The link should go here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/early-movement-of-wtc1-made-simple-t346.html#p9507
I cannot edit the OP so I cannot fix the link now. Didn't answer because I posted the same info before.
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
The link should go here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/early-movement-of-wtc1-made-simple-t346.html#p9507
I cannot edit the OP so I cannot fix the link now. Didn't answer because I posted the same info before.
Myriad, the upper portions of WTC1 did not exist as a "block". They exist as a core and a perimeter, floor assemblies and the hat truss-antenna.
True movement is one of deformity, where the core can move differently than the perimeter.
In the features list I provide many, many graphs of trace points moving relative to one another and relative to static points. An "upper block" can be matematically described by 6 variables (5 actually), 3 translational veriables and 3 rotational variables.
The trace points show that the upper portion cannot be simplified into an "upper block" because the multiple points traced along the perimeter and antenna clearly do not move as if they are parts of a rigid body. Antenna moves differently than perimeter points. That is basically the whole freaking point of tracing multiple points.
As "block does not really exist for WTC1, also, amazingly, a structural hinge does not exist. There is a type of geometrical hinge: The mighty NW corner.
Comparison of the north and west wall failures:
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
Real motion shows that there was no north wall "hinge".
What you call "rotation" is just an abstract concept based on the assumption of a rigid block that you believe can be described by a single global variable.. Antenna angle at the realease point of the NW corner, the last group of columns to fail, is different than the angle of the N wall. They are both less than 1 degree.
If all 60+ columns in the west wall fail within 0.5 seconds as the trace data shows and the "upper block" is tilting south, does that make geometrical sense to you??
Block, collective tilt and hinge are just dreams, while my list of features are considered "insignificant details". To me the hypocrisy is obvious.
The true event is a complex early deformity leading directly into visible motion, hence all the "boring details" in the OP.
True movement is one of deformity, where the core can move differently than the perimeter.
In the features list I provide many, many graphs of trace points moving relative to one another and relative to static points. An "upper block" can be matematically described by 6 variables (5 actually), 3 translational veriables and 3 rotational variables.
The trace points show that the upper portion cannot be simplified into an "upper block" because the multiple points traced along the perimeter and antenna clearly do not move as if they are parts of a rigid body. Antenna moves differently than perimeter points. That is basically the whole freaking point of tracing multiple points.
As "block does not really exist for WTC1, also, amazingly, a structural hinge does not exist. There is a type of geometrical hinge: The mighty NW corner.
Comparison of the north and west wall failures:
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
Real motion shows that there was no north wall "hinge".
What you call "rotation" is just an abstract concept based on the assumption of a rigid block that you believe can be described by a single global variable.. Antenna angle at the realease point of the NW corner, the last group of columns to fail, is different than the angle of the N wall. They are both less than 1 degree.
If all 60+ columns in the west wall fail within 0.5 seconds as the trace data shows and the "upper block" is tilting south, does that make geometrical sense to you??
Block, collective tilt and hinge are just dreams, while my list of features are considered "insignificant details". To me the hypocrisy is obvious.
The true event is a complex early deformity leading directly into visible motion, hence all the "boring details" in the OP.
Last edited:
There was an upper block. It was not perfectly rigid. I get the latter point. I've said so myself. That's why events in the collapse were not one-event-at-a-time sequential, and sequential narratives like NIST's and yours are summaries and simplifications.
So what? Non rigid objects can rotate. The sun's not rigid, and it rotates. Even fluids rotate. The upper block rotated. It's on video. You yourself say it "tilted south." That's rotation.
Sequential failure of the columns on the western wall from south to north, as a result of the upper block tilting south, in 0.5 seconds, makes perfect sense to me. I'm a bit surprised it's that regular, what with everything being so wibbly-wobbly collapsy-wapsy and all, but it's pretty much what I'd expect, just like I expect the cut to progress rapidly from the base of the blades to the tips, when I rotate one part of a scissors. What do you think is wrong with that?
I never called any details "insignificant" or "boring." I'm waiting for you to state what you think is significant and/or interesting about them. Until you do so, they are just details, period.
Respectfully,
Myriad
So what? Non rigid objects can rotate. The sun's not rigid, and it rotates. Even fluids rotate. The upper block rotated. It's on video. You yourself say it "tilted south." That's rotation.
Sequential failure of the columns on the western wall from south to north, as a result of the upper block tilting south, in 0.5 seconds, makes perfect sense to me. I'm a bit surprised it's that regular, what with everything being so wibbly-wobbly collapsy-wapsy and all, but it's pretty much what I'd expect, just like I expect the cut to progress rapidly from the base of the blades to the tips, when I rotate one part of a scissors. What do you think is wrong with that?
I never called any details "insignificant" or "boring." I'm waiting for you to state what you think is significant and/or interesting about them. Until you do so, they are just details, period.
Respectfully,
Myriad
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Block,n....def [A three-dimensional shape with six square or rectangular sides]
Block,n...def [A number or quantity of related things dealt with as a unit]
Block,n...def [A solid piece of something (usually having flat rectangular sides)]
Block,n...def [A number or quantity of related things dealt with as a unit]
Block,n...def [A solid piece of something (usually having flat rectangular sides)]
Myriad post 83: "That's why events in the collapse were not one-event-at-a-time sequential, and sequential narratives like NIST's and yours are summaries and simplifications."
Mine are based on measurements and observations. The NIST's is based on pure fantasy, as comparison with the measurements and visual evidence in the OP shows.
Myriad: "Sequential failure of the columns on the western wall from south to north, as a result of the upper block tilting south, in 0.5 seconds, makes perfect sense to me."
and the north wall over the same 0.5 second interval. Where is your structural hinge?
Is the 0.5 second intervals consistent with the NIST descriptions quoted earlier? No. Totally different. It is like they are talking about a different building, not WTC1, and nobody notices the gaping contradictions.
Mine are based on measurements and observations. The NIST's is based on pure fantasy, as comparison with the measurements and visual evidence in the OP shows.
Myriad: "Sequential failure of the columns on the western wall from south to north, as a result of the upper block tilting south, in 0.5 seconds, makes perfect sense to me."
and the north wall over the same 0.5 second interval. Where is your structural hinge?
Is the 0.5 second intervals consistent with the NIST descriptions quoted earlier? No. Totally different. It is like they are talking about a different building, not WTC1, and nobody notices the gaping contradictions.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
So there were no measurements or observations made while WTC7 was burning that day?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Bill defines a block, she debunks Major Tom, and herself.(My emphasis added) Well said Bill.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Like you could describe the top 'block' more accurately as an assembly of single consecutive floors ?
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Wrong for the reasons I defined with some precision in my post. You even quote part of that definition as follows:
...so it is not a simple black and white "interested/not interested" dichotomy. I drew a line through the scope of the topic to show where my interest starts.
I will disregard these snide comments and misrepresentations. And the other ones through the remainder of your post. My true position is on record.
The following comment puts your claims into the area where I clearly stated I would be interested:
I understand "totally disagree" and I can see consequences of that disagreement. It crosses the line I defined as the boundary of my interest. I haven't a clue where you got the substance of the last sentence from.
And finally:
Wrong on both points. I thank BIll Smith for clarifying the legitimate use of "block" and I comprehend why you may prefer a different term.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Beat me to it.
My usage is correct but "assembly of floors" could be more appropriate to Major_Tom's preferences.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/666/initialtilt175230b.gif
To my eyes this "antenna drop" appears to be due to the rotation of the upper section of the building as can be seen in the North eastern view. The northen view, and the movement traces associated with it, give a deceptive appearance of antenna movement relative to the roofline.
This, to me, is the problem with a lot of these movement trace graphs. Without reference to a comparitive 3-d model or views from different angles the data and its interpretation can be misleading and doesn't clearly support your case.
To my eyes this "antenna drop" appears to be due to the rotation of the upper section of the building as can be seen in the North eastern view. The northen view, and the movement traces associated with it, give a deceptive appearance of antenna movement relative to the roofline.
This, to me, is the problem with a lot of these movement trace graphs. Without reference to a comparitive 3-d model or views from different angles the data and its interpretation can be misleading and doesn't clearly support your case.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
your eyes are not the best tool for the job. Drop curves are more sensitive than your eyes. Often you can see only the tail end a creep motion that has been building for many seconds.
Notice how the information is presented in these two features that cover the concave deformation of the roof:
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Concave Roof Deformation
Am I depending on my eyes or on only one viewpoint?
The movement trace graphs are much more sensitive than your eyes. The antenna and NW corner move for about 7 seconds before you can first see movement with your eyes.
To avoid confusion and silly exchanges, you can replace the word "block" by "rigid body".
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
There is no need to redefine the English language. If you have a need to to talk about a "rigid body" why not call it a rigid body? If the need is to talk about a block of floors, a block of units, a block of shares, a block of.....
On the word block: Perhaps I over-reacted to the use of the word and perhaps not. I have watched many people abuse the word, truthers and debunkers alike. Misunderstanding the concept has created some ridiculous physics for truthers and debunkers alike. I don't recall anyone using the idea correctly or honestly. The word "block" is ofter used to simplify a problem so much as to make the application meaningless in the real world. Over-simplification to the max.
Remember crush down, then crush up? Remember Heiwa? What about the Newton's third law argument from AE911T? All abuses of an over-simplified concept of a "block" applied to a building.
When discussing the NIST collapse initiation scenario the word "block" will be beaten to death again.
Maybe the way Ozeco uses it is more meaningful?
Ozeco, the term has been badly abused you must admit. ??
Remember crush down, then crush up? Remember Heiwa? What about the Newton's third law argument from AE911T? All abuses of an over-simplified concept of a "block" applied to a building.
When discussing the NIST collapse initiation scenario the word "block" will be beaten to death again.
Maybe the way Ozeco uses it is more meaningful?
Ozeco, the term has been badly abused you must admit. ??
