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

[femr2]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I've told you repeatedly that the data on those graphs is not the data that I've been looking for.

No, your definition of what you want changes as you go along.

Regardless, go and generate the data required and produce your own graph. I'll critique it when you do

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.

So you have said, and yet, here you are.

You can make your points clearly.

Or not.

I . don't . care.

Okey dokey.

And I am done throwing away time on your games.

Bye then. Have a nice day.

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

Incorrect.

You are basically stating that you think the data contained in the tilt vs time graphs is incorrect.

Your chosen method is demanding that the folk you think are producing *dodgy* graphs produce more graphs for you to complain about.

You are going to have to come up with something a little better than that, namely data and graphs showing that the data is incorrect. Make sure you are not comparing apples to oranges though

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

Then, as you said above (and on numerous other occasions) you have nothing more to add.

 

[tsig]

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.

Seems to me it's just the old troother complaint "It looks like a CD to me" with graphs and bogus maths.

 

[Major_Tom]

tsig post 542: "Seems to me it's just the old troother complaint "It looks like a CD to me" with graphs and bogus maths."

Can you point to a particular mistake? Which mathematical operation is bogus? Please specify or your complaint is just another example of the basic denial of video evidence we have been seeing in many debunkers.

 

[tsig]

tsig post 542: "Seems to me it's just the old troother complaint "It looks like a CD to me" with graphs and bogus maths."

Can you point to a particular mistake? Which mathematical operation is bogus? Please specify or your complaint is just another example of the basic denial of video evidence we have been seeing in many debunkers.

Thanks for proving what I said.

Just looking at the tilt doesn't tell you why it's tilting.

 

[DGM]

Thanks for proving what I said.

Just looking at the tilt doesn't tell you why it's tilting.

I think his complain was about the "bogus math". Considering he has presented none, I don't know where he's (or you) are going with this.

I see this as looking a a bug through a microscope. To the naked eye it's not that bad but, magnify it 200x..................................


What this has to do with reality? I don't know.

 

[BasqueArch]

tsig post 542: "Seems to me it's just the old troother complaint "It looks like a CD to me" with graphs and bogus maths."

Can you point to a particular mistake? Which mathematical operation is bogus? Please specify or your complaint is just another example of the basic denial of video evidence we have been seeing in many debunkers.

The parallax error math from the north that claims the antenna tilted south 2 degrees instead of 8, 3 seconds from antenna drop.

 

[BasqueArch]

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


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


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.


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


Er, no.

femr2's sophist MO is to reply, even if it's a wrong or handwave reply and to Deny,Deny,Deny, always Deny.

 

[femr2]

The parallax error math from the north that claims the antenna tilted south 2 degrees instead of 8, 3 seconds from antenna drop.

Yet again, you are using an almost random T₀ (start time) for antenna descent.

Yet again, here is an animation showing the start point of antenna movement, and the following 3 seconds....

EVEN IF you disagreed with the exact placement of T0, the possible margin for error is significantly sub-second, and adding a second to the animation makes little difference. It most certainly doesn't reach 8 degrees, nor is T₀+3 second time difference of any relevance in the slightest.

Your viewpoint on sub-pixel tracing method determination of very fine motion metrics cannot be taken at all seriously when you have openly stated the following as your *analysis method*...

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.

 

[DGM]

EVEN IF you disagreed with the exact placement of T0, the possible margin for error is significantly sub-second, and adding a second to the animation makes little difference. It most certainly doesn't reach 8 degrees, nor is T₀+3 second time difference of any relevance in the slightest.

I don't think you deny that the tilt angle did in fact eventually reach 8 deg.. At what time do you believe this actually happened and how do you feel this discrepancy (with NIST) is important?

 

[Major_Tom]

DMG, you only need to look at the R Mackey illustration of the NIST description of the initial column failure sequence to see that north wall and antenna tilt angles within one degree of NW corner failure paint an entirely different conception of what happened.

If the NIST used real numbers like about 0.7 degrees for antenna tilt and 0.4 degrees for north wall tilt when the north wall fails, nobody would be able to know for certain whether the south wall failure or a core failure initiated collapse .


Extreme misrepresentations of geometric reality like the R Mackey ilustration of the NIST scenario paint an imaginary picture of south wall failure being the most probable initiating event:

If I believed the building moved like this, I would conclude south wall initiated collapse just as the NIST and R Mackey do. If I did no reality checking, I'd probably be a debunker like yourselves.


...........

In reality, the true sequence of events points to core failure, or at least even the most stubborn JREF posters must admit that core failure seems a wide open possibility we must consider at angles of less than one degree, antenna angle noticably differing fron north wall angle.

