BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Not what I asked for 3 weeks ago:
Not what I asked for 3 weeks ago:
What's mucho mas estupido to say is that the Towers, on the brink of collapse were demoed instead.
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
Not what I asked for 3 weeks ago:
Not what I asked for 3 weeks ago:
Guys, please understand that the Sauret results were reality-checked against the NE view.
Some of us have worked on this for over 7 months. It is not just the Sauret view that we use.
Maybe you debunkers should start cross-checking from other angles too.
Some of us have worked on this for over 7 months. It is not just the Sauret view that we use.
Maybe you debunkers should start cross-checking from other angles too.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
My bolding
MT claims that 9.5 seconds prior to start of collapse the antenna began a hook and drop (suggested result of core demolition) T 0 = frame 850-9.5 sec x 29.97 fps= frame 565
For the last minute, the core and perimeter columns were continually settling due to plane and fire damage. However this graph shows at frame 565 onwards, a rise of 0.2 pixels x 9.6”/pixel = 1.9” instead of an expected continuous drop into negative territory.
Therefore noise is at least the margin of error of +-0.2 pixels. The subpixel drop of the antenna therefore is not established with certainty until at least frame 910 when the +- 0.2 minimum noise margin of error boundary is passed at -0.2 pixels.
Therefore the start of subpixel antenna falling cannot be established with certainty at frame 850 but at frame 910 , a 60 frame difference / 29.97 fps = 2.0 seconds after femr2 claims T0 subpixel drop before visual drop, and is at most 1 second instead of 3.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
I have not suggested any "constants of proportionality". The Membership Agreement does not allow me to state my opinion of your use of linear approximations for sine and cosine functions. The relationships between the vertical coordinates of points a, b, and r are approximately linear for small angles of tilt, but you have miscalculated somewhere.
I don't know where you made your mistake(s). You haven't given me a reason to care.
I calculated the actual drops and differences (as did Myriad, despite his use of the word "apparent"). Those numbers are independent of the observer.
I assumed nothing about the viewer or angle of view.
If your graph was supposed to be observer-dependent, then you mislabelled the vertical axis. A difference in meters is an objective measure. There are no relativistic velocities here, so lengths and differences between lengths are the same for all observers.
You appear to be speaking about my "slope" as though it were a single number. If that is true, then you don't know what you're talking about.
My calculations used sine and cosine functions, not small-angle linear approximations. I showed my work, so you have no excuse for thinking the curves I calculated were linear. Those curves will probably appear linear to a careless or untrained eye, but their non-linearity can (just barely) be seen at the resolution of my graph. If you can't see the non-linearity, then I suggest you use my calculations to create an equivalent graph with greater resolution, print it out, and hold a straight-edge against the curve on your printed paper. Holding a straight-edge against the monitor screen isn't good enough.
Why? You haven't given me a reason to care.
I wouldn't have done this calculation at all if Myriad hadn't posted a typo in his last number. I was curious about that number, so I did the calculation independently. That took about ten minutes. Having done that, I figured I might as well post a correction/confirmation for Myriad's calculation.
It took about twenty minutes to create the graph in my previous post and to copy it to my web site for display here. That's about twenty minutes more effort than your responses deserved.
I will note, however, that if you have been using your calculation of a-b to infer the tilt, then you've been underestimating the tilt by an order of magnitude.
I leave you to your own "research".
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Hey dude, W.D.Clinger is not your mother.
"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."- CI1mh4224rd
Last edited:
WDC post 666 (hmmm...666?)): "I calculated the actual drops and differences (as did Myriad, despite his use of the word "apparent"). Those numbers are independent of the observer."
THen how are they useful from the Sauret perspective? I bet if you rotate by 12 degrees clockwise and then apply the theta rotation you plots and the plots of this researcher (it's not me) will look ver similar.
WDC: "I assumed nothing about the viewer or angle of view."
That is what I thought. Why compare your plot with the one I present if you hadn't. You are comparing apples and oranges. Why plot them together? Obviously the plot I posted will be of a greater slope at all points than yours after a 12 degree rotation is added.
WDC: "You appear to be speaking about my "slope" as though it were a single number. If that is true, then you don't know what you're talking about.
My calculations used sine and cosine functions, not small-angle linear approximations. I showed my work, so you have no excuse for thinking the curves I calculated were linear. Those curves will probably appear linear to a careless or untrained eye, but their non-linearity can (just barely) be seen at the resolution of my graph. If you can't see the non-linearity, then I suggest you use my calculations to create an equivalent graph with greater resolution, print it out, and hold a straight-edge against the curve on your printed paper. Holding a straight-edge against the monitor screen isn't good enough."
Have you looked closely at the plots I posted? They appear linear to the untrained eye, too. They are not. They are just blown up sinusoidal curves over 0 to 3.5 degrees.
I used the term "linear" as a simplification. I won't do that anymore. All plots shown are just stretched sinusoudal curves and tilt is inferred graphically by comparing the curve to the real measurements.
I'll rework the scale in meters. It seems the only complaint you have is the scaling in meters?
Is that true? When we blow all the hot air out of your last post, scaling in meters from a viewpoint of 12 degrees looking up is the only complaint?
WDC: "It took about twenty minutes to create the graph in my previous post and to copy it to my web site for display here. That's about twenty minutes more effort than your responses deserved.
I will note, however, that if you have been using your calculation of a-b to infer the tilt, then you've been underestimating the tilt by an order of magnitude."
We can take a model, rotate it from the Sauret perspective and check results. Do you honestly believe what you are saying? Will the results be off by an order of magnitude?
The points a, b are just points on a rotating and translating stick. How hard can it be to give a reality check to your results before posting them? Let's check your claim. We will rotate that same stick by 12 degrees away from the viewer and tilt it over 3 degrees, plotting the a-b convergence as a function of angle. Let's see how close you come to reality.
THen how are they useful from the Sauret perspective? I bet if you rotate by 12 degrees clockwise and then apply the theta rotation you plots and the plots of this researcher (it's not me) will look ver similar.
WDC: "I assumed nothing about the viewer or angle of view."
That is what I thought. Why compare your plot with the one I present if you hadn't. You are comparing apples and oranges. Why plot them together? Obviously the plot I posted will be of a greater slope at all points than yours after a 12 degree rotation is added.
WDC: "You appear to be speaking about my "slope" as though it were a single number. If that is true, then you don't know what you're talking about.
My calculations used sine and cosine functions, not small-angle linear approximations. I showed my work, so you have no excuse for thinking the curves I calculated were linear. Those curves will probably appear linear to a careless or untrained eye, but their non-linearity can (just barely) be seen at the resolution of my graph. If you can't see the non-linearity, then I suggest you use my calculations to create an equivalent graph with greater resolution, print it out, and hold a straight-edge against the curve on your printed paper. Holding a straight-edge against the monitor screen isn't good enough."
Have you looked closely at the plots I posted? They appear linear to the untrained eye, too. They are not. They are just blown up sinusoidal curves over 0 to 3.5 degrees.
I used the term "linear" as a simplification. I won't do that anymore. All plots shown are just stretched sinusoudal curves and tilt is inferred graphically by comparing the curve to the real measurements.
I'll rework the scale in meters. It seems the only complaint you have is the scaling in meters?
Is that true? When we blow all the hot air out of your last post, scaling in meters from a viewpoint of 12 degrees looking up is the only complaint?
WDC: "It took about twenty minutes to create the graph in my previous post and to copy it to my web site for display here. That's about twenty minutes more effort than your responses deserved.
I will note, however, that if you have been using your calculation of a-b to infer the tilt, then you've been underestimating the tilt by an order of magnitude."
We can take a model, rotate it from the Sauret perspective and check results. Do you honestly believe what you are saying? Will the results be off by an order of magnitude?
The points a, b are just points on a rotating and translating stick. How hard can it be to give a reality check to your results before posting them? Let's check your claim. We will rotate that same stick by 12 degrees away from the viewer and tilt it over 3 degrees, plotting the a-b convergence as a function of angle. Let's see how close you come to reality.
Last edited:
WDC: "I assumed nothing about the viewer or angle of view."
You did without realizing it. Your answers are valid if the viewer is looking at 0 degrees to the horizontal. I'm sure the researcher who did this would never try to determine tilt from the Sauret viewpoint if we were looking from 0 degrees horizontally because there wouldn't be enough drop to work with from 0 to 3 degrees.
Both you and Myriad are drastically underestimating the amount of drop to work with from 0 to 3 degrees by placing the viewer horizontal to the object viewed.
It is that 12 degree difference that gives us enough drop per unit angle change to estimate tilt in the first place. By ignoring perspective, you paint the worst possible scenario for estimating angle from a-b convergence. There is no worse possible viewing angle than horizontal.
It gets easier the more you are looking upward.
We can totally ignore scale and work solutions from basic stick, vector models if you wish. The issue is the appearance of a, b convergence from the correct viewing angle, and comparison with known measurements.
Here is the math problem here we can ignore the building and focus only on the movement of the 3 points:
3 vector are drawn from the 98th floor axis of rotation to each of the 3 points, let's call the vectors a, b and r.
When looked at from the side, it is identical to a clock with 3 hands of different lengths pointing in the direction of each point a, b and r.
Now we ignore the building and we have only 3 vectors in space. We rotate the whole clock about it's center point 12 degrees clockwise so all hands turn together 12 degrees.
At this point we place a viewer in the far horizon to the left and ask: How does this viewer see the points a and b converge as the clock is further rotated from 12 to 15 degrees?
This is the convergence we want. Both you and Myriad are working the same problem but you forgot to rotate the vector group 12 degrees first. By doing so you choose the worst possible angle to view the convergence.
This is identical to what WDC did but he he never rotated the clock first. Obviously our convergence will be much steeper if we rotate by 12 degrees first.
You did without realizing it. Your answers are valid if the viewer is looking at 0 degrees to the horizontal. I'm sure the researcher who did this would never try to determine tilt from the Sauret viewpoint if we were looking from 0 degrees horizontally because there wouldn't be enough drop to work with from 0 to 3 degrees.
Both you and Myriad are drastically underestimating the amount of drop to work with from 0 to 3 degrees by placing the viewer horizontal to the object viewed.
It is that 12 degree difference that gives us enough drop per unit angle change to estimate tilt in the first place. By ignoring perspective, you paint the worst possible scenario for estimating angle from a-b convergence. There is no worse possible viewing angle than horizontal.
It gets easier the more you are looking upward.
We can totally ignore scale and work solutions from basic stick, vector models if you wish. The issue is the appearance of a, b convergence from the correct viewing angle, and comparison with known measurements.
Here is the math problem here we can ignore the building and focus only on the movement of the 3 points:
3 vector are drawn from the 98th floor axis of rotation to each of the 3 points, let's call the vectors a, b and r.
When looked at from the side, it is identical to a clock with 3 hands of different lengths pointing in the direction of each point a, b and r.
Now we ignore the building and we have only 3 vectors in space. We rotate the whole clock about it's center point 12 degrees clockwise so all hands turn together 12 degrees.
At this point we place a viewer in the far horizon to the left and ask: How does this viewer see the points a and b converge as the clock is further rotated from 12 to 15 degrees?
This is the convergence we want. Both you and Myriad are working the same problem but you forgot to rotate the vector group 12 degrees first. By doing so you choose the worst possible angle to view the convergence.
This is identical to what WDC did but he he never rotated the clock first. Obviously our convergence will be much steeper if we rotate by 12 degrees first.
Last edited:
Here is a another model rotating only 1 degree from the Sauret viewpoint. NW corner.
Obviously we can scale perceived drop vs angle tilt from 0 to 3 degrees using this model.
If we were not looking at 12 degrees upward but rather from the horizontal, we could never have enough drop per angle tilt to do this.
Do you and Myriad really believe that we cannot determine angle from drop in the Sauret perspective? Even if we map it next to a rotating model and compare?
Can you imagine how small the drop would be if we did not have that 12 degree angle? (Yes, you can. That is what you really calculated. It is small to the point of uselessness, as you have shown.)
WDC, do you really believe that BS order of magnitude claim in you last post?
A little reality check to order of magnitude: Do you honestly believe we are off by a factor of 10? Are you expecting 5 degree north wall tilt? Because we measure about 0.5, totally consistent with the model of the NW corner compared with the actual movement I showed previously.
We are in the correct range. You are off on cloud #9.
Obviously we can scale perceived drop vs angle tilt from 0 to 3 degrees using this model.
If we were not looking at 12 degrees upward but rather from the horizontal, we could never have enough drop per angle tilt to do this.
Do you and Myriad really believe that we cannot determine angle from drop in the Sauret perspective? Even if we map it next to a rotating model and compare?
Can you imagine how small the drop would be if we did not have that 12 degree angle? (Yes, you can. That is what you really calculated. It is small to the point of uselessness, as you have shown.)
WDC, do you really believe that BS order of magnitude claim in you last post?
A little reality check to order of magnitude: Do you honestly believe we are off by a factor of 10? Are you expecting 5 degree north wall tilt? Because we measure about 0.5, totally consistent with the model of the NW corner compared with the actual movement I showed previously.
We are in the correct range. You are off on cloud #9.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
technobabble vs solid geometry, part 4
Major_Tom refuses to use quote tags, so we can't find the context by tracing back through the quotations. For reference:
Who could have known?
Given your apparent absence of purpose, that makes perfect sense.
Major_Tom refuses to use quote tags, so we can't find the context by tracing back through the quotations. For reference:
- Myriad's first post on this subtopic.
- Myriad's third post on this subtopic.
- technobabble vs solid geometry, part 1
- technobabble vs solid geometry, part 2
- technobabble vs solid geometry, part 3
So all your talk of linearity, "small angle approximation", "differential" coordinates, Taylor series, Maclaurin series, "dropping the second order term and above", "1 degree of freedom equation of motion for a simple pendulum", and "sin(theta)=theta" was just irrelevant technobabble.
Who could have known?
So you chose to express drop distances and differences between drop distances by calculating the "drops" in a direction other than vertical.
Given your apparent absence of purpose, that makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
WDC POST 671: "So all your talk of linearity, "small angle approximation", "differential" coordinates, Taylor series, Maclaurin series, "dropping the second order term and above", "1 degree of freedom equation of motion for a simple pendulum", and "sin(theta)=theta" was just irrelevant technobabble."
I'll edit out all reference to linearity over the weekend. I don't need it.
We will only work with the stretched sinusoidal curve instead, just like you.
What about your own false claim about the order of magnitude difference? Pretty silly claim from your calculations which don't account for the 12 degree upward angle of viewing, no?
Why compare your curve with mine if you do not account for the 12 degrees? Could you edit that to correct your mistake?
If I remove reference to linearity, do you have any other criticism?
After you correct your mistake, could you address the arguments for deformity which depend upon relative shapes of curves only?
I'll edit out all reference to linearity over the weekend. I don't need it.
We will only work with the stretched sinusoidal curve instead, just like you.
What about your own false claim about the order of magnitude difference? Pretty silly claim from your calculations which don't account for the 12 degree upward angle of viewing, no?
Why compare your curve with mine if you do not account for the 12 degrees? Could you edit that to correct your mistake?
If I remove reference to linearity, do you have any other criticism?
After you correct your mistake, could you address the arguments for deformity which depend upon relative shapes of curves only?
Last edited:
As I mentioned: "Here is the math problem here we can ignore the building and focus only on the movement of the 3 points:
3 vector are drawn from the 98th floor axis of rotation to each of the 3 points, let's call the vectors a, b and r.
When looked at from the side, it is identical to a clock with 3 hands of different lengths pointing in the direction of each point a, b and r.
Now we ignore the building and we have only 3 vectors in space. We rotate the whole clock about it's center point 12 degrees clockwise so all hands turn together 12 degrees.
At this point we place a viewer in the far horizon to the left and ask: How does this viewer see the points a and b converge as the clock is further rotated from 12 to 15 degrees?"
Considering that the researcher simply stretched the same sinusoidal wave you did to estimate tilt, but correctly accounted for the 12 degree upward viewing angle, unlike you and Myriad, my guess is that if you subject your own calculation to a 12 degree rotation, our curves will match swimmingly. I can remove all reference to linearity without having to update the researchers graphs, since he never depended upon an claim of linearity in the construction of it.
Can you update your rotation to include the 12 degree viewing angle or remove the plots where you compare the two curves, since it is highly deceiving to compare your plot with mine.
If we use the 3 vectors described above, rigid constraints are simply that the 3 vectors remain fixed relative to one another in angle and magnitude as the clock is rotated from 12 to 15 degrees.
The plots of building movements show the 3 points do not rotate together as a rigid body. This is observable in the shape of the data. Antenna drop must correspond to a drop in the NW corner and the SW corner. The magnitudes of perceived drop will be different, but they must move together. One cannot begin to move downward 70 frames before another. This is verifiable from at least two viewpoints.
The relative shape of the drop curves prove deviation from rigidity. Do you have a problem with this simple argument?
3 vector are drawn from the 98th floor axis of rotation to each of the 3 points, let's call the vectors a, b and r.
When looked at from the side, it is identical to a clock with 3 hands of different lengths pointing in the direction of each point a, b and r.
Now we ignore the building and we have only 3 vectors in space. We rotate the whole clock about it's center point 12 degrees clockwise so all hands turn together 12 degrees.
At this point we place a viewer in the far horizon to the left and ask: How does this viewer see the points a and b converge as the clock is further rotated from 12 to 15 degrees?"
Considering that the researcher simply stretched the same sinusoidal wave you did to estimate tilt, but correctly accounted for the 12 degree upward viewing angle, unlike you and Myriad, my guess is that if you subject your own calculation to a 12 degree rotation, our curves will match swimmingly. I can remove all reference to linearity without having to update the researchers graphs, since he never depended upon an claim of linearity in the construction of it.
Can you update your rotation to include the 12 degree viewing angle or remove the plots where you compare the two curves, since it is highly deceiving to compare your plot with mine.
If we use the 3 vectors described above, rigid constraints are simply that the 3 vectors remain fixed relative to one another in angle and magnitude as the clock is rotated from 12 to 15 degrees.
The plots of building movements show the 3 points do not rotate together as a rigid body. This is observable in the shape of the data. Antenna drop must correspond to a drop in the NW corner and the SW corner. The magnitudes of perceived drop will be different, but they must move together. One cannot begin to move downward 70 frames before another. This is verifiable from at least two viewpoints.
The relative shape of the drop curves prove deviation from rigidity. Do you have a problem with this simple argument?
Last edited:
Can you please state that your curve can be applied to a viewer at 0 degrees horizontal viewing angle, while my slope is for a 12 degree upward viewing angle? Sinusoidal stretching, just like yours.
In fact, why not check to see if our curves are identical if yours undergoes the correct rotation for viewing angle?
Isn't is an amazing coincidence that our plots are about the same (both being stretched sinusoidal curves) but differ only in slope at any particular point? Could they actually be identical plots, just viewed from a 12 degree difference?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Is it me or in Major Tom's posts getting even harder to follow?
Now he's referring to himself in the third party. I am assuming that he's referring to his "research" and not something he had nothing to do with and is simply selling.
Now he's referring to himself in the third party. I am assuming that he's referring to his "research" and not something he had nothing to do with and is simply selling.
WDC: "So you chose to express drop distances and differences between drop distances by calculating the "drops" in a direction other than vertical."
From the Sauret persepective. How would you find the relation between drop vs angle from the Sauret perspective. Is not comparison with a model undergoing rigid rotation good enough?
Basically, that is exactly what was done. That is exactly what the curves show. On the left is a model undergoing rigid rotation and on the right is the actual data.
If you were to drop any reference to distance scaling on the vertical axis, the results are identical. Model on left, reality on right.
The left side was not derived using algebra, but by rotating the rigid object in question. I'll gladly delete the vertical meter scale if that is what you want. The curves and tilt angle predictions remain the same.
From the Sauret persepective. How would you find the relation between drop vs angle from the Sauret perspective. Is not comparison with a model undergoing rigid rotation good enough?
Basically, that is exactly what was done. That is exactly what the curves show. On the left is a model undergoing rigid rotation and on the right is the actual data.
If you were to drop any reference to distance scaling on the vertical axis, the results are identical. Model on left, reality on right.
The left side was not derived using algebra, but by rotating the rigid object in question. I'll gladly delete the vertical meter scale if that is what you want. The curves and tilt angle predictions remain the same.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You realize there's no direct correlation between the length of time you've worked on a problem and the correct solution of the problem?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Is he related to Doc?
Major_Tom's total refusal to use to use quote tags - after many hints and straight requests - seems to have approached the level of phobia. It's a mystery.
Major_Tom -- why will you not use the quote function? It enables people to click easily back through the history of the exchange, and makes things much clearer post-by-post.