance as the "spire", it isn't even necessary to know the distance to the camera. It comes down to a simple exercise in proportions. I doubt that the error involved in doing it that way will be significantly worse than the error involved in trying to estimate distances from online maps.

The building to the left of the spire, with the domed top, is 2 World Financial Center. It's 196.5 meters tall (just about 644.5 feet). Measuring the picture width in WFC2 height units gives a horizontal field of view very close to what you calculated. That means that one pixel is close to two feet wide at the "spire" (I get just about 23 inches).
 
ktesibios said:
The building to the left of the spire, with the domed top, is 2 World Financial Center. It's 196.5 meters tall (just about 644.5 feet). Measuring the picture width in WFC2 height units gives a horizontal field of view very close to what you calculated. That means that one pixel is close to two feet wide at the "spire" (I get just about 23 inches).
Click to expand...


In this event it doesn't make much difference, but it can do. You need the camera location to calculate the angle of view. Depending on the focal length used for the photograph, measuring objects on a closer or more distant horizontal plane could produce widely different numbers.

The wider the lens, the greater this difference will be.

-Andrew
 
I think I see. If you measure the width of the picture in proportion to an object of known size, like the height of 2WFC, you can figure what the linear field of view was at the plane in which your reference object lies. If you know the distance between the camera and that plane, you can figure the angular field of view with simple trig. If you then measure the width of some other object in proportion to the width of the picture, you can figure what angle it subtended at the camera. If you know that and the distance from the camera to the object, you can figure out its size with a bit more simple trig.

Is that more or less correct?
 
Christophera said:
Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?
Click to expand...

gravity
 
ktesibios said:
I got very similar numbers. In fact, since the width of the picture in pixels is known and there's an object of known size at very nearly the same distance as the "spire", it isn't even necessary to know the distance to the camera. It comes down to a simple exercise in proportions. I doubt that the error involved in doing it that way will be significantly worse than the error involved in trying to estimate distances from online maps.

The building to the left of the spire, with the domed top, is 2 World Financial Center. It's 196.5 meters tall (just about 644.5 feet). Measuring the picture width in WFC2 height units gives a horizontal field of view very close to what you calculated. That means that one pixel is close to two feet wide at the "spire" (I get just about 23 inches).
Click to expand...

A two foot column at 7500 feet.


One second later from the same camera, vertical, flexible structure, fine elements a little lower is seen. (What happens when you look down a line of 100 ,slightly obliquely at 7500 feet, and they are 3 inches in diameter, then a row takes off at 90 degrees across the line of sight?)

To help with analysis:
That is the north tower, here is the south tower a little further up, what is seen here?
 
ktesibios said:
I think I see. If you measure the width of the picture in proportion to an object of known size, like the height of 2WFC, you can figure what the linear field of view was at the plane in which your reference object lies. If you know the distance between the camera and that plane, you can figure the angular field of view with simple trig. If you then measure the width of some other object in proportion to the width of the picture, you can figure what angle it subtended at the camera. If you know that and the distance from the camera to the object, you can figure out its size with a bit more simple trig.

Is that more or less correct?
Click to expand...


Yeah... pretty much. :)

I tend to process visually, so I prefer to use the photograph itself to determine "edge of frame" lines on an accurate plan image of the site (such as an aerial photograph). You can then determine the width of the frame at any given plane perpendicular to the centre-line of the frame by measuring the distance between the edge-of-frame lines at that plane (technically the plane is actually an arc, not a straight line, but it's close enough not to worry). Dividing by the image resolution will give you the pixel-scale at that given plane.

As the image is clearly taken on a long lens, the variation in pixel-scale for 2WFC and WTC1 are not going to be very significant.

Of course a precise calculation would require us to know the resolution of the CCD in the camera that took the photo as well as the CCD cell shape and quality, AND the focal length at the time. These will affect how sharp the photo is, and how much data is originally captured. If either of these is below a level that could detect a 3" object, it's irrelevant what resolution the photo itself is, the photo will not display the object accurately.

Lastly, the air between WTC1 and the camera is going to have a lot of dust in it from the two collapses. Though potentially invisible to the naked eye, they will diffuse light reflected off the "spire", thus further impairing any ability to take accurate readings from the photo.

And they wonder why we don't give their photographic interpretation skills much credit... :rolleyes:

-Andrew
 
 
Christophera said:
(What happens when you look down a line of 100 ,slightly obliquely at 7500 feet, and they are 3 inches in diameter, then a row takes off at 90 degrees across the line of sight?)
Click to expand...

Oh! So you think that, after the core is pulverized by thousands of kilos of C4, the rebar remains, largely intact ?
 
William Rea said:
4. Unfortunately I am unable to obtain a view of the building core but to put your picture in perspective I have attached a more accurate view of the structure and superimposed as you have. Tells quite a different story doesn't it (the drawing is an extract from the PA drawing).
Click to expand...

Well, just to be really accurate and give a view that isn't misleading about the amount of damage, try this picture:
 

Attachments

  • Remade.JPG
    Remade.JPG
    7 KB · Views: 237
chipmunk stew said:
Actually, I prefer something more like this:
http://www.suvi.org/NYattack/wtc_attack/hole_in_tower1.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah.

But when people show a pic, model, or drawing of the whole with the entire building, it does look like a little bitty hole that couldn't drop a big building like that.

When you view it as if the top of the building is a seperate building on it's own, as the damaged floors rest on the lower structure and support the higher as a building rests on the ground, then it clears it up a bit. Don't consider it as a few floors of a 100 story building damaged, but as the bottem few floors of a smaller building (just the parts from the damaged areas up). It suddenly becomes much more understandable how this caused a collapse, and why it wouldn't topple.
 
I have followed this thread from page 1 through about 40 pages and I am dying to know if any definitive answer has been given to the issue of the supposed concrete core - and specifically if anything was received from the architectural firm Chris quoted.


Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom