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

For those of you raising any doubt about the point at which vertical movement of the antenna becomes detectable, I refer you to the following graph...

980386412.png


With this graph you are able to make an informed decision about where you define T0 to be. It is, of course, always a slightly subjective value, but as you can clearly see, the margin is narrow.

My earlier post stating that the antenna began vertical motion at ~ 1:57.2 in the following video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_vaYbNZQ5g
...is based upon placing T0 at frame 850 in the graph above.

The specific high quality Sauret footage used has a segment at the beginning of black frames, so frame numbers on the graph are, as indicated, offset by 185 frames.

Anyone wishing to contest the suggested timing will be required to fully justify their complaints in detail.

All details here can, of course, be fully confirmed.

For those of you (no names, BasqueArch) suggesting a timestamp about 3 seconds later, firstly note the sensitivity of the data...it is showing the first pixel of vertical motion, and secondly...any response using methods of poor sensitivity and without data backup will be flatly rejected.

As previously stated, the following animation shows that start point, and the following 3 seconds...
520669917.gif


Suggestion that tilt reaches 8 degrees 2 to 3 seconds after start of antenna vertical motion are clearly nonsense.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
MT:

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

I imagine that the impression results from repeated statements within the NIST report, such as...
1-6 9-8 said:
The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly interested in folk responding with things like...*but what NIST meant was a non-rigid block !!!1!11!*.
 
femr2 said:
I'm not particularly interested in folk responding with things like...*but what NIST meant was a non-rigid block !!!1!11!*.
Click to expand...

And really what difference does it make, even if it was "non-rigid", you still have conservation of momentum. We see that "block" accelerating non-stop, at no point does it slow down, as the laws of physics dictate it must if it's destroying material below it.

The simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is most likely correct. There's no reason to over-complicate this issue. There are many clearly identifiable features of this demolition that make it obvious it was not a gravity-induced self-demolition. The very idea is anathema to anyone who's ever demolished a building by any means, they don't fall apart like a house of cards. Houses of cards barely stand up, these buildings withstood thirty years of high winds without flinching, a bomb being detonated under them and as well thirty years of ongoing construction and demolition inside it.
 
Arthur Mann said:
And really what difference does it make, even if it was "non-rigid", you still have conservation of momentum. We see that "block" accelerating non-stop, at no point does it slow down, as the laws of physics dictate it must if it's destroying material below it.

The simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is most likely correct. There's no reason to over-complicate this issue. There are many clearly identifiable features of this demolition that make it obvious it was not a gravity-induced self-demolition. The very idea is anathema to anyone who's ever demolished a building by any means, they don't fall apart like a house of cards. Houses of cards barely stand up, these buildings withstood thirty years of high winds without flinching, a bomb being detonated under them and as well thirty years of ongoing construction and demolition inside it.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous. Plenty of other threads to post your unsubstantiated nonsense.

This topic is about the WTC 1 collapse initiation and it does not need derailing at this stage in 2010 to reopen false claims which were rebutted years ago.
 
Is there a purpose to all this?

Maybe if Femr and MT were to understood the meaning of parallax and perspective, they'd realize what's causing them problems.
 
For what it's worth, the slide of mine that Major Tom is complaining about was put there for a totally different purpose. It's there to show how stupid was Tony Szamboti's claim of expecting massive, sudden changes in the acceleration of the upper portion. The graphic merely shows how a rotation of eight degrees means the upper and lower floors are totally misaligned. That's all.

The rest of the presentation is accessible here, where you can see what I really said, and why.

I'll be generous and assume Major Tom is simply too confused to understand my presentation and its purpose, rather than accuse him of deliberately distorting my opinions.
 
R Mackey, why is the north wall still connected at 8 degrees of tilt in your illustration?

Why do you think Greg Urich draws the north wall as still connected at 8 degrees of tilt?

Please explain what motivated you to do that.
 
Major_Tom,
Did you notice that some of the floors in Mackey's graphic are going through each other? Do you think that he meant that as a literal depiction - floors going through each other, yet remaining intact as depicted by straight lines? Are those floors "still connected" while they pass through each other?










Or are you obsessing over something trivial and irrelevant?
 
femr2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your declaration of disinterest would have been more convincing had it not been contradicted, twice, by your very next post:
femr2 said:
However, NIST just says top rotated about 8 degrees before falling vertically.
Click to expand...
Which is meaningless if you choose to interpret in any way related to the real motion.
Click to expand...

femr2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still suffering from NISTitis I see. ~1 degree.
Click to expand...
 
WD Clinger post 353: "You and Major_Tom are arguing about "the exact moment that the NW corner began vertical motion" because that's the only way you two can continue to support Major_Tom's attack on the 8º tilt reported by NIST."

Incorrect.

I explicitly state many times that we are measuring the tilt of the north face and antenna over the time in which all columns fail. The NW corner are the last group of columns to fail. They are visible and drop data allows ius to determine when they failed.

I want to know over what tilt angles the initial propagation of column failure takes place.

The 8 degree tilt claim by the NIST Is interesting as none of you seem to be able to agree what it means. Can you please draw me a diagranm of what the NIST is talking about if you think you know?

I don't care about what happened at 8 degrees so it seems your problem, not mine.

Does the NIST ever state the tilt angle over which the initial column failure took place? It is less than 1 degree tilt. This is mathematically provable and verifiable.





