Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[femr2]

Can you provide links to the raw videos you used to form your claims.

Video references are included for each OP point in place.

 

[beachnut]

... Any model of the collapse initiation sequence must match the visual record, just as any collapse progression model must match all observables. The OOS collapse propagation model was based on a handful of features from this list.

Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).

It is sad, each time you attack NIST, you expose your ignorance of models and your lack of engineering skills.

Your OP proves there was a gravity collapse, cause by impacts and fire. Is that what you were shooting for? A goal?

 

[fess]

fess, here is the hat truss. The antenna sits on that base. You think just a couple of inner columns can make the antenna sag 2 ft?

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/hat_truss_system.gif[/qimg]

I am well aware of what the hat-truss was designed to do besides carrying the weight of the antenna.

Are you trying to convince me that as the inner core columns started to lose their structural stability, the structural integrity of the hat-truss would not be affected? Especially in considering the amount of stress that was placed on the hat-truss assembly after the impact.

 

[Major_Tom]

Video sources: Most trace data taken from the following 3 sources. The traces taken from longer than 9.5 seconds before earliest visible motion are included with the graphs.

Sauret viewpoint
achimspok Sauret version: starts some seconds prior to the shaking camera.

File specs:
97.730.578 bytes
Audio: Dolby AC3 48000Hz 6ch 224Kbps [AC-3]
Video: MPEG2 Video 720x480 (16:9) 29.97fps 9608Kbps [Video]
duration: 02:04,124

The unfolded video fields into frames gives 7440 frames at 59.94fps. Just a segment of it is used. Frame 2005 of the unfolded version is the first frame "000".

Link to the original file:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E6WOP2QS

Link to the upscaled segment used as numbered JPEGs and separated into the video fields.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EHYHYRF4


Camera position:
1342m north
662m east
elevation 32m
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8484/sauret.png
The architecture in that area doesn't allow for many possibilities and those possibilities would affect the results in a very small way since the most important relation is the appearance of the antenna in the projection plane of the north face. For this projection plane we get the pixel-height relation from the video. It wouldn't change at all. So the results should be very close if the Sauret camera is placed 1342m north and 662m east of the center of the north tower at 32m above ground. The north tower is 29° turned towards the east.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NW NBC viewpoint original file:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VABQMPWG

camera position relative to the center of the north tower:
662.84m north
29.26m east
1.5m elevation
28° tower turned towards east
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NE NBC viewpoint
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO08Jk0yFRM
camera position in relation to the center of WTC1
272m north
1506m east
elevation 130m

on the roof of the reddish building here
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4039/camerapositionnbcv.png
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


.................................

NBC NW-corner and Sauret synchronized (1920x1080)
Download available at: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QIYRZNR3
It is a packed rar. It includes numbered JPGs for every frame at 59.94fps and the numbering Achimspok used. The videos are 29,97fps! Therefore you always have the same frame twice. The Sauret included is the blown up "field 0" of the original interlaced frames.

 

[Dog Town]

It is sad, each time you attack NIST, you expose your ignorance of models and your lack of engineering skills.

Very odd that MT expects models to match reality exactly! I wonder how he thinks that could be accomplished, with so many variables? And if it did, would he screech about that too?

 

[DGM]

Many posters have asked why they should believe the information presented.

Many posters (including myself) have also asked why you have not written this up and contacted NIST. You and femr2 never answer this question, Why?

 

[dafydd]

Many posters (including myself) have also asked why you have not written this up and contacted NIST. You and femr2 never answer this question, Why?

Yes,why?

 

[triforcharity]

Incorrect. Pedantic. Childish. Get a grip tom.


Incorrect.


Can't see the core tom.


And ?


Inviseeb'le.


Have a badge


Cool. Who is it that you think is trying to determine creep of individual components tom ? Did you get a bit confuzzled along the way mayhap ?


Correct. Neither do you. No details available. Might as well be code to *turn each column into fluffy bunny rabbits*.


Nonsense. Discussion on DBS. There's a quote I like to post when folk such as yourself make such silly accusations...




I always do matey


You wot ?


