WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[twinstead]

Imagine how busy one must be to have "overturn the commonly accepted paradigm" at #3 on the "to do" list.

Hey. That garage isn't going to clean itself.

 

[tfk]

MT,

TFK post 437: "Yeah, as a matter of fact, if you had a clue about "enineering", you'd realize that real engineers often go to exactly the point of earliest failure. Because they're looking for the causes of failures, and failures spread. The late failures are the "results", and the early ones are the "causes". "

We did this for WTC1 as you recall …
blah, blah, blah...

Why do all you guys suffer from such a scorching cases of ADHD.

This thread is WTC7.
That thread is WTC1.

If you want to talk about WTC1, post it over there.

If, thru some miracle, you say something perceptive, maybe I'll respond.

In this case, past performance is a superb metric of anticipated future results. IOW, I'm expecting nothing.

Just about every one of these features were ignored by you as you still try to pimp south wall failure as the cause of collapse just as Uncle NIST claims.

You clowns have assigned yourselves the task of finding some nit wrong with the NIST report.

Do you get it?

You assigned YOURSELVES this task.

It's your task.

YOUR task.

I don't "pimp" anything.

I don't have to pimp anything.

You clowns have to … do … YOUR … job.

I actually tried to help you. I pointed out, months ago, the RIGHT way to prove your point.

Asserting that people can see things with bogus, incorrect figures & irrelevant curves is not the right way to do this.

The right way requires simple vector analysis. That involves math. Simple math. REAL math.

Not the technobabble abortion that has been offered thus far.

If you do that competently, correctly, I'll instantly agree that you're right.
As would any & all competent engineers & scientists.
But you clowns adamantly refuse to make YOUR OWN CASE competently.

After months of being told EXACTLY how to do it, after months of you refusing to do it the right way, I come to the only reasonable conclusion: you have no desire to do it the right way.

Your choice.
Your failure.

By the way, femr has already shown the earliest detectable motion ...

LMFAO.

femr makes one ludicrous assertion after another.

Technically speaking, femr couldn't find his ass with both hands if you stuck a copy of Grey's Anatomy down the back of his pants.

But I'll take that up with him. Not you.

History rewritten, can't stop to count the dead, yet you remain unashamed of your own repeated demonstrations of ignorance.

I am fully aware of the dead. And the living whose lives were forever changed.

I am not the one besmirching their memory & the honor of 1000s of people who figured out what happened.

That'd be you that are doing that.

A bunch of hapless clowns, who find YEARS to post clueless graphs & charts. But won't (& evidently can't) do the simple analysis that would make your own case.

Just exactly like the 30 or so "structural engineers" at AE911T who can't get off their collective asses to produce ONE … SINGLE … COMPETENT … PAPER.

You know, MT, it is no mystery why they adamantly refuse to do that. Even tho prodded.

The simple answer is: they can't.

Just like you.

 

[beachnut]

...
Back to your question about the denial. I would say it is some "reality driven" scepticism that the report really is what it says it is. That's all.

NIST uses models, you use talk. When will you publish this nonsense?
Your model is talk and nonsense. That's all.

What is the conclusion from your model, based on pretty much nothing but your opinion? Nothing

Reality has fire causing WTC7 to collapse you have ENRON and put options doing it. Good for you.

 

[achimspok]

achimspok, I had responded to your statement 'Btw, WTC7 did some minor damage to I think 3 other buildings several meters away.'

You were not talking about which part, or how much of WTC 7 impacted Fiterman, 'minor' referred to the damage done (an incorrect statement) to the '3 other buildings'.

You seem to either misunderstand your own statement, my point, or both, by referring to the 'minor' portion as that of WTC 7 itself.

This does not help your argument. In other words your statements are apparently meaningless in the context of the discussion. Oh well, I tried.

Is this a language/translation issue again?

Look at the Filterman! What do you think how many tons are needed to fall on top of that building to do that? What's your argument? Do you have one?
You have a problem but I cannot figure out what it is? Do you say the damage to the nearby buildings are evident for no CD or what?

 

[achimspok]

So you agree with us that the Truther claims are without merit: in fact they are 'ridiculous' as even a professional CD 'leave a bigger pile than the footprint'. Your words. I agree 100%.

But equally ridiculous is your statement that the $1.5 billion dollars of damage to the Verizon building, and the major damage to Fiterman, are somehow 'minor damage'.

Oh, I see! You are talking about the expenses caused by that "physically" minor damage in comparison to "hit directly by the building". Once again we are in the rethoric trap of your "I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING". It's boring.

 

[alienentity]

Look at the Filterman! What do you think how many tons are needed to fall on top of that building to do that? What's your argument? Do you have one?
You have a problem but I cannot figure out what it is? Do you say the damage to the nearby buildings are evident for no CD or what?

I made my argument several times: what you mischaracterize as 'minor' was in fact $1.5 billion just for the Verizon building.
And Fiterman had to be dismantled.

Maybe the word 'minor' doesn't mean what you think it means

Certainly, the fact that several buildings were damaged by WTC 7 is strong evidence against a controlled demolition, of course. Anybody can see that....well, except if they chose not to see the obvious. But Truthers argue, as I've documented, that it didn't happen that way, but instead WTC 7 fell straight into its own footprint!! hello?

Since these are the main Truther talking points, perhaps you ought to take up your questions with them. They're not my claims, nor have they ever been.

 

[achimspok]

NIST uses models, you use talk. When will you publish this nonsense?
Your model is talk and nonsense. That's all.

What is the conclusion from your model, based on pretty much nothing but your opinion? Nothing

Reality has fire causing WTC7 to collapse you have ENRON and put options doing it. Good for you.

I guess your confusion is now complete.
There was an Off Topic question about the "direct money that was made out of the tragedy" and I answered. The question was intended to show that the Truth-Trademark sells loads of books and T-shirts and got rich and fat by the big money but that's not "the money" that was made. If you like it or not.
My opinion: the money neither caused the fire nor the collapse. I hope you find sleep when night falls.

 

[beachnut]

I guess your confusion is now complete.
There was an Off Topic question about the "direct money that was made out of the tragedy" and I answered. The question was intended to show that the Truth-Trademark sells loads of books and T-shirts and got rich and fat by the big money but that's not "the money" that was made. If you like it or not.
My opinion: the money neither caused the fire nor the collapse. I hope you find sleep when night falls.

You might be the one that is confused.
Those are your conspiracies and they must be messing up your ability to apply your engineering skills to your efforts at attacking NIST. You are not a 911 truther? You brought up the idiotic claims, I thought you believed in them.

... next time explain you don't believe the idiotic claims of 911 truth. Your post makes it look like you believe in 911 truth woo. This post does not make it clear what you believe, but your failed attacks on NIST support that you believe in those failed ideas you posted. The disappeared gold is funny. I thought you believed in CD; you never have denied that as you attack NIST and fail to publish your findings; do you have findings.

 

[tfk]

Common tfk, my graphs are better than the cited LMFAO. If you look for the earliest failure then look at femr's graph. If you look for earliest sign of perimeter collapse the watch the NE corner when it (horizontally) starts to rotate outwards while the measured point start to rotated inwards.

What … idiot … cares?

When the question is "what point did NIST use to calculate their 't₀' for the VERTICAL collapse?", femr posts a laughable graph that looks at horizontal motion. And claims that the start of actual falling is irrelevant.

Laughable.
Ludicrous.
Incompetent.

But true.

And what is the end result of his nonsense? He CONFIRMS the early horizontal motion that NIST reported 5 years ago.

But still refuses to admit he's a closet truther.

Fooling nobody.

Just like you & your political agenda, that comes out every time you get agitated.

If you look for maximized perspective "distortion" under the condition of misinterpretation of "downwards" movement then look at the east edge of the louver.

Wrong.

But of no consequence.

According to your definition that collapse is "downwards" look at the fat yellow graph. That's a straight line between east and west corner.

Who cares?

How does it negate the other 10,000 pages of NCSTAR1A & 1-9?
Oh yeah. It doesn't.

Fail.

As I said before, what looks like "downwards" in 2D isn't always downwards in 3D. I know, you had a little discussion with Major Tom about the possibility of a apparent "rising" of the WTC1 top while it actually is falling.
Well, you are right. If for example the top of the tower was leaning >15° towards the Sauret camera in the north and consequently starts to tilt south then it might look like rising for a moment.

You understand nothing of what I wrote. This proves it.

Zero "pre-tilt" required in what I wrote.

You don't understand that I don't assert that any of that motion happened. You don't understand that I postulated it simply as an example of how your & femr's & MT's assertion that you can tell absolute motion from a single perspective is wrong.

You want to know a little irony? The fact is that, IF you knew what you were doing, you could get an (imprecise) idea of actual motion from a single perspective.

But you don't have a clue. And haven't shown the slightest indication that you'll figure this out any time soon.

Not "feelings". "Knowledge & experience" tell you that. Once you have done it often then you get a "nose for it".

You clowns are walking, squawking proof that this is not the case.

Well, that's the reason for the Gifs, you know. Look at this little give away gif. It's about "rising and falling".
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/716/tfkrise.gif
Let's say a north shift that nullify a south tilt from different perspectives is nonsense.
...and a little more psychology. What's your problem, Tom?
Why do you see rising when actually falling or falling when it actually goes sidways?

You guys are helpless.

I don't claim to see anything. I've pointed out how you haven't made YOUR case.

The only thing I see is a bunch of guys who are haplessly unable to make their case. Even tho the methods have been described to them in detail. Even tho any competent sophomore engineering student could do it.

Oh, yes you explained it precisely. I just would add those minor details like roof deformation and perspective shortening. Once your east point reached the house you will get a lot of trouble to track a real corresponding point (at a different scale of course) on the west side. Can you figure out what I mean? Need a little Gif?
I don't say it is impossible to track a movement that way - especially if the preciseness is something like 4 balls per second connected by a trend.
...impossible to distinguish between movement 1 and movement 2.
You are in big trouble because you have no freakin' clue what your measurement really measured.

Gibberish to English, please.

chef, my own one, studied twice, two degrees, connected both, learned something about perspective, your chauffer

Since one of my studies was "medical engineering" - how does it feel to design medical devices as structural engineer for high rises? Feels it like "I know nothing about it" in the way you argue as structural engineer or would you say that some principles are quite similar.

And, for the 10th time, you completely evade the question.
No surprise.

Unlike you, I've laid out, in exact detail, what my degree is, when & where I got it, what fields I've worked in, what my specific job was & is. Also a few of my accomplishments.

You? Nothing but evasion.
femr? Nothing but evasion.
Major Tom? Nothing but evasion.
Typical truther? Nothing but evasion.

There is precisely zero mystery why this is the case.

Engineering weeds out the incompetent. They end up in marketing, sales, management or academia.

I have 100% confidence that you're not in engineering anymore.

You know, I dont expect that you can design a tool to measure the blood pressure on the retina

You'd be 100% wrong about that.

but would you say you are able to understand the physical and medical principles?

Oh, I get by...

Otherwise don't design medical devices. You could kill someone.

My inventions have already saved 10s of thousands.

I'll stop here. Boasting to the clueless is … undignified.

 

[achimspok]

I made my argument several times: what you mischaracterize as 'minor' was in fact $1.5 billion just for the Verizon building.
And Fiterman had to be dismantled.

Maybe the word 'minor' doesn't mean what you think it means

Certainly, the fact that several buildings were damaged by WTC 7 is strong evidence against a controlled demolition, of course. Anybody can see that....well, except if they chose not to see the obvious. But Truthers argue, as I've documented, that it didn't happen that way, but instead WTC 7 fell straight into its own footprint!! hello?

Since these are the main Truther talking points, perhaps you ought to take up your questions with them. They're not my claims, nor have they ever been.

What do you think, how many tons "building" caused the 1.5 billion? Was it a sufficient part of the mass of the building? How much more vertical could a well planned and organized CD have been? How much more "in footprint" so to say? Convince me!

 

[carlitos]

Sorry, the NIST graph fell upwards.
My fell downwards. I just wanted to show the overlay.
Use the readable scale and you have all necessary information.

You could have easily run the math so that your graphs used the same scale. It's puzzling why you wouldn't even use the same x-axis alignment for something that you are quibbling with.

That said, it's the animation and the flashy stuff that is just weird. No one wants to look at animated graphs. If you have something to show and it can't be shown on one single graph, sorry. It's just not important.

BE CONCISE IN YOUR WRITING.

Failure to adhere to this simple rule of thumb is a hallmark of trutherdom.

 

[beachnut]

What do you think, how many tons "building" caused the 1.5 billion? Was it a sufficient part of the mass of the building? How much more vertical could a well planned and organized CD have been? How much more "in footprint" so to say? Convince me!

You have the CD delusion. Was it thermite or RDX? Are you too truthy to explain?

 

[achimspok]

When the question is "what point did NIST use to calculate their 't₀' for the VERTICAL collapse?"

Exactly! versus HORIZONTAL. Just a question of perspective.

What … idiot … cares?

femr posts a laughable graph that looks at horizontal motion. And claims that the start of actual falling is irrelevant.

...building starts to lean west 2 minutes in advance.
...is not the same like claiming the actual fall is irrelevant.

And what is the end result of his nonsense? He CONFIRMS the early horizontal motion that NIST reported 5 years ago.

I read about the vibration 7 seconds in advance but about some leaning 2 minutes in advance...

But still refuses to admit he's a closet truther.

Would it help you? Would it change the leaning? Would it turn horizontal into vertical?

Just like you & your political agenda, that comes out every time you get agitated.

...every time I get agitated by stupid propaganda, yes.

How does it negate the other 10,000 pages of NCSTAR1A & 1-9?

It doesn't has to.

You understand nothing of what I wrote. This proves it.
Zero "pre-tilt" required in what I wrote.

...neither in what I wrote.

You don't understand that I don't assert that any of that motion happened. You don't understand that I postulated it simply as an example of how your & femr's & MT's assertion that you can tell absolute motion from a single perspective is wrong.

I do understand that. That's why me & femr & MT sychronized and tracked about every perspective available and sychronized the data. And of course the focus is relative motion e.g. antenna in relation to ...
But I admit I didn't follow all the pages of discussion. May be I missed something.

You want to know a little irony? The fact is that, IF you knew what you were doing, you could get an (imprecise) idea of actual motion from a single perspective.

As I said before...

What … idiot … cares, right?
Btw, I tried to get the (imprecise) actual south tilt by measuring the perspectiv shortening of the antenna vs. top floors compared to the calculated expectation for pur tilting as a unit. Do you have a better idea to distinguish between fall and tilt / rigid and non-rigid from a single perspective or is it just mouthy noise?

But you don't have a clue. And haven't shown...

Not worth a comment.

 

[achimspok]

You have the CD delusion. Was it thermite or RDX? Are you too truthy to explain?

Beachnut, I'm afraid you need a doctor.
Who came up with the footprint argument?
I said the width and hight of the pile including some smaller building pieces that damaged surrounding buildingss prove nothing, do you get it? It neither proves CD nor disproves CD. ...same for totally inside the footprint and all surrounding buildings blown away. What the f***...

 

[ergo]

Certainly, the fact that several buildings were damaged by WTC 7 is strong evidence against a controlled demolition, of course.

How so? This is, of course the question I've been asking for the last two threads I've been engaged in. In what way is the collateral damage more indicative of a natural collapse?

 

[ozeco41]

...Certainly, the fact that several buildings were damaged by WTC 7 is strong evidence against a controlled demolition, of course...

Actually that is not so. What it is "strong evidence against" is a controlled demolition carried out under the normal constraints applicable to commercial and professionally executed CD's. i.e. no "collateral damage".

But those constraints do not necessarily apply if there was a CD of WTC7 as part of some conspiratorial plot.

(I don't think there was any CD but let's get the logic a bit more leakproof. )

 

[achimspok]

You could have easily run the math so that your graphs used the same scale. It's puzzling why you wouldn't even use the same x-axis alignment for something that you are quibbling with.

That said, it's the animation and the flashy stuff that is just weird. No one wants to look at animated graphs. If you have something to show and it can't be shown on one single graph, sorry. It's just not important.

BE CONCISE IN YOUR WRITING.

Failure to adhere to this simple rule of thumb is a hallmark of trutherdom.

You are right. It wasn't a result of "trutherdom" but of doing it quick.
My t0 (x axis) is a result of the used videoframes. I had to overlay and scale the NIST graphs to figure out which t0 they used. The fast flickering is also a result of forgetting to specify a slower frame rate. Sorry.

Do you see two different movements in the red velocity graph (second 1..2 / 2...)?

And this is how the trendline negate the difference between the motions even if the 1.75s dot is correct. The 1.5s dot is not correct but is exactly the trend for a single consistent motion.
The bitter pill is, obviously NIST knew about that problem because otherwise they would have trusted the 1.5s dot and "stage 2" would start when the trend reaches free fall (2s).

 

[GlennB]

The bitter pill is, obviously NIST knew about that problem because otherwise they would have trusted the 1.5s dot and "stage 2" would start when the trend reaches free fall (2s).
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2096/rottop00096.png

You don't "trust" or "distrust" a single point on such a graph. It illustrates a trend, that's all. If you checked each pair of adjacent dots you'd notice they alternate between >g and <g from 1.50s to 4.25s. The measurement technique is simply not accurate enough to avoid this, but the joy of graphs is they often enable us to smooth out such innaccuracies.

What do you believe happened at WTC7, achimspok?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's NW corner movement, as already posted in this thread...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/212241494.png

You might (not holding my breath) notice that even the NW corner is showing movement before descent of the East penthouse.

Right. So, what you were originally saying was that NIST measured the beginning of the drop from the screenwall rather than the facade, which would have meant that their time origin was too early. However, when it was pointed out that NIST in fact measured the beginning of the drop from a point on the facade behind which the prior fall of the east penthouse revealed clear sky, you then reverse your position and say that, because the building showed movement before this point, NIST's time origin was too late.

The only thing to be deduced from this is that, firstly, the assignation of a specific point in time to the beginning of the collapse, or of any phase of the collapse, is purely arbitrary, and that therefore the only rigorous approach is to specify an arbitrary point time and describe in full the methodology employed to arrive at that point, as NIST has done; and secondly, that whatever methodology NIST used, you would have chosen a different methodology and claimed that yours was the 'correct' methodology, thus generating a spurious accusation of inaccuracy against NIST.

This is not scientific analysis. This is denialist nitpicking.

Dave

 

[Sabretooth]

It's a little bit complicated because what is "directly"?
Put options? Dissappeared gold? Security contracts? Movies like "Flight 93"? End of Enron investigation? The Silverstein insurance? TV specials? Seven years of NIST engineering? The war against terror? Books about Bin Laden and the dangerous Islam? Attas 100.000$ from Pakistan? Susan Ginsburg? Halliburton and the Iraq contracts? Blackwater? Bush's second election? T-Shirts?
What the hell is directly?

You forgot to add in Richard Gage, Dwain Deets, Jesse Ventura...etc.