tfk, an answer will come later.
The thread inevitably descends into noise. Par for JREF. Standard excuses, same noise as always.
I'd welcome a direct debate between adults, but after months of posting here unfortunately I must be realistic and come to expect avoidance, distraction and laziness to be the chief consistent characteristics of this forum.
I welcome posters that overcome this cowish tendency, but most probably I should tailor future posts to simply expect the inevitable: 90% of your forum is hot air, thinly disquised propaganda and artless avoidance of contradictions to the official fantasy, and it will probably always be so.
How many murdered, left to suffer worse than livestock while you see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, hide from reproducible measurements and block recorded observations out of your minds?
Does it look like I am hiding this information from anybody? I am here on your forum, with your propaganda and bias moderation. Does it look like I am avoiding you or the NIST?? If I could have access to a much large public than that which reads my own website and the forums whereI post, why not?
DMG, the thread is only a few pages long. Maybe at a certain level of editing I will send this to the NIST. Why not? If it is so important to you, why don't you send them a message to read the information here?
Your criticism seems to be that you consider your own forum, JREF, to be a poor place to post information like this in an early draft form. I do not have a good opinion of your forum at all, but you seem to have a lower opinion of JREF than me if you think I can receive no useful information from the posters here.
It's probably just time to accept the reality of the (inevitable?) level of our fake debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am changing to the opinion that the will and/or capacity of the JREF forum to provide a venue for a more complex exchange of information is nonexistent. If there are those reading that have the capacity to participate in intelligent, civilized dialog on this important subject, they have been quite silent.
I think our primary problem in communicating is that many posters feel free to block the very existence of measurable, observable events out of their minds.
There can be no honest debate as long as collective denial of how the building moves persists along with the usual cheap attacks on the messengers. Ignorant of measurables, in denial of observables
For this reason I will return to the OP and re-present the information s-l-o-w-l-y, discussing features one by one. I need to tailor my posts to the level of the forum and the short attention span and easily distracted nature of many participants.
I can prove that a collective denial of measurable and observable attributes is standard practice on this forum with one simple example after another (after another, after another...).
PROOF THAT COLLECTIVE DENIAL OF OBSERVABLE FEATURES AND MEASURABLE MOVEMENT IS STANDARD, ACCEPTED PRACTICE ON THIS FORUM: EXAMPLE 1:
The simplest of questions...does the movement of the antenna and NW corner described below exist as described?
Or will posters generally ignore the movement as if it doesn't exist.
UPPER WEST WALL PULLED INWARDS
Beginning at about 9.5 seconds before the visible collapse initiation, slight building movement can be detected by using sensitive sub-pixel tracking methods.
These measurements show us a few very important features, or attributes, of the collapse initiation process. This information is new and the NIST did not know about it.
The detection of the earliest tendencies of movement of the building is one application of sub-pixel tracking. We can observe the NW corner get pulled eastward from fl 98 upwards over a 9.5 second interval. At the same time, the base of the antenna is moving eastward and then sags in a "hook" motion. while we see no movement along the west edge of the building.
Two approaches, same results.
First analysis:
SOURCE VIDEO
http://xenomorph.s3.amazonaws.com/Etienne-Sauret-WTC1-DVD.mpg
Frame 1 in analysis = Frame 370 in the deinterlaced mpg.
Processing...
1) Deinterlace - unfold.
2) VideoEnhancer Resolution Upscale (*2x, *4y)
3) Deinterlace - fold.
4) Bob Doubler (Alternate Fields, No resize)
Only the first 1300 (interlaced), 2600 (deinterlaced) frames are examined.
Written out as .bmp, download yields 2600 files, totalling 10,782,860,400 bytes (10 Gb)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT, NW CORNER
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-426-3
Camera shake is obvious (between frames 1150-1250).
Black thick line is horizontal movement of the NW corner.
Grey is raw NW corner.
Blue is static point.
(Remember there would be a time delay between event and camera if indeed the source of shaking originated from WTC1)
STATIC POINTS
Two static points are used, one in the foreground (on the building on the left of frame), and one low on the East side of the building. The locations are shown in the following linked images:
The static feature fixed to WTC1...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/700962521.png
The foreground static feature...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/556859827.png
The following graph compares and shows the difference between both static points...
HiRes
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-427-3
Blue is FG static point.
Grey is Building static point.
Black is the difference.
Note...
1) There is good correlation between both until near the very end of the trace, indicating that parralax effects are minimal between near and far field objects.
2) There is Westward movement of the static point on the building at the end of the trace.
3) Camera shake period should be obvious.
Static Feature Comparison (Vertical)
HiRes
Notes...
1) Slight gradual vertical drop of building static feature following camera shake.
I'm aware of stating movement of static features here, but I was expecting the traced point on the building to *stay* static.
Washer Horizontal Movement (Normalised to FG static point)...
HiRes
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-431-3
Notes...
1) Camera shake is between 1150 and 1250.
2) Eastward movement follows shake.
Static Point Foreground Vertical...
HiRes
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-432-3
NW Corner Raw Vertical...
HiRes
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-433-3
Draft NW Corner Normalised Vertical...
HiRes
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-434-3
Original posting of first analysis at
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386.html
................................................
................................................
Second analysis:
The entire Sauret clip is tracked to detect vertical and lateral pre-release movement of WTC1.
SOURCE VIDEO
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/enhanced-video-sources-t394.html#p11816
TRACKED POINTS: 4 GROUPS
1) Several static points in the foreground (3 on the metal stick, 2 on the windows behind stick). These "static points" in the foreground are represented by the blue curves.
2) "Static point" at the 92nd floor NW corner of WTC1 (yellow).
3) Several points near the roof (washer, roof corner, window at 110 NW corner). Roof measurements are represented by the green curves. The curve for the window of the 110th floor is a very bright green and appears almost white.
4) Antenna mast along the black/white transition. The movement of the antenna is represented by the red tones.
IMPORTANT NOTE
The trackers have a problem staying exactly in position during the shaking. Many trackers indeed lost the track and were not able to measure the assigned position during the entire length of the clip. Some trackers stayed "connected" but re-calculated the "best fit" several times during the shaking. Therefore we may have different relative positions of tracked points at the end of the shaking. That deviation of the curves doesn't mean that a real displacement of the measured points occurred. Instead we can use the new relative positions as "zero movement" if we are not able to track the movement during the shaking precisely.
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT
HiRes:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9873/sauretfulllengthl.png
EASTWARD LEANING
Prior to the shaking of the camera all curves follow the blue "static foreground". There is no measurable movement of the tower. All apparent movements are the result of the shaking of the camera. After the shaking the yellow curve (floor 92) stays with the blue curves (static foreground). This means the 92nd floor didn't change it's position relative to foreground static points until the 92nd floor was pushed westward during the collapse.
Interestingly, all measured points above 92 - roof, washer (green) antenna (red) - started to lean east immediately after the shaking (about frame 1350).
VERTICAL DROP
HiRes:
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9484/sauretfulllengthv.png
Prior to the shaking of the camera all curves follow the blue "static foreground". After the shaking all curves vary somewhat but move with the blue curves for about the next 200 frames. At about frame 1465 the antenna mast clearly started to "sag" while roof (green) and 92nd floor (yellow) stayed with the static foreground (blue).
We will have to compare the result with the calculated relations for the south tilt before we can differentiate between tilt and drop. Nevertheless, prior to any sag/tilt the entire upper part of the buildings started to creep eastward.
The east leaning (wide side of the core) is hardly explainable as induced by the south wall inward bowing if we do not measure any increasing south tilt during this interval. The same object tracking tool is used to measure south tilt as well as eastward tilt. Any south tilt would significantly shorten the measured vertical distance between roofline and any tracked point on the antenna.
Perhaps we wouldn't notice a small trapezoidal perimeter deformation towards the southeast if the antenna remained straight up. In that case the perimeter columns would bow towards the southeast, yet the total circumference of thr roofline along the perimeter must remain the same and we do not see a corresponding movement of perimeter roofline columns extending from the SW corner to the NE corner. Therefore such a hypothetical SW perimeter fold-in as the antenna remains near plumb does not match the visual record and so can be excluded as a possibility.
Once again everything points to a core-led collapse, not to a collapse initiated by instability in the south perimeter..
Interesting to note that prior to the collapse the distance between roof and 92nd floor decreases as seen in the HiRes plot of vertical displacement. After the collapse of the 98th floor the 92nd floor was sagging (compared to the "blue" static points in the foreground) until it was destroyed when the collapse reached that floor.
Frame 1641 of that long enhanced video is the frame 0 of the older set of measurements by achimspok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does everyone agree that these movements exist?
Until we deal with the psychological problem of collective denial of observable. measurable events (feature blindnesss) which seems standard practice in this , there is no point in pretending that an honest debate can exit on this forum.
