Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
So now, are you confident enough to take it to NIST and will you let us know how that worked out?
So now, are you confident enough to take it to NIST and will you let us know how that worked out?
Of course! It was such a sincere atmosphere. It's a must.
What do you think, is the Alomari passport fraud a topic for this sub-forum or should I take it to the FBI directly?
Last edited:
And the point was?
Last edited:
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
Gee, imagine that, it's a skeptics forum, and they wonder why they are running into skepticism of their wild claims...
These 911 cult drones aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, that's for sure.
These 911 cult drones aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, that's for sure.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
Hmmmm. now there's a toughie.
Should i believe NIST and the thousands of relevant experts and professionals they consulted...
Or some anonymous rude kid online that rants and raves, acts arrogant and insults everyone...
Which one has far more credibility, geeee, i wonder...
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I'll tackle this one first: You are making an assumption (and generally you know how these turn out
) about the point NIST picked. First, you don't really know, you're simply guessing.Second, what they say is actually 'To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video'
If you simply follow the parapet wall E of the screenwall, you'll see that there is a gap before the E Penthouse. That's near the centre of the roofline, and would serve their purpose.
You don't know that this zone wasn't the one they chose. You're simply interpreting a statement without looking at their actual work, in fact.
So I would say, you're very likely just making a simple semantic error.
That's the first point dealt with. Talk to NIST for more info.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
You and NIST could both easily be making errors for the same reasons; that the exact vertical and horizontal movements are probably impossible to determine with 100% accuracy.
Not that either issue is terribly important, because they aren't, IMHO, but if one really wants to drill down on those issues then you must realize that you cannot know either thing with great certainty.
I thought of this problem yesterday, due to your bringing it up (and Femr2 also). Can you show how much vertical displacement took place during phase 1? It wasn't zero, since the very physical motion of bowing inward, tilting back (as you can see from the camera 3 view) towards the middle of the building will inevitably result in some downward motion.
In other words, the parapet wall and the areas directly below, about midway along the building, were being pulled inward and down at the same time.
I'm sure of that, although I can't tell you exactly how much of one or the other element you have at any given moment. But I don't think you can either.
In either case, by about .5s in, the thing is moving down quite obviously.
Keep in mind I really don't think this minutia is that important in understanding how and why the building collapsed.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I agree to the extent that there was already an internal collapse beginning several seconds before the W PH fell, and shortly after the NW corner.
This is nothing surprising, since structure was already accelerating in a rather chaotic fashion.
I believe NIST has stated that the randomness of the processes does not allow a model to mimic every aspect of the actual collapse, but only provides a demonstration HOW it could happen.
I suppose you could run the sim many times, perhaps tweak a few minor details, in order to mimic the exact appearance of the collapse.
This serves little purpose though, at the -then- cost of doing that, versus what you could hope to learn.
You would have already proved, dozens of times (it would be severe overkill) that the building was capable of collapsing due to those conditions.
NIST also provided an engineering explanation with far more detail than you have done which clarifies this process of acceleration. I'll dig it up, since I've saved it somewhere.
Where is your calculation of the horizontal & vertical motion components?
If the absolute displacement vector is 45° or more (where 0°= horizontal & 90° = vertical), then you'd be wrong.
But, assuming that the vector is < 45°, so what? What aspect of the NIST conclusion do you claim this earth-shaking revelation would invalidate? Why?
No they did not.
You're just so anxious to find some "gotcha" that you've become illiterate.
What evidence do you think you have that shows that they did not do EXACTLY what they said that they did in NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 600 & 601?
Possibly. Not necessarily, but possibly.
So what?
Because peer-review, scratch that … Make it "informed review" will point out the vapid nature of your "discoveries".
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
OK, here are the relevant quotes for you achimspok:
'From NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2, pp 599 - 600
'12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation
Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.'
'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:
The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.
And on p 606
'As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior columns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.''
'From NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2, pp 599 - 600
'12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation
Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.'
'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:
The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.
And on p 606
'As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior columns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.''
femr2 said:
Okay
No. A simple deducement, determined by cross-referencing the information NIST themselves provide.You are making an assumption (and generally you know how these turn out
I really hope you're not going to suggest that NIST traced a diagonal, as highlighted by Achimspok earlier in this thread...
Oh dear, you are. Add to that that there is traceble movement there long before release and you're digging the hole even deeper.
You're *defending* NISTs method for what reason exactly ?
What is it that makes you think it's a big deal ? It's pretty poor on their part, but it's pretty clear what they did. Here y'are...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/563913536.png
(And you know how fine a tooth-comb I've run through the NIST tracing methods
)It's such a simple point that it's becoming increasingly funny at how many of you NISTians are frothing at the mouth defending them, but, hey, I have the physical video they used, and so might even give you traces of the points in question, comparing them 12 fig 12-75.
You can then stop waving your hands around.
Yes, I do, as otherwise they'd be attempting to trace along a diagonal, and their methods don't work that way.
In fact, you couldn't be more wrong. You already know the amount of fine-checking of the NIST trace methods I have performed, so you are either very forgetful, or full of crap.
You'd be, surprise, surprise, wrong.
Incorrect.
No need. The point they traced was on the top of the West Penthouse. End of.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Sounds like it's time to send a question to NIST, then. After all, the only people who can really comment with authority on the methods used are the people who actually used them.
Dave
Dave
femr2 said:
LOL. Word salad.
1) Of course it is impossible to determine exact movement with 100% accuracy
2) NIST didn't bother to check.
3) Cross referencing between different views allows the movement to be clarified. Read the OP.
Initial movement at said location is primarily non-vertical.
It doesn't make a huge difference to some numbers NIST then derived from their dodgy trace, but that doesn't stop it being wrong.
Then perhaps you should invest some time before making inept responses.
The NIST phasing is nonsense. Pathetic over-simplification.
And the answer is, IF using a point in the center of the North Face roofline (NOT the penthouse roof)...NO ! That's the point, it's minimal. It's primarily non-vertical motion, as can be clarified by cross-referencing to the Dan Rather footage. The large apparent motion from the Cam#3 viewpoint is *missing*
from the Dan Rather viewpoint.It's not rocket science you know.
Displacement traces of numerous other points, sure. You can start with my Dan Rather trace data. Several points there for you. No real need to perform perspective correction, as 'tis minimal.
femr2 said:
It's not clear where you are placing timing of NW corner release here, but...
The point is that there has to be connection to that descending mass, or there's nothing to accelerate the NW corner over-G.
Okey dokey.
Aha !
Mister brand new expert in vector-based motion. Purlease Tom. Your bow is becoming strung with so many faux strings, that I'd have to call it a scarf Without getting pedantic about your terminology, sure.
Who said it was earth shattering ? It adds inacuracy to their descent data as you surely know. You already know how far from actual their descent traces are and have even posted my data around town to make the point
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/563913536.png
Last edited by a moderator:
Never gonna happen! This is all about the attention, not the truth. Which is why they left Gregory U's forum. Not enough people to argue minutia with.
Continue...
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The more I see that pulsating kink clip the more screwed-up it looks.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Yeah.
If the twoofs here are correct, and free fall began earlier than NIST has stated, then it validates the engineering principles behind Newton's Bit showing how it's more likely than not that columns would break at the connections before they even bend.
And it also shows that when NIST says that once the ext collapse begins, the FEA is increasingly inaccurate, to also be true.
IOW, further validation of zero intervention from man is needed to see the details that twoofs whine about.