Einsteen:
Thanks, your post is very excellent!
And I totally agree that the source of the velocity "error" is that the angle of view is obviously not perpendicular to the south face of WTC 2.
The other interesting aspect of your smear-o-graph is the obvious "exit" wound development on the north face of WTC 2 which potentially provides a way to generate a complete velocity profile of the passage of Flight 175 through WTC 2.
QUOTE (einsteen+Oct 16 2007, 09:38 PM)
Here is the video source used:
http://www.911archive.info/video/WTC2/WTC2...%20-%20east.avi
That's the video I used for the smear, but the one you posted is of better quality than the one I used.
http://www.911archive.info/video/WTC2/WTC2...%20-%20east.avi
That's the video I used for the smear, but the one you posted is of better quality than the one I used.
Using OneWhiteEye's pixel columns 447, 448 ad 449 data, I have a preliminary t0 at 3.81 seconds into that data. Does this appear to be close to correct, that is, the time that the south, east and west walls began buckling around floor 98?
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 16 2007, 02:45 PM)
No, it simply points out that the antenna is connected to the hat truss.
Or it's still connected to the rest of the upper block. The antenna tower tilts to the south and east initially but then seems to tilt back a little toward the vertical a few seconds into the collapse, as seen from a video from the northeast side. It seems that would be difficult to do if the antenna was totally free and the upper block was totally destroyed. It looks more like the upper block was tilting slightly with each story impact and the antenna tower was following along with it.
Or it's still connected to the rest of the upper block. The antenna tower tilts to the south and east initially but then seems to tilt back a little toward the vertical a few seconds into the collapse, as seen from a video from the northeast side. It seems that would be difficult to do if the antenna was totally free and the upper block was totally destroyed. It looks more like the upper block was tilting slightly with each story impact and the antenna tower was following along with it.
The Hat Truss was very strong and spanned the top 4 floors and its 14 horizontal members were composite with the concrete flooring. It was quite the structure and I believe it would have probably remained intact through the entire time the antenna is visible in that video.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-1A Section 2.3.8
Arthur
See NIST NCSTAR 1-1A Section 2.3.8
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 10 2007, 01:55 PM)
No concrete involved, but then none need be.
The fact is a sudden failure of an object under great strain, however that condition is arrived at may sound like an EXPLOSION.
This is the sound of a wing on a 777 being put under an increasing load until it fails explosively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
So Al, how come a BUNCH of Audio Engineers have not come forward to support your view that the NOISES recorded that day HAD to have come from explosives?
Arthur
Just thought I'd join in order to answer this question.
Maybe a bunch of sound engineers have not reviewed the WTC footage......but this sound engineer as and I've not seen it refuted by other sound engineers.
I can't do links at the moment. So replace the - with . and you'll find the page, unless another member will link it for me.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/audio01-html
This chap is a sound engineer and using sonograms, he as picked up explosions from 4 different cameras shooting the collapses. He compares the peaks to the J.L. Hudson Department Store Building demolition.
So the question is, if it's not explosives as you suggest, then what are the reports of the explosions?? What are the explosions that are picked up in ths sonogram?
You are sticking with your "Plane Wing Under Pressure Until It Fails Theory??" Or are you a proponent of "The Coke Cans Exploding In the Vending Machines Theory??" Or what about the "People Jumping And Hitting The Ground Cause Explosive Type Sounds Theory??"
The fact is a sudden failure of an object under great strain, however that condition is arrived at may sound like an EXPLOSION.
This is the sound of a wing on a 777 being put under an increasing load until it fails explosively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
So Al, how come a BUNCH of Audio Engineers have not come forward to support your view that the NOISES recorded that day HAD to have come from explosives?
Arthur
Just thought I'd join in order to answer this question.
Maybe a bunch of sound engineers have not reviewed the WTC footage......but this sound engineer as and I've not seen it refuted by other sound engineers.
I can't do links at the moment. So replace the - with . and you'll find the page, unless another member will link it for me.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/audio01-html
This chap is a sound engineer and using sonograms, he as picked up explosions from 4 different cameras shooting the collapses. He compares the peaks to the J.L. Hudson Department Store Building demolition.
So the question is, if it's not explosives as you suggest, then what are the reports of the explosions?? What are the explosions that are picked up in ths sonogram?
You are sticking with your "Plane Wing Under Pressure Until It Fails Theory??" Or are you a proponent of "The Coke Cans Exploding In the Vending Machines Theory??" Or what about the "People Jumping And Hitting The Ground Cause Explosive Type Sounds Theory??"
QUOTE
So the question is, if it's not explosives as you suggest, then what are the reports of the explosions??
Honest mistakes.
Since you're new, I suggest that you scan back a few pages, as this topic has been discussed at-length, and you're making the same arguments that've been discussed already.
Here's a hint: Your speakers produce sounds that resemble explosions, right? Do they use explosives?
No?
Then the argument that "if it sounds like an explosion, explosives must've been present" isn't valid.
Someone dubbed in two large explosion sounds on the Trinity video on the mediumrecords site.
The video with natural audio of the WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity is on the planetcamera archive.
The video with natural audio of the WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity is on the planetcamera archive.
The mediumrecords site states:
"The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second. That pretty much a drum roll speed and would appear more like a constant sound given the circumstances."
However, one of the DVD documentaries I have showed interviews of some of the people who survived the north tower collapse from within the core stairwell. The sound of pancaking floors with rapid individual thuds was heard from inside. One of the survivors said it sounded like a train off its tracks and hitting the wood pieces. He said he could hear the collapse front approaching and then passing him by and going into the basement. He was around the 5th story in the core stairwell with a group of people. He said he knew it was the tower coming down since he already knew the south tower had collapsed and there was nothing else left but the north tower.
I will try to post that part of the DVD video.
"The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second. That pretty much a drum roll speed and would appear more like a constant sound given the circumstances."
However, one of the DVD documentaries I have showed interviews of some of the people who survived the north tower collapse from within the core stairwell. The sound of pancaking floors with rapid individual thuds was heard from inside. One of the survivors said it sounded like a train off its tracks and hitting the wood pieces. He said he could hear the collapse front approaching and then passing him by and going into the basement. He was around the 5th story in the core stairwell with a group of people. He said he knew it was the tower coming down since he already knew the south tower had collapsed and there was nothing else left but the north tower.
I will try to post that part of the DVD video.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Oct 16 2007, 09:26 PM)
Honest mistakes.
Since you're new, I suggest that you scan back a few pages, as this topic has been discussed at-length, and you're making the same arguments that've been discussed already.
Here's a hint: Your speakers produce sounds that resemble explosions, right? Do they use explosives?
No?
Then the argument that "if it sounds like an explosion, explosives must've been present" isn't valid.
Well, I'm not new here, and wcelliott's statement is flat-out wrong...and the discussion isn't over by a long-shot.
Thanks, stundie.
They sound like explosions to me. According to wcelliott, everyone suffers from "honest mistakes" syndrome.
Hardly.
Listen for yourself (and read the report if you've a mind to).
Yes, they sound like explosions.
Now I am going back to finish reading the report.
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
QUOTE (shagster+Oct 16 2007, 10:43 PM)
Someone dubbed in two large explosion sounds on the Trinity video on the mediumrecords site.
The video with natural audio of the WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity is on the planetcamera archive.
That would be fraud, which is always an interesting topic.
Can you produce the audio at the planetcamera archive that you refer to?
The video with natural audio of the WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity is on the planetcamera archive.
That would be fraud, which is always an interesting topic.
Can you produce the audio at the planetcamera archive that you refer to?
QUOTE
Well, I'm not new here, and wcelliott's statement is flat-out wrong...
Oh, your speakers run on C-4 then?
My mistake.
A four-inch brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds.
What's the sampling rate of your digital recorder? The Nyquist rate for 20kHz is 40kHz. That makes one sample interval 25 microseconds. That means that a brick of C-4 goes from solid to gas in less than one sample interval.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
That means that the "sound" of any recorded explosion that you have is actually the sound of that 10 microsecond impulse echoing off the surfaces of the explosive's environment, except for that one sample during which the explosion actually happened.
That would mean that the recording of any given explosion is determined primarily by the specifics of the environment. That means that when you *think* you've got a characteristic sound of an explosion, what you've *actually* got is a characteristic sound of an impulse bouncing around inside of an environment. There are lots of sources of impulses, explosives only being one, and in this case, the least likely of various alternatives.
And I still suggest that you back up a few pages and re-read what's there, so I don't have to keep tutoring people on the fundamentals of acoustics every time a newbie shows up.
QUOTE (shagster+Oct 17 2007, 05:43 AM)
Someone dubbed in two large explosion sounds on the Trinity video on the mediumrecords site.
The video with natural audio of the WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity is on the planetcamera archive.
Somebody dubbed in the explosions on all 4 cameras?? hahahahahaha!!!!
Hilarious denial of evidence.
Your explanation doesn't include the other footage and of course, if a sound was dubbed in, the sonogram would be able to pick up the fact it's been dubbed in.
p.s I think I know what you are talking about. The video he originally used was from a DVD about Rudy Gulliani, however, he traced the original Trinity footage and the results were the same.
It was in his feedback, but for some reason the links not working.
The video with natural audio of the WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity is on the planetcamera archive.
Somebody dubbed in the explosions on all 4 cameras?? hahahahahaha!!!!
Hilarious denial of evidence.
Your explanation doesn't include the other footage and of course, if a sound was dubbed in, the sonogram would be able to pick up the fact it's been dubbed in.
p.s I think I know what you are talking about. The video he originally used was from a DVD about Rudy Gulliani, however, he traced the original Trinity footage and the results were the same.
It was in his feedback, but for some reason the links not working.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Oct 17 2007, 04:26 AM)
Honest mistakes.
Since you're new, I suggest that you scan back a few pages, as this topic has been discussed at-length, and you're making the same arguments that've been discussed already.
Here's a hint: Your speakers produce sounds that resemble explosions, right? Do they use explosives?
No?
Then the argument that "if it sounds like an explosion, explosives must've been present" isn't valid.
So please explain what you think it is...and if you have no evidence, then your theory of what the explosions are, is no more or less valid than mine.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Honest mistakes.
Since you're new, I suggest that you scan back a few pages, as this topic has been discussed at-length, and you're making the same arguments that've been discussed already.
As it? I've been reading this thread from a few pages back, so I will have a look further back and see whats been discussed already.
Since you're new, I suggest that you scan back a few pages, as this topic has been discussed at-length, and you're making the same arguments that've been discussed already.
As it? I've been reading this thread from a few pages back, so I will have a look further back and see whats been discussed already.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Here's a hint: Your speakers produce sounds that resemble explosions, right?
My speakers DON'T produce sounds that resemble explosions. Unless there is an explosion.
Do they use explosives?
No?
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Do they use explosives?
No?
Well actually, yes!
Then the argument that "if it sounds like an explosion, explosives must've been present" isn't valid
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Then the argument that "if it sounds like an explosion, explosives must've been present" isn't valid
So please tell us exactly what you think these explosions are, because I've heard debunkers suggest it's everthing and anything other than an explosive device.
He nicely debunks his own theory.
One can EASILY see the DISTINCT PATTERN of the blasts in this:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b.jpg
Which are NOTICABLY LACKING in ALL of the WTC sonograms, including the Trinity Church diagram that he ADMITS
I must admit though, this was PRICELESS:
I must admit though, this was PRICELESS:
There isn't any real doubt as to whether these low-frequency bursts in the plane-crash clip were caused by some kind of explosion or not. The plane-crash / explosion / fireball and its sounds are of course well documented. The striking similarities in low-frequency response between the events of the South Tower collapse and the impact/explosion of the jet very strongly indicate that explosions occurred during the collapse of the tower. There are of course the visual similarities between the rapid expansion of the burning jet fuel at the time of the crash and the rapid expansion of the actual building at the time of its collapse.
As was this masterpiece of deductive logic:
More troofer sillyness.
(nor does Brian McKenna appear to be anything more than a college age experimenter, he certainly offers no credentials http://www.mediumrecords.com/brian/index.html)
Which, is why, you will NOT find this published in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
EVER
Arthur
One can EASILY see the DISTINCT PATTERN of the blasts in this:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b.jpg
Which are NOTICABLY LACKING in ALL of the WTC sonograms, including the Trinity Church diagram that he ADMITS
QUOTE
the audio portion has most certainly be "dramatized".
I must admit though, this was PRICELESS:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the audio portion has most certainly be "dramatized". |
I must admit though, this was PRICELESS:
There isn't any real doubt as to whether these low-frequency bursts in the plane-crash clip were caused by some kind of explosion or not. The plane-crash / explosion / fireball and its sounds are of course well documented. The striking similarities in low-frequency response between the events of the South Tower collapse and the impact/explosion of the jet very strongly indicate that explosions occurred during the collapse of the tower. There are of course the visual similarities between the rapid expansion of the burning jet fuel at the time of the crash and the rapid expansion of the actual building at the time of its collapse.
As was this masterpiece of deductive logic:
QUOTE
The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second.
More troofer sillyness.
(nor does Brian McKenna appear to be anything more than a college age experimenter, he certainly offers no credentials http://www.mediumrecords.com/brian/index.html)
Which, is why, you will NOT find this published in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
EVER
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
Oh, your speakers run on C-4 then?
What is that suppose to mean??
What is that suppose to mean??
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
My mistake.
If you are making a straw man argument that speakers run on C4, then it is your mistake!
QUOTE
A four-inch brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds.
OK.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A four-inch brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds. |
OK.
What's the sampling rate of your digital recorder?
Its not my digital recorder. If I remember correctly, this chap actually talks about the camera and microphone used on some of the footage, but the feedback link isn't working.
The Nyquist rate for 20kHz is 40kHz. That makes one sample interval 25 microseconds. That means that a brick of C-4 goes from solid to gas in less than one sample interval.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems valid, although I'm not an expert.
That means that the "sound" of any recorded explosion that you have is actually the sound of that 10 microsecond impulse echoing off the surfaces of the explosive's environment, except for that one sample during which the explosion actually happened.
Have you actually read it? Here is just a snippet regarding the Varrick Street footage. www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/audio01-html
That would mean that the recording of any given explosion is determined primarily by the specifics of the environment.
Do you not think a sound engineer is aware of this??
Again, please read the papers which he explains in the same footage as above.
That means that when you *think* you've got a characteristic sound of an explosion, what you've *actually* got is a characteristic sound of an impulse bouncing around inside of an environment.
When you compare it too a controlled demolition like the JL Hudson building and the peaks match, then you can safely say that it was an explosion.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Replace - with . as I can't post links!
I would advise you to read this, because you seem to be reacting.
There are lots of sources of impulses, explosives only being one, and in this case, the least likely of various alternatives.
Because I hear about 5 - 10 explosions sounds every single day
And I still suggest that you back up a few pages and re-read what's there, so I don't have to keep tutoring people on the fundamentals of acoustics every time a newbie shows up.
I've gone back and read, what a joke! You compare a guitar string snapping to an explosion? 
hahahahahaha!!!
I would advise you reread the papers and his results before you comment again, instead of just reacting.
What's the sampling rate of your digital recorder?
Its not my digital recorder. If I remember correctly, this chap actually talks about the camera and microphone used on some of the footage, but the feedback link isn't working.
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
The Nyquist rate for 20kHz is 40kHz. That makes one sample interval 25 microseconds. That means that a brick of C-4 goes from solid to gas in less than one sample interval.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems valid, although I'm not an expert.
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
That means that the "sound" of any recorded explosion that you have is actually the sound of that 10 microsecond impulse echoing off the surfaces of the explosive's environment, except for that one sample during which the explosion actually happened.
Have you actually read it? Here is just a snippet regarding the Varrick Street footage. www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/audio01-html
QUOTE
The first group of low frequency bursts are also centred around the 85-108Hz region, the first one appearing at 13.72 seconds, then again at 14.76, 15.9, 17.42, 18.05, and 19.1 seconds. Some of these bursts come come in small groups of 2 or 3 events, the consistent 0.3 second delay suggesting them to be some sort of echo.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The first group of low frequency bursts are also centred around the 85-108Hz region, the first one appearing at 13.72 seconds, then again at 14.76, 15.9, 17.42, 18.05, and 19.1 seconds. Some of these bursts come come in small groups of 2 or 3 events, the consistent 0.3 second delay suggesting them to be some sort of echo. |
That would mean that the recording of any given explosion is determined primarily by the specifics of the environment.
Do you not think a sound engineer is aware of this??
Again, please read the papers which he explains in the same footage as above.
QUOTE
There is a strange reverberance in the audio which can also be heard in the North Tower collapse recording from the same angle as transferred to internet video by multiple sources. This effect is probably because the microphone was located inside a room which caused a slight echo to the sound coming through the window.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is a strange reverberance in the audio which can also be heard in the North Tower collapse recording from the same angle as transferred to internet video by multiple sources. This effect is probably because the microphone was located inside a room which caused a slight echo to the sound coming through the window. |
That means that when you *think* you've got a characteristic sound of an explosion, what you've *actually* got is a characteristic sound of an impulse bouncing around inside of an environment.
When you compare it too a controlled demolition like the JL Hudson building and the peaks match, then you can safely say that it was an explosion.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Replace - with . as I can't post links!
I would advise you to read this, because you seem to be reacting.
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
There are lots of sources of impulses, explosives only being one, and in this case, the least likely of various alternatives.
Because I hear about 5 - 10 explosions sounds every single day
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
And I still suggest that you back up a few pages and re-read what's there, so I don't have to keep tutoring people on the fundamentals of acoustics every time a newbie shows up.
I've gone back and read, what a joke!
You compare a guitar string snapping to an explosion? hahahahahaha!!!I would advise you reread the papers and his results before you comment again, instead of just reacting.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 14 2007, 08:26 PM)
atmosphere --- If WTC 1 had not collapsed the way it did, the old WTC 7 would still be standing. It was the impact damage from exterior wall panels (or larger sections) from WTC 1 which damaged the structure and presumably started the fire.
When WTC 1 collapsed it broke the water mains, so the firemen had no water pressure with which to attempt to fight the fire. The situation was hopeless.
What comes as a surprise to me, at least, is that the building stood as long as it did. Typical insulation ratings were 2 to 3 hours.
Why is that a surprise ,only a few centre collumns weren broken ? Wich steel collumns got overheated by the fires and caused the collapse ?
It was mostly the exterior that was damaged and a few collumns under one of the penthouses.
I expected that only the exterior would collapse partly.
When WTC 1 collapsed it broke the water mains, so the firemen had no water pressure with which to attempt to fight the fire. The situation was hopeless.
What comes as a surprise to me, at least, is that the building stood as long as it did. Typical insulation ratings were 2 to 3 hours.
Why is that a surprise ,only a few centre collumns weren broken ? Wich steel collumns got overheated by the fires and caused the collapse ?
It was mostly the exterior that was damaged and a few collumns under one of the penthouses.
I expected that only the exterior would collapse partly.
BRAVO Arthur!! Excellent use of "Cherry Picking!"
Lets reread what you have quoted, so we can get the full context of whats being said?
Lets reread what you have quoted, so we can get the full context of whats being said?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
He nicely debunks his own theory.
He does when YOU cherry pick his quotes. Which we'll go through in a moment.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
One can EASILY see the DISTINCT PATTERN of the blasts in this:
Which are NOTICABLY LACKING in ALL of the WTC sonograms, including the Trinity Church diagram that he ADMITS
1st thing, the distinct patterns are NOT NOTICEABLY LACKING! Why did you not post both of the images of the sonograms to prove that they were NOTICEABLY LACKING?? You only posted the one, which is very dishonest of you.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Replace - with . as I can't post links!
Tell me how these 2 sonograms are noticeably lacking the DISTINCT PATTERNS? When he points out the DISTINCT PATTERNS?? lol
Which are NOTICABLY LACKING in ALL of the WTC sonograms, including the Trinity Church diagram that he ADMITS
1st thing, the distinct patterns are NOT NOTICEABLY LACKING! Why did you not post both of the images of the sonograms to prove that they were NOTICEABLY LACKING?? You only posted the one, which is very dishonest of you.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Replace - with . as I can't post links!
Tell me how these 2 sonograms are noticeably lacking the DISTINCT PATTERNS? When he points out the DISTINCT PATTERNS??
lolQUOTE (adoucette+)
I must admit though, this was PRICELESS:
Priceless cherry picking skills again Arthur. Lets read the WHOLE QUOTE shall we?
The part where it says "This Page" is a link to his feedback which isn't working, but the authenticity of the clip is that he used footage from a DVD about Mayor Rudy, he finds the original Trinity St clip and guess what? It comes up with the same DISTINCT PATTERNS! Hence the reason the discussion, which you missed out when you cherry picked the quote!
I suppose you can be forgiven as the feedback link isn't working.
The part where it says "This Page" is a link to his feedback which isn't working, but the authenticity of the clip is that he used footage from a DVD about Mayor Rudy, he finds the original Trinity St clip and guess what? It comes up with the same DISTINCT PATTERNS! Hence the reason the discussion, which you missed out when you cherry picked the quote!
I suppose you can be forgiven as the feedback link isn't working.
As was this masterpiece of deductive logic:
Priceless cherry picking skills again Arthur. Lets read the WHOLE QUOTE shall we?
QUOTE
**update** discussion of the authenticity of this clip's audio can be found on "this page" since the audio portion has most certainly be "dramatized" for the Dolby 5.1 format from whence it came.
The part where it says "This Page" is a link to his feedback which isn't working, but the authenticity of the clip is that he used footage from a DVD about Mayor Rudy, he finds the original Trinity St clip and guess what? It comes up with the same DISTINCT PATTERNS! Hence the reason the discussion, which you missed out when you cherry picked the quote!
I suppose you can be forgiven as the feedback link isn't working.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| **update** discussion of the authenticity of this clip's audio can be found on "this page" since the audio portion has most certainly be "dramatized" for the Dolby 5.1 format from whence it came. |
The part where it says "This Page" is a link to his feedback which isn't working, but the authenticity of the clip is that he used footage from a DVD about Mayor Rudy, he finds the original Trinity St clip and guess what? It comes up with the same DISTINCT PATTERNS! Hence the reason the discussion, which you missed out when you cherry picked the quote!
I suppose you can be forgiven as the feedback link isn't working.
As was this masterpiece of deductive logic:
QUOTE
The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second.
Sorry, are you now a proponent of the pancake collapse theory?? Which even NIST doesn't support??
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second. |
Sorry, are you now a proponent of the pancake collapse theory?? Which even NIST doesn't support??
More troofer sillyness.
(nor does Brian McKenna appear to be anything more than a college age experimenter, he certainly offers no credentials www-mediumrecords-com/brian/index-html
Of course, another example of debunker logic is kicking in. Instead of shooting the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger hey??
You call him a college age experimenter, without any proof because this is what you have to resort to when you have no arguments against the evidence hey?
Well, he is a sound engineer, in the music biz if I remember correctly. Not sure what his qualifications are, but even so, you have no real argument against this evidence.
Which, is why, you will NOT find this published in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
EVER
Arthur
I love this tactic, it as to be in a scientific journal before it's credible and I'll believe it excuse that debunkers throw about. Its a lame attempt to keep their beliefs in tact.
I'm sure if it was submitted and published in a scientific journal, you would still think of some other excuse for it not to be credible.
Look at the tactics you've employed. Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context to support your "He's wrong" Theory to shooting the messenger!!
The funny things is, the only person you are fooling is yourself!
No, you can safely say that the sounds coming from buildings with 12' high floors have acoustic similarities to each other.
You're acknowledging that the sound can bounce around inside the room where the microphone is, but you ignore the sounds bouncing around inside the environment?!? It's those sounds bouncing around that are characteristic of what you hear in recordings of CDs, but any impulse will bounce around like that, from any source.
I'm assuming you're listening to a sound file, right? How many samples/second are being played? If it's more than 40,000 samples per second, I'd be very much surprised (it'd be pointless, as your ears can't hear anything beyond 20kHz). So what's the "characteristic waveform" associated with an explosion? A brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds. A 40kHz sound file assigns **ONE** sample for each 25 microsecond of the waveform.
Dead silence before, 10 microseconds of detonation, and the only thing left is the sound bouncing off the walls.
Your digital recording of explosions going-off in buildings have precisely ONE sample in the whole file that corresponds to the sound of the explosion itself. The rest is ARTIFACT.
BTW, if you'd read back a few pages, you'd realize why I'm not impressed with your "Sound Engineer" credentials. I've got a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, and I've actually DESIGNED and BUILT digital sound equipment.
More troofer sillyness.
(nor does Brian McKenna appear to be anything more than a college age experimenter, he certainly offers no credentials www-mediumrecords-com/brian/index-html
Of course, another example of debunker logic is kicking in. Instead of shooting the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger hey??
You call him a college age experimenter, without any proof because this is what you have to resort to when you have no arguments against the evidence hey?
Well, he is a sound engineer, in the music biz if I remember correctly. Not sure what his qualifications are, but even so, you have no real argument against this evidence.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Which, is why, you will NOT find this published in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
EVER
Arthur
I love this tactic, it as to be in a scientific journal before it's credible and I'll believe it excuse that debunkers throw about. Its a lame attempt to keep their beliefs in tact.
I'm sure if it was submitted and published in a scientific journal, you would still think of some other excuse for it not to be credible.
Look at the tactics you've employed. Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context to support your "He's wrong" Theory to shooting the messenger!!
The funny things is, the only person you are fooling is yourself!
QUOTE
When you compare it too a controlled demolition like the JL Hudson building and the peaks match, then you can safely say that it was an explosion.
No, you can safely say that the sounds coming from buildings with 12' high floors have acoustic similarities to each other.
You're acknowledging that the sound can bounce around inside the room where the microphone is, but you ignore the sounds bouncing around inside the environment?!? It's those sounds bouncing around that are characteristic of what you hear in recordings of CDs, but any impulse will bounce around like that, from any source.
I'm assuming you're listening to a sound file, right? How many samples/second are being played? If it's more than 40,000 samples per second, I'd be very much surprised (it'd be pointless, as your ears can't hear anything beyond 20kHz). So what's the "characteristic waveform" associated with an explosion? A brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds. A 40kHz sound file assigns **ONE** sample for each 25 microsecond of the waveform.
Dead silence before, 10 microseconds of detonation, and the only thing left is the sound bouncing off the walls.
Your digital recording of explosions going-off in buildings have precisely ONE sample in the whole file that corresponds to the sound of the explosion itself. The rest is ARTIFACT.
BTW, if you'd read back a few pages, you'd realize why I'm not impressed with your "Sound Engineer" credentials. I've got a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, and I've actually DESIGNED and BUILT digital sound equipment.
For Stundie:
You've got some nerve.
The link to the article was just posted.
I pointed out that the HUDSON sonogram was distinct from ALL the others.
So I just posted the unique one, because it was OBVIOSLY DIFFERENT.
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/trinity01b.jpg
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson01b.jpg
I take it you can't see the OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between the Hudson and the rest.
No surprise there.
Apparently troothers only see what they want to see.
And no the link wasn't working, but he admits the sound was dramatized
Why?
NIST doesn't support the theory that the collapsed was INITIATED by the pancaking of floors, but they certainly DO support the fact that the floors pancaked DURING the collapse.
Dividing the total number of floors by the length of collapse to get the rate of floors pancaking is TOTALLY BOGUS, as anyone with a smattering of HONESTY and INTELLIGENCE would admit.
You seem to lack both however.
You THINK he is a sound engineer?
NO, You STATED that he WAS a Sound Engineer.
You've got some nerve.
The link to the article was just posted.
I pointed out that the HUDSON sonogram was distinct from ALL the others.
So I just posted the unique one, because it was OBVIOSLY DIFFERENT.
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/trinity01b.jpg
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson01b.jpg
I take it you can't see the OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between the Hudson and the rest.
No surprise there.
Apparently troothers only see what they want to see.
And no the link wasn't working, but he admits the sound was dramatized
Why?
NIST doesn't support the theory that the collapsed was INITIATED by the pancaking of floors, but they certainly DO support the fact that the floors pancaked DURING the collapse.
Dividing the total number of floors by the length of collapse to get the rate of floors pancaking is TOTALLY BOGUS, as anyone with a smattering of HONESTY and INTELLIGENCE would admit.
You seem to lack both however.
You THINK he is a sound engineer?
NO, You STATED that he WAS a Sound Engineer.
QUOTE (Stundie+)
Maybe a bunch of sound engineers have not reviewed the WTC footage......but this sound engineer as
Proof?
Yeah, Stundie, a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, because if you are making SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS that are counter to the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC OPINION that is where you have to do it.
What's a matter, don't think this evidence will cut it?
Arthur
Proof?
Yeah, Stundie, a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, because if you are making SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS that are counter to the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC OPINION that is where you have to do it.
What's a matter, don't think this evidence will cut it?
Arthur
I'm trying to solve the plane deceleration curve exactly, but I get an headache of the following "simple" ODE
x''(t)=constant/x(t)
Anyone ? DBB?
x''(t)=constant/x(t)
Anyone ? DBB?
I've addressed all your points in the previous post and you are quoting the same stuff as before, I've quoted everything of yours and addressed your points of sound travelling and enviroments. etc etc.
So if you have a problem with what I've said to you, then I suggest you address it by quoting it.
You may not be impressed with his credentials. (Even though I've not seen myself what they are!) but when you have to shoot the messenger instead of the message, it smacks of desperation.
and boy do you sound desperate!!
To add extra desperation, you are trying to appeal to authority by adding that you are an engineer and you have worked on sound equipment??....I suppose I should believe you just because your an engineer right??
Lets just smash your silly arguements down again.....
The sounds he is comparing is the explosions from the JL Hudson demolition. The sounds are not from 12' floors pancaking, regardless of how you try and spin it. We all know that NIST doesn't support the pancake theory, unless you think NIST is wrong?? lol You are making an invalid argument by suggesting that he or anyone else doesn't recognise the explosion in the footage, to the sound of a floor pancaking...lol
The sounds he is comparing is the explosions from the JL Hudson demolition. The sounds are not from 12' floors pancaking, regardless of how you try and spin it. We all know that NIST doesn't support the pancake theory, unless you think NIST is wrong?? lol You are making an invalid argument by suggesting that he or anyone else doesn't recognise the explosion in the footage, to the sound of a floor pancaking...lol
You're acknowledging that the sound can bounce around inside the room where the microphone is, but you ignore the sounds bouncing around inside the environment?!? It's those sounds bouncing around that are characteristic of what you hear in recordings of CDs, but any impulse will bounce around like that, from any source.
Have you read it?? I'm not acknowledging it. The author of the article acknowledges it too as I shown you with the quotes in response to your last post, which you have willfully ignored!!
Please explain to me what the sample rate as to do with the sonogram??
You seem to bring this up, but why does it matter what the sample rate is, the sonogram pick up the distinct patterns and it would do so even if it was done at a lower or higher sample rate.
Please explain to me what the sample rate as to do with the sonogram??
You seem to bring this up, but why does it matter what the sample rate is, the sonogram pick up the distinct patterns and it would do so even if it was done at a lower or higher sample rate.
So what's the "characteristic waveform" associated with an explosion?
So if you have a problem with what I've said to you, then I suggest you address it by quoting it.
You may not be impressed with his credentials. (Even though I've not seen myself what they are!) but when you have to shoot the messenger instead of the message, it smacks of desperation.
and boy do you sound desperate!!
To add extra desperation, you are trying to appeal to authority by adding that you are an engineer and you have worked on sound equipment??....I suppose I should believe you just because your an engineer right??
Lets just smash your silly arguements down again.....
QUOTE
No, you can safely say that the sounds coming from buildings with 12' high floors have acoustic similarities to each other.
The sounds he is comparing is the explosions from the JL Hudson demolition. The sounds are not from 12' floors pancaking, regardless of how you try and spin it. We all know that NIST doesn't support the pancake theory, unless you think NIST is wrong?? lol
You are making an invalid argument by suggesting that he or anyone else doesn't recognise the explosion in the footage, to the sound of a floor pancaking...lol QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, you can safely say that the sounds coming from buildings with 12' high floors have acoustic similarities to each other. |
The sounds he is comparing is the explosions from the JL Hudson demolition. The sounds are not from 12' floors pancaking, regardless of how you try and spin it. We all know that NIST doesn't support the pancake theory, unless you think NIST is wrong?? lol
You are making an invalid argument by suggesting that he or anyone else doesn't recognise the explosion in the footage, to the sound of a floor pancaking...lol You're acknowledging that the sound can bounce around inside the room where the microphone is, but you ignore the sounds bouncing around inside the environment?!? It's those sounds bouncing around that are characteristic of what you hear in recordings of CDs, but any impulse will bounce around like that, from any source.
Have you read it?? I'm not acknowledging it. The author of the article acknowledges it too as I shown you with the quotes in response to your last post, which you have willfully ignored!!
QUOTE
I'm assuming you're listening to a sound file, right? How many samples/second are being played? If it's more than 40,000 samples per second, I'd be very much surprised (it'd be pointless, as your ears can't hear anything beyond 20kHz).
Please explain to me what the sample rate as to do with the sonogram??
You seem to bring this up, but why does it matter what the sample rate is, the sonogram pick up the distinct patterns and it would do so even if it was done at a lower or higher sample rate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm assuming you're listening to a sound file, right? How many samples/second are being played? If it's more than 40,000 samples per second, I'd be very much surprised (it'd be pointless, as your ears can't hear anything beyond 20kHz). |
Please explain to me what the sample rate as to do with the sonogram??
You seem to bring this up, but why does it matter what the sample rate is, the sonogram pick up the distinct patterns and it would do so even if it was done at a lower or higher sample rate.
So what's the "characteristic waveform" associated with an explosion?
READ THE PAGE!! The DISTINCT PEAKS in the WTC are the same pattern as the JL Hudson Building demolition!!
Does it matter what the Khz the sound file is? Will a higher or lower sample rate create more than **ONE** sample?? I'm not sure what your point is, or what it as to do with the argument, as nobody as argued that a C4, would create more than **ONE** sample for each waveform??
Does it matter what the Khz the sound file is? Will a higher or lower sample rate create more than **ONE** sample?? I'm not sure what your point is, or what it as to do with the argument, as nobody as argued that a C4, would create more than **ONE** sample for each waveform??
Dead silence before, 10 microseconds of detonation, and the only thing left is the sound bouncing off the walls.
So you missed to you where he says "Some of these bursts come in small groups of 2 or 3 events, the consistent 0.3 second delay suggesting them to be some sort of echo."
Its not my recording. Yes, each explosion would create one sample, however if there are 10 explosions, then there would be 10 single samples, the rest would be artifact as you call it.
How does this make him wrong, he accounts for the echos from each explosions.
I would advise you to read it, because you are just reacting.
Its not my recording. Yes, each explosion would create one sample, however if there are 10 explosions, then there would be 10 single samples, the rest would be artifact as you call it.
How does this make him wrong, he accounts for the echos from each explosions.
I would advise you to read it, because you are just reacting.
BTW, if you'd read back a few pages, you'd realize why I'm not impressed with your "Sound Engineer" credentials. I've got a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, and I've actually DESIGNED and BUILT digital sound equipment.
Me a sound engineer?? Sorry, when did I say I was a "Sound Engineer"?? lol
No wonder your not impressed!! hahahahahaha!!
Well congratulations on your degree in Electrical Engineering. Maybe you should go and study debating next because your are absolutely awful at it.
I've got some nerve indeed when you are desperately lying and skewing the evidence he is presenting. I will show you in a moment.
I've got some nerve indeed when you are desperately lying and skewing the evidence he is presenting. I will show you in a moment.
I pointed out that the HUDSON sonogram was distinct from ALL the others.
So I just posted the unique one, because it was OBVIOSLY DIFFERENT.
The ones you posted are the sonograms from the ALL the footage he used from both videos.
What should give it away is the time one on the bottom part of the sonograms
So you post this, but yet you fail to look at the next lot of images. Which I've posted 3 times which SHOW THE DISTINCT PATTERNS here.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Look at the images and please point out the differences, even though he as marked the DISTINCT PATTERNS...and then tell me why you feel the need to lie??
QUOTE
A brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds. A 40kHz sound file assigns **ONE** sample for each 25 microsecond of the waveform.
Does it matter what the Khz the sound file is? Will a higher or lower sample rate create more than **ONE** sample?? I'm not sure what your point is, or what it as to do with the argument, as nobody as argued that a C4, would create more than **ONE** sample for each waveform??
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A brick of C-4 detonates completely in 10 microseconds. A 40kHz sound file assigns **ONE** sample for each 25 microsecond of the waveform. |
Does it matter what the Khz the sound file is? Will a higher or lower sample rate create more than **ONE** sample?? I'm not sure what your point is, or what it as to do with the argument, as nobody as argued that a C4, would create more than **ONE** sample for each waveform??
Dead silence before, 10 microseconds of detonation, and the only thing left is the sound bouncing off the walls.
So you missed to you where he says "Some of these bursts come in small groups of 2 or 3 events, the consistent 0.3 second delay suggesting them to be some sort of echo."
QUOTE
Your digital recording of explosions going-off in buildings have precisely ONE sample in the whole file that corresponds to the sound of the explosion itself. The rest is ARTIFACT.
Its not my recording. Yes, each explosion would create one sample, however if there are 10 explosions, then there would be 10 single samples, the rest would be artifact as you call it.
How does this make him wrong, he accounts for the echos from each explosions.
I would advise you to read it, because you are just reacting.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your digital recording of explosions going-off in buildings have precisely ONE sample in the whole file that corresponds to the sound of the explosion itself. The rest is ARTIFACT. |
Its not my recording. Yes, each explosion would create one sample, however if there are 10 explosions, then there would be 10 single samples, the rest would be artifact as you call it.
How does this make him wrong, he accounts for the echos from each explosions.
I would advise you to read it, because you are just reacting.
BTW, if you'd read back a few pages, you'd realize why I'm not impressed with your "Sound Engineer" credentials. I've got a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, and I've actually DESIGNED and BUILT digital sound equipment.
Me a sound engineer??
Sorry, when did I say I was a "Sound Engineer"?? lol No wonder your not impressed!! hahahahahaha!!
Well congratulations on your degree in Electrical Engineering. Maybe you should go and study debating next because your are absolutely awful at it.
QUOTE
For Stundie:
You've got some nerve.
The link to the article was just posted.
You've got some nerve.
The link to the article was just posted.
I've got some nerve indeed when you are desperately lying and skewing the evidence he is presenting. I will show you in a moment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For Stundie: You've got some nerve. The link to the article was just posted. |
I've got some nerve indeed when you are desperately lying and skewing the evidence he is presenting. I will show you in a moment.
I pointed out that the HUDSON sonogram was distinct from ALL the others.
So I just posted the unique one, because it was OBVIOSLY DIFFERENT.
The ones you posted are the sonograms from the ALL the footage he used from both videos.
What should give it away is the time one on the bottom part of the sonograms
So you post this, but yet you fail to look at the next lot of images. Which I've posted 3 times which SHOW THE DISTINCT PATTERNS here.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Look at the images and please point out the differences, even though he as marked the DISTINCT PATTERNS...and then tell me why you feel the need to lie??
QUOTE
I take it you can't see the OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between the Hudson and the rest.
Thats because you are posting the sonograms from the whole of the footage he as used, which is why you should read it instead of reacting. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I take it you can't see the OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between the Hudson and the rest. |
Thats because you are posting the sonograms from the whole of the footage he as used, which is why you should read it instead of reacting.
No surprise there.
Apparently troothers only see what they want to see.
I've read the whole of the article, hence the reason I do not make the mistake of saying there are "OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES" when there isn't.
The footage he used was taken from a DVD of Rudy Guillani which was recorded in 5.1 dolby. Again you can be forgiven for not knowing this, as his feedback section doesn't work. But he never dramatized the footage and again he found the original footage and it came back up with the same spikes.
I notice how you are concentrating on the Trinity St footage but ignoring all the other footage which shows the same patterns?? lol
Sorry, NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory at all. NIST do not mention what the collapse method was for the WTC, because they haven't got a clue. NIST dealt with the initiation and you say it wasn't initiated by the pancaking.
Your statement is misleading and a lie, but I'm not surprised!
Sorry, NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory at all. NIST do not mention what the collapse method was for the WTC, because they haven't got a clue. NIST dealt with the initiation and you say it wasn't initiated by the pancaking.
Your statement is misleading and a lie, but I'm not surprised!
Dividing the total number of floors by the length of collapse to get the rate of floors pancaking is TOTALLY BOGUS, as anyone with a smattering of HONESTY and INTELLIGENCE would admit.
You seem to lack both however.
No surprise there.
Apparently troothers only see what they want to see.
I've read the whole of the article, hence the reason I do not make the mistake of saying there are "OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES" when there isn't.
The footage he used was taken from a DVD of Rudy Guillani which was recorded in 5.1 dolby. Again you can be forgiven for not knowing this, as his feedback section doesn't work. But he never dramatized the footage and again he found the original footage and it came back up with the same spikes.
I notice how you are concentrating on the Trinity St footage but ignoring all the other footage which shows the same patterns?? lol
QUOTE
NIST doesn't support the theory that the collapsed was INITIATED by the pancaking of floors, but they certainly DO support the fact that the floors pancaked DURING the collapse.
Sorry, NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory at all. NIST do not mention what the collapse method was for the WTC, because they haven't got a clue. NIST dealt with the initiation and you say it wasn't initiated by the pancaking.
Your statement is misleading and a lie, but I'm not surprised!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NIST doesn't support the theory that the collapsed was INITIATED by the pancaking of floors, but they certainly DO support the fact that the floors pancaked DURING the collapse. |
Sorry, NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory at all. NIST do not mention what the collapse method was for the WTC, because they haven't got a clue. NIST dealt with the initiation and you say it wasn't initiated by the pancaking.
Your statement is misleading and a lie, but I'm not surprised!
Dividing the total number of floors by the length of collapse to get the rate of floors pancaking is TOTALLY BOGUS, as anyone with a smattering of HONESTY and INTELLIGENCE would admit.
You seem to lack both however.
I haven't divided the number of floors pancaking as I do not support the pancake collapse theory??
That's because I corresponded with him and he says this on his feedback, which doesn't work.
That's because I corresponded with him and he says this on his feedback, which doesn't work.
Yeah, Stundie, a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, because if you are making SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS that are counter to the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC OPINION that is where you have to do it.
What's a matter, don't think this evidence will cut it?
Arthur
Well, I can see you have no argument as to why it's wrong.
So of course, you are suggesting it goes to a scientific journal. Again, if it did and it was published, would you believe it and trust it? Or as I suspect, would you then find another excuse to hang onto your 19 Hijackers theory?
Scientific Journals are very credible, but even scientific journals have been known to mislead, or publish articles that are incorrect. Let me give you an example. www-the-scientist-com/news/display/22952/
So in reality, you have no problems with the sonograms, you just don't trust them because they are not published in a scientific journal.
To me, it sounds like your desperate to hang onto your theory....lol
So you post this, but yet you fail to look at the next lot of images. Which I've posted 3 times which SHOW THE DISTINCT PATTERNS here.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Look at the images and please point out the differences, even though he as marked the DISTINCT PATTERNS...and then tell me why you feel the need to lie??
Talk about grasping at straws.
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b.jpg
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b.jpg
You can't see the OBVIOUS differences?
If not then you are beyond help.
Arthur
QUOTE
NO, You STATED that he WAS a Sound Engineer.
That's because I corresponded with him and he says this on his feedback, which doesn't work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NO, You STATED that he WAS a Sound Engineer. |
That's because I corresponded with him and he says this on his feedback, which doesn't work.
Yeah, Stundie, a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, because if you are making SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS that are counter to the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC OPINION that is where you have to do it.
What's a matter, don't think this evidence will cut it?
Arthur
Well, I can see you have no argument as to why it's wrong.
So of course, you are suggesting it goes to a scientific journal. Again, if it did and it was published, would you believe it and trust it? Or as I suspect, would you then find another excuse to hang onto your 19 Hijackers theory?
Scientific Journals are very credible, but even scientific journals have been known to mislead, or publish articles that are incorrect. Let me give you an example. www-the-scientist-com/news/display/22952/
QUOTE
A study published in the peer reviewed Lancet Journal associating long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with a lower risk of oral cancer, was shown to be "completely fabricated"
So in reality, you have no problems with the sonograms, you just don't trust them because they are not published in a scientific journal.
To me, it sounds like your desperate to hang onto your theory....lol
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 17 2007, 03:42 PM)
Oh boy, a 488-page thread on the lame-brain "911 was a demolition job" conspiracy theory for anorak anti-american anti-freedom anti-Bush weirdos.
Jesus H Christ. I'm in crackpot city.
What a dumb post lacking in any kind of logic...
I suppose next you'll tell us that we are harming americans and helping the terrorists win??
Jesus H Christ. I'm in crackpot city.
What a dumb post lacking in any kind of logic...
I suppose next you'll tell us that we are harming americans and helping the terrorists win??
QUOTE (einsteen+Oct 17 2007, 02:57 PM)
I'm trying to solve the plane deceleration curve exactly, but I get an headache of the following "simple" ODE
x''(t)=constant/x(t)
Anyone ? DBB?
but it can be reduced to a 1st order equation of course...
x''(t)=constant/x(t)
Anyone ? DBB?
but it can be reduced to a 1st order equation of course...
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 17 2007, 11:42 AM)
So you post this, but yet you fail to look at the next lot of images. Which I've posted 3 times which SHOW THE DISTINCT PATTERNS here.
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b-jpg
www-mediumrecords-com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b-jpg
Look at the images and please point out the differences, even though he as marked the DISTINCT PATTERNS...and then tell me why you feel the need to lie??
Talk about grasping at straws.
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b.jpg
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b.jpg
You can't see the OBVIOUS differences?
If not then you are beyond help.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 17 2007, 11:42 AM)
Sorry, NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory at all. NIST do not mention what the collapse method was for the WTC, because they haven't got a clue. NIST dealt with the initiation and you say it wasn't initiated by the pancaking.
Your statement is misleading and a lie, but I'm not surprised!
I haven't divided the number of floors pancaking as I do not support the pancake collapse theory??
Again just Troofer BS.
NIST does in fact use the term "pancaking" to describe how the collapse progresses.
See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
and,
It is YOU who is posting Brian's article and he DOES divide the total number of floors by the time to get a per second time.
But of course that is the AVERAGE time.
The collapse starts out much slower and then gets faster so the use of the AVERAGE time to indicate there would not be distinct sounds is MEANINGLESS.
Which anyone with any sense would realize.
Amen.
The significance of the sampling rate is that to capture the characteristic acoustics of an explosion, you'd need to sample at a rate that would capture the explosion's waveform. Since the explosion takes about 10 microseconds, start to finish, you'd need to sample at a rate that would capture at least some of the waveform. For instance, if you wanted 10 points on the waveform, you'd need to take samples at 1 microsecond intervals. That's just simple arithmetic. When you sample at 40kHz, you've reduced the whole of the explosion to **ONE** sample. That's called "undersampling".
All the rest is just echoes of that 10microsecond impulse. Those echoes tell us only what the resonances and reflectivities of the environment was, nothing of the initial impulse.
A bell always sounds like a bell, regardless of what you used to strike the bell. You're looking at recordings of the bell's sound, saying you can infer from that what it was that struck the bell. That's nonsense.
Oh dear!! Lets see what NIST have to say about the Pancake Collapse.
www-wtc-nist-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006-htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
So thats no troofer BS, just debunkers manipulating the data to suit their agenda!!
Oh dear!! Lets see what NIST have to say about the Pancake Collapse.
www-wtc-nist-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006-htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
So thats no troofer BS, just debunkers manipulating the data to suit their agenda!!
It is YOU who is posting Brian's article and he DOES divide the total number of floors by the time to get a per second time.
I posted the webpage, you pointed it out and attributed it to me.
Now that I've pointed out to you that NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory, then Brian is right to rule out the pancaking of the floors!
Your statement is misleading and a lie, but I'm not surprised!
I haven't divided the number of floors pancaking as I do not support the pancake collapse theory??
Again just Troofer BS.
NIST does in fact use the term "pancaking" to describe how the collapse progresses.
See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
and,
It is YOU who is posting Brian's article and he DOES divide the total number of floors by the time to get a per second time.
But of course that is the AVERAGE time.
The collapse starts out much slower and then gets faster so the use of the AVERAGE time to indicate there would not be distinct sounds is MEANINGLESS.
Which anyone with any sense would realize.
QUOTE
Well, I can see you have no argument as to why it's wrong.
So of course, you are suggesting it goes to a scientific journal. Again, if it did and it was published, would you believe it and trust it? Or as I suspect, would you then find another excuse to hang onto your 19 Hijackers theory?
Scientific Journals are very credible, but even scientific journals have been known to mislead, or publish articles that are incorrect. Let me give you an example. www-the-scientist-com/news/display/22952/
No, I gave you an argument why it appears to me to be wrong. The Hudson Sonogram shows DISTINCT vertical lines that are UNIQUE to the use of HE and are NOT found on any of the WTC sonograms along with a distinctly higher level of very low frequency sounds.
But I'm NOT a specialist in Audio Forensics
Which is why you probably won't believe that I'm right and Brian is wrong.
But that is exactly why you publish it in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL so OTHER Audio Engineeers can challenge it.
Which is why, in your article, that showed that something published in a Peer Reviewed Journal WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE, does NOT negate the need to publish.
You see, getting PUBLISHED is just the FIRST STEP.
Not getting REFUTED over time is the TRUE TEST.
Arthur
So of course, you are suggesting it goes to a scientific journal. Again, if it did and it was published, would you believe it and trust it? Or as I suspect, would you then find another excuse to hang onto your 19 Hijackers theory?
Scientific Journals are very credible, but even scientific journals have been known to mislead, or publish articles that are incorrect. Let me give you an example. www-the-scientist-com/news/display/22952/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, I can see you have no argument as to why it's wrong. So of course, you are suggesting it goes to a scientific journal. Again, if it did and it was published, would you believe it and trust it? Or as I suspect, would you then find another excuse to hang onto your 19 Hijackers theory? Scientific Journals are very credible, but even scientific journals have been known to mislead, or publish articles that are incorrect. Let me give you an example. www-the-scientist-com/news/display/22952/ A study published in the peer reviewed Lancet Journal associating long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with a lower risk of oral cancer, was shown to be "completely fabricated" So in reality, you have no problems with the sonograms, you just don't trust them because they are not published in a scientific journal. |
No, I gave you an argument why it appears to me to be wrong. The Hudson Sonogram shows DISTINCT vertical lines that are UNIQUE to the use of HE and are NOT found on any of the WTC sonograms along with a distinctly higher level of very low frequency sounds.
But I'm NOT a specialist in Audio Forensics
Which is why you probably won't believe that I'm right and Brian is wrong.
But that is exactly why you publish it in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL so OTHER Audio Engineeers can challenge it.
Which is why, in your article, that showed that something published in a Peer Reviewed Journal WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE, does NOT negate the need to publish.
You see, getting PUBLISHED is just the FIRST STEP.
Not getting REFUTED over time is the TRUE TEST.
Arthur
QUOTE
The collapse starts out much slower and then gets faster so the use of the AVERAGE time to indicate there would not be distinct sounds is MEANINGLESS.
Which anyone with any sense would realize.
Arthur
Which anyone with any sense would realize.
Arthur
Amen.
The significance of the sampling rate is that to capture the characteristic acoustics of an explosion, you'd need to sample at a rate that would capture the explosion's waveform. Since the explosion takes about 10 microseconds, start to finish, you'd need to sample at a rate that would capture at least some of the waveform. For instance, if you wanted 10 points on the waveform, you'd need to take samples at 1 microsecond intervals. That's just simple arithmetic. When you sample at 40kHz, you've reduced the whole of the explosion to **ONE** sample. That's called "undersampling".
All the rest is just echoes of that 10microsecond impulse. Those echoes tell us only what the resonances and reflectivities of the environment was, nothing of the initial impulse.
A bell always sounds like a bell, regardless of what you used to strike the bell. You're looking at recordings of the bell's sound, saying you can infer from that what it was that struck the bell. That's nonsense.
Guys, all this 911 conspiracy theory garbage employs the "big lie" technique, quite deliberately, also seeking out exposure and publicity. The people who claim that there is a conspiracy theory are the conspirators.
QUOTE (atmosphere+Oct 17 2007, 07:18 AM)
... Wich[sic] steel collumns[sic] got overheated by the fires and caused the collapse ?
The entire 7th or 9th (I forgot which) story was burning, more to the east than the west. The assumption is that one of the cantilever beams finally gave way from this heating, starting the collapse.
NIST is 'soon' be producing their interim report which ought to explain all of this in great detail.
The entire 7th or 9th (I forgot which) story was burning, more to the east than the west. The assumption is that one of the cantilever beams finally gave way from this heating, starting the collapse.
NIST is 'soon' be producing their interim report which ought to explain all of this in great detail.
Einsteen:
I have started working with your Flight 175 impact smear-o-graph....
Pleased to say I can confirm some of your numbers!
First I estimate the aparent impact velocity to be 217 m/s which is very close to your number.
Second I estimate the perspective correction to be ~ 1.08 based on a calculated viewing angle of about 22 degrees from perpendicular to the front (east) face of WTC 2. This would give the actual impact velocity as 234 m/s, a little below NIST's 240 m/s but a very good agreement nonetheless!
As for a curve to fit the deceleration inside the building.... well, I'm working on it!
I have started working with your Flight 175 impact smear-o-graph....
Pleased to say I can confirm some of your numbers!
First I estimate the aparent impact velocity to be 217 m/s which is very close to your number.
Second I estimate the perspective correction to be ~ 1.08 based on a calculated viewing angle of about 22 degrees from perpendicular to the front (east) face of WTC 2. This would give the actual impact velocity as 234 m/s, a little below NIST's 240 m/s but a very good agreement nonetheless!
As for a curve to fit the deceleration inside the building.... well, I'm working on it!
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 17 2007, 08:42 AM)
Oh boy, a 488-page thread ...
Actually, it is the third in a series.
Actually, it is the third in a series.
Somewhere along the line I lost track.
I know Neu-fonze agreed with me about interpolating the decceleration data from the footage, but if anybody posted details about the fragment that struck WTC-7 I missed it.
I know Neu-fonze agreed with me about interpolating the decceleration data from the footage, but if anybody posted details about the fragment that struck WTC-7 I missed it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 17 2007, 11:23 AM)
... posted details about the fragment that struck WTC-7 ...
Not recently.
Not recently.
I also notice that not one of the conspiracy theorists has posted a sonogram of a collision, or compared these sonograms to thos eof collisions.
I think maybe they're afraid of what they'll find.
DBB: Thanks.
I think maybe they're afraid of what they'll find.
DBB: Thanks.
NEU-FONZE and OneWhiteEye --- I can obtain very good agreement between the calculated drops based on NEU-FONZE's measurements of WTC 1 and OneWhiteEye's pixel column 447, 448 and 449 data, but only by using a 1% fudge factor between the length scales of the two sets of measurements. So a question for you both: How good to you think your determinations of lengths were?
Now OneWhiteWhy suggested that his data was 18 stories in 258.67 +/- 1 pixels, which is an error estimate of about 0.39%.
I haven't seen such an estimate from NEU-FONZE. Please?
The best t0, using the calculated drop data to help find it, is at 3.99 seconds into OneWhiteEye's column line data. Is it possible to tell whether this agrees with an expulsion of air from stories 98 and 97 due to the buckling columns? Thanks.
Now OneWhiteWhy suggested that his data was 18 stories in 258.67 +/- 1 pixels, which is an error estimate of about 0.39%.
I haven't seen such an estimate from NEU-FONZE. Please?
The best t0, using the calculated drop data to help find it, is at 3.99 seconds into OneWhiteEye's column line data. Is it possible to tell whether this agrees with an expulsion of air from stories 98 and 97 due to the buckling columns? Thanks.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 17 2007, 04:39 PM)
Talk about grasping at straws.
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b.jpg
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b.jpg
You can't see the OBVIOUS differences?
If not then you are beyond help.
Arthur
Oh please the wise and wonderful Arthur, please point out the obvious differences, now I've exposed you trying to manipulate the data?? hahahahahahaha!!!
I'll await for you to explain the obvious differences??
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/trinity03b.jpg
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/sonograms/hudson02b.jpg
You can't see the OBVIOUS differences?
If not then you are beyond help.
Arthur
Oh please the wise and wonderful Arthur, please point out the obvious differences, now I've exposed you trying to manipulate the data?? hahahahahahaha!!!
I'll await for you to explain the obvious differences??
QUOTE
Again just Troofer BS.
NIST does in fact use the term "pancaking" to describe how the collapse progresses.
See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
NIST does in fact use the term "pancaking" to describe how the collapse progresses.
See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
Oh dear!! Lets see what NIST have to say about the Pancake Collapse.
www-wtc-nist-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006-htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
So thats no troofer BS, just debunkers manipulating the data to suit their agenda!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again just Troofer BS. NIST does in fact use the term "pancaking" to describe how the collapse progresses. See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3 |
Oh dear!! Lets see what NIST have to say about the Pancake Collapse.
www-wtc-nist-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006-htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
So thats no troofer BS, just debunkers manipulating the data to suit their agenda!!
It is YOU who is posting Brian's article and he DOES divide the total number of floors by the time to get a per second time.
I posted the webpage, you pointed it out and attributed it to me.
Now that I've pointed out to you that NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory, then Brian is right to rule out the pancaking of the floors!
QUOTE
But of course that is the AVERAGE time.
The collapse starts out much slower and then gets faster so the use of the AVERAGE time to indicate there would not be distinct sounds is MEANINGLESS.
Which anyone with any sense would realize.
I agree, however, NIST do not agree with your Pancake Collapse theory!The collapse starts out much slower and then gets faster so the use of the AVERAGE time to indicate there would not be distinct sounds is MEANINGLESS.
Which anyone with any sense would realize.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But of course that is the AVERAGE time. The collapse starts out much slower and then gets faster so the use of the AVERAGE time to indicate there would not be distinct sounds is MEANINGLESS. Which anyone with any sense would realize. |
I agree, however, NIST do not agree with your Pancake Collapse theory!
No, I gave you an argument why it appears to me to be wrong. The Hudson Sonogram shows DISTINCT vertical lines that are UNIQUE to the use of HE and are NOT found on any of the WTC sonograms along with a distinctly higher level of v ery low frequency sounds.
But I'm NOT a specialist in Audio Forensics
Which is why you probably won't believe that I'm right and Brian is wrong.
So your logic is, you are not an audio expert, but your right and Brian is wrong?? hahahahahahahahaha!!!
What great logic there Arthur!!
The Hudson demo and Trinity video share DISTINCT PATTERNS. If you expect the patterns to be an exact match, its not going to happen, because they are 2 different explosions.
Instead of pointing out what you think is wrong about it, you intentionally post the wrong images and say there is no match, now I've pointed it out to you, you then post the correct images and suggest I'm clutching at straws because you can see a difference. Hilarious stuff!! lol
Of course, unless it supports your theory, then any challenge to it is troofer BS I see. Double standards methinks......lol
What if the journal won't publish it, not because it's wrong, but because the implications are severe and they do not want to upset the apple cart, or the Bush admin in this case??
Of course, unless it supports your theory, then any challenge to it is troofer BS I see. Double standards methinks......lol
What if the journal won't publish it, not because it's wrong, but because the implications are severe and they do not want to upset the apple cart, or the Bush admin in this case??
Which is why, in your article, that showed that something published in a Peer Reviewed Journal WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE, does NOT negate the need to publish.
You see, getting PUBLISHED is just the FIRST STEP.
Not getting REFUTED over time is the TRUE TEST.
Arthur
I was pointing out to you that because it is published in a journal, doesn't mean it's correct. In the same way, because it's not published in a journal, it doesn't makes it incorrect.
The problem is, not a single person as refuted it yet. Now I agree, another engineer could do with taking a look at it, but as far as I've read and from what I know about sonograms, it all appears to be in order.
If you think it's twoofer BS, contact Brian. I'm sure he can explain it to you better than I can.
Always good to hear from you, RC.
Indeed, this compression shock was, I believe, actually visible in one video, right before impact. IIRC, there was a shot where the plane's nose was about a foot from impact, and there was a large flash of light right in the area between the nose and the building, visible in one-frame only.
It would make sense, once you think about it, as there would be compression at least as great as in a diesel engine cylinder.
RC - I'm not sure what the cause of your inflammation is, but I've had really good luck with Colloidal Silver, which is mostly used for killing pathogens of all sorts, but also has a side effect of reducing inflammation. It stops itchy skin, and soothes burns. It might actually reduce the inflammation of your optic nerve (especially if that inflammation is due to some sort of undiagnosed infection). You can get colloidal silver in small quantities from any local health food store/vitamin shop, but you get the best deals in bulk purchases via the web. I don't want anybody to think I'm selling the stuff, but I've had nothing but good luck treating various chronic conditions with it, and everything I've read has been positive (except for the FDA Scare-Mongering intended to prevent people from finding cures outside the conventional Medical Establishment). Hope it helps you, too.
Do you have serious reading problems??
When does "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards." = Pancake collapse??
Another problem I have with this statement, is if the perimeter columns are being pulled inwards as suggested, then why in the collapse of the videos are there perimeter columns being ejected outwards?
I'm not a physics expert, so there should be a reasonable explanation for it?
Do you have serious reading problems??
When does "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards." = Pancake collapse??
Another problem I have with this statement, is if the perimeter columns are being pulled inwards as suggested, then why in the collapse of the videos are there perimeter columns being ejected outwards?
I'm not a physics expert, so there should be a reasonable explanation for it?
The FAQ and the Quote is about what INITIATED the collapse, which was the previous Pancake theory.
That's because NIST do not have a theory on how the collapse progressed after it initiated. So they do not support a PANCAKE COLLAPSE....Come on, say it with me Arthur...."NIST do not support a pancake collapse!!"
Its OK to be wrong you know!
As shown in the OTHER NIST quote (and in the damage analysis that NIST performed) See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3 the fact that the collapse was not INITIATED by the pancaking of floors did not mean that once the collapse was underway, the floors didn't PANCAKE.
Thus they state:
...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
Arthur
Again, reading is not your strongest point....The words highlighted for your emphasis "This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking." Suggests what??
A}That...This maybe a result??
Or....
B} That...This is definitely a result??
If you choose A then this means it's a possibility.
If you choose B (Which you appear to have done!) then this is the case.
You see, I thought NIST never studied the actual collapse, just what initiated it, so how can they support something which they have never investigated??
Again, reading is not your strongest point....The words highlighted for your emphasis "This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking." Suggests what??
A}That...This maybe a result??
Or....
B} That...This is definitely a result??
If you choose A then this means it's a possibility.
If you choose B (Which you appear to have done!) then this is the case.
You see, I thought NIST never studied the actual collapse, just what initiated it, so how can they support something which they have never investigated??
NIST responded by stating, "With regard to the first request, NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of initiation... it was most critical to NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers."
I suppose Arthur as the answer?? Pancake Collapse Theory?? lol
No, I gave you an argument why it appears to me to be wrong. The Hudson Sonogram shows DISTINCT vertical lines that are UNIQUE to the use of HE and are NOT found on any of the WTC sonograms along with a distinctly higher level of v
ery low frequency sounds. But I'm NOT a specialist in Audio Forensics
Which is why you probably won't believe that I'm right and Brian is wrong.
So your logic is, you are not an audio expert, but your right and Brian is wrong?? hahahahahahahahaha!!!
What great logic there Arthur!!
The Hudson demo and Trinity video share DISTINCT PATTERNS. If you expect the patterns to be an exact match, its not going to happen, because they are 2 different explosions.
Instead of pointing out what you think is wrong about it, you intentionally post the wrong images and say there is no match, now I've pointed it out to you, you then post the correct images and suggest I'm clutching at straws because you can see a difference. Hilarious stuff!! lol
QUOTE
But that is exactly why you publish it in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL so OTHER Audio Engineeers can challenge it.
Of course, unless it supports your theory, then any challenge to it is troofer BS I see. Double standards methinks......lol
What if the journal won't publish it, not because it's wrong, but because the implications are severe and they do not want to upset the apple cart, or the Bush admin in this case??
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But that is exactly why you publish it in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL so OTHER Audio Engineeers can challenge it. |
Of course, unless it supports your theory, then any challenge to it is troofer BS I see. Double standards methinks......lol
What if the journal won't publish it, not because it's wrong, but because the implications are severe and they do not want to upset the apple cart, or the Bush admin in this case??
Which is why, in your article, that showed that something published in a Peer Reviewed Journal WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE, does NOT negate the need to publish.
You see, getting PUBLISHED is just the FIRST STEP.
Not getting REFUTED over time is the TRUE TEST.
Arthur
I was pointing out to you that because it is published in a journal, doesn't mean it's correct. In the same way, because it's not published in a journal, it doesn't makes it incorrect.
The problem is, not a single person as refuted it yet. Now I agree, another engineer could do with taking a look at it, but as far as I've read and from what I know about sonograms, it all appears to be in order.
If you think it's twoofer BS, contact Brian. I'm sure he can explain it to you better than I can.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Oct 17 2007, 05:20 PM)
As for a curve to fit the deceleration inside the building.... well, I'm working on it!
That would be great.
btw I'm trying to derive the deceleration of a stick with length L and uniform mass m and high speed v when it collides on a hard wall. I get results with erf functions as far as I can see, but I'm doing something wrong because also the complex unit i is part of the result...
My idea is that the result will be kind of curved function but probably with the values of the plane it will be near straight. As always mechanical problems that look simple seem to be more complex than expected...
That would be great.
btw I'm trying to derive the deceleration of a stick with length L and uniform mass m and high speed v when it collides on a hard wall. I get results with erf functions as far as I can see, but I'm doing something wrong because also the complex unit i is part of the result...
My idea is that the result will be kind of curved function but probably with the values of the plane it will be near straight. As always mechanical problems that look simple seem to be more complex than expected...
QUOTE (einsteen+Oct 17 2007, 04:41 PM)
... also the complex unit i is part of the result...
Feel free to post the sequence of steps in the derivation and perhaps someone will notice something useful.
Feel free to post the sequence of steps in the derivation and perhaps someone will notice something useful.
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 17 2007, 07:31 PM)
Oh dear!! Lets see what NIST have to say about the Pancake Collapse.
www-wtc-nist-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006-htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
So thats no troofer BS, just debunkers manipulating the data to suit their agenda!!
Oh dear! another troofer with minimal intelligence.
Lets see what NIST had to say in the FAQ:
The FAQ and the Quote is about what INITIATED the collapse, which was the previous Pancake theory.
As shown in the OTHER NIST quote (and in the damage analysis that NIST performed) See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3 the fact that the collapse was not INITIATED by the pancaking of floors did not mean that once the collapse was underway, the floors didn't PANCAKE.
Thus they state:
...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
Arthur
www-wtc-nist-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006-htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
So thats no troofer BS, just debunkers manipulating the data to suit their agenda!!
Oh dear! another troofer with minimal intelligence.
Lets see what NIST had to say in the FAQ:
QUOTE
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
The FAQ and the Quote is about what INITIATED the collapse, which was the previous Pancake theory.
As shown in the OTHER NIST quote (and in the damage analysis that NIST performed) See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3 the fact that the collapse was not INITIATED by the pancaking of floors did not mean that once the collapse was underway, the floors didn't PANCAKE.
Thus they state:
...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
Arthur
Don't forget that most metals (I know this is true for steel, because I first encountered it with stock cars) have a relationship between density and compressive strength. This (should) have (some) effect on the material strength of the floors and the airplane. I imagine specifics of the physical poreties of various metals would result in this affecting them differently. Might be worth investigating further, because I would expect it to influence the ability of the aircraft to penetrate the twin towers, as well as affecting the deceleration of the aircraft.
Ah. Poster OneWhiteEye's data is for the antenna tower, which is about another 100 feet or so from the camera than the wall on which lengths were measured. Does this explain (some of) the 1% decrease in lengths so that the data matches that measured by poster NEU-FONZE? 
.
Hi All! Have to be brief; still can't can't read screen too well, and my eyes/optic nerves are still sore as hell! (BTW, metamars: thanks for that info on 'inflammation/anti-inflammatory', I appreciate your concern over my trouble).
Here's some observations re plane impact/behaviour etc:-
Compare the 'lack' of effective coupling of compression forces between the structural elements and CONNECTIONS. Like the WTC collapses, the PARTS acted IN ISOLATION because the CONNECTIONS were never meant to withstand even for MICROSECOND the enormous forces at play at any one LOCATION/JOINT. So, like the inner collapse of WTC1/2, where the internal collapse forces were NOT 'coupled' to the exterior due to separation of the two 'systems' at the 'weak boundary' of floor-to-wall connections, the PLANE compression/crumpling/disintegration behaviour would NOT be as a WHOLE, but occur EFFECTIVELY LOCALLY, as a 'set' of MANY 'separable subsystem' IMPACTS/EFFECTS that are DISCONNECTED from the whole system. Meaning that MACRO/BULK compression waves could not be effectively transmitted THAT quickly from nose/wings to tail BEFORE the whole plane was INSIDE the building, by which point the plane began to disintergrate from SHOCK/GUILLTINING event LOCALLY.
Of course, SOUND/SHOCK wavws transmitted CAN reach the tail in the given time, BUT these CANNOT slow anything IN BULK unless they are SUSTAINED for long periods.
Then there is the AIR stagnation/compression front that precedes ALL objects no matter how 'streamlined'. At high subsonic velocity, all the contoured leading edge surfaces are pushing quite a 'compression wave' cushion of air ahead of them (which only becomes obvious if one reaches mach I, when that cushion cannot keep pace and 'collapses' into a sonic boom 'cone' compression wave. So at the plane velocities involved AND the sudden compression of that preceding 'cushion' between the leading edges and the wall faces/colums, those 'subsonic' cushions would be almost instantly compressed futher, and so converted to HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE 'shock' stagnation layers that would INITIALLY 'run interference' between the plane surfaces/structures and the wall surfaces/structures. Demomstrate this by clapping your hands and producing a sharp 'crack' of compressed air/soundwave. Imagine what LARGER surface areas and MUCH FASTER velocities would produce! And that old trick of shooting a wax candle through a plank of wood 'unscathed' would not work if the END of a candle did not have a 'cushion of air' in front to INITIALLY puch a hole through the plank. Of course, in the plane impacts, once that initial cushion fractured the steel columns, all the rest was merely random impacts with flying debris until the more substantial core structures were encountered....but I can't say what the planes' velocity/structural integrity was like by then.
And finally, about the noises during plane impacts AND building 'pancake' impacts. I recall pointing out to metamars (hi again, met!) and others some time ago that all 'apparent' observations in HIGH SPEED and/or DURATIONALLY BRIEF events/processes must take account of the 'shutter speed of cameras (and sometimes also the effect of 'retention' and 'recovery' rate of human retinal cones and nerves 'chemistry'). Recall the example I used of a bullwhip tip accelerated to a sonic velocity 'INVISIBLE BLUR' by a human hand/arm action at much lower velocities that MACH I!....and how that explains the 'disappearing spire' remnant after its supporing structure was whipped from under that spire by a toppling structure nearby that hit the columns/structure somewhere below that spire....so that it 'literally disappeared and failed to register between FRAMES of the 'ordinary' camera frame/eye recovery rates which 'recorded' the whipping event. So, as some posters have already pointed out, UNLESS they were HIGH SPEED/ACCURACY cameras/instruments that recorded/reproduced those very BRIEFEST/FASTEST events/processes, then the 'apparent' images/sounds are, PERFORCE OF THEIR OBVIOUS LIMITATIONS, totally unreliable for scientific conclusions to be drawn (and may actually be WORSE than USELESS...in that such 'apparent' observations may lead to all sorts of erroneous PRESUMPTIONS of the actual physics involved in the effectively 'hidden' intervals/frames that were NOT 'recorded'!)
That's my two cents' worth from me for now, guys. Ouch.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi All! Have to be brief; still can't can't read screen too well, and my eyes/optic nerves are still sore as hell! (BTW, metamars: thanks for that info on 'inflammation/anti-inflammatory', I appreciate your concern over my trouble).
Here's some observations re plane impact/behaviour etc:-
Compare the 'lack' of effective coupling of compression forces between the structural elements and CONNECTIONS. Like the WTC collapses, the PARTS acted IN ISOLATION because the CONNECTIONS were never meant to withstand even for MICROSECOND the enormous forces at play at any one LOCATION/JOINT. So, like the inner collapse of WTC1/2, where the internal collapse forces were NOT 'coupled' to the exterior due to separation of the two 'systems' at the 'weak boundary' of floor-to-wall connections, the PLANE compression/crumpling/disintegration behaviour would NOT be as a WHOLE, but occur EFFECTIVELY LOCALLY, as a 'set' of MANY 'separable subsystem' IMPACTS/EFFECTS that are DISCONNECTED from the whole system. Meaning that MACRO/BULK compression waves could not be effectively transmitted THAT quickly from nose/wings to tail BEFORE the whole plane was INSIDE the building, by which point the plane began to disintergrate from SHOCK/GUILLTINING event LOCALLY.
Of course, SOUND/SHOCK wavws transmitted CAN reach the tail in the given time, BUT these CANNOT slow anything IN BULK unless they are SUSTAINED for long periods.
Then there is the AIR stagnation/compression front that precedes ALL objects no matter how 'streamlined'. At high subsonic velocity, all the contoured leading edge surfaces are pushing quite a 'compression wave' cushion of air ahead of them (which only becomes obvious if one reaches mach I, when that cushion cannot keep pace and 'collapses' into a sonic boom 'cone' compression wave. So at the plane velocities involved AND the sudden compression of that preceding 'cushion' between the leading edges and the wall faces/colums, those 'subsonic' cushions would be almost instantly compressed futher, and so converted to HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE 'shock' stagnation layers that would INITIALLY 'run interference' between the plane surfaces/structures and the wall surfaces/structures. Demomstrate this by clapping your hands and producing a sharp 'crack' of compressed air/soundwave. Imagine what LARGER surface areas and MUCH FASTER velocities would produce! And that old trick of shooting a wax candle through a plank of wood 'unscathed' would not work if the END of a candle did not have a 'cushion of air' in front to INITIALLY puch a hole through the plank. Of course, in the plane impacts, once that initial cushion fractured the steel columns, all the rest was merely random impacts with flying debris until the more substantial core structures were encountered....but I can't say what the planes' velocity/structural integrity was like by then.
And finally, about the noises during plane impacts AND building 'pancake' impacts. I recall pointing out to metamars (hi again, met!) and others some time ago that all 'apparent' observations in HIGH SPEED and/or DURATIONALLY BRIEF events/processes must take account of the 'shutter speed of cameras (and sometimes also the effect of 'retention' and 'recovery' rate of human retinal cones and nerves 'chemistry'). Recall the example I used of a bullwhip tip accelerated to a sonic velocity 'INVISIBLE BLUR' by a human hand/arm action at much lower velocities that MACH I!....and how that explains the 'disappearing spire' remnant after its supporing structure was whipped from under that spire by a toppling structure nearby that hit the columns/structure somewhere below that spire....so that it 'literally disappeared and failed to register between FRAMES of the 'ordinary' camera frame/eye recovery rates which 'recorded' the whipping event. So, as some posters have already pointed out, UNLESS they were HIGH SPEED/ACCURACY cameras/instruments that recorded/reproduced those very BRIEFEST/FASTEST events/processes, then the 'apparent' images/sounds are, PERFORCE OF THEIR OBVIOUS LIMITATIONS, totally unreliable for scientific conclusions to be drawn (and may actually be WORSE than USELESS...in that such 'apparent' observations may lead to all sorts of erroneous PRESUMPTIONS of the actual physics involved in the effectively 'hidden' intervals/frames that were NOT 'recorded'!)
That's my two cents' worth from me for now, guys. Ouch.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE
So at the plane velocities involved AND the sudden compression of that preceding 'cushion' between the leading edges and the wall faces/colums, those 'subsonic' cushions would be almost instantly compressed futher, and so converted to HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE 'shock' stagnation layers that would INITIALLY 'run interference' between the plane surfaces/structures and the wall surfaces/structures.
Always good to hear from you, RC.
Indeed, this compression shock was, I believe, actually visible in one video, right before impact. IIRC, there was a shot where the plane's nose was about a foot from impact, and there was a large flash of light right in the area between the nose and the building, visible in one-frame only.
It would make sense, once you think about it, as there would be compression at least as great as in a diesel engine cylinder.
RC - I'm not sure what the cause of your inflammation is, but I've had really good luck with Colloidal Silver, which is mostly used for killing pathogens of all sorts, but also has a side effect of reducing inflammation. It stops itchy skin, and soothes burns. It might actually reduce the inflammation of your optic nerve (especially if that inflammation is due to some sort of undiagnosed infection). You can get colloidal silver in small quantities from any local health food store/vitamin shop, but you get the best deals in bulk purchases via the web. I don't want anybody to think I'm selling the stuff, but I've had nothing but good luck treating various chronic conditions with it, and everything I've read has been positive (except for the FDA Scare-Mongering intended to prevent people from finding cures outside the conventional Medical Establishment). Hope it helps you, too.
QUOTE
Oh dear! another troofer with minimal intelligence.
Lets see what NIST had to say in the FAQ:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Lets see what NIST had to say in the FAQ:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Do you have serious reading problems??
When does "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards." = Pancake collapse??
Another problem I have with this statement, is if the perimeter columns are being pulled inwards as suggested, then why in the collapse of the videos are there perimeter columns being ejected outwards?
I'm not a physics expert, so there should be a reasonable explanation for it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh dear! another troofer with minimal intelligence. Lets see what NIST had to say in the FAQ: NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. |
Do you have serious reading problems??
When does "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards." = Pancake collapse??
Another problem I have with this statement, is if the perimeter columns are being pulled inwards as suggested, then why in the collapse of the videos are there perimeter columns being ejected outwards?
I'm not a physics expert, so there should be a reasonable explanation for it?
The FAQ and the Quote is about what INITIATED the collapse, which was the previous Pancake theory.
That's because NIST do not have a theory on how the collapse progressed after it initiated. So they do not support a PANCAKE COLLAPSE....Come on, say it with me Arthur...."NIST do not support a pancake collapse!!"
Its OK to be wrong you know!
QUOTE
As shown in the OTHER NIST quote (and in the damage analysis that NIST performed) See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3 the fact that the collapse was not INITIATED by the pancaking of floors did not mean that once the collapse was underway, the floors didn't PANCAKE.
Thus they state:
...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
Arthur
Again, reading is not your strongest point....The words highlighted for your emphasis "This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking." Suggests what??
A}That...This maybe a result??
Or....
B} That...This is definitely a result??
If you choose A then this means it's a possibility.
If you choose B (Which you appear to have done!) then this is the case.
You see, I thought NIST never studied the actual collapse, just what initiated it, so how can they support something which they have never investigated??
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
As shown in the OTHER NIST quote (and in the damage analysis that NIST performed) See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3 the fact that the collapse was not INITIATED by the pancaking of floors did not mean that once the collapse was underway, the floors didn't PANCAKE. Thus they state: ... Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking". Arthur |
Again, reading is not your strongest point....The words highlighted for your emphasis "This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking." Suggests what??
A}That...This maybe a result??
Or....
B} That...This is definitely a result??
If you choose A then this means it's a possibility.
If you choose B (Which you appear to have done!) then this is the case.
You see, I thought NIST never studied the actual collapse, just what initiated it, so how can they support something which they have never investigated??
NIST responded by stating, "With regard to the first request, NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of initiation... it was most critical to NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers."
I suppose Arthur as the answer?? Pancake Collapse Theory?? lol
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 17 2007, 05:53 PM)
... if the perimeter columns are being pulled inwards as suggested, then why in the collapse of the videos are there perimeter columns being ejected outwards? ...
(1) Collapse initiation: Exterior wall is pulled in and finally breaks, starting the collapse.
(2) Collapse progression: After a sufficient supply of crushed materials was descending inside the exterior walls, the over pressure broke the connections and sections of the exterior walls were ejected.
(1) Collapse initiation: Exterior wall is pulled in and finally breaks, starting the collapse.
(2) Collapse progression: After a sufficient supply of crushed materials was descending inside the exterior walls, the over pressure broke the connections and sections of the exterior walls were ejected.
QUOTE (Stundie+)
When does "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards." = Pancake collapse??
It DOESN'T
That's the point.
The "Pancake Collapse" theory that NIST is talking about was floated by FEMA and is SPECIFIC to the INITIATION event.
NIST points out it wasn't the floors falling (pancaking) that started the collapse, as FEMA suggested, but the pulling in of the columns by the sagging but STILL CONNECTED floors.
It DOESN'T
That's the point.
The "Pancake Collapse" theory that NIST is talking about was floated by FEMA and is SPECIFIC to the INITIATION event.
NIST points out it wasn't the floors falling (pancaking) that started the collapse, as FEMA suggested, but the pulling in of the columns by the sagging but STILL CONNECTED floors.
QUOTE (NIST+)
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
Followed by this from our newbie
Followed by this from our newbie
QUOTE (Stundie+)
Again, reading is not your strongest point....The words highlighted for your emphasis "This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking." Suggests what??
I take it reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
The "MAY" in that sentence refers to the manner of failure of the gusset plate.
AS THE FLOORS ABOVE WERE PANCAKING is a DEFINITIVE statement.
The later quote about not analyzing the collapse is about the MODEL, they didn't MODEL the collapse, they DID however make many observations about the collapse, particularly in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. Including the one about the floors PANCAKING.
Finally, if you don't think they were PANCAKING, what do you think happened to them?
Arthur
I take it reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
The "MAY" in that sentence refers to the manner of failure of the gusset plate.
AS THE FLOORS ABOVE WERE PANCAKING is a DEFINITIVE statement.
The later quote about not analyzing the collapse is about the MODEL, they didn't MODEL the collapse, they DID however make many observations about the collapse, particularly in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. Including the one about the floors PANCAKING.
Finally, if you don't think they were PANCAKING, what do you think happened to them?
Arthur
QUOTE (Stundie+)
QUOTE (Arthur+)
No, I gave you an argument why it appears to me to be wrong. The Hudson Sonogram shows DISTINCT vertical lines that are UNIQUE to the use of HE and are NOT found on any of the WTC sonograms along with a distinctly higher level of very low frequency sounds.
But I'm NOT a specialist in Audio Forensics
Which is why you probably won't believe that I'm right and Brian is wrong.
So your logic is, you are not an audio expert, but your right and Brian is wrong?? hahahahahahahahaha!!!
What great logic there Arthur!!
The Hudson demo and Trinity video share DISTINCT PATTERNS. If you expect the patterns to be an exact match, its not going to happen, because they are 2 different explosions.
Instead of pointing out what you think is wrong about it, you intentionally post the wrong images and say there is no match, now I've pointed it out to you, you then post the correct images and suggest I'm clutching at straws because you can see a difference. Hilarious stuff!! lol
Well that's pretty funny,
I look at them and to me they look DISTINCTLY different. (And I did point out what was different, please read posts more CAREFULLY, its TEDIOUS having to repeat myself)
You (and Brian) claim to see similarities.
But what NEITHER of you have done is show how the patterns you claim to be able to see are UNIQUE to explosives.
And while YOU claim that Brian told you he was a Sound Engineer, we have seen NO CREDENTIALS to back up that claim.
And no evidence that a Sonogram can be used for DETECTING the sonic signature of high explosives
etc etc
So at this point its just a bunch of screen shots that YOU claim mean something.
Pretty pathetic actually.
Arthur
But I'm NOT a specialist in Audio Forensics
Which is why you probably won't believe that I'm right and Brian is wrong.
So your logic is, you are not an audio expert, but your right and Brian is wrong?? hahahahahahahahaha!!!
What great logic there Arthur!!
The Hudson demo and Trinity video share DISTINCT PATTERNS. If you expect the patterns to be an exact match, its not going to happen, because they are 2 different explosions.
Instead of pointing out what you think is wrong about it, you intentionally post the wrong images and say there is no match, now I've pointed it out to you, you then post the correct images and suggest I'm clutching at straws because you can see a difference. Hilarious stuff!! lol
Well that's pretty funny,
I look at them and to me they look DISTINCTLY different. (And I did point out what was different, please read posts more CAREFULLY, its TEDIOUS having to repeat myself)
You (and Brian) claim to see similarities.
But what NEITHER of you have done is show how the patterns you claim to be able to see are UNIQUE to explosives.
And while YOU claim that Brian told you he was a Sound Engineer, we have seen NO CREDENTIALS to back up that claim.
And no evidence that a Sonogram can be used for DETECTING the sonic signature of high explosives
etc etc
So at this point its just a bunch of screen shots that YOU claim mean something.
Pretty pathetic actually.
Arthur
More cherry picking antics by Arthur......Why am I not surprised.
I see ignorance is your strong point. Lets go through this again for you.....
Why are you twisting NISTs own words??
2ndly....This is not a DEFINITIVE statement....Read the whole of it again and this time, do it slowly because there is no mention of a gusset plate.
"This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking."
Notice how there is no commas or no breaks in the statement? So therefore, "This maybe a result".......is not definitive statement.
The words "May be" should be the clue you are missing.
When I corrected you, you still say there are no similarities, I ask you to explain and then you claim you've already explained and are repeating yourself!!
You are employing the tactics of Pinnochio, I hope you realise that Geppeto will not be be happy...
Talk about delusions!! hahahahahahaha!!
I see ignorance is your strong point. Lets go through this again for you.....
QUOTE
I take it reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
The "MAY" in that sentence refers to the manner of failure of the gusset plate.
AS THE FLOORS ABOVE WERE PANCAKING is a DEFINITIVE statement.
1st thing....the "MAY" does not refer to the manner of failure of the gusset plate, it refers to what the statement ACTUALLY SAYS.The "MAY" in that sentence refers to the manner of failure of the gusset plate.
AS THE FLOORS ABOVE WERE PANCAKING is a DEFINITIVE statement.
Why are you twisting NISTs own words??
2ndly....This is not a DEFINITIVE statement....Read the whole of it again and this time, do it slowly because there is no mention of a gusset plate.
"This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking."
Notice how there is no commas or no breaks in the statement? So therefore, "This maybe a result".......is not definitive statement.
The words "May be" should be the clue you are missing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I take it reading comprehension is not your strong suit. The "MAY" in that sentence refers to the manner of failure of the gusset plate. AS THE FLOORS ABOVE WERE PANCAKING is a DEFINITIVE statement. |
1st thing....the "MAY" does not refer to the manner of failure of the gusset plate, it refers to what the statement ACTUALLY SAYS.
Why are you twisting NISTs own words??
2ndly....This is not a DEFINITIVE statement....Read the whole of it again and this time, do it slowly because there is no mention of a gusset plate.
"This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking."
Notice how there is no commas or no breaks in the statement? So therefore, "This maybe a result".......is not definitive statement.
The words "May be" should be the clue you are missing.
The later quote about not analyzing the collapse is about the MODEL, they didn't MODEL the collapse, they DID however make many observations about the collapse, particularly in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. Including the one about the floors PANCAKING.
Arthur
Why are you twisting NISTs own words??
2ndly....This is not a DEFINITIVE statement....Read the whole of it again and this time, do it slowly because there is no mention of a gusset plate.
"This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were pancaking."
Notice how there is no commas or no breaks in the statement? So therefore, "This maybe a result".......is not definitive statement.
The words "May be" should be the clue you are missing.
The later quote about not analyzing the collapse is about the MODEL, they didn't MODEL the collapse, they DID however make many observations about the collapse, particularly in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. Including the one about the floors PANCAKING.
Arthur
NIST didn't model the collapse?? Sorry, are you serious?? hahahahaha!! What the hell was that computer model that NIST used to show how the building collapsed? You know the one where they had to tweak the parameters in order to get the model to collapse??
They did make observations about the collapse, but remember...NIST DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY!!!
hahahahaha!! What the hell was that computer model that NIST used to show how the building collapsed? You know the one where they had to tweak the parameters in order to get the model to collapse?? They did make observations about the collapse, but remember...NIST DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY!!!
newton's crack-baby's learned how to type!
QUOTE
Well that's pretty funny,
I look at them and to me they look DISTINCTLY different. (And I did point out what was different, please read posts more CAREFULLY, its TEDIOUS having to repeat myself)
You have not pointed out the difference, so you have not repeated yourself. What you did was post the wrong images and say...."There are no similarities" I look at them and to me they look DISTINCTLY different. (And I did point out what was different, please read posts more CAREFULLY, its TEDIOUS having to repeat myself)
When I corrected you, you still say there are no similarities, I ask you to explain and then you claim you've already explained and are repeating yourself!!
You are employing the tactics of Pinnochio, I hope you realise that Geppeto will not be be happy...
Talk about delusions!! hahahahahahaha!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well that's pretty funny, I look at them and to me they look DISTINCTLY different. (And I did point out what was different, please read posts more CAREFULLY, its TEDIOUS having to repeat myself) |
You have not pointed out the difference, so you have not repeated yourself. What you did was post the wrong images and say...."There are no similarities"
When I corrected you, you still say there are no similarities, I ask you to explain and then you claim you've already explained and are repeating yourself!!
You are employing the tactics of Pinnochio, I hope you realise that Geppeto will not be be happy...
Talk about delusions!! hahahahahahaha!!
You (and Brian) claim to see similarities.
When I corrected you, you still say there are no similarities, I ask you to explain and then you claim you've already explained and are repeating yourself!!
You are employing the tactics of Pinnochio, I hope you realise that Geppeto will not be be happy...
Talk about delusions!! hahahahahahaha!!
You (and Brian) claim to see similarities.
They are pointed out in green arrows for you.
QUOTE
But what NEITHER of you have done is show how the patterns you claim to be able to see are UNIQUE to explosives.
You should READ the website and do it VERY slowly. Showing the sonogram images for explosions in the Hudson demo and comparing them to the footage of the WTC collapse and seeing the same patterns, is not showing you?? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But what NEITHER of you have done is show how the patterns you claim to be able to see are UNIQUE to explosives. |
You should READ the website and do it VERY slowly. Showing the sonogram images for explosions in the Hudson demo and comparing them to the footage of the WTC collapse and seeing the same patterns, is not showing you??
And while YOU claim that Brian told you he was a Sound Engineer, we have seen NO CREDENTIALS to back up that claim.
Well email him, I'm sure he'll back up what he says if his credentials are so important to you. Lets say it turns out he is a world expert on sound engineering, you would still find some excuse to ignore this evidence, because it doesn't fit your Al-Qaeda theory.
Of course, I know why you want his credentials, in order that you can find a fault and chew at it. That's what debunkers like you normally do.
Your intelligence levels are reaching a new low. Again, read the website and go to Wikipedia and put the word Sonograms in...You'll find this...
He's absolutely right. The characteristic signature of an explosive would have to be present in the recording in order for the sonogram to plot it, and as I've proved about a dozen times already, a 40kHz sampling rate in the recording guarantees that the detonation is undersampled, and therefore the signal you're claiming exists didn't get captured by the recording equipment.
You apparently never understood a word I've written.
Incidentally, I programmed my first sonogram software back in 1985. as a Senior Staff Scientist for Science Applications International Corp. What were you doing back then?
And while YOU claim that Brian told you he was a Sound Engineer, we have seen NO CREDENTIALS to back up that claim.
Well email him, I'm sure he'll back up what he says if his credentials are so important to you. Lets say it turns out he is a world expert on sound engineering, you would still find some excuse to ignore this evidence, because it doesn't fit your Al-Qaeda theory.
Of course, I know why you want his credentials, in order that you can find a fault and chew at it. That's what debunkers like you normally do.
QUOTE
And no evidence that a Sonogram can be used for DETECTING the sonic signature of high explosives
OH MY GOD!! hahahahahahahaha!!Your intelligence levels are reaching a new low. Again, read the website and go to Wikipedia and put the word Sonograms in...You'll find this...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And no evidence that a Sonogram can be used for DETECTING the sonic signature of high explosives |
OH MY GOD!! hahahahahahahaha!!
Your intelligence levels are reaching a new low. Again, read the website and go to Wikipedia and put the word Sonograms in...You'll find this...
The spectrogram is the result of calculating the frequency spectrum of windowed frames of a compound signal. It is a three-dimensional plot of the energy of the frequency content of a signal as it changes over time.
Spectrograms are used to identify phonetic sounds, to analyse the cries of animals, and in the fields of music, sonar/radar, speech processing, etc. A spectrogram can also be called a spectral waterfall, sonogram, voiceprint, or voicegram. The instrument that generates a spectrogram is called a sonograph.
So if an explosions makes a sound? And a spectrogram can be used to plot the frequency content of a signal or sound source, then its safe to say it can be used to detect an explosive. or any other signal??
Infact it's much better than human ears as it will even pick up VLF.
Thats because you have trouble reading anything which doesn't support your theory and I'm sure if they supported your theory, you wouldn't be this cynical and dismissive of the evidence.
Your intelligence levels are reaching a new low. Again, read the website and go to Wikipedia and put the word Sonograms in...You'll find this...
The spectrogram is the result of calculating the frequency spectrum of windowed frames of a compound signal. It is a three-dimensional plot of the energy of the frequency content of a signal as it changes over time.
Spectrograms are used to identify phonetic sounds, to analyse the cries of animals, and in the fields of music, sonar/radar, speech processing, etc. A spectrogram can also be called a spectral waterfall, sonogram, voiceprint, or voicegram. The instrument that generates a spectrogram is called a sonograph.
