QUOTE (metamars+Feb 22 2008, 04:56 PM)
There's more to life than this thread, you know.
Really? 
Really?
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 22 2008, 06:56 PM)
Actually, I've read about 300 pp. of the NIST report. blah blah blah....
Yeah metamars, you've read 300 pages of a 20,000 page report.
Way to go sport.
The FACT is you ADMIT that the original reasons you thought it was an INSIDE JOB were TOTALLY BONKERS.
And yet here you are, over 2 years later, still trying to find a SHRED of proof that your original conclusion, that was based on this sheer IDIOCY, was in fact correct.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
obviously it was an inside job.
as obvious now as it was two years ago.
welcome CFR/NWO overlords! your gentle and absolute rule will bless and benefit us all in it's iron grip!
doubleplus goodness.
as obvious now as it was two years ago.
welcome CFR/NWO overlords! your gentle and absolute rule will bless and benefit us all in it's iron grip!
doubleplus goodness.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 22 2008, 09:41 PM)
obviously it was an inside job.
as obvious now as it was two years ago.
Newton from 2 years ago:
it's just that easy to do your advanced 'eggheady' model. 'well, there were thousands of joules of potential in the caps. this potential was instantly translated into kinetic energy for the distance of one floor, or 3.8 meters, which was more than enough to cause the perfectly intact lower floors to offer as much resistance as air."
that inward bowing picture could have been snapped (immediately )after the core was destroyed. perhaps that is the side towards which the tower leaned as it fell. or, perhaps it is a twenty million dollar photoshop job.
tower seven, on the other hand, fell at the speed of freefall in a vacuum, which is only possible if you blow the air out of it while simultaneously removing all support, which is only possible with explosives.
Unlike Wine, its pretty clear that STUPIDITY does not improve with age.
Like metamars, newton formed his opinion based on his own FALSE interpretations of what happened that day.
There were NO pyroclastic flows
The fall times are realistic for a global collapse of the structures in question and are NOT at Free Fall speed.
The fall times were at ~ 2/3 G so the towers offered sigificantly more resistance than air.
The columns didn't all give out at precisely the same moment, the failure WAS PROGRSSIVE in nature and in both towers, tilting in fact was key to the failure as was the slow pulling in of the columns on one side.
The witness accounts, engine remains and the damage profile prove that no one painted 2 A3 Skywarriors to look like an American 757.
Tower 7 took ~ 18 seconds to fall, and even the final curtain wall wasn't at freefall speed.
Other views of the helo show it didn't fire anything.
But, like metamars, even when ALL of this idiocy has been debunked, repeatedly, newton still believes his original conclusion was correct, that it was an inside job, even though after years of trying to find ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that will stick,
he has come up with
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA
NOTHING
Arthur
as obvious now as it was two years ago.
Newton from 2 years ago:
QUOTE
agree, that there is enough proof already. fall times and pyroclastic flows are really enough evidence to CONVICT someone
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| agree, that there is enough proof already. fall times and pyroclastic flows are really enough evidence to CONVICT someone |
it's just that easy to do your advanced 'eggheady' model. 'well, there were thousands of joules of potential in the caps. this potential was instantly translated into kinetic energy for the distance of one floor, or 3.8 meters, which was more than enough to cause the perfectly intact lower floors to offer as much resistance as air."
QUOTE
this inane analysis ignored the fact that hundreds of columns gave out a precisely the same moment, with no slow buildup to collapse involving tilting, or twisting, and no observable progressive failure
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| this inane analysis ignored the fact that hundreds of columns gave out a precisely the same moment, with no slow buildup to collapse involving tilting, or twisting, and no observable progressive failure |
that inward bowing picture could have been snapped (immediately )after the core was destroyed. perhaps that is the side towards which the tower leaned as it fell. or, perhaps it is a twenty million dollar photoshop job.
QUOTE
it doesn't add up. i think the rumour that two A3 skywarriors were custom painted by raytheon, and retrofitted with global hawk guidance makes more sense
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it doesn't add up. i think the rumour that two A3 skywarriors were custom painted by raytheon, and retrofitted with global hawk guidance makes more sense |
tower seven, on the other hand, fell at the speed of freefall in a vacuum, which is only possible if you blow the air out of it while simultaneously removing all support, which is only possible with explosives.
QUOTE
wonder if those lads in the helicopter DID shoot first an opening into the freight elevator, and then a couple missiles down the shaft. those flashes went off IMMEDIATELY before the first tower (to collapse) collapsed.
Unlike Wine, its pretty clear that STUPIDITY does not improve with age.
Like metamars, newton formed his opinion based on his own FALSE interpretations of what happened that day.
There were NO pyroclastic flows
The fall times are realistic for a global collapse of the structures in question and are NOT at Free Fall speed.
The fall times were at ~ 2/3 G so the towers offered sigificantly more resistance than air.
The columns didn't all give out at precisely the same moment, the failure WAS PROGRSSIVE in nature and in both towers, tilting in fact was key to the failure as was the slow pulling in of the columns on one side.
The witness accounts, engine remains and the damage profile prove that no one painted 2 A3 Skywarriors to look like an American 757.
Tower 7 took ~ 18 seconds to fall, and even the final curtain wall wasn't at freefall speed.
Other views of the helo show it didn't fire anything.
But, like metamars, even when ALL of this idiocy has been debunked, repeatedly, newton still believes his original conclusion was correct, that it was an inside job, even though after years of trying to find ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that will stick,
he has come up with
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA
NOTHING
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 22 2008, 11:44 PM)
Self-deflagration needs to supply it's own oxidizer. I assume, then, this occurs from dissolved O2 in the water, or possibly from the water molecule itself. Is this correct? And how does the Al contact the O? What kind of thermal expansion would occur at 25 C??? Do you mean that such powders are prepared under cold conditions, and must be kept refrigerated? After all, there's certainly O2 in the air. If the thermal expansion at 25 C is enough to crack the oxide layer, it's hard to see how this could possibly be handled, except in a refrigerator, or a vaccuum.
What was the oxide shell thickness of the nAl in the self-deflagrating nAl/water mixture?
[/QUOTE]
Ah-h-h-h, your same quote states that for an 8nm shell, the melting point is almost 500 C higher! (And you're still in the nm range).
Please tell us how an Al nanopowder with 8nm thick oxide shell, properly sealed with something that wouldn't melt and would be water-proof, would hold up in a WTC scenario.
From the water molecule itself Al+H20, producing hydrogen, remember water in the vapor phase is created by burning hydrocarbons.
Check aluminum Dross, some AlN is naturally formed on aluminum in air, usually it is limited and does not react because of the thickness of the oxide layer, however in Nano particles it is reactive enough to react with water at room temperatures.
The AlN is formed in the process of making aluminum from the ores involved using electricity.
From the water molecule itself Al+H20, producing hydrogen, remember water in the vapor phase is created by burning hydrocarbons.
Check aluminum Dross, some AlN is naturally formed on aluminum in air, usually it is limited and does not react because of the thickness of the oxide layer, however in Nano particles it is reactive enough to react with water at room temperatures.
The AlN is formed in the process of making aluminum from the ores involved using electricity.
Ah-h-h-h, your same quote states that for an 8nm shell, the melting point is almost 500 C higher! (And you're still in the nm range).
Yes however the smaller particles, are the ones that are producing the shock waves you have been referring to less than 4nm, you do understand the theories that you yourself propose do you not?
The size of the particle in relation to the speed at which the particle expands and breaks to oxide layer releasing the energy of the entrapped aluminum metal inside the oxide is what determines the speed of the reaction.
For your proposed methods to work your nano particles have to be in the range of 4 nm or lower.
That size particle will suffer Self-deflagration in a hydrocarbon fire at 250c from the water produced in the combustion of the HYDRO-carbons.
The water produced by hydrocarbons and he shock and heat energy of the fires is why nano super thermites that I tested did not survive the fires.
Please tell us how an Al nanopowder with 8nm thick oxide shell, properly sealed with something that wouldn't melt and would be water-proof, would hold up in a WTC scenario.
Please propose a substance that would seal nano thermites, be water proof and not undergo cracking do to thermal expansion, one thermal expansion crack allowing one nano particle to inter react can set off a whole charge, friction from shock waves on impact can set off a whole charge.
I have not as of yet found the perfect substance that can positively seal Nano thermites in fires, Metals when heated are subject to gaseous intrusion, and some metals like steel can actually give off carbon monoxide which can react with nano particles.
Plastics can decompose, in similar fire tests to the world trade center I have not found a substance that would insure nano thermite survival and allow you to assemble a charge that would survive the fires.
I have not at this time found a container that would do what you claim and not set the charge off during its manufacture such high temperature containers, with perfect insulation and sealing properties are high heat formed so forming the container around the thermite would activate the charge itself.
Also 8nm Nano powders will not work in your proposed theory, the speed of activation in that size particle is to slow, to be useful.
Remember you have certain energy release vectors that can not be ignored.
There were NO pyroclastic flows
the dust clouds had fireballs in them. things in their pathway burst into flame, cars and firetrucks were flipped. the clouds were HOT.
says you. however, the chinese engineers who modelled it got a time of 90 seconds. and, you can see features exploding out of the towers faster than debris falling on the outside.
says you. however, the chinese engineers who modelled it got a time of 90 seconds. and, you can see features exploding out of the towers faster than debris falling on the outside.
The fall times were at ~ 2/3 G so the towers offered sigificantly more resistance than air.
not really. the landmark tower took 15 seconds to collapse, and it was a controlled demolition of a much smaller building.
the onset was sudden. everyone knows it.
the onset was sudden. everyone knows it.
The witness accounts, engine remains and the damage profile prove that no one painted 2 A3 Skywarriors to look like an American 757.
the parts could have been planted in the confusion. these engine has been said to be the wrong type. see the operation northwoods plan.
the tower's exterior took 6.6 seconds.
the tower's exterior took 6.6 seconds.
from newton
the only comparison that 'mimics' these 'collapses' is controlled demolition.
and, not only that, but controlled demos of smaller buildings(the landmark, for one) have been measured(by me) to take longer than the demolition of the twin towers.
the landmark's(a 'mere' 30 storeys) roofline hits the ground about 15 seconds after the first flash at the base of the tower.
evidence won't stick because the government, media and justice system are all controlled by a handful of men. you know them.
the dust clouds had fireballs in them. things in their pathway burst into flame, cars and firetrucks were flipped. the clouds were HOT.
says you. however, the chinese engineers who modelled it got a time of 90 seconds. and, you can see features exploding out of the towers faster than debris falling on the outside.
not really. the landmark tower took 15 seconds to collapse, and it was a controlled demolition of a much smaller building.
the onset was sudden. everyone knows it.
the parts could have been planted in the confusion. these engine has been said to be the wrong type. see the operation northwoods plan.
the tower's exterior took 6.6 seconds.
evidence won't stick because the government, media and justice system are all controlled by a handful of men. you know them.
And so we see, newton doesn't improve with age either.
Arthur
I've only used this method three times, the others being an F4 smear and the Landmark. I don't like it much because it inherits whatever distortions the smear introduces, plus it doesn't interpolate pixels. But this should match with the eyeball C447 data pretty well, and that's what I'm going to check next.
Edited to trim (only the constant) trash values at the end.
while the other aspects, including the adjusted zeroTime are the same as before, or nearly so.
The next shocker is the large adjustment in the start time, which means the program wants a very long drop (5--6 meters) at about 5% of gravity before using the crush-down equation:
Sef-const-F-const-stretch
zOrig-z0=5.07012476683 s0=1.53679686511
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch
zOrig-z0=6.21544742202 s0=1.70154461576
But given all that, good separation:
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.079
F0=0.0628 F1=0.0214 F2=14.0453 S0=0.5314 S1=-3.2013 S2=0.9999 deltaT=0.3229
Sef-const-F-const-stretch dB= 7.6 sd= 0.301
F0=0.0489 S0=0.4901 deltaT=0.0811
Note that dB = 7.6 is odds of 5.76 to 1.
And a slightly slower fall (best matching hypothesis):
0.3229 3.108 2.963 -0.145 1.702 124.426 0.523
0.3306 3.046 2.971 -0.075 1.777 135.723 0.523
0.4974 3.312 3.229 -0.083 3.413 503.112 0.515
0.6642 3.674 3.629 -0.045 5.049 1110.134 0.507
0.8311 4.209 4.176 -0.032 6.685 1968.070 0.500
0.9979 4.873 4.880 0.007 8.321 3092.639 0.492
1.1647 5.693 5.747 0.054 9.957 4503.945 0.483
1.2658 6.312 6.355 0.043 10.948 5508.874 0.478
1.3649 6.963 7.015 0.052 11.920 6610.883 0.473
1.4660 7.646 7.753 0.107 12.903 7850.118 0.468
1.5651 8.475 8.540 0.065 13.825 9139.151 0.463
1.6652 9.292 9.396 0.104 14.711 10501.743 0.458
1.7663 10.247 10.321 0.074 15.556 11928.143 0.452
1.8331 11.049 10.965 -0.084 16.086 12891.501 0.449
1.8998 11.566 11.633 0.067 16.593 13867.893 0.446
1.9665 12.402 12.325 -0.076 17.078 14853.644 0.443
2.0333 13.071 13.042 -0.029 17.539 15845.089 0.440
2.1000 13.799 13.780 -0.019 17.978 16838.613 0.437
2.1667 14.712 14.541 -0.171 18.393 17830.689 0.434
6.0000 72.935 22.630 48653.840 0.339
8.0000 108.232 22.630 60243.576 0.304
and the inital drops of 66--92 cm are reasonable.
However, no separation:
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.055
Sef-const-F-const-stretch dB= 2.3 sd= 0.127
But the calcualted drops (best hypothesis) looks about the same:
-0.0114 0.459 0.422 -0.037 0.654 17.243 0.541
0.0638 0.434 0.465 0.031 1.391 78.139 0.532
0.2317 0.701 0.665 -0.036 3.037 374.044 0.513
0.3985 1.062 1.015 -0.048 4.673 892.606 0.495
0.5653 1.597 1.530 -0.067 6.309 1645.103 0.477
0.7312 2.260 2.217 -0.043 7.876 2600.184 0.460
0.8990 3.076 3.092 0.016 9.362 3737.531 0.443
0.9981 3.717 3.694 -0.023 10.195 4482.700 0.434
1.0992 4.333 4.373 0.039 11.012 5294.662 0.424
1.1983 5.056 5.102 0.046 11.780 6138.110 0.415
1.2994 5.840 5.910 0.070 12.532 7043.152 0.406
1.3985 6.674 6.765 0.091 13.238 7970.662 0.398
1.4996 7.642 7.701 0.059 13.926 8953.886 0.389
1.5663 8.444 8.353 -0.091 14.363 9621.567 0.383
1.6321 9.015 9.022 0.007 14.779 10292.418 0.378
1.6988 9.853 9.727 -0.126 15.189 10985.581 0.373
1.7665 10.466 10.470 0.005 15.590 11700.368 0.367
1.8333 11.194 11.229 0.034 15.971 12414.527 0.362
1.8990 12.014 12.001 -0.014 16.334 13126.429 0.357
6.0000 87.445 22.783 48265.563 0.177
8.0000 131.454 22.783 60091.787 0.134
although clearly a better fit.
What was the oxide shell thickness of the nAl in the self-deflagrating nAl/water mixture?
[/QUOTE]
Ah-h-h-h, your same quote states that for an 8nm shell, the melting point is almost 500 C higher! (And you're still in the nm range).
Please tell us how an Al nanopowder with 8nm thick oxide shell, properly sealed with something that wouldn't melt and would be water-proof, would hold up in a WTC scenario.
QUOTE
Self-deflagration needs to supply it's own oxidizer. I assume, then, this occurs from dissolved O2 in the water, or possibly from the water molecule itself. Is this correct? And how does the Al contact the O? What kind of thermal expansion would occur at 25 C??? Do you mean that such powders are prepared under cold conditions, and must be kept refrigerated? After all, there's certainly O2 in the air. If the thermal expansion at 25 C is enough to crack the oxide layer, it's hard to see how this could possibly be handled, except in a refrigerator, or a vaccuum.
What was the oxide shell thickness of the nAl in the self-deflagrating nAl/water mixture?
What was the oxide shell thickness of the nAl in the self-deflagrating nAl/water mixture?
From the water molecule itself Al+H20, producing hydrogen, remember water in the vapor phase is created by burning hydrocarbons.
Check aluminum Dross, some AlN is naturally formed on aluminum in air, usually it is limited and does not react because of the thickness of the oxide layer, however in Nano particles it is reactive enough to react with water at room temperatures.
The AlN is formed in the process of making aluminum from the ores involved using electricity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Self-deflagration needs to supply it's own oxidizer. I assume, then, this occurs from dissolved O2 in the water, or possibly from the water molecule itself. Is this correct? And how does the Al contact the O? What kind of thermal expansion would occur at 25 C??? Do you mean that such powders are prepared under cold conditions, and must be kept refrigerated? After all, there's certainly O2 in the air. If the thermal expansion at 25 C is enough to crack the oxide layer, it's hard to see how this could possibly be handled, except in a refrigerator, or a vaccuum. What was the oxide shell thickness of the nAl in the self-deflagrating nAl/water mixture? |
From the water molecule itself Al+H20, producing hydrogen, remember water in the vapor phase is created by burning hydrocarbons.
Check aluminum Dross, some AlN is naturally formed on aluminum in air, usually it is limited and does not react because of the thickness of the oxide layer, however in Nano particles it is reactive enough to react with water at room temperatures.
The AlN is formed in the process of making aluminum from the ores involved using electricity.
Ah-h-h-h, your same quote states that for an 8nm shell, the melting point is almost 500 C higher! (And you're still in the nm range).
Yes however the smaller particles, are the ones that are producing the shock waves you have been referring to less than 4nm, you do understand the theories that you yourself propose do you not?
The size of the particle in relation to the speed at which the particle expands and breaks to oxide layer releasing the energy of the entrapped aluminum metal inside the oxide is what determines the speed of the reaction.
For your proposed methods to work your nano particles have to be in the range of 4 nm or lower.
That size particle will suffer Self-deflagration in a hydrocarbon fire at 250c from the water produced in the combustion of the HYDRO-carbons.
The water produced by hydrocarbons and he shock and heat energy of the fires is why nano super thermites that I tested did not survive the fires.
Please tell us how an Al nanopowder with 8nm thick oxide shell, properly sealed with something that wouldn't melt and would be water-proof, would hold up in a WTC scenario.
Please propose a substance that would seal nano thermites, be water proof and not undergo cracking do to thermal expansion, one thermal expansion crack allowing one nano particle to inter react can set off a whole charge, friction from shock waves on impact can set off a whole charge.
I have not as of yet found the perfect substance that can positively seal Nano thermites in fires, Metals when heated are subject to gaseous intrusion, and some metals like steel can actually give off carbon monoxide which can react with nano particles.
Plastics can decompose, in similar fire tests to the world trade center I have not found a substance that would insure nano thermite survival and allow you to assemble a charge that would survive the fires.
I have not at this time found a container that would do what you claim and not set the charge off during its manufacture such high temperature containers, with perfect insulation and sealing properties are high heat formed so forming the container around the thermite would activate the charge itself.
Also 8nm Nano powders will not work in your proposed theory, the speed of activation in that size particle is to slow, to be useful.
Remember you have certain energy release vectors that can not be ignored.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 23 2008, 02:41 AM)
obviously it was an inside job.
as obvious now as it was two years ago.
welcome CFR/NWO overlords! your gentle and absolute rule will bless and benefit us all in it's iron grip!
doubleplus goodness.
How can you use the name Newton and then propose a theory that defies Newton's third law of motion?
An action on matter that shows no reaction of the matter to the energy applied to it.
as obvious now as it was two years ago.
welcome CFR/NWO overlords! your gentle and absolute rule will bless and benefit us all in it's iron grip!
doubleplus goodness.
How can you use the name Newton and then propose a theory that defies Newton's third law of motion?
An action on matter that shows no reaction of the matter to the energy applied to it.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 22 2008, 07:41 PM)
obviously it was an inside job.
I agree.
Inside four airliners.
I agree.
Inside four airliners.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 23 2008, 04:51 PM)
I agree.
Inside four airliners.
Fires Inside Two Towers,
Fires Inside one pentagon,
Inside the Ground at Shanksville,
World Trade Center 7 with fire inside,
All this inside the universe and with in the laws of that universe.
Everything about it screams inside Job, the work of an energy source the momentum and thermal energy of the plane combined with the thermal energy of the materials in the buildings.
There is no evidence for an outside force such as explosives, such must leave evidence but there is none.
There is no evidence for Thermates-Thermite, such must in this universe leave evidence, none is seen.
There is no evidence for Thermite powered oxygen cutting such must in this universe leave evidence, but there is none.
Controlled Demolition violates Newton's third law of motion, because it must have evidence not only of the action of explosives but of the reaction of materials to those explosives recorded by the very materials themselves.
Newton How can you argue with Newton, and Newtonian physics?
Inside four airliners.
Fires Inside Two Towers,
Fires Inside one pentagon,
Inside the Ground at Shanksville,
World Trade Center 7 with fire inside,
All this inside the universe and with in the laws of that universe.
Everything about it screams inside Job, the work of an energy source the momentum and thermal energy of the plane combined with the thermal energy of the materials in the buildings.
There is no evidence for an outside force such as explosives, such must leave evidence but there is none.
There is no evidence for Thermates-Thermite, such must in this universe leave evidence, none is seen.
There is no evidence for Thermite powered oxygen cutting such must in this universe leave evidence, but there is none.
Controlled Demolition violates Newton's third law of motion, because it must have evidence not only of the action of explosives but of the reaction of materials to those explosives recorded by the very materials themselves.
Newton How can you argue with Newton, and Newtonian physics?
sorry. unconvincing.
explanations are unsatisfactory. mere rationalizations.
newton agrees.
explanations are unsatisfactory. mere rationalizations.
newton agrees.
from the OPERATION NORTHWOODS document:
"*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was
presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft
would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots
retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
and parts of aircraft found.
QUOTE
"*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was
presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft
would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots
retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
and parts of aircraft found.
QUOTE
from arthursUnlike Wine, its pretty clear that STUPIDITY does not improve with age.
Like metamars, newton formed his opinion based on his own FALSE interpretations of what happened that day.
Like metamars, newton formed his opinion based on his own FALSE interpretations of what happened that day.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| from arthursUnlike Wine, its pretty clear that STUPIDITY does not improve with age. Like metamars, newton formed his opinion based on his own FALSE interpretations of what happened that day. |
There were NO pyroclastic flows
the dust clouds had fireballs in them. things in their pathway burst into flame, cars and firetrucks were flipped. the clouds were HOT.
QUOTE
The fall times are realistic for a global collapse of the structures in question and are NOT at Free Fall speed.
says you. however, the chinese engineers who modelled it got a time of 90 seconds. and, you can see features exploding out of the towers faster than debris falling on the outside.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fall times are realistic for a global collapse of the structures in question and are NOT at Free Fall speed. |
says you. however, the chinese engineers who modelled it got a time of 90 seconds. and, you can see features exploding out of the towers faster than debris falling on the outside.
The fall times were at ~ 2/3 G so the towers offered sigificantly more resistance than air.
not really. the landmark tower took 15 seconds to collapse, and it was a controlled demolition of a much smaller building.
QUOTE
The columns didn't all give out at precisely the same moment, the failure WAS PROGRSSIVE in nature and in both towers, tilting in fact was key to the failure as was the slow pulling in of the columns on one side.
the onset was sudden. everyone knows it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The columns didn't all give out at precisely the same moment, the failure WAS PROGRSSIVE in nature and in both towers, tilting in fact was key to the failure as was the slow pulling in of the columns on one side. |
the onset was sudden. everyone knows it.
The witness accounts, engine remains and the damage profile prove that no one painted 2 A3 Skywarriors to look like an American 757.
the parts could have been planted in the confusion. these engine has been said to be the wrong type. see the operation northwoods plan.
QUOTE
Tower 7 took ~ 18 seconds to fall, and even the final curtain wall wasn't at freefall speed.
Other views of the helo show it didn't fire anything.
Other views of the helo show it didn't fire anything.
the tower's exterior took 6.6 seconds.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tower 7 took ~ 18 seconds to fall, and even the final curtain wall wasn't at freefall speed. Other views of the helo show it didn't fire anything. |
the tower's exterior took 6.6 seconds.
from newton
the only comparison that 'mimics' these 'collapses' is controlled demolition.
and, not only that, but controlled demos of smaller buildings(the landmark, for one) have been measured(by me) to take longer than the demolition of the twin towers.
the landmark's(a 'mere' 30 storeys) roofline hits the ground about 15 seconds after the first flash at the base of the tower.
QUOTE
But, like metamars, even when ALL of this idiocy has been debunked, repeatedly, newton still believes his original conclusion was correct, that it was an inside job, even though after years of trying to find ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that will stick,
he has come up with
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA
NOTHING
Arthur
he has come up with
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA
NOTHING
Arthur
evidence won't stick because the government, media and justice system are all controlled by a handful of men. you know them.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 23 2008, 08:05 PM)
from the OPERATION NORTHWOODS document:
....
Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida
Ah yes, drones... Stewart AFB is where the flight paths of the two planes that hit the twin towers oddly converged.
"Stewart International Airport (IATA: SWF, ICAO: KSWF) is located near Newburgh, New York, in the southern Hudson Valley, 55 miles (88.5 km) north of New York City ... At the end of the 20th century it became the first U.S. commercial airport to be privatized when United Kingdom-based National Express Group was awarded a 99-year lease on the airport."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_International_Airport
----
....
Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida
Ah yes, drones... Stewart AFB is where the flight paths of the two planes that hit the twin towers oddly converged.
"Stewart International Airport (IATA: SWF, ICAO: KSWF) is located near Newburgh, New York, in the southern Hudson Valley, 55 miles (88.5 km) north of New York City ... At the end of the 20th century it became the first U.S. commercial airport to be privatized when United Kingdom-based National Express Group was awarded a 99-year lease on the airport."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_International_Airport
----
Strictly speaking, not a
Pyroclastic Flow
but somewhat similar. There is no name for what occurred, as it has never previously been observed. (And probably, in fact, has never previously occurred.)
Pyroclastic Flow
but somewhat similar. There is no name for what occurred, as it has never previously been observed. (And probably, in fact, has never previously occurred.)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 23 2008, 03:23 PM)
the dust clouds had fireballs in them. things in their pathway burst into flame, cars and firetrucks were flipped. the clouds were HOT.
says you. however, the chinese engineers who modelled it got a time of 90 seconds. and, you can see features exploding out of the towers faster than debris falling on the outside.
not really. the landmark tower took 15 seconds to collapse, and it was a controlled demolition of a much smaller building.
the onset was sudden. everyone knows it.
the parts could have been planted in the confusion. these engine has been said to be the wrong type. see the operation northwoods plan.
the tower's exterior took 6.6 seconds.
evidence won't stick because the government, media and justice system are all controlled by a handful of men. you know them.
And so we see, newton doesn't improve with age either.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Feb 23 2008, 07:58 PM)
sorry. unconvincing.
explanations are unsatisfactory. mere rationalizations.
newton agrees.
Newton at no time in history have such high energy events as you propose occurred without leaving direct physical evidence of the events on the very mass of objects around them.
Can you please explain why there is no physical visual record of a Controlled Demolition on the steel structures that held the building in place in the first place?
The lack of physical evidence to your proposal means that your proposal violates Newton's third law of motion regarding action reaction.
You can not argue with Newton's LAWS, Newton.
You have such a high energy event that it destroys these structures in a certain manor then evidence has to be present on the very steel itself of the interaction Of the steel with the energy force the destroyed the structure.
If shaped charges were used then evidence of the Monroe effect would be present.
If explosives were used then there would be rippled steel, and embedded shrapnel.
If thermite were used there would have been huge amounts of iron and Aluminum oxide combined residue.
If thermite oxygen cutters were used there would be Columns with large amounts of vaporized iron, deposited above the cut, and bolt holes or clamp marks, above and below the cuts.
What you propose Newton is simply impossible, a High energy action, and reaction with mass that leaves no trace of having occurred in violation of Newton's Third law of motion.
I have tested all the CD, Ideas except the space beam ones, and even they most likely would have left some time of recorded evidence that they occurred, if you wish to propose a theory that will work and match the evidence then I am all ears.
The ones simply proposed so far are just impossible based on tests I have done myself, every test leaves easy to see evidence that with the amount of photos should be present in at least one of them!
Why is there no evidence, a high energy event not recorded on the mass it effected is in violation Newton's third law of motion there is no way for you to wiggle out of this Newton it is as much a physical fact of the universe as light, and mass.
explanations are unsatisfactory. mere rationalizations.
newton agrees.
Newton at no time in history have such high energy events as you propose occurred without leaving direct physical evidence of the events on the very mass of objects around them.
Can you please explain why there is no physical visual record of a Controlled Demolition on the steel structures that held the building in place in the first place?
The lack of physical evidence to your proposal means that your proposal violates Newton's third law of motion regarding action reaction.
You can not argue with Newton's LAWS, Newton.
You have such a high energy event that it destroys these structures in a certain manor then evidence has to be present on the very steel itself of the interaction Of the steel with the energy force the destroyed the structure.
If shaped charges were used then evidence of the Monroe effect would be present.
If explosives were used then there would be rippled steel, and embedded shrapnel.
If thermite were used there would have been huge amounts of iron and Aluminum oxide combined residue.
If thermite oxygen cutters were used there would be Columns with large amounts of vaporized iron, deposited above the cut, and bolt holes or clamp marks, above and below the cuts.
What you propose Newton is simply impossible, a High energy action, and reaction with mass that leaves no trace of having occurred in violation of Newton's Third law of motion.
I have tested all the CD, Ideas except the space beam ones, and even they most likely would have left some time of recorded evidence that they occurred, if you wish to propose a theory that will work and match the evidence then I am all ears.
The ones simply proposed so far are just impossible based on tests I have done myself, every test leaves easy to see evidence that with the amount of photos should be present in at least one of them!
Why is there no evidence, a high energy event not recorded on the mass it effected is in violation Newton's third law of motion there is no way for you to wiggle out of this Newton it is as much a physical fact of the universe as light, and mass.
[post deleted via editing]
I can't find a delete button.
I can't find a delete button.
.
Hi guys!
Regarding the SO-CALLED 'pyroclastic' flows from 'ground contact' of the whole mess of HOT and still burning/outgassing mess...
It should be understood that all the PARTIALLY COMBUSTED and STILL OUTGASSING 'combustibles' entrained into all those voluminous EXPULSIONS at ground compression of the whole mess, would have included/produced as it went, ALL SORTS of 'pockets' of combustible gases and pre-partially-combusted (CO) gases that when they FINALLY and CHAOTICALLY (because of turbulence and pathway/separations of the flows through/around the surrounding city/streetscape) would THEN EXPLODE/RE-IGNITE at the location coincident with MORE ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN being swirled INTO such 'pockets' in those clouds at various random events (burning cars etc once the 'pockets' DID finally get some mixing with available oxygen AT those locations.
Given the 'ground expulsion cloud' scenario containing further 'latent' combustible 'pockets' of gases/finer particles which was produced by tower fires/collapses, those CLOUDS AS A WHOLE need NOT be 'pyroclastic' to give the observed instances of localised explosions/effects.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi guys!
Regarding the SO-CALLED 'pyroclastic' flows from 'ground contact' of the whole mess of HOT and still burning/outgassing mess...
It should be understood that all the PARTIALLY COMBUSTED and STILL OUTGASSING 'combustibles' entrained into all those voluminous EXPULSIONS at ground compression of the whole mess, would have included/produced as it went, ALL SORTS of 'pockets' of combustible gases and pre-partially-combusted (CO) gases that when they FINALLY and CHAOTICALLY (because of turbulence and pathway/separations of the flows through/around the surrounding city/streetscape) would THEN EXPLODE/RE-IGNITE at the location coincident with MORE ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN being swirled INTO such 'pockets' in those clouds at various random events (burning cars etc once the 'pockets' DID finally get some mixing with available oxygen AT those locations.
Given the 'ground expulsion cloud' scenario containing further 'latent' combustible 'pockets' of gases/finer particles which was produced by tower fires/collapses, those CLOUDS AS A WHOLE need NOT be 'pyroclastic' to give the observed instances of localised explosions/effects.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 24 2008, 02:41 AM)
.
Hi guys!
Regarding the SO-CALLED 'pyroclastic' flows from 'ground contact' of the whole mess of HOT and still burning/outgassing mess...
It should be understood that all the PARTIALLY COMBUSTED and STILL OUTGASSING 'combustibles' entrained into all those voluminous EXPULSIONS at ground compression of the whole mess, would have included/produced as it went, ALL SORTS of 'pockets' of combustible gases and pre-partially-combusted (CO) gases that when they FINALLY and CHAOTICALLY (because of turbulence and pathway/separations of the flows through/around the surrounding city/streetscape) would THEN EXPLODE/RE-IGNITE at the location coincident with MORE ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN being swirled INTO such 'pockets' in those clouds at various random events (burning cars etc once the 'pockets' DID finally get some mixing with available oxygen AT those locations.
Given the 'ground expulsion cloud' scenario containing further 'latent' combustible 'pockets' of gases/finer particles which was produced by tower fires/collapses, those CLOUDS AS A WHOLE need NOT be 'pyroclastic' to give the observed instances of localised explosions/effects.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Also RC. do not forget that merely compressing gasses causes them to heat up, and increases the oxidation potential by increasing the concentration of oxygen in a given area.
Your going to have a lot of reactions in those debris clouds, from heated metals and heated debris and gases caused by combustion, some of the cars even show a hot flow passing over them damaging the outside window and otter portions of the cars without touching the insides that would be do to a pressure effect of actually sucking air out of the cars interior that shields the interior from combustion damage.
Hi guys!
Regarding the SO-CALLED 'pyroclastic' flows from 'ground contact' of the whole mess of HOT and still burning/outgassing mess...
It should be understood that all the PARTIALLY COMBUSTED and STILL OUTGASSING 'combustibles' entrained into all those voluminous EXPULSIONS at ground compression of the whole mess, would have included/produced as it went, ALL SORTS of 'pockets' of combustible gases and pre-partially-combusted (CO) gases that when they FINALLY and CHAOTICALLY (because of turbulence and pathway/separations of the flows through/around the surrounding city/streetscape) would THEN EXPLODE/RE-IGNITE at the location coincident with MORE ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN being swirled INTO such 'pockets' in those clouds at various random events (burning cars etc once the 'pockets' DID finally get some mixing with available oxygen AT those locations.
Given the 'ground expulsion cloud' scenario containing further 'latent' combustible 'pockets' of gases/finer particles which was produced by tower fires/collapses, those CLOUDS AS A WHOLE need NOT be 'pyroclastic' to give the observed instances of localised explosions/effects.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Also RC. do not forget that merely compressing gasses causes them to heat up, and increases the oxidation potential by increasing the concentration of oxygen in a given area.
Your going to have a lot of reactions in those debris clouds, from heated metals and heated debris and gases caused by combustion, some of the cars even show a hot flow passing over them damaging the outside window and otter portions of the cars without touching the insides that would be do to a pressure effect of actually sucking air out of the cars interior that shields the interior from combustion damage.
David B. Benson:
Do you mind returning to a previous topic of discussion? I'm thinking about the differences between data from each of the pixel columns C447-449. If you recall, I'd stated the following in a nutshell:
Either the Bayesian analysis produces significantly different results when running the columns individually, or the analysis is not so fine-grained for this application. The basis for this assertion comes from the fact that they are expected to be different because of error introduced by the measurement method.
The analysis does produce different results overall, but not for all hypotheses.
If I may summarize your position, it is that the overall error is small so should be of little consequence on the whole, and that the hypotheses which have superior performance across multiple columns are, in fact, superior hypotheses overall in the particular context of WTC1.
May I suggest again that some or all of the differences in ranking/performance of hypotheses may be due to artifact of non-random error? And that those hypotheses which fare well against more than one column may do so because they are more generally adaptable forms anyway, not necessarily because they are a better fit to the real context?
Could you comment and speculate: if you had data taken from the same smear-o-grams, same columns but instead obtained via algorithm in an automated fashion with one data point per frame, how would you expect the results to differ from the previous runs using manual data with less points?
Do you mind returning to a previous topic of discussion? I'm thinking about the differences between data from each of the pixel columns C447-449. If you recall, I'd stated the following in a nutshell:
Either the Bayesian analysis produces significantly different results when running the columns individually, or the analysis is not so fine-grained for this application. The basis for this assertion comes from the fact that they are expected to be different because of error introduced by the measurement method.
The analysis does produce different results overall, but not for all hypotheses.
If I may summarize your position, it is that the overall error is small so should be of little consequence on the whole, and that the hypotheses which have superior performance across multiple columns are, in fact, superior hypotheses overall in the particular context of WTC1.
May I suggest again that some or all of the differences in ranking/performance of hypotheses may be due to artifact of non-random error? And that those hypotheses which fare well against more than one column may do so because they are more generally adaptable forms anyway, not necessarily because they are a better fit to the real context?
Could you comment and speculate: if you had data taken from the same smear-o-grams, same columns but instead obtained via algorithm in an automated fashion with one data point per frame, how would you expect the results to differ from the previous runs using manual data with less points?
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 24 2008, 03:23 PM)
Do you mind returning to a previous topic of discussion?
If I may summarize your position, it is that the overall error is small so should be of little consequence on the whole, and that the hypotheses which have superior performance across multiple columns are, in fact, superior hypotheses overall in the particular context of WTC1.
May I suggest again that some or all of the differences in ranking/performance of hypotheses may be due to artifact of non-random error?
And that those hypotheses which fare well against more than one column may do so because they are more generally adaptable forms anyway, not necessarily because they are a better fit to the real context?
Could you comment and speculate: if you had data taken from the same smear-o-grams, same columns but instead obtained via algorithm in an automated fashion with one data point per frame, how would you expect the results to differ from the previous runs using manual data with less points?
Oh, not at all! I become weary of attempting to persuade poster newton to actually use physics.
Yes, that is a reasonable summary.
Yes, but we have no way to control for that. At least so far.
Possibly. But hypotheses which are unstable, in the sense of having dramatically different parameters depending upon the pixel column data set used, are unlikely to represent reality. However, the Bayes factor method selects those which give the better fit, irrespective of adaptability.
I don't expect to discover dramatic differences. With more data (and possibly more precise data) it may be possible to disconfirm, in the Bayesian sense, some of the hypotheses which cannot now be disconfirmed because those are not at least 5 dB down from the best hypothesis.
If I may summarize your position, it is that the overall error is small so should be of little consequence on the whole, and that the hypotheses which have superior performance across multiple columns are, in fact, superior hypotheses overall in the particular context of WTC1.
May I suggest again that some or all of the differences in ranking/performance of hypotheses may be due to artifact of non-random error?
And that those hypotheses which fare well against more than one column may do so because they are more generally adaptable forms anyway, not necessarily because they are a better fit to the real context?
Could you comment and speculate: if you had data taken from the same smear-o-grams, same columns but instead obtained via algorithm in an automated fashion with one data point per frame, how would you expect the results to differ from the previous runs using manual data with less points?
Oh, not at all! I become weary of attempting to persuade poster newton to actually use physics.
Yes, that is a reasonable summary.
Yes, but we have no way to control for that. At least so far.
Possibly. But hypotheses which are unstable, in the sense of having dramatically different parameters depending upon the pixel column data set used, are unlikely to represent reality. However, the Bayes factor method selects those which give the better fit, irrespective of adaptability.
I don't expect to discover dramatic differences. With more data (and possibly more precise data) it may be possible to disconfirm, in the Bayesian sense, some of the hypotheses which cannot now be disconfirmed because those are not at least 5 dB down from the best hypothesis.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 24 2008, 10:46 PM)
Possibly. But hypotheses which are unstable, in the sense of having dramatically different parameters depending upon the pixel column data set used, are unlikely to represent reality. However, the Bayes factor method selects those which give the better fit, irrespective of adaptability.
Instability does indeed seem a strike against.
I think it will be a real sharp picture of slightly distorted data, and will take time to run!
I think I can produce such datasets fairly quickly. I don't know how long you plan on hanging out here, but stand by.
Meantime, what do you think of running the Y portion of the dark band manual X-Y data I posted? Very few points, but doesn't suffer from the systematic error of the smear-o-gram derived data.
Instability does indeed seem a strike against.
QUOTE
I don't expect to discover dramatic differences. With more data (and possibly more precise data) it may be possible to disconfirm, in the Bayesian sense, some of the hypotheses which cannot now be disconfirmed because those are not at least 5 dB down from the best hypothesis.
I think it will be a real sharp picture of slightly distorted data, and will take time to run!
I think I can produce such datasets fairly quickly. I don't know how long you plan on hanging out here, but stand by.
Meantime, what do you think of running the Y portion of the dark band manual X-Y data I posted? Very few points, but doesn't suffer from the systematic error of the smear-o-gram derived data.
By the way, I have the dimensions you were seeking the other day, from adoucette and shagster. Let me see if I can dig them up.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 24 2008, 03:54 PM)
I think it will be a real sharp picture of slightly distorted data, and will take time to run!
... but stand by.
Meantime, what do you think of running the Y portion of the dark band manual X-Y data I posted? Very few points, but doesn't suffer from the systematic error of the smear-o-gram derived data.
I'll shortly have a machine which runs about 5 times as fast as this one.
Best is to e-mail the data to me. Hard to copy-n-paste large data sets from here.
Is not that what I have been doing?
... but stand by.
Meantime, what do you think of running the Y portion of the dark band manual X-Y data I posted? Very few points, but doesn't suffer from the systematic error of the smear-o-gram derived data.
I'll shortly have a machine which runs about 5 times as fast as this one.
Best is to e-mail the data to me. Hard to copy-n-paste large data sets from here.
Is not that what I have been doing?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 24 2008, 11:02 PM)
Is not that what I have been doing?
Nope. You've been running smear-o-gram data. The XY data was placed directly on the frames, not one-dimensional. Both are manual operations, but the XY method follows the feature in the XY plane. There is no multiplicity of pixel columns in the XY data, no columns at all, only the feature itself.
Nope. You've been running smear-o-gram data. The XY data was placed directly on the frames, not one-dimensional. Both are manual operations, but the XY method follows the feature in the XY plane. There is no multiplicity of pixel columns in the XY data, no columns at all, only the feature itself.
The XY data I'm talking about can be found here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry264761
but I'm also going to start redirecting inquiries to here:
http://kjafnjnhk.myfastforum.org/about6.html
because all of the information is in one place. I'm building that up as time permits, but both the smear-derived and XY data are located there.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry264761
but I'm also going to start redirecting inquiries to here:
http://kjafnjnhk.myfastforum.org/about6.html
because all of the information is in one place. I'm building that up as time permits, but both the smear-derived and XY data are located there.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 24 2008, 04:15 PM)
Nope. You've been running smear-o-gram data. The XY data was placed directly on the frames, not one-dimensional. Both are manual operations, but the XY method follows the feature in the XY plane. There is no multiplicity of pixel columns in the XY data, no columns at all, only the feature itself.
Ah. Yes, this would make a useful consistency check.
I have it, just haven't used it yet. I did not recall that the dark band was in that dataset.
Ah. Yes, this would make a useful consistency check.
I have it, just haven't used it yet. I did not recall that the dark band was in that dataset.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 24 2008, 11:20 PM)
I have it, just haven't used it yet. I did not recall that the dark band was in that dataset.
Yes. Fourth column is dark band vertical.
Yes. Fourth column is dark band vertical.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 24 2008, 11:02 PM)
Best is to e-mail the data to me. Hard to copy-n-paste large data sets from here.
As usual, it'll take a little longer than I thought. I will email you the sets when they're available, probably in a few hours.
As usual, it'll take a little longer than I thought. I will email you the sets when they're available, probably in a few hours.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Feb 24 2008, 01:03 PM)
Also RC. do not forget that merely compressing gasses causes them to heat up, and increases the oxidation potential by increasing the concentration of oxygen in a given area.
Your going to have a lot of reactions in those debris clouds, from heated metals and heated debris and gases caused by combustion, some of the cars even show a hot flow passing over them damaging the outside window and otter portions of the cars without touching the insides that would be do to a pressure effect of actually sucking air out of the cars interior that shields the interior from combustion damage.
Yep. Too right, mate!
And thanks also for pointing out that extra 'slipstream vacuum' aspect to it all, Chainsaw.
Man, it's all so complicated and unpredictable when we look at the LARGE SCALE of the 9/11 events in time, space and involved materials/processes!
RC.
.
Your going to have a lot of reactions in those debris clouds, from heated metals and heated debris and gases caused by combustion, some of the cars even show a hot flow passing over them damaging the outside window and otter portions of the cars without touching the insides that would be do to a pressure effect of actually sucking air out of the cars interior that shields the interior from combustion damage.
Yep. Too right, mate!
And thanks also for pointing out that extra 'slipstream vacuum' aspect to it all, Chainsaw.
Man, it's all so complicated and unpredictable when we look at the LARGE SCALE of the 9/11 events in time, space and involved materials/processes!
RC.
.
Quick look at an automated run on the C447 smear-o-gram. Yes, that is artifact at the end. This method yields only a pixel resolution but has a point from every frame. Starts at frame 800.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2corhid.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/2corhid.jpg
Neat. Up to the artifact, notice that the 'parabola' becomes almost a straight line. This indicates that terminal speed is almost reached. So just this is enough to strongly suggest that the vertical avalanche resistive force is (approximately) correct.
Here's the data from that, in frames and pixels, both integer values in this case.
CODE
Frame,Row
0,12
1,12
2,12
3,12
4,12
5,12
6,12
7,12
8,12
9,12
10,12
11,12
12,12
13,12
14,12
15,12
16,12
17,12
18,12
19,12
20,12
21,12
22,12
23,12
24,12
25,12
26,12
27,12
28,12
29,12
30,12
31,12
32,12
33,12
34,12
35,12
36,12
37,12
38,12
39,13
40,12
41,12
42,13
43,12
44,12
45,12
46,12
47,12
48,12
49,12
50,12
51,12
52,12
53,13
54,13
55,13
56,13
57,13
58,13
59,13
60,13
61,13
62,12
63,13
64,13
65,13
66,13
67,13
68,12
69,13
70,13
71,12
72,13
73,13
74,13
75,13
76,13
77,13
78,13
79,13
80,13
81,13
82,13
83,13
84,13
85,13
86,13
87,13
88,13
89,13
90,13
91,13
92,13
93,13
94,13
95,13
96,13
97,13
98,13
99,13
100,13
101,13
102,13
103,13
104,13
105,13
106,13
107,13
108,13
109,13
110,13
111,13
112,13
113,13
114,14
115,14
116,14
117,14
118,14
119,14
120,14
121,14
122,14
123,14
124,15
125,15
126,15
127,15
128,15
129,16
130,16
131,16
132,17
133,17
134,17
135,18
136,18
137,18
138,19
139,19
140,20
141,20
142,21
143,21
144,22
145,23
146,23
147,24
148,25
149,25
150,27
151,27
152,28
153,29
154,30
155,31
156,32
157,33
158,34
159,35
160,36
161,37
162,38
163,40
164,41
165,42
166,43
167,45
168,46
169,48
170,49
171,51
172,52
173,54
174,55
175,57
176,58
177,60
178,62
179,64
180,66
181,67
182,69
183,71
184,73
185,75
186,77
187,79
188,81
189,83
190,86
191,88
192,89
193,90
194,92
195,94
196,96
197,99
198,101
199,103
200,105
201,108
202,110
203,112
204,115
205,117
206,119
207,122
208,124
209,126
210,126
211,129
212,131
213,132
214,131
215,131
216,134
217,134
218,125
219,124
220,126
221,128
222,131
223,133
224,136
225,138
226,141
227,143
228,146
229,148
230,151
231,151
232,149
233,146
234,141
0,12
1,12
2,12
3,12
4,12
5,12
6,12
7,12
8,12
9,12
10,12
11,12
12,12
13,12
14,12
15,12
16,12
17,12
18,12
19,12
20,12
21,12
22,12
23,12
24,12
25,12
26,12
27,12
28,12
29,12
30,12
31,12
32,12
33,12
34,12
35,12
36,12
37,12
38,12
39,13
40,12
41,12
42,13
43,12
44,12
45,12
46,12
47,12
48,12
49,12
50,12
51,12
52,12
53,13
54,13
55,13
56,13
57,13
58,13
59,13
60,13
61,13
62,12
63,13
64,13
65,13
66,13
67,13
68,12
69,13
70,13
71,12
72,13
73,13
74,13
75,13
76,13
77,13
78,13
79,13
80,13
81,13
82,13
83,13
84,13
85,13
86,13
87,13
88,13
89,13
90,13
91,13
92,13
93,13
94,13
95,13
96,13
97,13
98,13
99,13
100,13
101,13
102,13
103,13
104,13
105,13
106,13
107,13
108,13
109,13
110,13
111,13
112,13
113,13
114,14
115,14
116,14
117,14
118,14
119,14
120,14
121,14
122,14
123,14
124,15
125,15
126,15
127,15
128,15
129,16
130,16
131,16
132,17
133,17
134,17
135,18
136,18
137,18
138,19
139,19
140,20
141,20
142,21
143,21
144,22
145,23
146,23
147,24
148,25
149,25
150,27
151,27
152,28
153,29
154,30
155,31
156,32
157,33
158,34
159,35
160,36
161,37
162,38
163,40
164,41
165,42
166,43
167,45
168,46
169,48
170,49
171,51
172,52
173,54
174,55
175,57
176,58
177,60
178,62
179,64
180,66
181,67
182,69
183,71
184,73
185,75
186,77
187,79
188,81
189,83
190,86
191,88
192,89
193,90
194,92
195,94
196,96
197,99
198,101
199,103
200,105
201,108
202,110
203,112
204,115
205,117
206,119
207,122
208,124
209,126
210,126
211,129
212,131
213,132
214,131
215,131
216,134
217,134
218,125
219,124
220,126
221,128
222,131
223,133
224,136
225,138
226,141
227,143
228,146
229,148
230,151
231,151
232,149
233,146
234,141
I've only used this method three times, the others being an F4 smear and the Landmark. I don't like it much because it inherits whatever distortions the smear introduces, plus it doesn't interpolate pixels. But this should match with the eyeball C447 data pretty well, and that's what I'm going to check next.
Edited to trim (only the constant) trash values at the end.
So you think that the bobble at the end is real?
Either way, I'll take an e-mail of it, preferably with frame number and timestamp.
Either way, I'll take an e-mail of it, preferably with frame number and timestamp.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 25 2008, 01:31 AM)
So you think that the bobble at the end is real?
Either way, I'll take an e-mail of it, preferably with frame number and timestamp.
No, but I like it! The method selects the wrong point and starts following it. It contaminates the tail, too. The real curve doesn't go shallower like that.
I did send it on to you but ignore it until I figure out why it seems to disagree so much with the other methods. The code doesn't yet produce a curve overlaid on the image for visual verification.
Either way, I'll take an e-mail of it, preferably with frame number and timestamp.
No, but I like it! The method selects the wrong point and starts following it. It contaminates the tail, too. The real curve doesn't go shallower like that.
I did send it on to you but ignore it until I figure out why it seems to disagree so much with the other methods. The code doesn't yet produce a curve overlaid on the image for visual verification.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 24 2008, 06:37 PM)
The real curve doesn't go shallower like that.
Does. Plot the calculated data previously posted here. Note also that the speed is clearly going asymptotic (to about 25 m/s).
Does. Plot the calculated data previously posted here. Note also that the speed is clearly going asymptotic (to about 25 m/s).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 25 2008, 01:43 AM)
Does. Plot the calculated data previously posted here. Note also that the speed is clearly going asymptotic (to about 25 m/s).
Does?
Here is the source smear-o-gram for the C447 data, frames 800-1099:
http://i29.tinypic.com/33tgnep.jpg
Let me adjust the view a little and post another image in a sec.
Does?
Here is the source smear-o-gram for the C447 data, frames 800-1099:
http://i29.tinypic.com/33tgnep.jpg
Let me adjust the view a little and post another image in a sec.
Here is the smear-o-gram in negative, contrast-enhanced. A line has been added, tangent to the 'linear' end of the curve.
http://i31.tinypic.com/wwi4qu.png
Edit: if anything, it goes steeper at the very end. I wouldn't trust the 1D smear too far on the 3D motion projection, anyway...
http://i31.tinypic.com/wwi4qu.png
Edit: if anything, it goes steeper at the very end. I wouldn't trust the 1D smear too far on the 3D motion projection, anyway...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 25 2008, 01:43 AM)
Does. Plot the calculated data previously posted here. Note also that the speed is clearly going asymptotic (to about 25 m/s).
I didn't mean shallower in the sense that it reached a terminal velocity, I meant shallower as in slowing down, the WTC7 appeared to do at the end of one of the smears.
I didn't mean shallower in the sense that it reached a terminal velocity, I meant shallower as in slowing down, the WTC7 appeared to do at the end of one of the smears.
I was wrong (good!) when I said earlier the automated data disagreed with previous manual data. Not so. The agreement is great. Here's the original C447 manual data plotted with the new automated C447 data:
http://i28.tinypic.com/71mcud.jpg
This is one pass, one threshold, giving one-pixel resolution. Next step is to do multi-pass over a range of detection thresholds, determined by the intensities of the dark band curve itself. This will give effective sub-pixel resolution, as the datasets can be directly averaged.
I haven't gotten around to trimming the trash off the end.
http://i28.tinypic.com/71mcud.jpg
This is one pass, one threshold, giving one-pixel resolution. Next step is to do multi-pass over a range of detection thresholds, determined by the intensities of the dark band curve itself. This will give effective sub-pixel resolution, as the datasets can be directly averaged.
I haven't gotten around to trimming the trash off the end.
This is a composite of 11 thresholds - the min-mean-max plotted with the previous manual C447 data.
http://i28.tinypic.com/a3zfp3.jpg
Not nearly as smooth as the hand-drawn curve. I think (know?) the automated version is much more faithful to video, even if not as pretty.
http://i28.tinypic.com/a3zfp3.jpg
Not nearly as smooth as the hand-drawn curve. I think (know?) the automated version is much more faithful to video, even if not as pretty.
Zoom-in on area of greatest disagreement between manual and automated:
http://i28.tinypic.com/w0st9i.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/w0st9i.jpg
When I placed the points in the manual method, I was trying to follow the center of the curve.
The automated method, which follows the top edge of the curve, seems sensitive to ambient brightness levels. When the antenna falls into the shadow of the smoke, the curve changes intensity as well, leading to error. The scan is top-down to find the top edge of the curve; to correct for this deficiency, the values need to be averaged with a bottom-up scan for the bottom edge, and likely needs an adjustable threshold calculated from the neighboring pixel intensities at each frame.
Thus no new 'good' data has emerged, yet.
The automated method, which follows the top edge of the curve, seems sensitive to ambient brightness levels. When the antenna falls into the shadow of the smoke, the curve changes intensity as well, leading to error. The scan is top-down to find the top edge of the curve; to correct for this deficiency, the values need to be averaged with a bottom-up scan for the bottom edge, and likely needs an adjustable threshold calculated from the neighboring pixel intensities at each frame.
Thus no new 'good' data has emerged, yet.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 24 2008, 10:39 PM)
Thus no new 'good' data has emerged, yet.
But you are on your way.
But you are on your way.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 25 2008, 04:44 PM)
But you are on your way.
Yeah. This was a bit of a side-track - I'm quite interested in the response of Bayesian analysis to varying input. To me, the data is being tested, too, though I know that's not the intent. Unfortunately, as I say, even a good extraction of the smear-o-grams will never be any more accurate than the smear-o-gram itself so I don't want to invest a lot of time in it. The technique used has value, though, because it's the same thing I'd use for 1D edge detection in a frame-based extraction, and I got to see some of its limitations in this exercise.
2D detection of enclosed regions will not suffer from this same shortcoming.
Yeah. This was a bit of a side-track - I'm quite interested in the response of Bayesian analysis to varying input. To me, the data is being tested, too, though I know that's not the intent. Unfortunately, as I say, even a good extraction of the smear-o-grams will never be any more accurate than the smear-o-gram itself so I don't want to invest a lot of time in it. The technique used has value, though, because it's the same thing I'd use for 1D edge detection in a frame-based extraction, and I got to see some of its limitations in this exercise.
2D detection of enclosed regions will not suffer from this same shortcoming.
It seems there is still a bit of controversy over whether or not the antenna moved downward before the roofline.
It did.
The Sauret video was shot on something approaching a broadcast quality video camera. Anyone who doubts that 3 cm of motion can be extracted from this video, taken a mile away, needs to explain how the guy wire for the antenna shows up with great clarity. How thick is that cable?
There were unbroken windows on the north wall leading into this time period. Can the north wall form a hinge without windows breaking? Can breaking windows be observed on this video?
It did.
The Sauret video was shot on something approaching a broadcast quality video camera. Anyone who doubts that 3 cm of motion can be extracted from this video, taken a mile away, needs to explain how the guy wire for the antenna shows up with great clarity. How thick is that cable?
There were unbroken windows on the north wall leading into this time period. Can the north wall form a hinge without windows breaking? Can breaking windows be observed on this video?
To the plot containing original smear-based and recent automated C447 data, I've added the old, manually obtained XY dark band data (Teal(?) dots).
http://i28.tinypic.com/25icgmf.jpg
It agrees with the original smear pretty well!
What I need to do is compare the XY with the other columns 448 and 449. I've been claiming that at most one of the columns is faithful to the real downward motion of the band, because there has to be intrinsic differences between the columns while the XY is a single, accurate transcription of the feature motion (although with less points). Looks like the XY data is a pretty close match to original C447 but the true test is to put all of C447-449 up against the XY. If a visual check is inconclusive as to the closest match, then it's Lagrange interpolation and variance...
http://i28.tinypic.com/25icgmf.jpg
It agrees with the original smear pretty well!
What I need to do is compare the XY with the other columns 448 and 449. I've been claiming that at most one of the columns is faithful to the real downward motion of the band, because there has to be intrinsic differences between the columns while the XY is a single, accurate transcription of the feature motion (although with less points). Looks like the XY data is a pretty close match to original C447 but the true test is to put all of C447-449 up against the XY. If a visual check is inconclusive as to the closest match, then it's Lagrange interpolation and variance...
C447-449 vs XY manual methods:
http://i32.tinypic.com/5pg93.jpg
Which one is which? Only analysis will tell.
http://i32.tinypic.com/5pg93.jpg
Which one is which? Only analysis will tell.
By analysis did I mean anything mathematical? Oh my, no. A close up is sufficient:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2menviv.jpg
The red is XY data which, despite the bumps (I'll go back and examine the placement in those frames), is dark band drop - IN THE IMAGE PLANE - obtained by what I consider to be a superior method. Unfortunately, the XY data stops at frame 980, but it's pretty clear that the real curve is initially steeper than any of C447-449, a condition I predicted by qualitative estimate of the error in the smears.
Of the three, C447 (blue) is the closest to the XY drop curve, C449 (gray/triangle) the farthest, in this particular view.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2menviv.jpg
The red is XY data which, despite the bumps (I'll go back and examine the placement in those frames), is dark band drop - IN THE IMAGE PLANE - obtained by what I consider to be a superior method. Unfortunately, the XY data stops at frame 980, but it's pretty clear that the real curve is initially steeper than any of C447-449, a condition I predicted by qualitative estimate of the error in the smears.
Of the three, C447 (blue) is the closest to the XY drop curve, C449 (gray/triangle) the farthest, in this particular view.
Now I have a question for the more physics-minded: If the antenna on the north tower had instead been a massless rod 1000km tall, constrained to move with the upper block as an intact rigid body as it tilted, would the vertical component of the motion of a point near the tip of the antenna be greater for all t > t_0 than that of a freely falling object dropped at t_0?
No equations necessary. Make the rod 10,000km high, just in case.
Edit: I see einsteen is on this same path. I'm sorry to bring foreign discussions to this table, but they seem pertinent and it's just so much more pleasant here.
Edit^2: einsteen, I must point out that the optical axis is not on the horizontal; in fact, it's large enough that small angles do not apply for the initial motion of the roofline. With that in mind, there should be very little lag between perceptible motion of the antenna and roofline. Camera not at infinity, not at roof level. The roofline just has a smaller initial angle than the antenna. Sufficient resolution should show them moving within a few frames of each other, if indeed the block is truly rigid.
No equations necessary. Make the rod 10,000km high, just in case.
Edit: I see einsteen is on this same path. I'm sorry to bring foreign discussions to this table, but they seem pertinent and it's just so much more pleasant here.
Edit^2: einsteen, I must point out that the optical axis is not on the horizontal; in fact, it's large enough that small angles do not apply for the initial motion of the roofline. With that in mind, there should be very little lag between perceptible motion of the antenna and roofline. Camera not at infinity, not at roof level. The roofline just has a smaller initial angle than the antenna. Sufficient resolution should show them moving within a few frames of each other, if indeed the block is truly rigid.
OWE, I made some posts today at jay ref, why do I waste my energy for that graveyard...in spite of the user unfriendibility (that's NO English......) this is THE forum...I'll read the additions tomorrow. The antenna problem must be solved. That's a duty! But I have also an other duty here I'll PM that
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 25 2008, 08:32 PM)
OWE, I made some posts today at jay ref, why do I waste my energy for that graveyard...in spite of the user unfriendibility (that's NO English......) this is THE forum...I'll read the additions tomorrow. The antenna problem must be solved. That's a duty! But I have also an other duty here I'll PM that
haha, I like the colors better here, too. No ugly Rasputin-like icon staring at me, either.
Yes, let's address this antenna thing!
No rush, of course.
haha, I like the colors better here, too. No ugly Rasputin-like icon staring at me, either.
Yes, let's address this antenna thing!
No rush, of course.
manual XY dark band data gives excellent separation between the two competing hypotheses. The first shocker is the large standard deviation in comparing this dark band Y data to the orginal data collected by Frank Greening:
darkBandAngle=0.271092539162
radiansPerPixel=0.000155097622626
metersPerPixel=0.227985707157
meters per foot =0.3048012
heightInMeters=437.8722223
Z0=0.174679487179 z0=79.73599392
zeroTime=3.83928485886
sd=1.80180052744
CODE
darkBandAngle=0.271092539162
radiansPerPixel=0.000155097622626
metersPerPixel=0.227985707157
meters per foot =0.3048012
heightInMeters=437.8722223
Z0=0.174679487179 z0=79.73599392
zeroTime=3.83928485886
sd=1.80180052744
while the other aspects, including the adjusted zeroTime are the same as before, or nearly so.
The next shocker is the large adjustment in the start time, which means the program wants a very long drop (5--6 meters) at about 5% of gravity before using the crush-down equation:
CODE
Sef-const-F-const-stretch
zOrig-z0=5.07012476683 s0=1.53679686511
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch
zOrig-z0=6.21544742202 s0=1.70154461576
But given all that, good separation:
CODE
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.079
F0=0.0628 F1=0.0214 F2=14.0453 S0=0.5314 S1=-3.2013 S2=0.9999 deltaT=0.3229
Sef-const-F-const-stretch dB= 7.6 sd= 0.301
F0=0.0489 S0=0.4901 deltaT=0.0811
Note that dB = 7.6 is odds of 5.76 to 1.
And a slightly slower fall (best matching hypothesis):
CODE
0.3229 3.108 2.963 -0.145 1.702 124.426 0.523
0.3306 3.046 2.971 -0.075 1.777 135.723 0.523
0.4974 3.312 3.229 -0.083 3.413 503.112 0.515
0.6642 3.674 3.629 -0.045 5.049 1110.134 0.507
0.8311 4.209 4.176 -0.032 6.685 1968.070 0.500
0.9979 4.873 4.880 0.007 8.321 3092.639 0.492
1.1647 5.693 5.747 0.054 9.957 4503.945 0.483
1.2658 6.312 6.355 0.043 10.948 5508.874 0.478
1.3649 6.963 7.015 0.052 11.920 6610.883 0.473
1.4660 7.646 7.753 0.107 12.903 7850.118 0.468
1.5651 8.475 8.540 0.065 13.825 9139.151 0.463
1.6652 9.292 9.396 0.104 14.711 10501.743 0.458
1.7663 10.247 10.321 0.074 15.556 11928.143 0.452
1.8331 11.049 10.965 -0.084 16.086 12891.501 0.449
1.8998 11.566 11.633 0.067 16.593 13867.893 0.446
1.9665 12.402 12.325 -0.076 17.078 14853.644 0.443
2.0333 13.071 13.042 -0.029 17.539 15845.089 0.440
2.1000 13.799 13.780 -0.019 17.978 16838.613 0.437
2.1667 14.712 14.541 -0.171 18.393 17830.689 0.434
6.0000 72.935 22.630 48653.840 0.339
8.0000 108.232 22.630 60243.576 0.304
[deleted]
Edited because -
I'll save my wow for the newer run.
Edited because -
QUOTE
The dark band Y is not zero-adjusted.
I'll save my wow for the newer run.
Oh dear. The dark band Y is not zero-adjusted. I'll have to do that and try again. 
Edited to add: The fit to Greening's original data is very good, much better than the pixel column data sets:
zeroTime=4.10600600898
sd=0.177748038219
Sef-const-F-const-stretch
zOrig-z0=0.655040556093 s0=0.552384186773
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch
zOrig-z0=0.917909131407 s0=0.653893450966
Edited to add: The fit to Greening's original data is very good, much better than the pixel column data sets:
CODE
zeroTime=4.10600600898
sd=0.177748038219
Sef-const-F-const-stretch
zOrig-z0=0.655040556093 s0=0.552384186773
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch
zOrig-z0=0.917909131407 s0=0.653893450966
and the inital drops of 66--92 cm are reasonable.
However, no separation:
CODE
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.055
Sef-const-F-const-stretch dB= 2.3 sd= 0.127
But the calcualted drops (best hypothesis) looks about the same:
CODE
-0.0114 0.459 0.422 -0.037 0.654 17.243 0.541
0.0638 0.434 0.465 0.031 1.391 78.139 0.532
0.2317 0.701 0.665 -0.036 3.037 374.044 0.513
0.3985 1.062 1.015 -0.048 4.673 892.606 0.495
0.5653 1.597 1.530 -0.067 6.309 1645.103 0.477
0.7312 2.260 2.217 -0.043 7.876 2600.184 0.460
0.8990 3.076 3.092 0.016 9.362 3737.531 0.443
0.9981 3.717 3.694 -0.023 10.195 4482.700 0.434
1.0992 4.333 4.373 0.039 11.012 5294.662 0.424
1.1983 5.056 5.102 0.046 11.780 6138.110 0.415
1.2994 5.840 5.910 0.070 12.532 7043.152 0.406
1.3985 6.674 6.765 0.091 13.238 7970.662 0.398
1.4996 7.642 7.701 0.059 13.926 8953.886 0.389
1.5663 8.444 8.353 -0.091 14.363 9621.567 0.383
1.6321 9.015 9.022 0.007 14.779 10292.418 0.378
1.6988 9.853 9.727 -0.126 15.189 10985.581 0.373
1.7665 10.466 10.470 0.005 15.590 11700.368 0.367
1.8333 11.194 11.229 0.034 15.971 12414.527 0.362
1.8990 12.014 12.001 -0.014 16.334 13126.429 0.357
6.0000 87.445 22.783 48265.563 0.177
8.0000 131.454 22.783 60091.787 0.134
although clearly a better fit.
Wow. This time I missed the edit when it came in. Processing...
The first thing which pops into mind is that the mistake is perhaps more interesting than the real thing. Or at least contrasting the pair is more interesting than considering the final run alone. The results suggest the better hypothesis is more generally adaptable to varying input in the sense that it can rank exceedingly well even when fed data with significant systematic error. It's more... flexible?
On the other hand, when approaching a more realistic representation of the motion, the other hypothesis becomes more of a contender.
On the other hand, when approaching a more realistic representation of the motion, the other hypothesis becomes more of a contender.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 25 2008, 04:52 PM)
It's more... flexible?
On the other hand, when approaching a more realistic representation of the motion, the other hypothesis becomes more of a contender.
Yes. The nonconstant frame has six parameters versus three for the constant frame.
Yes. But a constant stretch of 0.321 seems quite large. (That is not quantitative evidence.)
On the other hand, when approaching a more realistic representation of the motion, the other hypothesis becomes more of a contender.
Yes. The nonconstant frame has six parameters versus three for the constant frame.
Yes. But a constant stretch of 0.321 seems quite large. (That is not quantitative evidence.)
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 25 2008, 11:59 PM)
Yes. The nonconstant frame has six parameters versus three for the constant frame.
Yes. But a constant stretch of 0.321 seems quite large. (That is not quantitative evidence.)