If you exaggerate tha tilt angle over which the initial column failure sequence occurred like the NIST does, like R Mackey does, and like most every JREF poster has done who has attempted analysis on this thread, you imagine south wall failure as the obvious choice and naturally rule out core failure as the initiating event.

But that is your dreamconception only, based on a poor understanding of the true geometry..

If you measure the early movement accurately, that fantasy world and false certainty falls to pieces.
.................

I have about 7 features that indicate early core failure.

How many do you have which indicate south wall failure?? (None, you only have NIST Bible quotes)

 

[DGM]

DMG, you only need to look at the R Mackey illustration of the NIST description of the initial column failure sequence to see that north wall and antenna tilt angles within one degree of NW corner failure paint an entirely different conception of what happened.

If the NIST used real numbers like about 0.7 degrees for antenna tilt and 0.4 degrees for north wall tilt when the north wall fails, nobody would be able to know for certain whether the south wall failure or a core failure initiated collapse .


Extreme misrepresentations of geometric reality like the R Mackey ilustration of the NIST scenario paint an imaginary picture of south wall failure being the most probable initiating event:

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/139482298.png[/qimg]

If I believed the building moved like this, I would conclude south wall initiated collapse just as the NIST and R Mackey do. If I did no reality checking, I'd probably be a debunker like yourselves.


...........

In reality, the true sequence of events points to core failure, or at least even the most stubborn JREF posters must admit that core failure seems a wide open possibility we must consider at angles of less than one degree, antenna angle noticably differing fron north wall angle.

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/CNN_Aircheck_Eric_Letvin_Cli24.gif[/qimg]


If you exaggerate tha tilt angle over which the initial column failure sequence occurred like the NIST does, like R Mackey does, and like most every JREF poster has done who has attempted analysis on this thread, you imagine south wall failure as the obvious choice and naturally rule out core failure as the initiating event.

But that is your dreamconception only, based on a poor understanding of the true geometry..

If you measure the early movement accurately, that fantasy world and false certainty falls to pieces.
.................

I have about 7 features that indicate early core failure.

How many do you have which indicate south wall failure?? (None, you only have NIST Bible quotes)

You didn't address my question. I think you know this.

 

[carlitos]

You didn't address my question. I think you know this.

Hey, at least he got your name right and quoted you accurately.

 

[DGM]

Hey, at least he got your name right and quoted you accurately.

Hey. The quote function is an extremely hard thing to master.

 

[DGM]

DMG

It's DGM

In reality, the true sequence of events points to core failure, or at least even the most stubborn JREF posters must admit that core failure seems a wide open possibility we must consider at angles of less than one degree, antenna angle noticably differing fron north wall angle.

How did you come to this concussion (yes I have read your posts). Why don't you consider local hat truss failure?

I have about 7 features that indicate early core failure.

And they could also be signs of other local failures. How did you decide that they could ONLY be signs of core failure?


ETA: Do you agree that the top section did indeed tilt to (at least) 8 deg. (at some point in time)?

 

[BasqueArch]

I don't think you deny that the tilt angle did in fact eventually reach 8 deg.. At what time do you believe this actually happened and how do you feel this discrepancy (with NIST) is important?

No discrepancy about the time, NIST never said the top tilted 8 degrees after 3 seconds, I did. This particular point is a tempest in a teapot. MT in a graph claims at 2 degree tilt 3 seconds after antenna begins to drop. I say he's wrong because it's 8 as shown on east video. femr2 produces synchronized video with their north view claiming he's right. I don't care about this particular point.

However, NIST just says top rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically. No analysis, no nothing from NIST on this , just this statement and a picture from the Ballou east video, because their task was to determine what caused the collapse up to global failure not after. NIST mentions the "radio transmission tower" not "antenna" a couple or so times in passing in their entire report, not even once in NCSTAR 1-5A in their statement above. You and I would look at this video and say, ok it looks like it rotated and fell down and go on about our business. But no.

MT/femr2 torture this casual unanalized NIST statement clinging to their misinterpretation as a starving dog to osso buco, claiming the top section fell vertically (wrong) down when north wall failed at a lesser degree, core first because antenna fell before north wall failed, which at this point was they say about 1 degree not 8, NIST is wrong, lied about the angle therefore CD therefore conspiracy to murder and steal other countries' resources.

They keep producing the misleading video above from the west trying to prove the building fell vertically (wrong) after 1 degree not 8, where the bottom fixed part moves downward along with the top, exaggerating the vertical drop and you can see the lower corner wall moving to the right compensating for the moving tilt angle, even though femr2 is experienced in "stabilization" of the video where the bottom part is fixed and vertical and only the top moves giving a truer picture of motion and tilt, femr2 doesn't correct it ,denies this unstabilized video is deceptive, even after being told so . They keep repeating this misleading video without apology or correction.

The third party definitions of "rotated" "fell" and "falling vertically" are clear, so that NIST was right when they said the top rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically.

 

[Major_Tom]

DGM post 5554: "And they could also be signs of other local failures. How did you decide that they could ONLY be signs of core failure?


ETA: Do you agree that the top section did indeed tilt to (at least) 8 deg. (at some point in time)?"

Of course, but it means nothing structurally.

I do consider local hat truss failure. That is what an initiation movement model based on pure deformity is about.

Your tilt/block rigid model is useless to describe the actual failure sequence. My model (soon to be released) based on measurements and observations covering the 10 seconds before visible collapse is a model of mapping pure deformity to determine the general order of initial column failure.

I am obviously including hat truss local deformation. We are actually measuring it.

Your block model ignores it completely. Without the extremely exaggerated tilt angle about a "hinge", your model falls to pieces.

By the way: Current measurements of early movement through the initial column failure sequence show with mathematical certainty that there was no structural hinge. The geometric hinge can be considered to be the NW corner, but the true movement reveals no structural hinge exists.

Which of the two possibilities shown requires no structural hinge? Doesn't south perimeter failure require some type of structural resistance resulting in a structural pivot hinge? This results in the famous "tilting" as columns rip from south to north. But this rip requires a finite period of time and resistance resulting in your famous hinge.

Does collective core failure require a structural hinge? No.

 

[DGM]

DGM post 5554: "And they could also be signs of other local failures. How did you decide that they could ONLY be signs of core failure?


ETA: Do you agree that the top section did indeed tilt to (at least) 8 deg. (at some point in time)?"

Of course, but it means nothing structurally.

Good

Your tilt/block rigid model is useless to describe the actual failure sequence.

My model? You (guy's) are the ones pushing this, not us.

Your block model ignores it completely. Without the extremely exaggerated tilt angle about a "hinge", your model falls to pieces.By the way:

It's not my model. Somehow I get the idea you don't understand what was written in the NIST report.

 

[DGM]

MT:

What makes you think anyone believes the "rigid block model" would look anything like reality (or should)?

 

[femr2]

the tilt angle did in fact eventually reach 8 deg.

Of course, and far exceeded it before dismemberment of the *upper block* reached a point where application of the term *tilt/rotation* became meaningless.

At what time do you believe this actually happened

As I've said a number of times, I haven't produced a tilt vs time dataset, only specific tilt at key moments such as the *release* point of the upper section, though may do so using the simple method outlined a few days ago.

Shortly beyond that point the number of useful reference points is reduced. The antenna is a poor choice of reference point in determining tilt so late, as it is not rigidly attached to said *upper block*. I may extend a trace such that tilt after release is outlined, but accuracy will not be as high as tilt determined pre-release.

and how do you feel this discrepancy (with NIST) is important?

What discrepancy ?

Again, I'm not particularly interested in yet more discussion about what NIST may or may not have meant in their numerous 8 degree statements.

 

[femr2]

No discrepancy about the time, NIST never said the top tilted 8 degrees after 3 seconds, I did.

Your start time is wrong. Your three second addition to that start point is meaningless. You have described your analysis method. You have not performed any measurement.

You are hand-waving.

This particular point is a tempest in a teapot. MT in a graph claims at 2 degree tilt 3 seconds after antenna begins to drop. I say he's wrong because it's 8 as shown on east video.

Incorrect.

femr2 produces synchronized video with their north view claiming he's right.

Incorrect.

I don't care about this particular point.

Incorrect

However, NIST just says top rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically.

Which is meaningless if you choose to interpret in any way related to the real motion.

They keep producing the misleading video above from the west trying to prove the building fell vertically (wrong) after 1 degree not 8, where the bottom fixed part moves downward along with the top, exaggerating the vertical drop and you can see the lower corner wall moving to the right compensating for the moving tilt angle, even though femr2 is experienced in "stabilization" of the video where the bottom part is fixed and vertical and only the top moves giving a truer picture of motion and tilt, femr2 doesn't correct it ,denies this unstabilized video is deceptive, even after being told so . They keep repeating this misleading video without apology or correction.

Absolute nonsense. As you have seen with my discussions with tfk, I'm always willing in these situations to back-track through the thread as far as is required to show categorically that your statements above are utter fabrication and nonsense.

The problem is your inept analysis skills and utter lack of even common sense.

The third party definitions of "rotated" "fell" and "falling vertically" are clear, so that NIST was right when they said the top rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically.

Still suffering from NISTitis I see. ~1 degree.