The physics toolkit

[femr2]

I also thank femr2 for making his data available. It's the best raw data I've seen on this, by far, but its higher resolution is (quite naturally) accompanied by greater noise, which will require greater care in analysis. femr2's data apparently end about 1.5 seconds before the end of the Chandler/MacQueen/Szamboti data.

It's quite old data. Have been working on the procedures over the last 6 months or so, so I should really get the more recent datasets uploaded. (Graph in my previous post is a good example of the kind of accuracy I am getting down to).

If you do anything with the sets I posted earlier, the first thing to do vith the vertical pixel location data is to apply 2 sample running average (at data level in excel or whatever) as the deinterlaced footage always *bobs* up and down on alternate samples.

Probably better if I clean up the spreadsheets. There's no labelling and the format is a bit haphazard.

If you're planning on using any data, let me know and I'll sort out the presentation.

 

[femr2]

it is clear that there was no significant deceleration

I've repeatedly stated this point clearly. The *mini jolts* in my data really are very small. There was never any argument about that. Why are you suggesting otherwise ?

But then I see you repeatedly stating that there were ZERO points of deceleration, and accusations that I'm trying to deceive.

Not the case for both.

It is quite impressive that a number of you guys put everything else down and jumped right on this.

Call me a geek, that's fine, but when the subject of tracing comes up, I'm going to try and extract data of the very highest quality I can. You have taken a lot of flak for your data quality, so I don't think it's surprising that when you present the raw data for the new version, that it is also scrutinised.

Why not just either:

a) Trace at the very best quality you can

or

b) Simply concede that your methods will only show *jolts* above magnitude (x) and be done with it.

 

[DGM]

If I didn't know better I might think that some of you guys here are hacks with a mission to discredit any finding which might prove controlled demolition was involved in the destruction of the WTC towers.

With all due respect, I'm waiting to be convinced that your not showing a bias toward a predetermined conclusion. So far, not so much.

Before you start, I find their (including a couple "truthers") argument better. You need to step it up a notch or two. And I do mean that with all due respect.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

With all due respect, I'm waiting to be convinced that your not showing a bias toward a predetermined conclusion. So far, not so much.

Before you start, I find their (including a couple "truthers") argument better. You need to step it up a notch or two. And I do mean that with all due respect.

With all due respect, the reality is that the measurement technique used to determine that there is no deceleration during the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 is the same as that used to determine the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 and which also observes deceleration in every Verinage demolition. These other measurements show the technique is more than sufficient for the task.

The fact that the upper section of WTC 1 does not decelerate during its fall is the proverbial turd in the punchbowl for the official story on how that building collapsed.

What is hard to understand are the continual attempts to polish that turd by some here, who then try to pretend it is something different than it is.

The upper section did not decelerate and that is a very serious problem for the official story. The Verinage demolitions show it to be a very serious problem as they decelerate during impact as they have to in a naturally caused collapse.

 

[DGM]

With all due respect, the reality is that the measurement techniques used to determine that there is no deceleration during the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 are the same as those that measured the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 and show deceleration in every Verinage demolition.

The fact that the upper section of WTC 1 does not decelerate during its fall is the proverbial turd in the punchbowl for the official story on how that building collapsed. What you are witnessing here is some people trying to polish that turd and brazenly attempt to tell us it isn't one.

So why is it you can't publish these findings and convince the whole world?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It's quite old data.

Yes, I've seen your graphs at another forum, but hadn't taken the trouble to track down your raw numbers. Had you not posted those links here today, I'd have PMed you for them.

If you do anything with the sets I posted earlier, the first thing to do vith the vertical pixel location data is to apply 2 sample running average (at data level in excel or whatever) as the deinterlaced footage always *bobs* up and down on alternate samples.

I've been suspicious of your deinterlacing, so that was the first thing I checked. After trying several quick-and-dirty hacks, my preliminary analysis was based on replacing every 5 samples with their average, not realizing that my choice of 5 preserves the interlace bias. Going from 5 to 6, the jolt at your 4.2 seconds remains obvious, but the jolt at 4.75 seconds disappears!

That's a good example of how hard it is to extract signals from noisy data.

Probably better if I clean up the spreadsheets. There's no labelling and the format is a bit haphazard.

If you're planning on using any data, let me know and I'll sort out the presentation.

