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

[W.D.Clinger]

That's the bizarre thing...none of what I'm discussing in this thread is *earth shattering*, nor does it require significant *scientific prowess*.

Agreed. In fact, it takes a certain absence of "*scientific prowess*" to pretend it matters. As I wrote a week ago:

In geometry and physics, there is no agreed-upon definition of "began vertical motion". It could mean the beginning of a rotation or other motion that has a non-zero vertical component, or it could mean the instant at which the magnitude of the vertical component exceeds the magnitude of other components, or it could mean some time at which the vertical component begins to dominate other components (which is itself not well-defined).

Yet you continue to argue as though "initial tilt determination" were something objective:

Initial tilt determination...It's not rocket science, and it's not earth shattering either.



It's about 1 degree.

That may be, provided we accept your (still unstated?) definition(s). In the meantime, you have stated that the measurable tilt eventually increases "to well over 12 degrees."

As I wrote a week ago:

It all comes down to you and Major_Tom insisting that your favorite arbitrary definition be used instead of NIST's arbitrary definition. That's beyond pointless; it's pathetic.

Or, as I wrote a little more recently:

It really does appear that, for both you and for femr2, your objection to NIST's estimate of 8 degrees is entirely a matter of your insistence upon interpreting NIST's "vertical fall" as coincident with what you referred to above as "the release point".

We can continue to talk past each other so long as you desire, but it becomes boring after a while.

If there's a purpose to all this, it remains unstated.

 

[twinstead]

That's the bizarre thing...none of what I'm discussing in this thread is *earth shattering*, nor does it require significant *scientific prowess*.

Determining initial tilt is pretty darn simple really, though the techniques employed do have a slight learning-curve I suppose.

These are basic observational details, and the kind of thing that should have been done years ago, and certainly not requiring a few essentially anonymous researchers on a back-water forum to have to repeatedly explain to folk who repeatedly boast about how superior they are.


To be honest, it's things like you've just said that are part of the issue here. The details being presented are not complicated or difficult to replicate yourself. I think it's simply that you *trust* the (frankly increasingly bizarre) viewpoint of folk like tfk that tends to indicate that a) you personally don't understand how simple it really is, and b) prefer to therefore side yourself with the *opposing* viewpoint without critically asessing exactly what is on the table.

To be in the position of providing/explaining sub-pixel position change trace data and techniques which allow simple and accurate specification of various metrics in a way that can easily be replicated and confirmed by anyone willing to perform what is (in my view) a pretty simple process...and yet receiving complaints, accusations of deliberate distortion and clearly incorrect *counter claims* from folk either unwilling to replicate the data or using techniques such as *memorising the position of a dot, opening the next file and seeing what has changed*...is mind boggling. There's just no excuse in my opinion.

I personally put all the resources and data I generate online so I think it's pretty clear there's no *distortion*, *lying*, (list of inappropriate terms of your choice here). Nonsense hand-waving from others is just that, nonsense.

Initial tilt determination...It's not rocket science, and it's not earth shattering either.



It's about 1 degree.

You see this is the problem. What the HELL is your point? Why debate endlessly something that nobody appears to think matters at all? Are you saying that the collapses of the WTC were impossible by impact and fire alone? If not, then--again--what's your point? This sub forum is about 9-11 conspiracies.

If you are, then you'll need something more than "initial tilt determination". This is where the scientific prowess comes in.

 

[carlitos]

This sub forum is about 9-11 conspiracies.

^^^^^

This. femr2 and Major_Tom consistently deny that they are researching any 9/11 conspiracy, and yet they have these technical discussions here instead of in Science and Math, where it would be appropriate.

 

[tfk]

Initial tilt determination...It's not rocket science, and it's not earth shattering either.

It's about 1 degree.

Nope.

Without looking at one piece of data, I can state with 100% assurance that the initial tilt was 0°.
Then it was 0.1°. Then 0.2°. ... Then 0.9°. Then 1.0°. Then 1.1°. ... Then 2°. Then 3°... Then 8°. Then 9°... etc.

I can state, after looking at that one photo that I posted - with the apparent tilt angle of about 4.4° (and an actual tilt of about 5°-6°) - that it seems unequivocal to me that NIST's comments do NOT mean that they believe it tilted 8° BEFORE it began to descend.

But rather, the more elaborate description of Dr. MacAllister is the correct one: that it reached "at least 8° before it disappeared in the cloud".

[THIS was the fundamental point that I was making by posting that photo. That point got drowned out by a bunch of whining & drama.]

Which leaves 1° of tilt before downward motion began completely reasonable.

Now, as several have asked here repeatedly, you have a choice of answering these questions...

1. "What difference do you think it makes to NIST's conclusions regarding the structural causes of the collapse (plane crash, damage, removed insulation, fire, creep, redistribution of loads, core expansion, core contraction, load shedding, buckling, & collapse) whether the initial downward movement occurred at 0.5° of tilt, 1° of tilt, 1.5° of tilt, 2.2° of tilt (Bazant's max estimate), or (unsupportable by any visual evidence that I've seen) 8° of tilt?

