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

[femr2]

I shall, of course, provide resources to confirm.

Thought I'd pre-empt disagreements and provide resource in advance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaB7NJdtVic
(1280x720 @29.97fps)



Synchronisation is frame-accurate determined via several different key features.

Here are the two frames you used above (in terms of frame within my GIF), half size...

I'll post another shortly with a more correct T₀.

 

[Major_Tom]

Reactor Drone, you are trying to find a hinged tilt in the yellow region in the following drop and velocity graphs:

Please look at the y axis resolution. The first "speed-bump" (green line) happens after about 2 ft of falling. The yellow region covers the first 1.5 ft of falling better than your eyes ever could.

If your hinged tilt existed you would see evidence for it in the slope of the velocity curve in the yellow region. There would be a slow transition of the slope of the velocity curve over the region of hinged tilt for the duration of the tilt.

The slope changes from no acceleration to an acceleration between 0.5 and 0.8g very quickly. It is impossible that hinged rotation is seen as 0.5 to 0.8g downward acceleration from the Sauret viewpoint in the yellow region.

Velocity slopes consistent with hinged rotation of more than 1 degree do not exist in the yellow region. You are looking for something that doesn't exist. The sharp transition of acceleration in the yellow region and the straightness of the velocity slope over the first 2 ft of falling tells you that hinged tilt on the scales that you and the NIST claim don't exist.

Also notice that after each speed-bump (each green line), the slope of the velocity curve returns to about the same value. This slope is very important. It is called acceleration. The value of that slope and the way it returns to the same value after each collision is very, very important.

 

[Norseman]

There is no list of 40 observations in the OP. There is a list of 40 links.

............

First link: "Ejection from 75th floor during AA11 impact."

This links to a photograph that shows an unexplained dark rectangular spot at about 75th floor level, in a single still photo from a single camera.

An ejection of what, by what mechanism? No rationale or evidence is offered for calling it an ejection. It doesn't look like smoke or any other fluid substance to me, hence not likely an ejection from the 75th floor. It left no smudge or mark on the building that is visible in any later images. There is no confirmation of any visible ejected substance from any other angle or any other photo in the same series. A piece of falling debris? A shadow? I don't know.

Yes or no? Yes, I agree that a photograph with a dark patch exists. No, I don't accept the speculation that it is an ejection as in any way reliable. So, change the title of the first "observation" to "Unexplained dark patch on single photo of WTC1 during AA11 impact" and I would have no objection, but as it is, a "yes" answer would be too readily misrepresented as agreement with the unsupported assertion that the dark patch is an ejection from the 75th floor, so my answer has to be no, on the basis of insufficient evidence for the claimed nature of the phenomenon.

I agree that it is difficult to judge what the real nature of the spot, that we can see outside the mechanical equipment room on floor 75 on the east side of WTC 1, really is. To me it appears to be smoke or dust casting a dark shadow on the wall. There are two possible explanations for this, both fully explainable with the impact of Flight 11 and nothing else.

It could very well be falling dust ejected from the floors above. Note that the lowest part of the dust cloud on the south side of WTC 1 already is well below floor 75.

The other explanation is quiet simply dust and smoke ejected from the ventilation system. This is the explanation Major_Tom attempts to dismiss on his web page about this feature, since the ventilation system on floor 75 did not serve the impact zone in WTC 1. It only went up to floor 92. The floors above were served by the system inside the mechanical equipment room on floor 108.

But Major_Tom forgets all the elevator shafts passing through the impact zone coming up from floor 78 and the basement areas. From floor 78 there were 4 shafts with a total of 12 cars passing through the impact zone. And from the basement areas there were 2 shafts with a total of 3 cars. In addition there were 2 shafts with 6 elevators from floor 78 that terminated in the impact zone. With the elevator shafts in mind, it is easy to understand how smoke and dust could find its way into the ventilation system below floor 93 if one reads through the witness accounts from floor 78 and up to floor 91, gathered on this webpage by Gravy, or for that matter the floors below:
http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts91-60

So when Flight 11 hits WTC 1 about 10 000 gallons of jet fuel is aerosolized in an instant inside the tower. Next the fuel ignites and deflagrate. The deflagration generated an overpressure that forced burning fuel outside WTC 1, forming the spectacular fireballs. And likewise it forced burning jet fuel aerosol down the elevator shafts, while blowing out shaft doors and parts of the shaft walls, burning elevator passengers and filling the lobby areas inside the core below the impact floors with smoke and dust. The overpressure would then force the smoke and the dust into the ventilation system.