So if an explosions makes a sound? And a spectrogram can be used to plot the frequency content of a signal or sound source, then its safe to say it can be used to detect an explosive. or any other signal??
Infact it's much better than human ears as it will even pick up VLF.
QUOTE
So at this point its just a bunch of screen shots that YOU claim mean something.
Pretty pathetic actually.
Arthur
Pretty pathetic actually.
Arthur
Thats because you have trouble reading anything which doesn't support your theory and I'm sure if they supported your theory, you wouldn't be this cynical and dismissive of the evidence.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Oct 18 2007, 02:46 AM)
newton's crack-baby's learned how to type!
This crackbaby as also outsmarted you and stopped you from spreading your special brand of misinformation manure!
Of course, when a debunker is down on his luck....Along comes a cheer leader!! Its very honourable that you feel the need to cheer along Aruthur, but he's doing a better job of spreading than you are.
Have you found a source for the explosions heard by people at GZ yet? Since according to you and others they are not explosions? www-youtube-com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
This crackbaby as also outsmarted you and stopped you from spreading your special brand of misinformation manure!
Of course, when a debunker is down on his luck....Along comes a cheer leader!! Its very honourable that you feel the need to cheer along Aruthur, but he's doing a better job of spreading than you are.
Have you found a source for the explosions heard by people at GZ yet? Since according to you and others they are not explosions? www-youtube-com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
.
WCELLIOT-----Hi!
Just saw your post as I was about to log off. Thanks for your info and concern, mate!
I have various serious ALLERGIC reaction syndrome due to an OVER-ZEALOUS and somewhat UNRULY/SCATTERGUN immune response which goes into 'overdrive' at seemingly random times....although I think some of the worst events have been due to 'overkill' immune responses to various protein coats of some pretty weird strains/mutations of microbes and viruses that have been doing the rounds in Australia over the last couple of years. Add all these to underlying longstanding proteins and chemical allergies to 21st Century foods/environment, and it is difficult for the poor doctors to reliably pinpoint specific causes in any one 'wild ride', hehehe.
General anti-inflammatories of all types possibly COULD help, but I have to be CAREFUL because the chemical structures and 'vehicles/formulations' of many 'medicines' (traditional/alternative) are ALSO dangerous to me (evidence penicillin allerdgies etc), and would just be exacerbating the problem!
Simple dietary control/nutrition, stress-reducing lifestyle (and especially NOT working 24/7 on screens and paper as I have recently been rapped over the nuckles for by my long-suffering doctors, hehehe) apparently helps the optics more than anything else.
Ahh, the 'quite life' for ME (fat chance!....being as how Physorg interaction/discussion is SOOOOO lively and interesting/enlightening!....and very addictive, hehehe).
Cheers, mate!
PS: I wonder what stundie would have 'heard' if he was outside at that height (dirigible/hot air balloon, take your pick of conveyance!hehehe) and only a hundred meters away from plane impact/ingress? LOUD BANGS and then INCOHERENT RUMBLE perhaps? I wonder what 'perceptions/conclusions' would have been in his case there and IN PERSON without distance/instrumental attenuation/limitation? And how he would 'decribe' it in words/gestures. Perhaps as "explosion/s" and "flailing arm" gestures to imply same? Interesting study in SUBJECTIVE information processing, heh mate! Later wcelliot!
RC.
.
WCELLIOT-----Hi!
Just saw your post as I was about to log off. Thanks for your info and concern, mate!
I have various serious ALLERGIC reaction syndrome due to an OVER-ZEALOUS and somewhat UNRULY/SCATTERGUN immune response which goes into 'overdrive' at seemingly random times....although I think some of the worst events have been due to 'overkill' immune responses to various protein coats of some pretty weird strains/mutations of microbes and viruses that have been doing the rounds in Australia over the last couple of years. Add all these to underlying longstanding proteins and chemical allergies to 21st Century foods/environment, and it is difficult for the poor doctors to reliably pinpoint specific causes in any one 'wild ride', hehehe.
General anti-inflammatories of all types possibly COULD help, but I have to be CAREFUL because the chemical structures and 'vehicles/formulations' of many 'medicines' (traditional/alternative) are ALSO dangerous to me (evidence penicillin allerdgies etc), and would just be exacerbating the problem!
Simple dietary control/nutrition, stress-reducing lifestyle (and especially NOT working 24/7 on screens and paper as I have recently been rapped over the nuckles for by my long-suffering doctors, hehehe) apparently helps the optics more than anything else.
Ahh, the 'quite life' for ME (fat chance!....being as how Physorg interaction/discussion is SOOOOO lively and interesting/enlightening!....and very addictive, hehehe).
Cheers, mate!
PS: I wonder what stundie would have 'heard' if he was outside at that height (dirigible/hot air balloon, take your pick of conveyance!hehehe) and only a hundred meters away from plane impact/ingress? LOUD BANGS and then INCOHERENT RUMBLE perhaps? I wonder what 'perceptions/conclusions' would have been in his case there and IN PERSON without distance/instrumental attenuation/limitation? And how he would 'decribe' it in words/gestures. Perhaps as "explosion/s" and "flailing arm" gestures to imply same? Interesting study in SUBJECTIVE information processing, heh mate! Later wcelliot!
RC.
.
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 17 2007, 11:05 PM)
This crackbaby as also outsmarted you and stopped you from spreading your special brand of misinformation manure!
You think?
Not hardly.
From NIST 1.3C Sect 3.5.6
NIST states that in WTC 1, of the Truss Connectors they found below the impact point, 93% were bent DOWN or missing. In WTC 2 it was 88% (vs 37% for WTC 1 and 55% for WTC 2 on floors ABOVE the impact point)
They state:
This occurance was most likely the result of overloading of the lower floors ("Pancaking" mechanism) during the collapse of the building.
As to your Sonogram evidence, I saw the green arrows, they don't appear to point to anything that is DISTINCTIVE
What is DISTINCTIVE is the many VERTICAL lines seen in the Hudson video that appear to correspond to the CRACKS of the HE going off that don't appear in any of the WTC sonograms.
Also DISTINCTIVE on the Hudson video is the large amount of Very Low Frequency energy that is not found on the WTC sonograms.
But here's the funny part.
You CLAIM that you have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Explosives were used.
You CLAIM that an Audio Engineer would swear on a stack of engineering books that those Sonograms PROVE that Explosives were used on 9/11.
But apparently you can't get anyone to pay any attention to your "evidence"
Now THAT's pathetic.
Arthur
You think?
Not hardly.
From NIST 1.3C Sect 3.5.6
NIST states that in WTC 1, of the Truss Connectors they found below the impact point, 93% were bent DOWN or missing. In WTC 2 it was 88% (vs 37% for WTC 1 and 55% for WTC 2 on floors ABOVE the impact point)
They state:
This occurance was most likely the result of overloading of the lower floors ("Pancaking" mechanism) during the collapse of the building.
As to your Sonogram evidence, I saw the green arrows, they don't appear to point to anything that is DISTINCTIVE
What is DISTINCTIVE is the many VERTICAL lines seen in the Hudson video that appear to correspond to the CRACKS of the HE going off that don't appear in any of the WTC sonograms.
Also DISTINCTIVE on the Hudson video is the large amount of Very Low Frequency energy that is not found on the WTC sonograms.
But here's the funny part.
You CLAIM that you have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Explosives were used.
You CLAIM that an Audio Engineer would swear on a stack of engineering books that those Sonograms PROVE that Explosives were used on 9/11.
But apparently you can't get anyone to pay any attention to your "evidence"
Now THAT's pathetic.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 17 2007, 09:30 PM)
NEU-FONZE and OneWhiteEye --- I can obtain very good agreement between the calculated drops based on NEU-FONZE's measurements of WTC 1 and OneWhiteEye's pixel column 447, 448 and 449 data, but only by using a 1% fudge factor between the length scales of the two sets of measurements. So a question for you both: How good to you think your determinations of lengths were?
Haha, I'm still formulating a response to your question from yesterday! Let me put together some quick answers now and follow with more detail in the next day or so.
I'm surprised and pleased the data sets agree so well. I was dimly aware of the work NEU-FONZE did along these lines and certainly didn't want to step on any toes. Not a problem, I guess! Given that, the future of measurement looks bright.
Measurement error: you want I should open up the error band to +/- 2.5 pixels? That should about do it. Seriously, I could provide as good a justification for that number as 1, and both justifications would be quite good.
Lest it look too much like I'm shooting from the hip consider that I plan to provide full written procedure and justification for all values that I produce - as time permits. This would most likely amount to many, many paragraphs with accompanying images. Accepting the current conversion value as provisional but useful will pre-empt the need to produce all of that in advance of any real work. I will give a quick rundown on how I got the number in a bit.
I'm sure loosening the tolerance is not what you're after.
Difference in depth between the antenna and wall: Yes, I mentioned that when offering the data and we both understood it's not much good unless the distance to the camera is known. I've got a few things in the works right now (which may come together all at once) and one of them is figuring out the distance to the camera. The fun way, not by asking the videographer from where it was shot ... I want to figure out location and then confirm it. I was thinking of using the soundtrack to get the delay in sound and calculating radial distance, assume a maximum elevation, etc. You had another idea and I'd appreciate hearing more about it.
I won't suggest that we assume the discrepancy is due to this factor, then use that to calculate the distance to the camera, though the thought amuses me.
I wanted to use the antenna to scale for points on the antenna, and eventually it will be so, but I don't have any info on the antenna other than its length.
Other things influence this, too. More, in a bit. One question back at you (or NEU-FONZE): what video was used for the other measurements?
Haha, I'm still formulating a response to your question from yesterday! Let me put together some quick answers now and follow with more detail in the next day or so.
I'm surprised and pleased the data sets agree so well. I was dimly aware of the work NEU-FONZE did along these lines and certainly didn't want to step on any toes. Not a problem, I guess! Given that, the future of measurement looks bright.
QUOTE
Ah. Poster OneWhiteEye's data is for the antenna tower, which is about another 100 feet or so from the camera than the wall on which lengths were measured. Does this explain (some of) the 1% decrease in lengths so that the data matches that measured by poster NEU-FONZE?
Measurement error: you want I should open up the error band to +/- 2.5 pixels? That should about do it. Seriously, I could provide as good a justification for that number as 1, and both justifications would be quite good.
Lest it look too much like I'm shooting from the hip consider that I plan to provide full written procedure and justification for all values that I produce - as time permits. This would most likely amount to many, many paragraphs with accompanying images. Accepting the current conversion value as provisional but useful will pre-empt the need to produce all of that in advance of any real work. I will give a quick rundown on how I got the number in a bit.
I'm sure loosening the tolerance is not what you're after.
Difference in depth between the antenna and wall: Yes, I mentioned that when offering the data and we both understood it's not much good unless the distance to the camera is known. I've got a few things in the works right now (which may come together all at once) and one of them is figuring out the distance to the camera. The fun way, not by asking the videographer from where it was shot ... I want to figure out location and then confirm it. I was thinking of using the soundtrack to get the delay in sound and calculating radial distance, assume a maximum elevation, etc. You had another idea and I'd appreciate hearing more about it.
I won't suggest that we assume the discrepancy is due to this factor, then use that to calculate the distance to the camera, though the thought amuses me.
I wanted to use the antenna to scale for points on the antenna, and eventually it will be so, but I don't have any info on the antenna other than its length.
Other things influence this, too. More, in a bit. One question back at you (or NEU-FONZE): what video was used for the other measurements?
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 18 2007, 05:00 PM)
But apparently you can't get anyone to pay any attention to your "evidence"
Now THAT's pathetic.
Arthur
Not only that but he's avoiding addressing other issues.
Now THAT's pathetic.
Arthur
Not only that but he's avoiding addressing other issues.
Stundie:
What do you think this is a spectrogram of then?
What do you think this is a spectrogram of then?
On the matter of scaling from pixels to meters:
My preference is to produce many different numbers through a variety of methods. Ideally, they would agree fairly closely but, if they don't, discarding outliers would be reasonable and there may be reasons for choosing one over the others remaining or just composing them into a single number.
There is also a tiered quality of measurements. A quick scale factor obtained easily is better than none but there's no reason to retain it if there's a provably better number available later.
The simplest method for the subject video was to measure a number of floors, so I did that right away and nothing since. The obvious shortcoming for antenna data is that the wall is not at the same depth, however the degree of error would be expected to be small because of the apparent distance of the camera.
How many floors to measure, and where? A span of many floors measured to a given accuracy means the error per pixel is small BUT it also assumes the distance per floor in the image plane is the same across large regions, which is generally not the case in either the horizontal or vertical dimension. Because the perspective in this video presents a fairly true image, there's not a BIG difference in the apparent height of floor 90 and floor 100 - but there IS a difference. All the more so for the same true distance interval on the antenna, a less obvious source of error than depth as mentioned above, but also being because of depth.
I went for 18 floors, the largest vertical stretch of floors of uniform height I could measure, given the constraints of the image quality and condition of the wall.
How to measure a floor? Discovering the answer to this firsthand was one of the more distasteful aspects of the work so far. The image quality and perspective make it difficult to distinctly placemark the seams(?) on the facade, forget about windows or any of that. Smoke and soot stains irregularly extend the height (thickness) of the lines, which span 4-5 pixels vertically in the image. Once again, a picture tells more about it than I can:
http://i23.tinypic.com/dfef86.jpg
(big version)
David B. Benson: If you can't see anything here but the lines I've added, join the club. I've needed glasses for some time but haven't bothered to get them yet - and that alone goes a long way towards justifying +/-2 or more pixels right there, doesn't it? Might I suggest turning the light off? I'm turning mine off now, it makes it much easier to see. Contrast adjustments and the like don't help as much as it would seem they should, plus I'm leery of running a reference frame through any filter I didn't code myself, and I only have so much time.
The top of the green line terminates at bottom of one of those seams. Now, if you look down at the bottom of the green line, you'll see (or maybe you won't see) the line also terminates at the bottom of one of those seams:
http://i24.tinypic.com/5drtz5.jpg
Observe the end of the line is not flush with the bottom of the lowest dark pixel of the seam, whereas the other end is very nearly flush with the bottom of the associated seam. Before I present a rock-solid justification for these placements, allow me to note that, if I had it to do over again, I almost certainly wouldn't put them in the same place.
Using a vector graphics editor, the frame image can be blown up to any degree desired and lines can be drawn to the precision allowed by the monitor/pointing device at that zoom. Placing a point at sub-pixel resolution is therefore trivial but doing so meaningfully is not. Had I opted to use a bitmap editor, my placement would be only to the nearest pixel and easily justified as such. However, with the power to place anywhere comes the responsibility of doing so according to some rhyme, and here's mine:
The upper seam has a very dark bottom pixel row over the region where the measurement ends, indicating the feature does not 'bleed down' (a wholly inaccurate but sufficient term) into the row below. Without any other factors, that would have me place the end of the line flush with the bottom boundary of the dark pixel row extrapolated from either side. The dark area of the seam extends a little lower to the right of where the green line intersects, so I lowered the endpoint just a tad to account for that since, if my line happened to be there, I'd be stopping lower.
The lower seam has a bottom row that is lighter, not as sharp a boundary, so I placed the endpoint roughly in the middle of that pixel instead of all the way down. The idea is to hit the same place on two seams that might not have projected the same on a good day with a great still camera, anyway.
Then there is the matter of how to draw the line. Really. Is anyone still with me to this point? Because I have far more sophisticated and boring ideas of how to do this much more accurately and by script (another post another day).
If you just draw a vertical line, you'll intersect at different horizontal locations on each floor. Start in the right place and go high enough, you'll almost run off the building into the sky. No, true vertical is not vertical in this image plane, so I decided to draw from floor to floor along the angle representing true vertical - as you go up the side of the building at that particular lateral location. As best as I could. I'd say within a half-pixel at either end.
Finally, the resulting vector output into an SVG file was (532.3115, 466.4453) - (528.4312, 207.7784), the vertical component being 258.6669.
My preference is to produce many different numbers through a variety of methods. Ideally, they would agree fairly closely but, if they don't, discarding outliers would be reasonable and there may be reasons for choosing one over the others remaining or just composing them into a single number.
There is also a tiered quality of measurements. A quick scale factor obtained easily is better than none but there's no reason to retain it if there's a provably better number available later.
The simplest method for the subject video was to measure a number of floors, so I did that right away and nothing since. The obvious shortcoming for antenna data is that the wall is not at the same depth, however the degree of error would be expected to be small because of the apparent distance of the camera.
How many floors to measure, and where? A span of many floors measured to a given accuracy means the error per pixel is small BUT it also assumes the distance per floor in the image plane is the same across large regions, which is generally not the case in either the horizontal or vertical dimension. Because the perspective in this video presents a fairly true image, there's not a BIG difference in the apparent height of floor 90 and floor 100 - but there IS a difference. All the more so for the same true distance interval on the antenna, a less obvious source of error than depth as mentioned above, but also being because of depth.
I went for 18 floors, the largest vertical stretch of floors of uniform height I could measure, given the constraints of the image quality and condition of the wall.
How to measure a floor? Discovering the answer to this firsthand was one of the more distasteful aspects of the work so far. The image quality and perspective make it difficult to distinctly placemark the seams(?) on the facade, forget about windows or any of that. Smoke and soot stains irregularly extend the height (thickness) of the lines, which span 4-5 pixels vertically in the image. Once again, a picture tells more about it than I can:
http://i23.tinypic.com/dfef86.jpg
(big version)
David B. Benson: If you can't see anything here but the lines I've added, join the club. I've needed glasses for some time but haven't bothered to get them yet - and that alone goes a long way towards justifying +/-2 or more pixels right there, doesn't it? Might I suggest turning the light off? I'm turning mine off now, it makes it much easier to see. Contrast adjustments and the like don't help as much as it would seem they should, plus I'm leery of running a reference frame through any filter I didn't code myself, and I only have so much time.
The top of the green line terminates at bottom of one of those seams. Now, if you look down at the bottom of the green line, you'll see (or maybe you won't see) the line also terminates at the bottom of one of those seams:
http://i24.tinypic.com/5drtz5.jpg
Observe the end of the line is not flush with the bottom of the lowest dark pixel of the seam, whereas the other end is very nearly flush with the bottom of the associated seam. Before I present a rock-solid justification for these placements, allow me to note that, if I had it to do over again, I almost certainly wouldn't put them in the same place.
Using a vector graphics editor, the frame image can be blown up to any degree desired and lines can be drawn to the precision allowed by the monitor/pointing device at that zoom. Placing a point at sub-pixel resolution is therefore trivial but doing so meaningfully is not. Had I opted to use a bitmap editor, my placement would be only to the nearest pixel and easily justified as such. However, with the power to place anywhere comes the responsibility of doing so according to some rhyme, and here's mine:
The upper seam has a very dark bottom pixel row over the region where the measurement ends, indicating the feature does not 'bleed down' (a wholly inaccurate but sufficient term) into the row below. Without any other factors, that would have me place the end of the line flush with the bottom boundary of the dark pixel row extrapolated from either side. The dark area of the seam extends a little lower to the right of where the green line intersects, so I lowered the endpoint just a tad to account for that since, if my line happened to be there, I'd be stopping lower.
The lower seam has a bottom row that is lighter, not as sharp a boundary, so I placed the endpoint roughly in the middle of that pixel instead of all the way down. The idea is to hit the same place on two seams that might not have projected the same on a good day with a great still camera, anyway.
Then there is the matter of how to draw the line. Really. Is anyone still with me to this point? Because I have far more sophisticated and boring ideas of how to do this much more accurately and by script (another post another day).
If you just draw a vertical line, you'll intersect at different horizontal locations on each floor. Start in the right place and go high enough, you'll almost run off the building into the sky. No, true vertical is not vertical in this image plane, so I decided to draw from floor to floor along the angle representing true vertical - as you go up the side of the building at that particular lateral location. As best as I could. I'd say within a half-pixel at either end.
Finally, the resulting vector output into an SVG file was (532.3115, 466.4453) - (528.4312, 207.7784), the vertical component being 258.6669.
DBB and OneWhiteEye,
The mediumrecord site makes reference to the video of the north tower collapse and the possible location of the camera.
Near the end of the page of this link:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"The North Tower collapse clip from the same angle is zoomed back a bit and shows a building in the foreground. The building's features identify it as 101 Avenue of the Americas located approximately 1400 meters away from the WTC. With this building in the foreground and the angle from which the towers are seen we can place the camera somewhere on Varick Street or on a side-street off Varick Street. Approximating the distance at about 1600 meters would have the sound taking about 4.7 seconds to travel from the WTC to the camera location."
The mediumrecord site makes reference to the video of the north tower collapse and the possible location of the camera.
Near the end of the page of this link:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"The North Tower collapse clip from the same angle is zoomed back a bit and shows a building in the foreground. The building's features identify it as 101 Avenue of the Americas located approximately 1400 meters away from the WTC. With this building in the foreground and the angle from which the towers are seen we can place the camera somewhere on Varick Street or on a side-street off Varick Street. Approximating the distance at about 1600 meters would have the sound taking about 4.7 seconds to travel from the WTC to the camera location."
QUOTE
QUOTE
And no evidence that a Sonogram can be used for DETECTING the sonic signature of high explosives
OH MY GOD!! hahahahahahahaha!!
Your intelligence levels are reaching a new low. Again, read the website and go to Wikipedia and put the word Sonograms in...You'll find this...
QUOTE
The spectrogram is the result of calculating the frequency spectrum of windowed frames of a compound signal. It is a three-dimensional plot of the energy of the frequency content of a signal as it changes over time.
Spectrograms are used to identify phonetic sounds, to analyse the cries of animals, and in the fields of music, sonar/radar, speech processing, etc. A spectrogram can also be called a spectral waterfall, sonogram, voiceprint, or voicegram. The instrument that generates a spectrogram is called a sonograph.
So if an explosions makes a sound? And a spectrogram can be used to plot the frequency content of a signal or sound source, then its safe to say it can be used to detect an explosive. or any other signal??
And no evidence that a Sonogram can be used for DETECTING the sonic signature of high explosives
OH MY GOD!! hahahahahahahaha!!
Your intelligence levels are reaching a new low. Again, read the website and go to Wikipedia and put the word Sonograms in...You'll find this...
QUOTE
The spectrogram is the result of calculating the frequency spectrum of windowed frames of a compound signal. It is a three-dimensional plot of the energy of the frequency content of a signal as it changes over time.
Spectrograms are used to identify phonetic sounds, to analyse the cries of animals, and in the fields of music, sonar/radar, speech processing, etc. A spectrogram can also be called a spectral waterfall, sonogram, voiceprint, or voicegram. The instrument that generates a spectrogram is called a sonograph.
So if an explosions makes a sound? And a spectrogram can be used to plot the frequency content of a signal or sound source, then its safe to say it can be used to detect an explosive. or any other signal??
He's absolutely right. The characteristic signature of an explosive would have to be present in the recording in order for the sonogram to plot it, and as I've proved about a dozen times already, a 40kHz sampling rate in the recording guarantees that the detonation is undersampled, and therefore the signal you're claiming exists didn't get captured by the recording equipment.
You apparently never understood a word I've written.
Incidentally, I programmed my first sonogram software back in 1985. as a Senior Staff Scientist for Science Applications International Corp. What were you doing back then?
QUOTE (shagster+Oct 18 2007, 06:53 AM)
DBB and OneWhiteEye,
The mediumrecord site makes reference to the video of the north tower collapse and the possible location of the camera.
Thanks, shagster. I'll have a look at that (literally, with a rendering).
After a couple of listens with cheap PC speakers, I came up with a little less time (3.8 - 4.5 sec) but, as you know, the helicopter is making a lot of noise around then.
The mediumrecord site makes reference to the video of the north tower collapse and the possible location of the camera.
Thanks, shagster. I'll have a look at that (literally, with a rendering).
After a couple of listens with cheap PC speakers, I came up with a little less time (3.8 - 4.5 sec) but, as you know, the helicopter is making a lot of noise around then.
NEU-FONZE:
Sequence 6 of the F4, a closeup of the impact on high speed film, will soon be the subject of a hoodoo extraction on the tail target. Just have to complete some modifications to the code so the selection rectangle will track horizontally with the target. The ideal conditions of the F4 test allow me to easily do things that are very hard on the tower videos and make for a very nice control case. Experience with this video may lead to better results elsewhere.
The one weird thing is how much jitter was introduced in putting the films to video. It was comparable to deflection of the block wall but will be small compared to the travel of the jet, no problem.
I have an image of some intern at Sandia, slapping prints on a scanner, one after the other after the other, not caring about alignment after frame 10, not being able to align properly anyway after the 4th cup of boiled-down Yuban, and generally wondering why the govt pays them to do this month after month when it could be done in an afternoon by a contractor with the right equipment...
Then again, maybe it WAS done by a contractor at great expense.
David B. Benson:
Regarding the situation at times 3.81 and 3.99 seconds. The first time is roughly frame 914; at a glance, nothing is glaringly obvious with the N/E/W walls except maybe a little deformation around the entrance hole on the north. I'd really need to look a lot closer before saying for sure. By this time, the antenna has been dropping and tilting for some time and has displaced significantly when you compare to Tzero (800). The view includes E (not really) and W walls edge on, can't see much but smoke. I'll check the smoke from Tzero to T+6 and let you know.
Between frames 910 and 920, slow deformation of the perimeter columns on the north wall at floors 93-96 are plainly visible to the left of the central impact location.
At frame 930, the NW corner at/around floor 100 breaks violently with a very obvious shock wave / vibration in the nearby region, followed by a minor puff of debris from the corner at 100 over the next few frames. Global collapse then ensues.
There are definitely some anomalous things preceding frame 900, can't speak on them yet until I get a better handle on what I'm looking at.
einsteen:
The approach and impact 'smear-o-graph' was breathtaking, a really different view on the event.
Sequence 6 of the F4, a closeup of the impact on high speed film, will soon be the subject of a hoodoo extraction on the tail target. Just have to complete some modifications to the code so the selection rectangle will track horizontally with the target. The ideal conditions of the F4 test allow me to easily do things that are very hard on the tower videos and make for a very nice control case. Experience with this video may lead to better results elsewhere.
The one weird thing is how much jitter was introduced in putting the films to video. It was comparable to deflection of the block wall but will be small compared to the travel of the jet, no problem.
I have an image of some intern at Sandia, slapping prints on a scanner, one after the other after the other, not caring about alignment after frame 10, not being able to align properly anyway after the 4th cup of boiled-down Yuban, and generally wondering why the govt pays them to do this month after month when it could be done in an afternoon by a contractor with the right equipment...
Then again, maybe it WAS done by a contractor at great expense.
David B. Benson:
Regarding the situation at times 3.81 and 3.99 seconds. The first time is roughly frame 914; at a glance, nothing is glaringly obvious with the N/E/W walls except maybe a little deformation around the entrance hole on the north. I'd really need to look a lot closer before saying for sure. By this time, the antenna has been dropping and tilting for some time and has displaced significantly when you compare to Tzero (800). The view includes E (not really) and W walls edge on, can't see much but smoke. I'll check the smoke from Tzero to T+6 and let you know.
Between frames 910 and 920, slow deformation of the perimeter columns on the north wall at floors 93-96 are plainly visible to the left of the central impact location.
At frame 930, the NW corner at/around floor 100 breaks violently with a very obvious shock wave / vibration in the nearby region, followed by a minor puff of debris from the corner at 100 over the next few frames. Global collapse then ensues.
There are definitely some anomalous things preceding frame 900, can't speak on them yet until I get a better handle on what I'm looking at.
einsteen:
The approach and impact 'smear-o-graph' was breathtaking, a really different view on the event.
Trippy of the N-wave:
This infrasonic wave of yours shows a very tardy rate of attack, Trippy.
WC wants us to exit the region of humanly discriminable sound at the opposite end of the spectrum, with an imperceptibly high frequency produced by an imperceptibly high rate of attack. And you appear to have not noticed:
wcelliot of the I-wave :
This infrasonic wave of yours shows a very tardy rate of attack, Trippy.
WC wants us to exit the region of humanly discriminable sound at the opposite end of the spectrum, with an imperceptibly high frequency produced by an imperceptibly high rate of attack. And you appear to have not noticed:
wcelliot of the I-wave : And, the energy of the explosive detonation is in the ultrasonic regime.
Maybe you two should be arguing between yourselves -- or corroborate your claims in advance -- or something.
The visual representations of the compression and rarefaction wave produced by Trippy's "real explosion" (in an undefined medium) are labelled with a time axis, so one should be able to quantify, approximately, the duration in which the first compression rises from minimum to maximum amplitude.
I hope you will be first to provide an estimate, wc.
Trippy:
I hope you will be first to provide an estimate, wc.
Trippy:The Euectic point of a binary Fe-S system is 988°C, this is the lowest temperature at which it can exist as a liquid, this occurs at 31.4% sulfur by weight.
Thanks for addressing the questions directly.
So, would it be correct to say that you would need an awful lot of sulphur in sustained intimate contact with austenite in order to account for the steel beams that seemed "partially vaporized" in the subterranean furnace under building 7?
And for the record, I do strongly suspect that the sustained metal fire in the southtower,
with its prominent plume of grey-white smoke, was a metal fire called thermate.
Oh Arthur, you are posts are hilarious!!
Again, re-read the statement, especially this part "This occurance was most likely the result..." Again, this is not a definitive statement. The bit that should give it away is the "Most Likely" but again, you think this is a definitive statement! hahahaha!!
Why do you ignore the definitive statement that "NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory."
Oh Arthur, you are posts are hilarious!!
Again, re-read the statement, especially this part "This occurance was most likely the result..." Again, this is not a definitive statement. The bit that should give it away is the "Most Likely" but again, you think this is a definitive statement! hahahaha!!
Why do you ignore the definitive statement that "NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory."
As to your Sonogram evidence, I saw the green arrows, they don't appear to point to anything that is DISTINCTIVE.
What is DISTINCTIVE is the many VERTICAL lines seen in the Hudson video that appear to correspond to the CRACKS of the HE going off that don't appear in any of the WTC sonograms.
QUOTE
Further to what WCElliot is saying.
Here's some real wave form data from some real explosions:
Image 1
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_2.tif
Image 2
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_8.tif
Notice the N shape - the N shape occurs because with (most) explosions you have a sudden expansion, followed by a sudden rarefaction.
Pay real close attention, and then bare in mind that any situation which produces a sudden compression is going produce a wave form similar to this.
Or do you honestly believe that Sonic booms are called sonic booms because explsives are involved.
Here's some real wave form data from some real explosions:
Image 1
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_2.tif
Image 2
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_8.tif
Notice the N shape - the N shape occurs because with (most) explosions you have a sudden expansion, followed by a sudden rarefaction.
Pay real close attention, and then bare in mind that any situation which produces a sudden compression is going produce a wave form similar to this.
Or do you honestly believe that Sonic booms are called sonic booms because explsives are involved.
This infrasonic wave of yours shows a very tardy rate of attack, Trippy.
WC wants us to exit the region of humanly discriminable sound at the opposite end of the spectrum, with an imperceptibly high frequency produced by an imperceptibly high rate of attack. And you appear to have not noticed:
wcelliot of the I-wave :
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Further to what WCElliot is saying. Here's some real wave form data from some real explosions: Image 1 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_2.tif Image 2 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_8.tif Notice the N shape - the N shape occurs because with (most) explosions you have a sudden expansion, followed by a sudden rarefaction. Pay real close attention, and then bare in mind that any situation which produces a sudden compression is going produce a wave form similar to this. Or do you honestly believe that Sonic booms are called sonic booms because explsives are involved. |
This infrasonic wave of yours shows a very tardy rate of attack, Trippy.
WC wants us to exit the region of humanly discriminable sound at the opposite end of the spectrum, with an imperceptibly high frequency produced by an imperceptibly high rate of attack. And you appear to have not noticed:
wcelliot of the I-wave : And, the energy of the explosive detonation is in the ultrasonic regime.
Maybe you two should be arguing between yourselves -- or corroborate your claims in advance -- or something.
The visual representations of the compression and rarefaction wave produced by Trippy's "real explosion" (in an undefined medium) are labelled with a time axis, so one should be able to quantify, approximately, the duration in which the first compression rises from minimum to maximum amplitude.
QUOTE
Here's some real wave form data from some real explosions:
Image 1
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_2.tif
Image 2
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_8.tif
Image 1
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_2.tif
Image 2
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_8.tif
I hope you will be first to provide an estimate, wc.
Trippy:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here's some real wave form data from some real explosions: Image 1 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_2.tif Image 2 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/infrasound/Images/image257_8.tif |
I hope you will be first to provide an estimate, wc.
Trippy:The Euectic point of a binary Fe-S system is 988°C, this is the lowest temperature at which it can exist as a liquid, this occurs at 31.4% sulfur by weight.
Thanks for addressing the questions directly.
So, would it be correct to say that you would need an awful lot of sulphur in sustained intimate contact with austenite in order to account for the steel beams that seemed "partially vaporized" in the subterranean furnace under building 7?
And for the record, I do strongly suspect that the sustained metal fire in the southtower,
with its prominent plume of grey-white smoke, was a metal fire called thermate.
QUOTE
You think?
Not hardly.
From NIST 1.3C Sect 3.5.6
NIST states that in WTC 1, of the Truss Connectors they found below the impact point, 93% were bent DOWN or missing. In WTC 2 it was 88% (vs 37% for WTC 1 and 55% for WTC 2 on floors ABOVE the impact point)
They state:
This occurance was most likely the result of overloading of the lower floors ("Pancaking" mechanism) during the collapse of the building.
Not hardly.
From NIST 1.3C Sect 3.5.6
NIST states that in WTC 1, of the Truss Connectors they found below the impact point, 93% were bent DOWN or missing. In WTC 2 it was 88% (vs 37% for WTC 1 and 55% for WTC 2 on floors ABOVE the impact point)
They state:
This occurance was most likely the result of overloading of the lower floors ("Pancaking" mechanism) during the collapse of the building.
Oh Arthur, you are posts are hilarious!!
Again, re-read the statement, especially this part "This occurance was most likely the result..." Again, this is not a definitive statement. The bit that should give it away is the "Most Likely" but again, you think this is a definitive statement! hahahaha!!
Why do you ignore the definitive statement that "NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You think? Not hardly. From NIST 1.3C Sect 3.5.6 NIST states that in WTC 1, of the Truss Connectors they found below the impact point, 93% were bent DOWN or missing. In WTC 2 it was 88% (vs 37% for WTC 1 and 55% for WTC 2 on floors ABOVE the impact point) They state: This occurance was most likely the result of overloading of the lower floors ("Pancaking" mechanism) during the collapse of the building. |
Oh Arthur, you are posts are hilarious!!
Again, re-read the statement, especially this part "This occurance was most likely the result..." Again, this is not a definitive statement. The bit that should give it away is the "Most Likely" but again, you think this is a definitive statement! hahahaha!!
Why do you ignore the definitive statement that "NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory."
As to your Sonogram evidence, I saw the green arrows, they don't appear to point to anything that is DISTINCTIVE.
What is DISTINCTIVE is the many VERTICAL lines seen in the Hudson video that appear to correspond to the CRACKS of the HE going off that don't appear in any of the WTC sonograms.
No, of course not!
Your denial is hilarious!! Maybe you could point out why you see no obvious patterns, even though they are plotted out with the green arrows!
As I haven't got a clue what you are talking about and I'm betting that you haven't either.
Its nice to see someone agree with me. Although I'm sure you won't make a habit of it.
Its nice to see someone agree with me. Although I'm sure you won't make a habit of it.
and as I've proved about a dozen times already, a 40kHz sampling rate in the recording guarantees that the detonation is under sampled, and therefore the signal you're claiming exists didn't get captured by the recording equipment.
Lets say it is a 40kHz sample rate used in the recordings. (This is what you assume?) I agree it would probably be a under sample of the waveform form from an explosion, but the signal I'm claiming exists would STILL be captured by the recording equipment. The higher the sample rate, the more of the waveform captured and the clearer the sound.
Things like Walkie Talkies or a Mobile Phone, would use a microphone with a sample rate of about 8kHz. So if someone put either one of these items next to an explosion, according to you, you wouldn't hear it??
Just because someone is using a lower sample rate, say doesn't mean the sound-wave is not picked up.
I do, but your argument doesn't make any sense.
I do, but your argument doesn't make any sense.
Incidentally, I programmed my first sonogram software back in 1985. as a Senior Staff Scientist for Science Applications International Corp. What were you doing back then?
Your denial is hilarious!! Maybe you could point out why you see no obvious patterns, even though they are plotted out with the green arrows!
QUOTE
Also DISTINCTIVE on the Hudson video is the large amount of Very Low Frequency energy that is not found on the WTC sonograms.
Really?? Could you point it out to us then??As I haven't got a clue what you are talking about and I'm betting that you haven't either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also DISTINCTIVE on the Hudson video is the large amount of Very Low Frequency energy that is not found on the WTC sonograms. |
Really?? Could you point it out to us then??
As I haven't got a clue what you are talking about and I'm betting that you haven't either.
But here's the funny part.
You CLAIM that you have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Explosives were used.
You CLAIM that an Audio Engineer would swear on a stack of engineering books that those Sonograms PROVE that Explosives were used on 9/11.
You said this originally "So Al, how come a BUNCH of Audio Engineers have not come forward to support your view that the NOISES recorded that day HAD to have come from explosives?"
So I just showed you one. He used a comparison to the explosions of the Hudson building and similar peaks show in the WTC.
The question which I notice you and others who support your view keep ignoring. If it's not explosives, then what is the cause of the explosives sounds?
I suppose you are still supporting your hilarious "Plane Wing Failure Causes Explosions Theory!" hahhahahahahahahaha!! Why don't you get your Plane Wing Failure Theory sent off to a scientific journal if you really believe it??
As I haven't got a clue what you are talking about and I'm betting that you haven't either.
But here's the funny part.
You CLAIM that you have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Explosives were used.
You CLAIM that an Audio Engineer would swear on a stack of engineering books that those Sonograms PROVE that Explosives were used on 9/11.
You said this originally "So Al, how come a BUNCH of Audio Engineers have not come forward to support your view that the NOISES recorded that day HAD to have come from explosives?"
So I just showed you one. He used a comparison to the explosions of the Hudson building and similar peaks show in the WTC.
The question which I notice you and others who support your view keep ignoring. If it's not explosives, then what is the cause of the explosives sounds?
I suppose you are still supporting your hilarious "Plane Wing Failure Causes Explosions Theory!" hahhahahahahahahaha!! Why don't you get your Plane Wing Failure Theory sent off to a scientific journal if you really believe it??
QUOTE
But apparently you can't get anyone to pay any attention to your "evidence"
Now THAT's pathetic.
Arthur
Oh except for you...lol
Now THAT's pathetic.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 18 2007, 06:13 AM)
Stundie:
What do you think this is a spectrogram of then?
What do I think of it?? Its a spectrogram??
I'm not an audio engineer, but whatever it is, its repeating itself and becoming less audible through time.
The patterns are very similar, but towards the end, it appears to get faster, so I'm not sure why unless whatever it is, is coming to a rest/end. So it could be something falling to the ground and not breaking, hence the faster occurrence of the peaks and the less audible it is as what ever hit the ground comes to a rest.
I can safely say it is not an echo as the peaks wouldn't speed up towards the end.
If you are asking me exactly what it is, it could be anything.
What do you think this is a spectrogram of then?
What do I think of it?? Its a spectrogram??
I'm not an audio engineer, but whatever it is, its repeating itself and becoming less audible through time.
The patterns are very similar, but towards the end, it appears to get faster, so I'm not sure why unless whatever it is, is coming to a rest/end. So it could be something falling to the ground and not breaking, hence the faster occurrence of the peaks and the less audible it is as what ever hit the ground comes to a rest.
I can safely say it is not an echo as the peaks wouldn't speed up towards the end.
If you are asking me exactly what it is, it could be anything.
QUOTE
He's absolutely right. The characteristic signature of an explosive would have to be present in the recording in order for the sonogram to plot it,
Its nice to see someone agree with me. Although I'm sure you won't make a habit of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He's absolutely right. The characteristic signature of an explosive would have to be present in the recording in order for the sonogram to plot it, |
Its nice to see someone agree with me. Although I'm sure you won't make a habit of it.
and as I've proved about a dozen times already, a 40kHz sampling rate in the recording guarantees that the detonation is under sampled, and therefore the signal you're claiming exists didn't get captured by the recording equipment.
Lets say it is a 40kHz sample rate used in the recordings. (This is what you assume?) I agree it would probably be a under sample of the waveform form from an explosion, but the signal I'm claiming exists would STILL be captured by the recording equipment. The higher the sample rate, the more of the waveform captured and the clearer the sound.
Things like Walkie Talkies or a Mobile Phone, would use a microphone with a sample rate of about 8kHz. So if someone put either one of these items next to an explosion, according to you, you wouldn't hear it??
Just because someone is using a lower sample rate, say doesn't mean the sound-wave is not picked up.
QUOTE
You apparently never understood a word I've written.
I do, but your argument doesn't make any sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You apparently never understood a word I've written. |
I do, but your argument doesn't make any sense.
Incidentally, I programmed my first sonogram software back in 1985. as a Senior Staff Scientist for Science Applications International Corp. What were you doing back then?
Doing what I've always done, flipping burgers at McDonalds!
Somebody please drive a stake through the heart of all this 911 conspiracy theory nonsense please. I was in New York. I was there. Three thousand people were murdered. This isn't physics. This is propaganda. This is Big Lie agitprop.
QUOTE (Stundie+Oct 18 2007, 08:12 AM)
Oh Arthur, you are posts are hilarious!!
Again, re-read the statement, especially this part "This occurance was most likely the result..." Again, this is not a definitive statement. The bit that should give it away is the "Most Likely" but again, you think this is a definitive statement! hahahaha!!
Why do you ignore the definitive statement that "NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory."
Because A) as shown, the theory that NIST does not support is about how the collapse was INITIATED.
And B ) The the "most likely" refers to "this occurance" which refers to the bent down gusset plates, NOT the pancaking of the floors.
NIST clearly states multiple times that they believe the floors pancaked AFTER the collapse started.
Of course it helps that they also have both PHYSICAL and VISUAL evidence of these PANCAKED floors.
One could, if the data came from a recorder with sufficient bandwidth to capture the rise-time and fall-time of an event that's all over in ten microseconds.
Zoom-in on the plot until you can see what happens to the signal microsecond-by-microsecond and let me know what the rise-time is on the initial blast.
Unlike in "CSI", where you can take any TV image and continue blowing it up until you can read the fine print on a contract 200 feet away, you really can't zoom in on a signal and get more data points than exist in the original recording. You can't take two samples and zoom-in and get a hundred more data points between them and get real information from the zoomed-in waveform. The information simply doesn't exist. This comes from Communications Theory, which I first studied in my undergraduate program back in '75 or so. Bandwidth is proportional to information, and when you record a signal, the bandwidth of the recording limits the amount of information captured.
The Nyquist Sampling Theorem states that you need to sample at twice the highest frequency of interest, and since human hearing only goes up to 20kHz, a 40kHz sampling rate is considered the minimal sampling rate sufficient to capture the whole audio spectrum up to 20kHz. Likewise, analog recorders generally don't record frequencies greater than 20kHz. That means that a recording of an event that starts and finishes in 10microseconds won't be captured directly. It'll affect one sample point in a digital recording. If it weren't for the fact that explosives are loud and used in complex environments (rather than hanging from a long rope dangling from a hot-air balloon), that loud BANG reflects off all the surfaces in the vicinity, and you hear all of those, too, slightly delayed by the amount of extra time it takes for the sound to take the indirect path rather than the direct path from the explosive to the microphone.
And I don't know of any microphones that can record a 10microsecond event, either. As a matter of fact, DARPA released an RFP for someone to develop a microphone/sensor that could be used to record explosives several years back. I'd considered bidding on it. DARPA seemed to think using a microphone to capture explosives' characteristic waveform to be a problem, you think it's easy. Hmmm... I think DARPA knows more about it than you do.
When there is a reluctance by Bush to do an investigation, then when he cracks uonder publis pressure to do one, it's given a 1/4 of the budget used to find out if Clinton got sucked off or not. Then when those investigations leave lots of unanswered questions, then there will be some sort of conspiracy.
When there is a reluctance by Bush to do an investigation, then when he cracks uonder publis pressure to do one, it's given a 1/4 of the budget used to find out if Clinton got sucked off or not. Then when those investigations leave lots of unanswered questions, then there will be some sort of conspiracy.
I was in New York. I was there.
Again, re-read the statement, especially this part "This occurance was most likely the result..." Again, this is not a definitive statement. The bit that should give it away is the "Most Likely" but again, you think this is a definitive statement! hahahaha!!
Why do you ignore the definitive statement that "NIST do not support the pancake collapse theory."
Because A) as shown, the theory that NIST does not support is about how the collapse was INITIATED.
And B ) The the "most likely" refers to "this occurance" which refers to the bent down gusset plates, NOT the pancaking of the floors.
NIST clearly states multiple times that they believe the floors pancaked AFTER the collapse started.
Of course it helps that they also have both PHYSICAL and VISUAL evidence of these PANCAKED floors.
QUOTE (Stundie+)
You said this originally "So Al, how come a BUNCH of Audio Engineers have not come forward to support your view that the NOISES recorded that day HAD to have come from explosives?"
So I just showed you one. He used a comparison to the explosions of the Hudson building and similar peaks show in the WTC.
One is not a bunch (and "come forward" in a SCIENTIFIC sense means to PUBLISH a SCIENTIFIC PAPER. That's why Brian has to PUBLISH his work in something that people "skilled in the art of Audio Forensics", will see and be able to comment on) and you have shown no evidence of the man's qualifications. YOU admit that YOU can't interpret the sonograms, but because you post them we are to believe them because some unidentified Web persona states that we should and draws a few green arrows on them?
Duh?
Lets see, the friggin tallest building in the world starts to collapse after a top block weighing many millions of pounds hits the bottom block and then the floors that contain over 32,000 sq feet of concrete start to detach and fall onto the floors below and steel columns under immense strain begin to fail.
Gosh, I WONDER what could cause EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS in all that?
I take it you expected the sounds of a pillow fight?
Arthur
So I just showed you one. He used a comparison to the explosions of the Hudson building and similar peaks show in the WTC.
One is not a bunch (and "come forward" in a SCIENTIFIC sense means to PUBLISH a SCIENTIFIC PAPER. That's why Brian has to PUBLISH his work in something that people "skilled in the art of Audio Forensics", will see and be able to comment on) and you have shown no evidence of the man's qualifications. YOU admit that YOU can't interpret the sonograms, but because you post them we are to believe them because some unidentified Web persona states that we should and draws a few green arrows on them?
QUOTE
If it's not explosives, then what is the cause of the explosives sounds?
Duh?
Lets see, the friggin tallest building in the world starts to collapse after a top block weighing many millions of pounds hits the bottom block and then the floors that contain over 32,000 sq feet of concrete start to detach and fall onto the floors below and steel columns under immense strain begin to fail.
Gosh, I WONDER what could cause EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS in all that?
I take it you expected the sounds of a pillow fight?
Arthur
QUOTE
The visual representations of the compression and rarefaction wave produced by Trippy's "real explosion" (in an undefined medium) are labelled with a time axis, so one should be able to quantify, approximately, the duration in which the first compression rises from minimum to maximum amplitude.
One could, if the data came from a recorder with sufficient bandwidth to capture the rise-time and fall-time of an event that's all over in ten microseconds.
Zoom-in on the plot until you can see what happens to the signal microsecond-by-microsecond and let me know what the rise-time is on the initial blast.
Unlike in "CSI", where you can take any TV image and continue blowing it up until you can read the fine print on a contract 200 feet away, you really can't zoom in on a signal and get more data points than exist in the original recording. You can't take two samples and zoom-in and get a hundred more data points between them and get real information from the zoomed-in waveform. The information simply doesn't exist. This comes from Communications Theory, which I first studied in my undergraduate program back in '75 or so. Bandwidth is proportional to information, and when you record a signal, the bandwidth of the recording limits the amount of information captured.
The Nyquist Sampling Theorem states that you need to sample at twice the highest frequency of interest, and since human hearing only goes up to 20kHz, a 40kHz sampling rate is considered the minimal sampling rate sufficient to capture the whole audio spectrum up to 20kHz. Likewise, analog recorders generally don't record frequencies greater than 20kHz. That means that a recording of an event that starts and finishes in 10microseconds won't be captured directly. It'll affect one sample point in a digital recording. If it weren't for the fact that explosives are loud and used in complex environments (rather than hanging from a long rope dangling from a hot-air balloon), that loud BANG reflects off all the surfaces in the vicinity, and you hear all of those, too, slightly delayed by the amount of extra time it takes for the sound to take the indirect path rather than the direct path from the explosive to the microphone.
And I don't know of any microphones that can record a 10microsecond event, either. As a matter of fact, DARPA released an RFP for someone to develop a microphone/sensor that could be used to record explosives several years back. I'd considered bidding on it. DARPA seemed to think using a microphone to capture explosives' characteristic waveform to be a problem, you think it's easy. Hmmm... I think DARPA knows more about it than you do.
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Oct 18 2007, 07:34 AM)
And for the record, I do strongly suspect that the sustained metal fire in the southtower,
with its prominent plume of grey-white smoke, was a metal fire called thermate.
And Al, for the record, that just proves how illogical you are.
That hole is where one of the jet engines exited the building and that corner was mainly filled with the pulverized remains of the plane along with bulldozed office contents.
So which is it Al, was the plane carrying thermate or was that corner of the impact floor already full of it prior to the crash?
Arthur
with its prominent plume of grey-white smoke, was a metal fire called thermate.
And Al, for the record, that just proves how illogical you are.
That hole is where one of the jet engines exited the building and that corner was mainly filled with the pulverized remains of the plane along with bulldozed office contents.
So which is it Al, was the plane carrying thermate or was that corner of the impact floor already full of it prior to the crash?
Arthur
QUOTE
Somebody please drive a stake through the heart of all this 911 conspiracy theory nonsense please.
When there is a reluctance by Bush to do an investigation, then when he cracks uonder publis pressure to do one, it's given a 1/4 of the budget used to find out if Clinton got sucked off or not. Then when those investigations leave lots of unanswered questions, then there will be some sort of conspiracy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Somebody please drive a stake through the heart of all this 911 conspiracy theory nonsense please. |
When there is a reluctance by Bush to do an investigation, then when he cracks uonder publis pressure to do one, it's given a 1/4 of the budget used to find out if Clinton got sucked off or not. Then when those investigations leave lots of unanswered questions, then there will be some sort of conspiracy.
I was in New York. I was there.
So was hundreds and thousands of others too.
Then you should also add the hundreds of thousands that been murdered and died in the invasion of 2 countries, all based on a pack of lies, plus the death of over 3000 service men in the process to your figure.
So in all your hot air you've typed....you cannot produce a definitive statement that says "NIST SUPPORT THE PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY"
Again you ignore the evidence, that NIST doesn't look beyond the collapse initiation!! hahahahahahahaha!!
NIST never once said or claimed "They do not support the Pancake Collapse Initiation" either. Making your claims utterly false!!
So in all your hot air you've typed....you cannot produce a definitive statement that says "NIST SUPPORT THE PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY"
Again you ignore the evidence, that NIST doesn't look beyond the collapse initiation!! hahahahahahahaha!!
NIST never once said or claimed "They do not support the Pancake Collapse Initiation" either. Making your claims utterly false!!
One is not a bunch (and "come forward" in a SCIENTIFIC sense means to PUBLISH a SCIENTIFIC PAPER. That's why Brian has to PUBLISH his work in something that people "skilled in the art of Audio Forensics", will see and be able to comment on) and you have shown no evidence of the man's qualifications. YOU admit that YOU can't interpret the sonograms, but because you post them we are to believe them because some unidentified Web persona states that we should and draws a few green arrows on them?
I never said one is a bunch, I said there was one and pointed it out too you.
Again, I'll point this out to you again, because it's published doesn't make it correct and because it's not published, doesn't make it incorrect.
Another reason why it may not get published is that although it maybe correct, a publication might not want to upset the apple cart by implicating the Bush admin in the murder of 3000 people.
I think you are using this as an excuse to ignore it, because you appear to support the NIST report, even though it has been refuted and questioned. Even by a Former NIST Chief.....
Now THAT's funny.
Lets see, the friggin tallest building in the world starts to collapse after a top block weighing many millions of pounds hits the bottom block and then the floors that contain over 32,000 sq feet of concrete start to detach and fall onto the floors below and steel columns under immense strain begin to fail.
Gosh, I WONDER what could cause EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS in all that?
Every building I've ever seen that collapses sounds like a building collapsing and nothing like an explosion. I've never seen a CD of building making explosives sounds when it hits the ground either. Building falling sound like buildings falling, could you point to a building which fell and sounded just like an explosion??
Also in your stupid, make it up as we go along theories after your "Plane Wing Being Crushed Causes Explosives Sounds Theory" these explosive sounds were reported before any of the WTC collapsed, making your arguments invalid.
Also, this explosion happens after the buildings have collapsed. www*youtube*com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
Here is another explosive sound on WTC 7 before it collapses.
www*youtube*com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ - Between 5-7 secs in.
So again, if the buildings already collapsed (Or in the case of WTC 7 before it collapses) and there are still explosives noises as in the videos, what is the source??
You can't say buildings collapsing as this is now been debunked! So I'll await for proof of your plane wing being crushed theory!!
I understand fully, what you do not understand is that NIST have studied the INITIATION, but as you say, they do not support the Initiation of the Pancake collapse.
I understand fully, what you do not understand is that NIST have studied the INITIATION, but as you say, they do not support the Initiation of the Pancake collapse.
Clearly NIST (and the rest of the world) believes the floors pancaked ONCE the collapse started.
QUOTE
Three thousand people were murdered.
We are all aware of this. Now since the FBI do not have enough hard evidence that OBL did it, then the question remains who did it?? Who planned it, who paid for it etc etc. Then you should also add the hundreds of thousands that been murdered and died in the invasion of 2 countries, all based on a pack of lies, plus the death of over 3000 service men in the process to your figure.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Three thousand people were murdered. |
We are all aware of this. Now since the FBI do not have enough hard evidence that OBL did it, then the question remains who did it?? Who planned it, who paid for it etc etc.
Then you should also add the hundreds of thousands that been murdered and died in the invasion of 2 countries, all based on a pack of lies, plus the death of over 3000 service men in the process to your figure.
This isn't physics.
Then you should also add the hundreds of thousands that been murdered and died in the invasion of 2 countries, all based on a pack of lies, plus the death of over 3000 service men in the process to your figure.
This isn't physics.
I have to agree with you. 3 buildings collapsing at near free fall speed in one day isn't physics.
This may explain as to why you think what you think.
www*youtube*com/watch?v=PaVV-NgnB7c
Replace the * with .
QUOTE
This is propaganda. This is Big Lie agitprop.
The propaganda is perpetuated by the 9/11 commission/NIST report/FEMA reports. This may explain as to why you think what you think.
www*youtube*com/watch?v=PaVV-NgnB7c
Replace the * with .
QUOTE
Because A) as shown, the theory that NIST does not support is about how the collapse was INITIATED.
And B ) The the "most likely" refers to "this occurrence" which refers to the bent down gusset plates, NOT the pancaking of the floors.
NIST clearly states multiple times that they believe the floors pancaked AFTER the collapse started.
Of course it helps that they also have both PHYSICAL and VISUAL evidence of these PANCAKED floors.
And B ) The the "most likely" refers to "this occurrence" which refers to the bent down gusset plates, NOT the pancaking of the floors.
NIST clearly states multiple times that they believe the floors pancaked AFTER the collapse started.
Of course it helps that they also have both PHYSICAL and VISUAL evidence of these PANCAKED floors.
So in all your hot air you've typed....you cannot produce a definitive statement that says "NIST SUPPORT THE PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY"
Again you ignore the evidence, that NIST doesn't look beyond the collapse initiation!! hahahahahahahaha!!
NIST never once said or claimed "They do not support the Pancake Collapse Initiation" either. Making your claims utterly false!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because A) as shown, the theory that NIST does not support is about how the collapse was INITIATED. And B ) The the "most likely" refers to "this occurrence" which refers to the bent down gusset plates, NOT the pancaking of the floors. NIST clearly states multiple times that they believe the floors pancaked AFTER the collapse started. Of course it helps that they also have both PHYSICAL and VISUAL evidence of these PANCAKED floors. |
So in all your hot air you've typed....you cannot produce a definitive statement that says "NIST SUPPORT THE PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY"
Again you ignore the evidence, that NIST doesn't look beyond the collapse initiation!! hahahahahahahaha!!
NIST never once said or claimed "They do not support the Pancake Collapse Initiation" either. Making your claims utterly false!!
One is not a bunch (and "come forward" in a SCIENTIFIC sense means to PUBLISH a SCIENTIFIC PAPER. That's why Brian has to PUBLISH his work in something that people "skilled in the art of Audio Forensics", will see and be able to comment on) and you have shown no evidence of the man's qualifications. YOU admit that YOU can't interpret the sonograms, but because you post them we are to believe them because some unidentified Web persona states that we should and draws a few green arrows on them?
I never said one is a bunch, I said there was one and pointed it out too you.
Again, I'll point this out to you again, because it's published doesn't make it correct and because it's not published, doesn't make it incorrect.
Another reason why it may not get published is that although it maybe correct, a publication might not want to upset the apple cart by implicating the Bush admin in the murder of 3000 people.
I think you are using this as an excuse to ignore it, because you appear to support the NIST report, even though it has been refuted and questioned. Even by a Former NIST Chief.....
QUOTE
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. |
Now THAT's funny.
Lets see, the friggin tallest building in the world starts to collapse after a top block weighing many millions of pounds hits the bottom block and then the floors that contain over 32,000 sq feet of concrete start to detach and fall onto the floors below and steel columns under immense strain begin to fail.
Gosh, I WONDER what could cause EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS in all that?
Every building I've ever seen that collapses sounds like a building collapsing and nothing like an explosion. I've never seen a CD of building making explosives sounds when it hits the ground either. Building falling sound like buildings falling, could you point to a building which fell and sounded just like an explosion??
Also in your stupid, make it up as we go along theories after your "Plane Wing Being Crushed Causes Explosives Sounds Theory" these explosive sounds were reported before any of the WTC collapsed, making your arguments invalid.
Also, this explosion happens after the buildings have collapsed. www*youtube*com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
Here is another explosive sound on WTC 7 before it collapses.
www*youtube*com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ - Between 5-7 secs in.
So again, if the buildings already collapsed (Or in the case of WTC 7 before it collapses) and there are still explosives noises as in the videos, what is the source??
You can't say buildings collapsing as this is now been debunked!
So I'll await for proof of your plane wing being crushed theory!! QUOTE
I take it you expected the sounds of a pillow fight?
Arthur
Not really! If there is no source for the explosions, and hundreds of people are reporting and hearing explosions and sonograms are showing signs of explosions, then we can safely that there is a high probability there may have been explosives at GZ.
Arthur
No, Stundie, since you obviously can't parse a sentence there is no point in discussing with you the difference between INITIATION and COLLAPSE.
Clearly NIST (and the rest of the world) believes the floors pancaked ONCE the collapse started.
I am curious though, WHERE do you think the floors went if NOT straight down, you know, PANCAKED?
Certainly you can't be so dumb as to be claiming that each floor was blown up with explosives.
No, Stundie, the buildings were ON FIRE.
FIRE is DESTRUCTIVE.
Both to concrete and steel.
It can cause INTERNAL FAILURES of elements which are under high stress/loading which when they fail can make LOUD EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS.
As the Wing video shows, a failure of an object under high stress CAN make explosive sounds without the need for explosives.
As for Brian, you have not shown that he has ANY SCIENTIFIC TRAINING in Audio Forensics at all.
And NO Stundie, unless you were in lower Manhattan on 9/11, you have not heard a building ANYWHERE near the size of the WTC 1/2 towers collapse.
Nor have you EVER heard a CD that resulted in a TOP DOWN collapse.
So, no Stundie, you simply ignore the many things that can cause explosive sounds and by doing so you have not shown that there was a "high probability" that explosives were used.
Which is probably why in your next to last post you fall back on the "near free fall" silliness.
Arthur
Clearly NIST (and the rest of the world) believes the floors pancaked ONCE the collapse started.
I am curious though, WHERE do you think the floors went if NOT straight down, you know, PANCAKED?
Certainly you can't be so dumb as to be claiming that each floor was blown up with explosives.
No, Stundie, the buildings were ON FIRE.
FIRE is DESTRUCTIVE.
Both to concrete and steel.
It can cause INTERNAL FAILURES of elements which are under high stress/loading which when they fail can make LOUD EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS.
As the Wing video shows, a failure of an object under high stress CAN make explosive sounds without the need for explosives.
As for Brian, you have not shown that he has ANY SCIENTIFIC TRAINING in Audio Forensics at all.
And NO Stundie, unless you were in lower Manhattan on 9/11, you have not heard a building ANYWHERE near the size of the WTC 1/2 towers collapse.
Nor have you EVER heard a CD that resulted in a TOP DOWN collapse.
So, no Stundie, you simply ignore the many things that can cause explosive sounds and by doing so you have not shown that there was a "high probability" that explosives were used.
Which is probably why in your next to last post you fall back on the "near free fall" silliness.
Arthur
QUOTE
No, Stundie, since you obviously can't parse a sentance there is no point in discussing with you the difference between INTIATION and COLLAPSE.
I understand fully, what you do not understand is that NIST have studied the INITIATION, but as you say, they do not support the Initiation of the Pancake collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, Stundie, since you obviously can't parse a sentance there is no point in discussing with you the difference between INTIATION and COLLAPSE. |
I understand fully, what you do not understand is that NIST have studied the INITIATION, but as you say, they do not support the Initiation of the Pancake collapse.
Clearly NIST (and the rest of the world) believes the floors pancaked ONCE the collapse started.
They do not, because they have NEVER INVESTIGATED BEYOND THE INITITATION...Hence they "NIST do not support the Pancake Collapse Theory"
How many times....
The floors fell, but they didn't pancake.
The floors fell, but they didn't pancake.
Certainly you can't be so dumb as to be claiming that each floor was blown up with explosives.
How many times....
QUOTE
I am curious though, WHERE do you think the floors went if NOT straight down, you know, PANCAKED?
The floors fell, but they didn't pancake.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am curious though, WHERE do you think the floors went if NOT straight down, you know, PANCAKED? |
The floors fell, but they didn't pancake.
Certainly you can't be so dumb as to be claiming that each floor was blown up with explosives.
No, I wouldn't be dumb enough to claim that it was each floor.
My god you are too funny!!
QUOTE
No, Stundie, the buildings were ON FIRE.
FIRE is DESTRUCTIVE.
Both to concrete and steel.
Not all fires, doesn't it depend on the vital thing called TEMPERATURE?? FIRE is DESTRUCTIVE.
Both to concrete and steel.
My god you are too funny!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, Stundie, the buildings were ON FIRE. FIRE is DESTRUCTIVE. Both to concrete and steel. |
Not all fires, doesn't it depend on the vital thing called TEMPERATURE??
My god you are too funny!!
It can cause INTERNAL FAILURES of elements which are under high stress/loading which when they fail can make LOUD EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS.
Then you should be able to demonstrate this, in other examples without referring to the WTC then agreed?
I'll await your evidence to suggest this occurs elsewhere, other than 3 times on 9/11.
So you are now a proponent of the "Plane Wing Failure Causes Explosions Theory!" One problems with your theory...WTC7 was not hit by a plane?? hahahahahahaha!!
My god you are too funny!!
It can cause INTERNAL FAILURES of elements which are under high stress/loading which when they fail can make LOUD EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS.
Then you should be able to demonstrate this, in other examples without referring to the WTC then agreed?
I'll await your evidence to suggest this occurs elsewhere, other than 3 times on 9/11.
QUOTE
As the Wing video shows, a failure of an object under high stress CAN make explosive sounds without the need for explosives.
So the wings remained intact during the collision with the towers!! So you are now a proponent of the "Plane Wing Failure Causes Explosions Theory!" One problems with your theory...WTC7 was not hit by a plane?? hahahahahahaha!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As the Wing video shows, a failure of an object under high stress CAN make explosive sounds without the need for explosives. |
So the wings remained intact during the collision with the towers!!
So you are now a proponent of the "Plane Wing Failure Causes Explosions Theory!" One problems with your theory...WTC7 was not hit by a plane?? hahahahahahaha!!
As for Brian, you have not shown that he has ANY SCIENTIFIC TRAINING in Audio Forensics at all.
So you are now a proponent of the "Plane Wing Failure Causes Explosions Theory!" One problems with your theory...WTC7 was not hit by a plane?? hahahahahahaha!!
As for Brian, you have not shown that he has ANY SCIENTIFIC TRAINING in Audio Forensics at all.
As I've said numerous times, if you want his credentials, go ask him. I've no reason to suspect he's a liar.
Again you stupid buildings collapse make explosives sounds is contradicted by the evidence posted of explosive sound heard before and after the WTC collapses.
Making your point redundant...Yet again!
QUOTE
And NO Stundie, unless you were in lower Manhatten on 9/11, you have not heard a building ANYWHERE near the size of the WTC 1/2 towers collapse.
And the funny thing is, in all the videos of CDs I've seen, I could easily tell the difference between an explosive and a building falling. They sound different. Again you stupid buildings collapse make explosives sounds is contradicted by the evidence posted of explosive sound heard before and after the WTC collapses.
Making your point redundant...Yet again!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And NO Stundie, unless you were in lower Manhatten on 9/11, you have not heard a building ANYWHERE near the size of the WTC 1/2 towers collapse. |
And the funny thing is, in all the videos of CDs I've seen, I could easily tell the difference between an explosive and a building falling. They sound different.
Again you stupid buildings collapse make explosives sounds is contradicted by the evidence posted of explosive sound heard before and after the WTC collapses.
Making your point redundant...Yet again!
Nor have you EVER heard a CD that resulted in a TOP DOWN collapse.
No, I agree, but getting a building to do a top down collapse is just a case of reversing the sequence of a normal CD. And then again, you have WTC which is not a top down collapse.
Sorry but I've pointed out the flaws in your logic and you have not shown me many thing, you have shown me 2.
1. Largest building collapses makes explosions. (Never happened before)
2. Plane Wing Failure. (Most of the wings would have disintegrated during collision)
Please stick any others in that you may have...as I could do with a good laugh!!
Sorry but I've pointed out the flaws in your logic and you have not shown me many thing, you have shown me 2.
1. Largest building collapses makes explosions. (Never happened before)
2. Plane Wing Failure. (Most of the wings would have disintegrated during collision)
Please stick any others in that you may have...as I could do with a good laugh!!
Which is probably why in your next to last post you fall back on the "near free fall" sillyness.
Arthur
The near free fall that you call sillyness is also quoted by the 9/11 commission and NIST. Not just me! hahahahahahaha!!
Again you stupid buildings collapse make explosives sounds is contradicted by the evidence posted of explosive sound heard before and after the WTC collapses.
Making your point redundant...Yet again!
Nor have you EVER heard a CD that resulted in a TOP DOWN collapse.
No, I agree, but getting a building to do a top down collapse is just a case of reversing the sequence of a normal CD. And then again, you have WTC which is not a top down collapse.
QUOTE
So, no Stundie, you simply ignore the many things that can cause explosive sounds and by doing so you have not shown that there was a "high probability" that explosives were used.
Sorry but I've pointed out the flaws in your logic and you have not shown me many thing, you have shown me 2.
1. Largest building collapses makes explosions. (Never happened before)
2. Plane Wing Failure. (Most of the wings would have disintegrated during collision)
Please stick any others in that you may have...as I could do with a good laugh!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, no Stundie, you simply ignore the many things that can cause explosive sounds and by doing so you have not shown that there was a "high probability" that explosives were used. |
Sorry but I've pointed out the flaws in your logic and you have not shown me many thing, you have shown me 2.
1. Largest building collapses makes explosions. (Never happened before)
2. Plane Wing Failure. (Most of the wings would have disintegrated during collision)
Please stick any others in that you may have...as I could do with a good laugh!!
Which is probably why in your next to last post you fall back on the "near free fall" sillyness.
Arthur
The near free fall that you call sillyness is also quoted by the 9/11 commission and NIST. Not just me! hahahahahahaha!!
Stundie,
Its HARD to believe that you are THIS DENSE.
The point of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
Is to show how the FAILURE of a material under strain can cause an EXPLOSIVE sound.
You know, like the steel beams that were supporting the immense loads in the tower?
Its has NOTHING to do with the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC tower.
Try to keep up.
As to Brian, he can claim to be anything he wants.
You posted him as a source so YOU need to back up the credentials of your source.
A simple thing would be his degree and the school he got it from.
You said you were in contact with him but you didn't get this BASIC supporting info?
Right.
Its HARD to believe that you are THIS DENSE.
The point of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
Is to show how the FAILURE of a material under strain can cause an EXPLOSIVE sound.
You know, like the steel beams that were supporting the immense loads in the tower?
Its has NOTHING to do with the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC tower.
Try to keep up.
As to Brian, he can claim to be anything he wants.
You posted him as a source so YOU need to back up the credentials of your source.
A simple thing would be his degree and the school he got it from.
You said you were in contact with him but you didn't get this BASIC supporting info?
Right.
QUOTE (Stundie+)
The near free fall that you call sillyness is also quoted by the 9/11 commission and NIST. Not just me! hahahahahahaha
No Stundie, they use it in the sense that 14 or 15 seconds is NEAR the ~9 seconds that freefall would take and as has been shown on this board, is ~ what one would expect based on a physics based analysis. You use it TOTALLY different claiming that the rate of fall is not supported by physics.
Arthur
No Stundie, they use it in the sense that 14 or 15 seconds is NEAR the ~9 seconds that freefall would take and as has been shown on this board, is ~ what one would expect based on a physics based analysis. You use it TOTALLY different claiming that the rate of fall is not supported by physics.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 18 2007, 03:53 PM)
Stundie,
Its HARD to believe that you are THIS DENSE.
The point of this: www*youtube*com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
Is to show how the FAILURE of a material under strain can cause an EXPLOSIVE sound.
You know, like the steel beams that were supporting MILLIONS of pounds of pressure in the tower?
Its has NOTHING to do with the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC tower.
Try to keep up.
Arthur
Arthur,
I am not doubting that failure of a material can cause an explosion as the video suggests. You are implying that this could be the cause of the explosives sounds at GZ are you not??
The point I'm making is the wings would have disintegrated on impact, hence no wings left to fail. Now unless you are suggesting they survived the impact, then your theory holds no water.
So I'll ask you again, if you do not believe that this is the cause of the explosives sounds, then please source them?
Remember that these explosions were being reported as the building still stood, when the buildings collapsed and also in WTC 7, as seen in the video posted above!
Its HARD to believe that you are THIS DENSE.
The point of this: www*youtube*com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
Is to show how the FAILURE of a material under strain can cause an EXPLOSIVE sound.
You know, like the steel beams that were supporting MILLIONS of pounds of pressure in the tower?
Its has NOTHING to do with the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC tower.
Try to keep up.
Arthur
Arthur,
I am not doubting that failure of a material can cause an explosion as the video suggests. You are implying that this could be the cause of the explosives sounds at GZ are you not??
The point I'm making is the wings would have disintegrated on impact, hence no wings left to fail. Now unless you are suggesting they survived the impact, then your theory holds no water.
So I'll ask you again, if you do not believe that this is the cause of the explosives sounds, then please source them?
Remember that these explosions were being reported as the building still stood, when the buildings collapsed and also in WTC 7, as seen in the video posted above!
I give up.
You ARE that dense.
Arthur
You ARE that dense.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 18 2007, 04:07 PM)
The point I'm making is the wings would have disintegrated on impact, hence no wings left to fail. Now unless you are suggesting they survived the impact, then your theory holds no water.
According to this eyewitness, a wing survived.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Praimnath
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Praimnath
QUOTE
Stanley Praimnath is a survivor of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Praimnath worked in the South Tower, the second to be attacked. He appears to be one of the few survivors who actually saw United Airlines Flight 175 approaching the South Tower seconds before the impact while inside the building. He was in the office into which the right wing of the airplane smashed and he describes it being only 20 feet away from him on his website.
Praimnath started to evacuate from the South Tower when the North Tower was struck. He returned to his office when the building security told tenants it was safe to do so. Praimnath describes returning to his office, on the 81st floor, just in time to see the second airliner heading right towards his window. He describes a burning wing of the plane ending up "in my office door twenty feet from where I am huddled under my desk."
Praimnath started to evacuate from the South Tower when the North Tower was struck. He returned to his office when the building security told tenants it was safe to do so. Praimnath describes returning to his office, on the 81st floor, just in time to see the second airliner heading right towards his window. He describes a burning wing of the plane ending up "in my office door twenty feet from where I am huddled under my desk."
QUOTE (stundie+Oct 19 2007, 01:30 AM)
What do I think of it?? Its a spectrogram??
I'm not an audio engineer, but whatever it is, its repeating itself and becoming less audible through time.
The patterns are very similar, but towards the end, it appears to get faster, so I'm not sure why unless whatever it is, is coming to a rest/end. So it could be something falling to the ground and not breaking, hence the faster occurrence of the peaks and the less audible it is as what ever hit the ground comes to a rest.
I can safely say it is not an echo as the peaks wouldn't speed up towards the end.
If you are asking me exactly what it is, it could be anything.
Yeah, you know, spectrogram, that thing that you were blithely copying and pasting from wikipedia. COmpare it to the demoliion of the hudson building.
I'm not an audio engineer, but whatever it is, its repeating itself and becoming less audible through time.
The patterns are very similar, but towards the end, it appears to get faster, so I'm not sure why unless whatever it is, is coming to a rest/end. So it could be something falling to the ground and not breaking, hence the faster occurrence of the peaks and the less audible it is as what ever hit the ground comes to a rest.
I can safely say it is not an echo as the peaks wouldn't speed up towards the end.
If you are asking me exactly what it is, it could be anything.
Yeah, you know, spectrogram, that thing that you were blithely copying and pasting from wikipedia. COmpare it to the demoliion of the hudson building.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 19 2007, 02:40 AM)
Somebody please drive a stake through the heart of all this 911 conspiracy theory nonsense please. I was in New York. I was there. Three thousand people were murdered. This isn't physics. This is propaganda. This is Big Lie agitprop.
Quit spamming the trhead already.
Quit spamming the trhead already.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 19 2007, 04:53 AM)
Stundie,
Its HARD to believe that you are THIS DENSE.
The point of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
Is to show how the FAILURE of a material under strain can cause an EXPLOSIVE sound.
You know, like the steel beams that were supporting the immense loads in the tower?
Its has NOTHING to do with the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC tower.
Try to keep up.
As to Brian, he can claim to be anything he wants.
You posted him as a source so YOU need to back up the credentials of your source.
A simple thing would be his degree and the school he got it from.
You said you were in contact with him but you didn't get this BASIC supporting info?
Right.
Its HARD to believe that you are THIS DENSE.
The point of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
Is to show how the FAILURE of a material under strain can cause an EXPLOSIVE sound.
You know, like the steel beams that were supporting the immense loads in the tower?
Its has NOTHING to do with the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC tower.
Try to keep up.
As to Brian, he can claim to be anything he wants.
You posted him as a source so YOU need to back up the credentials of your source.
A simple thing would be his degree and the school he got it from.
You said you were in contact with him but you didn't get this BASIC supporting info?
Right.
QUOTE (Stundie+)
The near free fall that you call sillyness is also quoted by the 9/11 commission and NIST. Not just me! hahahahahahaha
No Stundie, they use it in the sense that 14 or 15 seconds is NEAR the ~9 seconds that freefall would take and as has been shown on this board, is ~ what one would expect based on a physics based analysis. You use it TOTALLY different claiming that the rate of fall is not supported by physics.
Arthur
Thankyou for that Arthur, it beautifully illustrates the point that I tried making earlier about explosive failure.
I think (one of) the points that's being missed by the conspiracy theorists on the thread is that all single impulse events, irrespective of whether you're talking about a 4 inch brick of C-4 going off, a wing snapping, a floor pan failing, or someone beating on a drum, all bare features that look the same on a spectrogram, because they're all cause by the same process - the sudden transfer of large quantities of energy to the atmosphere.
No Stundie, they use it in the sense that 14 or 15 seconds is NEAR the ~9 seconds that freefall would take and as has been shown on this board, is ~ what one would expect based on a physics based analysis. You use it TOTALLY different claiming that the rate of fall is not supported by physics.
Arthur
Thankyou for that Arthur, it beautifully illustrates the point that I tried making earlier about explosive failure.
I think (one of) the points that's being missed by the conspiracy theorists on the thread is that all single impulse events, irrespective of whether you're talking about a 4 inch brick of C-4 going off, a wing snapping, a floor pan failing, or someone beating on a drum, all bare features that look the same on a spectrogram, because they're all cause by the same process - the sudden transfer of large quantities of energy to the atmosphere.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 18 2007, 01:51 AM)
Between frames 910 and 920, slow deformation of the perimeter columns on the north wall at floors 93-96 are plainly visible to the left of the central impact location.
At frame 930, the NW corner at/around floor 100 breaks violently with a very obvious shock wave / vibration in the nearby region, followed by a minor puff of debris from the corner at 100 over the next few frames. Global collapse then ensues.
There are definitely some anomalous things preceding frame 900, can't speak on them yet until I get a better handle on what I'm looking at.
This is 29.97 frames per second? So 3.99 seconds is frame 919 or 920?
Ok, 910--920 is still before the collapse then, just more tilting. Might be taken as a good choice for a nominal t0.
Frame 930 is after my nominal t0. That is, after where I want it to be.
But we are really zeroing in on it! We are now within a third of a second. I believe that suffices.
I can hardly wait.
At frame 930, the NW corner at/around floor 100 breaks violently with a very obvious shock wave / vibration in the nearby region, followed by a minor puff of debris from the corner at 100 over the next few frames. Global collapse then ensues.
There are definitely some anomalous things preceding frame 900, can't speak on them yet until I get a better handle on what I'm looking at.
This is 29.97 frames per second? So 3.99 seconds is frame 919 or 920?
Ok, 910--920 is still before the collapse then, just more tilting. Might be taken as a good choice for a nominal t0.
Frame 930 is after my nominal t0. That is, after where I want it to be.
But we are really zeroing in on it! We are now within a third of a second. I believe that suffices.
I can hardly wait.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 17 2007, 11:49 PM)
Feel free to post the sequence of steps in the derivation and perhaps someone will notice something useful.
thanx, I will really do that, but first I first want to try it myself, but it is currently on hold.. probably it is a simple thing done already of course.
thanx, I will really do that, but first I first want to try it myself, but it is currently on hold.. probably it is a simple thing done already of course.
Using poster shagster's suggestion that the video that poster OneWhiteEye has been analyzing is 1600 meters from the base of WTC1, simple trigonometry gives the angle up as
14 degrees and 37 minutes of arc
from which I calculate that each pixel of the antenna tower represents about
1.0194
more meters than the ones at the wall. That is about 2% more, making the previously stated reduction of 1% into a 3% discrepancy between the two analyses.
I'm going to have to just ignore it (unless poster NEU-FONZE has something to add).
I will need the 2% difference when I have the time to do some calculations regarding poster OneWhiteEye's data from the wall. But for now I'll continue working with just the pixel data from columns lines 447, 448 and 449 giving a feature on the antenna tower. The goal is to compare the situation before the nominal t0 with the better understood situation after collapse initiation, taken as occurring at the nominal t0.
14 degrees and 37 minutes of arc
from which I calculate that each pixel of the antenna tower represents about
1.0194
more meters than the ones at the wall. That is about 2% more, making the previously stated reduction of 1% into a 3% discrepancy between the two analyses.
I'm going to have to just ignore it (unless poster NEU-FONZE has something to add).
I will need the 2% difference when I have the time to do some calculations regarding poster OneWhiteEye's data from the wall. But for now I'll continue working with just the pixel data from columns lines 447, 448 and 449 giving a feature on the antenna tower. The goal is to compare the situation before the nominal t0 with the better understood situation after collapse initiation, taken as occurring at the nominal t0.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 18 2007, 07:19 PM)
...
That is about 2% more, making the previously stated reduction of 1% into a 3% discrepancy between the two analyses.
What I probably need to do is come up with a better number for the wall and a genuine number for the antenna - derived from antenna dimensions which I don't know but can find by analyzing multiple still photos.
That is about 2% more, making the previously stated reduction of 1% into a 3% discrepancy between the two analyses.
What I probably need to do is come up with a better number for the wall and a genuine number for the antenna - derived from antenna dimensions which I don't know but can find by analyzing multiple still photos.
David Benson, OneWhiteEye, Shagster and Einsteen:
I have finally had a close look at the "smear-o-graph" of the collapse of WTC 1 as posted by Shagster on the 16th of October.
I am really not sure about the vertical and horizontal scales, but more on that issue later....
I printed the graph out and started measuring it up using a home made traveling microscope type of arrangement. I extracted vertical drop (in mm) vs. time (as frame number) data and plotted it using EXCEL.
I got a very nice, smooth, graph but when I try various curve fits it is obvious that ONE function does not work too well.
However.....
What I HAVE found is that you get a VERY good fit using TWO functions with a transition from one to the other at what I call frame 17.
The early part of the collapse, from frame 1 to frame 17, fits an exponential function x = K exp {bt} where x is the drop distance and K and b are constants.
The later part of the collapse, from frame 17 to frame 30, fits a parabolic function x = At^2 - Bt.
At large t this funtion approximates x = At^2 and if my estimates of the distance and time scaling factors are correct I would say that A ~ 6 m/s^2, which is consistent with other estimates of the effective acceleration of the collapse.
Hence, what I am seeing is a two phased collapse, but if you consider that the first phase shows exponential behavior, this is consistent with initial tipping of the upper section of WTC 1. I have gone into tipping in great detail for the case of WTC 2 in my article on 911myths.com, and I have shown that the tilt angle should initially increase exponentially if you treat the upper section as a rigid structure falling over in a gravity field.
I suspect that once the tilting reaches a critical value, the motion of the upper section also includes a vertical descent that quickly overwhelms the lowering of one side by tipping alone.
Anyway, I am very happy with this result, but any help on the scaling of Shagster's smear-o-graph would help put all this on a precise quantitative basis.
I have finally had a close look at the "smear-o-graph" of the collapse of WTC 1 as posted by Shagster on the 16th of October.
I am really not sure about the vertical and horizontal scales, but more on that issue later....
I printed the graph out and started measuring it up using a home made traveling microscope type of arrangement. I extracted vertical drop (in mm) vs. time (as frame number) data and plotted it using EXCEL.
I got a very nice, smooth, graph but when I try various curve fits it is obvious that ONE function does not work too well.
However.....
What I HAVE found is that you get a VERY good fit using TWO functions with a transition from one to the other at what I call frame 17.
The early part of the collapse, from frame 1 to frame 17, fits an exponential function x = K exp {bt} where x is the drop distance and K and b are constants.
The later part of the collapse, from frame 17 to frame 30, fits a parabolic function x = At^2 - Bt.
At large t this funtion approximates x = At^2 and if my estimates of the distance and time scaling factors are correct I would say that A ~ 6 m/s^2, which is consistent with other estimates of the effective acceleration of the collapse.
Hence, what I am seeing is a two phased collapse, but if you consider that the first phase shows exponential behavior, this is consistent with initial tipping of the upper section of WTC 1. I have gone into tipping in great detail for the case of WTC 2 in my article on 911myths.com, and I have shown that the tilt angle should initially increase exponentially if you treat the upper section as a rigid structure falling over in a gravity field.
I suspect that once the tilting reaches a critical value, the motion of the upper section also includes a vertical descent that quickly overwhelms the lowering of one side by tipping alone.
Anyway, I am very happy with this result, but any help on the scaling of Shagster's smear-o-graph would help put all this on a precise quantitative basis.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 18 2007, 12:41 PM)
What I probably need to do is come up with a better number for the wall ...
Given poster NEU-FONZE's technique in those halycon days of yore, the 3% might be almost entirely his measurement error.
NEU-FONZE, an opinion?
Given poster NEU-FONZE's technique in those halycon days of yore, the 3% might be almost entirely his measurement error.
NEU-FONZE, an opinion?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Oct 18 2007, 01:18 PM)
I suspect that once the tilting reaches a critical value, the motion of the upper section also includes a vertical descent that quickly overwhelms the lowering of one side by tipping alone.
Anyway, I am very happy with this result, but any help on the scaling of Shagster's smear-o-graph would help put all this on a precise quantitative basis.
NIST states that this occurs in NCSTAR1--6D. About one second after sensible motion, the north wall breaks.
Poster OneWhiteEye's data is essentially the same, using pixels rather than mm. His data is already converted to the proper time axis so the only remaining issue is to accurately determine meters per pixel.
Please see my previous posts and comment.
Anyway, I am very happy with this result, but any help on the scaling of Shagster's smear-o-graph would help put all this on a precise quantitative basis.
NIST states that this occurs in NCSTAR1--6D. About one second after sensible motion, the north wall breaks.
Poster OneWhiteEye's data is essentially the same, using pixels rather than mm. His data is already converted to the proper time axis so the only remaining issue is to accurately determine meters per pixel.
Please see my previous posts and comment.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Oct 18 2007, 08:18 PM)
I printed the graph out and started measuring it up using a home made traveling microscope type of arrangement. I extracted vertical drop (in mm) vs. time (as frame number) data and plotted it using EXCEL.
Impressive.
Impressive.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+)
Given poster NEU-FONZE's technique in those halycon days of yore, the 3% might be almost entirely his measurement error.
I don't know. Anyone who does the above is a force to be reckoned with.
Something to keep in mind about the einsteen images: a slice from a frame (vertical or horizontal) produces a derived feature which can be plotted, but the derived feature only matches the displacement of the real feature if the motion is collinear with the chosen slice. Otherwise, there will be an error that increases in magnitude as the motion progresses.
The images from einsteen and shagster (and the ones I use) will have an error of this nature. The antenna features, which provide the easiest curves to plot, have somewhat irregular boundaries. These features move several pixels to the left over the course of the curve, such that the one pixel slice is no longer viewing the same feature at all. Even if the antenna dropped straight down - that maps to a 3 pixel translation at 18+ floors of vertical displacement.
A feature that looks like this, e.g.:
__--`
is going to show less drop as it translates to the left simultaneously with downward translation.
I don't know. Anyone who does the above is a force to be reckoned with.
Something to keep in mind about the einsteen images: a slice from a frame (vertical or horizontal) produces a derived feature which can be plotted, but the derived feature only matches the displacement of the real feature if the motion is collinear with the chosen slice. Otherwise, there will be an error that increases in magnitude as the motion progresses.
The images from einsteen and shagster (and the ones I use) will have an error of this nature. The antenna features, which provide the easiest curves to plot, have somewhat irregular boundaries. These features move several pixels to the left over the course of the curve, such that the one pixel slice is no longer viewing the same feature at all. Even if the antenna dropped straight down - that maps to a 3 pixel translation at 18+ floors of vertical displacement.
A feature that looks like this, e.g.:
__--`
is going to show less drop as it translates to the left simultaneously with downward translation.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 18 2007, 01:56 PM)
Anyone who does the above is a force to be reckoned with.
Oh I completely agree. But the older technique, without the microscope, could easily have more error.
Oh I completely agree. But the older technique, without the microscope, could easily have more error.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 18 2007, 09:00 PM)
Oh I completely agree. But the older technique, without the microscope, could easily have more error.
Yes. It is unfortunate how much hinges on this single value, which in practice is one of the most difficult to obtain. That barrier makes me more comfortable in the land of pixels, just one scale factor away.
Do not underestimate the effect of what I described above. It could easily account for a 3% discrepancy between data derived from an einsteen image and some other method... such as NEU-FONZE's data or the other points I generated manually (those including the washer).
I haven't checked on the agreement between data I've produced using different targets/methods! I would not be at all surprised if the C447-9 data differs by 2% from the XY data I took visually.
I do know there is a 2% or so difference in position(don't recall exactly) between locations of the antenna in the single XY data set at T+6. Due to rotation, I assume, and wouldn't continue much after this point if at all.
Yes. It is unfortunate how much hinges on this single value, which in practice is one of the most difficult to obtain. That barrier makes me more comfortable in the land of pixels, just one scale factor away.
Do not underestimate the effect of what I described above. It could easily account for a 3% discrepancy between data derived from an einsteen image and some other method... such as NEU-FONZE's data or the other points I generated manually (those including the washer).
I haven't checked on the agreement between data I've produced using different targets/methods! I would not be at all surprised if the C447-9 data differs by 2% from the XY data I took visually.
I do know there is a 2% or so difference in position(don't recall exactly) between locations of the antenna in the single XY data set at T+6. Due to rotation, I assume, and wouldn't continue much after this point if at all.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 18 2007, 02:13 PM)
... how much hinges on this single value ...
Probably not that much.
In any case, with the abundance of data now available, even that can be resolved to the accuracy required. It may well be the case that 3% is good enough.
It is the consistency between the various data sets which will finally resolve this matter, at least well enough to be confident that the various equations being used before and after t0 do correctly explain the pre-initiation tilting and the post-initiation progressive collapse.
Probably not that much.
In any case, with the abundance of data now available, even that can be resolved to the accuracy required. It may well be the case that 3% is good enough.
It is the consistency between the various data sets which will finally resolve this matter, at least well enough to be confident that the various equations being used before and after t0 do correctly explain the pre-initiation tilting and the post-initiation progressive collapse.
Side by side examples of controlled demolition and 9/11. Note the sound of real controlled demolition dwarfs the 9/11 event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
Video and natural audio of WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity from the Cameraplanet archive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA
Compare it with the dramatized version on mediumrecords.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA
Compare it with the dramatized version on mediumrecords.
The collapse, as heard from inside the core, actually did sound like a drum roll.
Some of the accounts of the survivors in the core are in this article.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/index2.html
"On stairwell B, after the noise of collapse—one fireman said he heard each floor come down, like a drum roll—the narrow space was quiet and almost completely dark. Dust and ash clogged the air."
Compare that account about the drum roll sound with the remark made on the mediumrecords site:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second. That pretty much a drum roll speed and would appear more like a constant sound given the circumstances."
Some of the accounts of the survivors in the core are in this article.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/index2.html
"On stairwell B, after the noise of collapse—one fireman said he heard each floor come down, like a drum roll—the narrow space was quiet and almost completely dark. Dust and ash clogged the air."
Compare that account about the drum roll sound with the remark made on the mediumrecords site:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"The sounds of "pancaking" floors can be ruled out because of the smooth and very quick wave of destruction. To be very general, we're talking about 110 floors in about 14 seconds so around 7.9 floors per second. That pretty much a drum roll speed and would appear more like a constant sound given the circumstances."
QUOTE (shagster+Oct 18 2007, 06:55 PM)
Video and natural audio of WTC2 collapse recorded near Trinity from the Cameraplanet archive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA
Compare it with the dramatized version on mediumrecords.
Thanks, shagster, for finding and posting that.
These are definitely two seemingly different sets of sound audios for the same camera/event...?
How can this be explained? (More information would great.)
BTW, when you go to...
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"discussion of the authenticity of this clip's audio can be found on "this page" since the audio portion has most certainly be "dramatized" for the Dolby 5.1 format from whence it came"
...the link is broken.
stundie, do you have any explanation for this contradiction?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA
Compare it with the dramatized version on mediumrecords.
Thanks, shagster, for finding and posting that.
These are definitely two seemingly different sets of sound audios for the same camera/event...?
How can this be explained? (More information would great.)
BTW, when you go to...
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"discussion of the authenticity of this clip's audio can be found on "this page" since the audio portion has most certainly be "dramatized" for the Dolby 5.1 format from whence it came"
...the link is broken.
stundie, do you have any explanation for this contradiction?
FDNY battalion chief Jay Jonas was in stairwell B of the north tower during the collapse. On the 'Inside the Twin Towers' DVD documentary he described the pancaking floors as sounding like a train off its rails and hitting the ties.
Some of his accounts are on this site:
http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm
"Now, people have tried to get me to describe what it was like while the collapse was happening. It was a montage of different sounds and experiences. The sounds were a combination of sounds. This building collapsed in what’s called a pancake fashion. In other words, one floor would hit another floor and would collapse that floor and then collapse the next floor. And every time a floor would hit another floor, it created a loud boom and tremendous vibration.
The entire collapse of this 110-story building took 13 seconds. So it sounded like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, you know, like that. And every time that happened, it shook the entire building. It shook the whole floor. So every time a floor would hit another floor, we’d be literally bouncing off the floor. We were being thrown around the stairway."
Some of his accounts are on this site:
http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm
"Now, people have tried to get me to describe what it was like while the collapse was happening. It was a montage of different sounds and experiences. The sounds were a combination of sounds. This building collapsed in what’s called a pancake fashion. In other words, one floor would hit another floor and would collapse that floor and then collapse the next floor. And every time a floor would hit another floor, it created a loud boom and tremendous vibration.
The entire collapse of this 110-story building took 13 seconds. So it sounded like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, you know, like that. And every time that happened, it shook the entire building. It shook the whole floor. So every time a floor would hit another floor, we’d be literally bouncing off the floor. We were being thrown around the stairway."
QUOTE (wcelliott+Oct 18 2007, 02:46 AM)
newton's crack-baby's learned how to type!
haha! you must really love me.
haha! you must really love me.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.