I think jammonius might be a little color blind w/ the shades of yellow, so let me assist. Maybe if I'm bored later I'll do the rest of the gz map.
[qimg]http://phunkadelic.org/duck.jpg[/qimg]
The area between the red and blue is in the 25-50 foot range.
The area between the blue and green is in the 50-75 foot range.
The area in the green is in the 75-100 foot range.
This does not fit any definition of the word flat.
Looks kinda like a duck heheh.
First things first. Thank you for the helpful additions to the Lidar diagram. The added graphic touch lends clarity to the discussion.
Now, for additional clarity, let's also add in bonavida's equally important graphic enhancement:
Now, let's see what information we can jointly discern:
I'll start with what I see:
1--The graphic in the quoted section only covers WTC 3 and WTC 2; that and nothing more. In fact, it doesn't appear to include all of the WTC 3 footprint. One can argue that the 2 lidar images do not fully agree one with the other, but that is not considered by me to be all that significant for purposes of this aspect of the discussion.
By "this aspect" I think what we're here actually doing is determining whether the word "flat" is adequately descriptive or not. As outlined in the remainder of this post, I contend these data justify use of the word "flat" as being adequate, generally accurate and certainly descriptive.
Words can mislead and summary type descriptions are not an adequate substitute for a full-blown, pixel, by pixel assessment. That is how language works. Some descriptions are intended to convey an overall sense or concept, others are designed to explain out to, say, the Nth degree.
It appears we are morphing more towards doing the latter. However, where I disagree with some posters is that if that is what we're doing, then that is not a proper way to discuss the term "flat." That term is intended to convey an overall summary of the conditions. Plus, any attempt to characterize it otherwise is nothing more than a cheap trick.
General is general and specific is specific.
Now, with regard to the graphic in the post with the circular or eclosing lines, let me give my impression of the specifics there shown.
1--There is an area that is worth mentioning that you did not include; namely, the area between the outer border of the chart and the red. Keep in mind, this is a small segment only covering WTC 3 and 2. All of it is, I believe, within the confines of GZ because we can see that the pedestrian walkway is at the outer edge.
I contend that the area from the border to the red boundary is "street level" or zero and therefore well within the general description of being F L A T.
2--In percentage terms, I assert the area from the border to the red is the single largest component of that graph, comprising, I would say almost 1/2 of it and easily more than a 1/3 of the total. It's almost like a sandwich sliced on an angle, where the two halves of the sandwich would be considered by 10 year kids as being a roughly equal split. And, in my experience, 10 year old kids look very, very closely and accurately at who's getting the bigger piece. So, if a sandwich isn't cut evenly they squawk. I assert kids wouldn't complain about those slices. So, in conclusion, 1/2 of the graph you posted is flat.
3--Between red and blue, not all of it is in the 25' category. You can see the light tan in portions. Granted, they are not large in percentage terms relative to the whole of that area, but they are visible and merit mention. They also help to provide a way of deducing that the 25-50' spread may be closer, overall to the 25' range.
4--No one has said what number of storeys are considered to be covered here. I would assume that 1 storey would equal at least 10' if not 12' such that 25' is 2 storeys.
5--Now, as to percentage of whole. The 25-50 category is also the second largest in percentage terms based on what I see. I would estimate that portion at about 1/3 of the total, and I wouldn't quibble if some were to argue for, say, 30%.
6--This means 80% of that graphic is 0-25, 50' tops.
7--Or, to use my word "flat" when one considers that what had stood there had been 1360.' This brings up another point. The word "flat has a context. The context is before and after destruction of the Twin Towers and other buildings in the WTC complex. Just the towers alone aggregated 2720'. But, since the graphic in question only covers one of the towers, I wouldn't quibble if some were to insist that the height of only one should be used for context purposes. Mind you, a fair claim can be made that since the two towers were so close one to the other, it's proper to use the 2720' as a reference. If one does so, then that means a 99% reduction. I think if something is compacted to 1% of its former height then, by comparison, what remains is freakin' FLAT. Even if you halve that, you still get a reduction down to 2% of its prior height and that is still FLAT.
8--The claim is 75' for the area between blue and green and it is, I would say, about 15%.
9--5% accounts for the peaks.
Nope, posters, that graphic reveals a flat GZ IMHO.