More degrees of freedom. It will always have the edge, eh? Lame request, but can you post (the LaTex version of) both forms here?
Expect more compaction? (Air evacuates, trash is 13-15x in compactors, steel columns are...?)
Yes. But a constant stretch of 0.321 seems quite large. (That is not quantitative evidence.)
More degrees of freedom. It will always have the edge, eh? Lame request, but can you post (the LaTex version of) both forms here?
Expect more compaction? (Air evacuates, trash is 13-15x in compactors, steel columns are...?)
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 25 2008, 05:10 PM)
More degrees of freedom. It will always have the edge, eh? Lame request, but can you post (the LaTex version of) both forms here?
Expect more compaction? (Air evacuates, trash is 13-15x in compactors, steel columns are...?)
Tomorrow. Have to run now.
Vertically, the stories with trussed floors were about 27% truss and ceiling system, 46% just air and 27% office furnishings. Bazant suggested 0.20 for a constant stretch.
Expect more compaction? (Air evacuates, trash is 13-15x in compactors, steel columns are...?)
Tomorrow. Have to run now.
Vertically, the stories with trussed floors were about 27% truss and ceiling system, 46% just air and 27% office furnishings. Bazant suggested 0.20 for a constant stretch.
Difference of observed and calculated: http://i27.tinypic.com/iyo4kg.jpg
Speed, KE, and stretch: http://i25.tinypic.com/24e3wvd.jpg
Speed, KE, and stretch: http://i25.tinypic.com/24e3wvd.jpg
Something between
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...319228/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...530391/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55867717@N00/240704703/sizes/o/
This is an impression of the size of the antenna, for date information
remove /sizes/o/ from the urls
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...319228/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...530391/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55867717@N00/240704703/sizes/o/
This is an impression of the size of the antenna, for date information
remove /sizes/o/ from the urls
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2008, 12:03 PM)
Something between
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...319228/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...530391/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55867717@N00/240704703/sizes/o/
This is an impression of the size of the antenna, for date information
remove /sizes/o/ from the urls
Excellent photos!
Gave me a little vertigo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...319228/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/...530391/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55867717@N00/240704703/sizes/o/
This is an impression of the size of the antenna, for date information
remove /sizes/o/ from the urls
Excellent photos!
Gave me a little vertigo.
DBB: Regarding dimensions, is this the info you were looking for?
Original post by adoucette, verbatim, I believe:
Sorry I couldn't go to the trouble of finding it and linking to the original post here, and also sorry if there is anything missing. I just had this portion saved to a text file immediately on hand.
Original post by adoucette, verbatim, I believe:
QUOTE
All of this is from an Elevator Layout sheet detail, drawn in 1963.
The reference elevation for the basement floor is 242'
The next floor up is 11' tall to 253'
The next floor up is 11' tall to 264'
The next floor up is 10' tall to 274'
The next floor up is 10' tall to 284'
The next floor up is 10' tall to 294
The next floor up is 16' tall, at the concourse elevation at 310' which is Floor 1.
Turns out the skylobbies were 14' tall and the Mechanical floors next to skylobbies were 26' tall. The first and last Mechanical floors were only 24' tall.
The towers weren't identical, but for Tower A, the Mech floor on 7 starts at an Elevation of 396.5'
This is followed by the first floor of bank 1 (floor 9) at an elevation of 420.5' (there is no skylobby)
Bank 1 consists of 32 floors at 12' per floor (384') ending at the second mechanical floor (26') and the first of 14' skylobbies.
Bank 2 starts at an elevation of 844.5 and has 31 floors at 12' per floor (372') ending with the third mechanical floor (26') and the second 14' skylobby.
Bank 3 starts at an elevation of 1256.5 and has 29 floors at 12' per floor (348') ending at an elevation of 1603.5'
Now we have either the observation deck or the Restauraunt, but in any case the next two floors take up 19'
This is followed by the 4th and last Mechanical floor, also 24' tall.
This is capped by the roof, but surrounded by a 10'6'' parapet. at an elevation of 1656'6".
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...t-page146rb.png
The reference elevation for the basement floor is 242'
The next floor up is 11' tall to 253'
The next floor up is 11' tall to 264'
The next floor up is 10' tall to 274'
The next floor up is 10' tall to 284'
The next floor up is 10' tall to 294
The next floor up is 16' tall, at the concourse elevation at 310' which is Floor 1.
Turns out the skylobbies were 14' tall and the Mechanical floors next to skylobbies were 26' tall. The first and last Mechanical floors were only 24' tall.
The towers weren't identical, but for Tower A, the Mech floor on 7 starts at an Elevation of 396.5'
This is followed by the first floor of bank 1 (floor 9) at an elevation of 420.5' (there is no skylobby)
Bank 1 consists of 32 floors at 12' per floor (384') ending at the second mechanical floor (26') and the first of 14' skylobbies.
Bank 2 starts at an elevation of 844.5 and has 31 floors at 12' per floor (372') ending with the third mechanical floor (26') and the second 14' skylobby.
Bank 3 starts at an elevation of 1256.5 and has 29 floors at 12' per floor (348') ending at an elevation of 1603.5'
Now we have either the observation deck or the Restauraunt, but in any case the next two floors take up 19'
This is followed by the 4th and last Mechanical floor, also 24' tall.
This is capped by the roof, but surrounded by a 10'6'' parapet. at an elevation of 1656'6".
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...t-page146rb.png
Sorry I couldn't go to the trouble of finding it and linking to the original post here, and also sorry if there is anything missing. I just had this portion saved to a text file immediately on hand.
A previous post by shagster had these dimensional details; ditto the remarks made above.
QUOTE
I think this data came from the LERA plans zip file that's been floating around the web. The txt file was dated 16-aug-2002.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
FLOOR HEIGHTS FOR TOWERS A AND B
================================
REFERENCES: CD ARCH (020220_1611) /DRAWINGS/LERA-PLANS-021802/PAC3 TOWERS A&B
DRAWING NO = A-AB-201, FILES = A-AB-201.TIF, A-AB-201tif.TIF
DRAWING NO = A-AB-301, FILE = A-AB-301.TIF
TOWER A TOWER B
FLOOR HEIGHT HEIGHT
===== ======= =======
sub-level no 5 11' 0" 11' 0"
sub-level no 4 11' 0" 11' 0"
sub-level no 3 10' 0" 10' 0"
sub-level no 2 10' 0" 10' 0"
sub-level no 1 10' 0" 10' 0"
service level 16' 0" 16' 0"
1-concourse 22' 0" 22' 0"
2-plaza 12' 0" 12' 0"
3-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
4-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
5-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
6-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
7-lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
8-upper mechanical 10' 0" 10' 0"
9-typical 12' 0" 12' 0"
10 12' 0" 12' 0"
11 12' 0" 12' 0"
12 12' 0" 12' 0"
13 12' 0" 12' 0"
14 12' 0" 12' 0"
15 12' 0" 12' 0"
16 12' 0" 12' 0"
17 12' 0" 12' 0"
18 12' 0" 12' 0"
19 12' 0" 12' 0"
20 12' 0" 12' 0"
21 12' 0" 12' 0"
22 12' 0" 12' 0"
23 12' 0" 12' 0"
24 12' 0" 12' 0"
25 12' 0" 12' 0"
26 12' 0" 12' 0"
27 12' 0" 12' 0"
28 12' 0" 12' 0"
29 12' 0" 12' 0"
30 12' 0" 12' 0"
31 12' 0" 12' 0"
32 12' 0" 12' 0"
33 12' 0" 12' 0"
34 12' 0" 12' 0"
35 12' 0" 12' 0"
36 12' 0" 12' 0"
37 12' 0" 12' 0"
38 12' 0" 12' 0"
39 12' 0" 12' 0"
40 14' 0" 14' 0"
41 lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
42 upper mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
43 lower esc floor 14' 0" 12' 0"
44 sky lobby 14' 0" 14' 0"
45 upper esc floor 12' 0" 12' 0"
46 typical 12' 0" 12' 0"
47 12' 0" 12' 0"
48 12' 0" 12' 0"
49 12' 0" 12' 0"
50 12' 0" 12' 0"
51 12' 0" 12' 0"
52 12' 0" 12' 0"
53 12' 0" 12' 0"
54 12' 0" 12' 0"
55 12' 0" 12' 0"
56 12' 0" 12' 0"
57 12' 0" 12' 0"
58 12' 0" 12' 0"
59 12' 0" 12' 0"
60 12' 0" 12' 0"
61 12' 0" 12' 0"
62 12' 0" 12' 0"
63 12' 0" 12' 0"
64 12' 0" 12' 0"
65 12' 0" 12' 0"
66 12' 0" 12' 0"
67 16' 0" 12' 0"
68 12' 0" 12' 0"
69 12' 0" 12' 0"
70 12' 0" 12' 0"
71 12' 0" 12' 0"
72 12' 0" 12' 0"
73 12' 0" 12' 0"
74 14' 0" 14' 0"
75 lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
76 upper mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
77 upper esc floor 12' 0" 12' 0"
78 sky lobby 14' 0" 14' 0"
79 upper esc floor 12' 0" 12' 0"
80 typical 12' 0" 12' 0"
81 12' 0" 12' 0"
82 12' 0" 12' 0"
83 12' 0" 12' 0"
84 12' 0" 12' 0"
85 12' 0" 12' 0"
86 12' 0" 12' 0"
87 12' 0" 12' 0"
88 12' 0" 12' 0"
89 12' 0" 12' 0"
90 12' 0" 12' 0"
91 12' 0" 12' 0"
92 12' 0" 12' 0"
93 12' 0" 12' 0"
94 12' 0" 12' 0"
95 12' 0" 12' 0"
96 12' 0" 12' 0"
97 12' 0" 12' 0"
98 12' 0" 12' 0"
99 12' 0" 12' 0"
100 12' 0" 12' 0"
101 12' 0" 12' 0"
102 12' 0" 12' 0"
103 12' 0" 12' 0"
104 12' 0" 12' 0"
105 12' 0" 12' 0"
106 typical 14' 4" 14' 4"
107 restaurant 17' 6" 17' 6"
108 lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
109 upper mechanical 11' 8" 11' 8"
110 roof to top of roof panels 15' 4" 15' 4"
NOTE: DRAWING NO. A-AB-201 SHOWS THAT TOP OF PENTHOUSE IS HIGHER
THAN 15' 4" DIMENSION GIVEN FOR FLOOR 110.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
FLOOR HEIGHTS FOR TOWERS A AND B
================================
REFERENCES: CD ARCH (020220_1611) /DRAWINGS/LERA-PLANS-021802/PAC3 TOWERS A&B
DRAWING NO = A-AB-201, FILES = A-AB-201.TIF, A-AB-201tif.TIF
DRAWING NO = A-AB-301, FILE = A-AB-301.TIF
TOWER A TOWER B
FLOOR HEIGHT HEIGHT
===== ======= =======
sub-level no 5 11' 0" 11' 0"
sub-level no 4 11' 0" 11' 0"
sub-level no 3 10' 0" 10' 0"
sub-level no 2 10' 0" 10' 0"
sub-level no 1 10' 0" 10' 0"
service level 16' 0" 16' 0"
1-concourse 22' 0" 22' 0"
2-plaza 12' 0" 12' 0"
3-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
4-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
5-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
6-storage 11' 6" 11' 6"
7-lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
8-upper mechanical 10' 0" 10' 0"
9-typical 12' 0" 12' 0"
10 12' 0" 12' 0"
11 12' 0" 12' 0"
12 12' 0" 12' 0"
13 12' 0" 12' 0"
14 12' 0" 12' 0"
15 12' 0" 12' 0"
16 12' 0" 12' 0"
17 12' 0" 12' 0"
18 12' 0" 12' 0"
19 12' 0" 12' 0"
20 12' 0" 12' 0"
21 12' 0" 12' 0"
22 12' 0" 12' 0"
23 12' 0" 12' 0"
24 12' 0" 12' 0"
25 12' 0" 12' 0"
26 12' 0" 12' 0"
27 12' 0" 12' 0"
28 12' 0" 12' 0"
29 12' 0" 12' 0"
30 12' 0" 12' 0"
31 12' 0" 12' 0"
32 12' 0" 12' 0"
33 12' 0" 12' 0"
34 12' 0" 12' 0"
35 12' 0" 12' 0"
36 12' 0" 12' 0"
37 12' 0" 12' 0"
38 12' 0" 12' 0"
39 12' 0" 12' 0"
40 14' 0" 14' 0"
41 lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
42 upper mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
43 lower esc floor 14' 0" 12' 0"
44 sky lobby 14' 0" 14' 0"
45 upper esc floor 12' 0" 12' 0"
46 typical 12' 0" 12' 0"
47 12' 0" 12' 0"
48 12' 0" 12' 0"
49 12' 0" 12' 0"
50 12' 0" 12' 0"
51 12' 0" 12' 0"
52 12' 0" 12' 0"
53 12' 0" 12' 0"
54 12' 0" 12' 0"
55 12' 0" 12' 0"
56 12' 0" 12' 0"
57 12' 0" 12' 0"
58 12' 0" 12' 0"
59 12' 0" 12' 0"
60 12' 0" 12' 0"
61 12' 0" 12' 0"
62 12' 0" 12' 0"
63 12' 0" 12' 0"
64 12' 0" 12' 0"
65 12' 0" 12' 0"
66 12' 0" 12' 0"
67 16' 0" 12' 0"
68 12' 0" 12' 0"
69 12' 0" 12' 0"
70 12' 0" 12' 0"
71 12' 0" 12' 0"
72 12' 0" 12' 0"
73 12' 0" 12' 0"
74 14' 0" 14' 0"
75 lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
76 upper mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
77 upper esc floor 12' 0" 12' 0"
78 sky lobby 14' 0" 14' 0"
79 upper esc floor 12' 0" 12' 0"
80 typical 12' 0" 12' 0"
81 12' 0" 12' 0"
82 12' 0" 12' 0"
83 12' 0" 12' 0"
84 12' 0" 12' 0"
85 12' 0" 12' 0"
86 12' 0" 12' 0"
87 12' 0" 12' 0"
88 12' 0" 12' 0"
89 12' 0" 12' 0"
90 12' 0" 12' 0"
91 12' 0" 12' 0"
92 12' 0" 12' 0"
93 12' 0" 12' 0"
94 12' 0" 12' 0"
95 12' 0" 12' 0"
96 12' 0" 12' 0"
97 12' 0" 12' 0"
98 12' 0" 12' 0"
99 12' 0" 12' 0"
100 12' 0" 12' 0"
101 12' 0" 12' 0"
102 12' 0" 12' 0"
103 12' 0" 12' 0"
104 12' 0" 12' 0"
105 12' 0" 12' 0"
106 typical 14' 4" 14' 4"
107 restaurant 17' 6" 17' 6"
108 lower mechanical 14' 0" 14' 0"
109 upper mechanical 11' 8" 11' 8"
110 roof to top of roof panels 15' 4" 15' 4"
NOTE: DRAWING NO. A-AB-201 SHOWS THAT TOP OF PENTHOUSE IS HIGHER
THAN 15' 4" DIMENSION GIVEN FOR FLOOR 110.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 26 2008, 09:37 AM)
Excellent photos!
I agree. It ought to be possible for you to obtain a good estimate of the elevation of the dish antennas and the dark band above the roof line.
Thanks.
And yes, those appear to be the posts. I was hoping for a link to the LERA elevation plan 'floating around the web'.
I agree. It ought to be possible for you to obtain a good estimate of the elevation of the dish antennas and the dark band above the roof line.
Thanks.
And yes, those appear to be the posts. I was hoping for a link to the LERA elevation plan 'floating around the web'.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 26 2008, 06:02 PM)
I agree. It ought to be possible for you to obtain a good estimate of the elevation of the dish antennas and the dark band above the roof line.
Thanks.
And yes, those appear to be the posts. I was hoping for a link to the LERA elevation plan 'floating around the web'.
Thanks.
And yes, those appear to be the posts. I was hoping for a link to the LERA elevation plan 'floating around the web'.
Crush-down equation in the constant setting, i.e., s and R constant:
(1-s)(Z\ddot{Z} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{Z}^2) - Z = -R
Approximate form (the one used) of the crush-down equation in the non-constant setting where
s(Z,\dot{Z}) = s_0e^{-s_1Z\dot{Z}}
R(Z,\dot{Z}) = r_0 + r_1Z + r_3(Z-Z_0)\dot{Z}^2
is
(1-(1-s_1Z\dot{Z})s(Z,\dot{Z}))(Z\ddot{Z} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{Z}^2) - Z = -R(Z,\dot{Z})
[Note that the remaining parameter, in both settings, is the time adjustment, deltaT.
(1-s)(Z\ddot{Z} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{Z}^2) - Z = -R
Approximate form (the one used) of the crush-down equation in the non-constant setting where
s(Z,\dot{Z}) = s_0e^{-s_1Z\dot{Z}}
R(Z,\dot{Z}) = r_0 + r_1Z + r_3(Z-Z_0)\dot{Z}^2
is
(1-(1-s_1Z\dot{Z})s(Z,\dot{Z}))(Z\ddot{Z} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{Z}^2) - Z = -R(Z,\dot{Z})
[Note that the remaining parameter, in both settings, is the time adjustment, deltaT.
Thanks.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 26 2008, 11:13 AM)
Is this it?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
Alas, it does not appear to be in that collection.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
Alas, it does not appear to be in that collection.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 26 2008, 06:20 PM)
Alas, it does not appear to be in that collection.
This is probably it. I'm downloading it now, over 500 MB.
http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/wtc_blueprints.zip
This is probably it. I'm downloading it now, over 500 MB.
http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/wtc_blueprints.zip
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 26 2008, 06:35 PM)
This is probably it. I'm downloading it now, over 500 MB.
http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/wtc_blueprints.zip
Well, it says LERA plans, so I assume they are. There are *gasp* dxf files in there, too.
http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/wtc_blueprints.zip
Well, it says LERA plans, so I assume they are. There are *gasp* dxf files in there, too.
Neu,
I was wondering about that tilt, assume the top section is w x H then
the moment of inertia of the top section is (1/12)M (H^2+w^2), that is in the centre of mass. We have to shift it (w/2,H/2), which means a distance
R^2=(w/2)^2+(H/2)^2,
using the shifting property this leads to
I=(1/12)M(H^2+w^2)+MR^2=(1/3)M(H^2+w^2)
The centre of mass drops a distance
(H/2){1-cos[beta]}+w/2 sin[beta]
It is now possible to setup a relation between beta and omega, but it is not easy to determine it as function of time, I did my mechanics in the 1990s and forgot a lot of it.
That antenna has a lineair term but the smear-o-grams show it has a quadratic term, but that is as function of time and not as function of the tilt.
I'm still not sure...
I was wondering about that tilt, assume the top section is w x H then
the moment of inertia of the top section is (1/12)M (H^2+w^2), that is in the centre of mass. We have to shift it (w/2,H/2), which means a distance
R^2=(w/2)^2+(H/2)^2,
using the shifting property this leads to
I=(1/12)M(H^2+w^2)+MR^2=(1/3)M(H^2+w^2)
The centre of mass drops a distance
(H/2){1-cos[beta]}+w/2 sin[beta]
It is now possible to setup a relation between beta and omega, but it is not easy to determine it as function of time, I did my mechanics in the 1990s and forgot a lot of it.
That antenna has a lineair term but the smear-o-grams show it has a quadratic term, but that is as function of time and not as function of the tilt.
I'm still not sure...
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 18 2008, 02:44 PM)
Shagster,
I've also seen that wire on the .avi file, you had the dvd didn't you ? Do you already have a conclusion about the antenna's drop based on the info you currently have ? Is it pure due to observation etc or does it really drop first ? I think this problem should be tackled in the hard way...
I haven't looked at it in detail to be able to conclude anything at this point.
I've also seen that wire on the .avi file, you had the dvd didn't you ? Do you already have a conclusion about the antenna's drop based on the info you currently have ? Is it pure due to observation etc or does it really drop first ? I think this problem should be tackled in the hard way...
I haven't looked at it in detail to be able to conclude anything at this point.
I don't remember where I obtained the elevation information. I thought that it was from a very large zip file. Perhaps it's in the zip file that OWE just posted. I will try to check my files. I've accumulated many files related to the WTC.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2008, 07:59 PM)
Neu,
[excellent stuff here]
I'm still not sure...
I LOVE to see physics on a physics board.
[excellent stuff here]
I'm still not sure...
I LOVE to see physics on a physics board.
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 26 2008, 08:09 PM)
I don't remember where I obtained the elevation information. I thought that it was from a very large zip file. Perhaps it's in the zip file that OWE just posted. I will try to check my files. I've accumulated many files related to the WTC.
Yes. floor_heights.txt, in the root directory.
Yes. floor_heights.txt, in the root directory.
I have a file called WTC_blueprints. It's 571MB. That's where the elevation information was at. It's in a text file called floor_heights.txt within the zip file.
einsteen, can you explain the w/2 sin[beta] term? I'm feeling a little dense right now, need more espresso or something.
Duh, never mind, I get it. Hinge on the north wall.
Duh, never mind, I get it. Hinge on the north wall.
einsteen, consider this: by virtue of the geometry, the term with cos is going to dominate, and the first term in the series expansion for (1-cos) will be second order.
I think...
I think...
OWE,
Probably Neu is right with his analysis and his quadratic fitting functions but even the best ones can make mistakes, I think it depends how the (y-projection of the) tilt behaves with time. The derivation can be made easy if you are aware that each point can be reached by adding two vectors in two directions. If the whole thing tilts then the x,y axis of them change but we can easily add them, it is also possible with complex numbers I think
the antenna then is w/2 + i(H+h) and the roof is iH
rotation is multiplication with one of my most favourite relations...
e^{i beta)=cos(beta)+i sin(beta)
then the imaginary parts are the projections in the y direction. See also
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=311351
Probably Neu is right with his analysis and his quadratic fitting functions but even the best ones can make mistakes, I think it depends how the (y-projection of the) tilt behaves with time. The derivation can be made easy if you are aware that each point can be reached by adding two vectors in two directions. If the whole thing tilts then the x,y axis of them change but we can easily add them, it is also possible with complex numbers I think
the antenna then is w/2 + i(H+h) and the roof is iH
rotation is multiplication with one of my most favourite relations...
e^{i beta)=cos(beta)+i sin(beta)
then the imaginary parts are the projections in the y direction. See also
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=311351
That is a very worthwhile post in trying to sort all this out. The equations assume an orthographic view, camera perpendicular at infinity. I think, to be more precise when dealing with the actual pixel measurements, you have to substitute:
beta => (beta + OpticAxisAngle + featureOffAxisAngle).
Again, I think, I don't really know. Notice distance to camera still does not appear here explicitly! So, it's still a simplification.
OpticAxisAngle is constant but featureOffAxisAngle, though small, is not and is per-feature: there is an equation for each feature at a different vertical location in the image. It is this additional complexity that withered my motivation to calculate tip angle from the difference in distance between two points on the antenna over time.
I've been meaning to talk to you about the aspect ratio issue. I've ripped the segment of the DVD but I haven't had the fortitude to dive in yet, but since I got a perfect match with shagster's single frame a while back, it's certainly also an issue with the original, a surprise to me. A while back, I couldn't get my 3D rendering to match the floor heights when the vertical edges were perfect. I'd assumed it was because I specified a square view angle with non-square output but now I think it's because the video is non-square. The issue with the floor height, plus a whole lot of spare time, is preventing me from proceeding with some 3D animations.
beta => (beta + OpticAxisAngle + featureOffAxisAngle).
Again, I think, I don't really know. Notice distance to camera still does not appear here explicitly! So, it's still a simplification.
OpticAxisAngle is constant but featureOffAxisAngle, though small, is not and is per-feature: there is an equation for each feature at a different vertical location in the image. It is this additional complexity that withered my motivation to calculate tip angle from the difference in distance between two points on the antenna over time.
I've been meaning to talk to you about the aspect ratio issue. I've ripped the segment of the DVD but I haven't had the fortitude to dive in yet, but since I got a perfect match with shagster's single frame a while back, it's certainly also an issue with the original, a surprise to me. A while back, I couldn't get my 3D rendering to match the floor heights when the vertical edges were perfect. I'd assumed it was because I specified a square view angle with non-square output but now I think it's because the video is non-square. The issue with the floor height, plus a whole lot of spare time, is preventing me from proceeding with some 3D animations.
It also means the horizontal displacements I extracted need to be multiplied by something less than the figure 1.127; not too much of an adjustment. The camera has a non-orthogonal azimuthal angle wrt to the north wall plane, so there will be a slight inaccuracy, a squashing of the width, even if the image were square. If you know the azimuthal angle and measure the entire width (not just the face), you can get a pretty accurate horizontal scale - otherwise not. I think it's OK to neglect the apparent decrease in width on the west face (barely visible) due to increased distance from the camera of the SW corner.
Edit: I say measure the entire width only because I, personally, find the placement of the exact location of a beveled corner pretty difficult, though I did try it a few times.
And, it's important to note, without such work, the horizontal scale remains approximate on this video. As well, the azimuthal angle, and the distance to wall, prevents using a wall width measurement directly for horizontal motion of the antenna. Only something constrained to the face of the wall can use the horizontal scale (or vertical) directly.
Edit: I say measure the entire width only because I, personally, find the placement of the exact location of a beveled corner pretty difficult, though I did try it a few times.
And, it's important to note, without such work, the horizontal scale remains approximate on this video. As well, the azimuthal angle, and the distance to wall, prevents using a wall width measurement directly for horizontal motion of the antenna. Only something constrained to the face of the wall can use the horizontal scale (or vertical) directly.
Of course, the distance between windows can be used, so don't pay too much attention to the above rant.
OneWhiteEye and shagster --- Thank you. I copied the reference this time.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Feb 25 2008, 05:57 PM)
It did.
Did not!
Did so!
Step 1 - distinguish apparent motion due to tilt or deformation from something called drop. Drop is not my topic here, just motion of any sort. I'm guessing when NEU-FONZE says drop he means drop in the sense of starting at David B. Benson's t_0, progressive collapse ensues from there. I'll check drop some other time.
I've gone back and looked very closely at the antenna and roofline area. The dynamic range of the roofline imaging is very poor compared to the antenna. Not only is the antenna farther from the hinge location, wherever that is, it's a lot easier to see. Smoke obscures much of the roofline and different parts are unavailable in particular frame ranges. Motion of the upper block is obvious when comparing frames 800 and 920, a 4 second interval. It is still evident though more difficult to characterize at frame 890. I have some GIFs that alternate between 800 and 890.
Full View GIF: http://i32.tinypic.com/331knlv.gif
At individual locations:
Antenna negative GIF: http://i29.tinypic.com/wgow05.gif
- The antenna very obviously moves to the left and less obviously down.
NW corner negative GIF: http://i30.tinypic.com/nmnngi.gif
- The washer moves left a little but vertical motion is inconclusive. If it looks like it's actually going up a little, that's funny because a discarded automated routine thought so, too.
- The NW corner does not seem to move left much and not at all down (very sub-pixel).
NE Corner GIF: http://i27.tinypic.com/1zxs4n4.gif
NE Corner negative GIF: http://i27.tinypic.com/2my7bl.gif
The NE corner is inconclusive, but does not seem to go down at all. I put the non-negative image in just so the difficulty in placing markers in this area is appreciated.
Did not!
Did so!
Step 1 - distinguish apparent motion due to tilt or deformation from something called drop. Drop is not my topic here, just motion of any sort. I'm guessing when NEU-FONZE says drop he means drop in the sense of starting at David B. Benson's t_0, progressive collapse ensues from there. I'll check drop some other time.
