WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[Sabretooth]

achimspok,

Couple of questions:

1). Are you going to discuss with me my post #174?
2). Are you going to publish your findings to the scientific community? If so, when do you plan on doing so?

 

[Myriad]

I really hope you're not going to suggest that NIST traced a diagonal, as highlighted by Achimspok earlier in this thread...
[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/304/path2.png[/qimg]

As I read the passage, it seemed clear enough to me that a point left of the screenwall (somewhere around the top of your diagonal line) was used to determine the time of the start of the measured event (the visible interval of collapse), the disappearance of all facade from the lowest visible point in the gap (at the bottom of your diagonal line) was used to mark the time of the end of the measured event, the known height of the parapet wall (at no specific position because the top of the wall was horizontal and level) was used to determine the position of the facade at the start of the event, and the known height of the lowest windows initially visible was used to mark the position of the facade at the end of the measured event.

Which of these four measurements do you claim is wrong or misleading?

The diagonal line connecting the parts of the image used to make time measurements is meaningless. Except for negligibly small light propagation delays, the time of each frame is of course uniform across the entire frame, so the timing of events can be measured from any available feature on any part of any frame.

If the video had happened to include a large running stopwatch in the frame, would you draw a diagonal line from the building facade to the second hand of the stopwatch and claim any measurement using the stopwatch was invalid on that basis?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[W.D.Clinger]

pov distance = 600m
drop distance = 37m

u = 2r*pi()

u = 3700m

3700m/37m = 100

360°/100 = 3.6°

What 45° are you talking about?

Egad. Like MajorTom, achimspok uses the word "drop" for non-vertical distances.

In the above, his 37m drop is presumably vertical, but his calculation goes on to treat that distance as an arc at some unknown angle to vertical.

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

At this point, we know tfk has more vector expertise than achimspok or MajorTom. If femr2 wishes to demonstrate his own vector expertise, he might start by explaining what's wrong with achimspok's calculation above.

 

[uke2se]

Since it's become obvious that the twoofs in this thread are simply trolling for attention, they now go on ignore. Sadly this includes femr2, who I held a bit more respect for. Him showing as much disdain for basic scientific process as he has in this thread makes him a lost cause in my book.

 

[femr2]

As I read the passage, it seemed clear enough to me that a point left of the screenwall (somewhere around the top of your diagonal line) was used to determine the time of the start of the measured event (the visible interval of collapse), the disappearance of all facade from the lowest visible point in the gap (at the bottom of your diagonal line) was used to mark the time of the end of the measured event, the known height of the parapet wall (at no specific position because the top of the wall was horizontal and level) was used to determine the position of the facade at the start of the event, and the known height of the lowest windows initially visible was used to mark the position of the facade at the end of the measured event.

No Myriad, NIST performed a full position/time trace.

Figure 12-76, as highlighted earlier in this thread...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/563913536.png

 

[carlitos]

Perhaps femr2 or someone could explain why their "proof by blurry photo" is superior to that of UFO or bigfoot proponents, JFK conspiracists and the like. Doesn't it cause some apprehension when you have to reduce an extremely complex engineering analysis to "no just look at this photo - a primary school student could understand it."

Why would I lend credence to such an argument? I am to believe that the stars of the world engineering community somehow didn't think to look at a *********** photo before publishing the NIST findings? Even if true, so what? It wouldn't change a damn thing about what happened that day.

As others have noted, reticence to share their "analysis" with the scientific community and subject it to peer review just reinforces the impression that they don't really believe their own arguments. While the truth movement is mostly dead, a truther that "proved NIST wrong" would receive some degree of fame and / or fortune. Why exert such effort for no reason? The 10 year anniversary is upcoming; why not publish now and position yourselves to be head truthy poobah for the big event?

 

[newton3376]

Since it's become obvious that the twoofs in this thread are simply trolling for attention, they now go on ignore. Sadly this includes femr2, who I held a bit more respect for. Him showing as much disdain for basic scientific process as he has in this thread makes him a lost cause in my book.

All I had to do was read the thread where femr2 was messing up conservation of momentum....that was all I needed to group him with the rest of them.

Why should I trust someone who makes such basic errors while confidently proclaiming everyone else is wrong?

I don't know how many people tried and tried to get through to him in that thread....kinda like this one actually....

 

[newton3376]

Perhaps femr2 or someone could explain why their "proof by blurry photo" is superior to that of UFO or bigfoot proponents, JFK conspiracists and the like. Doesn't it cause some apprehension when you have to reduce an extremely complex engineering analysis to "no just look at this photo - a primary school student could understand it."

Why would I lend credence to such an argument? I am to believe that the stars of the world engineering community somehow didn't think to look at a *********** photo before publishing the NIST findings? Even if true, so what? It wouldn't change a damn thing about what happened that day.

As others have noted, reticence to share their "analysis" with the scientific community and subject it to peer review just reinforces the impression that they don't really believe their own arguments. While the truth movement is mostly dead, a truther that "proved NIST wrong" would receive some degree of fame and / or fortune. Why exert such effort for no reason? The 10 year anniversary is upcoming; why not publish now and position yourselves to be head truthy poobah for the big event?

