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

[Major_Tom]

We see a forceful row of ejections emerge along the W side of WTC1 along the 98th fl before downward movement of the buildoing in the gif posted earlier.

Early forceful ejections were also witnessed along the N face of WTC2 while it was still in the process of tilting as seen in the high quality video posted at the link below:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=182&MMN_position=369:369

The series of sharp pulses seem to line up with an individual floor slab. The dust in the ejections seem to signify concrete and/or wallboard pulverization. Notice the extent of the tilt at the moment of the ejections.

 

[tfk]

Let's look at the SW corner with our eyes only to learn what we can:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9109/femrnew.gif

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.

I don't see anything of the sort.

I see the fire (in the window above the line of broken windows thru which the smoke emerges, and therefore tied to the position of the upper block) begin to move downward at the same time that the smoke begins to emerge.

Exactly the sequence that I would expect if a volume of smoke-laden air was suddenly compressed by the ceiling beginning to collapse.

Perhaps you have better "proof" than this video & your assertion that the smoke emerges before any downward motion of any segment of the external wall of the towers. (Since, of course, any collapse anywhere on the floor would cause an overpressure & omnidirectional forced exhaust of air...)

tk

 

[tfk]

BTW, Major Tom, "the upper block of a huge structure deforms as it is collapsing."

How completely ... expected.

Nobody, who possesses the slightest knowledge of structures, finds this the least bit surprising.

As far as I can see, this expected phenomenon invalidates none of NIST's conclusions.

Perhaps you could clarify how & why this should be a revelation. Perhaps you could clarify what you think that it means.


tk

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK post 102: "BTW, Major Tom, "the upper block of a huge structure deforms as it is collapsing."

How completely ... expected"

Yes, and by identifying the early deformations leading up to visible collapse we can see which parts of the building probably failed first and which did not.

Many of the features on the list, like the movement of the fire you mention, point to core sagging and failure before perimeter downward movement can be detected.

TFK: " Nobody, who possesses the slightest knowledge of structures, finds this the least bit surprising.

As far as I can see, this expected phenomenon invalidates none of NIST's conclusions."



1-6draft p 290, figure 9-8 on probable collapse initiation sequence for WTC1:


3. Collapse Initiation
• The inward bowing of the south wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire south face.
• The south wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent east and west walls.
• The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.
• The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.


These conclusions? Rigid block?? TIlting 8 degrees?? In one sentence you say the fire on the SW corner begins to move down at the exact same time as the forceful ejections seen along the 98th floor. Does that not confirm that the NIST description of the collapse iniation sequence is pure fantasy?

Can you not see the gaping contradiction between SW corner movement and the NIST description???

You may want to consider understanding the info in the OP and actually reading the thread before commenting.


Furthermore, I cite many examples of subpixel tracing in the OP to determine whether the antenna sagged into the roofline before there is detectable movement along the SW corner. Eyes are useful, but you may want to consider measuring before drawing conclusions.

 

[tfk]

TFK post 102: "BTW, Major Tom, "the upper block of a huge structure deforms as it is collapsing."

How completely ... expected"

Yes, and by identifying the early deformations leading up to visible collapse we can see which parts of the building probably failed first and which did not.

Uhhh, no you can not.

Not in any way that is meaningful to the collapse initiation, that is. (I'll grant you that you can tell from the videos "what failed first": The window directly in front of the nose of the aircraft at impact.)

You can see … what you can see. (Sounds trivial, but it ain't.)

Not even NIST's engineers, with advanced degrees & centuries of experience, can tell, by merely looking at the exterior of the building, what parts failed first. That is why they went to the enormous effort of constructing FEA models, and running numerous simulations to find the scenarios that "most closely matched the external evidence". And then they were able to distinguish viable from non-viable scenarios. And to make EDUCATED, INFORMED assertions about the sequence of events.

Before that, even structural engineering experts, with access to external videos, were unable to reliably pinpoint the sequence of events. Once NIST provided their data based, observation supported conclusions, then the vast majority of those engineers who had previously disagreed, conceded that NIST's interpretation was the best one available.

Many of the features on the list, like the movement of the fire you mention, point to core sagging and failure before perimeter downward movement can be detected.

LoL.

No, the downward motion of that fire does not point to core sagging. The fire is directly at the perimeter of the building. It's downward motion doesn't tell you anything about the "core sagging".

The downward motion of that fire, happening simultaneous (actually a few milliseconds before) the sudden exhaust of the smoke thru the windows below negates your assertion that "the smoke exhaust preceded any downward motion of the perimeter of the building".

Perhaps you'd do well to address this comment directly.

" Nobody, who possesses the slightest knowledge of structures, finds this the least bit surprising.
As far as I can see, this expected phenomenon invalidates none of NIST's conclusions."

1-6draft p 290, figure 9-8 on probable collapse initiation sequence for WTC1:

3. Collapse Initiation
• The inward bowing of the south wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire south face.
• The south wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent east and west walls.
• The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.
• The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.

These conclusions?

Yup, those conclusions.

Rigid block??

"Rigid block". An apt description of the upper segment of the building, meaning "it moved generally as a unit". Nowhere - but in your imagination - does any NIST engineer state that the rigid block did not deform anywhere in its structure prior to, or during, collapse.

TIlting 8 degrees??

Yup. Tilting 8 degrees.

Do you have info that it did NOT tilt 8 degrees?

Or are you all worked up because NIST didn't say (according to your storyline):
"• The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º, but only about 1° before general collapse began) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls."

In one sentence you say the fire on the SW corner begins to move down at the exact same time as the forceful ejections seen along the 98th floor.

Nope. Please try to be more precise about what I say.

I wrote about the fire in the one office immediately above the windows from which the smoke exhausted.

Does that not confirm that the NIST description of the collapse iniation sequence is pure fantasy?

Perhaps, when you post, you could try to keep in mind the difference between "baseless assertion" & "chain of logic".

Feel free to provide a chain of logic that supports this (currently) baseless assertion.

Can you not see the gaping contradiction between SW corner movement and the NIST description???

Chain of logic, please.

Furthermore, I cite many examples of subpixel tracing in the OP to determine whether the antenna sagged into the roofline before there is detectable movement along the SW corner. Eyes are useful, but you may want to consider measuring before drawing conclusions.

Yeah, but there are a couple of factors that render this a waste of my time. (At the moment, of course...)

1. The lack of expertise of the folks providing that analysis in the fields of videogrammetry (to accurately determine 3D motion from those videos to the precision that you are claiming) or structural analysis (to interpret the implications of that motion).

2. The lack of any proposal as to how this info, even in the highly unlikely case that it is correct, changes the obvious conclusion: hijacked airplanes, collision, fire, collapse.

You're welcome, of course, to attempt to provide background & credentials to assuage my, uh, doubts.

Or not…

tk

 

[femr2]

You can see … what you can see.

You seem to be suggesting that viewpoints are based simply by *eye-balling* video. If so you are far from correct. Video observations are indeed performed, correlated with each other, but the primary means of determining movements is based upon your ol' favorite subject...video feature tracing...as well you know.

And to make EDUCATED, INFORMED assertions about the sequence of events.

...which they got WRONG.

Once NIST provided their data based, observation supported conclusions, then the vast majority of those engineers who had previously disagreed, conceded that NIST's interpretation was the best one available.

Trace data *disagrees* with their interpretation.

the downward motion of that fire does not point to core sagging

Core-led initiation suggestions are not based upon a single observation, but correlation of multiple features.

The downward motion of that fire, happening simultaneous (actually a few milliseconds before) the sudden exhaust of the smoke thru the windows below negates your assertion that "the smoke exhaust preceded any downward motion of the perimeter of the building".

Where is your trace data Tom ? I'll post feature trace data showing exactly what moved when, once you've put your analysis on the table. No substanceless hand-waving please.

1. The lack of expertise of the folks providing that analysis in the fields of videogrammetry (to accurately determine 3D motion from those videos to the precision that you are claiming) or structural analysis (to interpret the implications of that motion).