I think I was able to guess most of it, but it would be nice not to have to guess.

I also have doubts about your correction for camera shake, and would like to know how you ruled out heat refraction and other possible causes; of course, the cause may not matter if the correction is the same. The camera shake becomes less important as the collapse progresses; as the differences between adjacent samples become larger, the relative contribution of camera shake becomes smaller.

 

[Dog Town]

So why is it you can't publish these findings and convince the whole world?

Once again, with feeling! See my sig!

 

[tfk]

Hey Hoke,

Tom, I didn't mean to suggest anything about you or your reasons for keeping personal information private in the post you quoting...

LoL.

No problem, wahine.

Rules of the basketball court where I learned to play: "No blood, no foul."
(East coast, inner city. Not like those west coast pansies...)

One of the things I like most in life is learning where my expectations go widely wrong. And this role has been a massive education in this regard.

I thought that I'd be able to sit back, like Jean Luc Picard, have my advisers bring unbiased, objective options to me, make decisions laden with wisdom and infallibility and orate (in a basso profundo voice) "Make it so". And have dozens of people falling all over themselves to please my slightest whim.

Ho boy.

Talk about a Mike Tyson caliber dope-slap upside the head.

LoL.

Tom

PS. Perhaps it'd work if I just shaved my head ...

 

[femr2]

Going from 5 to 6, the jolt at your 4.2 seconds remains obvious, but the jolt at 4.75 seconds disappears!

They are very *mini jolts* for sure. Within the noise really, but with suitably high sample rate wide-band symmetric differencing smooths out a lot of the noise.

I also have doubts about your correction for camera shake, and would like to know how you ruled out heat refraction and other possible causes; of course, the cause may not matter if the correction is the same.

I've repeated the traces no-end of times. Far too many times. Sad. Using varying *static* features, varying trace features (various points around the NW corner, various points on the washer, various points on the antenna, ...). Results match well between each feature trace.

Did a static point comparison recently (comparison between 2 static points a fair distance from each other), and got...


(click to zoom)

Blue is static point on the foreground building.
Grey is static point on the lower left of the tower.
Black is the difference.

Vertical axis is pixels. 1 pixel on graph is 0.5 pixels on original footage.

A zoom on the major period of camera shake, showing how closely the two static points match when viewed at lower level...

(click to zoom)

(local video data is 1440*960)

Haven't specifically ruled out things like heat refraction, but hopefully with enough traced points and enough replication it all averages out. (The correlation between the point in the foreground and the point on the building would suggest heat is not a big factor, as the foreground feature is not suffering from fire-based heat and smoke effects.)

The results of subtracting the static point data from moving features does appear to improve the quality significantly, and certainly reduces apparent noise levels.

Given the fidelity of the data (or the noise level if you like) I think it's an absolute must to take static point correction into account though.

I'd suggest one of the biggest noise factors for tracing moving features is not heat so much as the smoke, which does result in the noise level for moving features being higher than for static features.

 

[tfk]

Pedro, I am sure you understand what happens when the legs or necessary vertical support is pulled from under something. The onject falls without impacting anything and there is no deceleration until the object hits something which is more than strong enough to support it, like the ground.

100% incorrect.

Water is not strong enough to support a giant solid steel cube.

You are suggesting that a giant solid steel cube, dropped from height, landing with a flat steel surface hitting the water, would undergo no deceleration when it hit the water.

See anything wrong with your picture of reality ...?


Tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

100% incorrect.

Water is not strong enough to support a giant solid steel cube.

You are suggesting that a giant solid steel cube, dropped from height, landing with a flat steel surface hitting the water, would undergo no deceleration when it hit the water.

See anything wrong with your picture of reality ...?


Tom

I can't imagine you are as thick as you seem so I have to conclude you are insidious and it is hard to ignore.

The real picture would be more akin to a giant steel cube in a deep lake being supported by a steel frame from the bed of the lake. Now remove the structural integrity of the steel frame and what happens? The steel cube accelerates downward through the water continuously and never decelerates until it hits bottom.

There was no freefall and then an abrupt impact with some level of resistance. The structural integrity seems to have been removed enough so that the static load was sufficient to continuously accelerate through the remaining resistance.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ugh.... god.... vector math people!!!
You can have positive acceleration relative to the direction of motion providing the negative does not over come the positive. It drives me crazy when people don't get such a simple concept right... The fact that the velocity continued to increase DOES NOT necessarily mean NO RESISTANCE was encountered...

