East edge of the louvers does not align with the lower marker. As I've said, trace data clarifies the point used. Achimspok has posted the relevant traces in the OP. I'll post additional clarification when I have time.
Femr2, say it ain't so. You've made yet another horrible blunder. Look at your image. Then read this statement again 'The chosen feature was the top of the parapet wall on the roofline aligned with the east edge of the louvers on the north face'
Hint: East is East (no Penthouse anymore in your picture....hmmm)
West is not East.
The reference to the West Penthouse, once again, is a red herring.
Nope.Too bad, so sad, you're wrong again.
Their position/time trace was not produced by splicing together several different traces from different horizontal positions in the frame (and so totally different positions on the building), as the result would be UTTER NONSENSE.
Is that what you are actually suggesting NIST did ?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I did. Why was a point other then what NIST used brought up then?
Cool. Then perhaps you'd like to formalise your statement again, Tom.
I say that the collapse began before the East Penthouse descent began.
Are you going to repeat your certainty again ?
If you blinker your viewpoint only with what you are told in the NIST report, this *discussion* will go on ad-infinitum.
My image, as you put it, is actually a *long exposure timelapse* of about 10 seconds length, done to increase the quality of the image. It's purpose is to show the roof features. All of them. It's not stated as being at any particular point in time.
ROFL.
Nope.
Suggest you try a little more patience Tom.
Last edited:
It wouldn't change the result.
I even mesured the fall of the outermost windows at 47 calculated a straight line and the crossing point to a vertical line above the 29 windows NIST used to stop it.
The difference looks like that:
Yellow is the fall of the straight line between east and west corner - a little bit distorted due to bowing. Blue is the direct measurement of a horizontal edge in the middle of the wall (two floors below the parapet).
I can see the tremendous effect of bowing due to perspective even if that effect isn't fully nullified.
If they started the clock early, then the resulting graph should be identical over time but may be the number of the actual second might be different.
So let's clear that up a little bit. Basically the NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 gave us two graphs.
The first to mention about that is the meaning of the big dots in the velocity curve. NIST obviously calculated sometimes 2 sometimes 4 velocities per second and dotted the result between the axes.
Next - I guess - they used some trendline of any order to present a nice graph. Furthermore the first point at about 0.45 seconds says velocity "virtually" 0ft/s. It seems the order of the trendline suggests an earlier start just to fullfill the order of the trend being smooth.
The question that comes into mind is, what if they didn't measure a smooth curve? What if the pixel brightness they used to trigger their measurement was JUST a result of
1) building sway
2) noise
3) video compression
If so then there is ZERO justification for a start earlier than 0.45s.
Let's have a look at the displacement curve.
The first dot is somewhere near 0.8 seconds and that dot basically shows 0ft.
The dots of the measurement show different distances in time + are sometimes a little over or below the trend...
What do you think, what method NIST used indeed?
They did it by hand, painted a dot somewhere near the "roofline", scrolled some frames forward, painted a dot, and so on...
Lets compare their graphs to a tracking point measurement:
The first thing that jumps into the eye: Yes, that's not the transition from screenwall to roofline. Instead it is a dotted line similar to the movement of the louver.
Interestingly the transition between bowing and falling is straighten out.
How could that happen?????
One possibility: They used the trendline between the painted displacement dots to calculate some velocities.
Furthermore you can see that everything prior to the 0.45s dot is well in the range of pixel noise. So forget about everything prior to the blue line for the moment.
Let's have a look at the second graph NIST presented.
Something jumps right into your face. They used a different T=0. The difference is something near 0.5 seconds. Nevertheless, the first measurement (or dotted point) is exactly on the blue line. THAT'S INDEED THE FIRST MEASUREMENT. Everything before the blue line is just the attempt of the trendline calculation to get a ZERO for the hand drawn dots.
And now it becomes really weird! The displacement curve do not fit the 49 bowing-falling in the slightest. The curve fits in three distinct points perfectly the transition between the fall of the screen wall and the bowing-falling of the perimeter.
The points are "the start" - "the transition between screenwall and parapet" - "+70ft drop..."
If you look a little closer then you will see that the entire curve is NOT FREE FALL in not a single point at all. It's flatten. The admitted free fall for "stage 2" should bow like the bright blue curve during stage 2.
One can only guess what NIST really did but whatever it was,
- both curves don't show the same motion
- both curves are not really measurements of motion visible from "camera 3"
- both T=0 are different and do not reflect the beginning of motion in the graphs
Let's guess! One dotted the visible sky - gave it to his boss as "roofline" - the boss gave it back to polish it ... and so on
My OP statement remains: either NIST did several beginners failures in a row or that whole thing is a fraud.
...no sine of a buckle angle will change anything about it.
But once we have some REAL start and velocity we will be able to calculate the inward bowing (failure < 1ft) and even the velocity of buckling for 12 core columns right below the screenwall and of course the arcsine for the perimeter.
Respectfully[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
achimspok:
Why did you go through so much to decide where NIST measured from when they clearly describe the point?
Why did you go through so much to decide where NIST measured from when they clearly describe the point?
?Chomsky
What does this have to do with 911 conspiracy theories? Are you trying to support CD delusions with this, or what? Why does it matter? When will it be published (never)? What did NIST say? When did you discover this?
Unanswered questions over unanswered questions...
What's your conclusion to start with?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Nobody but you expects it to. The East edge was used for the timing of the start of descent. Once the 6.9 s point was determined, they were free to measure another point and trace the progress.
No big deal.
And again, you were dead wrong about the pixel point being in the wrong place.
You're deliberately confusing two things as if they were one.
Yes, that's why we're not inferring it. It seems to be your idea, so you go and prove it
Is that what you are actually suggesting NIST did ?
Why do I get the feeling you are projecting a lot? I've never suggested any such thing, and I've offered perfectly reasonable alternatives.
All you have to do is confirm with NIST if you want to prove it all wrong. You haven't, you won't. Case closed - your argument is stillborn.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it?
ETA what is the title of it? You've got a boatload of files to choose from.
Last edited:
Oh sorry, seems that tfk has something like bowing and falling at the same time in mind??? ...or just the rotation of the north face about the 8th, 7th ... 1st floor? The cosine might help.
Otherwise, tfk & W.D.Clinger, please watch the perfectly straight roofline as seen in the Dan Rather clip and compare it to - let's say - fig. 5-192 NCSTAR 1-9 vol1.
Sorry, I just thought that tfk asked a relevant question. I admit I was a little too hasty.
Fires not fought destroyed WTC7. Why do you fail to have a conclusion, or thesis to tie this poppycock to 911 conspiracy theories?
You have failed to make a case for unanswered questions, as you quibble about nonsense based on an obsession with NIST. Very narrow nonsense, which you refuse to tie, or explain how it dovetails to the moronic conspiracy theories on 911. Unless you are trying to back in CD like Major Tom. Why are you and 911 truth obsessed with NIST. I have found with those who fall for the lies and delusions of 911 truth, with the great unanswered questions approach, comes great ignorance.
"NIST free-fall failure", your topic failed. Sometimes ideas are published, as the OP, and do perish. Good luck
Thank you! I take it as a slap on the shoulder.
And yes, let's start with the conclusion: "Fires not fought destroyed WTC7".
No problem about it. But it raises questions.
Beachnut, you can turn the world upside down and start with the conclusion but it will not end there, do you understand what I mean?
You have to stop your "someone try to steal your country" delusion and your nonsense based obsession to end all questions with your pre-defined conclusion. Wake up, angry man!
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
Fires not fought destroyed WTC7. A fact you can't comprehend due to lack of knowledge, or a need for paranoid conspiracy theories? 911 truth thinks opinions are facts, and they failed for over 9 years; they are locked in for 10 years of delusions based on ignorance.
"It" raises questions for those who lack knowledge.
I did not start with a conclusion, it is a fact, and it turns out to be the correct conclusion. Like 2+2=4, you can't form the conclusion yet ... due to? As an angry young man I became an engineer, and flew jets for the USAF; they like engineers who want to fly. Who will steal our country, a few marines will stop that nonsense. How do you make up this nonsense, you sound like Balsamo, the idiot pilot who can't do math.
I am not the one who should be angry, you have wasted 9 years and you can't figure out fire, 911, physics, photo interpretation, or "publish or perish". Good luck.
If you had some valid information, you could publish it. When I had unanswered questions, I got a degree; more questions, got a master degree. When we did projects in the Lab, we published our work and answered the questions; not ask more questions out of ignorance.
Last edited:
Well, flippin' FINALLY…!!
It only took you 9 years…
NIST says EXACTLY the same thing.
About "the collapse of the building", of course.
NIST told us, and we've been telling you guys for a long time, that the collapse of the North Wall was NOT the collapse of the building. That it started much earlier. And therefore, while the north wall fell near G, for some small period of time, the collapse of the building took lots longer, and there happened at far less than G.
Thereby demonstrating the significant resistance of the building's structure to collapse.
Just as a thinking person would expect.
They say that the collapse of the building started well before the beginning of the collapse of the EP.
Glad you finally caught up.
However, that's not what we've been talking about.
We've been talking about the collapse of the North Wall.
Here is the very first phrase of the very first sentence of the section from which all of NIST's comments derived - the section in which you chillun are so convinced that you've caught a giant "oops":
NIST said:
That's exactly what this thread - and all the data contained herein - has been about from the OP.
You're silly, silly attempt to change the definition now is, how shall I put it, uh, "silly".
LMAO.
You claim "collapse"…
… but you show HORIZONTAL motion.
Pssst… "collapse" happens in a, ahem, "different direction".
LMFAO.
Allow me to show you pictures of your "collapsing North Wall."
Here are 3 images (Figures 5-186, 5-193 & 5-197) taken "seconds before", and 1.0 ±0.1 seconds and 3.5 ±0.1 seconds after the start of the EP collapse. (I know how you are a stickler for error bands…!)
"seconds before the start of collapse of the EP"
"1.0 ± 0.1 sec after start of collapse of EP"
"3.5 ± 0.1 sec after start of collapse of EP"
I've taken the liberty of noting the top of the windows on the 33rd floor compared to the white box structure in the foreground. You can tell that it's the 33rd floor by counting up 4 light bands (windows) from the lowest visible point on the towers.
You'll note that the over the course of the >3.5 seconds between the first & last photo, mysteriously the top of the 33rd floor window doesn't seem to move downward at all.
Haven't you interesting people been claiming that "the building" and/or "the north wall" collapsed in 5.4 seconds, or some such crappola?
And yet, it clearly has been sitting there, motionless, collapseless, for over 3.5 seconds. Don't you think that building needs to get off its ass & commence to collapsing???
You're gonna have to run by me one more time your definition of the word "collapse".
Now, according to your latest goal post shift, in the last image, the North Wall has been collapsing since BEFORE the beginning of the collapse of the EP. Hopefully employing some definition of the word "collapse" that involves movement in the vertical direction...
___
Now that I've got that chuckle out of the way, I'll play along with your "revelation".
All right, femr. Please state something CLEARLY, for once.
In this horizontal motion graph that you posted, EXACTLY what point in time, EXACTLY, do you think that your graph demonstrates "the initiation of collapse". (Clearly now, we're not talking about the North Wall, but the whole building.
All of the discussions about collapse, the time, the stages, "slower than freefall", "faster than freefall", etc.
NONE of them have been concerned with horizontal motion.
Why don't you post your VERTICAL motion data.
With a time base that is not 190 seconds, when one is trying to distinguish differences of 1/2 second.
LMFAO...
Speaking of "blinkers"…
You made a comment claiming that the EP NIST from being able to discern the brightness of point that I indicated on the roofline at the start of the collapse. You posted a picture that showed the EP being in the way. I posted a picture that showed that your picture had to be more than 5 seconds before that time.
You ran away & hid.
Care to reply to that.
Instead of throwing up crappola about "skyscrapers 'collapsing' horizontally"?
No, it won't.
Because I've got better things to do than waste time on you bozos.
Yup. It's "not stated as being at any particular point in time."
And yet, despite this little pile of intentional deception, you made a claim that it PROVES something about a very specific point in time: the time when NIST was trying to determine the brightness of a specific pixel, during a specific point in time.
But you feel it's appropriate to put up a time-lapse picture, of a different point in time…
Typical incompetence.
Typical attempt to explain away incompetence with crappola once your initial incompetence has been exposed.
SNAFU, femr.
Last edited:
Already did.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6766095&postcount=332
Yup. No Gifs required.