Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[triforcharity]

What conclusions would they be ?

And is there any reason why you're afraid to state your opinion on each of the 40 OP observations ?

Any of them.


Yes, because I am lazy, I looked at the links, iv'e seen all the videos.


Is there reason you are so afraid to submit your analysis and conclusions to a peer-reviewed, respectable journal? I would most certainly read it then.

Would you like some journal suggestions?

 

[femr2]

Any of them.

Such as ?

Yes, because I am lazy, I looked at the links, iv'e seen all the videos.

Then you have no place commenting upon this thread.

Is there reason you are so afraid to submit your analysis and conclusions to a peer-reviewed, respectable journal?

Nope.

I would most certainly read it then.

So you don't understand any of it, but hang from the coat-tails of others. Funny.

Would you like some journal suggestions?

Nope.

 

[triforcharity]

Such as ?

ANY of them. Does that leave any room for explanation? Do you not understand the word ANY?

Then you have no place commenting upon this thread.

I have every right. Just as you do too. This is not my forum, or yours.

Nope.

Then why don't you and MT get going on the abstract?

So you don't understand any of it, but hang from the coat-tails of others. Funny.

Who said that I didn't understand it? Don't put words into my mouth. I may not be an expert on video analysis, but I do know a thing or twelve about fires and building collapses. I had to outrun two of them.

What s funny, is that as opposed to submiting your analysis and calculations to an appropriate engineering journal, you post on an internet forum, and maybe have a blog.

Yeah, THAT, Mr. Femr, is funny.

Nope.

Well, let us know when you do.

 

[femr2]

ANY of them. Does that leave any room for explanation? Do you not understand the word ANY?

Shows your bizarre position, sure.

I have every right. Just as you do too. This is not my forum, or yours.

Right ? Sure. Place ? Nah. Your posts are pointless.

Then why don't you ... get going on the abstract?

I have no intention of doing such.

Who said that I didn't understand it?

You won't read it unless a bunch of other folk have *peer reviewed* it beforehand. Why don't you just *peer review* it now ?

 

[triforcharity]

Shows your bizarre position, sure.

No. But, whatever.

I have no intention of doing such.

Why not? That would prove that you're not just talking out of your ass.

You won't read it unless a bunch of other folk have *peer reviewed* it beforehand. Why don't you just *peer review* it now ?

I've read it. I've seen it.

So, you're content to argue on a relitively obsecure internet forum, than actually DO something?

And you call me bizzare?

 

[dafydd]

Howsabout you do this simple thing...

State clearly which of the 40 OP observations you agree with, and which you don't. To speed the process further, include your reasons for those you don't agree with.

It's up to you truthers to write papers and present your evidence for real (i.e. non-dingbat) peer review.That's the way it's done in Realityland.

 

[BasqueArch]

Correction in bold

Timelines derived from MT’s NBC North analyzed videos at 60 fps:
1) Frames 140 – 220 (1.3 sec) Antenna begins drop until start of NW corner drop. Not sure about the tilt angle.
2) Frames 140- 286 (2.4 sec) Antenna drop to north wall drop of 12 feet. 8 degree tilt if the tilt includes the failure of the 98 th floor north wall down 12 feet to its base.
3) Frames 140- 295 (2.6 sec) Antenna drop to one degree tilt-MT (false it’s 8 degrees.)
4) Frames 140- 320 (3 sec) Antenna drop to two degrees tilt-MT (false it’s 8 degrees.)

From MT “Drop curves …”
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=165&MMN_position=335:335
From MT
“c) The tilt reaches one degree in frame 295
d) By frame 320 the tilt has reached 2 degrees”
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=154&MMN_position=336:336

.....

 

[Major_Tom]

Basquearche,

On the section entitled "claim 1": Antenna movement can be detected from about 9.5 seconds before visible collapse. The base of the antenna actually moves slightly eastward and the NW corner of the building is pulled inwards with it. A few seconds before visible collapse it begins to hook downwards.

The antenna actually sagged about 2 ft into the roofline from Sauret frame 130 to 215.

So, we have almost 10 seconds of eastward shifting, eastward leaning and sagging of the antenna before any downward movement is detected along the perimeter.

The earliest visible ejections and accelerated smoke activity as visible initiation begins is along fls 92 west face and the SW corner of floor 95, not on floor 98.

You need to ignore all these things to believe initiation began near the center of the south wall, fl 98.

You also have to believe that the sagging floors can take out the core before we see any downward movement along the SW corner of the building.


Concerning claim 2: I measure the tilt of the north face and the antenna up to Sauret frame 224 because that is when the final columns failed along the NW corner.

Drop curves for a point on the antenna and the window washer on the NW corner compared:

The NW corner drop velocity is in purple. Can you see when the NW corner fails? It is when the velocity takes off around 224. Failure of the NW corner can be detected within a few frames.

It is impossible to use the graph of the quantity r-98 to determine south tilt after frame 224 because 98 is no longer stationary. It is not possible to use the quantity b-r to determine south tilt at all because the building is undergoing deformation between those two points.


If you want to know the angle of tilt of the north wall and the antenna in frame 224 there are a couple of ways to do it. The CNN west clip is great but it's of a low resolution. I link to 3 versions in the source video section posted earlier. You need to measure the tilts at the moment the NW corner fails, the equivalent of frame 224.

I don't believe I tried to extract any useful tilt information as late as frame 300, and if I did claim something like 2 degrees in frame 290 it is a typo. My interval of interest has always been from frame 130 to frame 224 and the movement before frame 130. That is the initial failure sequence. The initial failure sequence ends around frame 224.


Consider the Mackey visualization of the NIST tilt description:

At 8 degrees the north wall has not yet failed. In reality the NW corner downward velocity took off near frame 224. The antenna had tilted south about 0.7 degrees and the north wall tilted about 0.5 degrees at that moment.

It is all measurable.

 

[tfk]

Drop curves for a point on the antenna and the window washer on the NW corner compared:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4753/image00029.png

Where is same analysis taken from the camera whose viewpoint is most orthogonal to this one's?

 

[tfk]

How ignorant and rude. A few screens full of information and you don't bother to read it. I wonder whether you managed to read the preface of the NIST report before flinging it aside. Never read a book then ?

Actually, I find his ignoring my simple question & posting that wall of psychobabble to be ignorant & rude.

I find both of your constant habit of butting into the midst of my asking the other one a question with unrelated & unremitting snark to be ignorant & rude.

Always paraphrasing even yourself. Bizarre. You asked "how were the viewpoint locations of the videos determined as accurately as reported?", which I imagine is another attempt to bring error analysis into the discussion.

Well, you imagine wrong.

But now that you bring it up...

Given your previous debacle in that arena (with you applying error bands to error bands in a manner clearly showing your lack of experience in the subject)…

LMAO.

Hey, jack, I'm not the clueless idiot who was posting 9 significant figures on dimensions he pulled off of 150 dpi scans of ancient shop drawings… And when the abject stupidity of that was pointed out to him, lamented that he couldn't quote more accuracy for his "non-simulation simulation"…

I'm not the clueless idiot who never heard of an error analysis before, much less, never performed one.

pssst, applying error bands to error bands is exactly the right thing to do, under those circumstances. The fact that you don't understand is, well, unsurprising.

To give you an answer, the values are not absolute, and don't need to be. They are approximate, determined via a combination of research into the physical camera locations and rotoscoping. I think most that you are asking about were determined by achimspok, so for finer details on individual values you'll have to ask him.

In other words, you quote this stuff, but don't know its fine detail.

Not surprising.

Yet another attempt to derail the thread into video processing. You've already shown your utter lack of skill in the topic, and the details are perfectly clear and indeed precise. If you want to discuss those steps in more detail, ask again on the femr2 video analysis thread. I'll take you through them.

Somehow, you've acquired the delusion that you are a moderator.
You seem facilely comfortable telling all kinds of people what are "proper" questions to ask, and where is the "proper" place to ask them.

LoL.

You'll understand, of course, when I ignore you.

BTW, this is the correct thread, dealing with a WTC1 video analysis that you & MT brought into the discussion.

That other thread addresses WTC7 video.

So, not only are you presumptuous, you're wrong.

A comment again showing your lack of understanding.
ALL video contains artefacts. The results look at trends, not individual samples. Noise resulting from the many potential sources (including video compression artefacts) are pretty irrelevant in the context. I would have thought you would have managed to get that very simple point into your head by now, but maybe that's just expecting more than zero from you. Hmm.

Ahh, in other words, you have NO answers.

And babble platitudes instead.

Got it.

Not surprising.

 

[femr2]

Actually, I find his ignoring my simple question

He didn't. He said *tfk, an answer will come later.*, which you even quoted

Hey, jack, I'm not the clueless idiot who was posting 9 significant figures on dimensions he pulled off of 150 dpi scans of ancient shop drawings…

LMAO. I stated, perfectly factually, that stacked object placement within 3DStudio was performed to maximum precision... 0.0001 units. Nothing to do with the scan accuracy.