That you are incapable of understanding such a simple process is not everybody elses problem Tom. Given your own, very limited, area of expertise it is clear that the field you mention is FAR outside that. You have shown repeatedly you are very inexperienced with the field.

Your opinion is noted, and was predicted many months ago...as-in...the rejection of observations based upon trace data simply by rejecting the validity of the trace data itself. Tediously predictable Tom.

Your post contains negligible substance. Try again please.

 

[tfk]

You seem to be suggesting that viewpoints are based simply by *eye-balling* video.

Typical meaningless babble. "… viewpoints are based simply by…" WHOSE viewpoints. MT's? Mine? NIST's? Yours?

Typical incompetent interpretation of a couple of simple sentences. I never said anything remotely akin to your nonsense.

First, MT mangles the very simple sentence that I wrote. And now you follow suit. Typical.

Why don't you (or MT) try answering the statement that I DID make, instead of trying (and failing) to shoehorn in your own meanings.

If so you are far from correct.

But I didn't say anything of the sort. So YOU are far from correct.

Video observations are indeed performed, correlated with each other, but the primary means of determining movements is based upon your ol' favorite subject...video feature tracing...as well you know.

blah, blah, blah.

Here's the problem, femr.

You bought a program. The wrong program for the job, according to Russ Anderson (its creator), who wrote to me (as I informed you) "SynthEyes is a visual effects tool, not a surveying tool."

But it can provide position & motion info from the film. IF A COMPETENT person is guiding the program, of course.

Then you turn the program loose to do its tracking. Another comment from Mr. Anderson: "Certainly you can degrade the imagery in ways that will affect accuracy. This is artist-controlled --- ultimately you are limited by the skill/accuracy/time of your tracking artist."

You have stated that you do no intervention into the tracking process. So the skill level you bring to the table is "do nothing".

I've seen you perform none of the analyses necessary to precisely determine the position, orientation & motions of the multiple cameras. A crucial starting point for a real analysis.

I've seen you perform none of the 3D spacial transforms necessary to convert two dimensional angular position info from multiple, sequenced cameras taken from known precise positions to true 3D geometry. With error analyses, of course.

Not even NIST's engineers, with advanced degrees & centuries of experience, can tell, by merely looking at the exterior of the building, what parts failed first. That is why they went to the enormous effort of constructing FEA models, and running numerous simulations to find the scenarios that "most closely matched the external evidence". And then they were able to distinguish viable from non-viable scenarios. And to make EDUCATED, INFORMED assertions about the sequence of events.

...which they got WRONG.

Yawwnnn.

So you assert.

Why don't you (or Major Tom) try "a chain of logic".

A bunch of "if this … then that" statements. Where each statement, and its proven validity, leads inexorably to your conclusion.

Trace data *disagrees* with their interpretation.

Chain of logic, please.

Core-led initiation suggestions are not based upon a single observation, but correlation of multiple features.

Chain of logic, please.

Where is your trace data Tom ? I'll post feature trace data showing exactly what moved when, once you've put your analysis on the table. No substanceless hand-waving please.

Post whatever you want. Or post nothing. I couldn't care less.

My proof is the following:
Evidence from video: the emergence of the smoke from that particular office space had absolutely none of the characteristics (violence & speed) of any explosive nature. Ergo, it was caused by an increase in pressure associated with a decrease in the volume of the room.

During the collapse, things fell downwards, not upwards.

Ergo some upper portion of some room fell downwards FIRST, causing the volume of the office space to decrease, pushing the smoke laden air out of the window.

The speed of sound in air is about 1000 ft/sec. I estimate that the minimum distance that the pressure wave would have had to travel in order to push smoke out of the window is about 3 feet (if the ceiling immediately above the window collapsed. Putting a minimum time delay between that ceiling collapsing and the smoke being pushed out of the window at about 3 milliseconds.

Failures that happened further away from the window would have produced longer delays. But in ALL cases, some part of the upper portion of the towers HAD to have begun to collapse BEFORE the smoke began to pour out of the window.

My eyes confirm this when looking at your video. (http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9109/femrnew.gif) With a margin that doesn't require video analysis.

The ball of fire clearly (to me) begins to descend BEFORE, not after, the smoke begins to get pushed out of the windows. My reference is your red arrow moving across the screen. The point at which the smoke starts pouring out has the arrow at a significantly later point in its motion than when the fire begins to descend.

This negates the comment that Major Tom made that "the smoke begins emerging before any part of the periphery of the building begins to descend.

You are free to offer your speculation as to how what Major Tom said could be correct: that the smoke began pouring out before any downward motion of the periphery of the building. But your own gif video seems to dispute that.

That you are incapable of understanding such a simple process is not everybody elses problem Tom. Given your own, very limited, area of expertise it is clear that the field you mention is FAR outside that. You have shown repeatedly you are very inexperienced with the field.

blah, blah, blah.


Say what you want. Say nothing. Play games with definition of terms. Play games with what you're gonna show & what you're not gonna show.

I couldn't care less.

And I'm not gonna get into that crap with you again. You ain't worth the time.

 

[beachnut]

...
Your post contains negligible substance. Try again please.

Try again?

Publish your claims. Stop spewing nonsense and try to publish your claims. You can't, your failed CD delusion has no evidence, and your attack on NIST makes it clear you have nothing to add to the events of 911; zero evidence, zero substance. Have you corrected your lies at your web site? ( http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/12-11-1 No) Have you dropped the idiotic non-technical papers in your technical paper section of your web page? ( http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 oops, two moronic failed paper still posted, No) You need to fix these major anti-intellectual faux pas before you defend 911 truth delusions.

 

[ozeco41]

....

2. The lack of any proposal as to how this info, even in the highly unlikely case that it is correct, changes the obvious conclusion: hijacked airplanes, collision, fire, collapse...

Which is the same point as I made in the third post in this thread.

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK, no 3-D tracing of points was necessary. All techinques are very simple, but if you do not read them you will not know that. Your comment shows me you didn't read much.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

What you see in the OP is just a list of features. The only question is whether these feathres exist or not. If they do not exist, they shouldn't be on the list.

If much of the information on the list seems new to you it is because you were unaware these events took place.

I know JREF is the land of the short attnetion span so I want to be very, very clear about what we are discussing.

The primary question in this thread is whether the features exist or not. If the features are real though many people would like to life in denial and pretend they are not, that is between them and their God. I cannot cater to the people who want to believe some of these events didn't exist while providing no proof of their own or refutation of any individual feature.

So Question 1: DOES EACH FEATURE EXIST AS DESCRIBED? (My answer is yes. If you disagree, put up or...)


After accepting a features list, which is nothing more than a visual and data record of the events themselves, we can ask what it means in the form of the following 2 questions:

Question 2: DO THE EVENTS AS RECORDED AND MEASURED CONTRADICT THE NIST'S CONCLUSIONS IN A MEANINGFUL AND FUNDAMENTAL WAY? (My answer is yes. It turns the NIST probable collapse initiation scenario (and therefore the NIST theory of a south perimeter-led collapse initiation) upside-down.)

and

Question 3: HOW DO THE EVENTS AS RECORDED AND MEASURED CONTAIN ATTRIBUTES THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED THROUGH NATURAL FAILURE PROCESSES RESULTING FROM THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTS AND FIRES? This is the "demo question".


(Notice that I am preparing the ground to win the one million dollar JREF challenge in this last question.)


First we must address question #1. There are over 40 features described, so if anyone disagrees that a particular feature exists, please specify the feature and give a specific counter-argument.

If anyone has better data, please post it and I will use that instead.

To me it would seem pretty silly and childish to pretend actual, recorded features on the list do not exist just because you don't like me or the feature, Remember, you do not get to choose which features exist. All source video is available to anyone to disprove or verify any measurement. If there is nobody from the debunker camp willing or able to do that, it is not my responsibility.


Once individual features are admitted to exist, using the list will allow us to answer question #2 without much difficulty. The list can serve as a powerful tool, as there are multiple ways to prove the same thing. Grouped subsets of the feature list can provide models for portions of the building, such as the west perimeter wall. One example of a subset of 4 features are the 4 physical observations on which the OOS Collapse Propagation Model study is based. A small subset of features from the list provide the physical evidence for ROOSD, which is the only known collapse propagation model that matches all observables.

Not too shabby for a subset of only 4 features from a list of over 40 total.

Multiple initiation attributes point to a core-led initiaton sequence. There are numerous features happening at the same time that are consistent with a core-led failure, and none that demonstrate perimeter-led failure.

The argument does not depend on any individual feature. It is the body of features seen acting as a whole that describes the recorded reality.

It is not hard to identify a whole subset of features from the list indicate a core-led initiation sequence.

 

[femr2]

Here's the problem, femr.

This should be fun...

The wrong program for the job

Incorrect. It's excellently suited to the task in hand.

according to Russ Anderson (its creator), who wrote to me (as I informed you) "SynthEyes is a visual effects tool, not a surveying tool."

Irrelevant. The video feature tracking system is of superb quality. The best available in my opinion.

But it can provide position & motion info from the film.

It can indeed. Positional data surpassing the accuracy of the very limited NIST moire property process.

IF A COMPETENT person is guiding the program, of course.

LMAO.

Then you turn the program loose to do its tracking.

Absolutely. Manual intervention completely negates the ridiculously high accuracy, as you would know if you understood what you were talking about, which, of course, you don't.

Another comment from Mr. Anderson: "Certainly you can degrade the imagery in ways that will affect accuracy. This is artist-controlled --- ultimately you are limited by the skill/accuracy/time of your tracking artist."

Absolutely. The only intervention I would sanction would be application of keyframes. Any manual trace point adjustment invalidates the trace. I rarely apply keyframes.

You have stated that you do no intervention into the tracking process.

Once started, of course. No manual point repositioning at all.

So the skill level you bring to the table is "do nothing".

Incorrect. Not that it requires a great deal, but the skill is in process. I could write reams of process information, but as you haven't, won't and are not going to bother to get the system (or any like it, not even the free tracker program) it's really not worth my time to explain to you.

You repeatedly attempt to paint this arena as complex. It really isn't. That you obviously don't get that is really quite funny.

I've seen you perform none of the analyses necessary to precisely determine the position, orientation & motions of the multiple cameras.

Must I remind you of the Flight 175 Impact Trajectory and Orientation study ?

Same methods can be applied, however...

A crucial starting point for a real analysis.

Incorrect. I'll eat my hat if you have any clue as to why.

I've seen you perform none of the 3D spacial transforms necessary to convert two dimensional angular position info from multiple, sequenced cameras taken from known precise positions to true 3D geometry. With error analyses, of course.

True. I don't have to. Could do. May do. No reason to at this time.

Post whatever you want. Or post nothing. I couldn't care less.

That's just not true now, is it Tom.

My proof is the following:

Your proof of ?

Evidence from video: the emergence of the smoke from that particular office space had absolutely none of the characteristics (violence & speed) of any explosive nature. Ergo, it was caused by an increase in pressure associated with a decrease in the volume of the room.

Who said anything about explosives Tom ?

During the collapse, things fell downwards, not upwards.

You don't say ? Who would have thought it eh ? Things not falling upwards ! Heresy !

Ergo some upper portion of some room fell downwards FIRST, causing the volume of the office space to decrease, pushing the smoke laden air out of the window.

If you replace the child-like *some room* with *some internal portion of the internal tower structure*, then aiii.

The point is which internal elements, and when, of course

Failures that happened further away from the window would have produced longer delays. But in ALL cases, some part of the upper portion of the towers HAD to have begun to collapse BEFORE the smoke began to pour out of the window.

No excrement Sherlock.

My eyes confirm this when looking at your video. (http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9109/femrnew.gif) With a margin that doesn't require video analysis.

Way to hand-wave away the accurate data that shows your *eyeballs* are not fit for purpose.

The ball of fire clearly (to me) begins to descend BEFORE, not after, the smoke begins to get pushed out of the windows. My reference is your red arrow moving across the screen. The point at which the smoke starts pouring out has the arrow at a significantly later point in its motion than when the fire begins to descend.