WDC: "In geometry and physics, there is no agreed-upon definition of "began vertical motion".

WD Clinger, please tell us the relation between the 8 degrees mentioned by the NIST and the beginning of vertical descent. R Mackey has produced an illustration showing us how he reads the report. Can you describe why 8 degrees is important to the NIST, since they mention it at least 4 times while they never mention that all columns failed over less than 1 degree tilt.

Please explain why 8 degrees is a meaningful number to you people, because I can't see why it was mentioned several times in the report.

Then let's talk abouit something meaningful and definable: The angle of tilt over which all columns originally fail. I care about this because it is very important in determining whether core or south perimeter failed first.


WDC: "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)."



Do you agree that the statement that the north wall and antenna tilted less than 1 degree over the initial column failure sequence? That is what is under discussion from the OP. This is what I explicitly state.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

The 8 degree mystery is your problem, not mine. I have no idea why this number is so meaningful to you. The only reason it keeps coming up is because most of the posters are too cowardly to admit the NIST description of the initiation sequence is poor to meaningless. They want to defend this poor diesription while they can't even draw of stick model picture of it.

If their description of the initiation sequence is so crappy that none of you seem to know how to draw a simple stick model of it, that is your problem since it is your model, not mine.

I'll stick with comparison between tilting of features and the initial column failure sequence.


WDC: "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."

Incorrect.

I can produce a detailed record of early motion, deformation, initial sequence of movement, tilt angles and movement over which all columns originally fail, a record of all smoke ejections leading up to and including the initial failure sequence, early sagging of the antenna, early concave roof deformation and multiple features which point to core failure as the initiating factor of collapse.

You can't even draw a stick model of the NIST description of the initial failure sequence. You can produce no observable features which indicates the south perimeter failure initiated collapse as opposed to the core.

Who is pathetic? Look in the mirror. Your Emperor has no clothes.
 
Last edited:
If you aren't going to use the quote function, could you at least use posters' exact nicknames, and set the text apart with italics or indentation or something? Why do woo people all have to eschew standard formatting? Is it some woo badge of honor?
 
carlitos said:
If you aren't going to use the quote function, could you at least use posters' exact nicknames, and set the text apart with italics or indentation or something? Why do woo people all have to eschew standard formatting? Is it some woo badge of honor?
Click to expand...
He has actually used the quote function correctly before. I suspect he posts most often on a hand-held device that does not support <insert whatever code it is>.
 
Because I copy and paste useful text elsewhere at a later date. I'm here to compile research, not chat. I need to be able to extract all text just as it is posted. That is why I type in simple text only.


Another note on tilt. I don't believe in "global tilt". That is your illusion, not mine.

Concepts like global tilt, hinging are your intellectual baggage. They don't actually exist. The antenna tilted at a different angle and independently of the north wall. They did not move together as we have proven mathematically beyond doubt.

Concepts like "rigid rotation", "tilt angle" (as if there is only one) and the breaking of some famous "hinge" are you fixations, not mine.

I can see that none of these things actually exist.

WD Clinger, I don't even believe in global tilt. How can you say this: ?????

WD Clinger post 353: "You and Major_Tom are arguing about "the exact moment that the NW corner began vertical motion" because that's the only way you two can continue to support Major_Tom's attack on the 8º tilt reported by NIST. 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).

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."


All those confusing concepts are your illusion. If you think they are real, have fun.

These are your dreams but you attribute them to me. That is a web you weave about your own mind,

I don't believe in blocks or any of those pathetic global geometric qualities you are mentioning.
 
Last edited:
We provide the highest quality drop data of the NW corner available and you just ignore that there is no evidence of an significant tilting in the yellow region.

joltgraph.jpeg


You just ignore the highest resolution drop data of the NW corner you have ever seen because it does not confirm your illusions.

Show me the interval over which your famous north wall tilt occurred. Show me any characteristics in the position and velocity curves that support your illusion of a global tilt phase..

WD Clinger, is the transition point from no downward movement to a sharp take-off in downward velocity clear enough for you?

Is that an ambiguous, foggy definition of when column failure occurs?


I swear, Koko the gorilla can be trained to spot the transition point, so obvious it is.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
The antenna tilted at a different angle and independently of the north wall. They did not move together as we have proven mathematically beyond doubt.
Click to expand...

Of course this is obvious. I'm wondering if you've seen some videos that appear to show the antenna tilting in two different directions. I'm afraid I can't recall where I saw it, but I saw a side-by-side comparison of two videos from approximately the same angle, one showing the antenna tilting to the left, one to the right. Is it possible one or more of the videos have been altered? Is it possible they're all fraudulent? It seems the more one looks into this incident the more obvious it becomes that nearly EVERYTHING we were told through the mass media is a lie.
 
ozeco41 said:
This topic is about the WTC 1 collapse initiation and it does not need derailing at this stage in 2010 to reopen false claims which were rebutted years ago.
Click to expand...

You're right, but of course it's not derailing to point out flaws in various initiation scenarios and their consequences. One consequence of any such initiation scenario is the adherence to the law of conservation of momentum. If you don't disagree, show some video of the demolitions that demonstrate deceleration at any point, as the laws of physics suggest must take place if this is a gravity-induced collapse.

If you disagree, show experimental verification of this notion that conservation of momentum can somehow be suspended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom