DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
He "explained" this a while back. He said he does this because he copies and pastes all of his replies to save them for prosperity.
Don't ask.
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
Don't ask.
Using the quote tags so that people can try to follow the conversation is apparently akin to having a "chat" with us. As I said earlier, eschewing traditional formatting - a clear mark of woo.
A W Smith
Philosopher
He doesn't want you to back track through the conversation. its an olbvious exercise in obfuscation. You cannot click back and see what hes quote mined out. He knows how to post images, So hes aware of the features of the forum.
ozeco41
Philosopher
It is a minor irritant equivalent to femr2's implicit tactics of not wanting us to question where these discussions could lead until we get there.
For the rest of us who are not self blinding to the possibilities there are two obvious future issues:
- ...we reach the point where it is shown that the NIST 'perimeter led' initiation is wrong and a 'core led' initiation is right and we then chime in with 'So what?';
AND (if we do reach the 'NIST was wrong' point) - We then see some form of 'MIHOP' given femr2's acknowledged leaning that way.
Hence my probably too subtle post #3 in this thread and some other thread discussion contemporary with the start of this thread. Simply stated it was 'If you are interested in all this measurement stuff - fair enough - whatever rocks your boat. But why put it in the 9/11 conspiracy forum where it is off topic unless directed to the one technical conspiracy issue about WTC viz demolition?'
Last edited:
As I indicated, T0 definition is somewhat subjective, but the point I've made to you repeatedly is that it's particularly useful to look at the trend. I separate noise into a couple of types, as you know.
It is an assumption too far imo to conclude that the very slight upwards movement of the antenna is not *real*. It could well be actual. The more I look at it, the more I tend to think it is real. Similarly on downwards movement.
That's quite a time afterwards, and do you not think that the fact that you can *see* that movement is a pretty good indicator that the early data is showing you actual motion ?
I have no great issue with you placing it a bit later, though I still hold to my previous position.
Eh ? I've made it very clear that placement is subjective, and have repeatedly used the description *reasonable*, within a tenth or two, ...
NW Corner data...
(pixel/frame)
Looks like you are looking at the data during the period of camera shake. If you want additional information on the trace to avoid incorrect interpretations, by all means ask.
Nonsense.
Last edited:
I asked WDC to correct the misleading information in his graph, but I changed my mind. I like it in this form. Useful.
So to be clear, can everybody understand why the WDC curves have a range of much less slope than the curves I use?
This is a basic relation of drop vs tilt. The WDC curve represents how the drop will be seen from an observer hovering about 110 stories above earth in the skies of Lower Manhattan. If we had video with a viewpoint which was hovering about 1100 ft above the earth, looking at the roof-line from the north, you would use the WDC curves.
If you want a relation between perceived drop from the Sauret viewpoint which was looking up at the top of the skyscraper at an angle of about 12 degrees above the horizontal, you would use the curves I use.
It is interesting to compare the two ranges of slopes. If the curve has a range of slopes close to zero, like the WDC a-b curve, we cannot use drop to accurately predict tilt angle. It is very difficult to map a 1:1 correspondence between tilt and drop because a tiny drop can mean a large change of tilt.
The higher the range of slopes in the curve, the easier it is to use the drop vs tilt relations to estimate tilt.
Myriad and WDC are correct in that if Mr Sauret was hovering above lower Manhatten about 1100 ft above the ground with his camera, his video would have been useless to estimate tilts of the north wall and antenna.
The farther down you are, the more of an angle your view makes with the horizontal, the better you can map a useful 1:1 correspondence between tilt and drop.
The question is whether the Sauret viewpoint is looking up at enough of an angle to map an effective relation between tilt and drop to be useful. It is, as the model of the NW corner dropping 1 degree shows. We can clearly mark the drop of the NW corner as tilt increases from 0 to 3 degrees. We can clearly distinguish drops that correspond to 1 degree tilt or 0.5 degree tilt.
