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

[Major_Tom]

WDC, I totally agree. That section was just a "place holder" for a better argument. I offer no excuse, the small section expresses an idea very loosely, as if they are just notes to myself.

You will probably ask, how did that get mixed with your other arguments? Again I give no excuse. I deal with many issues all on my own free time and sometimes informal notes act as "place holders" within a more formal argument.

I also generally issue a disclaimer: Check all work yourself (as you have done)


Anyway, here is a better argument:

Here we see the fixed relations which each point on the rigid body must undergo over the first 3 degrees as seen from the Sauret projection. Someone with better graphics arts skills than me (like femr) can actually show the exact relations for each point over a continuously changing angle from 0 to 3 degrees. It can be seen in a totally graphic way with no algebra.

A better argument for movement over the first 3 degrees would be based on physics, for example...

bold means vector...w means "omega" (can't do greek letters on the keyboard), the conventional term for angular velocity.

We know that the velocity of each point on a rigid body undoergoing rotation about an axis is

v = wxr

where r is the position vector from the axis of rotation to any point you wish. (w is a vector parallel with the axis of rotation)


We know the trajectory of each point for a rigid body undergoing rotation about an axis with certainty. It's most mathematically precise form (I believe) is in the form of a vector cross product.

Why didn't I express it this way before? Because, quite honestly, I didn't think the large majority of the readers would know what a freakin' cross product is.

You are a much better proof-reader and I have no doubt you know what a vector cross product is. I know it is not advanced stuff, but that is the way it is...really.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anyway, we know there is a fixed relation between the movement of points in the case of rigid rotation. I am showing with mathematical certainty that that these fixed relations were not held.

Why would I care? I am not "anal" about deformity vs rigidity. I am more interested in how it deforms (and it is not what the NIST told you). It deforms concavely along the roof.


Back to your criticism, you are correct that that small part of the argument was expressed in a way that is sloppy and informal, but after I reformulate the argument, I will still be correct.

Anyone can think of what the v=wxr fixed relations means for pure rotational motion. (Think about it: I am trying to express these ideas to an audience that may not know basic vector operations. Vectors are the natural language of rigid rotation)

Anyone can see they are not obeyed. Anyone can measure the type of deformation from drop curves.


I'll replace that part with a much better argument in the next few days. Again, when I express it better, I will still win the argument. Deformity is a certainty. You can see it in the graphs and the visuals. Ain't no doubt about it.

And I also wrote "C" incorrectly in the link. It should read something like:


for b(s)-r(s)... C= sqrt[(b-r)*(b-r)]


and the same for a(s)-b(s).

 

[Major_Tom]

Reactor Drone, as I mentioned many times, many element of the drop data have no meaning after the NW corner fails.

For 19 pages I have seen people over-estimate tilt by remaining clueless when the initial failure sequence terminates.


Same old song. 19 pages of over-estimating tilt angles over the initial column failure sequence.

At least you are duplicating the NIST work correctly.

 

[dafydd]

Reactor Drone, as I mentioned many times, many element of the drop data have no meaning after the NW corner fails.

For 19 pages I have seen people over-estimate tilt by remaining clueless when the initial failure sequence terminates.


Same old song. 19 pages of over-estimating tilt angles over the initial column failure sequence.

At least you are duplicating the NIST work correctly.

Why does the tilt matter? This is the 911 conspiracy forum.Are you propounding a conspiracy theory? Signed,Puzzled in Belgium.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

WDC, I totally agree.

Thank you. That saves time.

bold means vector...w means "omega" (can't do greek letters on the keyboard), the conventional term for angular velocity.

ω

As a workaround, while waiting to get your keyboard fixed, you can copy and paste the ω above.

I'd suggest you learn LaTeX, but that's even more complicated than quote tags.

We know that the velocity of each point on a rigid body undoergoing rotation about an axis is

v = wxr

v = ω × r

Why didn't I express it this way before? Because, quite honestly, I didn't think the large majority of the readers would know what a freakin' cross product is.

Disrespect for readers is no excuse for lying to them, but it often happens that way.

Anyway, we know there is a fixed relation between the movement of points in the case of rigid rotation.

True, and there's something to be said for stating that relationship correctly.

I am showing with mathematical certainty that that these fixed relations were not held.

I must have overlooked that.

Why would I care? I am not "anal" about deformity vs rigidity. I am more interested in how it deforms (and it is not what the NIST told you). It deforms concavely along the roof.

I care even less than you.

Back to your criticism, you are correct that that small part of the argument was expressed in a way that is sloppy and informal, but after I reformulate the argument, I will still be correct.

There's always a first time.

I'll replace that part with a much better argument in the next few days. Again, when I express it better, I will still win the argument. Deformity is a certainty. You can see it in the graphs and the visuals. Ain't no doubt about it.

What difference would it make?

Beginning with post #6 on 27 October, femr2 has been urging all of us to examine your list of 40 features and to decide which ones we agree with. That's a lot of work, especially when you and femr2 have all but declared you have absolutely no point to make.

Life is already too short. The sensible thing to do is to ignore your thread entirely. The second most sensible thing to do is to spot-check your work, as tfk did in post #383 and as many others of us have done with details related to our own individual areas of expertise. If our spot-checking exposes errors, as it has, we have even less reason to pay attention to your claims.

That's remarkable, because you had given us zero reason to pay attention to your claims even before we began the spot-checking.

And I also wrote "C" incorrectly in the link. It should read something like:

for b(s)-r(s)... C= sqrt[(b-r)*(b-r)]

and the same for a(s)-b(s).

I think you want an inner product there:

C = sqrt[(b - r) ∙ (b - r)]

More simply:

C = ∣∣ b - r ∣∣

Even with that correction, I believe you're still twelve degrees off plumb.

 

[Major_Tom]

I wrote: "I am showing with mathematical certainty that that these fixed relations were not held. "

WCD responds, post 744: "I must have overlooked that."

How could you overlook that and understand any of what I wrote or why I wrote it?

The title of the sections under discussion:

Measuring Concave Roof Deformity Using Drop Curves
Measuring Concave Roof Deformity Using Vectors

Can everyone see from the titles that the purpose of each section is to show roofline deformity, and to show that it is concave, not convex?


WCD, do you know why the discovery of early concave roofline deformity is important?

To make a long story short, in the introductions of each NIST report they clearly state their mission as:

"The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the
aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;"

Mission #1 on the list is pasted above. Their chief aim.


The early deformities discovered means you can take the bulky sections of the NIST roports covering WTC1 and toss them in the garbage.

(and to save time we can toss the Bazant and Verdure, Bazant and Le and the bulk of Bazant, Le Greening and Benson into the same garbage bin, too.)


WDC: "That's remarkable, because you had given us zero reason to pay attention to your claims even before we began the spot-checking."

Written by a guy that couldn't figure out why I entitiled the section under discussion "Measuring Concave Roof Deformity".


So WDC, if you have no problem with us tossing out the literature mentioned above, then yes, measuring concave roof-line deformity is not worth paying attention to.

If you want to defend the mentioned literature, then you have a big problem. That is what some people in the thread were trying to do. Your inability to understand why early concave roof-line deformity is important explains your boredom with the thread.

I'd be bored too if I couldn't follow that.


Are you starting to understand after 19 pages?


WDC: "Even with that correction, I believe you're still twelve degrees off plumb. "

Actually 13.8 degrees. We are looking from the Sauret projection. Why on earth are only plumb viewpoints important to you?

 

[tfk]

MT,

And around, and around, and around we go...

A couple of points regarding your new "diagrams & geometric relations".

1.
Call me silly but ...

… assuming, a priori, the nature of the axis of rotation (i.e., "a fixed pivot"), the location of the axis of rotation ("the north wall of the 98th floor"), the alignment of the axis of rotation ("horizontal, aligned with the north wall of the building") and the stability of the axis of rotation ("doesn't move during some undefined amount of upper block rotation") seems, well, silly to me.

These assumptions seem especially silly when these features of the axis of rotation make up a cornerstone of your subsequent geometric analysis.

And they seem triply silly when all of those features of the axis of rotation can be easily derived from trivial kinematics once you know the real 3D motion of the upper block.

Which you can get from a simple analysis of the real 3D motion of several points on the upper block. Which, if you stopped being so contrarian & stubborn, you could easily get by using multiple viewpoints taken from multiple videos & a little math.

The irony...
___

2.
BTW, if I understood a point that I believe you made earlier, (that "the points along the north wall collapsed before the northeast corner did"), then this point (if true) directly contradicts your new assumption that the axis of rotation is aligned with the north wall.
___

3.
The Sauret lines of sight originate from a point, and are not parallel, as shown on your (not to scale) "sauret relations" page gif. That point may be far enough away that you can consider them parallel, without too much error, but you'd do better to prove it, rather than leave it an unstated (and fundamentally wrong) assertion.
___

4.
Finally, you repeatedly make the assumption that you can compress 3D positions, rotations & translations into a 2D plane aligned with the building, because it makes the trig easier to calculate & the diagrams easier to draw.

To the exact extent that 1) the video viewpoints are not aligned within this plane (Sauret is close, the others aren't) & 2) the upper block tilt axis is not perpendicular to that plane, your answers will be wrong.

Just thought you should know…

tk

PS. I found your asertion that, because you can't figure out how to distinguish translation from rotation given multiple views of the towers, we should "throw Bazant's and NIST's analyses in the garbage bin" to be ... well, let's just go with the adjective "amusing".

 

[BasqueArch]

………<snip>

WCD, do you know why the discovery of early concave roofline deformity is important?

Because it contradicts your sub-pixel graph that shows that the antenna rising, not falling?

The early deformities discovered means you can take the bulky sections of the NIST roports covering WTC1 and toss them in the garbage.

You mean the bulky sections you didn’t read or understand? Like the hundreds of references to columns displacements described and calculated ? The differential displacements among core columns and among perimeter columns and core columns?

(and to save time we can toss the Bazant and Verdure, Bazant and Le and the bulk of Bazant, Le Greening and Benson into the same garbage bin, too.)

You mean you have changed your OOS mind that the Towers should have gravity-only collapsed? Have you forgotten that your initiating fictitious CD trigger is in NIST's scope not Bazant's?

“It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied.” -Bazant

 

[Reactor drone]

Reactor Drone, as I mentioned many times, many element of the drop data have no meaning after the NW corner fails.

For 19 pages I have seen people over-estimate tilt by remaining clueless when the initial failure sequence terminates.


Same old song. 19 pages of over-estimating tilt angles over the initial column failure sequence.

At least you are duplicating the NIST work correctly.

All of the points line up before your frame 224 "drop point" as well. This is your data, data which you claim shows the antenna falling into the building by 2ft before any building movement. You claim the predicted drops due to rigid rotation do not match the measured drops but every predicted drop of the antenna is matched by the predicted foreshortening of the antenna. For any given angle or fraction of an angle your measured data is, at most, about an inch off the prediction if it was a perfectly rigid body rotating about the north wall.

Regardless of where you decide to place your failure point on that timeline your data shows a rigid body rotation.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I wrote: "I am showing with mathematical certainty that that these fixed relations were not held. "

WCD responds, post 744: "I must have overlooked that."

How could you overlook that and understand any of what I wrote or why I wrote it?

I must have overlooked the smilies necessary for you to understand the technical content of my posts. I'll try to do better.


Omitting irony, here is what happens when I hear a technobabbler speak of his "mathematical certainty":

So WDC, if you have no problem with us tossing out the literature mentioned above,

I have absolutely no problem with people purging their personal libraries of things they can't or don't want to read. In fact, I applaud the humility and self-knowledge it takes to say "Gosh darn it, I'm never going to want to understand this stuff."

If you want to defend the mentioned literature, then you have a big problem.

Anonymous incompetence poses no threat to the research literature on structural engineering.

Some time ago, I noted that one of the numbered equations in [Bažant and Verdure 2007] is obviously incorrect. I don't see anything wrong with the equations you've been attacking in another thread, which appear to be correct under the assumptions of the model. That leads me to think you should have been attacking that model instead of those equations. What's more, your failure to spot the obvious error, combined with your evident desire to attack the paper, leads me to suspect you may be even less competent than I to judge Bažant's papers.

WDC: "Even with that correction, I believe you're still twelve degrees off plumb. "

Actually 13.8 degrees. We are looking from the Sauret projection. Why on earth are only plumb viewpoints important to you?

Mostly because I enjoy the pun, but also because I enjoy your continuing failure to recognize the distinction between viewer-dependent projections and viewer-independent geometry.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mostly because I enjoy the pun, but also because I enjoy your continuing failure to recognize the distinction between viewer-dependent projections and viewer-independent geometry.

Just so we're clear... I haven't been following Major Tom for quite some time...

... but he's now arguing that the alleged eight degree tilt didn't happen, because when he looks at it from twelve degrees askew it doesn't look like it happens?

"That picture frame's perfectly level," said the one-legged man. "You're all crazy."

Amazing stuff.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I only glanced over the most recent exchange anbd don't claim to get the fine details and trace every variable and every algebra step.

But, if I may venture a guess...

It's still this thing about points along the antenna not being on the same plane as points on the north face, right?

Right. That's why the formula for r(θ) is missing the s₂sin θ term, which is why the proportionalities that Major_Tom has claimed until recently cannot possibly be.

To be fair, Major_Tom says he "will still be correct" after he rewrites the incorrect parts of his presentation.

Just so we're clear... I haven't been following Major Tom for quite some time...

... but he's now arguing that the alleged eight degree tilt didn't happen, because when he looks at it from twelve degrees askew it doesn't look like it happens?

"That picture frame's perfectly level," said the one-legged man. "You're all crazy."

Amazing stuff.

His argument is almost that bad, but not quite.

You're right about his insistence upon performing all measurements and calculations within a coordinate frame that's 13.8 degrees (he had been saying 12 degrees) off plumb. He also disregards video from other viewpoints, using them only as sanity checks. Some of his other mistakes are identified in the recent posts by tfk, BasqueArch, and Reactor drone. In short, his entire approach is fundamentally unsound.

There's nothing fundamentally unsound about using a ridiculous coordinate frame for all calculations, and he does calculate the tilt by subtracting the tilt of his coordinate frame from the total rotation he believes he has calculated. The problem with using a ridiculous coordinate frame is that it makes calculations more complex, and he's been having a lot of trouble with that added complexity. His ridiculous coordinate frame has contributed to his mistakes and has discouraged him from correlating his data with data obtained from other sources.

I'd like to expand on something I wrote yesterday:

Anonymous incompetence poses no threat to the research literature on structural engineering.

Competent corrections also pose no threat to the research literature. In fact, they strengthen it.

If Major_Tom (or anybody) can identify significant errors in the NIST reports or in Bažant's papers, and can bring those errors to the attention of the profession, that will strengthen the profession.

I don't see much chance of that. Judged by my own spot-checking, and from spot-checking by JREF members who have earned my trust by demonstrating competence, Major_Tom's errors dwarf the significance of the errors he has been alleging. When these errors have been pointed out to him, Major_Tom generally (though not always) denies the error. Even when he admits the error, he insists his errors make no difference, that he's "still correct". He seems to care more about winning arguments than getting his argument right.

Even if Major_Tom and/or femr2 were able to repair their calculations and to identify significant errors by NIST or Bažant that have heretofore gone unrecognized, their declared intention not to write a paper all but guarantees their efforts will have no influence. The only way their work could possibly matter is for them to convince some competent person who's willing to write the necessary paper(s) and to take the credit.

 

[Oystein]

So? What would that prove? Take pity on a confused layman,the two non-engineers will not explain their motives.

Not sure why you are asking me, and what... so here is a straight answer:
It would "prove" (better word: mean) that it doesn't suffice to project 3D movement to 2D or even 1D to determine true movement, and that projected movements of all points involved will not be proportional or linear when the assembly rotates.
Something like that.

But argument has progressed somewhat - M_T has admitted that he was less than exact with his claims.

 

[carlitos]

I'd suggest you learn LaTeX, but that's even more complicated than quote tags.

lulz

 

[ergo]

If Major_Tom (or anybody) can identify significant errors in the NIST reports or in Bažant's papers, and can bring those errors to the attention of the profession, that will strengthen the profession.

I don't see much chance of that.

Um, 1,400 professionals already have, and are, bringing it to the attention of their peers. That's why this number continues to get larger.

 

[twinstead]

Um, 1,400 professionals already have, and are, bringing it to the attention of their peers. That's why this number continues to get larger.

That list of 1,400 professionals is dubious at best. Even if ALL 1,400 are true professional with relevant qualifications--which as you know isn't the case, why if this is such a slam dunk does your "movement" have so much trouble after so many years getting even a tiny minority of them to "come on board"?

Dude. This Pulitzer Prize material. This is Nobel Peace Prize material. This is Presidential Medal of Freedom material. What the hell? Where are these supporters?

 

[A W Smith]

Um, 1,400 professionals already have, and are, bringing it to the attention of their peers. That's why this number continues to get larger.

no they haven't, there's no peer reviewed paper and all but a handful of the "1,400 professionals" have done nothing more than sign up and post a profile and singular comment, if that. Except for dropping cardboard boxes they have not shown their work.

 

[ergo]

Lol. The peer review is the rejection of the official Coincidence Theory arguments. 1400 (and counting) architects and engineers reject it. They have publicly stated their professional objections to it. That is the whole point of Gage's campaign. That is what peer review is. It is important for professionals to reject quackery that is attempting to masquerade as expertise.

Apologies for the thread drift.

 

[Oystein]

...They have publicly stated their professional objections to it...

Nor really. They have abused their supposed professional authority to beef up personal objections. 99% of them have never, as far as we can know, put a single hour's worth of professional effort into checking the lies and distortions spewed by Gage e.al.

Everyone of the 1400 knows where relevant professional debate takes place: In the relevant scientific journals of their respective professions.

Every one of the 1400 has, in principle, the required qualifications to publish their professional objections where it matters: in peer-reviewed professional journals.

Every one of the 1400 knows, in principle, that filling out a form on an internet page is not the way professional objections are raised.

1400 professionals could have published 1400 papers in the scientific journals of their professions. 0 did in fact publish thusly.


I rest my case.

 

[newton3376]

Lol. The peer review is the rejection of the official Coincidence Theory arguments. 1400 (and counting) architects and engineers reject it. They have publicly stated their professional objections to it. That is the whole point of Gage's campaign. That is what peer review is. It is important for professionals to reject quackery that is attempting to masquerade as expertise.

Apologies for the thread drift.

Actually that is not true...

Many of the people who signed the petition did not leave any comments about 9/11. So beyond signing a petition we have no idea what they believe.

We have no idea if the ones who signed have now changed their position after conducting further research....

Not to mention the fact that many of the comments, from those who actually wrote comments, amount to no more then "I don't believe the official story because the fall didn't "look" right to me" or "I saw a 9/11 truther video and now I am convinced"....that is hardly in depth research fitting for ANY kind of Engineer.

No one in the real world cares about Gage and his moronic petition...sorry to give you the bad news, but no one cares LOL.

 

[ergo]

Yes, I can really tell you don't care.