Here's the discussion for a memory jog...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/why-so-much-precision-split-from-core-3d-model-t320.html

And when the abject stupidity of that was pointed out to him, lamented that he couldn't quote more accuracy

LMAO. See above.

for his "non-simulation simulation"…

Visualisation aid. Stated and repeated to you umpteen times.

I'm not the clueless idiot who never heard of an error analysis before, much less, never performed one.

Nonsense.

pssst, applying error bands to error bands is exactly the right thing to do, under those circumstances.

psst, 1 +/-1 +/-1 is equivalent to 1 +/- 2
Writing out post after post in the former syntax is very telling
Widen the error band...now there's a thought Keep things nice and simple, rather than *posting that wall of psychobabble*

In other words, you quote this stuff

Where have I quoted the details you mention ?

but don't know its fine detail

Specific per-viewpoint details on placement definition, no, and no need to.

Somehow, you've acquired the delusion that you are a moderator.

Nope, letting you know where I'll have such discussion with you.

You'll understand, of course, when I ignore you.

You were doing quite well for a while, but I guess it's a difficult habit to crack.

BTW, this is the correct thread, dealing with a WTC1 video analysis that you & MT brought into the discussion.

See above.

That other thread addresses WTC7 video.

That other thread is really funny when re-read from the beginning.

So, not only are you presumptuous, you're wrong.

The base topic of the thread is femr2 video data analysis. ALL femr2...(no, am not going to finish that, whilst I'd be showing how pedantic you get about things, I'd rather rise above it )

You want to discuss the specified items, fine, I'm the person you need to talk to, and I'll not be doing so for those elements on this thread. Like it or lump it.

Ahh, in other words, you have NO answers.

And babble platitudes instead.

Got it.

Not surprising.

It is amazing to see how much nonsense you can come out with in one post. Spectacular. Have a nice day.

 

[DGM]

You also have to believe that the sagging floors can take out the core before we see any downward movement along the SW corner of the building.


.

How much does the roof-line move starting at the first sign of parameter wall buckling?

 

[BasqueArch]

MyBolding

Basquearche,

On the section entitled "claim 1": Antenna movement can be detected from about 9.5 seconds before visible collapse. The base of the antenna actually moves slightly eastward and the NW corner of the building is pulled inwards with it. A few seconds before visible collapse it begins to hook downwards.

1) I haven’t seen a frame by frame video of this. It may have the same errors as your ”frame 120-220 antenna sagging + tilting top” from the NBC north video.

For example you say that “The SW corner was released first. The NE corner was released about 0.2 seconds later. The NW corner was released about 0.3 seconds after that.” and that the NW corner fails at frame 224 . 0.5 seconds before the NW corner failure the SW corner then should have failed at frame 194 (60 fps) but we don’t see that on your frames 120-220 antenna sagging clip. In fact you claim that up to frame 220 the SW fireball did not move as evidence that the antenna dropped before there was any drop of the south wall.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=179&MMN_position=359:359

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5425/excasest002.gif

2) Your graph also has velocity/drop errors in it. For example at frame 204 the NW corner shows no drop but also a 0.5 ft/sec downward velocity.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4753/image00029.png

3) NIST describes the shifting loading, creep and vertical displacement among exterior columns, hat truss and core columns, so some antenna movement would not be unexpected.

The antenna actually sagged about 2 ft into the roofline from Sauret frame 130 to 215.

4) This was caused by the failure of the center south perimeter columns.

So, we have almost 10 seconds of eastward shifting, eastward leaning and sagging of the antenna before any downward movement is detected along the perimeter.

5) See 1)-4) sbove.

The earliest visible ejections and accelerated smoke activity as visible initiation begins is along fls 92 west face and the SW corner of floor 95, not on floor 98.

6) Wrong. From NCSTAR 1-6D :

“ In addition, the exterior seats on the south wall in the hot zone of Floors 97 and 98 began to fail due to their reduced vertical shear capacity at around 80 min, and by 100 min about 20 percent of the exterior seats on the south wall of Floors 97 and 98 failed, as shown in Figs. 5–4 and 5–5.

Partial collapse of the floor may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5–2, but this phenomenon was not modeled.

102 min, immediately before collapse:

Smoke puffs out of the north edge and center of west wall; smoke and debris clouds out of the north, east, and west walls on floor 98.. Fire out of windows on the north, east , west, and south walls between floors 92 and 98, and floor 104.”

P. 312

Sagging and collapsing floors reduced and removed perimeter column bracing and created pull-in forces.
You should read and understand NCSTAR 1-6D.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6D.pdf

You need to ignore all these things to believe initiation began near the center of the south wall, fl 98.

7) You need to believe your faulty charts , graphs and bias and ignore the exhaustive NIST engineering evidence to believe otherwise.

You also have to believe that the sagging floors can take out the core before we see any downward movement along the SW corner of the building.

8) The sagging and collapsed floors pulled the south perimeter columns in causing the collapse towards the south side. Also see SW-corner-not-moving error at 1) above.

Concerning claim 2: I measure the tilt of the north face and the antenna up to Sauret frame 224 because that is when the final columns failed along the NW corner.

Drop curves for a point on the antenna and the window washer on the NW corner compared:
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4753/image00029.png

The NW corner drop velocity is in purple. Can you see when the NW corner fails? It is when the velocity takes off around 224. Failure of the NW corner can be detected within a few frames.

It is impossible to use the graph of the quantity r-98 to determine south tilt after frame 224 because 98 is no longer stationary. It is not possible to use the quantity b-r to determine south tilt at all because the building is undergoing deformation between those two points.

If you want to know the angle of tilt of the north wall and the antenna in frame 224 there are a couple of ways to do it. The CNN west clip is great but it's of a low resolution. I link to 3 versions in the source video section posted earlier. You need to measure the tilts at the moment the NW corner fails, the equivalent of frame 224.

9) Parallax error, you measured wrong. You should have used a west or east views, not north.

I don't believe I tried to extract any useful tilt information as late as frame 300, and if I did claim something like 2 degrees in frame 290 it is a typo. My interval of interest has always been from frame 130 to frame 224 and the movement before frame 130. That is the initial failure sequence. The initial failure sequence ends around frame 224.

10) I’m quoting you “ c) The tilt reaches one degree in frame 295
d) By frame 320 the tilt has reached 2 degrees” Stop squirming, man up.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=154&MMN_position=336:336

Consider the Mackey visualization of the NIST tilt description:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/139482298.png

At 8 degrees the north wall has not yet failed. In reality the NW corner downward velocity took off near frame 224. The antenna had tilted south about 0.7 degrees and the north wall tilted about 0.5 degrees at that moment.

It is all measurable.

11) Wrong tilt angles , see 9)

12) Mackey correctly stated the main point of his illustration- “Video confirms the upper block rotated (about 8 degrees) before falling”, and that “Thus, there are no square impacts.” The graphic was not NIST’s.

13) This is what NIST said :

Table 5-2. “WTC1 began to collapse. First exterior sign of collapse was at floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity,”

Until the rotation reached at least 8 degrees, the building section was rotating and falling vertically. When the rotation stopped, the building began to fall vertically with no rotation. The north wall was rotating as it was falling, the same as the south, east and west walls were rotating as they were falling vertically.

NIST used “rotation” and “fall vertically” as two separate stages. The north wall was rotating to 8 degrees and falling vertically before it began to fall vertically with no rotation. The start of falling vertically begins when rotation stops.

The antenna dropped when the center of the south wall failed. The building section tilted about 8 degrees and then fell vertically.

 

[BasqueArch]

Revision

13) This is what NIST said :

Quote:
Table 5-2. “WTC1 began to collapse. First exterior sign of collapse was at floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the
south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity,”

Revision:
rotation before fall vertically

Definitions
Rotating - circular movement of an object around a center of rotation
Falling vertically - to fall aligned with the direction of the force of gravity.

Until the rotation reached at least 8 degrees, the building section was rotating and falling . When the rotation stopped, the building began to fall vertically with no rotation. The north wall was rotating as it was falling, the same as the south, east and west walls were rotating as they were falling .

NIST used “rotation” and “fall vertically” as two separate stages. The north wall was rotating to 8 degrees and falling before it began to fall vertically with no rotation.
The start of falling vertically begins when rotation stops.

The antenna dropped when the center of the south wall failed. The building section rotated about 8 degrees and then fell vertically.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks BasqueArch. That was very clear and easy to understand.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure, no problemo...

...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's.

Let's just highlight this response, shall we? You claim to have data that may expose one of the greatest crimes of the decade and prove that the US Government deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 of its own citizens in order to create public support for two unjustified and illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East, but you refuse to publish this information until a group of people you don't know on an obscure Internet forum answer a series of yes/no questions even though you'll take no notice of the answers. Can you honestly expect, with such a petulant, childish and trivial excuse for inaction, to be taken seriously, ever, by anyone?

Dave

 

[Major_Tom]

Basquarche, among the video sources given before there are files with all frames represented by individual images. You do not need to be able to look at video frame by frame. You can just look each frame provided in a still image.


If you do that, you can verify all movement yourself.

You are trying to determine the earliest movement by "eyeballing". This is a big mistake. Anyone could verify the numbers I give if they overcome their laziness and try it. It doesn't take a genius to trace a point and determine that there is a point at which the velocity takes off. The velocity take-off point is the beginning of falling at a significant fraction of g.


Your post is based on not understanding when the NW corner begins falling with a significant fraction of g.

It is only one corner, guys. You can measure that yourselves, can't you?

The rest of your post is just quoting NIST with no evidence at all.


BasqueArche, both R Mackey and Greg Urich drew illustrations of the NIST description of the initiation sequence. Both graphics show an 8 degree tilt while the north wall is bent but not yet failed. They just drew what they read in the NIST report.

Are they both wrong while you are right?

BasqueArche: "10) I’m quoting you “ c) The tilt reaches one degree in frame 295
d) By frame 320 the tilt has reached 2 degrees” Stop squirming, man up."

Man up? Funny. Is the comment about east antenna tilt? The antenna is a stick with two easily identifiable markers on it. You can use those markers from the north to determine east tilt of the stick.

Again, not brain surgury. Try it yourself with the JPEGs provided.


If the posters spent just a small fraction of their time actually measuring these things themselves, we wouldn't be having such a silly conversation.

For you, BasqueArche:

Sauret:
Link to the upscaled segment used as numbered JPEGs and separated into the video fields.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EHYHYRF4

And this is important for you to look at:

NBC NW-corner and Sauret synchronized (1920x1080)
Download available at: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QIYRZNR3
It is a packed rar. It includes numbered JPGs for every frame at 59.94fps and the numbering Achimspok used. The videos are 29,97fps! Therefore you always have the same frame twice. The Sauret included is the blown up "field 0" of the original interlaced frames.


Dave, when the list is edited to my satisfaction, I want it to receive the maximum exposure.

It is you who cannot take even the simplest of measurements, not us. If you did, you wouldn't need to read it from us.

You can check all the data and generate some of your own. Only one side of the debate is producing data.

You are a coward or you would use your skills to verify or disprove the measurements and observations.

The data is there, and it is verifiable by anyone who bothers to measure and observe. If you do not, you are just living in denial.

 

[carlitos]

Inability to use the quote function was amusing, but misspelling "brain surgery" is downright ironic, when coupled with the arrogant tone and name-calling.

A question for the video nerds (and apologies if this was addressed somewhere else) - Would the Sauret video have been grabbed from a television broadcast, and if so would it have been inverse telecine'd up to 30fps? Would this impact tracing analysis?

 

[femr2]

1) I haven’t seen a frame by frame video of this.

Why not ?

Your graph also has velocity/drop errors in it. For example at frame 204 the NW corner shows no drop but also a 0.5 ft/sec downward velocity.

Incorrect. The drop curve would need to be magnified to see the changes. Am sure a zoomed graph can be made available to resolve your misinterpretation.

NIST describes the shifting loading, creep and vertical displacement among exterior columns, hat truss and core columns, so some antenna movement would not be unexpected.

They only have data for their FEA model. No-one is saying that antenna movement was *unexpected*. It's the sequence of movement that is in focus.

4) This was caused by the failure of the center south perimeter columns.

How did you come to this conclusion ? Simply because it says so in the NIST report ?

7) You need to believe your faulty charts , graphs and bias and ignore the exhaustive NIST engineering evidence to believe otherwise.

The charts are not faulty. Your interpretation and assumptions are. The *NIST Evidence* is based upon a black-box FEA. You simply believe their computer model more than actual image and video evidence measurements. Not a good stance, matey

When the rotation stopped, the building began to fall vertically with no rotation.

LOL. Incorrect.

Thanks BasqueArch. That was very clear and easy to understand.

Pity you can't see all his errors though, but by all means continue the knee-scraping

Would the Sauret video have been grabbed from a television broadcast

No. DVD. Not a re-recording of a broadcast written to DVD either.

would it have been inverse telecine'd up to 30fps?

No. Field order fine. Source video is 30*1000/1001 fps interlaced mpeg-2 (NTSC).

Would this impact tracing analysis?

It would if it ocurred, but it didn't. (It would be very obvious, especially derived datasets...velocity, acceleration.)

 

[carlitos]

... by all means continue the knee-scraping

I was being serious though. It is possible to explain this stuff clearly, even to somewhat of a layman like me. It was refreshing to read. You and Major_Tom do the same intentionally obtuse / vague thing and it's sometimes impossible to tell what you mean. It's the same tact that Theosophy people use. "I have a big secret but I'm only going to hint at it." Annoying.

No. DVD. Not a re-recording of a broadcast written to DVD either.

How did you establish the provenance of the DVD footage? For example, how was it recorded, digitized, processed, encoded?