On his web page Major_Tom has posted two figures from NIST NCSTAR 1-4D showing the outline of the mechanical equipment room on floor 75. These figures need to be turned 90 degrees clockwise to get the correct layout for WTC 1. The patch in question matches up perfectly with the exhaust fans for the core area of WTC 1. The return air shaft for these exhaust fans appears have been running along one of the elevator shafts, according to the floor plans I have looked at. The return air shafts were made of gypsum wallboard just like the elevator shafts. So it is also entirely possible the wall between the elevator shaft and the return air shaft could have blown out, allowing the fireball direct access to the return air shaft.

Third link: "Fire and smoke ejections as WTC2 is struck"

There do appear to have been an increased rate of smoke ejection from WTC1 as WTC2 was struck, and the linked images appear adequate to show that.

The accompanying text, however, is highly questionable: "A type of shock wave is a possibility, though by observing the smoke we can see that the initial ejections in question happen before the pressure wave affects the surrounding smoke along the facade. You can then see the effects of the pressure wave hitting the facade moments later, followed by an underpressure wave, by the way the smoke moves." What that text is calling pressure waves appear in the video to be thermal updraft from the fireball (and in any case are moving much more slowly than a pressure wave could). Meanwhile, the most likely explanation for the ejections, which is an actual pressure wave propagated inside the building via the shared basement floors, goes unmentioned.

This applies to smoke ejections. The single instance of fire ejection shown in the video appears to be a pulsing flame out of one window, which is pulsing before the AA11 impact in a manner completely consistent with normal fire, and continues pulsing afterward, so no causal connection with the AA11 impact is apparent.

Note that the text gives no time marks for the video so any claims that I'm erroneously looking at the "wrong" features in the wrong segments are the claimants' problem, not mine. The sole still photo is claimed to show "the moment the ejection was first visible" but there is no way to confirm this from a still photo (as the fire was emitting smoke before the impact in the typically chaotic manner of turbulent fluid flow so a significant increase in the rate of smoke emission must be shown) and no description of the method by which this "moment" was determined is offered.

Yes or no? I agree that some increase in smoke emission near the time of the AA11 impact was observed, but I cannot agree with all the elements of the claimed observation in toto. No evidence for causality in the fire ejection, unclarity (no video time marks, no methodology for determining the first moment claimed for the still photo) in the reference to supporting evidence, and discussion that omits the most obvious and likely explanation for the phenomena that are shown, adds up to "no."

According to NIST in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chap 1-8 the pressure pules in the upper part of WTC 1 that briefly pushed out smoke and fire appeared one second after the nose of Flight 175 entered WTC 2. The round trip through the ground and basement areas would have taken two seconds. My own thinking on this was that the pressure pulse entered through broken windows in the impact zone of WTC 1 traveling through the inside to the north and the west side. But this is contradicted by smoke puffs appearing on a least three sides simultaneously in WTC 1; west, north and east. But the likely path would be through the air intakes and the exhaust outlets on floor 78 of WTC 1. They would be very close to and on the same level as the expanding fireball from WTC 2, the path would be as I described above, just the opposite way.

 

[femr2]

It could very well be falling dust ejected from the floors above.

Due to the large region of *emptyness* above it, I think that unlikely.

two figures from NIST NCSTAR 1-4D showing the outline of the mechanical equipment room on floor 75. These figures need to be turned 90 degrees clockwise to get the correct layout for WTC 1.

Not sure of direction clockwise/anti-clockwise, but agreed.

the pressure pules in the upper part of WTC 1 that briefly pushed out smoke and fire appeared one second after the nose of Flight 175 entered WTC 2.

