WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

Parachutes are for wimps. Net force = 0.

YYYYESSSSSSSS! You are my man.

 

[A W Smith]

[qimg]http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4823/2freefall.gif[/qimg]

So there.

Next.

The "units" on your graph. Do I understand that each one of your gradations only amounts to 0.841998905 of a meter?

 

[achimspok]

The most amusing part of these efforts at one-upmanship by Messrs Achimspok and Femr2 just came clear to me:

nice 3rd person talk. He's not aware that WE are around.

I just rechecked a couple of my measurements (which were done on nice hi res DV dubs in FCP and other programs btw) and looked at the collapse from the Dan Rather and Camera 3 locations.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that you accept the argument that the building was only bowing inwards (due to the collapse of the 'core', says achimspok) and was generally distorting before finally the whole exterior fell fairly straight down.

Right. Nearly. I said "vertically straight". You can see it in your DV Dan Rather clip. Let's see what else you...

When, pray, does one start counting the 'collapse' of the building, in order to yield a perfect timing for the descent? And what does the descent tell you?

Resistance or no resistance for example.
How long it took to get rid of the resistance for example.
Especially the faster than free fall stage tells books about the inner structure.

The answer to the first question is that it is arbitrary: it depends what you want to measure.

No that's a little bit too NISTy.

If you want the start of the collapse, it's impossible to do anyway, since technically it began out of sight, some time before the E Penthouse descended.

I think we first should get the words clear.
damage =/= sway =/= leaning =/= partial collapse =/= total collapse =/= free fall
Even the VERY strange free fall of the East Penthouse through the core is not equal to global collapse in a bang-and-gone manner.
Hence, we should be very clear in that. Otherwise you could state the the building virtually began to collapse before the 49th floor got ready.

So you can only guess at that, even with fancy programs like A and F use. No advantage there..

Wrong. The collapse of the east penthouse began during a sway to the west.
Strange enough. ...and a tiny nice seismic spike - two of them. Strange enough. And some deep thunder like rumble in the soundtrack - a really rare one.
Of cause, we can only guess what all that meant. Was it the beginning of the collapse may be? ...but that's off topic. Let's see how we can enhance our ability to measure without repeating the old failures since we know about them.

If you want to measure descent, then you quickly realize that the building didn't collapse all at once in the same way, but in several phases (quick phases) across the structure.
So again, you can see a different result according to what you measure.

No, you see 3 distinct parts of the core going down in quick succession at free fall. The 2nd part took the perimeter down. No different results possible without any unexpected new information.
And once again, if you - alienentity - start your timing with the first movement of the first falling part and stop your timing when the perimeter disappears behind a building then you measured ********. If your next statement is "the collapse lasted much longer than free fall" then your statement is perfectly correct in the sense of you are either an idiot or a professional liar. What do you want?

My method is pretty straightforward: you wait until the parapet wall starts to move, and that's a really fair point to start your timing of the final collapse.

Where is your point?
Where is your end?

My second video on that subject used the Camera 3 footage. Same result. Wow. That's cause I didn't start counting til things were well underway.

Where is your point?
Where is your end?
Where is your graph?

What does the descent tell you? Well, it tells you that the building was already collapsing and continued to do so. That's it.

You talk about the parapet wall?

The question of the acceleration is really not very important, since the whole thing was multiphase and progressive. The final acceleration numbers don't tell you HOW, they just measure the 'what' - as in, what was the speed of this part, or that part.

Btw, the major interest is not the final acceleration but the initial acceleration of each part so to say.

Truthers, ...

OK, everytime a sentence starts like this it's not worth a poop to read on.
Alienentity, what's the contrary of "Truther". Pin it at your mirror and exempt the world with your pseudo psychology.

 

[achimspok]

Just watched your little brain wash tool again.
1) you start the movement with the fall of "core part 2"
2) from your Dan Rather "analysis" you should know the you see a "bowing" of the wall
3) you watch the upper 18 floors (out of 49) and state "no squibs" - that's brilliant

Should I watch it to the end? No, but I will do and edit this text later if necessary.

So you repeated the failure. That doesn't make it any better.

LOL

You put the word "uniformly" in a lie to find the door if necessary. Brilliant sh**, really!

 

[JimBenArm]

Is there a point buried deep within this thread?

No.

nice 3rd person talk. He's not aware that WE are around.

Or here's a novel idea. He wasn't talking to you. Hmm.

Right. Nearly. I said "vertically straight". You can see it in your DV Dan Rather clip. Let's see what else you...

I love it when you use scientific terms like "nearly" and "vertically straight".
It makes me hot!

Resistance or no resistance for example.
How long it took to get rid of the resistance for example.
Especially the faster than free fall stage tells books about the inner structure.

Resistance is futile.

No that's a little bit too NISTy.

If you boil them with a potato in the water it will take care of that.

I think we first should get the words clear.
damage =/= sway =/= leaning =/= partial collapse =/= total collapse =/= free fall

Oh! I love this game! green=/=dancing=/=forecastle=/=relay=/=useful.

What did I win? Yay, Me!

Even the VERY strange free fall of the East Penthouse through the core is not equal to global collapse in a bang-and-gone manner.
Hence, we should be very clear in that. Otherwise you could state the the building virtually began to collapse before the 49th floor got ready.

The the building virtually began to collapse before the 49th floor got ready.
How about that? You're right! I can say that!

Wrong. The collapse of the east penthouse began during a sway to the west.
Strange enough. ...and a tiny nice seismic spike - two of them. Strange enough. And some deep thunder like rumble in the soundtrack - a really rare one.
Of cause, we can only guess what all that meant. Was it the beginning of the collapse may be? ...but that's off topic. Let's see how we can enhance our ability to measure without repeating the old failures since we know about them.

I know what it meant. Thunder? Obviously, a huge thunderstorm whipped through the area, and a tornado brought it down.

Mystery solved! Let's all go get some lunch.

No, you see 3 distinct parts of the core going down in quick succession at free fall. The 2nd part took the perimeter down. No different results possible without any unexpected new information.

So, NIST should have charged for the fall, instead of letting it be free.
I understand now!

And once again, if you - alienentity - start your timing with the first movement of the first falling part and stop your timing when the perimeter disappears behind a building then you measured ********. If your next statement is "the collapse lasted much longer than free fall" then your statement is perfectly correct in the sense of you are either an idiot or a professional liar. What do you want?

I want ice cream. You?

Where is your point?

On the end of my pencil.

Where is your end?

If you reach around in back of me when you're hugging me, it's right there, Bright Eyes.

Where is your graph?

Graph of what? Time of the collapse in furlongs/fortnight?
I thought you had the market cornered on stupid, meaningless graphs. I will not horn in on your territory.

You talk about the parapet wall?

Yes, I was walking the parapet with my secretary. >zip<

Btw, the major interest is not the final acceleration but the initial acceleration of each part so to say.

Can I get some grapes in that word salad? It's kind of hard to digest.

OK, everytime a sentence starts like this it's not worth a poop to read on.
Alienentity, what's the contrary of "Truther". Pin it at your mirror and exempt the world with your pseudo psychology.

The contrary of "truther" is sane. See how easy that was?

Now, be sure to rant and stomp your feet some more. If you hold your breath, your face turns a lovely shade of red, and it proves you're right!

Other than that, all I can say is:
What a maroon!

 

[achimspok]

(1) Learn to spell.
(2) Learn to read.
(3) Represent other people's statements accurately, or risk being called a liar.

Dave

I hardly try. Ich versuche mich zu bessern, Herr Rogers.

 

[JimBenArm]

I hardly try.

It shows.

 

[Oystein]

I hardly try. Ich versuche mich zu bessern, Herr Rogers.

War das Absicht, Herr Spok? You can't expect native speakers to know that German students of English often mix up "hard" and "hardly".
In case this slip wasn't intentional, look up both words!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<snip>

LMFAO _{(I couldn't help it, that was genuinely funny)}

 

[Sabretooth]

From what, though? What caused the core to drop?

What I'm getting at is; how does this inward bowing fit in with the theory that WTC7 did not collapse via 7+ hours of uncontrolled fires?

Obviously we share the same questions.

Hey, this is a good post! Move on!

I asked the question because I want to hear your opinion, not get a pat on the back.

So I'll ask again...if you feel the collapse of WTC7 was not caused by fires, what do you think caused the collapse?

I ask, too, because I'm not buying your argument, even with all the pretty animations. I don't see that using the parapet wall versus the screen wall omits a full 1.5 seconds. I feel like you're intentionally being deceptive. Why not show the full animation of the collapse with your time marks? Instead, you show these bouncing little flutters of movement that have no time marks and no sense they are at real-time speed.

So, go back to your little animation program and show the collapse in full, and in real-time. I'd recommend a side-by-side view...one side with your time marks from the parapet wall, the other with time marks of the screenwall.

If you want people to take you seriously, give them something to work with.

 

[achimspok]

alienentity:"...The big, relevant story about WTC 7 is the debris from WTC 1, and the fires.(The WHY) And their effect on the structure which led to failure (The HOW). That's where the serious inquiry went, as it should. The rest (how many degrees back it tilted, and what the acceleration was of various points) is footnotes and details."
'They' are entitled to fossick around in the detail....but pretending that it is the whole story is ridiculous. Yet that is what achimspok does:
achimspok:"...The mechanism of the collapse - this is what it is all about..."
...well, no, it isn't what it is all about. The mechanism of collapse is one relatively small part of a 'total picture'. That 'total picture' is about a building which collapsed as the result of accumulating damage from unfought fires.

It's a little bit off topic but just a half thruth. You say the analysis of the collapse doesn't matter? Nothing to learn here? LIE and you know it!
"...relevant story about WTC 7 is the debris from WTC 1"? LIE and you know it! Just watch the NIST sim "without damage". The gash did almost nothing to the building.
"... and the fires (The WHY)" Half truth. Accidentally all the early fires shortly after the WTC1 collapse went dead without spreading.
Accidentally two hours later huge fires at the SEC floors developed and spread through out the entire floors.
Accidentally NIST wasn't able to simulate the spreading from south to north and added little later fires in the north.
Accidentally the NIST simulation burns and burns and burns around column 79 (a small area - half office half core half fuel) while any other comparable area (full office full fuel) burns away in about 20 minutes.
Accidentally the leaked NIST report about WTC7 in the "visual evidence" chapter contradict that simulation.
Well, that's probabably a part of the WHY.

We are all aware of the not too well hidden wish of some people to add some form of 'MIHOP' human assistance into the causes of collapse. But addressing that top level question is not 'their' objective we are told.

Step by step. You will never know the result of all that combined knowledge unless you start with the conclusion and work backwards. Let's call it "doing the Beachnut Crab".

However the objective is explicit that it includes 'prove NIST wrong'.

OMG now the deep insight analysis of the motives for a correct measurement:

Well 'they' can even attempt to prove NIST wrong. I am satisfied that NIST has given a plausible explanation for the WTC7 collapse. It will not unduly perturb me if someone comes up with an alternate explanation - whether alongside NIST's version OR as a plausible alternate. But achimspok seeks to misrepresent that possibility:

...simply by a correct measurement without predefined conclusion.
WICH I SHOUD HAVE! to be NISTly scientific enough.

...well it really doesn't matter how unless your genuine objective is to study the mechanism of collapse and take it no further.

Is it some kind of "shut up what ever you will find"?
Let's study the mechanism of collapse - for the first time! ...and deceit later if any knowledge can be gained. To believe that fire did it is not enough.

But achimspok's posts make it clear he is interested in something that is so big that it qualifies as 'this is what it is all about'. Well the details of which column or beam failed first certainly don't qualify as 'this is what it is all about'.

Certainly not since the columns are already known.

The only WTC7 on 9/11 question which satisfies that criterion of 'what it is ll about' is the big question of 'demolition or not?' and the answer to that question is 'not'.

Thanks for clearing this up. Any evidence? No? OK.
What's the mechanism of a free fall onset of collapse of the middle section of the core? Any answer? In my terms 'this is what it is all about'.
If you don't know it then you know nothing about the entire collapse from the early fires to the pile.

So if achimspok wants to tackle that real big question then he should stop wasting his time in technical detail.

Once again the call for the conclusion before you start to measure.
What is it? A church or something? Are you crazy man?

There is a lot of 'no demolition' evidence awaiting rebuttal which is not in the domain of micro technical details.

The free fall of about 40 floors isn't much like a "micro technical detail".
The lack of a bang in the soundtrack IS INDEED a "micro technical detail" if you really want to talk about those "evidence" for "what is not" instead about the evidence for "what is it".

So much that no matter what this detailed technical exploration comes up with it will not shift the weight of 'no demolition' evidence.

Thanks for your conclusion and the consolatory words to the community.
What ever will be... we will resist!

I admit I have a little tear in my right eye.

 

[twinstead]

achimspok he has a point; if you think CD felled the building then you should be looking for evidence of that, otherwise this thread should be in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum.

What you appear to be doing is a God of the Gaps argument. If it doesn't work for creationists, why should it work for you?

 

[achimspok]

Next step to become a member of the church:
Tell him what he should do!

In fact, this is the root of why all this discussion is futile.

Achimspok, however much he may deny it, is trying to construct a proof that WTC7's collapse was due to means other than fire and impact damage. Now, if he were serious about doing so rigorously, here's a set of steps he might like to follow.

(1) ....

If we have no idea which effects are necessary to one hypothesis and excluded by the other, no amount of observation will ever be of value in choosing the better hypothesis.

If you have no or wrong observations then you have nothing to exclude for what ever hypothesis.

So, achimspok, by addressing (3) in greater detail - given that there is already a dataset of reasonable quality in existence - is putting the cart before the horse. Without hypotheses and prediction of specific observables, no amount of refinement of understanding the details of the dataset is of any value whatsoever in assigning causes.

In other words, come back when you have a fully formed hypothesis.

Dave

My thread. Your forum? Your internet? Your "truth"?
What is it?

"...given that there is already a dataset of reasonable quality..."
...to prove the hypothesis of the Interim Report?
Show me any real life example of free fall buckling in that dataset!

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you have no or wrong observations then you have nothing to exclude for what ever hypothesis.

You have observations but no hypothesis. Attempting to refine the observations is not the most productive way to achieve progress.

Dave

 

[achimspok]

The "units" on your graph. Do I understand that each one of your gradations only amounts to 0.841998905 of a meter?

If you want to see it through the ass of it then you are right.
The program automatically analyses the full frame and choose to split it in units. If you use the raw data then you have to deal with these units. In the process the program analyze areas around a single pixel and the developemnt in these areas over time to get the data.

 

[achimspok]

I love it when you use scientific terms like "nearly" and "vertically straight".
It makes me hot!

Cool, yesterday you came all over "bent downwards" and "5.4s" didn't you?

Resistance is futile.

It's just the thing that holds a building.

What did I win? Yay, Me!

Nothing. Was just a flop.

 

[achimspok]

War das Absicht, Herr Spok? You can't expect native speakers to know that German students of English often mix up "hard" and "hardly".
In case this slip wasn't intentional, look up both words!

Ah Danke, in der Tat! Keine Absicht. ... but it's not a question of reading or spelling, right?

 

[JimBenArm]

Cool, yesterday you came all over "bent downwards" and "5.4s" didn't you?

It's just the thing that holds a building.

Nothing. Was just a flop.

Does someone know how to translate for the humor impaired?
I'm afraid I can't speak "stupid".

 

[achimspok]

I asked the question because I want to hear your opinion, not get a pat on the back.

So I'll ask again...if you feel the collapse of WTC7 was not caused by fires, what do you think caused the collapse?

Lokk at the topic. I feel that NIST made a mistake in the interpretation of the movement and therefore a mistake in the interpretation of their measurement.
To answer your question: I'm not certain what mechanism was involved that caused such a fast collapse but I'm confident that a proper mechanism will either affirm the believed cause or not.
The NIST simulation confirms the believed mechanism of a slow buckling and an ongoing disintigration of the core. It do not confirm the measurement in question and the actual movement of the visible building parts.
So if fires caused the collapse then these fires caused a different mechanism.
If office fires cannot cause a different mechanism then we should watch out for something that can.

I ask, too, because I'm not buying your argument, even with all the pretty animations. I don't see that using the parapet wall versus the screen wall omits a full 1.5 seconds.

It do not omit anything. NIST measured the transition between 3 different movements and thought it was just one.
They measured the fall of the screenwall + the bowing sidways of the parapet + the fall of the parapet and interpreted the entire dataset as downwards movement of the parapet. ...a failure at least in my opinion.

I feel like you're intentionally being deceptive. Why not show the full animation of the collapse with your time marks?

But I do. I show you the precise measurement of the entire movement of several floors. How is a set of curves "intentionally deceptive"?

Instead, you show these bouncing little flutters of movement that have no time marks and no sense they are at real-time speed.

These "bouncing little flutters" (I guess you talk about the little 3D animation) is neither real time nor accurate in the movement.
The entire purpose of these animations is to show the effect of that movement on the appearance for the vantage point of camera 3.

So, go back to your little animation program and show the collapse in full, and in real-time.

For what purpose? Since you know the kind of movement you are watching you simply can watch the original videos. It wouldn't help anything to animate it in my little animation program, right?

I'd recommend a side-by-side view...one side with your time marks from the parapet wall, the other with time marks of the screenwall.

If you want people to take you seriously, give them something to work with.

May be this might help. Here you see the tracked points for the measurements I gave.

Watch the highest tracking point. You clearly see the moment when it started to move with all the points below. Thats the moment when that point really starts to catch the movement of the parapet instead of the movement of the screenwall.

 

[achimspok]

achimspok he has a point; if you think CD felled the building then you should be looking for evidence of that, otherwise this thread should be in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum.

What you appear to be doing is a God of the Gaps argument. If it doesn't work for creationists, why should it work for you?

Nonsense.