Care to Comment

[achimspok]

.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of a citation: What publication and page is this, and what is it a measurement of.

And since your claim was that NIST's measurements are incorrect, what specifically is wrong with this particular one?
.

Go back to my post. It's all there.

 

[TSR]

Go back to my post. It's all there.

.
Which post is that -- can you do a proper citation?

Or is this another knowing untruth from you?
.

 

[achimspok]

Oh, very well, since you asked so nicely.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934c4fbacbc9836.jpg[/qimg]

Here's a picture as it was under construction. See anything missing? That's because they haven't yet poured most of the concrete. But you can see some of it opposite the crane.

The question you should be asking yourself is, if you can be so wrong about this, what else are you wrong about? It's not like it would have been hard for you to find this information on your own. Thirty seconds would have sufficed!

That's pretty accurate. I see most of it missing and I see some of it on the opposite side. Looks like the corners of the inner structure had concrete.

Btw, 30 seconds were not enough. Even 30 minutes were not enough. I doubt I can find any information on the structure by googleing around. Is your expertise based on the linked photograph? If so then there is a question you should ask yourself.
However, I decided to write an email to the architects. We will see.

 

[achimspok]

.
Which post is that -- can you do a proper citation?

Or is this another knowing untruth from you?
.

Sorry, I though it is common sense around here to expect own researches and reading whole threads before commenting on something.
e.g. "read the thread" "read the report" "30 seconds are enough" are very usual comment all over here.

So try this:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160958&postcount=509

 

[TSR]

Sorry, I though it is common sense around here to expect own researches and reading whole threads before commenting on something.
e.g. "read the thread" "read the report" "30 seconds are enough" are very usual comment all over here.

So try this:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160958&postcount=509

.
Which refers to NCSTAR V2, 12.5.3.

Which directly contradicts your claim that they measured pixels.

Read the report and get back to me, hmmmn?

Unless you have a citation to either volume of that report which *does* support your lie?
.

 

[achimspok]

.
Which refers to NCSTAR V2, 12.5.3.

Which directly contradicts your claim that they measured pixels.

Read the report and get back to me, hmmmn?

Unless you have a citation to either volume of that report which *does* support your lie?
.

You obviously have no idea what they did, have you?
So please read the report and get back to me, hmmmn?

 

[TSR]

You obviously have no idea what they did, have you?

.
Which says they used a pixel to help make the measurement, not that they measured pixels. They also used a building in the background as a reference -- but they weren't measuring that building, either.

Thank you for making my point.

You still have not specified what specific error you find with this measurement, nor attempted to support that assertion.
.

 

[achimspok]

Psssst! Tom, are you around? Some chips while watching the brain police in it's natural habitat?

It's too funny.

 

[achimspok]

.
Which says they used a pixel to help make the measurement, not that they measured pixels.

Thank you for making my point.

What exactly is your point?

I mean, they used a video, right? Btw, it was the the same video I used.
So in your opinion I measured pixels and NIST measured what?

You still have not specified what specific error you find with this measurement, nor attempted to support that assertion.
.

I have. Should I repeat my link to my post or want you try to use the link above?

 

[TSR]

What exactly is your point?

I mean, they used a video, right? Btw, it was the the same video I used.
So in your opinion I measured pixels and NIST measured what?

I have. Should I repeat my link to my post or want you try to use the link above?

.
They used an HD video, and compared video elements based on known values for things like building height.

If you were counting pixels, then you were counting them on a far lower resolution version, and any "errors" you found can be attributed to this.

But all I see in that post as far as "error" is the assertion "However, the NIST way to measure the downwards motion without eliminating the perspective error due to south bowing is false." which you attempt to support by further asserting wrongly that video resolution doesn't matter.

This simply demonstrates that you haven't understood how NIST made the measurement.
.

 

[pgimeno]

Fine, you are right. So we have a problem to use RDX?

Indeed.

Depends on what you plan to initiate the collapse, right? So if they say no previous building damage was necessary then they probably are up to some mischief at the impact floor??? Personally I wouldn't risk the charges by some pilots failure.
Oh wait, AA11 hit the center column at 490mph almost perpendicular while banking.

We can go that direction to see where it leads, but your basement bomb theories are ridiculous.

Any source? I never dealt that much with WR.

