triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
LOL!!! Wow. Ask the landscape engineers to do an FEA for me. We'll wait.......
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
LOL!!! Wow. Ask the landscape engineers to do an FEA for me. We'll wait.......
Yes, I can really tell you don't care.
Nice job ignoring the substantial (the total demolition of your "peer review" nonsense) and focusing on the trivial (posters' level of concern).
You're good at that.
The proof that the antenna and perimieter did not tilt as a rigid body is in two parts, as mentioned before.
Part 1 uses object tracing, drop curves and visual evidence to make the case. Object tracking of horizontal and vertical subpixel movement from different viewpoints are all that is needed to determine that the antenna moves separately than the perimeter, and not as parts of a rigid body.
Link to object tracing approach: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=176&MMN_position=364:364
Part 2 uses vectors to do the same thing. A building coordinate system and a viewer coordinate system are established. Vectors between landmark points are drawn on the building, and we observe how each vector is projected in the viewer coordinate system.
The approach is shown for 2-D and the Sauret projection is the viewer coordinate system. It is easy to expand this same formulation for any general 3-D viewer coordinate system. A formulation for 3-D generalized viewer coordinate system will be posted after any concerns with the 2-D approach are addressed.
I believe this approach addresses all the concerns WDC has raised. He seemed to believe I cannot tell between building coordinates and viewer projections. I hope that is addressed also.
Link to vector approach: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=187&MMN_position=373:373
Part 1 uses object tracing, drop curves and visual evidence to make the case. Object tracking of horizontal and vertical subpixel movement from different viewpoints are all that is needed to determine that the antenna moves separately than the perimeter, and not as parts of a rigid body.
Link to object tracing approach: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=176&MMN_position=364:364
Part 2 uses vectors to do the same thing. A building coordinate system and a viewer coordinate system are established. Vectors between landmark points are drawn on the building, and we observe how each vector is projected in the viewer coordinate system.
The approach is shown for 2-D and the Sauret projection is the viewer coordinate system. It is easy to expand this same formulation for any general 3-D viewer coordinate system. A formulation for 3-D generalized viewer coordinate system will be posted after any concerns with the 2-D approach are addressed.
I believe this approach addresses all the concerns WDC has raised. He seemed to believe I cannot tell between building coordinates and viewer projections. I hope that is addressed also.
Link to vector approach: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=187&MMN_position=373:373
WD Clinger post 751 linked:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6683849&postcount=751:
"You're right about his insistence upon performing all measurements and calculations within a coordinate frame that's 13.8 degrees (he had been saying 12 degrees) off plumb. He also disregards video from other viewpoints, using them only as sanity checks. Some of his other mistakes are identified in the recent posts by tfk, BasqueArch, and Reactor drone. In short, his entire approach is fundamentally unsound.
There's nothing fundamentally unsound about using a ridiculous coordinate frame for all calculations, and he does calculate the tilt by subtracting the tilt of his coordinate frame from the total rotation he believes he has calculated. The problem with using a ridiculous coordinate frame is that it makes calculations more complex, and he's been having a lot of trouble with that added complexity. His ridiculous coordinate frame has contributed to his mistakes and has discouraged him from correlating his data with data obtained from other sources."
Every sentence is incorrect.
The Sauret projection is just one of 3 projections that have been traced and plotted. There at least 5 projections (viewpoints) of usable WTC1 collapse initiation footage, but only 3 can give accurate trace and drop data: Sauret, NBC NW and NBC NE. Drop curves have been available for all 3 viewpoints since the posting of the OP.
The Sauret projection is a great way to introduce the concept of viewer coordinate systems and viewer projections of vectors, because the video is of very high resolution and taken from almost directly north, lending itself to a 2-D formulation. There are many advantages to the Sauret projection of the event, and a person who studies it carefully will never believe in the claim of rigid tilt again.
If you look at the proof of deformation using drop curves link, you will see at least 2 viewpoints are used.
If this 2-D viewer and building coordinate system formulation works, I will extend the vector approach to 3-D and apply it to at least 2 other viewpoints. Using projections of the event from at least 3 viewpoints, some basic 3-D displacement vectors for point a and point r can be reconstructed.
You have repeatedly claimed that I am working from some funky coordinate system of my own invention. This is untrue. We are interested in how true 3-D movement projects towards different viewers. Your claim that I consider the antenna to be inline with the north wall is also untrue.
On the other hand you have offered some good advice. Thanks.
"You're right about his insistence upon performing all measurements and calculations within a coordinate frame that's 13.8 degrees (he had been saying 12 degrees) off plumb. He also disregards video from other viewpoints, using them only as sanity checks. Some of his other mistakes are identified in the recent posts by tfk, BasqueArch, and Reactor drone. In short, his entire approach is fundamentally unsound.
There's nothing fundamentally unsound about using a ridiculous coordinate frame for all calculations, and he does calculate the tilt by subtracting the tilt of his coordinate frame from the total rotation he believes he has calculated. The problem with using a ridiculous coordinate frame is that it makes calculations more complex, and he's been having a lot of trouble with that added complexity. His ridiculous coordinate frame has contributed to his mistakes and has discouraged him from correlating his data with data obtained from other sources."
Every sentence is incorrect.
The Sauret projection is just one of 3 projections that have been traced and plotted. There at least 5 projections (viewpoints) of usable WTC1 collapse initiation footage, but only 3 can give accurate trace and drop data: Sauret, NBC NW and NBC NE. Drop curves have been available for all 3 viewpoints since the posting of the OP.
The Sauret projection is a great way to introduce the concept of viewer coordinate systems and viewer projections of vectors, because the video is of very high resolution and taken from almost directly north, lending itself to a 2-D formulation. There are many advantages to the Sauret projection of the event, and a person who studies it carefully will never believe in the claim of rigid tilt again.
If you look at the proof of deformation using drop curves link, you will see at least 2 viewpoints are used.
If this 2-D viewer and building coordinate system formulation works, I will extend the vector approach to 3-D and apply it to at least 2 other viewpoints. Using projections of the event from at least 3 viewpoints, some basic 3-D displacement vectors for point a and point r can be reconstructed.
You have repeatedly claimed that I am working from some funky coordinate system of my own invention. This is untrue. We are interested in how true 3-D movement projects towards different viewers. Your claim that I consider the antenna to be inline with the north wall is also untrue.
On the other hand you have offered some good advice. Thanks.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
What a mess.
You are misrepresenting my claims.
I never said you had invented the funky coordinate system you're using. Here's what I said:
- You are using a ridiculous coordinate system.
- Using a ridiculous coordinate system makes calculations more complex.
- You've been having a lot of trouble with that added complexity.
If you will give me permission to copy one of your PNG images to my own web site (so you can't revise it after I explain what's wrong with it, and claim once again to have been right all along), then I will demonstrate that you are still having trouble with that added complexity.
If you don't give me permission to do that, then I'll leave identification of your errors as exercises for competent readers.
I have pointed out, correctly, that several of the calculations you've been touting for months assume the antenna is in line with the north wall:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6679056#post6679056
I don't think I have ever suggested that you understood your calculations well enough to have been aware of that assumption.
You're welcome.
You can copy.
WDC post 765:
"I never said you had invented the funky coordinate system you're using. Here's what I said:
* You are using a ridiculous coordinate system.
* Using a ridiculous coordinate system makes calculations more complex.
* You've been having a lot of trouble with that added complexity.
All of those statements are true."
I will be using 4 coordinate systems when expanded to 3-D. I choose each for a reason.
The choice of coordinate systems will make 3-D vector reconstruction pretty simple. That is why I chose them. Each viewer coordinate system consists of line of sight and a 2-D projection plane perpendicular to the line of sight. I chose coordinate systems so that the sight vector and the plane of projection have a simple mathematical form in that coordinate system.
Choice of the correct coordinate systems make the mathematics much simpler later. I think you will see that later.
WDC post 765:
"I never said you had invented the funky coordinate system you're using. Here's what I said:
* You are using a ridiculous coordinate system.
* Using a ridiculous coordinate system makes calculations more complex.
* You've been having a lot of trouble with that added complexity.
All of those statements are true."
I will be using 4 coordinate systems when expanded to 3-D. I choose each for a reason.
The choice of coordinate systems will make 3-D vector reconstruction pretty simple. That is why I chose them. Each viewer coordinate system consists of line of sight and a 2-D projection plane perpendicular to the line of sight. I chose coordinate systems so that the sight vector and the plane of projection have a simple mathematical form in that coordinate system.