If our viewing angle was much less than 12 degrees upwards, we wouldn't be able to see the NW corner of the model drop clear enough to extract tilt information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On quotes. I already mentioned if the post I am quoting is on the same page, I write the post number. If it is on a different page, I write the post number and link to the quote. The moderator said that was not against any rule.
I post in simple text only because I later return to extract useful information. I write to formulate and extract information, not to chat. I don't save everything since most of the posts are useless from the point of view of research.
If you cannot find a quote that is on the same page with the knowledge of the post number, I cannot help that.
So to be clear, can everybody understand why the WDC curves have a range of much less slope than the curves I use?
This is a basic relation of drop vs tilt. The WDC curve represents how the drop will be seen from an observer hovering about 110 stories above earth in the skies of Lower Manhattan. If we had video with a viewpoint which was hovering about 1100 ft above the earth, looking at the roof-line from the north, you would use the WDC curves.
If you want a relation between perceived drop from the Sauret viewpoint which was looking up at the top of the skyscraper at an angle of about 12 degrees above the horizontal, you would use the curves I use.
It is interesting to compare the two ranges of slopes. If the curve has a range of slopes close to zero, like the WDC a-b curve, we cannot use drop to accurately predict tilt angle. It is very difficult to map a 1:1 correspondence between tilt and drop because a tiny drop can mean a large change of tilt.
The higher the range of slopes in the curve, the easier it is to use the drop vs tilt relations to estimate tilt.
Myriad and WDC are correct in that if Mr Sauret was hovering above lower Manhatten about 1100 ft above the ground with his camera, his video would have been useless to estimate tilts of the north wall and antenna.
The farther down you are, the more of an angle your view makes with the horizontal, the better you can map a useful 1:1 correspondence between tilt and drop.
The question is whether the Sauret viewpoint is looking up at enough of an angle to map an effective relation between tilt and drop to be useful. It is, as the model of the NW corner dropping 1 degree shows. We can clearly mark the drop of the NW corner as tilt increases from 0 to 3 degrees. We can clearly distinguish drops that correspond to 1 degree tilt or 0.5 degree tilt.
If our viewing angle was much less than 12 degrees upwards, we wouldn't be able to see the NW corner of the model drop clear enough to extract tilt information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On quotes. I already mentioned if the post I am quoting is on the same page, I write the post number. If it is on a different page, I write the post number and link to the quote. The moderator said that was not against any rule.
I post in simple text only because I later return to extract useful information. I write to formulate and extract information, not to chat. I don't save everything since most of the posts are useless from the point of view of research.
If you cannot find a quote that is on the same page with the knowledge of the post number, I cannot help that.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Do you mean actual upwards movement (measured in ft or m relative to mean sea level), or apparent movement (measured in pixels or as an angle from viewing point)?
Do you agree that the former would be pretty amazing?
What force could move the center of the roof, and with it the antenna, up? I thin we will quickly agree that no center of any serious mass could be lifted, absent some major lifting device (crane, hydraulic press, bomb...), so any part of the structure can only rise if it is part of a rotating assembly. Center of the roof rising would mean that the rotation axis is off center, and that the outside part descends while the inside part moves up. However, if this happened at the onset of collapse, we are talking about a hat truss that is somewhat intact.
Picture it like this: Let C be the roof center (base of antenna), A be one edge of the roof, B the opposite edge, and x the hinge, or a point vertically above the hinge:
A--------x------C---------------B
If C moves up, A moves down, and B would move up even more than C. The center of mass would also move up. This cannot be (absent any force opposing gravity). The center of mass would have to be at or below x, or to the left of it, which implies a broken hat truss:
A--------x------C-/-------------B
In any case, if you see the antenna move up, you'd expect to see some roof edge move down at the same time, or earlier.
Am I missing any possibilities here?
I mean upwards in the axis of the trace, and not as a *simple* noise source. Obviously the viewpoint is going to have an effect on what that upwards trend in the graph data could possibly be.
I've not suggested it's an actual real-space vertical elevation, and it would be pretty amazing, sure, though there were quite a few amazing things going on throughout the day. Given the scale of about an inch or two, I don't think it's impossible.
*pull-in* of the East and West perimeter walls ?
Strain changes ?
Viewpoint related shifts ?
All finger-in-air, but possibles perhaps.
Rotation is a possibility, sure.
Only if you are still imagining a rigid body.
Who knows. Perhaps not.
Again, you are assuming a rigid body.
Again, I'm not saying it's actual vertical real-world movement, simply that I think the trace is showing real motion, not a noise-byproduct.
Yes. Given the amount of discussion about the non-rigid behaviour I would have thought you would include that possibility.
I really can't imagine how anyone would continue to assume that such a large, and pretty flexible, structure comprised of hundreds of thousands of interconnected members would act as a perfectly rigid body.
The upper *block* was not a rigid body.
Perfectly rigid bodies do not exist.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Ah ok, that would nearly have sufficed as an answer. And now the big question is: Why don't we know, in 3D, how the antenna moved, so we could check? If we can't rule out tilt, and can't rule out noise, I think we got nothing.
The former, no, the latter maybe. Didn't think of that. Thanks.
Don't get me wrong, or interprete too much into my words: I am certainly not arguing "perfectly" rigid, just some assembly that is ridgid enough so that downward rotation on one side of the hinge would force the other side up. If our body wasn't even that rigid, then rotation is not a possible explanation for upward movement of the antenna. If you want to rule out rigid (more or less) hat truss, then that leaves us with strain release (possible, but I don't see that as very likely, off the bat), noise effects (I can't assess that at this time, but read along as you debate this with BasqueArch and others), or matter of perspective (lateral, not upwards, movement). If a somewhat rigid hat truss is allowed, then I'd at least expect to see downward movement of some roof edge at the same time, or earlier, that you detect upwards movement of antenna. (I agree now that the opposite edge would not necessarily have to move up)
Okay.
Pray tell. In your vernacular, what is the difference between "actual vertical real-world movement" and "real motion"?
Nice strawman.
Nobody with any knowledge of structures thinks that the upper block behaved as a "perfectly rigid body".
Especially not the engineers at NIST.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
Begging the strawman.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
TFK post 692: "Nobody with any knowledge of structures thinks that the upper block behaved as a "perfectly rigid body".
Especially not the engineers at NIST. "
No kidding. And thanks for that admission.
This is exactly why we carefully look for a slightly concave or convex roof-line deformation in the earliest moments of collapse, to understand which failed first, core or south perimeter. Here is an extreme example of the perimeter failing before core in a demolition. This is a clear case of convex roofline deformation.
In the case of WTC1, we don't look for such an extreme case, but with roof-line deformation we carefully observe whether core or south perimeter failed first.
This would be detectable in a delay, even a slight one, of the core failure as the core and the rest of the building is "pulled down" by the south perimeter. This is what is meant by convex vs concave deformation for WTC1:
("hump-down" means convex, "hump-up" means concave)
When we allow for deformation, if the NIST did it's job correctly they would have at least looked for signs of one or the other type of deformation in the earliest movement and deformation.
Because they did not bother to do this, a small group of independent researchers did it for them in the form of the following list of features:
Initiation portion of the list:
Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse
Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse
Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Roof Deforms Concavely before Falling
Earliest Ejections are from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins
Tilt: Upper Portions tilt less than 1 Degree in 0.5s before Falling
West Face: All 60+ Columns W Fail Within 0.5s and 1 Degree
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
W Wall: Upper Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
W Wall: Large Piece w/ Straight Break Along Bottom
NW Corner: Upper Slides Over N face and Behind W face
NW Corner: Lower Remains Standing Below Fl 98
NE Corner: Assembly has Straight Break along Bottom
N Wall: Upper Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
E Wall: Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops
Acceleration: Early Downward Rates
88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection
77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable
You will notice multiple features consistent with core-led collapse, and basically no proof at all of south perimeter-led collapse in the list.
So far we have only looked at a few of the features on the list. As our understanding grows, we will see a rather overwhelming amount of indicators for a core -led collapse and basically squat which supports the south perimeter-led collapse on which all your famous "proof of natural collapse" rests.
One of many excellent examples we have not yet discussed is this:
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
How on earth does this happen with your famous south perimeter-led collapse and your equally famous "hinge"?
Anyone studying tilt angles like we are doing may want to note how quickly the west wall fails from south to north. Also, anyone who believes the tower "hinged" about the north wall may want to understand the timing between the west wall failure and the north wall failure.
If you do this, you will realize that your famous "hinge" is actually the mighty NW corner, not the north wall at all.
Especially not the engineers at NIST. "
No kidding. And thanks for that admission.
This is exactly why we carefully look for a slightly concave or convex roof-line deformation in the earliest moments of collapse, to understand which failed first, core or south perimeter. Here is an extreme example of the perimeter failing before core in a demolition. This is a clear case of convex roofline deformation.
In the case of WTC1, we don't look for such an extreme case, but with roof-line deformation we carefully observe whether core or south perimeter failed first.
This would be detectable in a delay, even a slight one, of the core failure as the core and the rest of the building is "pulled down" by the south perimeter. This is what is meant by convex vs concave deformation for WTC1:
("hump-down" means convex, "hump-up" means concave)
When we allow for deformation, if the NIST did it's job correctly they would have at least looked for signs of one or the other type of deformation in the earliest movement and deformation.
Because they did not bother to do this, a small group of independent researchers did it for them in the form of the following list of features:
Initiation portion of the list:
Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse
Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse
Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Roof Deforms Concavely before Falling
Earliest Ejections are from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins
Tilt: Upper Portions tilt less than 1 Degree in 0.5s before Falling
West Face: All 60+ Columns W Fail Within 0.5s and 1 Degree
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
W Wall: Upper Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
W Wall: Large Piece w/ Straight Break Along Bottom
NW Corner: Upper Slides Over N face and Behind W face
NW Corner: Lower Remains Standing Below Fl 98
NE Corner: Assembly has Straight Break along Bottom
N Wall: Upper Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
E Wall: Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops
Acceleration: Early Downward Rates
88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection
77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable
You will notice multiple features consistent with core-led collapse, and basically no proof at all of south perimeter-led collapse in the list.
So far we have only looked at a few of the features on the list. As our understanding grows, we will see a rather overwhelming amount of indicators for a core -led collapse and basically squat which supports the south perimeter-led collapse on which all your famous "proof of natural collapse" rests.
One of many excellent examples we have not yet discussed is this:
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
How on earth does this happen with your famous south perimeter-led collapse and your equally famous "hinge"?
Anyone studying tilt angles like we are doing may want to note how quickly the west wall fails from south to north. Also, anyone who believes the tower "hinged" about the north wall may want to understand the timing between the west wall failure and the north wall failure.
If you do this, you will realize that your famous "hinge" is actually the mighty NW corner, not the north wall at all.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I have to ask. How is this an "admission"?
600 posts leading to proof of zero engineering skills used by 911 truth and you.
Why include observations after initiation? To prove ignorance of models? Proof of zero engineering classes? What is your goal? How does this thread fail to support your idiotic CD claims?
An OP based on ignorance in engineering. No point, no goal, a failed attempt to support the moronic cd delusion. 9 wasted years making up nonsense. Your failure to understand 911 is reflected in your failure to use the quote button. When will you use differential equations to figure out your cd theory is an idiotic delusion? Any chance you will use any engineering junk before 9 more years pass?
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
In a thoughtful thread such as this one, where MajorTom and others are disputing peacefully regardless of position, posts such as this one by Beachnut should be labelled as spam and should violate some forum rule.