Good luck with that.
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
Good luck with that.
From a different perspective we receive similar results.
This time a west side clip is synchronized with the NBC NW clip, linked here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/5/zaB7NJdtVic
At 0:21 in the clip the NW corner at floor 98 breaks into upper and lower part. The NW corner break is visible at this moment.
When the west viewpoint is studied at that same moment, it becomes clear that there was almost no tilt when the the NW corner fails:
This time a west side clip is synchronized with the NBC NW clip, linked here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/5/zaB7NJdtVic
At 0:21 in the clip the NW corner at floor 98 breaks into upper and lower part. The NW corner break is visible at this moment.
When the west viewpoint is studied at that same moment, it becomes clear that there was almost no tilt when the the NW corner fails:
One example from the NIST reports of overstating the angle over which all columns originally failed...
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, p 314: "The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°, Table 5–2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns."
FIgure 5-8:
By using the synchronized clips from different viewpoints, we can see that the angle of tilt at the moment the NW corner fails along fl 98 is as shown:
That is quite a different angle than the one in the NIST image.
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, p 314: "The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°, Table 5–2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns."
FIgure 5-8:
By using the synchronized clips from different viewpoints, we can see that the angle of tilt at the moment the NW corner fails along fl 98 is as shown:
That is quite a different angle than the one in the NIST image.
Here is another set of images from the NIST reports:
THese images tell us nothing if it is not known when the NW corner fails. They deceive the reader into thinking the tilt angles over which collapse initiation progressed from south to north were much greater than the reality.
WHen the images are compared to the actual tilt witnessed when the final columns failed, the difference is obvious:
THese images tell us nothing if it is not known when the NW corner fails. They deceive the reader into thinking the tilt angles over which collapse initiation progressed from south to north were much greater than the reality.
WHen the images are compared to the actual tilt witnessed when the final columns failed, the difference is obvious:
Here is an attempt by Reactor Drone to measure the angle of tilting:
If we compare this work with an image of the actual moment in which we can see the NW corner fail, we see that the angle was exaggerated once again.
Since I had a little time on my hands today I decided to have a look at the western view of the WTC1 collapse that NIST used. I aligned the screen captures in photoshop and marked reference points at the NW top of the building, base of the antenna and top of the antenna. the first significant drop occurred in the fourth frame.
At that point I measured the angle at 7.8° which corresponds quite well with NISTs 8° figure.
Since Major Tom has given a photo showing his final release point I thought I'd see if I could find a corresponding view from the west.
In Major Tom's release point there is a significant eruption of flame from the northern windows of the building which corresponds to a point after the 7.8° initial drop. If Major Tom believes the antenna angle in his shot is less than 1° I think he needs to redo his calculations.
If we compare this work with an image of the actual moment in which we can see the NW corner fail, we see that the angle was exaggerated once again.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It appears your missing the meaning of a small but very important word (bold) in the NIST statement. Your starting your measurement at a different time then NIST.
Last edited:
I am making a collapse initiation model. I need accurate measurements.
Anyone making a collapse initiation model will need to know the tilt angles over which all core and perimeter columns originally failed.
If columns on one side of the building are buckling/failing and columns on the other side of the tower are bending but not buckling, the building is still in the process of tilting during the failure sequence.
I want to know at what tilt angles the last columns failed. Using synchronized videos and the naked eye we can determine that the following two images represent the moment when the NW corner has clearly failed. It is a conservative estimate favoring more tilt, not less:
which represents 0:32 in the synchronized video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/3/_lnHn9yN6Is
which represents 0:21 in the synchronized video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/5/zaB7NJdtVic
These two images show the true state of tilt just after the moment that the last columns failed on the NW corner of the building. In the lower picture we can see that the NW corner has already failed at fl 98. You can already see the break on the corner so this image is a conservative estimate of true tilt. Precise measurements will actually yield less tilt than is shown in the images.
Can we all finally agree on this?
>>>>
Notice that the tilt angles shown above are very consistent with the claim that the true tilt of vertical features as all core and perimeter columns failed was within 1 degree.
Can we all agree that this is the most accurate guess available?
Anyone making a collapse initiation model will need to know the tilt angles over which all core and perimeter columns originally failed.
If columns on one side of the building are buckling/failing and columns on the other side of the tower are bending but not buckling, the building is still in the process of tilting during the failure sequence.
I want to know at what tilt angles the last columns failed. Using synchronized videos and the naked eye we can determine that the following two images represent the moment when the NW corner has clearly failed. It is a conservative estimate favoring more tilt, not less:
which represents 0:32 in the synchronized video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/3/_lnHn9yN6Is
which represents 0:21 in the synchronized video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/5/zaB7NJdtVic
These two images show the true state of tilt just after the moment that the last columns failed on the NW corner of the building. In the lower picture we can see that the NW corner has already failed at fl 98. You can already see the break on the corner so this image is a conservative estimate of true tilt. Precise measurements will actually yield less tilt than is shown in the images.
Can we all finally agree on this?
>>>>
Notice that the tilt angles shown above are very consistent with the claim that the true tilt of vertical features as all core and perimeter columns failed was within 1 degree.
Can we all agree that this is the most accurate guess available?
Last edited:
After almost 10 years, does anyone have evidence that any official government report or academic paper on the WTC does not overestimate the true tilt of WTC1 over which all the columns originally failed?
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone understood how little vertical features actually tilted during the column failure sequence.
Almost 10 years of overestimating the WTC1 tilt with all known measurements and estimates being incorrect.
Can anyone show otherwise?
This is the current understanding of the WTC1 initiation sequence? All known official and academic descriptions assume too much tilt?
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone understood how little vertical features actually tilted during the column failure sequence.
Almost 10 years of overestimating the WTC1 tilt with all known measurements and estimates being incorrect.
Can anyone show otherwise?
This is the current understanding of the WTC1 initiation sequence? All known official and academic descriptions assume too much tilt?
Last edited:
We all seem to agree the north and west perimeter walls failed in an east-to-west, south-to-north fashion, and we can see the NW corner fail clearly:
So how hard could it have been to synchronize some videos to find the tilt over which all columns fail?
Not hard at all. Here is one result:
WIthin official or academic literature on the subject, can anyone show any evidence that anyone understood how little the building features actually tilted?
So how hard could it have been to synchronize some videos to find the tilt over which all columns fail?
Not hard at all. Here is one result:
WIthin official or academic literature on the subject, can anyone show any evidence that anyone understood how little the building features actually tilted?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You're the only competent person in the world that can do this right, YOU"RE THE MAN.
When can we expect your journal paper?
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
No, anyone could have done it. I wasn't the one to discover this. Other posters on a different forum deserve the credit, like femr. And Achimspok. Achimspok was the first to place the measurements at under 1 degree.
That is the irony. This is not complicated at all.
That is the irony. This is not complicated at all.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The starting angle is zero degrees. The trick is to measure when the NW corner has clearly failed.
All columns have failed at this angle:
WIthin official or academic literature on the subject, can anyone show any evidence that anyone understood how little the building features actually tilted during the column failure sequence?
(The sequence is over when the last columns fail.)
It is obvious that the angle over which the columns failed is exaggerated in all available official and academic literature.
If anyone doesn't agree, please cite an example.
All columns have failed at this angle:
WIthin official or academic literature on the subject, can anyone show any evidence that anyone understood how little the building features actually tilted during the column failure sequence?
(The sequence is over when the last columns fail.)
It is obvious that the angle over which the columns failed is exaggerated in all available official and academic literature.
If anyone doesn't agree, please cite an example.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
The tricky part is understanding the starting point other people use.
From 1 December 2010 (almost three months ago):
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thankyou. I could not remember how we got into this side track. You saved me from reading back and filtering through the noise.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The tricky part is understanding the starting point other people use.
Thankyou. I could not remember how we got into this side track. You saved me from reading back and filtering through the noise.
Thank you guys. I was almost starting to think I was losing my mind.
ozeco41
Philosopher