QUOTE (H2O+Sep 30 2009, 12:53 PM)
WTC. Don't know for sure off hand but I thought the Pentagon had a thick concrete barrier that made up the outer wall. Over a meter thick. Basically only the fuselage and engines could penetrate it. Which is basically what happened wasn't it?
Our comments about the wings were directed towards WTC because he stated that the lack of wing-marks on the Pentagon indicated that it was a missile and not an airplane that collided with it.
Our comments about the wings were directed towards WTC because he stated that the lack of wing-marks on the Pentagon indicated that it was a missile and not an airplane that collided with it.
I've heard once that it was an un-manned fighter. Supposedly there was a picture taken of an engine component that was considered too small to be from a commercial plane.... 
I may be very skeptical on the cause of what brought down the WTC buildings but I'm not so naive to think that anything but commercial planes were high jacked and used.
I mean come on, there were people on the planes that are very provably not living anymore.
I may be very skeptical on the cause of what brought down the WTC buildings but I'm not so naive to think that anything but commercial planes were high jacked and used.
I mean come on, there were people on the planes that are very provably not living anymore.
O my God already AE911TRUTH reaching almost 1000 professionals architects and engineers asking for a 9/11 reinvestigation, the web site of architects and engineers asking for a reinvestigation about which are actually the real responsible of the 9/11 controlled demolitions of the 9/11 WTC
The army of people asking for a reinvestigation about what really happened the 9/11 is growing uncontrollably , the bush regime must do something to stop those people asking questions , may be develop some kind of detention prisons to torture and water boarding the people that not agree with the 9/11 official theory
The army of people asking for a reinvestigation about what really happened the 9/11 is growing uncontrollably , the bush regime must do something to stop those people asking questions , may be develop some kind of detention prisons to torture and water boarding the people that not agree with the 9/11 official theory
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 8 2009, 01:06 PM)
O my God already AE911TRUTH reaching almost 1000 professionals architects and engineers asking for a 9/11 reinvestigation, the web site of architects and engineers asking for a reinvestigation about which are actually the real responsible of the 9/11 controlled demolitions of the 9/11 WTC
The army of people asking for a reinvestigation about what really happened the 9/11 is growing uncontrollably , the bush regime must do something to stop those people asking questions , may be develop some kind of detention prisons to torture and water boarding the people that not agree with the 9/11 official theory
Obvious copy-paste. Bush regime? Really?
The army of people asking for a reinvestigation about what really happened the 9/11 is growing uncontrollably , the bush regime must do something to stop those people asking questions , may be develop some kind of detention prisons to torture and water boarding the people that not agree with the 9/11 official theory
Obvious copy-paste. Bush regime? Really?
giuseppe
As long as you keep that tin foil hat pulled firmly down around your ears, you'll be quite safe.
Grumpy
As long as you keep that tin foil hat pulled firmly down around your ears, you'll be quite safe.
Grumpy
.
But this Army of 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers in New York asking a reinvestigation about the obvious evident 9/11 controlled demolitions of the WTC must be stopped somehow to protect and shield the credibility of the bush regime officials , I suggest to call the bush regime officials experts in waterboarding to torture those 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers
.
But this Army of 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers in New York asking a reinvestigation about the obvious evident 9/11 controlled demolitions of the WTC must be stopped somehow to protect and shield the credibility of the bush regime officials , I suggest to call the bush regime officials experts in waterboarding to torture those 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers
.
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 9 2009, 10:18 AM)
.
But this Army of 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers in New York asking a reinvestigation about the obvious evident 9/11 controlled demolitions of the WTC must be stopped somehow to protect and shield the credibility of the bush regime officials , I suggest to call the bush regime officials experts in waterboarding to torture those 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers
.
You do need a good source of news.
Obama won the last presidential election.
Bush is out.
But this Army of 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers in New York asking a reinvestigation about the obvious evident 9/11 controlled demolitions of the WTC must be stopped somehow to protect and shield the credibility of the bush regime officials , I suggest to call the bush regime officials experts in waterboarding to torture those 80.000 NYCCAN.ORG truthers
.
You do need a good source of news.
Obama won the last presidential election.
Bush is out.
On a related note, Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize: nytimes.com
I like Obama, but isn't this a little to early? Maybe just the act of winning the election (and beating the NeoCons) is enough to warrant it.
I like Obama, but isn't this a little to early? Maybe just the act of winning the election (and beating the NeoCons) is enough to warrant it.
still acting like there are two parties.
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
and, some physics for the physics board: F = ma
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
and, some physics for the physics board: F = ma
QUOTE (newton+Oct 9 2009, 12:38 PM)
still acting like there are two parties.
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
What would you prefer that they do?
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
What would you prefer that they do?
bush Regime must get the Hollywood Oscar for the Better lier of the World
QUOTE (WTC control demolished+Oct 9 2009, 03:15 PM)
bush Regime must get the Hollywood Oscar for the Better lier of the World
Keep trying; your spelling is still a dismal failure.
Keep trying; your spelling is still a dismal failure.
This thread has certainly degenerated.
QUOTE (newton+Oct 9 2009, 11:38 AM)
still acting like there are two parties.
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
So that's how the world looks when your head's buried in the sand....
Hey, guess who just won the Nobel Peace Prize!
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
So that's how the world looks when your head's buried in the sand....
Hey, guess who just won the Nobel Peace Prize!
MjolnirPants --- Yes, some posters on this thread are rather seriously relatly challenged. 
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 9 2009, 08:20 PM)
MjolnirPants --- Yes, some posters on this thread are rather seriously relatly challenged.
You can say that again.... I mean, there's stupid and all, but sometimes these nuts are just so far beyond stupid that I begin to wonder if Poe's Law applies to conspiracy theorists as well as creationists...
You can say that again.... I mean, there's stupid and all, but sometimes these nuts are just so far beyond stupid that I begin to wonder if Poe's Law applies to conspiracy theorists as well as creationists...
wow. he won the peace prize.
awesome.
what a joke.
awesome.
what a joke.
QUOTE (newton+Oct 9 2009, 11:20 PM)
wow. he won the peace prize.
awesome.
what a joke.
Yeah... I mean, they just give those out to anyone who asks, after all...
As a side note... Isn't it rather coincidental (and a bit ironic) that newton would say "what a joke." directly after my mention of poe's law? I think so.
awesome.
what a joke.
Yeah... I mean, they just give those out to anyone who asks, after all...
As a side note... Isn't it rather coincidental (and a bit ironic) that newton would say "what a joke." directly after my mention of poe's law? I think so.
I had not heard of Poe's law so I googled it.
After reading about it, I have to agree.
There are a number of posters here that I am not sure if they are serious or just having fun parodying fundamentalists.
After reading about it, I have to agree.
There are a number of posters here that I am not sure if they are serious or just having fun parodying fundamentalists.
QUOTE (newton+Oct 9 2009, 04:38 PM)
still acting like there are two parties.
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
and, some physics for the physics board: F = ma
I agree , the owners ( puppet masters ) of the corporations ruling both the republicans and also the democrats making the puppets ( bush , obama ) dance
how cute.
bush regime = obama regime
the same puppetmasters make both figureheads dance, and aboma hasn't shown any different sort of policy on "terror".
and, some physics for the physics board: F = ma
I agree , the owners ( puppet masters ) of the corporations ruling both the republicans and also the democrats making the puppets ( bush , obama ) dance
QUOTE
I agree , the owners ( puppet masters ) of the corporations ruling both the republicans and also the democrats making the puppets ( bush , obama ) dance
You have to remember that Bush and Obama are also all members of the same secret organization of reptilian overlords. Look on the web and you will find plenty of evidence.
That means that they are not just puppets.Evidence
Some of the posters here are reality challenged.
There. I siad it again.
There. I siad it again.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 10 2009, 05:17 AM)
Yeah... I mean, they just give those out to anyone who asks, after all...
As a side note... Isn't it rather coincidental (and a bit ironic) that newton would say "what a joke." directly after my mention of poe's law? I think so.
they must, seeing as he was only in office for twelve days when they applied for it, and he killed a bunch of civilians in pakistan with his bombings.
may the farce be with you.
and, some physics, .... once PE is converted to KE, it is no longer available as PE, mr. benson.
lol.
reality challenged.
As a side note... Isn't it rather coincidental (and a bit ironic) that newton would say "what a joke." directly after my mention of poe's law? I think so.
they must, seeing as he was only in office for twelve days when they applied for it, and he killed a bunch of civilians in pakistan with his bombings.
may the farce be with you.
and, some physics, .... once PE is converted to KE, it is no longer available as PE, mr. benson.
lol.
reality challenged.
newton
That's DOCTOR Benson to you, dweeb. And I'm quite sure he knows more about the science than you are capable of understanding.
Grumpy
QUOTE
once PE is converted to KE, it is no longer available as PE, mr. benson.
That's DOCTOR Benson to you, dweeb. And I'm quite sure he knows more about the science than you are capable of understanding.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+Oct 11 2009, 07:43 AM)
and, some physics, .... once PE is converted to KE, it is no longer available as PE, mr. benson.
lol.
reality challenged.
Have you never been on a roller-coaster?
This is very very strange and suspicious , the 47 Super Extra Reinforced Core columns/pillars of the North/South WTC towers were made of Steel , yet the only few columns that still remain standing after the controlled demolition of the WTC were just some few external perimeter colums , unfortunately the controlled demolition team were not able to freely install the nano thermite explosives in the external perimeter pillars at the basement of the WTC because installing nano thermite on those external perimeter basement pillars was too difficult because were at sight , yet installing the noanothermite explosives into all the 47 internal pillars was very easy because were inside of the WTC buildings and out of sight
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 11 2009, 10:54 AM)
This is very very strange and suspicious , the 47 Super Extra Reinforced Core columns/pillars of the North/South WTC towers were made of Steel , yet the only few columns that still remain standing after the controlled demolition disintegration of the WTC were just some few external perimeter colums , unfortunately the controlled demolition team were not able to freely install the nano thermite explosives in the external perimeter pillars at the basement of the WTC because installing nano thermite on those external perimeter basement pillars was too difficult because were at sight , yet installing the noanothermite explosives into all the 47 internal pillars was very easy because were inside of the WTC buildings and out of sight
Here's a simple question that separates the legitimate from the insane.
