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

[Oystein]

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.

2 or more viewpoints means 2 or more viewer cs. The 3D reconstruction will have to take place in 1 cs only; is any viewer cs preferable to any other, or indeed preferable to a planet-earth-cs?

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.

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.

Could you check whether you think that Myriad's post 815 applies to the situation you are analysing? I think it does, and it refutes your entire post.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Major_Tom's errors, part 4

Previous episodes identified 16 errors:

• Major_Tom's errors, part 0
• Major_Tom's errors, part 1
• Major_Tom's errors, part 2
• Major_Tom's errors, part 3

Error 17 is identified at the end of this episode.


[size=+1]No crime.[/size]

Major_Tom's crime:

Hoaxing and plagiarism are grave offenses against the truth, but they're unlikely to be crimes in the legal sense.

Major_Tom pretended to have proved his claims with "mathematical certainty", when he knew all along that his equations were just for show.

When his hoax was exposed, he defended the absence of any connection between his results and his technobabble by saying he had plagiarized from another researcher.


[size=+1]Appeal to authority: femr2.[/size]

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?

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall femr2 making any persuasive arguments in this thread. As I recall, he's been trying not to put forth any arguments at all.

If he has a technical argument to present, he should write it up. He hasn't done that. In fact, he has said outright that he won't be doing that.


[size=+1]Appeal to unknown authority.[/size]

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

...snip...

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." [/i]

[size=-2]
(FYI: It's a breach of Rule 7 to post here on behalf of someone else. If you make a habit of allowing other people to post by proxy, it will surely be reported.)
[/size]
​

My back-of-the-envelope calculation, based on the numbers Major_Tom presents at his web site, confirms his favorite debunker's claim that, with a 7 degree tilt, the change in vertical angle for the antenna (as seen by Sauret's camera) is about 3× the change in angle for the roofline. (It's actually closer to 2.7×.) With a 1/2 to 1 degree tilt, however, the relative magnitude is about 4.1×.

According to Major_Tom, his favorite debunker "focused on" one particular thing: "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." That's pretty unlikely. With a rigid rotation of 1/2 degree around Major_Tom's assumed axis of rotation, the antenna would drop about a foot, which corresponds to about .016 degrees as seen from the camera. The roofline would drop about 2mm (less than 1/10 inch), which corresponds to about .004 degrees as seen from the camera. Yes, that's two millimeters and four thousandths of a degree.

Do Major_Tom and his favorite debunker really think that a 4× change in angle will become detectable at exactly the same time as the smaller change in angle? I'm pretty sure the larger change in angle would become apparent first.

Major_Tom knows that the approximately 2-pixel movement of the antenna in his animated GIF is visible to the unaided eye, but can viewers of that GIF be certain that the roofline moves by less than 1/2 pixel?

Can anyone rule out a rotation-induced 18-inch horizontal sway of the building's upper floors that would (from Sauret's viewpoint) completely cancel the roof's 2mm drop?

Even when undamaged, WTC 1 was designed to sway as much as 3 feet in strong winds.


[size=+1]Error 17.[/size]

Conservation of momentum and Newton's third law tell us there should have been some horizontal sway pushing the hinge outward as rotation began.

Major_Tom tried to model all rigid motions by rotations around a hinge assumed a priori. That reduced his problem to a single time-varying parameter θ, but it's a fundamentally unsound approach. He should have allowed for translations as well as more general rotations, with six parameters instead of just one.

Anyone who tries to analyze the geometry of this without taking advantage of the multiple viewpoints available is going about it wrong.

 

[Dog Town]

[size=-2]
(FYI: It's a breach of Rule 7 to post here on behalf of someone else. If you make a habit of allowing other people to post by proxy, it will surely be reported.)
[/size]
​

It's either Dr.Greening, or Greg U (at least that's my guess). Greening is banned. What became of G.U.? I know it's his forum that MT, and F2 slithered in from. Don't recall Gregg being banned, however.

 

[R.Mackey]

Gregory is not banned. I don't recall him even picking up a moderator warning. Haven't seen him post much, either here or at his own forum, which is a pity.

 

[Major_Tom]

You never addressed any of the comments about femr or the obvious connection between antenna movement and north wall movement.

Instead you accuse me of posting someones math without a permit.

The comments by the debunker were purely mathematical.

You ignore the fact that femr shows early antenna movement from multiple angles,


And you witch-hunt me instead.

 

[Major_Tom]

Your NIST WTC1 collapse scenario is a fiction. Your Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB are fictions.

You will never review these critically.

Instead, you witch-hunt anyone who pops you bubble of illusion.

If you were a critical thinker, you would correctly criticize NIST and BV, BL and BLGB instead of trying to get me kicked out for posting math without the proper permit.

 

[DGM]

Your NIST WTC1 collapse scenario is a fiction. Your Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB are fictions.

You will never review these critically.

Instead, you witch-hunt anyone who pops you bubble of illusion.

If you were a critical thinker, you would correctly criticize NIST and BV, BL and BLGB instead of trying to get me kicked out for posting math without the proper permit.

Before you totally melt-down........breath.

Now show (with math) what everyone has got wrong.


Easy, right?

 

[Major_Tom]

Everyone whose graphs I use are probably reading this thread. None of them seem to mind me placing research ideas of a few different researchers into a comprehensive whole.

Maybe some do not post here because of the obvious witchhunt atmosphere.

All arguments are purely technical. If you are afraid of confronting these ideas, your highest priority will be to have me removed.

That is what you are doing.

 

[DGM]

Everyone whose graphs I use are probably reading this thread. None of them seem to mind me placing research ideas of a few different researchers into a comprehensive whole.

Maybe some do not post here because of the obvious witchhunt atmosphere.

All arguments are purely technical. If you are afraid of confronting these ideas, your highest priority will be to have me removed.

That is what you are doing.

No one is looking to "have you removed". Just back-up what you claim
(with math that can withstand scrutiny).

 

[Oystein]

Everyone whose graphs I use are probably reading this thread. None of them seem to mind me placing research ideas of a few different researchers into a comprehensive whole.

Maybe some do not post here because of the obvious witchhunt atmosphere.

All arguments are purely technical. If you are afraid of confronting these ideas, your highest priority will be to have me removed.

That is what you are doing.

How pathetic.
Now go and stamp out your sand castle towers so we know you mean business!

(Is this the brand new Appeal to Anonymous Authority fallacy? What is, anyway, the name of the fallacy that goes "I know something, but I am not telling you"?)

 

[carlitos]

Major_Tom, other than reporting your continued refusal to quote people properly, no one is trying to have you "removed." If you would have properly sourced the graphics you posted, then the criticism of their errors would have been properly directed at the author(s).

 

[Reactor drone]

You never addressed any of the comments about femr or the obvious connection between antenna movement and north wall movement.

Instead you accuse me of posting someones math without a permit.

The comments by the debunker were purely mathematical.

You ignore the fact that femr shows early antenna movement from multiple angles,


And you witch-hunt me instead.

Is this the claim that the antenna was wobbling a bit or the claim that it dropped 2 feet into the roof. If the latter, your own (or someone's own) data shows that that doesn't happen and that the apparent drop of the antenna is due to rotation.

 

[Major_Tom]

Carlitos: "If you would have properly sourced the graphics you posted, then the criticism of their errors would have been properly directed at the author(s). "

It is a graphic of a square with a few lines. His name is anonymous. Like mine.

I didn't "appeal to authority". The graphic with the square and some lines shows WD Clinger what he should have figured out some pages ago.


We've had a rare moment of honesty in the JREF forum in another thread. The atmosphere is right to show that the Bazant series of papers BV, BL and BLGB, all peer reviewed, are all wrong.

Guys, like I mentioned months ago, you can kiss those security blankets goodbye.

I'll be taking a small break from this thread to put those papers once and for all into the trash bin of 9/11 history, then I'll return and do the same to the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation model.


WD Clinger post 822: "Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall femr2 making any persuasive arguments in this thread. "

Yes, you missed it. You missed many things. Did you happen to notice any mention of the SW corner fire, fl 104? It's been mentioned many times.

How about the part where the west wall fails from south to north within 0.5 seconds during your famous (extremely rapid) tilt.

Youi missed all that and focussed only on trying to pee on my leg.


WDC : "Do Major_Tom and his favorite debunker really think that a 4× change in angle will become detectable at exactly the same time as the smaller change in angle? I'm pretty sure the larger change in angle would become apparent first."

My God. Please reread the thread. Focus on femr's posts of the antenna leading the SW corner fire and the NW corner from the NBC NW viewpoint.

 

[Oystein]

...The atmosphere is right to show that the Bazant series of papers BV, BL and BLGB, all peer reviewed, are all wrong.
...