Last edited:
There are many examples of why thinking in terms of "blocks" is unrealistic. Here is just one...
This fell off the building over the airplane hole. It is about 11 stories high and is unbuckled, a huge straight piece of north perimeter wall:
This is what was the NE corner above fl 98 on the left and the west wall above fl 98 falling on the right. Each piece is about 6-8 stories tall and obviously pretty wide:
Many more pieces but I think you get the point. Those are 3 of the edges of the great block.
This fell off the building over the airplane hole. It is about 11 stories high and is unbuckled, a huge straight piece of north perimeter wall:
This is what was the NE corner above fl 98 on the left and the west wall above fl 98 falling on the right. Each piece is about 6-8 stories tall and obviously pretty wide:
Many more pieces but I think you get the point. Those are 3 of the edges of the great block.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
I still think most of what you're seeing there is the rotation. A 1° rotation produces a drop of 2' when viewed from the angle the Sauret footage was taken at while only dropping the north side roofline by 5-6". I'm not convinced you have the resolution to see the smaller movement on that footage.
That's obviously a somewhat simplified diagram,( much like the NIST summary is a simplified, compressed account of the actual collapse sequence) but it illustrates the point.
So, in your measurements, how much of the drop is attributable to rotation and how much is due to movement within the core and hat truss? What is the significance of this measurement to your theory?
From what I can see your criticism of the NIST report mainly stems from an overliteral interpretation of a summary of the collapse and that a core collapse that is concurrent with the south, east and west perimeter collapses is not a new discovery and certainly not indicative of any demolition scenario.
There is a reason I include so many features on the list. It is a powerful tool that allows us to cross-check attributes. It is the closest thing to a 3-D snapshot of the initiation process available.
In order to test your idea on tilt it would be natural to check the SW corner. In the link I gave, 3 traced points along the perimeter (near the NE, NW and SW corners) are compared traced points on the antenna.
Let's look at the SW corner with our eyes only to learn what we can:
This is another feature on the list in the OP. We can see that there is no visible fire movement until after the forceful row of ejections along the 98th fl is visible.
It is interesting to note how your eyes can fool you if you assume that the first forceful row of ejections along the W face 98th fl indicate that visible perimeter and/or the antenna is already in a state of falling to earth. If you look at the smoke you will believe the perimeter is tilting at this time. But if you trace physical points on the building, you will see that no such movement is yet taking place.
Don't follow the smoke and assume building movement. Instead follow the building movement itself through drop curves and note the ejections emerge before any downward falling of any of the measurable building features can justify it. Yet another mystery.
If you go back to the links I provided you will see I include the drop curves of the SW fire seen above, the NW corner and antenna this same view. They confirm what you can see with your eyes in the gif and that information is placed together with the drop curves from the north viewpoint and compared.
This is also now we determined that all 60+ columns along the west wall failed within a 0.5 second interval.
If I haven't yet linked, this is the section where the antenna and perimeter points are compared:
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
In order to test your idea on tilt it would be natural to check the SW corner. In the link I gave, 3 traced points along the perimeter (near the NE, NW and SW corners) are compared traced points on the antenna.
Let's look at the SW corner with our eyes only to learn what we can:
This is another feature on the list in the OP. We can see that there is no visible fire movement until after the forceful row of ejections along the 98th fl is visible.
It is interesting to note how your eyes can fool you if you assume that the first forceful row of ejections along the W face 98th fl indicate that visible perimeter and/or the antenna is already in a state of falling to earth. If you look at the smoke you will believe the perimeter is tilting at this time. But if you trace physical points on the building, you will see that no such movement is yet taking place.
Don't follow the smoke and assume building movement. Instead follow the building movement itself through drop curves and note the ejections emerge before any downward falling of any of the measurable building features can justify it. Yet another mystery.
If you go back to the links I provided you will see I include the drop curves of the SW fire seen above, the NW corner and antenna this same view. They confirm what you can see with your eyes in the gif and that information is placed together with the drop curves from the north viewpoint and compared.
This is also now we determined that all 60+ columns along the west wall failed within a 0.5 second interval.
If I haven't yet linked, this is the section where the antenna and perimeter points are compared:
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thank you. When describing Twin towers collapses I have used the expressions "top block", "impact zone" (or "impact and fire damage zone") and "lower tower" fairly consistently since 2007. I never used "top block" to imply "rigidity" rather in the second sense that bill smith posted recently - "A number or quantity of related things dealt with as a unit". Understanding that the "top block" so defined was flexible has been a key factor underpinning all the explanations I have given of WTC Twin Towers collapses since 2007.
I have been well aware of and argued on many occasions against claims based on a presumption of a "rigid block".
Fully agreed that the presumption of a rigid top block has been badly abused. I had not realised till this recent exchange that the word "block" had itself become contaminated by the presumption of rigidity.
So I understand and agree with your insistence on the multiple aspects of flexibility of the "group of floors above the impact and fire zone". And no problem to avoid using the word "block" in situations where such use could be misleading.