See above J.R.R.Tolkien quote.

So basically, as opposed to actually typing some type of legitimate response, you have resorted to the 3 grade tactic of making stupid, assinine comments.

"My daddy is cooler than your's"

"Well, my brother could bea your daddy up"

This is your argument as I see it.


Granted, I will give you this. I don't know much about FEA's, or about creep and plastic deformation. But, what I do know, I have asked the expertsabout, a learned what it means, and how it would influence a building. Seems to me, that you are pulling nuggets of smelly crap from your underpants.

 

[femr2]

So basically, as opposed to actually typing some type of legitimate response

As response to toms nonsense, my responses are quite legitimate.

This is your argument as I see it.

Well, you see very differently to myself.

Do you know what the *discussion* is about ? Did you trace the discussion back through the thread ? Or focus on my admittedly short dismissal of yet more of toms nonsense ?

Seems to me, that you are pulling nuggets of smelly crap from your underpants.

Ew. Would you care to list any of those nuggets, as you say ?

 

[newton3376]

Femr2....

What exactly is your background in?

When I read your posts I often get the impression that you *almost* understand certain aspects of math and physics, but aren't quite there yet.

A glaring example would be this thread where people explained your error over and over and over and you just continued debating.

It is very difficult to take anything you say at face value after reading that thread.....I have never seen Mackey, Tom, Newtons Bit, or several others make such basic and fundamental math/physics errors.

I seriously hope you are not an Engineer/Scientist or have a degree in either, because you would be without excuse for such errors.

So what is your background? Have you ever taken any formal courses in math or physics?

 

[femr2]

Femr2....

What exactly is your background in?

I do not post personal information of any sort.

When I read your posts I often get the impression that you *almost* understand certain aspects of math and physics, but aren't quite there yet.

You're entitled to your opinion.

A glaring example would be this thread

About a day where I, due to applying the virtual construct of rigid bodies literally, was not accounting for CoM energy *loss* correctly. Long since corrected. Completely irrelevant in the context of the details in this thread.

If you have issue with a specific detail in this thread, say so.

If not, you're simply engaging in, what is the phrase...oh yeah... Rule 12. “Address the argument, not the arguer."

 

[newton3376]

I do not post personal information of any sort.

Understood....although I would assume you would at least say that you have some kind of a technical background if you did.

I assume you do not based on your posts.

You're entitled to your opinion.

It's more of an observation based on what you post....

About a day where I, due to applying the virtual construct of rigid bodies literally, was not accounting for CoM energy *loss* correctly. Long since corrected. Completely irrelevant in the context of the details in this thread.

If you have issue with a specific detail in this thread, say so.

If not, you're simply engaging in, what is the phrase...oh yeah... Rule 12. “Address the argument, not the arguer."

Oh no...I'm afraid it is VERY relevant actually.

It reflects symptoms of a larger issue and shows an example of a reluctance to change your views despite being corrected over and over.

The problem is that you really think that you know better then the majority of experts....and yet all you do is post on an internet forum.

I have tutored many, many students in math, physics, and engineering who thought as you do....they thought they understood the material better then the author of the textbook or the professor.

They were wrong...and thats why they needed tutoring. You should listen to the experts that bother to reply to you on this forum...you should also listen to the experts who authored the many, many published papers dealing with various aspects of 9/11.

My linking to a thread showing your basic, fundamental error in math/physics is a shining example of someone who arrogantly and confidently argues while being clueless that they are horribly wrong. Such examples are very relevant.....since it reflects how reliable your analytical abilities are.

It is no "ad hom" to question your abilities based on such examples.

 

[femr2]

I assume you do not

You can assume whatever you please.

It's more of an observation based on what you post....

Yet you have not posted any detail you have issue with on this thread.

Oh no...I'm afraid it is VERY relevant actually.

Nonsense.

Again, Rule 12. “Address the argument, not the arguer."

If you have a specific issue with details on this thread, by all means say so.

 

[twinstead]

It's very simple to a layman, femr2: I have a choice to believe experts, or some guy on an internet forum. I choose to believe the vast majority of experts. In my mind, those experts would have to come on board with you in order for me to pay attention to you.

So, if you REALLY want to convince me (and by me I mean THE WHOLE WORLD) you'll need to start working on convincing those experts, because if you can't convince them I will suspect they might be right and you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Internet warriors do NOT impress me.

 

[newton3376]

It's very simple to a layman, femr2: I have a choice to believe experts, or some guy on an internet forum. I choose to believe the vast majority of experts. In my mind, those experts would have to come on board with you in order for me to pay attention to you.

So, if you REALLY want to convince me (and by me I mean THE WHOLE WORLD) you'll need to start working on convincing those experts, because if you can't convince them I will suspect they might be right and you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Internet warriors do NOT impress me.

You suspect correctly.....femr2 doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

 

[Major_Tom]

Original source video is provided. These mappings show how tracked objects move relative to each other in reality.

It is not my opinion that the NW corner was pulled eastward over 9.5 seconds before visible collapse. It is an objective fact extractable from the source data file.

It is not my opinion that the antenna moves downward 2 ft from Sauret frame 130 to 210 while the NW corner does not move downward. It is an objective fact extractable from the video data file.

The graphs provided show where and when tracked points move. They are measurements that can be duplicated by anyone.


If you wish to live in denial as to how tracked objects move, that is your choice.


These are not opinions or claims, they are measurements.


It is pretty obvious that most posters are looking for excuses to pretend that the traced objects did not move as they did in reality.

For this reason the all too predictable responses. Attempts to attack my person. A need to insult femr as some kind of excuse for living in denial as to how objects actually move in the video record.

I guess the reasoning is that if insults continue and get more vicious, it may provide some kind of excuse for not looking at how objects move in reality.

Then you can pretend that the measured movement never happened and continue to parrot the NIST report as fact.

Like I mentioned before, many people will pretend that some of the observed features never existed. They just block out events from their minds until the contradictions magically disappear.


The truth is that these tracings are nothing more than a record of object movement: Flat, 2 dimensional vertical and horizontal position tracings, nothing special really. Certainly not hard to understand with a little effort.


You are in denial vertical and horizontal pixel drift of landmark objects in the video files are as mapped and shown, nothing more. You attack the messenger to avoid confronting your own inadequacies.

Once again the mention of "belief". Why should someone "believe" landmark objects moved as witnessed and measured?

You shouldn't need to "believe" that a visible, trackable object moves as it does. You measure it and look at it.

There is no excuse for appealing for faith in authority over visible objects you can look at, track and measure yourselves. That is pure laziness.

Faith may be needed for things you have no way of seeing or knowing, not for observable objects in front of your nose. Appealing to faith in that case is just laziness.

 

[twinstead]

Whatever major_tom. You are trying to convince the wrong people. The fact that you are whining on an internet forum instead of being the catalyst of major debate in the halls of academia or major scientific publications tells me all I have to know.

All you are is the internet equivalent of the wild-eyed, bearded old man on a big city street corner screaming that the world is going to end. You may totally believe what you are saying, but still rational people step over you and get on with their day.

 

[DGM]

.

Faith may be needed for things you have no way of seeing or knowing, not for observable objects in front of your nose. Appealing to faith in that case is just laziness.

So what has NIST had to say about all this? Have you brought it to their attention? You have, right? If not why?

 

[tfk]

femr,

As response to toms nonsense, my responses are quite legitimate.

Well, let's see if my comments were nonsense.
Or if they were explicitly on-target, blatant clues as to what you are doing wrong.

First I told you

Creep is not a property of the building as a whole. It is a property of small portions of individual components.

Your reply:

Have a badge

Your typical gibberish.
I would GUESS that this means "of course".

But who the hell knows, except you & your little posse of truther boyfriends, who find such enjoyment out of "speaking in tongues".

The engineering definition of creep is, like stress or strain, explicitly defined to each infinitesimal point within some component, and NOT as the gross motions of a structure (e.g., tilting of the building or bowing of columns). Those gross features are the integrated results of millions of local creeps.

So, one POSSIBLE response from you might have been, "OK, I'll try to be more consistent in my terminology. How about if I refer to the tilt of the building as "gross results of creep" or perhaps "average creep". And then I should be able to say that 'the gross results of creep can be documented by video, even if local creep in the individual structural members can not'."

Instead, we get "have a badge"…
___

Next I explained why you can't really measure individual creep from gross motions.

Your problem is exactly the following:
You can solve the forward problem (using creep in individual components to figure out global movement of the building).
You can not (AFAIK) solve the inverse problem (figuring out creep in individual components from gross motions of the building).

Your response to this KEY point:

Cool. Who is it that you think is trying to determine creep of individual components tom ? Did you get a bit confuzzled along the way mayhap ?

Who do I think is "trying to determine creep of individual components"?
Why, femr, YOU are.
Every time you use the word "creep", as explained above, you are explicitly talking about "deformation of individual components".

Just a moment prior to this comment, you were all "have a badge" with understanding of this exact point.

In the next paragraph of the same post, you're back to all "confuzzled" about the concept.
___

But the most, uh, "interesting" of your responses comes when I point out that NIST provides buckets of exactly the raw data by which you can confirm whether or not you can really measure what you claim you can measure.

As I did here:

You can see ALL of the external columns. NIST has given you over 1500 data points that you could check.
The bottom figure here is just one data set with about 200 data points.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=2946

Your response COULD have been "Hot damn. That'll allow me to verify or falsify my core thesis: that I can measure creep from video measurements. THANKS!"

Instead, you response is an utterly clueless: You state that my drawing is Inviseeb'le

Yeah, I know, femr. Inviseeb'le to you. Because you're so paranoid, you won't take browser cookies from JREF, a website that you spend every day on…

"Inviseeb'le" might be a trivial, but laughable, excuse, except for the fact that both of us know that you know exactly how to go look at the drawing in my User Albums.

So, here are drawings that everyone else can see. You know how to look 'em up too.

As I said before, and you ignored, you CAN see the outer columns.
And you CAN see the amount of creep that NIST claims those outer columns experienced.

These drawings would let you verify or falsify your claim to be able to measure creep. Or the ammo (in your delusions & lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanics) to shoot down NIST's clear assertions about creep in those columns.

Your own personal Holy Grail. Made out of Fool's Gold.
___

I told you explicitly that I'd take NIST's experts' opinions about structures over yours every day of the week. I also said that "I'll believe the results that have been substantiated by decades of testing & verification - NIST's FEA results.

Not understanding what I meant, but not willing to let an opportunity for snark to pass you by, you launched into a baseless, utterly uninformed attack against NIST's experts & the NIST report. (Very similar to your clueless exchanges with Ryan Mackey, rwguinn, etc. regarding "inelastic collisions without part deformation".)

The results that have been substantiated are "FEA analyses, done transparently by experts". The FACT that they have been substantiated is proven by the FACT that they are the centerpiece of every complex, expensive or expansive engineering project in this country.

Or, in a similar fashion, are you going to also claim that "computers are just a passing fancy, and haven't yet been 'proven'?"
___

Finally, as a purely mendacious tag line to the above nonsense, you added…

There has been no testing or verification of the system NIST used, nor their results. Bespoke modules bolted into an off-the-shelf FEA with no attempt to verify its validity. Boys with toys ( as you have previously agreed)

… implying that I had somewhere agreed with any of the utter blather that you wrote in that paragraph.

Absolutely typical of your utter unfamiliarity with the ability to present the big picture truthfully.

I've been posting here- clearly & openly - for about 2 years. There is no one here, including you, who has any doubt about my opinion of the NIST report.

There is no one who believes for an instant that I've characterized the NIST report or those engineers as "boys [playing] with toys".

That's just your irresistable urge to misrepresent facts.
___

Now, I invite you - and everyone else - to look over what I've written, what you've written, and to make their own judgment about who...

… writes substance.
… writes snark.
… plays fast & loose with the truth.

 

[femr2]

Well, let's see if my comments were nonsense.

Okey dokey.

Or if they were explicitly on-target, blatant clues as to what you are doing wrong.

First thing would be...what is it that you think I AM doing ?

I would GUESS that this means "of course".

You'd be right.

But who the hell knows

You do, clearly.

The engineering definition of creep is, like stress or strain, explicitly defined to each infinitesimal point within some component, and NOT as the gross motions of a structure (e.g., tilting of the building or bowing of columns). Those gross features are the integrated results of millions of local creeps.

Have another badge.

So, one POSSIBLE response from you might have been, "OK, I'll try to be more consistent in my terminology.

ROFL. You've lost the plot tom. Do I need to refresh your memory of the discussion ? Your whingeing session is borne from you being pedantic about me not including the word *ALL* in the statement *You can visually document creep of columns.*. Scope creep beyond that is entirely your own inference and invention (as per usual)

How about if I refer to the tilt of the building as "gross results of creep" or perhaps "average creep".

You can refer to whatever you please as whatever you please tom. I don't think creep is the right word to use for the rapid process you are describing though. Buckling comes to mind. Looong time after the potential creep of which you speak

And then I should be able to say that 'the gross results of creep can be documented by video, even if local creep in the individual structural members can not'."

If you were to be looking at trace data stretching back at least 20 minutes prior to release, you could do that possibly.

Who do I think is "trying to determine creep of individual components"?
Why, femr, YOU are.

Well, there is your problem.

Just a moment prior to this comment, you were all "have a badge" with understanding of this exact point.

No, I'm afraid the problem is that you get confused about the scope of discussion. Again, if I need to refresh your memory specifically, I shall do, as has been done before.

But the most, uh, "interesting" of your responses comes when I point out that NIST provides buckets of exactly the raw data by which you can confirm whether or not you can really measure what you claim you can measure.

Incorrect. Raw data from the NIST FEA is FAR from *exactly the raw data* required, and...what is the claim you are referring to exactly ? (Quote it for me yeah)

Your response COULD have been "Hot damn. That'll allow me to verify or falsify my core thesis: that I can measure creep from video measurements. THANKS!"

Nonsense. What is this *core thesis* of which you speak eh ?

You state that my drawing is Inviseeb'le

Which it is.

Yeah, I know, femr. Inviseeb'le to you. Because you're so paranoid, you won't take browser cookies from JREF, a website that you spend every day on…

Nope, I don't accept cookies from anywhere. No spam email for me

"Inviseeb'le" might be a trivial, but laughable, excuse, except for the fact that both of us know that you know exactly how to go look at the drawing in my User Albums.

And by your description it's also obvious that you're referring to FEA estimated creep diagrams, so no need to bother looking at 'em. Seen them many-a-time.

As I said before, and you ignored, you CAN see the outer columns.

Some.

And you CAN see the amount of creep that NIST claims those outer columns experienced.

Simulated.

These drawings would let you verify or falsify your claim to be able to measure creep.

LOL. What I said, to Seymour Butz, was to disagree with the statement *You cannot visually document creep of the columns.*. I said you can, suggesting that without the ability to do so IB could not *exist* now, could it.

Now, do the early motion traces indicate creep, or buckling or any one of many overload descriptios ? Hmm, fine lines. But that's an entire different discussion tom, not this one.

Or the ammo (in your delusions & lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanics) to shoot down NIST's clear assertions about creep in those columns.

Nonsense.

The results that have been substantiated are "FEA analyses, done transparently by experts".

...using a system with utterly unknown extensions, resulting in utterly unreplicated results. You can trust whomever you please. But you have NO IDEA whether the extensions compromised correct behaviour or results. Simply faith. Walk on, my son.

implying that I had somewhere agreed with any of the utter blather that you wrote in that paragraph.

That's right.

There is no one who believes for an instant that I've characterized the NIST report or those engineers as "boys [playing] with toys".

There's at least one tom

That's just your irresistable urge to misrepresent facts.

..."You lie", said Wormtongue...

Yawn.

Perhaps you could highlight any of the 40 OP observations you have an issue with...