 

[beachnut]

I can't imagine you are as thick as you seem so I have to conclude you are insidious and it is hard to ignore.

The real picture would be more akin to a giant steel cube in a deep lake being supported by a steel frame from the bed of the lake. Now remove the structural integrity of the steel frame and what happens? The steel cube accelerates downward through the water continuously and never decelerates until it hits bottom.

There was no freefall and then an abrupt impact with some level of resistance. The structural integrity seems to have been removed enough so that the static load was sufficient to continuously accelerate through the remaining resistance.

Are you always wrong? The real CD deal is a delusion; how long will it last for you? I can image 911 truth is as thick as your CD delusion. You would be the perfect engineer to have on a team; what ever you say is wrong so we know what not to do. Good job; now I see why you have not been fired, you are the one who fulfills something like being wrong all the time for the organization. They agree or do not call your ideas delusions because they are being polite. Ask them to tell you the truth one day; or you are not paying attention when they call your 911 ideas idiotic. Happy 4th, who invented this wifi stuff; they make it possible to see your delusions anywhere?

You may want to use some differential equations to correct your mistake. Did you take differential equations, because you don't seem to have a grasp of real engineering and physics based on your delusional views of 911 and the real world.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You may want to use some differential equations to correct your mistake. Did you take differential equations, because you don't seem to have a grasp of real engineering and physics based on your delusional views of 911 and the real world.

Differential equations is a required course in all engineering curriculums and they are used in many courses of the curriculum thererafter, so of course I took differential equations.

My question for you is to whether or not you can use some differential equations to prove that what you are saying is right instead of just flapping your jaws. Can you?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ugh.... god.... vector math people!!!
You can have positive acceleration relative to the direction of motion providing the negative does not over come the positive. It drives me crazy when people don't get such a simple concept right... The fact that the velocity continued to increase DOES NOT necessarily mean NO RESISTANCE was encountered...

Sure there was resistance, about 10 to 15% of what it should have been. That is why the building came down. Now start asking yourself what removed the other 85 to 90% of the resistance along the lines of something other than impact damage and fires, because they were not capable of removing that much strength from the building.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sure there was resistance, about 10 to 15% of what it should have been. That is why the building came down. Now start asking yourself what removed the other 85 to 90% of the resistance along the lines of something other than impact damage and fires, because they were not capable of removing that much strength from the building.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5681951&postcount=213

 

[femr2]

That data was interpolated to match the times in the hand data.

The Tracker data was taken by David Chandler.

Who performed the interpolation ?
How were the interpolated data points calculated; by eye from graph, or ... ?
How was the translation to real-world units performed ?

The new data uses a lower (worse) sampling frequency than the original data.

Have you noticed how poorly the manually placed points actually adhere to the original point tracked ? (the horizontal positioning is attrocious)

Do you not think it's time to perform the task yourself, seeing as you are the one fronting the data and copping the flak for it ?

Or, as offered earlier, you're welcome to use my data as indicated, or simply concede that your data will not reveal *jolts* below magnitude (j) over duration (k).

If the latter, the original data set from Graeme MacQueen? is very likely of higher quality than the new set from Chandler. That's not good.

After all it's not going to make any difference to your position. There are no large prolongued periods of deceleration. That has been clear for a very long time. The magnitude of the mini jolts that are present would probably be quite humerous to actually work out.

All you have to do to retain your original data is put the referenced bounds on the scope of your data, namely it won't reveal jolts lower than magnitude (j) over period (k)

I suggest the next step would be to work out the maximum *jolt* that your data would not reveal.

That will also mean conceding that there are decelerations, just ones you don't think are big enough.

I think it's also time to start defining and stating exactly what IS colliding with what, which will make it clear what you think must have been *removed*.

 

[beachnut]

Differential equations is a required course in all engineering curriculums and they are used in many courses of the curriculum thererafter, so of course I took differential equations.

My question for you is to whether or not you can use some differential equations to prove that what you are saying is right instead of just flapping your jaws. Can you?

Yes they are usually, I was wondering why you don't use engineering as you made up your real CD deal. Differential equations would save you from making the mistake of making up lies. Why not use them?

You have the delusions, you prove your failed delusions first.

