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

[W.D.Clinger]

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)

We're used to it.

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.)

I'm afraid you're right about that.

Perhaps you could learn from one of the worst technical presentations I ever attended, which was a seminar presentation by a PhD student who began by saying he needed to cover some details before he could explain his main result. He then spent 90 minutes on increasingly arcane details until he ran out of time. Being out of time, the moderator allowed only three short questions, and the student had no answer for the third:

Q: What was this about?
A: My theorem.
Q: What theorem?
A: The theorem I mentioned at the beginning of the talk.
Q: You never stated a theorem.

There were some important differences between that seminar presentation and what we're seeing here. For one thing, the PhD student really did have a significant result, which he later published. For another thing, he learned from the experience and eventually became an effective teacher.

 

[Reactor drone]

Neither.

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

ETA: An example...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/21871393.gif[/qimg]

Do you ever cross check your results? From what I've seen all of your tilt measurements are derived from the Sauret footage so once you have a synchronised pair does a measured angle (from the west view for example) match your derived angle on any particular frame?

 

[femr2]

I'm not sure those 2 videos are synced exactly

I am (within a frame). Any reason why you're unsure, or is it a *feeling* ?

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.

Can you clarify which video you mean, with a time reference ?

If you mean the latest one, I suggest the increase in fire intensity from around the 1:30 mark would be more significant ?

 

[femr2]

Do you ever cross check your results? From what I've seen all of your tilt measurements are derived from the Sauret footage so once you have a synchronised pair does a measured angle (from the west view for example) match your derived angle on any particular frame?

Sigh...

I presented a really simple additional method of determining tilt angle, using footage other than Sauret, as recently as Post #371 on this thread.

Your nearest post was #378. Can I suggest you read the content with just a little more care ?

If you drill into the data MT has linked to you will also find that data is extracted from multiple videos to generate tilt data. The Sauret footage is indeed used as the *master* for synchronisation to other videos and determination of initial movement timestamps, as it is by far the highest fidelity view available for the purposes of tracing north face features.

 

[femr2]

He then spent 90 minutes on increasingly arcane details until he ran out of time.

Good job there is infinite time available then

 

[dafydd]

Good job there is infinite time available then

That's about the time it will take for you to get your new inquiry.

 

[femr2]

That's about the time it will take for you to get your new inquiry.

What makes you think I want a *new enquiry* ?

 

[Furcifer]

I am (within a frame). Any reason why you're unsure, or is it a *feeling* ?

It maybe a an effect due to the different focal lengths. I think the compression may have had an effect "real time", it's as if the Saret is moving a few fps faster.

Can you clarify which video you mean, with a time reference ?

If you mean the latest one, I suggest the increase in fire intensity from around the 1:30 mark would be more significant ?

On the Saret (is that right I always screw it up) at 1:53 and 2:00.

 

[tsig]

We're used to it.


I'm afraid you're right about that.

Perhaps you could learn from one of the worst technical presentations I ever attended, which was a seminar presentation by a PhD student who began by saying he needed to cover some details before he could explain his main result. He then spent 90 minutes on increasingly arcane details until he ran out of time. Being out of time, the moderator allowed only three short questions, and the student had no answer for the third:

Q: What was this about?
A: My theorem.
Q: What theorem?
A: The theorem I mentioned at the beginning of the talk.
Q: You never stated a theorem.

There were some important differences between that seminar presentation and what we're seeing here. For one thing, the PhD student really did have a significant result, which he later published. For another thing, he learned from the experience and eventually became an effective teacher.

*

you get a gold star

 

[tfk]

Answered many times tfk.

And every time, answered PRECISELY AS INCOMPETENTLY as this time.

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

Nope. I'm not interesting in reading that wall-o-crappola.
I'm interested in a simple link to ONE ITEM. An item that I've described in detail.

There are numerous tilt graphs, with explanation of each.

And this is your major malfunction, femr.
I didn't ask for "numerous tilt graphs".
I asked for one specific one.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

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.

I detailed for you PRECISELY what constituted a tilt angle vs. time graph.
This is simple. Post a link to a graph that has "TILT" on the Y-axis & "TIME" on the X-axis, with 2 to 5 series, including a "3D tilt".
You've now had about 20 opportunities to do so.
You've chosen not to.

Your failure to post a direct link to this graph convinces me that you've never done this.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[femr2]

And every time, answered PRECISELY AS INCOMPETENTLY as this time.

Incorrect. Answered by providing you with a link to the information you requested, with the inclusion of tfk specific instructions, namely that if you couldn't be bothered to read the text, look at the pictures, plural.

Nope. I'm not interesting in reading that wall-o-crappola.

So you've said, yet that is the appropriate detail to point you to, whether you are so lazy you won't read the text or not.

I'm interested in a simple link to ONE ITEM. An item that I've described in detail.