I suggest the timing is checked/confirmed.

 

[DGM]

Major Tom/ femr2:

Are you afraid of NIST? You keep telling us how wrong they are but, you can't bring yourselves to contact them. Why is this?

 

[DGM]

Major Tom/ femr2:
For you convenience (sorry they have no "show us how incompetent we are" link)

Public Inquiries Unit
NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070
Email: inquiries@nist.gov
Phone: (301) 975-NIST (6478) or Federal Relay Service (800) 877-8339 (TTY)

 

[tsig]

1 - I will reiterate a general objection to the multi-gig, animated gifs. My laptop does not like these.

2 - Does anyone familiar with the material find these gifs indicative of ... anything? They remind me of bigfoot or ufo "evidence." Columns appear to be jumping sideways, and video "analysts" are telling me that this means something that I cannot see. Am I wrong?

All they'd need are some big red, squiggly lines.

 

[tfk]

It is very important to understand how small the width of the yellow rectangle actually is.

It requires very little downward displacement to destroy it's capacity. Bazant calls the downward displacement of the floor slab above "delta u". Very little downward displacement of the floor slab above is required to destroy the columns cpapcity to handle load. Please estimate how much delta u is required between the 99th and 98th floor slabs to completely destroy the columns capacity (so little you cannot see it).

Very little movement is required to pass over the spike in restorative force potential and destroy the column's strength (in the pink region).

Bazant's own load-displacement curve tells us the column is toast after only a small downward movement.

If you look at the drawing of the column undergoing 3 point buckling on the right of the graph, this means that theta is very small when sufficient delta u destroys the columns capacity, It doesn't take much buckle deformation to destroy it's strength. A little over half way between u(o) and u(c) and you can kiss that column goodbye. Over the hump, what is going to stop it from falling?

You really don't know how to read that graph, do you?

All this time, & you still have no clue that Bazant himself believes that this analysis has little to nothing to due with how the towers really collapsed, do you?

 

[tfk]

MT,

This is a riot.

I asked you 3 VERY SIMPLE questions.

TFK post 389:
[1] "Where are femr's & MT's graphs of the tilt angle vs. time?
[2] How about drop distance (in feet, not pixels) vs. time.
[3] How about a statement of the frame in which you think that the drop transitions from rotation to pure descent. "

Tom, how many times have I mentioned frame 224 and the failure of the NW corner?? The last columns to fail are along the NW corner, around Sauret frame 224. I have been posting the same graph and explanation for a few months now.

Do you recall the expression "release point"? How about velocity take off point? Do I need to repeat it all again just because you cannot read?

[and then an impenetrable wall-of-text]

Your first paragraph clearly does not address "tilt angle vs time graph" (question 1), nor "drop distance vs. time" (question 2).

It does explicitly address a "frame number", which is what I requested in question 3.

So I ASKED you if this was your answer to question 3.

MT,
OK, you seem to be answering my 3rd question here...

So, MT, frame 224 is the frame in which "you think that the drop transitions from rotation to pure descent."

And now, you ridicule YOUR OWN ANSWER…??!!

TFK: "3. How about a statement of the frame in which you think that the drop transitions from rotation to pure descent. "

Can TFK read?

TFK post 407: "So, MT, frame 224 is the frame in which "you think that the drop transitions from rotation to pure descent."

Really?

What stops the rotation?"

What a stupid question!

MT, I've asked a simple question. You can provide a simple answer of "frame #[whatever]". Or you can provide some elaboration, (which was the point that I was trying to make) such as "there is no frame in which it transitions from pure rotation to pure drop". It transitions from "rotation to rotation AND drop".

And you might provide the frame in which you think that it does so.
___

Regarding tilt angle vs. time

From everything that you've posted thus far, the answer appears to be: None of you have ever produced an "antenna tilt vs. time graph".

If it exists, you have certainly not posted a link to it here.

So that you know what such a graph is, it will have "antenna tilt" on the y-axis & "time" on the x-axis.

There will be several data series on the chart, one for each video perspective.

And there will be one additional data series, which will be the true 3d tilt angle, calculated using 2D -> 3D vector analysis, using two or more viewpoint series data to do the calculation.

If you have this graph, and I've simply missed your posting a link to it, please do so.
If you've not produced this graph, please simply say so.

 

[Major_Tom]

It is an incredibly stupid question. Please stop thinking of blocks and bad physics. Make measurements instead and you will realize how stupid the question is.

Tom, you are so vain, (you probably think this thread is about you, your so vain,

You probably think this thread is about you, don't you, don't you??)


Another stupid comment on the Bazant graph. The Bazant graph is only shown for those who may claim the initial column failure sequence extends into the falling of the NW corner. It doesn't.

By the time you see that NW corner move, it is already in a state of relatively constant acceleration of between 0.5 and 1.0g.

In other words, all the columns are toast even before you see the NW corner start to fold with those expert eyeballs of yours.


By the way, have you read any of the graphs I've posted? Do you disagree with any of the measurements? On what grounds?


Tom, have you located the moment in the videos when the NW corner fails? What is the measured angle of the antenna and N wall at that moment?

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>

2 - Does anyone familiar with the material find these gifs indicative of ... anything? They remind me of bigfoot or ufo "evidence." Columns appear to be jumping sideways, and video "analysts" are telling me that this means something that I cannot see. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong.
These people are working on one of two hypotheses.

Hypothesis A:
1) The top section fell vertically before it rotated about 8 degrees.
2) Therefore NIST lied.
3) Therefore "Our societies are most probably murdering the wrong people by the tens of thousands to steal the available resources."

Hypothesis B:
1) "Our societies are most probably murdering the wrong people by the tens of thousands to steal the available resources."
2) Therefore NIST lied.
3) Therefore the top section fell vertically before it rotated about 8 degrees.

Hope that helped.

 

[tfk]

It is an incredibly stupid question. Please stop thinking of blocks and bad physics. Make measurements instead and you will realize how stupid the question is.

Tom, you are so vain, (you probably think this thread is about you, your so vain,

You probably think this thread is about you, don't you, don't you??)


Another stupid comment on the Bazant graph. The Bazant graph is only shown for those who may claim the initial column failure sequence extends into the falling of the NW corner. It doesn't.

By the time you see that NW corner move, it is already in a state of relatively constant acceleration of between 0.5 and 1.0g.

In other words, all the columns are toast even before you see the NW corner start to fold with those expert eyeballs of yours.


By the way, have you read any of the graphs I've posted? Do you disagree with any of the measurements? On what grounds?


Tom, have you located the moment in the videos when the NW corner fails? What is the measured angle of the antenna and N wall at that moment?

Christ, you guys can't answer a simple question...

I'll take from this rambling string of incoherence that:
1. You have not produced a tilt vs time graph.
2. You do NOT understand the Bazant graph.

You coulda said so a long time ago, and saved everyone pages of misdirection.

 

[femr2]

Christ, you guys can't answer a simple question.

Answered many times tfk.

I'll take from this rambling string of incoherence that:
1. You have not produced a tilt vs time graph.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6618554&postcount=396
Read it this time, or if you can't even be bothered to, just look at the picture links

There are numerous tilt graphs, with explanation of each.

That information has been posted a number of times, and is also linked from the OP, which you have also been directed to several times.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[femr2]

You haven't a clue about my intentions.

I'm sure you are capable of clarifying your intent then...

1. Where are femr's & MT's graphs of the tilt angle vs. time?
2. How about drop distance (in feet, not pixels) vs. time.
3. How about a statement of the frame in which you think that the drop transitions from rotation to pure descent.

a) You have made multiple requests for tilt angle/time graphs, have been directed to their location multiple times, have refused to read the contextual details provided with them, and have done nothing with the information provided.
b) You were provided two separate graphs in response to your request #2, which had both already been posted in this thread, and have done nothing with the information provided.
c) You received a number of responses from myself relating to your #3 request, in which I highlighted the leading nature of your question, and the earlier discussion ensued.

So, for your #3 question above...

i) Do you think that drop transitions from rotation to pure descent ?
ii) Assuming you do, as it would be very underhand of you to ask the question if not, do you think that it is possible to determine that transition accurate to a single frame number ?
iii) What specific video or dataset are you referring to ?

 

[BasqueArch]

Here is an image taken from NCSTAR1-5A
chapter 8, pg 266 (pdf 362)

~2 sec after start of collapse

North side on the right (in shade)
East side on the left (in sun)

[qimg]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/317/wct1tilt.png[/qimg]

<snip>

Where are femr's & MT's graphs of the tilt angle vs. time?
How about drop distance (in feet, not pixels) vs. time.
How about a statement of the frame in which you think that the drop transitions from rotation to pure descent.

Tom. Here’s a N-S tilt angle vs. frame graph (at about 60 fps) from MT’s 40 links:

South tilt large antenna, measured by tracking the vertical difference and convergence of 2 points on the antenna.
[qimg]http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2149/nstilt.png[/qimg]

Features of the south tilt graph:
a) A south lean is first detected near frame 175
b) The antenna is leaning about 0.3 degrees to the south in frame 220 (it is later shown that the antenna starts to fall downward at a significant fraction of g in frame 220
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

According to MT, start of antenna movement (collapse) at frame 140 + 3 seconds later = frame 320 the tilt is 2 degrees.

This is NIST’s referenced video. 2-3 seconds after collapse (2:00-2:03 sec) the tilt is about 8 degrees, not 2 degrees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vww3aEJbcs

It’s clear MT's N-S tilt math is way off.

 

[femr2]

According to MT, start of antenna movement (collapse) at frame 140 + 3 seconds later = frame 320 the tilt is 2 degrees.

Given the number of times it's been mentioned and explained, I'm assuming you understand the significant difference between how early trace techniques can detect movement of a feature, especially on the Sauret footage, as opposed to, say, using your eyeballs and guesstimating from footage of significantly inferior quality. Doing the latter would be plain stupid after all the detail already presented.

This is NIST’s referenced video. 2-3 seconds after collapse (2:00-2:03 sec) the tilt is about 8 degrees, not 2 degrees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vww3aEJbcs

It’s clear MT's N-S tilt math is way off.

Oh. I spoke too soon.

You have clearly used your eyeballs to guesstimate. Not smart, at all.

Determining the point at which the antenna begins movement in the sauret footage is replicable by anyone with inclination to get the tools and perform the traces. It's not black magic, and it's not rocket science.

The only way to use the footage you've included in relation to the Sauret trace data is to synchronise to sauret via several visible features. The antenna movement start point would then, of course, still apply.

I imagine I'll do so when I have time.

However, your conclusion above is just plain wrong, and there's no excuse.

The only way for you to stop making these silly mistakes is to understand the lower level details. If you want to ask, no problem. If you don't ask, and don't understand, then you are going to keep making these silly (at best) mistakes.

 

[tsig]

Given the number of times it's been mentioned and explained, I'm assuming you understand the significant difference between how early trace techniques can detect movement of a feature, especially on the Sauret footage, as opposed to, say, using your eyeballs and guesstimating from footage of significantly inferior quality. Doing the latter would be plain stupid after all the detail already presented.


Oh. I spoke too soon.

You have clearly used your eyeballs to guesstimate. Not smart, at all.

Determining the point at which the antenna begins movement in the sauret footage is replicable by anyone with inclination to get the tools and perform the traces. It's not black magic, and it's not rocket science.

The only way to use the footage you've included in relation to the Sauret trace data is to synchronise to sauret via several visible features. The antenna movement start point would then, of course, still apply.

I imagine I'll do so when I have time.

However, your conclusion above is just plain wrong, and there's no excuse.

The only way for you to stop making these silly mistakes is to understand the lower level details. If you want to ask, no problem. If you don't ask, and don't understand, then you are going to keep making these silly (at best) mistakes.

How fine grained do we need to go for these lower level details? The molecular level?

 

[femr2]

How fine grained do we need to go for these lower level details? The molecular level?