What evidence could convince you that you are wrong?
Here's a simple question that separates the legitimate from the insane.
What evidence could convince you that you are wrong?
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 11 2009, 02:54 PM)
This is very very strange and suspicious , the 47 Super Extra Reinforced Core columns/pillars of the North/South WTC towers were made of Steel , yet the only few columns that still remain standing after the controlled demolition disintegration of the WTC were just some few external perimeter colums , unfortunately the controlled demolition team were not able to freely install the nano thermite explosives in the external perimeter pillars at the basement of the WTC because installing nano thermite on those external perimeter basement pillars was too difficult because were at sight , yet installing the noanothermite explosives into all the 47 internal pillars was very easy because were inside of the WTC buildings and out of sight
So it's your contention that thermite cutter charges were placed on the 47 core columns of each floor, with the exception of the basement. Of all of the core columns that were examined after the collapse of the towers, which ones specifically showed evidence of cutting charges of any kind?
So it's your contention that thermite cutter charges were placed on the 47 core columns of each floor, with the exception of the basement. Of all of the core columns that were examined after the collapse of the towers, which ones specifically showed evidence of cutting charges of any kind?
Our clever Giuliani was in a duty to send fast all the evidence to melt to china to destroy all the evidence , very clever , no inverstigation , no guilties
But the criminals were not able to destroy all the evidence , and the WTC controlled demolition was not a perfect crime
All the videos showing colossals amounts of Huge expanding clouds of pulverized dust will be enough to bring to justice the bush regime officials
But the criminals were not able to destroy all the evidence , and the WTC controlled demolition was not a perfect crime
All the videos showing colossals amounts of Huge expanding clouds of pulverized dust will be enough to bring to justice the bush regime officials
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 11 2009, 11:31 AM)
Our clever Giuliani was in a duty to send fast all the evidence to melt to china to destroy all the evidence , very clever , no inverstigation , no guilties
But the criminals were not able to destroy all the evidence , and the WTC controlled demolition was not a perfect crime
All the videos showing colossals amounts of Huge expanding clouds of pulverized dust will be enough to bring to justice the bush regime officials
Answer my question:
What evidence could convince you that you are wrong?
But the criminals were not able to destroy all the evidence , and the WTC controlled demolition was not a perfect crime
All the videos showing colossals amounts of Huge expanding clouds of pulverized dust will be enough to bring to justice the bush regime officials
Answer my question:
What evidence could convince you that you are wrong?
David B. Benson
I know I haven't said anything for a while, and I still have that image analysis to finish, however...
Tony Szambotti's Missing Jolt 'Paper'.
I thought you might be interested to know that I went through his data and found evidence suggestive of a jolt in his own data. He missed it for two reasons.
1. He's an engineer attempting to apply statistical methods without fully understanding them.
2. His data set was of low resolution - he only analyzed every 5th frame, but failed to understand the ramifications of doing so.
The end result of both of the above is that the jolt may be somewhat open to interpretation, but the way he presents his data obfuscates it (hence his missing it).
There are two catches.
The first catch is that the jolt is about one third the magnitude that Szambotti seems to think would be required for a self perpetuating collapse.
The second catch is that it appears the Jolt may be one of three of similar magnitude.
Interestingly, these 'apparent' jolts occur about every 12 feet for the first 36 feet of the fall.
I know I haven't said anything for a while, and I still have that image analysis to finish, however...
Tony Szambotti's Missing Jolt 'Paper'.
I thought you might be interested to know that I went through his data and found evidence suggestive of a jolt in his own data. He missed it for two reasons.
1. He's an engineer attempting to apply statistical methods without fully understanding them.
2. His data set was of low resolution - he only analyzed every 5th frame, but failed to understand the ramifications of doing so.
The end result of both of the above is that the jolt may be somewhat open to interpretation, but the way he presents his data obfuscates it (hence his missing it).
There are two catches.
The first catch is that the jolt is about one third the magnitude that Szambotti seems to think would be required for a self perpetuating collapse.
The second catch is that it appears the Jolt may be one of three of similar magnitude.
Interestingly, these 'apparent' jolts occur about every 12 feet for the first 36 feet of the fall.
.
Q = Why are the weaker perimeter external colums at the basement of the WTC still standing after the controlled demolitions explosions of the Whole WTC building , yet none of the 47 super extra reinforced and super extra strong internal core Steel pillars at the basement of WTC survived the controlled demolition thermite explosions ?
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
.
Q = Why are the weaker perimeter external colums at the basement of the WTC still standing after the controlled demolitions explosions of the Whole WTC building , yet none of the 47 super extra reinforced and super extra strong internal core Steel pillars at the basement of WTC survived the controlled demolition thermite explosions ?
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 11 2009, 06:06 PM)
David B. Benson
I know I haven't said anything for a while, and I still have that image analysis to finish, however...
Tony Szambotti's Missing Jolt 'Paper'.
I thought you might be interested to know that I went through his data and found evidence suggestive of a jolt in his own data. He missed it for two reasons.
1. He's an engineer attempting to apply statistical methods without fully understanding them.
2. His data set was of low resolution - he only analyzed every 5th frame, but failed to understand the ramifications of doing so.
The end result of both of the above is that the jolt may be somewhat open to interpretation, but the way he presents his data obfuscates it (hence his missing it).
There are two catches.
The first catch is that the jolt is about one third the magnitude that Szambotti seems to think would be required for a self perpetuating collapse.
The second catch is that it appears the Jolt may be one of three of similar magnitude.
Interestingly, these 'apparent' jolts occur about every 12 feet for the first 36 feet of the fall.
Well, ****! I sat on this info too long. Good job, Trippy. Sorry, NEU-FONZE, we snooze we lose. Incidentally, NEU-FONZE is unable to post here anymore. The posts are rejected and his emails to the admins are ignored. The place has degenerated.
I know I haven't said anything for a while, and I still have that image analysis to finish, however...
Tony Szambotti's Missing Jolt 'Paper'.
I thought you might be interested to know that I went through his data and found evidence suggestive of a jolt in his own data. He missed it for two reasons.
1. He's an engineer attempting to apply statistical methods without fully understanding them.
2. His data set was of low resolution - he only analyzed every 5th frame, but failed to understand the ramifications of doing so.
The end result of both of the above is that the jolt may be somewhat open to interpretation, but the way he presents his data obfuscates it (hence his missing it).
There are two catches.
The first catch is that the jolt is about one third the magnitude that Szambotti seems to think would be required for a self perpetuating collapse.
The second catch is that it appears the Jolt may be one of three of similar magnitude.
Interestingly, these 'apparent' jolts occur about every 12 feet for the first 36 feet of the fall.
Well, ****! I sat on this info too long. Good job, Trippy. Sorry, NEU-FONZE, we snooze we lose. Incidentally, NEU-FONZE is unable to post here anymore. The posts are rejected and his emails to the admins are ignored. The place has degenerated.
The first person I know of that saw these was un-hyphenated at the 911 forum. He pointed them out directly to Tony. My data shows them, too, though I was blind to it until just recently.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 12 2009, 06:27 AM)
Well, ****! I sat on this info too long. Good job, Trippy. Sorry, NEU-FONZE, we snooze we lose. Incidentally, NEU-FONZE is unable to post here anymore. The posts are rejected and his emails to the admins are ignored. The place has degenerated.
Heh heh.
Sorry :*)
If it helps, I came across it in March, and i've been mulling over what to do with it.
Essentially what happened was I engaged in a debate with Szambotti over on Sciforums about a number of things, and he pulled the paper out and said "Read it and weep." (not his exact words, however).
During the course of this 'debate' there were several features about his data that I endeavoured to raise with him (among other things) but without a great deal of success, the main one of which was the features of the data around 1.7s in his paper.
I'm one of these people that can look at something, realize something is wrong, but not neccessarily what, and the data around 1.7s just wouldn't leave me alone (if you know what I mean).
The difference being that because I have a background in statistics, do a job that involves statistics, and am not an engineer, I was curious about the sudden changes in his data (he wasn't, he consistently dismissed them).
Eventually I fed it into a spreadsheet, did a little bit of maths, and realized that before, and after this feature, the acceleration is approximately 1g, and if you made the assumption that the data was accurate, and that this represented what the building was actually doing, it was possible to fit a Jolt between sampled frames, and the only way to determine whether of not the Jolt existed, or was an artifact would be to go through that sequence of the footage frame by frame (which I lack the software capabilities to do in a meaningful way).
Anyway, I raised this with him, showed him this graph:
http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?album...6&pictureid=272
And he simply ignored my point completely.
Heh heh.
Sorry :*)
If it helps, I came across it in March, and i've been mulling over what to do with it.
Essentially what happened was I engaged in a debate with Szambotti over on Sciforums about a number of things, and he pulled the paper out and said "Read it and weep." (not his exact words, however).
During the course of this 'debate' there were several features about his data that I endeavoured to raise with him (among other things) but without a great deal of success, the main one of which was the features of the data around 1.7s in his paper.
I'm one of these people that can look at something, realize something is wrong, but not neccessarily what, and the data around 1.7s just wouldn't leave me alone (if you know what I mean).
The difference being that because I have a background in statistics, do a job that involves statistics, and am not an engineer, I was curious about the sudden changes in his data (he wasn't, he consistently dismissed them).
