BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Last edited:
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
The camera was obviously bumped by Bigfoot as he was depressing the plunger to set of the demolition charges. Case closed:
Your most useful post ever I think...
No, quantified movement 9.5s in advance of release.
Yep.
Some, to a certain extent, yep.
From 9.5s in advance of release, yep. Before that, lacking any real available metrics.
With *now unstable* referring to <9.5s in advance of release, yep.
That makes no sense.
Woo ? I fail to see how quantifying real movements of the tower is something you classify as *woo*. Bizarre.
You of all folk should be very cautious of accusing folk of *sock puppetry*. I'll respond in kind
Again..........what does 9.5s signify? Spit it out man. Does it signify that part of the structure was perhaps weakened by fire before it collapsed and so had a tendancy to 'not be solid anymore' or does it signify some other act or pre happening such as 'explosives' or 'DEW' perhaps.
'sock puppet' not needed. You're flawed reasoning knows no bounds that you even mistake who it is you are talking too.........Abby on the brain. lol. Did she kick your arse or upset you somewhere that you are fixated with her? Get a life man. Your fiddling with pretty graphs and wobbly cameras from afar that show a building in disarray is hilarious. Wooooooooooo lol.
You've corrected your incorrect inclusion of foreground building movement, indeed.
Again, incorrect. The graph provided presents the movement very clearly.
Your eyes are clearly not great at resolving small movements, but such are clearly there.
Perhaps some glasses, or better still, grab VirtualDUB and magnify a portion of the FG building. Scrub through it and wait for debris to start colliding with the ground before expecting the camera shake to occur.
You'll get there.
The amount of time before release of the WTC 1 upper block that movement is detected.
So what does this pre - movement signify?
So what? We already know there was movement long before that, because some of the perimeter columns bent. They were straight, and then they were bent, and then they were more bent. That's movement.
Doesn't count because the displacement or some time derivative thereof didn't reach some arbitrary threshold you set? Okay, fine, but comparing when different parts first meet arbitrary milestone values of displacement, velocity, acceleration, etc. does not establish causality, even if you give arbitrary names to those events such as "failure" or "release".
Doing so is like saying the failure of business A cannot have caused the failure of business B, because business B filed for bankruptcy first. If A's orders from B had been declining for months, and A was staying in the black by laying off employees the whole time, while B had high fixed overhead costs, it's quite possible that B would file first even if A's failure was the cause of B's failure. You can't tell either way, except by looking at what was actually going on in the businesses.
I tried to warn you, Major_Tom, and Tony Szamboti about playing my-movement-happened-before-your-movement games in this post almost three months ago:
Since then, I've been watching you slowly (oh so, so very slowly) work each other up to it, edging closer to the cliff step by step. Who's going to step over? Who's going to play those eights and aces? Who's going to go ahead and outright claim that movement (reaching some specific threshold) in the antenna before movement (reaching some specific, possibly different threshold) of the perimeter wall is a convincing argument that core failure must have caused perimeter column failure instead of the other way around?
The suspense is suspenseful.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Does anyone want to guess as to why the NW corner is being pulled in over 9 seconds while the base of the antenna moves to the east and downward if the south wall inward bowing caused by the famous sagging floors initiated the collapse as the NIST claims?
Myriad: "The suspense is suspenseful."
Good, because there is a lot more material to present.
Myriad: "The suspense is suspenseful."
Good, because there is a lot more material to present.
Last edited:
No, not really.
16 seconds for debris to fall to the ground ?
Entire WTC 1 hitting ground at the same time ?
Perhaps you need to rethink that.
The shape of the graph between frames 1000 and 2000 should be insightful for you.
There is no apparent vertical movement due to IB, however I don't discount the implication.
The rate of movement from just after the camera shake (9.5s in advance of release) is easily determined using the tracing methods, and as such indicates either the beginning of movement or an extreme increase in rate of movement.
Your own inference.
Who are you arguing with ? I don't seem to recall where I stated a cause. Care to elaborate ?
Too much time on your hands. For who's benefit are you waxing this lyrical abstraction ?
What issue is it that you have with quantifying actual movement 9.5s in advance of release ?
Is there some reason you DON'T want that movement identified ?
One would have thought that folk, such as your good self, would be most pleased.
Nice. (Bit creepy tho)
I see...(where is Lassie when you need it eh ?)
Ah, I see
You are, as previously, suggesting everything happens at the same time. That all events at all times are non-sequential.Interesting.
It has been stated numerous times in t'other thread that the NIST described initiation sequence does not match observables. That South wall failure does not lead to east/west wall failure, does not lead to core failure.
Whilst all events are undoubtedly connected, I'm afraid this thread is probably not the place to discuss such, bearing in mind that without the simplifying construct of sequence, the big bang is about to occur
Wish there was a way of inserting some spooky movement here.
Most important part of this response repeated...
What issue is it that you have with quantifying actual movement 9.5s in advance of release ?
Is there some reason you DON'T want that movement identified ?
Last edited:
Is there some reason why you wont tell us why this 9.5s is so significant? The suspense is keeping me from my playstation......................drum role....................................................wobble wobble camera. Did we establish were that camera was mounted, what it was mounted on, how far away it was, what type of camera it was. All the little things that may expalin the shake. Bird, wind, man, woman, child, train, bridge ?????????/
Last edited:
I agree that with specialized software like the one femr2 is using, it's possible to detect more subtle shakes during the collapse which can escape the naked eye. I believe his graph is correct as an approximation, in the lack of any error analysis. Note that "tiny bit" is not a quantification, it doesn't give an idea of the extent of the shake compared to the rest.