Choice of the correct coordinate systems make the mathematics much simpler later. I think you will see that later.
Last edited:
WDC post 765: "I have pointed out, correctly, that several of the calculations you've been touting for months assume the antenna is in line with the north wall:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6679056#post6679056"
You pointed it out and the argument no longer exists.
I'll need less than a week to fix most problems. Best not to lunge forward with ones ego during the early stages of proof-reading.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6679056#post6679056"
You pointed it out and the argument no longer exists.
I'll need less than a week to fix most problems. Best not to lunge forward with ones ego during the early stages of proof-reading.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Thanks.
I've seen that already. As others have already tried to explain, and as I may explain later in more detail, several of the coordinate systems you have chosen are unfortunate.
But the problems did exist, and had existed for several months when I pointed them out, so why did you pretend my statement was "untrue"?
Your habit of denying such truths could be interpreted as dishonesty.
Okay, I'll give you a week to fix your problems.
No, that statement was true. And thanks. I do not want to pretend there was no problem. I never defended the mistake and called it a "place-holder".
I appreciate decent proof-reading.
I feel pretty good about my choice of coordinate systems. Time will tell if a better idea comes along. TIme will tell if you show something incorrect about it.
If so, you'll find me quite flexible.
I appreciate decent proof-reading.
I feel pretty good about my choice of coordinate systems. Time will tell if a better idea comes along. TIme will tell if you show something incorrect about it.
If so, you'll find me quite flexible.
Last edited:
WD Clinger post 765: "I don't think I have ever suggested that you understood your calculations well enough to have been aware of that assumption."
It's been a few days since that comment. Are you planning to debunk the mathematics any time soon?
If you don't have much problem with the 2-D introduction, I'll expand it to 3-D and you will be able to see more clearly why I chose the viewer coordinate system as I did. Let me know either way.
It's been a few days since that comment. Are you planning to debunk the mathematics any time soon?
If you don't have much problem with the 2-D introduction, I'll expand it to 3-D and you will be able to see more clearly why I chose the viewer coordinate system as I did. Let me know either way.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
I said I'd give you a week:
You haven't fixed your problems, so I'm giving you the full week.
When you're ready for me to take a glance at your work, please certify that
- You have removed all irrelevant technobabble from your site.
- The equations that remain are the ones you used for your calculations.
What a bunch of nonsense. You believe in the delusion of CD, and you make up nonsense. Why, what is your purpose? You are wrong, models of the WTC collapse don't have to match your list, that is nonsense. Your posts tend to be confirmation you don't understand models or the fact impacts, fires and gravity destroyed the WTC complex.
Too bad you don't have the moxie of Heiwa to send this claptrap in a form to be published in a real journal of engineering so you could earn the comments from engineers which might be similar to, "total nonsense", "delusions based on nonsense". Do it, make it a new year goal.
I have a model on paper, it consists of numbers based on physics calculations. It describes the collapse of the WTC, and it does not have to meet your list to be a valid model. Your OP is not valid. The irony of the OP, the list and links prove the WTC towers collapse due to impacts, fire and gravity.
Your list links put the CD delusion to rest. Who knew 911 truth could fail for over 9 years and be persistent at making it a permanent goal? All rational people?
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ Good links to some overt and covert stupidity on 911, with enough evidence to debunk 911 truth many times over.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ An archive based on the moronic belief controlled demolition took place on 911, backed with zero evidence. An archive which debunks the idiotic CD claim when backed with evidence. Why does 911 truth fail? Because it is their goal, and they have lots of practice.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
What do you think happened on 911? Give me your detailed theory.
WDC, I don't know what you are talking about. I don't need a week. Point out problems in the link given or please admit you cannot.
You were going to show me some mistake I made by drawing over one of my images.
Then you disappeared. Can you show a problem or is this just a show?
You were going to show me some mistake I made by drawing over one of my images.
Then you disappeared. Can you show a problem or is this just a show?
Let's start fresh, to be clear. This is what you called a "mess":
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=187&MMN_position=373:373
Please show a specific problem. I already suggested you may be lunging at me with the full insulting thrust of your ego too soon.