I've gone back and looked very closely at the antenna and roofline area. The dynamic range of the roofline imaging is very poor compared to the antenna. Not only is the antenna farther from the hinge location, wherever that is, it's a lot easier to see. Smoke obscures much of the roofline and different parts are unavailable in particular frame ranges. Motion of the upper block is obvious when comparing frames 800 and 920, a 4 second interval. It is still evident though more difficult to characterize at frame 890. I have some GIFs that alternate between 800 and 890.
Full View GIF: http://i32.tinypic.com/331knlv.gif
At individual locations:
Antenna negative GIF: http://i29.tinypic.com/wgow05.gif
- The antenna very obviously moves to the left and less obviously down.
NW corner negative GIF: http://i30.tinypic.com/nmnngi.gif
- The washer moves left a little but vertical motion is inconclusive. If it looks like it's actually going up a little, that's funny because a discarded automated routine thought so, too.
- The NW corner does not seem to move left much and not at all down (very sub-pixel).
NE Corner GIF: http://i27.tinypic.com/1zxs4n4.gif
NE Corner negative GIF: http://i27.tinypic.com/2my7bl.gif
The NE corner is inconclusive, but does not seem to go down at all. I put the non-negative image in just so the difficulty in placing markers in this area is appreciated.
OneWhiteEye:
Yes, what I call "drop" is any downward apparent vertical motion, usually determined from the roof line or the window washing machine line.
What I call "tilt" is any angular motion which I derive from lateral motion of a reference point near the top of the antenna. I convert this to degrees of tilt by taking some initial vertical line as my reference "zero degrees" line.
Now obviously if the upper block is tipping to the south and we are viewing from the north, the "drop" includes tipping motions. For the South Tower it is much easier to separate the dropping and tipping motions because the available viewing angles show the tilt very well and you can follow the tilt out to at least 25 degrees. For the North Tower the tipping is more subtle and some of the best videos for measuring the drop are almost useless for measuring the tilt.
One more point: I may have posted some contradictory data on the tilt because I have attempted, (from time to time), to make perspective corrections, and these can easily double the estimated angle! Sorry if this has caused any confusion!
Yes, what I call "drop" is any downward apparent vertical motion, usually determined from the roof line or the window washing machine line.
What I call "tilt" is any angular motion which I derive from lateral motion of a reference point near the top of the antenna. I convert this to degrees of tilt by taking some initial vertical line as my reference "zero degrees" line.
Now obviously if the upper block is tipping to the south and we are viewing from the north, the "drop" includes tipping motions. For the South Tower it is much easier to separate the dropping and tipping motions because the available viewing angles show the tilt very well and you can follow the tilt out to at least 25 degrees. For the North Tower the tipping is more subtle and some of the best videos for measuring the drop are almost useless for measuring the tilt.
One more point: I may have posted some contradictory data on the tilt because I have attempted, (from time to time), to make perspective corrections, and these can easily double the estimated angle! Sorry if this has caused any confusion!
drop is vertical displacement, positive downwards.
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2008, 12:51 PM)
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/M...7258-O-crop.jpg
Ok,
You can see where the BOLTS tore through the Spandrel joiner plate, or where the bolts were severed instead.
So?
Arthur
Ok,
You can see where the BOLTS tore through the Spandrel joiner plate, or where the bolts were severed instead.
So?
Arthur
that's not what is see at all. tearing metal doesn't change the colour. oxygen does.
torn metal would not be flat at the tear, it would be curled at the edges.
metal would only tear directly from the hole, and would not take the piece of metal between bolt holes with it.
it looks to me like there was some hot, liquid chemical cutting that caused this.
User posted image: User posted image
first it stretches:
User posted image: User posted image
User posted image: User posted image
and, when it finally fails, it is bent in the direction of the moment:
User posted image: http://www.pponk.com/LARGE%20IMAGES/broken_bolt.jpg
failure modes
torn metal would not be flat at the tear, it would be curled at the edges.
metal would only tear directly from the hole, and would not take the piece of metal between bolt holes with it.
it looks to me like there was some hot, liquid chemical cutting that caused this.
User posted image: User posted image
first it stretches:
User posted image: User posted image
User posted image: User posted image
and, when it finally fails, it is bent in the direction of the moment:
User posted image: http://www.pponk.com/LARGE%20IMAGES/broken_bolt.jpg
failure modes
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2008, 07:32 PM)
that's not what is see at all. tearing metal doesn't change the colour. oxygen does.
torn metal would not be flat at the tear, it would be curled at the edges.
metal would only tear directly from the hole, and would not take the piece of metal between bolt holes with it.
it looks to me like there was some hot, liquid chemical cutting that caused this.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/MikeWalker123/10697258-O-crop.jpg'>User posted image</a>
first it stretches:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://tour.airstreamlife.com/weblog/Hensley%20stretched%20metal.jpg'>User posted image</a>
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/lamont4-9.jpg'>User posted image</a>
and, when it finally fails, it is bent in the direction of the moment:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.pponk.com/LARGE%20IMAGES/broken_bolt.jpg'>http://www.pponk.com/LARGE%20IMAGES/broken_bolt.jpg</a>
failure modes
Actually it looks like that plate came in contact with sulfuric acid, or chlorides notice the yellow portions and that would have eroded the edges do to heating.
Since there would be several lead acid batteries in the building Newton that in not that unusual.
Hot combustion gases of Chlorosulfonic hydrocarbons would definitely cause similar effects.
After seeing myself what just high sulfur diesel fuel and moisture can do to a steel pipe, I am not surprised such was found.
Notice that the burn pattern indicates hot gasses from below eroding the steel, I would say dear Newton you have found Chlorosulfonic, halogenated hydrocarbons.
Very good post, I expected this, evidence to be there, because of the use of Chlosulfonic Poly Vinyls.
torn metal would not be flat at the tear, it would be curled at the edges.
metal would only tear directly from the hole, and would not take the piece of metal between bolt holes with it.
it looks to me like there was some hot, liquid chemical cutting that caused this.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/MikeWalker123/10697258-O-crop.jpg'>User posted image</a>
first it stretches:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://tour.airstreamlife.com/weblog/Hensley%20stretched%20metal.jpg'>User posted image</a>
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/lamont4-9.jpg'>User posted image</a>
and, when it finally fails, it is bent in the direction of the moment:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.pponk.com/LARGE%20IMAGES/broken_bolt.jpg'>http://www.pponk.com/LARGE%20IMAGES/broken_bolt.jpg</a>
failure modes
Actually it looks like that plate came in contact with sulfuric acid, or chlorides notice the yellow portions and that would have eroded the edges do to heating.
Since there would be several lead acid batteries in the building Newton that in not that unusual.
Hot combustion gases of Chlorosulfonic hydrocarbons would definitely cause similar effects.
After seeing myself what just high sulfur diesel fuel and moisture can do to a steel pipe, I am not surprised such was found.
Notice that the burn pattern indicates hot gasses from below eroding the steel, I would say dear Newton you have found Chlorosulfonic, halogenated hydrocarbons.
Very good post, I expected this, evidence to be there, because of the use of Chlosulfonic Poly Vinyls.
well, cheers, chainsaw.
you and NF are my favorite 'enemies'. you both admit there is evidence which is not self-explanatory, even if our extrapolations to what did happen are different.
you and NF are my favorite 'enemies'. you both admit there is evidence which is not self-explanatory, even if our extrapolations to what did happen are different.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2008, 02:32 PM)
that's not what is see at all. tearing metal doesn't change the colour. oxygen does.
torn metal would not be flat at the tear, it would be curled at the edges.
metal would only tear directly from the hole, and would not take the piece of metal between bolt holes with it.
it looks to me like there was some hot, liquid chemical cutting that caused this.
Not very convincing newton.
It looks to me that the missing piece on the right was torn upward.
It looks to me that there was some corrosion to the piece, but it appears to have occured AFTER the damage since there is corrosion coming out of the bolt holes.
So, before you start arguing what the picture means:
Do you know when the picture was taken?
Do you know what thickness that spandrel is (will tell you ~ what floor its from)?
Arthur
torn metal would not be flat at the tear, it would be curled at the edges.
metal would only tear directly from the hole, and would not take the piece of metal between bolt holes with it.
it looks to me like there was some hot, liquid chemical cutting that caused this.
Not very convincing newton.
It looks to me that the missing piece on the right was torn upward.
It looks to me that there was some corrosion to the piece, but it appears to have occured AFTER the damage since there is corrosion coming out of the bolt holes.
So, before you start arguing what the picture means:
Do you know when the picture was taken?
Do you know what thickness that spandrel is (will tell you ~ what floor its from)?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2008, 09:17 PM)
Not very convincing newton.
It looks to me that the missing piece on the right was torn upward.
It looks to me that there was some corrosion to the piece, but it appears to have occured AFTER the damage since there is corrosion coming out of the bolt holes.
So, before you start arguing what the picture means:
Do you know when the picture was taken?
Do you know what thickness that spandrel is (will tell you ~ what floor its from)?
Arthur
i've been around steel all my life. i know what corrosion patterns look like. i know what tears look like.
i will let history decide, and not arthurity.
you know me, i know you. i will not relent, and neither will you.
i point it out for the handful of lurkers who may be sitting on the fence, or bedazzled and confused by the high science of OWE and benson.
that one photo is pretty damning.
so, what floor is it from, then, NIST, er, arthurs?
It looks to me that the missing piece on the right was torn upward.
It looks to me that there was some corrosion to the piece, but it appears to have occured AFTER the damage since there is corrosion coming out of the bolt holes.
So, before you start arguing what the picture means:
Do you know when the picture was taken?
Do you know what thickness that spandrel is (will tell you ~ what floor its from)?
Arthur
i've been around steel all my life. i know what corrosion patterns look like. i know what tears look like.
i will let history decide, and not arthurity.
you know me, i know you. i will not relent, and neither will you.
i point it out for the handful of lurkers who may be sitting on the fence, or bedazzled and confused by the high science of OWE and benson.
that one photo is pretty damning.
so, what floor is it from, then, NIST, er, arthurs?
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2008, 04:25 PM)
i've been around steel all my life. i know what corrosion patterns look like. i know what tears look like.
Nice dodge.
Like the rest of us live in ceramic worlds.
I take it you can't answer the questions then?
If not, then if you don't know WHEN the photo was taken or what floor it was from, then HOW can you claim to know much of ANYTHING about it?????
Again, newton, you are not very convincing.
But what we can all see is there is corrosion coming OUT of the bolt holes.
But there WERE bolts in those holes prior to the collapse.
The corrosion is thus AFTER collapse.
The tearing of the steel looks like what one would expect when something like the towers collapsed.
But, go ahead, make your argument from incredulity.
It suits you.
Arthur
Nice dodge.
Like the rest of us live in ceramic worlds.
I take it you can't answer the questions then?
If not, then if you don't know WHEN the photo was taken or what floor it was from, then HOW can you claim to know much of ANYTHING about it?????
Again, newton, you are not very convincing.
But what we can all see is there is corrosion coming OUT of the bolt holes.
But there WERE bolts in those holes prior to the collapse.
The corrosion is thus AFTER collapse.
The tearing of the steel looks like what one would expect when something like the towers collapsed.
But, go ahead, make your argument from incredulity.
It suits you.
Arthur
buddy, when hot corrosives are melting through a bolt/hole the first thing to deteriorate is the space between the bolt and the hole, and subsequently, the first place that the liquid will flow through and around.
so, once again, your argument is not working for me.
nor does it explain the distribution of the corrosion, which is in the form of traces formed by running liquid, and not the traces formed by purposefully directed thermite torches(which usually have molten slag drippings around the cut).
so, once again, your argument is not working for me.
nor does it explain the distribution of the corrosion, which is in the form of traces formed by running liquid, and not the traces formed by purposefully directed thermite torches(which usually have molten slag drippings around the cut).
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2008, 09:47 PM)
buddy, when hot corrosives are melting through a bolt/hole the first thing to deteriorate is the space between the bolt and the hole, and subsequently, the first place that the liquid will flow through and around.
so, once again, your argument is not working for me.
nor does it explain the distribution of the corrosion, which is in the form of traces formed by running liquid, and not the traces formed by purposefully directed thermite torches(which usually have molten slag drippings around the cut).
Newton it is not a high temperature reaction, it does not produce Fe 3O4 so it was a low temperature reaction in the fires, that is all, with sulfates and chlorides.
If it were really hot the yellow iron oxide would have oxidized away, it looks like a low temperature chemical reaction.
http://www.reade.com/Products/Oxides/yellow_iron_oxide.html
Sorry newton it looks like simple chemical reactions in the fires with water in the vapor stage, sulfides, and Chlorides.
so, once again, your argument is not working for me.
nor does it explain the distribution of the corrosion, which is in the form of traces formed by running liquid, and not the traces formed by purposefully directed thermite torches(which usually have molten slag drippings around the cut).
Newton it is not a high temperature reaction, it does not produce Fe 3O4 so it was a low temperature reaction in the fires, that is all, with sulfates and chlorides.
If it were really hot the yellow iron oxide would have oxidized away, it looks like a low temperature chemical reaction.
http://www.reade.com/Products/Oxides/yellow_iron_oxide.html
Sorry newton it looks like simple chemical reactions in the fires with water in the vapor stage, sulfides, and Chlorides.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2008, 02:25 PM)
... bedazzled and confused by the high science of OWE and benson.
I don't consider this attempt to extract as much useful information as possible to be high science, just ordinary science. Anyone is free to ask questions. I'll respond as best I can.
As for steel corrosion, pouring lots of water on the steel for weeks on end obviously resulted in much rust. As the chemists here have pointed out, the debris pile was hardly a pristine environment.
I don't consider this attempt to extract as much useful information as possible to be high science, just ordinary science. Anyone is free to ask questions. I'll respond as best I can.
As for steel corrosion, pouring lots of water on the steel for weeks on end obviously resulted in much rust. As the chemists here have pointed out, the debris pile was hardly a pristine environment.
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.