2. What difference do you think that it makes to NIST's conclusions regarding the structural causes of the collapse (see question above) IF that puff of smoke that emerged from the 95th floor window was really related to the impending collapse, and thereby advances the zero time of collapse initiation by 1 - 2 seconds?

... or evading the questions.
Again.

 

[DGM]

Agreed. In fact, it takes a certain absence of "*scientific prowess*" to pretend it matters. As I wrote a week ago:

Yet you continue to argue as though "initial tilt determination" were something objective:

That may be, provided we accept your (still unstated?) definition(s). In the meantime, you have stated that the measurable tilt eventually increases "to well over 12 degrees."

As I wrote a week ago:

Or, as I wrote a little more recently:

If there's a purpose to all this, it remains unstated.

I agree. I'm still waiting for where their going with this. Unfortunately we have to wait till we all agree with what they claim.

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

 

[A W Smith]

and major tom and femr keep up the self abusive............again I ask...when are you going to release your peer reviewed paper on this work and who do you imagine will care less?

Even if ,as you imagine, you prove that NIST did not get their modeling 100% right....no one of any importance cares, because they know that modeling is never 100% accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism

 

[tfk]

femr,

tfk,

You are a funny man.

Thank you. Many of my friends think so. I try to stockpile good jokes for just this purpose.

You have been provided links and data to numerous *tilt -vs- time* graphs numerous times.

You appear incompetent at processing information.
I've told you repeatedly that the data on those graphs is not the data that I've been looking for.

You have repeatedly refused to even read the links provided.

You appear incompetent at processing information.
I've told you repeatedly that I've looked at a specific subset of that data, and found it to be irrelevant to the discussion (aka "crap").

You also appear to be determinedly obstinate.
I've asked you to repeatedly to provide a reason for me to read thru the rest of the nonsense.
You obstinately refuse to provide any reason to do so.

I do NOT need to read the 375 crap books in the library about "The Bermuda Triangle", or "Alien Abductions", etc. to know that they are crap. Written by the incompetent for the credulous.

This is EXACTLY what you are asking of us. "Read it all first, then we'll discuss it."

Well, femr, I don't need to read thru your piles of crap to know that your REAL agenda ("NIST got it all wrong") is also crap.

Furthermore, having been down this road with you a dozen times, seeing your intentional obfuscations & verbal games, I'm done wasting inordinate amounts of time on your crap.

You can make your points clearly.

Or not.

I . don't . care.

And I am done throwing away time on your games.

Regardless of what any of thoe graphs contain, you'll, of course, go on a hissy fit making inept complaints about it not matching your request, or having the wrong font colour, or whatever.

You seem confused about what constitutes valuable info to the discussion (actual 3D tilt angle versus time) and irrelevancies, such as font colors.

Nothing is LESS important than "what any of those graphs contain".
Nothing is MORE important than "do they contain the specific meaningful information".

It's hilarious.

Yup, it is. The fact that you were unable, in about 20 posts, to put up a link to one graph, and that Basque had to do it for you, is, in fact, hilarious.

Revealing of the true nature of your games, too…

Rather than hanging from mine and MT's coat-tail, go and generate some data.

"Coat tails"??? Perhaps "clown suits".

No, femr, I have no need or desire to "generate some data". I've got other, SIGNIFICANT data to generate in the real world.

You are claiming (and always will) claim some kind of error in the data presented.

FINALLY, you're catching on.

There is ALWAYS some error in the data presented. Took you long enough to realize it.

 

[femr2]

Yet this same video on You Tube you disparage is what you provide as evidence for judging your claims.

The video is simply *provided* as the visual resource being discussed.

2 seconds difference for the start of antenna downward movement does not require "accurate determination of very fine motion."

Incorrect. Detecting fine motion is exactly what makes detecting the earliest moments of motion possible, and thus the earlier *start time*.

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.

Basically, yes. In order to detect the very fine motion, you need to use automated video image processing techniques.

It's not black magic, and there are numerous threads both here and at the911frum where the techniques are explained in detail.

I doubt I have time to spend for the effort. Maybe someone else can.

Okay, but please refrain from making the kind of responses you have recently.

End of your story

Er, no.

 

[femr2]

It may also be an artifact of my YT settings, I have a slow connection.

You can force YT to use high quality anyway if you go to your settings.

If you say it's synced I'm prepared to accept it as it's only an observation on my part. I'm probably wrong.

Thanks.

The smoke is billowing and there are two distinct "puffs" at the time I mentioned on the left hand side on the building. It's hard to tell if they are just "billows", a natural part of the fire, or expulsions do to failures inside. The size and speed suggest something more than just the build up of gases, they look somewhat forced. Given their timing I'm willing to bet they are a result of the initial floor assembly failures that initiated the collapse.

It's important to note they are "faster" than the billows coming from the fire, but much slower than what would be expected if they were caused by explosives. The sheer volume suggests the sudden compression of a large volume of air.

There is significant increase in smoke ejecta volume in the seconds leading up to release.

Close inspection of such behaviour is particularly relevant to this thread, and I suggest coming back to this point once the *noise* has died down a little.

 

[tsig]

Your delightful histrionics aside, the body of work that supports the commonly-held narrative of that day and the experts who support that work is all we need in answer to you. The general consensus is that you don't know what you are talking about. That makes this little gem of a diatribe even more ironic.

Faux emotions rock!!

 

[tsig]

I agree that some of the responses are simply ridiculous, however...


I don't think the discussion needs any socio-political type banter.

Laborious and frustrating though it can be, I suggest sticking to the technical details. There are some who are lost causes, but once confirmed as such there is no need to waste much time reinventing the wheel for their benefit.

Tiny, tiny wheels.

 

[femr2]

again I ask...when are you going to release your peer reviewed paper on this work

Yet again I say I have no intention of releasing a paper. Releasing a peer-reviewed paper would be a novel concept, no ? That normally happens afterwards

 

[DGM]

There is significant increase in smoke ejecta volume in the seconds leading up to release.

Close inspection of such behavior is particularly relevant to this thread, and I suggest coming back to this point once the *noise* has died down a little.

This could be caused by local floor failures or suspended ceiling collapse. When do you plan to show reason to think any of these "features" should be considered significant?

I'm not trying to create "noise", I'm just asking.

 

[tsig]

and major tom and femr keep up the self abusive............again I ask...when are you going to release your peer reviewed paper on this work and who do you imagine will care less?

Even if ,as you imagine, you prove that NIST did not get their modeling 100% right....no one of any importance cares, because they know that modeling is never 100% accurate.

99.9999998% accurate, truth resides in that .0000002%

 

[femr2]

It's about 1 degree.

That may be, provided we accept your (still unstated?) definition(s).

Scope has been made suitabley clear numerous times, namely the angle of tilt of the upper block at the point rotation about the North face transitions to continued rotation and vertical descent. Transition to vertical descent has been defined in terms of *release* of all vertical supports in the initiation zone, which has also been defined.

In the meantime, you have stated that the measurable tilt eventually increases "to well over 12 degrees."

Correct.

If there's a purpose to all this, it remains unstated.

Incorrect.

 

[femr2]

You see this is the problem. What the HELL is your point?

I have made my own personal viewpoint clear numerous times. I am examining the behaviour and motion of the structure in the moments leading up to, through and immediately after *initiation*.

 

[carlitos]

For the purpose of ....?

 

[tsig]

I have made my own personal viewpoint clear numerous times. I am examining the behaviour and motion of the structure in the moments leading up to, through and immediately after *initiation*.

So you're just doing this as a mental exercise like some people work crossword puzzles?

 

[femr2]

Nope.

Without looking at one piece of data, I can state with 100% assurance that the initial tilt was 0°.
Then it was 0.1°. Then 0.2°. ... Then 0.9°. Then 1.0°. Then 1.1°. ... Then 2°. Then 3°... Then 8°. Then 9°... etc.

ROFL. The scope of the statement is perfectly clear when not taken in isolation.

Your comment is purely pedantic.

I can state, after looking at that one photo that I posted - with the apparent tilt angle of about 4.4° (and an actual tilt of about 5°-6°) - that it seems unequivocal to me that NIST's comments do NOT mean that they believe it tilted 8° BEFORE it began to descend.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm not particularly interested in what NIST may have meant by their various conflicting statements, making your comment irrelevant.

Which leaves 1° of tilt before downward motion began completely reasonable.

Agreed.

1. "What difference do you think it makes to NIST's conclusions regarding the structural causes of the collapse (plane crash, damage, removed insulation, fire, creep, redistribution of loads, core expansion, core contraction, load shedding, buckling, & collapse) whether the initial downward movement occurred at 0.5° of tilt, 1° of tilt, 1.5° of tilt, 2.2° of tilt (Bazant's max estimate), or (unsupportable by any visual evidence that I've seen) 8° of tilt?

The 1 degree metric indicates the angle (and rapidity by determining timespan) at which all supporting members failed. In conjunction with numerous other observations it is possible to build a picture of initiation sequencing and behaviour.

The numerous details observed indicate that the conclusions stated by NIST relating to initiation sequencing are very doubtful, raising the question of what actually occurred during initiation.

Answering that question is certainly a purpose. Rather obvious really.

2. What difference do you think that it makes to NIST's conclusions regarding the structural causes of the collapse (see question above) IF that puff of smoke that emerged from the 95th floor window was really related to the impending collapse, and thereby advances the zero time of collapse initiation by 1 - 2 seconds?

From my perspective this is all ongoing data-collection and analysis. Conclusions come later, of course

 

[DGM]

So you're just doing this as a mental exercise like some people work crossword puzzles?

The interesting thing is this would be a worthwhile exorcise. Learning about video editing and such. Using what you see to discredit engineers with no reason (or background to base), not so much.