EXACTLY!

Engineer are wrong, but any "common sense" person can just look at a blurry photograph or a pulsating video clip and "see" that NIST was "wrong all along".

Thankfully the majority of people THE WORLD OVER have not fallen for such foolish arguments from the "truthers".

 

[femr2]

At this point, we know tfk has more vector expertise than achimspok or MajorTom.

Yawn.

If femr2 wishes to demonstrate his own vector expertise, he might start by explaining what's wrong with achimspok's calculation above.

Tom was referring to the vector between vertical and horizontal (southward) motion...the proportion between both. Achimspok is not. Apples and oranges. Achimspok misinterpreted what tfk meant. No big deal.

The important point, rather than begin a very tedious repetative *my vector math is better than yours* mud fight, is that those who have either participated in the recent vector/perspective discussions or are aware of the implications of such when dealing with the Cam#3 footage really should be posting how silly it is for the others here to be waving their hands around defending the NIST minor screw up.

What's the end result ? At the simplest level it simply means they started the clock a bit early.

Big deal.

Simply admit the minor NIST botch and move on to the next point.

 

[Myriad]

No Myriad, NIST performed a full position/time trace.

That does not contradict anything I said.

Any problem with the measurements showing a drop of 242 feet in 5.4 seconds, based on the two time determinations and the two position determinations described? Do you have measurements of your own that show otherwise?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[femr2]

That does not contradict anything I said.

Ye gads.

What point do you think NIST used to perform the full position/time trace Myriad ?

Any problem with the measurements showing a drop of 242 feet in 5.4 seconds, based on the two time determinations and the two position determinations described?

Of course. They started the clock a bit early. Their timin does not relate to the parapet wall roofline. It's a combo between the West penthouse descent start time and the point at which the parapet wall roofline passes their stated marker.

ETA: Oh, and of course the distance between the top of the West Penthouse and the lower marker is not 242ft.

Do you have measurements of your own that show otherwise?

Of course. Many-a graph of various drop curves for various locations on the upper section of WTC 7.

Try the numerous similar graphs from Achimspok first.

Knock off about 0.5s from the 5.4s NIST value.

 

[Sabretooth]

Try the numerous similar graphs from Achimspok first.

Knock off about 0.5s from the 5.4s NIST value.

So what?

Even if, hypothetically, you and achimspok are accurate is saying that, it's still not "free-fall"...it's about 80% (instead of 72%). BFD.

It still doesn't prove that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by anything more than 7+ hours of unfought fires.

 

[femr2]

Perhaps femr2 or someone could explain why their "proof by blurry photo" is superior to that of UFO or bigfoot proponents, JFK conspiracists and the like. Doesn't it cause some apprehension when you have to reduce an extremely complex engineering analysis to "no just look at this photo - a primary school student could understand it."

Oh, the irony.

The *problem* in hand really is little more complex than simply looking at two photo's. It's really very, very simple. Thinking it's more complicated that that simply shows either a lack of comprehension or willful ignorance.

 

[twinstead]

I have to agree with sabretooth.

BFD.

 

[femr2]

So what?

So, there you go. Another NIST botch. A stated timing about half a second askew. No big deal in isolation.

Even if, hypothetically, you and achimspok are accurate is saying that, it's still not "free-fall"...it's about 80% (instead of 60%). BFD.

I've posted numerous very accurate acceleration curve graphs for WTC 7 on this forum, and am the primary source of the data confirming over-G descent rate for the NW corner.

What is it that has confused you into thinking I'm interested in how close to freefall a 29 storey segment of the descent was ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The *problem* in hand really is little more complex than simply looking at two photo's. It's really very, very simple.

Then stop obfuscating, and just explain it simply.

What is it that has confused you into thinking I'm interested in how close to freefall a 29 storey segment of the descent was ?

If you haven't got the message across, maybe you're not explaining it very clearly.


Dave

 

[femr2]

Then stop obfuscating, and just explain it simply.

Dave

Been there, done that...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6763634&postcount=252

 

[Sabretooth]

What is it that has confused you into thinking I'm interested in how close to freefall a 29 storey segment of the descent was ?

Why are you trying to say, exactly?

...and none of your arguments have proven that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by anything more than 7+ hours of unfought fires. When are we going to address this? Or are you just more concerned that NIST was might be wrong?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The important point, rather than begin a very tedious repetative *my vector math is better than yours* mud fight,

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

If you weren't trying to start a "*my vector math is better than yours* mud fight", then what was that about?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Been there, done that...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6763634&postcount=252

OK, let me try and help. Is the following statement an accurate representation of your position?

NIST measured the instant at which the drop began by monitoring the colour change of a pixel at the roofline of the building, and measuring the instant at which its colour started to change to the colour of the sky. However, the only points they could possibly have used were points on the top of the screenwall or the West Penthouse. These began to fall into the building before the facade collapse began, so NIST's timings start too early. This means that the early stages of collapse were at a greater acceleration than NIST claimed.

Near enough?

Dave