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

[BasqueArch]

My bold

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.

If the only way to use the footage I've included is to synchronize the videos and you haven't synchronized the videos as you propose, how then can you claim to be sure that i'm just plain wrong. What's your excuse.

 

[femr2]

If the only way to use the footage I've included is to synchronize the videos and you haven't synchronized the videos as you propose, how then can you claim to be sure that i'm just plain wrong. What's your excuse.

My *excuse*, as you put it, is that I've already performed synchronisation of the Sauret footage to pretty much every other viewpoint out there, have full understanding of the context of the initial movement of the antenna in the graph you reference, have determined my own tilt data (including presenting a trivially simple method for you to do so yourself earlier in this thread), am looking at both synchronised videos as I type, and have already pointed out all the factors you have clearly not applied in determining your nonsense result.

In short, you are plain wrong.

What I'm doing right now is putting the videos in a form for YT upload, which I've not bothered to do before now.

As I said, I'll upload when I'm done.

 

[Major_Tom]

Basquearch post 459: "Despite your name-calling reply, everyone here can see MT is wrong and that you are evading the facts."

Please put the pointer of your mouse over the SW fire to act as a still reference point to see how much it moves from frames 120 to 220.

Now do the same with the window washer object over the NW corner. Now for the antenna.

Can everyone see the antenna moving independently of the perimeter corners over this 1.5 second interval?

Basquearch, numbered jpegs of each frame have been provided. How can you hide your head in the sand and deny this is happening?

 

[Major_Tom]

And incredibly, even though the methods used by Basquearch and TFK are totally crappy, they still managed to show the NIST tilt claim of 8 degrees illustrated by R Mackey is way, way off. They are measuring tilts of 4 degrees while ignoring that the NW corner has already failed by that time.

Even these methods cut the NIST value by half.

 

[femr2]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_vaYbNZQ5g


I have my own Sauret trace data of course, so have used it to determine antenna vertical motion start point.

I'll cross-check with MT to specify a frame number relative to the graph posted earlier, however...

Antenna downwards vertical movement begins at the following time in the Ballou (Main & Ballou 17.avi) footage:

~ 1:57.2

I'll probably upload a HD version of the footage a bit later with a smaller segment of the footage. The full length Ballou clip is too big to upload in HD, as I use an almost lossless upload format.

 

[Major_Tom]

This has been my standard for assigning frame numbers:

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.

Do you have a better suggestion, femr? pm me if you do.

 

[carlitos]

Major_Tom, it looks like lines someone superimposed on the side of the building are slightly moving in your animated gif. Therefore???

 

[femr2]

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.

Here is the Ballou footage starting at 1:57.2 and for 3 subsequent seconds...

BasqueArch,

By attempting to determine antenna initial downward movement by eye-balling, you were about 3 seconds late.

 

[DGM]

Here is the Ballou footage starting at 1:57.2 and for 3 subsequent seconds...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/520669917.gif[/qimg]

BasqueArch,

By attempting to determine antenna initial downward movement by eye-balling, you were about 3 seconds late.

Just so I can try to follow: What again is this antenna movement supposed to signify?

 

[femr2]

Just so I can try to follow: What again is this antenna movement supposed to signify?

The detail is a response to the claim by BasqueArch below...

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.

I have provided video correctly synchronising the Sauret and Ballou footages, and indicated the timestamp within the Ballou footage at which antenna descending vertical movement begins. (1:57.2s)

The purpose is to show that BasqueArch's claim is false. (He's about 3 seconds late)

Lot of work for a small point perhaps, but I don't like such inept claims being made. Thorough enough to make the point I rekn.

 

[DGM]

The detail is a response to the claim by BasqueArch below...


I have provided video correctly synchronising the Sauret and Ballou footages, and indicated the timestamp within the Ballou footage at which antenna descending vertical movement begins. (1:57.2s)

The purpose is to show that BasqueArch's claim is false. (He's about 3 seconds late)

Lot of work for a small point perhaps, but I don't like such inept claims being made. Thorough enough to make the point I rekn.

OK:
I'm a bit leery about using the antenna as a gage for the tilt of the top section. If the hat truss experienced and local failure (likely in my opinion) this would most defiantly had shown in the antenna. I believe that you have shown such a failure in the slight drop before any movement of the parameter walls.

Bottom line (for me anyway) is I think you guys are showing insignificant events.

 

[Reactor drone]

Here is the Ballou footage starting at 1:57.2 and for 3 subsequent seconds...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/520669917.gif[/qimg]

BasqueArch,

By attempting to determine antenna initial downward movement by eye-balling, you were about 3 seconds late.

When you're synchronising videos are you picking a perceived start time or synchronising by a known degree of antenna tilt and working backwards?

 

[femr2]

OK:
I'm a bit leery about using the antenna as a gage for the tilt of the top section.

I quite agree. There is fairly extensive and compulsive detail in the OP links to indicate antenna movement not being fixed to more general *upper block* movement.

If the hat truss experienced and local failure (likely in my opinion) this would most defiantly had shown in the antenna. I believe that you have shown such a failure in the slight drop before any movement of the parameter walls.

Possible. The underlying data-gathering purpose is accurate determination of movements, rather than eye-balling and guesstimating.

Bottom line (for me anyway) is I think you guys are showing insignificant events.

The continnual refocussing upon the NIST 8 degree nonsense is rather tedious.

Whatever they intended to say through their numerous references to the angle, the *upper block* transitioned from tilt about the North face to continued tilt and vertical descent at an angle of ~1 degree.

If only some folk could accept that, the discussion could move on into details you may, perhaps, find less insignificant.

 

[femr2]

When you're synchronising videos are you picking a perceived start time or synchronising by a known degree of antenna tilt and working backwards?

Neither.

Video synchronisation is performed relative to multiple physical events on the building at frame level.

ETA: An example...

 

[DGM]

If only some folk could accept that, the discussion could move on into details you may, perhaps, find less insignificant.

Why is it so important that "folks" accept this? What does it have to do with the route cause of the collapse?

 

[femr2]

Why is it so important that "folks" accept this?

Because presenting extensive details on movement, only to have this kind of inept response...

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.

...requires, imo, that such nonsense is taken out of the discussion by, basically, educating/correcting those making the mistakes.

Tedious work, but until *folk* can accept such relatively simple details as I've presented earlier, there's always the excuse on an individual basis for disregarding details further down the line on the basis of their denial of details at *stage 1*. (Sorry for the tortuous grammar)

What does it have to do with the route cause of the collapse?

With accurate multi-feature movement details, sequence and behvaiour can be determined fairly definitively. Will that mean a certain amount of stating *NIST got this bit wrong too* ? Sure, but the point is to *get it right*.

 

[DGM]

Because presenting extensive details on movement, only to have this kind of inept response...

...requires, imo, that such nonsense is taken out of the discussion by, basically, educating/correcting those making the mistakes.

Tedious work, but until *folk* can accept such relatively simple details as I've presented earlier, there's always the excuse on an individual basis for disregarding details further down the line on the basis of their denial of details at *stage 1*. (Sorry for the tortuous grammar)


With accurate multi-feature movement details, sequence and behvaiour can be determined fairly definitively. Will that mean a certain amount of stating *NIST got this bit wrong too* ? Sure, but the point is to *get it right*.

A lot of this seems to be argument over the exact time of decent as determined by a collection of people. Everyone actually sees the same thing in due time. Why does it matter that person A sees the start after person B?

NIST was tasked to determine what caused the collapse. So far nothing that you (or MT) have posted has conclusively shown that they have "got it wrong" or causes serious doubt.

I have said before, I have no problem with anyone looking at every pixel with a microscope. I just wonder why? Is there really any reason to believe they "got it (drastically) wrong"? You know, planes, fire and gravity.

 

[femr2]

A lot of this seems to be argument over the exact time of decent

The thread is focussed upon initiation, specifically (imo) the sequence of physical events leading up to, through and just after initiation.

NIST was tasked to determine what caused the collapse.

And their conclusions are well known.

So far nothing that you (or MT) have posted has conclusively shown that they have "got it wrong" or causes serious doubt.

As I said earlier, if discussion can progress past the simple metrics of *when did movement begin* and *what angle did vertical descent begin at*, then more significant details can follow. (And no, I'll not be jumping to the end of the discussion I'm afraid.)

Is there really any reason to believe they "got it (drastically) wrong"?

The NIST conclusion is that of a perimeter-led progressive failure, however, if that is shown to be false, then the question of *what happened* must be back-tracked to a point where NIST *got it right*. Where that is deemed *drastically wrong* is of course subjective.

 

[DGM]

The NIST conclusion is that of a perimeter-led progressive failure, however, if that is shown to be false, then the question of *what happened* must be back-tracked to a point where NIST *got it right*. Where that is deemed *drastically wrong* is of course subjective.

It's really hard to envision a collapse that caused the top to lilt that did not include one side of the parameter being in the lead (or at least close to it).


A foot or two of antenna movement does not come close to disproving this (or does any variable of the observed tilt).

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not sure those 2 videos are synced exactly, but they're interesting to see side by side. It looks as if 2 floors/floor assemblies may have collapsed seconds prior to the global collase as evidenced by the black smoke billowing out of the top on the east? side.