To compare the start point of one event in video A (determined via high accuracy feature movement tracing techniques) with the start point of a different event in video B (determined via BasqueArch's finger-in-air eyeball yechnique), you need to at least be looking at synchronised video, and use the details determined from one with the other before making inept conclusions about inter-video event timing.

It appears you don't understand that simple point.

 

[BasqueArch]

Given the number of times it's been mentioned and explained, I'm assuming you understand the significant difference between how early trace techniques can detect movement of a feature, especially on the Sauret footage, as opposed to, say, using your eyeballs and guesstimating from footage of significantly inferior quality. Doing the latter would be plain stupid after all the detail already presented.


Oh. I spoke too soon.

You have clearly used your eyeballs to guesstimate. Not smart, at all.

Determining the point at which the antenna begins movement in the sauret footage is replicable by anyone with inclination to get the tools and perform the traces. It's not black magic, and it's not rocket science.

The only way to use the footage you've included in relation to the Sauret trace data is to synchronise to sauret via several visible features. The antenna movement start point would then, of course, still apply.

I imagine I'll do so when I have time.

However, your conclusion above is just plain wrong, and there's no excuse.

The only way for you to stop making these silly mistakes is to understand the lower level details. If you want to ask, no problem. If you don't ask, and don't understand, then you are going to keep making these silly (at best) mistakes.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. The facts are that between 2-3 seconds after the collapse, the antenna tilt is about 8 degrees, MT says 2 degrees. He’s the one making the mistake; you’re the one evading the facts.

Go ahead and measure the time from NIST’s Ballou video after the start of collapse when the tilt reaches 8 degrees and post the results. tfk has already measured about 4.4 degrees at about 2 seconds, which is already greater than MT’s 2 degrees at 3 seconds from collapse. MT’s methodology misjudges the parallax error when measuring from the North Sauret viewpoint and is fatal to his calculations.

Despite your name-calling reply, everyone here can see MT is wrong and that you are evading the facts. Evading the facts won’t change them. It just verifies that MT’s claim and your support of “Any model of the collapse initiation sequence must match the visual record, just as any collapse progression model must match all observables” is bunk.

 

[femr2]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

Absolutely agreed.

The facts are that between 2-3 seconds after the collapse, the antenna tilt is about 8 degrees, MT says 2 degrees. He’s the one making the mistake; you’re the one evading the facts.

Incorrect. You are again showing that you do not understand the data MT has presented.

You have repeatedly been told (and shown) that detection of the earliest moments of feature movement via tracing techniques results in a timestamp significantly earlier than you would judge as the start of collapse with your eyeballs.

It is clear you have not spent any time with the gnarly problem of T₀ definition.

Your repeated mistake is directly comparing a timestamp determined via tracing of the early antenna movement to what you personally guess to be the start of global descent with your eyeballs in a separate piece of much lower fidelity footage.

They are two entirely different timestamps, are not directly comparable, and your conclusion is therefore nonsense.

Go ahead and measure the time from NIST’s Ballou video after the start of collapse when the tilt reaches 8 degrees and post the results.

I'm currently synchronising the Ballou video (Main & Ballou 17.avi) with the Sauret footage (Etienne-Sauret-WTC1-DVD.mpg), and shall of course post the result when it's complete.

tfk has already measured about 4.4 degrees at about 2 seconds, which is already greater than MT’s 2 degrees at 3 seconds from collapse. MT’s methodology misjudges the parallax error when measuring from the North Sauret viewpoint and is fatal to his calculations.

Incorrect, and nonsense.

Despite your name-calling reply, everyone here can see MT is wrong and that you are evading the facts.

Nonsense.
No name-calling.
Detail presented explaining to you why your conclusion is incorrect.
Detail provided showing why your method is nonsense.
Facts ? Your finger-in-air eyball is *fact* ? I see.

Evading the facts won’t change them. It just verifies that MT’s claim and your support of “Any model of the collapse initiation sequence must match the visual record, just as any collapse progression model must match all observables” is bunk.

LOL. Ah, I see your intent. Your statement is absolute nonsense by the way.

I'll upload the synchronised video shortly, indicating the start point of antenna movement (a fact).