• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

jaydeehess said:
I see no reason to suspect that the structure will not move about in odd ways. I see no way to use this +/- inches movement to determine anything useful about what exactly is happening inside the building. As far as I am concerned I cannot envision you determining anything more detailed than what NIST did.
Click to expand...

This is my point also. I would wager if you could track the building from 10:28 am on-ward you would see all sorts of gyrations. Big buildings shift and sway all the time. I've been in the core of a few tall buildings on windy days, it takes a lot to get used to (and to believe it's "normal")
 
jaydeehess said:
I see no reason to suspect that the structure will not move about in odd ways. I see no way to use this +/- inches movement to determine anything useful about what exactly is happening inside the building. As far as I am concerned I cannot envision you determining anything more detailed than what NIST did.
Click to expand...
A bit of a non-comment then.

It seems you are trying to illustrate how closely the FEA did or did not precisely match the movement of the structure.
Click to expand...
Nope. Looking at the initiating behaviours and comparing to published tomes, sure.

The FEA was never, and in practical terms and usage , cannot ever perfectly match the observed and recorded collapse.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Do you have a purpose to all of this?
Click to expand...
How many more times do I have to say it ? Of course. Analysis of motion traces here at the mo. If you don't like the answer, I'm afraid it's tough luck.

If you did not want such discussion then perhaps you should have simply waited until you finished before even posting about it at all in the JREF forums. That horse has left the barn though.
Click to expand...

ROFL. Do you know what initiated the *discussion* ?

As I'm sure you don't...

tfk was having a discussion about WTC 7 descent time with someone, and so I provided him with a dataset for the NW corner position. Good data. Suggesting he could use it to help determine the descent time pretty accurately.

Of COURSE tfk's inbuilt reaction was to go on the *offensive* about how useless the data was, because I generated it :) The ensuing *discussions*, er, ensued from there. lol.

So, *perhaps you should have simply waited until you finished before even posting about it at all in the JREF forums" ?

Firstly the context of your question is all messed up, and secondly it appears that you revere this locality. You really shouldn't. It's pretty pathetic really. A quick peek at recent posts on the *WTC 1 Features List, Initiation Model* thread should let you know where I'm coming from there.
 
DGM said:
How do you know they are "initiating" behaviors and not just consequences from smaller non-crucial occurrences?
Click to expand...

Initiating in the same sense as NIST stating initiating roles of Column 79.

You should probably say the same to NIST eh ? WTC 1 initiating sequence ?

Being finnicky with language is boring. That's usually tfk's pet topic.

Perhaps the outcome will clarify the role or not of that column. Who knows eh ;)
 
femr2 said:
How many more times do I have to say it ? Of course. Analysis of motion traces here at the mo. If you don't like the answer, I'm afraid it's tough luck.
Click to expand...

I already responded to that reply stating that it does not answer my question.
"analysis of motion traces' is what you are doing. I am asking, 'to what purpose?'

For instance "why are you going ouside?"
It may be 'to go but some milk' for instance but, an actual answer to the question is hardly "to go outside".

So you want to compare the motion detail you find to the motion that NIST found. OK, why? Do you believe that it may be possible to garner something significant or useful over and above what NIST got from their analysis?
If you find that the internal destruction began a few minutes before NIST assumes it did and therefore the entire collapse sequence was a few minutes longer, where could that lead?

After all I am pretty sure that from morning on there were pieces falling off the structure on the impact damaged south and I can certainly beliebe that for much of the day internal fire damage was causing steel to expand, and then contract with both of these causing greater deformations.
I just don;t see where this is going.

I started a thread about Chandler's lack of any error margins and his leap from a short free fall to explosives. Therefore I became interested in this thread. Too bad its both not addressing my original thoughts on Chandler nor does it seem that its going anywhere(even slowly)
 
jaydeehess said:
femr2 said:
How many more times do I have to say it ? Of course. Analysis of motion traces here at the mo. If you don't like the answer, I'm afraid it's tough luck.
Click to expand...
I already responded to that reply stating that it does not answer my question.
Click to expand...

See the bolded section.

Too bad its...not...going anywhere(even slowly)
Click to expand...

It's ongoing research. You want the conclusions before they have been reached ? Awesome. Let me look in my crystal ball :rolleyes:
 
femr2 said:
Initiating in the same sense as NIST stating initiating roles of Column 79.
Click to expand...

How so? I don't believe NIST used purely visual references.

You should probably say the same to NIST eh ? WTC 1 initiating sequence ?
Click to expand...

Not really, (see above)


Being finicky with language is boring. That's usually tfk's pet topic.
Click to expand...

Using leading language and then complaining when someone request clarification is boring. I thought my question was valid, why do you believe any of these events are "initiating"?

Perhaps the outcome will clarify the role or not of that column. Who knows eh ;)
Click to expand...

I won't even pretend to know where your going with this.
 
DGM said:
How do you know they are "initiating" behaviors and not just consequences from smaller non-crucial occurrences?
Click to expand...

Initiating, pre-release, early, before descent, prior to large scale vertical displacement, ...

Whatever. As I say, quibbling phrasiology is tfk's pet hobby/anger management therapy. Not recommended.
 
femr2 said:
Initiating, pre-release, early, before descent, prior to large scale vertical displacement, ...

Whatever. As I say, quibbling phrasiology is tfk's pet hobby/anger management therapy. Not recommended.
Click to expand...
How about external observation. At any rate as I said before, I would expect movements in the building.
 
femr2 said:
See the bolded section.
Click to expand...
You said if I didn't like the answer,, tough.

I point out that you did not provide an answer.
Had you replied with "chocolate bunny squares" it would have been just as on point as the reply you did provide.

What are you doing? You are "Looking at the initiating behaviours and comparing to published tomes"
How are you doing this? "Analysis of motion traces here at the mo."

But the question is to what purpose and every time you get asked this you reply with the answer to what you are doing and how you are doing it and never asnswer; why?

So yes, that does get frustrating. If you don't wish to keep being asked,, tough.


It's ongoing research. You want the conclusions before they have been reached ? Awesome. Let me look in my crystal ball :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In university I was speaking with a physics grad student(this is around 1976) and he was explaining that he was looking for evidence of the old concept of an all encompassing 'ether'. I asked why he would be doing that, hadn't the concept been rejected long ago? He replied that he was running the same experiments that had been done decades earlier at greater precision. The record showed no statistically significant deviation from what would be expected in there were no 'ether'. With the more modern equipment he could try again to see if this was still true to more decimal places.
Not really unlike what you are doing here.
The difference is that he coud explain what , how and why. there were clear cut indications he was looking for. (did light travel faster in one direction in Earth's frame of reference than in a perpendicular direction, if it did that was direct evidence of passage through an 'ether'.) Why do it? To confirm either the existance or non-existance of the 'ether'.

With that example then, why are you examining the motion of the building in the last few minutes pre-collapse.

BTW, I have already said you should compare the motions of other structures that were on fire to see if these types of motion are not simply a common consequence of such tall office building fires. There is also another source to check on. WTC 7 hours before collapse. If for instance at noon you see a similar long period sway it could hardly be due to any collapse initiating event.
 
All buildings probably do expand or contract a bit with temperature and flew a bit in the wind. We cannot deny that there was a bit of wind on the site and that WTC7 was undergoing some changes in temperature. I thus would assign no great deal of importance to motions of less than a meter or two in determining the cause of collapse. Specificly, such small motions in no way support a theory of CD.
 
femr2 said:
Initiating in the same sense as NIST stating initiating roles of Column 79.

Perhaps the outcome will clarify the role or not of that column. Who knows eh ;)
Click to expand...

Is that why you are doing this?

To confirm the accruacry of where, when and what column failed first? NIST ran simulations in which they had several different columns fail first and compared that to the video of the penthouse drop they concluded that col 79 was first and that a significantly different sequence resulted with the initial failure being some other column. Do you think that an investigation of the motion of the building will confirm/reject that?

NIST also has the girder under floor 13 being the one that fails due to fire. Are you checking to confirm/reject that?

(I am not insinuating bias to confirmation or rejection. I am asking if you are looking to see whether it confirms or rejects)
 
There were loud noises and banging about inside the building well before global failure. This suggests to me that some of the floors may have failed in at least a few places in that time. That might change the over-all geometry of the building.
 
leftysergeant said:
There were loud noises and banging about inside the building well before global failure. This suggests to me that some of the floors may have failed in at least a few places in that time. That might change the over-all geometry of the building.
Click to expand...

That was the spooks installing the charges LS. We told them to be quiet.:)

Seriously, I have mentioned before that with damage that included the destruction of several stories worth of the SW corner I could easily expect that multi-ton chunks of the building would continue to fail and fall throughout the day.
One elevator car was out of the shaft indicating something had impacted near there.
,, and of course several major office fires went unchecked in many locations throughout the building. Yes a floor pan may well have let go somewhere else during the day. Obviously such was not included in the NIST FEA since although it is certainly possible, this is a complete unknown.
 
Last edited:
a suggestion for MT and femr2:

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

The steps of the scientific method are to:

  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results
 
Well there is also baseline data collection and analysis.
For instance cataloging the various species of snails on one tropical island a task taking many years. This is not particularily useful until many deacdes later one wants to investigate the effects of logging the islands slopes, then it is invaluable basic research.

femr2's re-examination of the video though does not fall into that catagory.
 
jaydeehess said:
...and of course several major office fires went unchecked in many locations throughout the building. Yes a floor pan may well have let go somewhere else during the day.
Click to expand...

From the noises heard, that is likely to have happened. From the historical record of how large clear-span floors and roofs perform in a fire, that is likely to have happened. From the fact that there were probably bloody great pieces of steel structural elements from another building of the floors that were never intended to support something like that, it would not be surprising.

Based on the sounds heard and the number of in tact windows that did not break until long after downward motion commenced, the use of explosives DID NOT happen.

Obviously such was not included in the NIST FEA since although it is certainly possible, this is a complete unknown.
Click to expand...

FEMA could only report on what they knew to have happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom