The most important measurements and observables were done by NIST engineers and analyzed by them with tools you and femr2 are unaware of. Their 10s of thousands of reviewed records and analysis from construction documents to final collapse swamp yours.
By the time your late simplistic observables and femr2’s “noisy” pixilated inconsequential obsession begins, the party had been over, the Towers ran out of sufficient strength to resist accumulating unsupportable shifting loads.
NIST knew , especially towards the end that the buildings continually deformed as the loads shifted. Your attention to, for experienced engineers, pointless measurements do not reverse their conclusion that fire and damage collapsed the buildings. The building codes I and structural engineers work with have been revised with stronger fireproofing and stronger structural connections requirements directly due to the NIST 9/11 investigation and their recommendations.
Because you are not a structural engineer you don’t understand how pointless your obsession with your measurements and observables are. Nor do you understand why ROOSD and the Seven Sisters would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision. You will not understand why the engineers will never reverse their conclusion that fire and damage brought down the Towers.
As Beachnut noted, you and femr2 could have received by now an engineering degree, instead of squandering these thousands of hours in obscure inconsequential web sites.
In the real world where things get done, all your (and femr2’s) vainglorious claims are unconvincing, pointless and inconsequential. Sorry.
So stuff like measurables and observables are pretty pointless in the "real world"?
Basically, you have faith that the NIST measured and recorded the early movement of WTC1, for example, better than in the feature list does, but kept the measurements secret?
They really know about early antenna movement, and the pull-in of the NW corner, and the earliest visible ejection from the 95th floor but didn't mention them to us novices? They knew the early tilt angles over which all columns failed but didn't think it was important to us novices?
When the NIST claims of WTC1 early motion and the WTC1 collapse initiation mechanism are tested against the observables and measurables we can all verify from the outside of the building, their claims prove to be untrue.
How do you personally test NIST claims for accuracy if you do not require any accurate measurements of early motion?
......................................
Isn't it kind of important to extract the following basic information from video??
1) Where were the first signs of over-pressurization leading into the collapse initiation sequence?
2) What part of each building moved the earliest leading into the visible collapse initiation sequence?
3) How long before the first signs of visible movements can we detect any type of creeping or swaying? (How far back can we take the collapse initiaton data and detect movement?)
4) What are the most accurate logs of trajectories of early movement of each building available in the public domain? How did each building move leading into and during the collapse initiation sequence?
These are fundamental questions that the NIST should know, wouldn't you think? After discussing the buildings so much, the regular posters should be able to successfully extract these basic clues from the available video.
In the case of WTC1, the NIST claims concerning each of these basic questions is provably incorrect.
And as for the JREF regulars, there in nobody posting that can answer these basic questions correctly.
