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

[tfk]

MT,

So what formulas did you use? Why didn't you just show your work in the first place?

No math ...

You used "no math".

So, the reason that you put all those INCORRECT formulae in your posts & on your website was simply window-dressing?
Smoke & mirrors?
To impress the gullible?

How … deceitful.

… just comparison of the NW corner drop with a model undergoing rigid rotation over 1 degree from the exact same viewpoint.

And "no math" allows you to pull "1 degree" right out of your intestinal repository of numerical results, eh?

 

[DGM]

In my coordinate systems, mathematics will be quite simple. In yours, a real mess.

But, can you prove them to be correct? I guess I'll have to wait and see.

 

[Oystein]

...It is impossible to reproduce motion in the building coordinate system by using the Sauret video...

This is true, for reasons.
For the same reasons it is also true that it is impossible to reproduce motion in the viewer axis coordinate system by using the Sauret video.

Because the video is a projection on a 2D sphere, however your coordinate system is orthogonal 3D.

Can you calculate drop in the building cs and compare that with the Sauret viewpoint motion? No you cannot. You still need to project the information downward in order to compare it with the Sauret video.

This is wrong, and obviously so, and I hope I don't have to explain why.

 

[Major_Tom]

Also, perhaps quantities like r(s) are not defined well enough in the available graphics? THis should remove all doubt as to how projected quentities are defined and labelled:

a(s), b(s) abd r(s) are the projections of the points onto the y(s) axis.

This should be called the z(s) axis for conversion to 3-D. The graphic has to be updated for 3-D application.

These projected quanties can be compared to actual movement in the Sauret video. This is what is done.

If you stay in the building coordinate system and don't project these values onto a Sauret viewing plane, the information remains unusable to compare with real observed motion.

If you want to compare the movement of any point in the building cs to actual video, you need to project the points onto a viewing plane for that video.


Oystein, you are wrong.

 

[Major_Tom]

a(s) and b(s) cannot start moving well before r(s) does. Well, the Sauret data shows they do.

You can see it in the gifs I posted. There is no way to deny it.

 

[Oystein]

Your graphic suggests that the Sauret lines of sight are parallel - which they are, of course, not.

Before I start looking for this info in lots of text and images, I'd appreciate a short answer: Did you take into account the fact that the projection is not in fact done on a plane, that the lines of sight emenate from a point and are not parallel, and that objects/distances behind the plane of projection therefore appear smaller? Have you calculated the magnitude of this effect somewhere, and determined it is negligible?

 

[phunk]

Also, perhaps quantities like r(s) are not defined well enough in the available graphics? THis should remove all doubt as to how projected quentities are defined and labelled:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/sauret_proj.jpeg[/qimg]

a(s), b(s) abd r(s) are the projections of the points onto the y(s) axis.

This should be called the z(s) axis for conversion to 3-D. The graphic has to be updated for 3-D application.

These projected quanties can be compared to actual movement in the Sauret video. This is what is done.

If you stay in the building coordinate system and don't project these values onto a Sauret viewing plane, the information remains unusable to compare with real observed motion.

If you want to compare the movement of any point in the building cs to actual video, you need to project the points onto a viewing plane for that video.


Oystein, you are wrong.

That must have been a HUGE camera.

 

[tfk]

So, lemme see if I've got this straight...

In summary, once the minus sign and some square root symbols are inserted into the graphics, WD Clinger has one basic complaint remaining: The use of viewer coordinate systems.

tfk: "Hey, Major Tom, we agreed that I was going to sell you my pickup truck for $1,000. And now you show up demanding that I give you the truck AND a check for $1,000,000??"
Major Tom: "Ahh, it's just a silly square root symbol. What are you getting all worked up about?"
tfk: "Explain why I should give YOU a check for any amount, when you are buying my truck?"
Major Tom: "Ahhh, it's just a silly minus sign. Just write the check & toss me the keys."
tfk: "Frappe la rue."

In summary, WD explicitly notes 16 errors. You correct two, and think that leaves one more. In other words, in your world 16 - 2 = 1.

inneresting…

Pssst, was the "arctan2π" argument lost on you?

inneresting…

Pssst, you don't stick square root symbols into graphics. You stick 'em into equations.

He recommends only using the "plumb" coordinate system, while I will use multiple coordinate systems for different purposes.

It is pretty easy to see why the building coordinate system is useless to describe motion as it is seen from each viewpoint.

So, there is ONLY ONE coordinate system that is objective & "reality based". That is, is the only coordinate system that easily & clearly tells one what the top block of the tower is really doing in terms of tilting & descending. This is a coordinate system that is tied to the walls & corners of the building itself.

Every other coordinate system is a subjective, 2D projection of that 3D reality based system taken from various viewpoints. In other words, all dimensions & measurements taken from any of those other viewpoints are guaranteed to be wrong, unless perspective & depth are carefully considered.

And the one coordinate system that you disparage & refuse to consider is one tied to the building & to objective reality.

inneresting...

It is impossible to reproduce motion in the building coordinate system by using the Sauret video.
What you really see is movement as it is projected onto the Sauret viewpoint.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING !!!
WE HAVE A WINNAH!!

Gee, that didn't take too long, did it?

Read it again.

For comprehension.

Think about what it means about the inverse transform. (Sauret coordinates to building coordinates)

The question is: How is rigid tilting seen from the Sauret perspective, and using building coordinates to describe this is a pretty silly thing to do.

The APPARENT rotation & translation of the upper block as viewed from the Sauret video is different from the APPARENT rotation & translation of the upper block as viewed from the CBS video, which is different from the APPARENT rotation & translation of the upper block as viewed from any other perspective. None of those subjective, different, apparent rotations & translations of the upper block matter one iota.

The one and only rotation & translation of the upper block that matters is the REALITY BASED one: the 3D rotation & translation with respect to the planet earth. (i.e., the source of the gravitational field that generates one primary group of forces on all members. And with respect to the supports in the building, the structure that supplies the second primary group of forces in the building. And these forces happen to be pretty darn closely aligned with the walls of the building, prior to the start of the collapse.

And yet, this is the one coordinate system that you disparage & refuse to consider.

inneresting...

In my coordinate systems, mathematics will be quite simple. In yours, a real mess.

I'd really prefer "correct math" to "simple math".

I'd really prefer REAL motion to APPARENT motion.

I'd really prefer a COMPETENT analysis to, well, yours.

 

[Major_Tom]

Oystein post 703: "This is true, for reasons.
For the same reasons it is also true that it is impossible to reproduce motion in the viewer axis coordinate system by using the Sauret video."

But if you use 2 or more viewpoints, 3-D vector reconstruction is possible. WHen we do that, viewer coordinate systems will be useful.

Recall:

Basically, any vector can be expressed in terms of 2 components, the part parallel with the line of sight and the part perpendicular to it, as shown:

The line of sight is the vector p. The blue lines are projection lines, or projection planes in 3-D. The viewer actually sees the vector as it projects onto a blue plane.

The parallel component is the portion of D that is invisible to the viewer. The perpendicular component is the portion of the vector D that is completely visible to the viewer. The viewer sees all of the perpendicular component and none of the parallel component.

3-D vector reconstruction from knowledge of 2 or more vector projections is the effort to rebuild these invisible parallel components of the vector D from knowledge of the visible perpendicular parts from each viewpoint.


This becomes a simple procedure with viewer coordinates. That is why I use them.

The perpendicular part of D is totally visible to the viewer and lies totally within a y, z projection plane in the viewer coordinate system. You can know the y and z components of vector D in the viewer coordinate system. You cannot know the x component because it points directly iway from the viewer. If you do that from 2 viewpoints, you can reconstruct the whole vector.

The choice of viewer coordinates means that for each projection, 2 of the 3 vector components in the viewer system are totally visible and measurable. The third component is totally invisible. It allows us to measure 2 of the 3 vector components directly from the video from the viewpoint.



Concerning my use of cartesian coordinates, it is justified if the object viewed is sufficiently small relative to the distance of the viewer. If not, spherical coordinates seem to be best for the viewer coordinate system.

Yes, we are justified in using cartesian coords for Sauret and the NE viewpoints. If you want to see, I'll show you why over the weekend. I won't have sufficient time until then.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Major_Tom's errors, part 3

Yesterday, I posted parts 0, 1, and 2 of this series.

[size=+1]Major_Tom's "mathematical certainty" was not mathematical.[/size]

It turns out that Major_Tom's results and conclusions were completely unaffected by 16 major errors in the critical equations he has been promoting both here and at his web site:

Nothing changes.

...snip...

Absolutely no results will change.

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll show you that once the graphics are fixed, the results don't change at all.

I need a few days to fix the errors in the graphics.

...snip...

Once done, the exact same proof remains.

...snip...

I'll change some vocabulary concerning "drop" but you have not touched the proof of deformity.

We now know what Major_Tom meant by the "mathematical certainty" of his proof, results, and conclusions: His proof, results, and conclusions had nothing to do with mathematics, and everything to do with his certainty.


[size=+1]Major_Tom has been technobabbling.[/size]

DGM asked a critical question:

Were these formulas the actual ones you used to make your calculations and graphs?

No. They were put in later to show basic vector relations in an introduction.

So what formulas did you use? Why didn't you just show your work in the first place?

Look:

No math,

So there you have it: All of Major_Tom's mathematical-looking stuff was just for show. That mathy stuff never had anything to do with Major_Tom's graphs, calculations, and conclusions.

It was technobabble. Its only purpose was to impress the gullible.


[size=+1]Major_Tom asks us to trust him on this.[/size]

Although Major_Tom was just technobabbling, he wants us to trust his results because he's been plagiarizing another "researcher":

Graphics and the basic vector relations were worked out by 2 different people.

He did his correctly. I had some basic mistakes in my vector graphics.

...snip...

Here is the graphic representation by the other researcher:

Does this "other researcher" have a name? Qualifications?

Why should we believe his math was any better than yours?

Why should we trust your assessment of his math's correctness?

Why should we believe this person actually exists?

 

[twinstead]

I love a good miniseries

 

[ergo]

Were these formulas the actual ones you used to make your calculations and graphs?

No. They were put in later to show basic vector relations in an introduction.

So what formulas did you use? Why didn't you just show your work in the first place?

Look:

No math,

I don't agree with everything Major Tom says, but anyone can see that you cut off the rest of his post which would have provided the rest of the context, as well as the post that followed it. Then you say:

So there you have it: All of Major_Tom's mathematical-looking stuff was just for show. That mathy stuff never had anything to do with Major_Tom's graphs, calculations, and conclusions.

It was technobabble. Its only purpose was to impress the gullible.

That's lame. Are you having trouble with the "mathy" stuff? Is it time now for you to flounce? Hurling insults as you run away?

 

[TruthersLie]

That's lame. Are you having trouble with the "mathy" stuff? Is it time now for you to flounce? Hurling insults as you run away?

Hey Pot... there is a kettle on the phone for you. It is saying something about the way you look...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't agree with everything Major Tom says, but anyone can see that you cut off the rest of his post which would have provided the rest of the context, as well as the post that followed it.

Indeed, I left the comma in the quotation so everyone would know the rest of the post was cut off. The quotation also includes a link so anyone can see that the rest of Major_Tom's post includes no math, just as Major_Tom had said, which means Major_Tom was ignoring DGM's question while pretending to respond to it.

That's lame. Are you having trouble with the "mathy" stuff?

No.

As for Major_Tom's follow-on post:

The WD Clinger single coordinante system leaves you with a mathematical mess is you actually want to reconstruct 3-D vectors from the information in the videos. It leaves you with a mathematical mess if you actually want to compare theoretical motion as described in the building coordinate system onto a viewpoint.

It's a great idea, WD Clinger, but it is mathematically useless as I will show as we reconstruct vectors.

If Major_Tom knew what he was talking about here, he would be lying.

I have never advocated use of a single coordinate system. The best way to go about this is to choose a Cartesian coordinate system that's aligned with WTC 1, and to relate that system of Cartesian coordinates to a set of coordinate systems whose origins coincide with the positions of the video cameras; those viewer-oriented systems should not be Cartesian unless it can be established that the Cartesian approximation introduces negligible error.

Although myriad posters have dropped hints about that, Major_Tom didn't even begin to catch on until Oystein practically spelled it out for him yesterday afternoon.

I and other members of JREF have dropped hints concerning several other problems with Major_Tom's preferred choice of coordinates, but he has shown no sign of understanding those problems.

Can you calculate drop in the building cs and compare that with the Sauret viewpoint motion? No you cannot.

Yes we can, as Oystein said. Major_Tom is essentially denying our ability to transform from one coordinate system to another. Just because Major_Tom doesn't know how to do that correctly doesn't mean we don't.

In my coordinate systems, mathematics will be quite simple. In yours, a real mess.

One of the interesting things about mathematics is that a more sophisticated approach (such as ours) is often much simpler than a less competent approach (such as Major_Tom's).

For Major_Tom's purposes, a more sophisticated approach would be useless. He needs an approach he can pretend to explain to the gullible.

Whether Major_Tom's mathematics is actually correct doesn't really matter to him. He essentially said that himself in posts 792, 793, and 794.

 

[Myriad]

: "This is true, for reasons.
For the same reasons it is also true that it is impossible to reproduce motion in the viewer axis coordinate system by using the Sauret video."

But if you use 2 or more viewpoints, 3-D vector reconstruction is possible. WHen we do that, viewer coordinate systems will be useful."

Recall:

Basically, any vector can be expressed in terms of 2 components, the part parallel with the line of sight and the part perpendicular to it, as shown:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/perp_and_parallel.png[/qimg]

The line of sight is the vector p. The blue lines are projection lines, or projection planes in 3-D. The viewer actually sees the vector as it projects onto a blue plane.

Your equations apply foreshortening but neglect perspective. In other words, an orthographic projection. If you used them to render a 2-D image from a 3-D model, the result would be that any sphere of a given size would render the same size in the 2-D image regardless of its distance from the view point. A solar eclipse would render as a tiny dot moving across the face of the sun because the sun is much much larger than the moon, disregarding that the moon is much closer. That's not the way a camera or an eye images things.

A proper 3-D projection is a composition of three transformations: a translation and a rotation that account for the position and view angle of the camera relative to the object rendered, and a perspective projection that accounts for the distance from the camera to the points of the object rendered. The latter transformation affects the position within the view frame of every point that is not directly on the view axis (the line of sight of the center point of the view frame).

For details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_projection#Perspective_projection.

The basic task remains applying these transformations in reverse, using multiple images to solve for the unknowns, to establish the actual positions of the points of the imaged objects in 3-D space based on measured positions within each of the various 2-D view fields. Note from the information at the link that the field of view of each camera affects the perspective transformation and so must be known or determined for each case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

Major_Tom's crime:

Yes, a quick glance tells us that the plus sign in the first expression should be minus. Crime.

Yes, the terms for magnitude for the vector difference should have a square root. A quick glance tells us that if vector Q=0, the magnitude of B is b^2. wrong. Crime.

These vector graphics came in a rewrite. I'll show step by step next weekend why fixing the symbols don't affect the conclusions or the graphs at all.


This will be done by showing that the correct expressions

When the correct values of lambda and a, b and r are used, match the following graph:

(I'll rearrange the vertical 0 point in the equations to match the graph range.)

This is a "missing link" in the current argument, and when it is included, it will remove all doubt that the graphical relations of points a, b and r represent the actual relations of a body undergoing rigid rotation seen from the Sauret perspective.


There is and will be no belief required.


WD Clinger, throughout this thread femr has posted evidence of early antenna movement. Femr presents the same argument for concave roof deformity in a different way.

Do you disagree with his various arguments also?

If not, do you even need my vector arguments at all to conclude early concave deformity?

 

[Major_Tom]

This was sent to me by a different researcher, one of my favorite debunkers who is reading this thread:

He did the same thing, without a viewer cs.

He wrote:

"This was made with the best parametric input I had at the time for hinge/camera/dish location and rendered by a precise geometry program. Seven degree tilt depicted.

The thing I've focused on is very simple: with the given Sauret optical axis, the projection of tilt motion onto the image plane will show motion for both a roofline point and an antenna point immediately at the commencement of tilt. As you point out, the projection onto the image plane means the initial tilt position is not perpendicular to the viewer and small angle approximation on early motion does not apply. The important thing is that, while the apparent vertical change for the antenna is about 3x that for the roofline, the methods are sensitive enough to catch roofline motion when it should be apparent - but it is not."


It is pretty obvious that at the viewing angle shown, the antenna cannot drop independently of the NW corner over the first few degrees of tilt.

Yet it does.

 

[DGM]

It is pretty obvious that at the viewing angle shown, the antenna cannot drop independently of the NW corner over the first few degrees of tilt.

Unless local failures in the hat truss caused the antenna to shift independent of the parameter wall.

 

[carlitos]

?

I'll show step by step next weekend why fixing the symbols don't affect the conclusions or the graphs at all.

I look forward to this. While I'm not much for physics, I did make it through calculus all the way to differential equations. And I cannot imagine how a series of equations could switch a minus to a plus, and forget a square root in a function, and still deliver the same answer.


Or is it a big argument from incredulity based on fuzzy images, and the math is just window dressing?

 

[Dog Town]

Or is it a big argument from incredulity based on fuzzy images, and the math is just window dressing?

Ding, ding, ding!