Here's a page with that quote, including the video where it is cited from, and more sources about WR's credibility: http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/idonotsayitwasabomb.mystoryhasn'tchanged

And more on his credibility here: http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/home

What about the tourists who thought it was a subway collision? We still have the problem that all 3 express shafts are blocked by the cabins at B1. That's the level of Willy.

Remember that the plane impact must have felt like an explosion in the foundations. That explains a lot of things, including reports of people injured by the walls falling on them. Remember also that the impacts did leave traces in the seismic records.. If explosives can't do that (you say) but the plane impacts could, it's expectable that the violence of them in the foundations was really big.

That's plain stupid. You wait for long enough and the ever increasing strain on the columns will finally make the building go down.

Do they? I thought the floors had to sag for at least 3 meters in 20 minutes of fire to pull the perimeter 55 inches inwards by catenary forces. Hey, NIST did a full scale with max load and 2 hours fire.

Take a look at pages 232-238 from NCSTAR 1-6D. Regardless of the exact mechanism, it's pretty clear that something had to give way sooner or later.

 

[femr2]

They used an HD video

Incorrect. They used a 720x480 resolution copy transferred from video tape.

If you were counting pixels, then you were counting them on a far lower resolution version

Incorrect. Achimspok is using a version with similar fidelity to that I use, and similar tracing techniques.

Such have been shown to match with even the *moire* technique used by NIST providing good accuracy on +/- 1 inch movements.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6131590&postcount=260

This simply demonstrates that you haven't understood how NIST made the measurement.

Perhaps you could detail exactly how NIST acquired the roofline position data...

 

[achimspok]

.
They used an HD video, and compared video elements based on known values for things like building height.

If you were counting pixels, then you were counting them on a far lower resolution version, and any "errors" you found can be attributed to this.

But all I see in that post as far as "error" is the assertion "However, the NIST way to measure the downwards motion without eliminating the perspective error due to south bowing is false." which you attempt to support by further asserting wrongly that video resolution doesn't matter.

This simply demonstrates that you haven't understood how NIST made the measurement.
.

Sorry, you once again demonstrate that you have indeed no clue what they have done. ...or even what I have done. So if you do not understand the technique used here then maybe you understand that NIST measured the brightness of one pixel near the roof to "start" the timing.
That's a pretty strange method since a single pixel will have a lot of noise. However, the pixel above the chosen one had the brightness level 100% (sky level of brightness). That's pretty strange too because I cannot see any "burnout" of the sky.
Nevertheless, and other than stated in the report, they measured the roofline of the west penthouse.
That penthouse roof line is not just about 2 floor heights above the parapet wall but the measurement also includes the transition from the west penthouse fall to the fall of the parapet wall.

You think they did the right thing?
5, sit down!

 

[femr2]

However, the pixel above the chosen one had the brightness level 100% (sky level of brightness). That's pretty strange too because I cannot see any "burnout" of the sky.

They messed with the brightness and contrast ...

 

[achimspok]

We can go that direction to see where it leads, but your basement bomb theories are ridiculous.

Are ridiculous or seem to be ridiculous?
Imo the falling elevator/fuel theory is much more ridiculous since
- no express elevator fell into the pit
- the shafts were blocked by the cabins
- the banks were walled according to the blue prints
- the counter weights had emergency brakes
- the fuel had to fall about one minute unburnt
- the vapor had to pass the cabins
- the vapor had to reach a fuel-air ratio of about 1%
- the air temperature should be 100°F (37.4°C) what is pretty hot for a basement or lobby on a 68°F (20°C) day

Here's a page with that quote ... And more on his credibility here ...

I really don't care about Willy since he was occupied by some holocaust denier. So I deceit it's a waste of time to study that. Nevertheless, I remember more witnesses who confirmed what Willy initially stated.

Remember that the plane impact must have felt like an explosion in the foundations. That explains a lot of things, including reports of people injured by the walls falling on them. Remember also that the impacts did leave traces in the seismic records. If explosives can't do that (you say) but the plane impacts could, it's expectable that the violence of them in the foundations was really big.

It felt more like a shaking or wasn't felt in the basement at all. Comment of a witness at lobby level "the chandelier shook". After the "explosion" a few seconds later they decided to run.
But there is indeed a problem with the seismic signals.
The basement explosion 1993 wasn't measured according to Won-Young Kim (PAL)http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
but
André Rousseau: "Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of Hertz - which is the case here - while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hertz, often around 100 Hertz."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/209899-A-New-Study-of-the-Seismic-Signals-on-September-11-2001-in-New-York
The building sway was much slower than 1.4Hz but the frequency of the impact signals show a frequency of about 1.4Hz.
On the other hand, if an event generates seismic waves or not depends mostly on the contact to the ground.

Take a look at pages 232-238 from NCSTAR 1-6D. Regardless of the exact mechanism, it's pretty clear that something had to give way sooner or later.

That's right and we can just hope that the simulation is right. My questions about these images are e.g.
I cannot see any effect of load distribution from (for example) the NE corner of the core via the outriggers to the perimeter. If the outriggers were not able to distribute loads from the perimeter to the core and vice versa then how could the (hypothetically) perimeter collapse of the south face result in the tilting of the upper block? ...instead of partially collapsing in the south.
How could the SE quarter of the core reach those extreme loading conditions during the first 80min if the fire in that area wasn't observable prior to about 90 minutes? Is it because these columns are still cold?
After the impact the north face had to settle a little bit. The perimeter was relatively rigid and connected to the hat truss. Imagine the severed columns in these images as big red dots for "already overloaded". How managed the antenna to tilt first to the east and in the final moment to the south?
And finally what indeed caused the inward bowing?

 

[achimspok]

They messed with the brightness and contrast ...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/370825048.jpg[/qimg]

They probably produced a black building for the show (edge pixel 60%) because otherwise it would be obvious that they measure the west penthouse fading into whatever. What a luck that no bus crossed the view of the camera.

 

[achimspok]

Hmm, no one around who wants to answer my WTC7 questions?
...maybe a simple question in the meantime? ...a little bit off topic maybe - no, not really off topic.

FBI agent James K. Lechner has sworn in the morning of Sep 12:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit12.htm

...so the FBI decided to detain and interrogate that friend who has been taking flying lessons - Bukhari. During the 2days-interrogation in Miami the mobile phone of Bukhari rang. The FBI was connected to Alomari who tried to call his friend Bukhari.

Now the little riddle for the meantime:
How is it possible that Alomari authorized a parking space for Atta?

 

[BigAl]

Hmm, no one around who wants to answer my WTC7 questions?
...maybe a simple question in the meantime? ...a little bit off topic maybe - no, not really off topic.

FBI agent James K. Lechner has sworn in the morning of Sep 12:
[qimg]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9433/fabricatedevidence.png[/qimg]
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit12.htm

...so the FBI decided to detain and interrogate that friend who has been taking flying lessons - Bukhari. During the 2days-interrogation in Miami the mobile phone of Bukhari rang. The FBI was connected to Alomari who tried to call his friend Bukhari.

Now the little riddle for the meantime:
How is it possible that Alomari authorized a parking space for Atta?

Do you mean al Omari? He was one of the hijackers on Flight 11.

So what?

Prior to 9/11 the FBI branch offices knew lots of bits of information about the 19 hijackers that if assembled in one place might have given the FBI cause to disrupt some or all of the hijacks.

Read Spying Blind by Amy B. Zegart.

The only whistleblower to come out of 9/11 is FBI agent Coleen Rowley. In May 2002 her memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller blew the lid off and made public how FBI HQ failed to act.
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter

 

[achimspok]

Do you mean al Omari? He was one of the hijackers on Flight 11.

So what?

Prior to 9/11 the FBI branch offices knew lots of bits of information about the 19 hijackers that if assembled in one place might have given the FBI cause to disrupt some or all of the hijacks.

Read Spying Blind by Amy B. Zegart.

The only whistleblower to come out of 9/11 is FBI agent Coleen Rowley. In May 2002 her memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller blew the lid off and made public how FBI HQ failed to act.
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter

Wrong! Zero points. Anyone else?

(btw, how could one of the hijackers call the FBI 2 days after the attacks?)

 

[BigAl]

Are ridiculous or seem to be ridiculous?
Imo the falling elevator/fuel theory is much more ridiculous since
- no express elevator fell into the pit
- the shafts were blocked by the cabins
- the banks were walled according to the blue prints
- the counter weights had emergency brakes
- the fuel had to fall about one minute unburnt
- the vapor had to pass the cabins
- the vapor had to reach a fuel-air ratio of about 1%
- the air temperature should be 100°F (37.4°C) what is pretty hot for a basement or lobby on a 68°F (20°C) day

In spite of all the "must"s and "can't"s asserted by achimspok without substantiation, we know that jet fuel ran down the tower to the basement level.