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.
The highlighted phrase is not a well-defined instant of time, nor is it trivial to observe. You are therefore giving us your subjective opinion of that time, based upon your personal interpretation of the observable data.
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 have explicitly disclaimed any real knowledge of what NIST is talking about. From the informality of NIST's language, however, it seems clear to me that they are talking imprecisely about a general process that NIST itself does not regard as perfectly well defined.
I don't care about what happened at 8 degrees so it seems your problem, not mine.
How can it be my problem when I care less than you and
femr2? After all, you two are the ones who've been arguing against that tilt angle. For example...
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.
If it were mathematically provable, that proof would involve a mathematically precise definition of "initial column failure". NIST gave no such definition, which is fine by me because NIST never claimed to have a mathematical proof of their narrative.
You are the one who claims above that your conclusion is "mathematically provable". If you have given a mathematical proof, or even the mathematical definitions that would be necessary to support such a proof, I must have missed it.
It seems more likely that you are unacquainted with mathematical proofs, and are just using words you don't understand as a kind of hyperbole.
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.
As I have said on several occasions, I believe NIST was using informal language to describe processes that have no precise definitions. Continuing to demand precise explanations for such imprecise notions as "all columns failed" seems unreasonable to me. Your interpretation obviously differs from mine, but I do not understand why you expect those of us who do not share your interpretation to answer questions that presuppose your interpretation.
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.
It isn't a meaningful number to me, and I was not an author of that report. Since you are the one who seems to think that number is so meaningful as to require explanation, you should ask NIST about it, or at least ask someone who contributed to the report.
Then let's talk abouit something meaningful and definable: The angle of tilt over which all columns originally fail.
If you think that's meaningful and definable, then you should define it.
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.
I have stated several times now that I regard the concepts you mention as not well-defined, and that goes for the timing of the highlighted phrase as well. For me to agree or to disagree with such an ill-formed statement would be even sillier than your asking me whether I agree with it.
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.
First you refuse to accept my claim that NIST used informal language to describe an ill-defined or arbitrarily defined process, and then you accuse me of cowardice for failing to admit the very claim I was making.
Who is pathetic? Look in the mirror. Your Emperor has no clothes.
I don't see an Emperor when I look in the mirror. Perhaps you do.
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."
If you don't believe in global tilt, then the arguments about the magnitude of the tilt that you and
femr2 have given us must have been pointless. Yet you gave us those arguments. Indeed, both you and
femr2 have argued about that magnitude today.
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,