Then your eyeballs are being led by a brain which does not want to see what is plainly obvious.

Tell me, what frame of the GIF do your eyes tell you that internal pressure is rapidly increasing ? And also, what frame do you first detect downward motion of the fire you mention ?

Again, I've requested that you put your own trace data on the table. You have failed to do so.

You need to trace multiple features, multiple times, from multiple videos.

THEN you will be on a level playing field.

Until then, you are handwaving.

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK post 105:

"1. The lack of expertise of the folks providing that analysis in the fields of videogrammetry (to accurately determine 3D motion from those videos to the precision that you are claiming) or structural analysis (to interpret the implications of that motion).

2. The lack of any proposal as to how this info, even in the highly unlikely case that it is correct, changes the obvious conclusion: hijacked airplanes, collision, fire, collapse."

No 3-D tracing was necessary. Only horizontal and vertical drifting of anchor points from each perspective just as you have seen done many times now. You have been walked through too many times already.

Which particular features do you think are photographed and traced inaccurately? You just don't like the list in general? Maybe you don't like me so you will pretend that the listed features do not exist? Over 40 different features listed so do you have a specific feature you find incorrect?


How can we talk about the second and third questions if you are in denial of the visual and measured record of events?

 

[tfk]

Produce your data on the smoke exhaust timing vs. the fire downward motion timing.

Or don't...

Produce a chain of logic that connects your measured observations to "this is why we believe it contradicts NIST's conclusions."

Or don't...

 

[carlitos]

Use the quote function.

Or don't...

 

[Major_Tom]

If you agree that the features actually exist as described, then it is easy for me to use them as building block to show correlation between events.

If you have no specific objections to items on the list as described, then we can proceed to answer "the NIST question" and "the demo question".

Do you or were your previous objections so much hot air that you cannot provide specifics?

 

[Dog Town]

If you have no specific objections to items on the list as described, then we can proceed to answer "the NIST question" and "the demo question".

Just spit it out, and let the chips fall! Man you folks need a lot of attention, to get to the point!

GO!

 

[Major_Tom]

Kind of a funny exchange we are having. I am trying to get you to acknowledge what actually exists (in the forum of a feature list) and you are trying to find ways to not notice the events that actually happened.

Kind of sums up the whole "debate" for me. You prefer a fantasy NIST approved conception of collapse initiation to looking at the real thing in images and data.

I often see that posters have a preference for abstract fantasy over visual evidence and actual measurements. This is the hardest barrier to cross in this forum, the preference for NIST interpretations over what we can measure for ourselves and see with our own eyes.

 

[femr2]

Produce your data on the smoke exhaust timing vs. the fire downward motion timing.

So that's 2 calls for you to produce some data of your own, rather than waving your hands around, for you to turn around and ignore the request. Great stuff tfk.

Here's a quick draft for ya. Takes very little effort...

Note the green line eh.

30*1000/1001 fps by the way

 

[femr2]

Kind of a funny exchange we are having. I am trying to get you to acknowledge what actually exists (in the forum of a feature list) and you are trying to find ways to not notice the events that actually happened.

Kind of sums up the whole "debate" for me. You prefer a fantasy NIST approved conception of collapse initiation to looking at the real thing in images and data.

I often see that posters have a preference for abstract fantasy over visual evidence and actual measurements. This is the hardest barrier to cross in this forum, the preference for NIST interpretations over what we can measure for ourselves and see with our own eyes.

There seems to be an incredibly low attention span.

I suggest you start with point #1, gather agreement/disagreement, then move to point #2.

Won't be possible without some kind of moderation, as there is not likely to be many local members prepared to have an opinion on even the simplest of observations. Quite why is beyond me. The noise level is already pretty high.

 

[Reactor drone]

So that's 2 calls for you to produce some data of your own, rather than waving your hands around, for you to turn around and ignore the request. Great stuff tfk.

Here's a quick draft for ya. Takes very little effort...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/437537321.png[/qimg]

Note the green line eh.

30*1000/1001 fps by the way

So the smoke displacement was from 5 to -45 pixels and lasted for 0 seconds.

That doesn't seem right.