... you are wrong, why waste time explaining it; you have failed to learn anything about 911 to change your delusion. Go head prove something other than you have a delusion of CD on 911. Make our day and after 8 years, make a rational conclusions on 911.

... your failure to be right, it makes it possible for your continued delusional real CD deal.

The steel cube accelerates downward through the water continuously

The simplified equation does not support your

accelerates downward through the water continuously

. Why is that?

Sure there was resistance, about 10 to 15% of what it should have been. That is why the building came down. Now start asking yourself what removed the other 85 to 90% of the resistance along the lines of something other than impact damage and fires, because they were not capable of removing that much strength from the building.

You have delusions. Why? My goodness, you have no rational side. Your fellow employees are polite if you spew this garbage to them and they fail to call you out. The impact damage and fires were enough to doom the WTC towers, and the chief structural engineer agrees with me, and I with him in that he thinks your real CD deal is nonsense. I have real engineers who agree with me, you have a bunch of nut case conspiracy theorist not one who built high right buildings who support not your ideas but other insane delusions. You have no single integrated 911 position, only a bunch of lies based on hearsay, lies and fantasy. You want me to do what? Wow, you can't do the work you just talk fantasy and propagate false ideas about 911. Why are you unable to tap into engineering skills to snap you out of your delusions on 911?

You have failed to prove anything about 911; your preconceived real CD deal was based on nothing but your paranoid conspiracy theory opinions. I don't have to prove you have delusions, you prove it with each post where you think you are saying something true about 911, fire science, impacts, or structural engineering. 8 years of failure proved by zero support from real engineers. Rational engineers out number your failed movement by millions. We don't believe your lies, and not a think you can do will help your failed delusional CD lies.

Chandler's work is garbage; is he doing okay? Will all 911 truther like you finally become rational? What is stopping you guys from learning how to apply properly what you were suppose to learn in school? These are good questions based on the fact you have failed for 8 years and need to stop making up lies based on your opinions, you need to use physics and engineering, not wave you hands and let your paranoid conspiracy theories do the thinking.

When I fail to achieve a goal, I gain more knowledge and experience, try harder and achieve it. You need to change your goal from a delusion to a reality based goal. You try harder and only expose your ignorance; like this.

Sure there was resistance, about 10 to 15% of what it should have been. That is why the building came down. Now start asking yourself what removed the other 85 to 90% of the resistance along the lines of something other than impact damage and fires, because they were not capable of removing that much strength from the building.

You sound like Gage, spewing lies. This is a lie; you might lack lack the skill to understand you are telling a lie, but it is a lie just the same. You have take 8 years and you can't get past making up lies. Your office must be the most polite people, or you lied and never expose them to your delusional ideas. I can see by all your office mates posting here how much support you have in the real world.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Sure there was resistance, about 10 to 15% of what it should have been. That is why the building came down. Now start asking yourself what removed the other 85 to 90% of the resistance along the lines of something other than impact damage and fires, because they were not capable of removing that much strength from the building.

The whole is more than the sum of the parts.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All you have to do to retain your original data is put the referenced bounds on the scope of your data, namely it won't reveal jolts lower than magnitude (j) over period (k)

I suggest the next step would be to work out the maximum *jolt* that your data would not reveal.

That will also mean conceding that there are decelerations, just ones you don't think are big enough.

I think it's also time to start defining and stating exactly what IS colliding with what, which will make it clear what you think must have been *removed*.

There are some good thoughts here, but you should also remember that it is the effect on the velocity which allows one to determine whether or not an impulsive load (jolt) occurred.

I believe the outer core columns were removed for at least the first 9 stories of the collapse of WTC 1 and that the corners of the perimeter were cut to eliminate orthogonal stiffness and cause the perimeter walls to be pushed outward due to the thrust of the floors coming down with the outer core columns. It is interesting to look at the area of the inner core columns and estimate the small amount of bending resistance left in the perimeter walls after their corners were cut. I have done this and it turns out to be quite close to the strength required to resist 1/3rd the static load. This is quite interesting considering that the buildings came down at about 2/3rds of the acceleration of gravity.

As the measurements could only be done for those first nine stories it would be speculation after that as to what happened and there is at least a possibility that the perpetrators could have then utilized gravity alone at that point along the lines of your proposed ROOSD theory.