The problem there, as I stated, is that there are multiple tilt graphs, and that you are so self-obsessed that you'll go on a rant simply because you refuse to read detail provided to you is not my problem. You can stamp your feet and SCREAM and SHOUT as much as you like, but all you are achieving is making yourself look incredibly silly.

And this is your major malfunction, femr.
I didn't ask for "numerous tilt graphs".
I asked for one specific one.

What part of there are multiple graphs produced which match your impertinent request do you not understand ?

Since you are incompetent to understand the difference, please stay the hell out of my requests from MT.

No.

I detailed for you PRECISELY what constituted a tilt angle vs. time graph.

And you've been pointed to appropriate detail numerous times.

This is simple. Post a link to a graph that has "TILT" on the Y-axis & "TIME" on the X-axis, with 2 to 5 series, including a "3D tilt".
You've now had about 20 opportunities to do so.
You've chosen not to.

ROFL. Nonsensical new *3D Tilt* aside, You're going to love this next bit tom...(and make sure you remember that I'm quite prepared to assemble as much prior discussion together as required when you make certain silly assertions...)

Your failure to post a direct link to this graph convinces me that you've never done this.

I already told you I haven't generated a tilt graph.

I have repeatedly pointed you to specific locations where you will find several tilt graphs, including the appropriate supporting textual explanation details.

You have repeatedly, specifically and publicly refused to look at that detail...


...yet you are now bizarrely self-convinced that such graphs do not exist

This is not the appropriate response, but I'll make this easy for you tom...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6631090&postcount=455
Read it.

Like your incomprehension & incompetence.
Well done.

Read the post I linked to tom.

There may be another response, after

 

[femr2]

It maybe a an effect due to the different focal lengths. I think the compression may have had an effect "real time", it's as if the Sauret is moving a few fps faster.

Timebase sync is fine.

Here's a HD segment (1280x720p)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lnHn9yN6Is

If you change it to view in 720p mode (HD) in YT, the numerous YT video downloader plugins will give you the option to download in HD (h264). You can then check sync in your preferred video viewing tools frame by frame.

I will add, however, that bearing in mind that the source videos are freely available, anyone can replicate the sync process, and so it would not really be in my best interests to state a *within a frame* accuracy if I hadn't done everything possible to ensure the sync was correct...

I would hope it's fair to assume you'll state you tentatively accept the validity until either you have inspected the video frame by frame offline, or generated your own from the original source videos.

On the Sauret at 1:53 and 2:00.

1:53 shows rapid fire increase in south side half of east face.
2:00 is post initiation.

Screenprint ? Image with an arrow pointing at what you mean is usually more useful than lots of words in this context.

 

[BasqueArch]

My bold

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

No it doesn't. At the right side video antenna downwards vertical movement begins at about 1:59 , not 1:57. Add 3 seconds, stop at 2:02. The left video shows a tilt of about 8 degrees.

 

[BasqueArch]

My bold

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.

[qimg]http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5425/excasest002.gif[/qimg]

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

Yes, because the center of the south wall collapsed first, pulling the double hat truss supporting the antenna at this point. The collapse continued to the sides of the south wall, then east and west, then north wall as explained in a previous post which you have not read, or if you read did not understand.

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

Because these hundreds of still jpegs differ one from the other by a pixel or two and are useless to detect relative motion. You have to open one, memorize the pixel location on the antenna, open the subsequent one and see the difference if any. This is why I asked early on:

MT
Do you have a link for the NBC and Sauret videos with the frame numbers on them and what fps.

Which you have not provided, even though you did this for the antenna sagging 120-220 frame video above.
And, we have been through this before which if you read did not understand:

MyBolding

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

 

[femr2]

No it doesn't.

Sigh...

You'd be okay disputing +/- a tenth or so if you disagreed on the determination of T₀ (always a subjective issue), but I'm afraid anything beyond that is simply false.

At the right side video antenna downwards vertical movement begins at about 1:59 , not 1:57.

You're really struggling with some very simple concepts here.

My sub-second accurate determination of the start point of antenna vertical movement is determined via accurate sub-pixel tracing methods, data for which is available.

Your method involves waving your hands around making repeated inept claims, providing absolutely nothing to support your position, and making rather obvious repeated inclusion of *about* in what you are saying.

You cannot use your eyeballs watching video on YouTube to make accurate determination of very fine motion of video features. End of story. Get a grip.

 

[BasqueArch]

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.

The top section rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically. If you read this you did not understand it:

What NIST said :

Rotation ..... before ..... fall vertically
NIST distinguishes “rotation” and “fall vertically” as two different stages

Third party definitions:

1)Rotation - a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation

( In this case, when the movement of any wall is circular in relation to the center of rotation, the 98th floor north wall, the walls are rotating. When rotating, any point on these walls over time, trace a circular path, an arc.)

2)Fall - To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fall

(Under the influence of gravity ,the path traced by a moving object can be a circle, a straight line, parabola, ellipse or other.)

3)Falling vertically - to fall aligned with the direction of the force of gravity.

(http://sites.google.com/site/mrvphysics/critical-vocabulary )

( In this case, when the movement of any wall is vertical in relation to the ground, the wall is falling vertically, in the direction aligned with the force of gravity. When falling vertically, any point on these walls over time, trace a straight vertical line.)

Corollary: In this case, the start of falling vertically begins when rotation stops.

The task for challengers is to find third party definitions contrary to those above.

The confusion is that at the start, the walls are rotating and falling, but not falling vertically, they are falling in an arc, rotating.

 

[femr2]

Yes, because the center of the south wall collapsed first, pulling the double hat truss supporting the antenna at this point. The collapse continued to the sides of the south wall, then east and west, then north wall as explained in a previous post which you have not read, or if you read did not understand.

Severe case of NISTitis.

Because these hundreds of still jpegs differ one from the other by a pixel or two and are useless to detect relative motion.

You have a lot to learn.

Perhaps you should read the thread tfk started to look at my video trace data.

The fact that you analyse inter-image changes of those images with your eyeballs is exactly your problem with this topic.
(My bolding)

You have to open one, memorize the pixel location on the antenna, open the subsequent one and see the difference if any.

Yee gads.

No. You aquire an application capable of extracting tracking/trace data from video footage, and let those clever micro-computer-type-thingies determine inter-frame feature position to a level of accuracy simply impossible to match with your eyeballs.

I use SynthEyes.

Your statement above is end of discussion.

How on earth can you be sticking your elbows out when you've outlined your *tracing method* as above is beyond me.

Wow.

 

[femr2]

The top section rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically.

The *top section* transitioned from rotation about the North face to continued rotation and vertical descent once the top section reached a tilt angle of ~1 degree.

 

[tfk]

I already told you I haven't generated a tilt graph.

I surmised as much at the very start of your obvious smoke & mirrors word games.

I have repeatedly pointed you to specific locations where you will find several tilt graphs, including the appropriate supporting textual explanation details.

"… several tilt graphs …" None of which have the info that I've requested.
Which means that either you or MT could have said, "we haven't produced that graph" a long, long time ago.

Instead of pages of BS.

You have repeatedly, specifically and publicly refused to look at that detail...

Wrong.

I asked you to provide a reason for me to look at all that crap.
You adamantly refuse to provide a reason.

I looked at the first 5 pieces of "evidence".
All 5 were crap.
I told you that, and asked you - again - to provide some reason why you were citing this crap, and to provide some reason that the rest of the crap would not be just more crap.
You refused.

Ergo, your crap goes unexamined.

Your crap is a useless waste of time.

...yet you are now bizarrely self-convinced that such graphs do not exist

This is not the appropriate response, but I'll make this easy for you tom...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6631090&postcount=455
Read it.

Yup.

And now you prove your own incompetence.
Why is it, femr, that Basque was able to pull up this direct reference to this graph, the graph to which you have allegedly been referring for about 10 posts, yet you were incompetent to do the same thing.

But instead, you kept waving at an 8 page wall-o-crap?

Is Basque that much more knowledgable about elements of your own data than you are?

Nah, he isn't that much more knowledgeable about the content of your data.

This is simply the transparent game that you choose to play.
___

Regardless of that, this data is NOT what I requested.

It does NOT show the tilt angle from multiple directions.
It does NOT show a true, 3D calculated tilt angle.
It does NOT show tilt angle AT ALL. It shows MT's unvalidated, and on cursory inspection, wrong, calculated tilt angle from drop distances.

That's not what I requested. I requested MEASURED tilt angles vs. time from multiple viewpoints.

It appears that the simple answer to my question is "neither one of you have done it".

Just like I said about a dozen posts ago.

Why are you so incompetent at reading & comprehending simple, straightforward English?

tk

 

[BasqueArch]

My bold

Sigh...

You'd be okay disputing +/- a tenth or so if you disagreed on the determination of T₀ (always a subjective issue), but I'm afraid anything beyond that is simply false.


You're really struggling with some very simple concepts here.

My sub-second accurate determination of the start point of antenna vertical movement is determined via accurate sub-pixel tracing methods, data for which is available.

Your method involves waving your hands around making repeated inept claims, providing absolutely nothing to support your position, and making rather obvious repeated inclusion of *about* in what you are saying.

You cannot use your eyeballs watching video on YouTube to make accurate determination of very fine motion of video features. End of story. Get a grip.

Yet this same video on You Tube you disparage is what you provide as evidence for judging your claims. 2 seconds difference for the start of antenna downward movement does not require "accurate determination of very fine motion."

For time spans less than a second margin of error I would need to learn video editing, in order to verify/falsify your constant hiding behind your - eyeballs cannot see what my black box very fine motion pixellation reveals to me you have to take my word for it I can edit video you can't- claims.

I doubt I have time to spend for the effort. Maybe someone else can.
End of your story