It's a long time before release.
Do you think it's not significant ?
Don't let me keep you.
Yes. Read the thread.
There's possibly numerous causes of the early shake. The latter shake is undoubtedly due to debris impacting the ground.
Am sure analysis of behaviour between the two periods of shake will be performed.
Last edited:
Other events will be looked at and analysed, to allow better comparison between camera shake and seismic data...
For example...
Overlay of camera shake for second impact, using the same camera, with seismic data of the same event.
The camera position is in the same building, but slightly different location.
Red - Camera Shake
Black - Seismic data from PAL.
Correct.
The analogy is an example of how cause and effect (in this case, whether or not business A's failure causes business B's failure) cannot be determined by comparing momentary events on a timeline (the date each business declares bankruptcy) when the events in question (the failures of the two businesses) are occurring over an extended period of time.
Applying this to events in WTC collapse initiation:
business failure = structural failure
bankruptcy filing = moment of first movement of a certain magnitude
I have no issue with that. (Though I wasn't aware you had quantified the movment; how many bushels of movement was it? -- feel free to use your own preferred unit of measure -- and how does that compare with the range of movement the tower was designed for e.g. in a moderate wind?)
As you saw further down, I was looking ahead down the obvious path you're going. Used to do that in school too; drove my teachers crazy.
Ah, I see
Exactly, assuming by "all events at all times" you mean all of the processes related to the tower collapse that you are discussing. You have previously acknowledged that there is no definable "t=0" subsequent to the plane impact, and that as far as we know, slow movements like creep, thermal expansions and contractions, and the observed bowing of exterior columns proceed smoothly into more rapid movements as the complete collapse approaches.
For example, bowing of exterior columns would put increasing additional load on the core columns. The core columns compress elastically under that additional load. These things must happen to match the "observables" and the laws of physics even though the resulting elastic compression of the core has not been directly measured and is probably too small to measure. So, the exterior columns are moving, the core is moving (compressing), all very slowly. At some point the compression of the core (or some portion of it) becomes more rapid, and plastic. How much more rapid (on what time curve), and at what moment, we don't know. Could be before, could be after, the gradual descent of the exterior walls above the bowed section begins speeding up. What does this tell us about whether core failure caused exterior column failure or the reverse? Nothing. The hypothesis of exterior failure being the cause of core failure is not based on observing which one "started moving first" (a meaningless assessment even if full data were available, because both were moving all along, remember the bowing) but on calculations and modeling that show the stress on the outer columns, relative to their residual strength, was greater on the outer columns until those outer columns began failing and unloading.
It has been stated but it has not been shown. I'm telling you why arguments about which one "started moving first" (which since you have no definable t=0 must be based on reaching arbitrary thresholds of displacement, velocity, or acceleration, and not really showing that either one actually started moving first) will not help show it.
Reveal away. Sorry if I jumped ahead in the Book of Obvious Coming Arguments. Like I said, drove my teachers crazy too... but I never stopped doing it. Because waiting for them to get to the point step by obvious plodding step was too boring.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Splendid. As I'm sure you're aware, I've been looking for all possible signs of early *creep* for quite a while, given the numerous (incorrect) assertions that *progressive tilt* was not simply present, but visually observable, and for a period of 20 minutes or so.
Needless to say that even with high resolution digital photographs, allowing very small angular changes to be identified (far smaller than any visual inspection could possibly resolve), no progressive tilt was found.
Through application of tracing methods it has become possible to determine movement 9.5s before release, and also the point in time at which movement began or it's rate severely increased, that being, perhaps coincident to, the period of camera shake.
Again, before that point - no observable movement.
After that point - significant rates of movement.
Can easily be translated into ft, ft/s and ft/s^2.
No idea off the top of my head. Are you suggesting it's not creep movement, but wind ?
If so, then you're also suggesting a shorter transmission period between effectively zero movement and full release.
It's not wind btw
Bit of hubris creeping in there. You are blinded by your pre-conceptions I'm afraid.
Incorrect. I acknowledge that definition of t=0 must be parameterised, which is one reason why I use the word *release*, that being the point in time at which vertical velocity rapidly changes from effectively zero to full descent.
Ah, there is a reason for continued analysis. Do you know, or don't you ?
Clearly doubtful, as the rapid transition from no observable movement to significant observable movement in the traces following the camera shake reveals.
There are numerous geometric causes of IB, with the sagging floor hypothesis being least probable.
Who would have thought it was possible to measure movement up to 9.5s ahead of release eh ? Progress
How about 9.5s in advance of release ? I'm not confirming any movement prior to that though. It's not observable with current traces.
Simultanaety is a physical impossibility, so there must be an order of sequence. Careful not to limit your viewpoint to a rigid body eh.
Yes, one definition of an event can overlap with any other, but...
Did failure of perimeter columns result in load transfer to core columns, or the other way around ?
The *failure* event did not occur on both* simultaneously.
*and of course *both* actually refers to many separate interconnected elements, all of which have their own separate behavioural timespans.
All manner of assumptions applied. Mechanism of IB used is very improbable.
You didn't.
I don't think your matching is correct. My expectation is that the seismic peak matches approximately the peak in the first shake, and that the second shake has a different cause (accoustic? different type of wave?). I think your match is quite speculative here. Well, my suggestion is too, but it has about the same basis as yours.
I've just realized that the frequency of the ground vibration can obviously have a strong influence in the amplitude of the shake, depending on the resonance frequency of the tripod or whatever holds the camera [ETA: and even that of the building]. That makes it even harder to correlate seismic data with camera shake.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
All we need are red lines on the graphics.