It would be pretty embarrassing if you can't find much to debunk after your comments.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=187&MMN_position=373:373
Please show a specific problem. I already suggested you may be lunging at me with the full insulting thrust of your ego too soon.
It would be pretty embarrassing if you can't find much to debunk after your comments.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
You have already been shown some errors in your thinking MT, but (not surprisingly) you don't understand it....this is why it is pointless for Engineers and Scientists to bother trying to explain Engineering and Science to truthers....you just don't get it.
With regard to the collapses...
You don't understand the physics....
You don't understand the math....
You don't understand the engineering....
With regard to "thermite"...
You don't understand the chemistry....
You don't understand the materials science...
You don't understand the math...
I could go on and on making lists like this, but it is pointless. The TRUTH is the vast majority of professionals in EVERY SINGLE DISCIPLINE THE WORLD OVER thinks you are wrong....and not just wrong but crazy and/or moronic.
The truth movement is reduced to internet debating, as you are doing here.
Publish or go away.
As I have said before...
Without the data yo chatta don't matta.
Last edited:
What part of "I'll give you a week", do you not understand? Judging by the rest of your drivel, I'm guessing every word!
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
On 27 December, I said I'd give you a week to fix your problems. The errors I had seen on 27 December have not been fixed, but you say you "don't need a week". Does that mean you'll need a month? A year?
You've got a lot of **** at your web site, so we can understand why it might take you a long time to proofread it all. I hope the time and effort you're having to put into proofreading right now gives you some appreciation for what you were asking of us when you and femr2 asked us to go through your list of 40 items and decide whether we agree or disagree.
You might begin to appreciate why spot-checking has been a more reasonable approach. You might even begin to appreciate why, having discovered myriad errors during that spot-checking (pun intended), we're not inclined to trust your calculations.
You needn't worry about me. With your permission (for which I again thank you), I have already copied a small portion of your images to my web site, so I could show a couple of errors that were on your web site as of 27 December even if you were to find them, fix them, and claim they were never there.
It will be far more embarrassing for you if, after being told there are errors on your web page and given a week to fix them, you aren't even able to find those errors.
You've got until 3 January. Sniping at me here will just increase your embarrassment if you can't find your errors, and takes time that would be better spent on repairing your web site.
I don't need the time. Please click the link and read.
I don't do all the ego feeding and stroking. I don't keep points. Too boyish. It's just 2-D vector projection onto a rotated axis. Just the tool to use.
It should take you only a few minutes to read it. Not complicated.
I don't do all the ego feeding and stroking. I don't keep points. Too boyish. It's just 2-D vector projection onto a rotated axis. Just the tool to use.
It should take you only a few minutes to read it. Not complicated.
Last edited:
"Understanding what happened on 9-11 from the point of view of reality" the tag line of a web site titled, "9-11 HISTORIC ARCHIVE, EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH WTC DEMOLITION ANALYSIS 9-11 PHOTO EVIDENCE ARCHIVE", LOL, this is not research once you make Demolition your goal up front based on nothing. "Reality" was funny, did you put that in the meta description, or do you have help with your woo web pages? http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ This is pure gold... "Our mission is to provide a visual record and rational physical analysis of all suspicious events witnessed during the attacks". Suspicious events!? lol, after 9 years?
"keywords" content="Evidence Based Research,demolition,world trade center,wtc, demolition research, 911, wtc attacks, world trade center attack" This is comedy based on the "demolition" delusion. There is no demolition, making the "demolition research" total nonsense, "mess".
Web site based on the moronic delusion of CD and goes on presenting evidence proving no CD. A "mess" of nonsense based on failed opinions. Is that your web site? Just a hint, don't start with a lie and prove it wrong and keep the lie posted as your title. That is a mess of nonsense.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ wow...
Review of Bazant and Zhao is at this link ... big mess and nonsensical claptrap, never to be published, except at a web site with CD believers proving no CD. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-zhou-t375.html (no thermite fused to steel, no blast evidence from explosives)
Your list is not required for a model to be valid. The OP is false. When will you publish your findings and break the CD delusion wide open? Is 2011 the BIG year for 911 truth? 2011-1100=911 9-11-11,,, It will mark 10 years of failure.
Your list debunks thermite and explosives, at least you got something.
Last edited: