DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
When the upper block tilted every column from the south side to the north side worked as hinge before they broke off, including the core columns. And by the way NIST never used the word hinge to describe what happened.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It would be difficult to add to Norseman's explanation. The "hinge" was not along one plane.
Last edited:
The claptrap Major Tom posts is evidence he is not using engineering. It is not news you have no clue the claptrap is nonsense. Major Tom's CD claims are fantasy. In the OP Major Tom exercises his right to show he has no clue what models are. Proof is the fact this tripe will not be published in a real engineering journal. Prove it to yourself, take Major Tom's work and submit it to a real engineering journal.
You join the Major Tom non-engineering anti-intellectual approach to spewing nonsense on 911. The questions is why the towers fell. The answer is aircraft impacts 7 to 11 times greater than Robertson's design, and fires which were not fought. This thread failed in the OP.
The OP failed out of the box. Backed with 9 years of failure, my big question is, how long will Major Tom push the CD lie?
I am only an engineer with a Masters degree, Major Tom's CD claims are nonsense. I only have to use the grade school part of my education to "see" his OP is based on nonsense. Wonder why Major Tom can't publish his SPAM in a journal? The OP is BS, and the work is a waste of time with respect to the "moronic" CD claim and more when you realize there is no goal, no math, no differential equations coming to back up the failed claims. His ideas of what model has to do and what it has to show is nonsense and you don't realize it. It is so bad there is no reason to critique past the fact it is nonsense. Go ahead take this to another engineer and get another engineering summary.
Last edited:
I'd have to add a NW corner trace to specifically answer, but downward movement is present, as-is lateral movement...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/118879224.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/238393243.png
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
When will you be submitting your paper for peer review?
A question asked and answered many times during this thread.
I have no intention of writing a paper in the forseable future.
You've been told this numerous times. Further repeated instances of the question will be highlighted as spam.
Merry Christmas.
It was well established in the discussion of Major Tom's formulas that lateral movement can appear, due to perspective, as apparent downward (or upward) movement in the absence of any significant actual downward (or upward) movement. Do you have a method of distinguishing apparent from actual movement that you haven't mentioned (or you've mentioned and I've overlooked)? Do you think distinguishing between them matters?
Respectfully,
Myriad
I'm referring to trace data direction.
Oystein was referring to the upward (increasing if y'like) trend of the antenna vertical component of the trace in the following graph (frame 800+)...
...and suggesting he'd expect to see downward (decreasing) trend in a roofline trace, which I indicated is there for the impact region.
Given that I'm referencing a region low down and in the middle of the North facade I think it's pretty reasonable to say it's highly probable that it's related to vertical movement, especially given the perspective of the Sauret footage from which the trace is taken. (You can *see* the movement, so I can easily grab a crop of the video if you need convincing, though I don't think it should really be necessary)
When I refer to lateral movement, which perhaps I should make clearer, I'm referring to horizontal component trace data from the following graph...
Again, I think it's probable that it's showing actual Eastward movement. NW Corner Norm Avg.
Of course by cross-referencing multiple viewpoint traces full 3D positional data could be determined to acceptable levels of confidence.
I may get around to producing such, and plug it in to a 3D model rotoscope overlay for visual confirmation.
For the dialogue between Oystein and myself to which you are referring, no.
Antenna trace goes *up* while impact region trace goes *down*.
One possible (and by far the most likely, in my opinion) interpretation of those traces: north wall above the impact region sags down, and the antenna leans in that direction (and toward the camera), causing its trace to go "up."
Which is consistent, in turn, with a relatively (though of course not totally) rigid upper block.
Respectfully,
Myriad
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Lol,you accusing someone else of spamming.You will never write a paper.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
ozeco41
Philosopher
So why are you here? What are you trying to achieve?
From what femr2 has said it seems to be as per the OP:
AND
And, whilst any number of us can see what possibilities may lie ahead if the finding is (say) 'core led initiation' rather than 'perimeter led', at this stage there is no acknowledged objective beyond 'determine the mechanism of collapse initiation.'
Hence my probably too obtuse comments in the third post of this thread.
So for now it is 'wait and see'.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
So why are you here? What are you trying to achieve?
No idea what he is here for.He will never write a paper because it would make real engineers wet themselves laughing.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Long may our posterity prosper.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
About the only thing interesting that's come from these blithering idiots is their confirmation of bazant's assessment that columns would have broken due to horizontal reaction shearing at about 2 degrees of tilt.
NIST referred to bazant's paper on this in their report, and so their engineers were undoubtedly aware of that assessment.
So the only thing left to debate is whether or not the dynamic duo have interpreted the wording in the report correctly or not when they state that it clearly says it tilted 8 degrees before any vertical movement begins.
We all know what the answer to that is.
NIST referred to bazant's paper on this in their report, and so their engineers were undoubtedly aware of that assessment.
So the only thing left to debate is whether or not the dynamic duo have interpreted the wording in the report correctly or not when they state that it clearly says it tilted 8 degrees before any vertical movement begins.
We all know what the answer to that is.