No. Their applicability is in question.

 

[Oystein]

...
Yes, you missed it. You missed many things. Did you happen to notice any mention of the SW corner fire, fl 104? It's been mentioned many times.
...

What he didn't miss is that your 3-D reconstruction of the movement of several features of the North Tower...

• rests on faulty assumption
• rests on faulty math
• rests on unsourced material from unknown authors
• fails to convince

I have not failed to notice that you are willing to learn. So I was giving this thread some hope - it would really be interesting if someone, with the help of others where needed, could and would indeed do such a reconstruction.

• This would preferably be done in a planet-earth coordinate system, aligned (x, y) with the walls of the tower
• It would use as many view points a possible.
• It would preferably include solid estimates of margin of error
• It would best make all assumptions explicit

My own skills at video and image analysis and, indeed, math, are not sufficient to do this myself, I admit, but I think I can follow most of the arguments here.

I think you would do good to be more forthcoming with your sources, and less convinced that you are right, and I think it would do WDC good if he returned to a more constructive and helpful tone. As far as I can tell, his criticism of your work is valid, as is Myriads observation that your method fails to take true perspective into proper account.

Now, somebody needs to move forward and synthesize a better model out of the work so far done, or maybe start fresh, using the lessons so far learned.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos: "If you would have properly sourced the graphics you posted, then the criticism of their errors would have been properly directed at the author(s). "

It is a graphic of a square with a few lines. His name is anonymous. Like mine.

I didn't "appeal to authority". The graphic with the square and some lines shows WD Clinger what he should have figured out some pages ago.

I was referring to the equations, one of which substituted a plus sign for a minus sign, and another which forgot a square root sign. If this is what you meant by "graphic of a square with a few lines" I'm not sure why you phrase it that way.

You have "appeal to authority" in quotes, and I'm not sure why. I certainly wasn't accusing you of that.

Again, if your output is the same, given the errors in the math, I'm curious to know how that happens.

Lastly, if you are posting work that is not your own, common courtesy would be to source it properly, as femr2 does with achimspok's work here.

 

[newton3376]

Everyone whose graphs I use are probably reading this thread. None of them seem to mind me placing research ideas of a few different researchers into a comprehensive whole.

Maybe some do not post here because of the obvious witchhunt atmosphere.

All arguments are purely technical. If you are afraid of confronting these ideas, your highest priority will be to have me removed.

That is what you are doing.

Major Tom:

It's not your fault.

 

[Dog Town]

I'll be taking a small break from this thread to put those papers once and for all into the trash bin of 9/11 history, then I'll return and do the same to the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation model.

Interesting how Twoofers are so full of anger, and themselves!
This should be rich!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Your NIST WTC1 collapse scenario is a fiction. Your Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB are fictions.

Not my scenario, not my papers.

When judged as fiction, the NCSTAR reports are almost as boring as Atlas Shrugged, but their technical details sound plausible enough to sustain the narrative. I can't say as much for your fiction.

You will never review these critically.

Instead, you witch-hunt anyone who pops you bubble of illusion.

If you were a critical thinker, you would correctly criticize NIST and BV, BL and BLGB instead of trying to get me kicked out for posting math without the proper permit.

I have said several times now that one of the numbered equations in BV is incorrect, and obviously so, although the error isn't quite so obvious as any of the 17 errors I have enumerated in your alleged "proof". A glance at BV Figure 3 explains why their error is not significant, and it looks to me as though a half-dozen corrections to BV would repair that error without affecting their conclusions. So far as I can tell, the main problem with BV is the plausibility of their model, which lies outside my competence.

As for the NIST reports, I have contributed to enough group efforts to know how sausage is made. I have absolutely no problem with competent criticism of those reports, and I am aware of a few such criticisms that may be related to some of the points you have been trying to make.

Your own criticism, however:

• rests on faulty assumption
• rests on faulty math
• rests on unsourced material from unknown authors
• fails to convince

Furthermore you have pretended your mistakes don't affect your results or the claimed "mathematical certainty" of your alleged "proof". That tells us you don't understand the concept of a mathematical proof, and it suggests you've been faking or plagiarizing your results.

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.

Correction: a quick glance told me of your errors. You couldn't find them in a week.

Youi missed all that and focussed only on trying to pee on my leg.

What colorful metaphor should we use to describe the technobabble you've been dumping here?

My God. Please reread the thread. Focus on femr's posts of the antenna leading the SW corner fire and the NW corner from the NBC NW viewpoint.

OMFSM. I'll say this for Ayn Rand: she wasn't afraid to suggest a plot.

 

[tfk]

Carlitos: "If you would have properly sourced the graphics you posted, then the criticism of their errors would have been properly directed at the author(s). "

It is a graphic of a square with a few lines. His name is anonymous. Like mine.

This is about credentials & credibility.
Your's has taken a gawd-awful beating of late.

I didn't "appeal to authority". The graphic with the square and some lines shows WD Clinger what he should have figured out some pages ago.

"… what he should have figured out …"

In other words:
Major Tom: "… stuff I can't explain.
But trust me, I'm right.
About something.
And you're wrong.
About something…"

We've had a rare moment of honesty in the JREF forum in another thread. The atmosphere is right to show that the Bazant series of papers BV, BL and BLGB, all peer reviewed, are all wrong.

Guys, like I mentioned months ago, you can kiss those security blankets goodbye.

Ahhhh, Truther stew...

3 parts ignorance.
5 parts arrogance.
A dash of paranoia.

I'll be taking a small break from this thread to put those papers once and for all into the trash bin of 9/11 history, then I'll return and do the same to the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation model.

"Extra arrogance, please …"

WD Clinger post 822: "Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall femr2 making any persuasive arguments in this thread. "

Yes, you missed it. You missed many things. Did you happen to notice any mention of the SW corner fire, fl 104? It's been mentioned many times.

Major Tom: "… more things I can't explain …"

How about the part where the west wall fails from south to north within 0.5 seconds during your famous (extremely rapid) tilt.

WDC : "Do Major_Tom and his favorite debunker really think that a 4× change in angle will become detectable at exactly the same time as the smaller change in angle? I'm pretty sure the larger change in angle would become apparent first."

My God. Please reread the thread.

Major Tom: "… I can't explain pretty much anything. But some really cool people have assured me that, somewhere buried in this long list of links, there must be something that shows that NIST did, uh, well, uh, something wrong."

You missed all that and focussed only on trying to pee on my leg.

You're doing a fine job pissing on your own leg.

Focus on femr's posts of the antenna leading the SW corner fire and the NW corner from the NBC NW viewpoint.

Let me try (and, no doubt, fail again) to explain something to you. For perhaps the 50th time.

Without KNOWLEDGEABLY correlating multiple viewpoints, you cannot tell how any point is moving.

A point can be falling fast, and it could appear to your one perspective to be falling slow.
A point can be falling or rising, and it could appear to your one perspective to be stationary.
In fact, a point can appear to your one perspective to be falling, and it could in fact be rising.

(All of which makes your calculations of vertical velocity really amusing…)

It appears, from your convoluted, confused arguments, that your "evidence" that the roof is sagging (and that the upper block is not acting like a pseudo-rigid body) is that the antenna APPEARS to descend before the NW corner APPEARS to descend. (Note the BIG clues…)

Your conclusions are completely unsupportable. It is entirely possible, likely in fact, that all of your timing delays and displacement conclusions are merely the result of your stubborn, uninformed insistence on not learning & implementing simple vector analysis.

BTW, "cutting & pasting technobabble" is not the same as "implementing vector analysis".

If you're still confused about how your timing & motion conclusions are unsupported by your data, you just have to ask. I'll draw you a graph…

But here's a quick tidbit from about 20 minutes of CAD.

I simulated pure rigid-body tilting, using the graphs that YOU have posted.

Here's the APPARENT motion of the antenna ball & the NW corner in the sim, with the entire upper block tilting as a perfect rigid body.

Does this chart look familiar...?

Funny thing is, in the simulation, the NW corner is rising the whole time, even tho it SEEMS to be falling.

ETA: BTW, even tho I made the gross error of not labeling my vertical axis, the units are "feet".
Imagine that: even tho the antenna ball appears to have dropped about 25 feet, the NW corner appearing to have not dropped an inch. And the whole upper block still rotating as a fixed rigid body...

Amazing what perspective can do, ain't it.

In fact, applying your silly methods & metrics to this [ETA: photograph] a short video from which this screen shot was extracted …

… would conclude that the third guy is moving about 20 mph (sideways), and the first two guys are virtually stopped. Just wiggling their bikes side to side. Why, they could probably just dismount …

Your "analysis" is bogus.

But I can't get to it until the weekend. Today's a busy day.


tk