Eventually I fed it into a spreadsheet, did a little bit of maths, and realized that before, and after this feature, the acceleration is approximately 1g, and if you made the assumption that the data was accurate, and that this represented what the building was actually doing, it was possible to fit a Jolt between sampled frames, and the only way to determine whether of not the Jolt existed, or was an artifact would be to go through that sequence of the footage frame by frame (which I lack the software capabilities to do in a meaningful way).
Anyway, I raised this with him, showed him this graph:
http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?album...6&pictureid=272
And he simply ignored my point completely.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 12 2009, 06:44 AM)
The first person I know of that saw these was un-hyphenated at the 911 forum. He pointed them out directly to Tony. My data shows them, too, though I was blind to it until just recently.
Good to know that it's not just me then
Quick explanation of that graph.
Series 1 is Tony's data, as published.
Series 2 & 3 are extrapolations of the acceleration measured on either side of the data point at 1.7 seconds (before and after the Jolt).
Series 4 is a 7g or 9g Jolt (I forget which, and I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me).
Good to know that it's not just me then
Quick explanation of that graph.
Series 1 is Tony's data, as published.
Series 2 & 3 are extrapolations of the acceleration measured on either side of the data point at 1.7 seconds (before and after the Jolt).
Series 4 is a 7g or 9g Jolt (I forget which, and I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me).
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 11 2009, 06:55 PM)
Heh heh.
Sorry :*)
S'OK (sob, sob).
Ahh, un-hyphenated did it on Jan 15. But you're good!
Excellent work, Trippy. I do have to run but I do want to look at what you've posted in more detail. Your statistical orientation was most useful.
Sorry :*)
S'OK (sob, sob).
QUOTE
If it helps, I came across it in March, and i've been mulling over what to do with it.
Ahh, un-hyphenated did it on Jan 15. But you're good!
Excellent work, Trippy. I do have to run but I do want to look at what you've posted in more detail. Your statistical orientation was most useful.
Well, NEU-FONZE's inability to post doesn't seem to be the result of any action that I have taken.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 12 2009, 07:01 AM)
S'OK (sob, sob).
Ahh, un-hyphenated did it on Jan 15. But you're good!
Excellent work, Trippy. I do have to run but I do want to look at what you've posted in more detail. Your statistical orientation was most useful.
I'm going to be smug at this point and say that I was only introduced to Szambotti's paper in Feb or March
Yeah, I keep meaning to sit down and go through the rest of his data with the proverbial comb to see what I can tease out of it, but as yet (6, nearly 7 months later) it simply hasn't happened.
Ahh, un-hyphenated did it on Jan 15. But you're good!
Excellent work, Trippy. I do have to run but I do want to look at what you've posted in more detail. Your statistical orientation was most useful.
I'm going to be smug at this point and say that I was only introduced to Szambotti's paper in Feb or March
Yeah, I keep meaning to sit down and go through the rest of his data with the proverbial comb to see what I can tease out of it, but as yet (6, nearly 7 months later) it simply hasn't happened.
QUOTE (newton+Oct 11 2009, 02:43 AM)
they must, seeing as he was only in office for twelve days when they applied for it, and he killed a bunch of civilians in pakistan with his bombings.
may the farce be with you.
and, some physics, .... once PE is converted to KE, it is no longer available as PE, mr. benson.
lol.
reality challenged.
Ok then, go get yourself one and I'll consider that you might actually have the faintest hint of a clue.
Oh, and for the record? The president is no more responsible for the deaths of those civilians than you are. I don't hold Bush accountable for every civilian casualty incurred during his time in office, so I'm sure not going to do that to the president who's keeping his promise to end the war Bush started.
may the farce be with you.
and, some physics, .... once PE is converted to KE, it is no longer available as PE, mr. benson.
lol.
reality challenged.
Ok then, go get yourself one and I'll consider that you might actually have the faintest hint of a clue.
Oh, and for the record? The president is no more responsible for the deaths of those civilians than you are. I don't hold Bush accountable for every civilian casualty incurred during his time in office, so I'm sure not going to do that to the president who's keeping his promise to end the war Bush started.
Another interesting point about Tony Szambotti's data.
It only shows two modes of acceleration.
Apart from the one instance where it shows no acceleration, the roof falls at either about 1g (0.98-0.99, depending on the 3rd DP) or it's falling at 0.5g.
He has 17 data points.
8 of them are 1g
8 of them are 0.5g
1 of them is 0g (more or less)
(8/17)*1 + (8/17)*0.5 + (1/7)*0
=0.7g
Which is why Tony got the figure that he did, and the R˛ that he did, but why his model is still such an appalingly poor approximation.
Yes, I consider this something that he should have noticed, and investigated, but, because he has an agenda, and his findings matched what he was looking for, he lacked the curiosity to investigate any further (which he should have).
It only shows two modes of acceleration.
Apart from the one instance where it shows no acceleration, the roof falls at either about 1g (0.98-0.99, depending on the 3rd DP) or it's falling at 0.5g.
He has 17 data points.
8 of them are 1g
8 of them are 0.5g
1 of them is 0g (more or less)
(8/17)*1 + (8/17)*0.5 + (1/7)*0
=0.7g
Which is why Tony got the figure that he did, and the R˛ that he did, but why his model is still such an appalingly poor approximation.
Yes, I consider this something that he should have noticed, and investigated, but, because he has an agenda, and his findings matched what he was looking for, he lacked the curiosity to investigate any further (which he should have).
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 11 2009, 06:27 PM)
Well, ****! I
. The place has degenerated.
I agree
. The place has degenerated.
I agree
Trippy --- OneWhite Eye's data (every frame) doesn't show an obvious jolt either. The reason is clear by considering NEUFONZE's measurements of the antenna mast tilt to the south:
CODE
t(sec) tilt(deg)
0 ... 1.1
0.2 ... 1.2
0.4 ... 1.5
0.6 ... 2.0
0.8 ... 2.8
1.0 ... 4.4
1.2 .... 6.4
1.4 .... 8.9
1.6 ... 10.3
0 ... 1.1
0.2 ... 1.2
0.4 ... 1.5
0.6 ... 2.0
0.8 ... 2.8
1.0 ... 4.4
1.2 .... 6.4
1.4 .... 8.9
1.6 ... 10.3
and assuming a hinge at the north wall, seeing that 3+ floors are in the process of being crushed at once, from south to north.
Onewhiteeye:
Would you mind sharing your data with me?
Either PM or email will be fine, i'd be curious to have a look through it myself.
Would you mind sharing your data with me?
Either PM or email will be fine, i'd be curious to have a look through it myself.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 12 2009, 11:21 AM)
Trippy --- OneWhite Eye's data (every frame) doesn't show an obvious jolt either. The reason is clear by considering NEUFONZE's measurements of the antenna mast tilt to the south:
CODE
t(sec) tilt(deg)
0 ... 1.1
0.2 ... 1.2
0.4 ... 1.5
0.6 ... 2.0
0.8 ... 2.8
1.0 ... 4.4
1.2 .... 6.4
1.4 .... 8.9
1.6 ... 10.3
0 ... 1.1
0.2 ... 1.2
0.4 ... 1.5
0.6 ... 2.0
0.8 ... 2.8
1.0 ... 4.4
1.2 .... 6.4
1.4 .... 8.9
1.6 ... 10.3
and assuming a hinge at the north wall, seeing that 3+ floors are in the process of being crushed at once, from south to north.
What's really interesting about that (if I have Neufonze's data fitted to Szambotti's correctly) is that it appears to show a change in rotational acceleration at (approximately) the same time as I was able to fit that jolt.
Trippy --- There is always the question of just when t0 was.
Anyway, when was this jolt?
Anyway, when was this jolt?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 12 2009, 11:41 AM)
Trippy --- There is always the question of just when t0 was.
Anyway, when was this jolt?
Here's a screen grab of the graph I linked to earlier.
http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?album...6&pictureid=272
If you use Szambotti's data, I believe based on the evidence that there was a Jolt between 1.5s and 1.667s in his data (his 10th and 11th data points I believe), this seems to agree with NEUFONZE's data, which appears to indicate a change in rotaional acceleration between 1.4s and 1.6s.
I have come to the conclusion that Szambotti's data between 1.167s and 2s indicates free fall, which is interrupted by the jolt, and then resumes, and that the anomalous data point that he has at 1.667s, which gives an acceleration of 1/50th of a g with the point before it, and 0.99g with the point immeadiately after it, represents a frame that was taken during the jolt (in other words, had Tony sampled 1 or 2 frames after that point, the graph might have a negative slope in that region).
In the image I linked to, the red + represent Szambotti's data.
the dark red, and green lines with x's represent extrapolations/interpolations of Sambotti's data (0.99g).
And the Purple x's and lines represent an 8g jolt fitted only on the assumption that the frame at 1.667s represents the Jolt in progress.
(if that all makes sense).
I'll try and upload a clearer screengrab when I get home from work tonight.
Anyway, when was this jolt?
Here's a screen grab of the graph I linked to earlier.
http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?album...6&pictureid=272
If you use Szambotti's data, I believe based on the evidence that there was a Jolt between 1.5s and 1.667s in his data (his 10th and 11th data points I believe), this seems to agree with NEUFONZE's data, which appears to indicate a change in rotaional acceleration between 1.4s and 1.6s.
I have come to the conclusion that Szambotti's data between 1.167s and 2s indicates free fall, which is interrupted by the jolt, and then resumes, and that the anomalous data point that he has at 1.667s, which gives an acceleration of 1/50th of a g with the point before it, and 0.99g with the point immeadiately after it, represents a frame that was taken during the jolt (in other words, had Tony sampled 1 or 2 frames after that point, the graph might have a negative slope in that region).
In the image I linked to, the red + represent Szambotti's data.
the dark red, and green lines with x's represent extrapolations/interpolations of Sambotti's data (0.99g).
And the Purple x's and lines represent an 8g jolt fitted only on the assumption that the frame at 1.667s represents the Jolt in progress.
(if that all makes sense).
I'll try and upload a clearer screengrab when I get home from work tonight.
Wait, that's not right.
Edit:
Using Szambotis data:
t=1.5s - 1.667s a=0.49g
t=1.667s - 1.8334s a=0.002g
t=1.8334s- 2s a=0.99g
Edit:
Using Szambotis data:
CODE
t=1.5s - 1.667s a=0.49g
t=1.667s - 1.8334s a=0.002g
t=1.8334s- 2s a=0.99g
My contention is that, bearing in mind where dealing with discrete samples of a continuous variable, we can only really talk about what happened between samples.
My contention is that between t=1.5s and t=1.667s, the acceleration continued at 0.99g, which it had been at for the previous 3 samples, until a jolt occured which caused decceleration.
This jolt then continued through the sample taken at t=1.667s, until somewhere between t=1.667s and t=1.8334s, at which point freefall resumed.
My other contention is that had Szambotti's samples been taken one or two frames later, the present of this decceleration may have been obvious.
Trippy --- Here is the data (seconds, meters) around the applicable time:
CODE
1.3684 5.889
1.3937 6.053
1.4016 6.211
1.4351 6.497
1.4685 6.773
1.4765 6.649
1.5017 7.116
1.5108 7.146
1.5352 7.394
1.5441 7.343
1.5684 7.756
1.5805 7.861
1.6019 8.141
1.6353 8.410
1.3937 6.053
1.4016 6.211
1.4351 6.497
1.4685 6.773
1.4765 6.649
1.5017 7.116
1.5108 7.146
1.5352 7.394
1.5441 7.343
1.5684 7.756
1.5805 7.861
1.6019 8.141
1.6353 8.410
No jolt that I can see.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 12 2009, 12:42 PM)
Trippy --- Here is the data (seconds, meters) around the applicable time:
CODE
1.3684 5.889
1.3937 6.053
1.4016 6.211
1.4351 6.497
1.4685 6.773
1.4765 6.649
1.5017 7.116
1.5108 7.146
1.5352 7.394
1.5441 7.343
1.5684 7.756
1.5805 7.861
1.6019 8.141
1.6353 8.410
1.3937 6.053
1.4016 6.211
1.4351 6.497
1.4685 6.773
1.4765 6.649
1.5017 7.116
1.5108 7.146
1.5352 7.394
1.5441 7.343
1.5684 7.756
1.5805 7.861
1.6019 8.141
1.6353 8.410
No jolt that I can see.
I'm not sure I agree with you there.
Here's the same data, but with average velocity and acceleration between frames calculated:
CODE
Time Fall Velocity Acceleration
1.3684 5.889
1.3937 6.053 6.482213439
1.4016 6.211 20 1711.112223
1.4351 6.497 8.537313433 -342.1697483
1.4685 6.773 8.263473054 -8.198813741
1.4765 6.649 -15.5 -2970.434132
1.5017 7.116 18.53174603 1350.466112
1.5108 7.146 3.296703297 -1674.18052
1.5352 7.394 10.16393443 281.4438988
1.5441 7.343 -5.730337079 -1785.873203
1.5684 7.756 16.99588477 935.2354672
1.5805 7.861 8.67768595 -687.4544482
1.6019 8.141 13.08411215 205.9077663
1.6353 8.41 8.053892216 -150.6053872
1.3684 5.889
1.3937 6.053 6.482213439
1.4016 6.211 20 1711.112223
1.4351 6.497 8.537313433 -342.1697483
1.4685 6.773 8.263473054 -8.198813741
1.4765 6.649 -15.5 -2970.434132
1.5017 7.116 18.53174603 1350.466112
1.5108 7.146 3.296703297 -1674.18052
1.5352 7.394 10.16393443 281.4438988
1.5441 7.343 -5.730337079 -1785.873203
1.5684 7.756 16.99588477 935.2354672
1.5805 7.861 8.67768595 -687.4544482
1.6019 8.141 13.08411215 205.9077663
1.6353 8.41 8.053892216 -150.6053872
The average of the acceleration values is about -25g, and the acceleration portrayed by that data behaves like a damped oscillation.
And yes, I know I should really have rounded the data to a more appropriate number of SF, however...
Trippy --- The first differences are meaningless. The data has jitter due to the feature extraction algorithm which enables the subpixel accuracy you see. (A pixel subtends about 0.254 meters and the measurements are good down to a few centimeters).
Here is one way to smooth it. This is a run of the B&V crush-down equation with best fitting parameters (third column) and differences from the measurements in the last column:
Here is one way to smooth it. This is a run of the B&V crush-down equation with best fitting parameters (third column) and differences from the measurements in the last column:
CODE
1.3684 5.889 5.903 +0.014
1.3937 6.053 6.125 +0.072
1.4016 6.211 6.196 -0.015
1.4351 6.497 6.499 +0.002
1.4685 6.773 6.809 +0.036
1.4765 6.649 6.884 +0.235
1.5017 7.116 7.125 +0.009
1.5108 7.146 7.212 +0.066
1.5352 7.394 7.451 +0.058
1.5441 7.343 7.540 +0.197
1.5684 7.756 7.783 +0.028
1.5805 7.861 7.905 +0.044
1.6019 8.141 8.125 -0.016
1.6353 8.410 8.474 +0.063
1.3937 6.053 6.125 +0.072
1.4016 6.211 6.196 -0.015
1.4351 6.497 6.499 +0.002
1.4685 6.773 6.809 +0.036
1.4765 6.649 6.884 +0.235
1.5017 7.116 7.125 +0.009
1.5108 7.146 7.212 +0.066
1.5352 7.394 7.451 +0.058
1.5441 7.343 7.540 +0.197
1.5684 7.756 7.783 +0.028
1.5805 7.861 7.905 +0.044
1.6019 8.141 8.125 -0.016
1.6353 8.410 8.474 +0.063
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 12 2009, 02:24 PM)
Trippy --- The first differences are meaningless. The data has jitter due to the feature extraction algorithm which enables the subpixel accuracy you see. (A pixel subtends about 0.254 meters and the measurements are good down to a few centimeters).
I understand that the data has jitter, and some of this is introduced by the software being used.
Ideally what I would do is gather together extracted by a number of different people from the same footage, and work with that pool, however...
Even if one ignores the fact that the acceleration/decceleration is (at first blush) seemingly ridiculous, I am still (and increasingly) convinced that there's something in the data (remember, onewhiteeye said (or implied) that he, neufonze, and someone else had also seen it).
Even here, the first thing that comes to my mind is why does the B&V crushdown equation over estimate the fall by an order of magnitude more than it does elsewhere on two occasions, and why does it so consistantly over estimate the amount of fall (or, why are there only two occasions in this data set where it underestimates the amount of fall)?
Eliminating those four outliers, gives us a better fit.
A = 6.0648. B = -8.6089, C = 6.3392 +/- 0.0230
Then the outliers are 3, 9, 7 and 3 standard deviations from the fit, all in the same direction (as they were before)
So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data.
I understand that the data has jitter, and some of this is introduced by the software being used.
Ideally what I would do is gather together extracted by a number of different people from the same footage, and work with that pool, however...
Even if one ignores the fact that the acceleration/decceleration is (at first blush) seemingly ridiculous, I am still (and increasingly) convinced that there's something in the data (remember, onewhiteeye said (or implied) that he, neufonze, and someone else had also seen it).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 12 2009, 02:24 PM)
Here is one way to smooth it. This is a run of the B&V crush-down equation with best fitting parameters (third column) and differences from the measurements in the last column:
CODE
1.3684 5.889 5.903 +0.014
1.3937 6.053 6.125 +0.072
1.4016 6.211 6.196 -0.015
1.4351 6.497 6.499 +0.002
1.4685 6.773 6.809 +0.036
1.4765 6.649 6.884 +0.235
1.5017 7.116 7.125 +0.009
1.5108 7.146 7.212 +0.066
1.5352 7.394 7.451 +0.058
1.5441 7.343 7.540 +0.197
1.5684 7.756 7.783 +0.028
1.5805 7.861 7.905 +0.044
1.6019 8.141 8.125 -0.016
1.6353 8.410 8.474 +0.063
1.3937 6.053 6.125 +0.072
1.4016 6.211 6.196 -0.015
1.4351 6.497 6.499 +0.002
1.4685 6.773 6.809 +0.036
1.4765 6.649 6.884 +0.235
1.5017 7.116 7.125 +0.009
1.5108 7.146 7.212 +0.066
1.5352 7.394 7.451 +0.058
1.5441 7.343 7.540 +0.197
1.5684 7.756 7.783 +0.028
1.5805 7.861 7.905 +0.044
1.6019 8.141 8.125 -0.016
1.6353 8.410 8.474 +0.063
Even here, the first thing that comes to my mind is why does the B&V crushdown equation over estimate the fall by an order of magnitude more than it does elsewhere on two occasions, and why does it so consistantly over estimate the amount of fall (or, why are there only two occasions in this data set where it underestimates the amount of fall)?
If there is no jolt, one would expect to the data to fit a model of:
x = At^2 + Bt + C + error.
And that error should be statistically indistinguishable from a single noise source.
But a quick fit identifies a pattern of outliers.
I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675
And the residuals look suggestive of something:
x = At^2 + Bt + C + error.
And that error should be statistically indistinguishable from a single noise source.
But a quick fit identifies a pattern of outliers.
I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675
And the residuals look suggestive of something:
CODE
1.3684000 -0.0094844
1.3937000 -0.0429852
1.4016000 0.0514260
1.4351000 0.0576315
1.4685000 0.0383267
1.4765000 -0.1588279
1.5017000 0.0716152
1.5108000 0.0139086
1.5352000 0.0207596
1.5441000 -0.1203685
1.5684000 0.0406498
1.5805000 0.0169555
1.6019000 0.0641031
1.6353000 -0.0437100
1.3937000 -0.0429852
1.4016000 0.0514260
1.4351000 0.0576315
1.4685000 0.0383267
1.4765000 -0.1588279
1.5017000 0.0716152
1.5108000 0.0139086
1.5352000 0.0207596
1.5441000 -0.1203685
1.5684000 0.0406498
1.5805000 0.0169555
1.6019000 0.0641031
1.6353000 -0.0437100
Eliminating those four outliers, gives us a better fit.
A = 6.0648. B = -8.6089, C = 6.3392 +/- 0.0230
Then the outliers are 3, 9, 7 and 3 standard deviations from the fit, all in the same direction (as they were before)
CODE
1.368400 -0.02629234
1.393700 -0.06830453 *
1.401600 0.02377687
1.435100 0.02183733
1.468500 -0.00279430
1.476500 -0.20081055 *
1.501700 0.02796420
1.510800 -0.02995460
1.535200 -0.02265031
1.544100 -0.16324249 *
1.568400 0.00024780
1.580500 -0.02166485
1.601900 0.02953019
1.635300 -0.06967718 *
1.393700 -0.06830453 *
1.401600 0.02377687
1.435100 0.02183733
1.468500 -0.00279430
1.476500 -0.20081055 *
1.501700 0.02796420
1.510800 -0.02995460
1.535200 -0.02265031
1.544100 -0.16324249 *
1.568400 0.00024780
1.580500 -0.02166485
1.601900 0.02953019
1.635300 -0.06967718 *
So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 11 2009, 03:07 PM)
So it's your contention that thermite cutter charges were placed on the 47 core columns of each floor, with the exception of the basement. Of all of the core columns that were examined after the collapse of the towers, which ones specifically showed evidence of cutting charges of any kind?
Considering that the only "evidence" of thermite is a contaminated dust sample gathered days later...
BTW would I be accurate to say that thermite is not an explosive?
Considering that the only "evidence" of thermite is a contaminated dust sample gathered days later...
BTW would I be accurate to say that thermite is not an explosive?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 03:18 AM)
Considering that the only "evidence" of thermite is a contaminated dust sample gathered days later...
BTW would I be accurate to say that thermite is not an explosive?
thermite made with nano-sized particles is explosive.
normal thermite is incendiary.
grumpy, are you saying benson has no ......., and so he's not a mister?
if i go to the doctor, and he tells me i'm too fat, can i not say, "is that right, mister?"
so, you live in some kind of hierarchical prison, dude?
nevermind. i already know the answer, lol.
p.s. no, you're a dweeb *sticks tongue out* and laughs at the childish name calling, then runs away giggling.
BTW would I be accurate to say that thermite is not an explosive?
thermite made with nano-sized particles is explosive.
normal thermite is incendiary.
grumpy, are you saying benson has no ......., and so he's not a mister?
if i go to the doctor, and he tells me i'm too fat, can i not say, "is that right, mister?"
so, you live in some kind of hierarchical prison, dude?
nevermind. i already know the answer, lol.
p.s. no, you're a dweeb *sticks tongue out* and laughs at the childish name calling, then runs away giggling.
Q = Why are the weaker perimeter external colums at the basement of the WTC still standing after the controlled demolitions explosions of the Whole WTC building , yet none of the 47 super extra reinforced and super extra strong internal core Steel pillars at the basement of WTC survived the controlled demolition thermite explosions ?
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
.
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Well, NEU-FONZE's inability to post doesn't seem to be the result of any action that I have taken.
It may be some sort of technical problem, but he hasn't received a response about it. Not sure who was contacted.
It may be some sort of technical problem, but he hasn't received a response about it. Not sure who was contacted.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
I'm going to be smug at this point and say that I was only introduced to Szambotti's paper in Feb or March
You can afford to be smug, I think you displayed good instincts. I didn't believe there would be jolts for a variety of reasons so I never looked. It's a little embarrassing in retrospect; shows how ignorance and prejudice gets in the way of good science.
Quite understandable, plowing through other people's work without good reason does tend to get back-burnered. I'd looked at The Missing Jolt paper back at the beginning of the year and discovered (like unhyphenated and another poster) the means of calculating the velocity was completely cracked. The paper was revised on this point and there was little reason to examine it further - I didn't accept the premise that there would be jolts. It came back to my attention recently because someone made mention of a couple of my posts that demonstrated fairly pronounced jolts don't generally show up at the sample rate that Tony used. I referred you to these a few months back:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry414604
Tony brushed it off. So, I started wondering what kind of jolts he was talking about that would be so large that a very low sample rate didn't matter. This led to examining the paper in a little more detail, that's a bit of a story so I'll just hit the highlights.
Given the calculated KE loss for failure of two stories, this deduction was made over arbitrary time spans dictated by 31 and 6g decelerations. The calculated energy loss was for two stories buckled to full rotation but the associated displacement for these downward excursions in acceleration was, as I recall, less than a (half?) meter. Whatever, a very short distance.
This is not mechanics! The resistive force provided by the columns, as a function of the displacement through those columns, dictate what the acceleration of Zone C will be over time. Needless to say, in a story-wise analysis like this paper, the full calculated energy is only known to be consumed when two stories are compacted. Tony subtracts the entire amount in a constant 6g interval until the velocity reduction given by that KE loss is achieved. The hinge buckling is the bulk of the energy dissipation calculated, as I think you noticed, the failure of the columns is only roughly 1/3 of the total. This does occur over a short displacement, his figures are about 15 inches, so there's a little jolt expected in the axial impact case. Much shallower slope in the first segment than he depicts.
Then there's the 'velocity recovery' and, I tell you, when I see unfamiliar terms like this my alarm bells go off. The remaining two thirds of the energy budget are dissipated over this period. That's only a little off freefall, as it turns out, so the slope of the upward leg of the sawtooth pattern is going to be > 0.75g, for a long displacement. Here's where the second major error is: the slope he uses is the same as the linear regression taken from the actual data. That already has the average dissipation folded in, it's too shallow! So, too steep on the downside and too shallow on the upside.
I decided, like you, to take his numbers and rework it, still a crude segmented approximation and not solving equations of motion, but do it correctly within those bounds. Then I took the first approximate jolt and overlaid it on Tony's data. It fit just fine! A couple of samples, top one is where Tony wants the jolt to be, lower is where it might actually be:
http://i33.tinypic.com/1e4577.png
The next thing was to rework the velocity plot without symmetric differences. At only 6 samples per second, and looking for jolts, why throw resolution away? A better plot, and like the one un-hyphenated did so long ago, is:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2i0w003.png
With the long sample period, you'd expect strictly monotonic rise, not bumps. Then I started wondering... were the data points taken really that bad? Probably not. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine that would represent a ******* monkey doing the work. So next was to make a velocity plot of my own data and see how it compared. There was the issue of t0, of course, but that turned out not to be a problem since all that was needed was to line up the dips.
Get it? Hahaha, line up the dips! Here's what it looked like:
http://i37.tinypic.com/5wh4q9.png
Now, if you understand how different the collection methodologies are, it's pretty hard to blow this off. Both sets are from the same video, but that's about all there is in common. Different locations, technique, sample rate. One step shy of a slam dunk for me. NEU-FONZE was cautiously intrigued and agreed to have a closer look, whenever time permitted, and that's as far as it got because we're both too busy to throw any time at it.
more...
You can afford to be smug, I think you displayed good instincts. I didn't believe there would be jolts for a variety of reasons so I never looked. It's a little embarrassing in retrospect; shows how ignorance and prejudice gets in the way of good science.
QUOTE
Yeah, I keep meaning to sit down and go through the rest of his data with the proverbial comb to see what I can tease out of it, but as yet (6, nearly 7 months later) it simply hasn't happened.
Quite understandable, plowing through other people's work without good reason does tend to get back-burnered. I'd looked at The Missing Jolt paper back at the beginning of the year and discovered (like unhyphenated and another poster) the means of calculating the velocity was completely cracked. The paper was revised on this point and there was little reason to examine it further - I didn't accept the premise that there would be jolts. It came back to my attention recently because someone made mention of a couple of my posts that demonstrated fairly pronounced jolts don't generally show up at the sample rate that Tony used. I referred you to these a few months back:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry414604
Tony brushed it off. So, I started wondering what kind of jolts he was talking about that would be so large that a very low sample rate didn't matter. This led to examining the paper in a little more detail, that's a bit of a story so I'll just hit the highlights.
Given the calculated KE loss for failure of two stories, this deduction was made over arbitrary time spans dictated by 31 and 6g decelerations. The calculated energy loss was for two stories buckled to full rotation but the associated displacement for these downward excursions in acceleration was, as I recall, less than a (half?) meter. Whatever, a very short distance.
This is not mechanics! The resistive force provided by the columns, as a function of the displacement through those columns, dictate what the acceleration of Zone C will be over time. Needless to say, in a story-wise analysis like this paper, the full calculated energy is only known to be consumed when two stories are compacted. Tony subtracts the entire amount in a constant 6g interval until the velocity reduction given by that KE loss is achieved. The hinge buckling is the bulk of the energy dissipation calculated, as I think you noticed, the failure of the columns is only roughly 1/3 of the total. This does occur over a short displacement, his figures are about 15 inches, so there's a little jolt expected in the axial impact case. Much shallower slope in the first segment than he depicts.
Then there's the 'velocity recovery' and, I tell you, when I see unfamiliar terms like this my alarm bells go off. The remaining two thirds of the energy budget are dissipated over this period. That's only a little off freefall, as it turns out, so the slope of the upward leg of the sawtooth pattern is going to be > 0.75g, for a long displacement. Here's where the second major error is: the slope he uses is the same as the linear regression taken from the actual data. That already has the average dissipation folded in, it's too shallow! So, too steep on the downside and too shallow on the upside.
I decided, like you, to take his numbers and rework it, still a crude segmented approximation and not solving equations of motion, but do it correctly within those bounds. Then I took the first approximate jolt and overlaid it on Tony's data. It fit just fine! A couple of samples, top one is where Tony wants the jolt to be, lower is where it might actually be:
http://i33.tinypic.com/1e4577.png
The next thing was to rework the velocity plot without symmetric differences. At only 6 samples per second, and looking for jolts, why throw resolution away? A better plot, and like the one un-hyphenated did so long ago, is:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2i0w003.png
With the long sample period, you'd expect strictly monotonic rise, not bumps. Then I started wondering... were the data points taken really that bad? Probably not. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine that would represent a ******* monkey doing the work. So next was to make a velocity plot of my own data and see how it compared. There was the issue of t0, of course, but that turned out not to be a problem since all that was needed was to line up the dips.
Get it? Hahaha, line up the dips! Here's what it looked like:
http://i37.tinypic.com/5wh4q9.png
Now, if you understand how different the collection methodologies are, it's pretty hard to blow this off. Both sets are from the same video, but that's about all there is in common. Different locations, technique, sample rate. One step shy of a slam dunk for me. NEU-FONZE was cautiously intrigued and agreed to have a closer look, whenever time permitted, and that's as far as it got because we're both too busy to throw any time at it.
more...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 11 2009, 11:21 PM)
Trippy --- OneWhite Eye's data (every frame) doesn't show an obvious jolt either. The reason is clear by considering NEUFONZE's measurements of the antenna mast tilt to the south:
CODE
t(sec) tilt(deg)
0 ... 1.1
0.2 ... 1.2
0.4 ... 1.5
0.6 ... 2.0
0.8 ... 2.8
1.0 ... 4.4
1.2 .... 6.4
1.4 .... 8.9
1.6 ... 10.3
0 ... 1.1
0.2 ... 1.2
0.4 ... 1.5
0.6 ... 2.0
0.8 ... 2.8
1.0 ... 4.4
1.2 .... 6.4
1.4 .... 8.9
1.6 ... 10.3
and assuming a hinge at the north wall, seeing that 3+ floors are in the process of being crushed at once, from south to north.
That's what I thought, too. Didn't expect them, didn't look for them. I think it does show them, though.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 11 2009, 11:27 PM)
Onewhiteeye:
Would you mind sharing your data with me?
Either PM or email will be fine, i'd be curious to have a look through it myself.
You can get it here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/technica...-255.html#p1596
At the time that post was made, I was a non-believer. Pay no attention to the editorial comments.
Would you mind sharing your data with me?
Either PM or email will be fine, i'd be curious to have a look through it myself.
You can get it here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/technica...-255.html#p1596
At the time that post was made, I was a non-believer. Pay no attention to the editorial comments.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 12 2009, 02:24 AM)
Trippy --- The first differences are meaningless.
This is what I thought. Believed it to be a bad road to go down, there be madness and all that. A three point average (0.1s intervals) on the raw first differences tells a different story:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2ch03kw.png
If you interpolate position first and then differentiate, as has been my inclination, the goodies can be obliterated. Never even did that with this data, because of the 'blinders'.
This is all true. But the error is magnitude-limited, it can only be so far off. What you see in the graph above is too much excursion to be error in the process, it must reflect apparent motion in the video on the whole. The camera is very steady, too (motion artifact not technically ruled out yet, but unlikely).
Compare that graph to the rework of the Szamboti data. Pull out your Bayesian thinking cap, while you're at it.
Mine - dish on antenna, software-based per-frame extraction
His - roofline, manually eyeballing a point every five frames
At some point, the picture changes from 'not expected' to 'wants explanation'. I don't expect everyone to share my confidence and enthusiasm - immediately.
This is what I thought. Believed it to be a bad road to go down, there be madness and all that. A three point average (0.1s intervals) on the raw first differences tells a different story:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2ch03kw.png
If you interpolate position first and then differentiate, as has been my inclination, the goodies can be obliterated. Never even did that with this data, because of the 'blinders'.
QUOTE
The data has jitter due to the feature extraction algorithm which enables the subpixel accuracy you see. (A pixel subtends about 0.254 meters and the measurements are good down to a few centimeters).
This is all true. But the error is magnitude-limited, it can only be so far off. What you see in the graph above is too much excursion to be error in the process, it must reflect apparent motion in the video on the whole. The camera is very steady, too (motion artifact not technically ruled out yet, but unlikely).
Compare that graph to the rework of the Szamboti data. Pull out your Bayesian thinking cap, while you're at it.
Mine - dish on antenna, software-based per-frame extraction
His - roofline, manually eyeballing a point every five frames
At some point, the picture changes from 'not expected' to 'wants explanation'. I don't expect everyone to share my confidence and enthusiasm - immediately.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 12 2009, 02:56 AM)
If there is no jolt, one would expect to the data to fit a model of:
x = At^2 + Bt + C + error.
And that error should be statistically indistinguishable from a single noise source.
Curious; why is this expected?
My first, not-so-serious, one-size-fits-all fit to the entire set -'cause it was moving the whole time - is this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/r20qjd.png
Beware, fit in raw pixels. According the file timestamp, that was less than an hour after acquiring the data, which was well over a year ago. Now, to be honest, I didn't give a rat's *** about anything after t0 until this jolt thing came up. Never tried to fit v or a, and the only other fit I ever tried was pre-t0 and hardly the same sort of thing, here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-co...2-30.html#p4414
Nevertheless, what follows is of obvious interest.
A deviation from constant acceleration wouldn't surprise me at all but I believe you're saying that if the data isn't whacked, there might be something there. I agree. As to the quality of the data, I'd like to think it's pretty good all in all, but others can judge for themselves. The process outputs a series of cropped validation frames that can be made into an animation.
(large gif) http://i33.tinypic.com/2zgw2sj.jpg
Does the bright green spot stay in the same position relative to the big gray blob? Note that the jumpiness is due to advancing keyframes in the cropped image, the issue is whether the dot and the blob maintain the same spatial relationship. The green dot is the acquired sub-pixel position, the blob is the target - in this case the top center dish on the antenna mast. In real frame size, here's the target, indicated by the lower terminus of the yellow line:
http://i34.tinypic.com/o7iluw.png
Quite small, gives you an idea of how much the gif is enlarged. It's just a few pixels across, so as the tower descends, the nearest-integer pixel crop is used for the verification frames, ergo the jumpiness. Has nothing to do with data noise. In fact, Trippy's comment -
A deviation from constant acceleration wouldn't surprise me at all but I believe you're saying that if the data isn't whacked, there might be something there. I agree. As to the quality of the data, I'd like to think it's pretty good all in all, but others can judge for themselves. The process outputs a series of cropped validation frames that can be made into an animation.
(large gif) http://i33.tinypic.com/2zgw2sj.jpg
Does the bright green spot stay in the same position relative to the big gray blob? Note that the jumpiness is due to advancing keyframes in the cropped image, the issue is whether the dot and the blob maintain the same spatial relationship. The green dot is the acquired sub-pixel position, the blob is the target - in this case the top center dish on the antenna mast. In real frame size, here's the target, indicated by the lower terminus of the yellow line:
http://i34.tinypic.com/o7iluw.png
Quite small, gives you an idea of how much the gif is enlarged. It's just a few pixels across, so as the tower descends, the nearest-integer pixel crop is used for the verification frames, ergo the jumpiness. Has nothing to do with data noise. In fact, Trippy's comment -
I understand that the data has jitter, and some of this is introduced by the software being used.
is not true. The jitter is not introduced by the software, it's whatever noise is present in the video signal itself. Smoke, refraction, non-constant illumination, camera vibration, etc. The software merely assigns a location to a 'feature' based on the mean geometric center of the intensity of a cluster of pixels satisfying a certain threshold. Rather than the smoothing tendency of eye-hand, every blemish comes out, and this is the noise seen in the data. Quite substantial compared to the theoretical resolution, but 29.97fps is pretty decent oversampling.
At least compared to the Missing Jolt data.
Anyway, I first mentioned the data in this physforum post, where there is more detail about the process and such:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry350033
At this point I'll let you be the judge of the quality of this data. As to taking more, that's in the works.
Edit: just watched that gif again, quite a ride. I'm dizzy.
Eliminating those four outliers, gives us a better fit.
A = 6.0648. B = -8.6089, C = 6.3392 +/- 0.0230
Then the outliers are 3, 9, 7 and 3 standard deviations from the fit, all in the same direction (as they were before)
So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data.
Aww,you beat me to it.
x = At^2 + Bt + C + error.
And that error should be statistically indistinguishable from a single noise source.
Curious; why is this expected?
My first, not-so-serious, one-size-fits-all fit to the entire set -'cause it was moving the whole time - is this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/r20qjd.png
Beware, fit in raw pixels. According the file timestamp, that was less than an hour after acquiring the data, which was well over a year ago. Now, to be honest, I didn't give a rat's *** about anything after t0 until this jolt thing came up. Never tried to fit v or a, and the only other fit I ever tried was pre-t0 and hardly the same sort of thing, here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-co...2-30.html#p4414
Nevertheless, what follows is of obvious interest.
QUOTE
But a quick fit identifies a pattern of outliers.
I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675
And the residuals look suggestive of something:
...
So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data.
I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675
And the residuals look suggestive of something:
...
So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data.
A deviation from constant acceleration wouldn't surprise me at all but I believe you're saying that if the data isn't whacked, there might be something there. I agree. As to the quality of the data, I'd like to think it's pretty good all in all, but others can judge for themselves. The process outputs a series of cropped validation frames that can be made into an animation.
(large gif) http://i33.tinypic.com/2zgw2sj.jpg
Does the bright green spot stay in the same position relative to the big gray blob? Note that the jumpiness is due to advancing keyframes in the cropped image, the issue is whether the dot and the blob maintain the same spatial relationship. The green dot is the acquired sub-pixel position, the blob is the target - in this case the top center dish on the antenna mast. In real frame size, here's the target, indicated by the lower terminus of the yellow line:
http://i34.tinypic.com/o7iluw.png
Quite small, gives you an idea of how much the gif is enlarged. It's just a few pixels across, so as the tower descends, the nearest-integer pixel crop is used for the verification frames, ergo the jumpiness. Has nothing to do with data noise. In fact, Trippy's comment -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But a quick fit identifies a pattern of outliers. I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675 And the residuals look suggestive of something: ... So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data. |
A deviation from constant acceleration wouldn't surprise me at all but I believe you're saying that if the data isn't whacked, there might be something there. I agree. As to the quality of the data, I'd like to think it's pretty good all in all, but others can judge for themselves. The process outputs a series of cropped validation frames that can be made into an animation.
(large gif) http://i33.tinypic.com/2zgw2sj.jpg
Does the bright green spot stay in the same position relative to the big gray blob? Note that the jumpiness is due to advancing keyframes in the cropped image, the issue is whether the dot and the blob maintain the same spatial relationship. The green dot is the acquired sub-pixel position, the blob is the target - in this case the top center dish on the antenna mast. In real frame size, here's the target, indicated by the lower terminus of the yellow line:
http://i34.tinypic.com/o7iluw.png
Quite small, gives you an idea of how much the gif is enlarged. It's just a few pixels across, so as the tower descends, the nearest-integer pixel crop is used for the verification frames, ergo the jumpiness. Has nothing to do with data noise. In fact, Trippy's comment -
I understand that the data has jitter, and some of this is introduced by the software being used.
is not true. The jitter is not introduced by the software, it's whatever noise is present in the video signal itself. Smoke, refraction, non-constant illumination, camera vibration, etc. The software merely assigns a location to a 'feature' based on the mean geometric center of the intensity of a cluster of pixels satisfying a certain threshold. Rather than the smoothing tendency of eye-hand, every blemish comes out, and this is the noise seen in the data. Quite substantial compared to the theoretical resolution, but 29.97fps is pretty decent oversampling.
At least compared to the Missing Jolt data.
Anyway, I first mentioned the data in this physforum post, where there is more detail about the process and such:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry350033
At this point I'll let you be the judge of the quality of this data. As to taking more, that's in the works.
Edit: just watched that gif again, quite a ride. I'm dizzy.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 12 2009, 02:56 PM)
If there is no jolt, one would expect to the data to fit a model of:
x = At^2 + Bt + C + error.
And that error should be statistically indistinguishable from a single noise source.
But a quick fit identifies a pattern of outliers.
I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675
And the residuals look suggestive of something:
x = At^2 + Bt + C + error.
And that error should be statistically indistinguishable from a single noise source.
But a quick fit identifies a pattern of outliers.
I get A = 7.3152, B = -12.3991, C = 9.1675
And the residuals look suggestive of something:
CODE
1.3684000 -0.0094844
1.3937000 -0.0429852
1.4016000 0.0514260
1.4351000 0.0576315
1.4685000 0.0383267
1.4765000 -0.1588279
1.5017000 0.0716152
1.5108000 0.0139086
1.5352000 0.0207596
1.5441000 -0.1203685
1.5684000 0.0406498
1.5805000 0.0169555
1.6019000 0.0641031
1.6353000 -0.0437100
1.3937000 -0.0429852
1.4016000 0.0514260
1.4351000 0.0576315
1.4685000 0.0383267
1.4765000 -0.1588279
1.5017000 0.0716152
1.5108000 0.0139086
1.5352000 0.0207596
1.5441000 -0.1203685
1.5684000 0.0406498
1.5805000 0.0169555
1.6019000 0.0641031
1.6353000 -0.0437100
Eliminating those four outliers, gives us a better fit.
A = 6.0648. B = -8.6089, C = 6.3392 +/- 0.0230
Then the outliers are 3, 9, 7 and 3 standard deviations from the fit, all in the same direction (as they were before)
CODE
1.368400 -0.02629234
1.393700 -0.06830453 *
1.401600 0.02377687
1.435100 0.02183733
1.468500 -0.00279430
1.476500 -0.20081055 *
1.501700 0.02796420
1.510800 -0.02995460
1.535200 -0.02265031
1.544100 -0.16324249 *
1.568400 0.00024780
1.580500 -0.02166485
1.601900 0.02953019
1.635300 -0.06967718 *
1.393700 -0.06830453 *
1.401600 0.02377687
1.435100 0.02183733
1.468500 -0.00279430
1.476500 -0.20081055 *
1.501700 0.02796420
1.510800 -0.02995460
1.535200 -0.02265031
1.544100 -0.16324249 *
1.568400 0.00024780
1.580500 -0.02166485
1.601900 0.02953019
1.635300 -0.06967718 *
So either there are serious data quality issues or a real deviation from Newtonian constant acceleration. To distinguish between these cases requires getting more data.
Aww,you beat me to it.
[QUOTE=giuseppe,Oct 12 2009, 04:55 AM] Q = Why are the weaker perimeter external colums at the basement of the WTC still standing after the controlled demolitions explosions of the Whole WTC building , yet none of the 47 super extra reinforced and super extra strong internal core Steel pillars at the basement of WTC survived the controlled demolition thermite explosions ?
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
. [/QUOTE]
Yes this is obvious the World Trade Center was without a doubt controlled demolished with explosives
.
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
. [/QUOTE]
Yes this is obvious the World Trade Center was without a doubt controlled demolished with explosives
.
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 12 2009, 08:48 AM)
Yes this is obvious the World Trade Center was without a doubt controlled demolished with explosives
Seriously? You mean I've been wasting all this ******* time? Filling the vertical extent of my posts with words and facts and figures instead of empty space was the wrong approach?
C'mon. You've got a lot more legwork to do, better get crackin'.
Seriously? You mean I've been wasting all this ******* time? Filling the vertical extent of my posts with words and facts and figures instead of empty space was the wrong approach?
C'mon. You've got a lot more legwork to do, better get crackin'.
OWE:
I'm not sure what to say - your posts are like a wetdream come true or something, it may take mea couple of days to come back with anything more indepth than this.
Many of the points you mention regarding Szambotti's data are points that I endeavouredto raise with him directly, only he dodged addressing them.
I may need to take some time to digest what you've said, and I think you may be on the right path.
I inserted period 3, and period 4 running averages into the data that DBB posted earlier, and while at first glance the raw data might appear to be of questionable value, the period 3 and period 4 moving averages show some obvious trends. (deceleration, followed by renewed acceleration).
And yeah, going through other peoples data,and correcting their mistakes does tend to get back burnered, and on top of that, i've had a number of personal issues to deal with, and finally, I come back to "Well so what if I do find something, how am I going to get it published". Although on this one, I did consider emailing Bazant and/or Zhou.
At this stage i'm almost tempted to download a trial version of Minitab and see what I can find in the data.
Rpenner is on the right track, a residual errors plot was one of the things I was interested in experimenting with.
Ironically I (apparently) do share you enthusiasm, and have (without realizing it) since looking at Szambotti's data. I am,and have been, right from the start utterly convinced that there's more to this data then people are seeing.
On a side note, I tried signing up for the 911 forums back in March when I first started coming across this stuff, however the email I recieved from the admin that amounted to "What published research have you done, and what other forums do you post at, and what can you contribute" was kind of off putting at that stage.
Finally, what I would really like to see is two or three sets of data (the more the better) generated from the Sauret footage (ideally,other footage would be great as well, but, gotta start somewhere right?).
I'm not sure what to say - your posts are like a wetdream come true or something, it may take mea couple of days to come back with anything more indepth than this.
Many of the points you mention regarding Szambotti's data are points that I endeavouredto raise with him directly, only he dodged addressing them.
I may need to take some time to digest what you've said, and I think you may be on the right path.
I inserted period 3, and period 4 running averages into the data that DBB posted earlier, and while at first glance the raw data might appear to be of questionable value, the period 3 and period 4 moving averages show some obvious trends. (deceleration, followed by renewed acceleration).
And yeah, going through other peoples data,and correcting their mistakes does tend to get back burnered, and on top of that, i've had a number of personal issues to deal with, and finally, I come back to "Well so what if I do find something, how am I going to get it published". Although on this one, I did consider emailing Bazant and/or Zhou.
At this stage i'm almost tempted to download a trial version of Minitab and see what I can find in the data.
Rpenner is on the right track, a residual errors plot was one of the things I was interested in experimenting with.
Ironically I (apparently) do share you enthusiasm, and have (without realizing it) since looking at Szambotti's data. I am,and have been, right from the start utterly convinced that there's more to this data then people are seeing.
On a side note, I tried signing up for the 911 forums back in March when I first started coming across this stuff, however the email I recieved from the admin that amounted to "What published research have you done, and what other forums do you post at, and what can you contribute" was kind of off putting at that stage.
Finally, what I would really like to see is two or three sets of data (the more the better) generated from the Sauret footage (ideally,other footage would be great as well, but, gotta start somewhere right?).
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 12 2009, 04:55 AM)
Q = Why are the weaker perimeter external colums at the basement of the WTC still standing after the controlled demolitions explosions of the Whole WTC building , yet none of the 47 super extra reinforced and super extra strong internal core Steel pillars at the basement of WTC survived the controlled demolition thermite explosions ?
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
.
How did the idea that there was thermite at 9/11 start?
A = The answer is simple , the controlled demolition team were not able to install the cutting charges on each external perimetrer columns at the street level basement because those external perimeter columns were NOT out of sight like were the hidden 47 internal core columns
. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
.
How did the idea that there was thermite at 9/11 start?
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 12 2009, 09:46 AM)
OWE:
I'm not sure what to say - your posts are like a wetdream come true or something, it may take mea couple of days to come back with anything more indepth than this.
Now, now! Rational exuberance is sufficient. Though I have been known to have that effect on people....
Funny, I had the same experience and, from the timeline, it was long after your discussions with him. Oh well, what can you say? You tried.
Funny, I had the same experience and, from the timeline, it was long after your discussions with him. Oh well, what can you say? You tried.
I inserted period 3, and period 4 running averages into the data that DBB posted earlier, and while at first glance the raw data might appear to be of questionable value, the period 3 and period 4 moving averages show some obvious trends. (deceleration, followed by renewed acceleration).
Running averages, I believe, would be best. My 3-point average was not so, it was just sequential intervals. Haven't taken the time to revisit it yet.
I think it's pretty big.
I think it's pretty big.
On a side note, I tried signing up for the 911 forums back in March when I first started coming across this stuff, however the email I recieved from the admin that amounted to "What published research have you done, and what other forums do you post at, and what can you contribute" was kind of off putting at that stage.
Oh, that's a shame. Gregory is a pushover, actually. Unfortunately, right now, you'll have a hard time getting in even if you wanted; admin seems to be AWOL, problem under consideration.
Yep. I'm going to hit it again with better methods. WTC7 was a little tough, and the knowledge gained there will probably benefit. There are six little dishes on the mast, clustered fairly close together, I've only taken the best one. The process resolution, together with the tilt, means each dish requires individual perspective correction even with the small vertical separation. And this has to be worked into tilt-descent motion, minimum 2 DOF transformation matrix for the upper block.
In the meantime, even the sloppiest scaling without perspective correction is enough to see the effect. No need to leave the pixel/frame domain to see it.
I'm not sure what to say - your posts are like a wetdream come true or something, it may take mea couple of days to come back with anything more indepth than this.
Now, now! Rational exuberance is sufficient. Though I have been known to have that effect on people....
QUOTE
Many of the points you mention regarding Szambotti's data are points that I endeavouredto raise with him directly, only he dodged addressing them.
Funny, I had the same experience and, from the timeline, it was long after your discussions with him. Oh well, what can you say? You tried.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many of the points you mention regarding Szambotti's data are points that I endeavouredto raise with him directly, only he dodged addressing them. |
Funny, I had the same experience and, from the timeline, it was long after your discussions with him. Oh well, what can you say? You tried.
I inserted period 3, and period 4 running averages into the data that DBB posted earlier, and while at first glance the raw data might appear to be of questionable value, the period 3 and period 4 moving averages show some obvious trends. (deceleration, followed by renewed acceleration).
Running averages, I believe, would be best. My 3-point average was not so, it was just sequential intervals. Haven't taken the time to revisit it yet.
QUOTE
And yeah, going through other peoples data,and correcting their mistakes does tend to get back burnered, and on top of that, i've had a number of personal issues to deal with, and finally, I come back to "Well so what if I do find something, how am I going to get it published". Although on this one, I did consider emailing Bazant and/or Zhou.
I think it's pretty big.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yeah, going through other peoples data,and correcting their mistakes does tend to get back burnered, and on top of that, i've had a number of personal issues to deal with, and finally, I come back to "Well so what if I do find something, how am I going to get it published". Although on this one, I did consider emailing Bazant and/or Zhou. |
I think it's pretty big.
On a side note, I tried signing up for the 911 forums back in March when I first started coming across this stuff, however the email I recieved from the admin that amounted to "What published research have you done, and what other forums do you post at, and what can you contribute" was kind of off putting at that stage.
Oh, that's a shame. Gregory is a pushover, actually. Unfortunately, right now, you'll have a hard time getting in even if you wanted; admin seems to be AWOL, problem under consideration.
QUOTE
Finally, what I would really like to see is two or three sets of data (the more the better) generated from the Sauret footage (ideally,other footage would be great as well, but, gotta start somewhere right?).
Yep. I'm going to hit it again with better methods. WTC7 was a little tough, and the knowledge gained there will probably benefit. There are six little dishes on the mast, clustered fairly close together, I've only taken the best one. The process resolution, together with the tilt, means each dish requires individual perspective correction even with the small vertical separation. And this has to be worked into tilt-descent motion, minimum 2 DOF transformation matrix for the upper block.
In the meantime, even the sloppiest scaling without perspective correction is enough to see the effect. No need to leave the pixel/frame domain to see it.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 13 2009, 04:22 AM)
Now, now! Rational exuberance is sufficient. Though I have been known to have that effect on people....
If you're sure...
If you're sure...
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 13 2009, 04:22 AM)
Funny, I had the same experience and, from the timeline, it was long after your discussions with him. Oh well, what can you say? You tried.
Yes.
I also got responses from him like "You're not American, so you have no right to an opinion" and "I've been peer reviewed, you haven't, neener neener neener neener."
Ultimately, he's not interested, which means he's not interested in doing science. In all honesty? At one stage I was considering contacting someone at the engineering department at the local university at one stage.
Yes.
I also got responses from him like "You're not American, so you have no right to an opinion" and "I've been peer reviewed, you haven't, neener neener neener neener."
Ultimately, he's not interested, which means he's not interested in doing science. In all honesty? At one stage I was considering contacting someone at the engineering department at the local university at one stage.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 13 2009, 04:22 AM)
Running averages, I believe, would be best. My 3-point average was not so, it was just sequential intervals. Haven't taken the time to revisit it yet.
Potentially, although, when you think about it, and about the binning, and what the footage represents, Szambotti's data represents a period 5 rolling average.
Potentially, although, when you think about it, and about the binning, and what the footage represents, Szambotti's data represents a period 5 rolling average.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 13 2009, 04:22 AM)
Yep. I'm going to hit it again with better methods. WTC7 was a little tough, and the knowledge gained there will probably benefit. There are six little dishes on the mast, clustered fairly close together, I've only taken the best one. The process resolution, together with the tilt, means each dish requires individual perspective correction even with the small vertical separation. And this has to be worked into tilt-descent motion, minimum 2 DOF transformation matrix for the upper block.
In the meantime, even the sloppiest scaling without perspective correction is enough to see the effect. No need to leave the pixel/frame domain to see it.
I was debating something along those lines, how useful taking data from multiple points would be - it seems to me that that would depend on how rigidly the building behaved as it fell, but even then, any differences should be pretty minor.
Ultimately though, the more data, the better.
In the meantime, even the sloppiest scaling without perspective correction is enough to see the effect. No need to leave the pixel/frame domain to see it.
I was debating something along those lines, how useful taking data from multiple points would be - it seems to me that that would depend on how rigidly the building behaved as it fell, but even then, any differences should be pretty minor.
Ultimately though, the more data, the better.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 11 2009, 07:55 PM)
Even here, the first thing that comes to my mind is why does the B&V crushdown equation over estimate the fall by an order of magnitude more than it does elsewhere on two occasions, and why does it so consistantly over estimate the amount of fall (or, why are there only two occasions in this data set where it underestimates the amount of fall)?
The fit is to the entire 3.76+ seconds of data. It just happens that in the short segment given here the best fit is kinda one sided.
rpenner --- Certainly not a second order polynomial fit, thank you. As a quite poor approximation to the shape of the curve, an acceleration of 0.68g provides the best fitting parabola; however, the shape is clearly not parabolic (as you once again have demonstrated).
The fit is to the entire 3.76+ seconds of data. It just happens that in the short segment given here the best fit is kinda one sided.
rpenner --- Certainly not a second order polynomial fit, thank you. As a quite poor approximation to the shape of the curve, an acceleration of 0.68g provides the best fitting parabola; however, the shape is clearly not parabolic (as you once again have demonstrated).
OWE:
Two questions for you.
1. Have you ever plotted the data (that you linked me to) as a straight out scatter plot (cX v's cY). If you haven't, may I recommend that you do so, it's potentially suggestive of a couple of things.
If you're using Excel, allow me to make a couple of suggestions, first, plot the data as open circles, second, reduce the line weight (but include one none the less).
2. What's the scale in feet per pixel of this data? (i'm interested in checking a couple of things which may or may not be useful, but need this information to do so).
Two questions for you.
1. Have you ever plotted the data (that you linked me to) as a straight out scatter plot (cX v's cY). If you haven't, may I recommend that you do so, it's potentially suggestive of a couple of things.
If you're using Excel, allow me to make a couple of suggestions, first, plot the data as open circles, second, reduce the line weight (but include one none the less).
2. What's the scale in feet per pixel of this data? (i'm interested in checking a couple of things which may or may not be useful, but need this information to do so).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 09:49 AM)
The fit is to the entire 3.76+ seconds of data. It just happens that in the short segment given here the best fit is kinda one sided.
Good to know, but I still find myself compelled to ask why the building is, on average, apparently falling slower during this sample than the B&V crushdown equation predicts it should be?
Good to know, but I still find myself compelled to ask why the building is, on average, apparently falling slower during this sample than the B&V crushdown equation predicts it should be?
Trippy --- The B&V crush-down equation sorta overestimates the drop at other times, not shown above. It is, of course, only an approximation to reality and so only fits quite well, not perfectly. Quite well means with a standard deviation of 0.119 meters.
As for OneWhiteEye's data, I gave you the anser to your pixel size querstion already (but incorrectly): correct is 0.247725 meters per pixel for the first meter of drop and growing quite slowly thereafter.
As for OneWhiteEye's data, I gave you the anser to your pixel size querstion already (but incorrectly): correct is 0.247725 meters per pixel for the first meter of drop and growing quite slowly thereafter.
Is there somewhere to look to get the details of the camera the footage was shot with.
Not just the details of the type of camera etc, but also where it was and how it was mounted.
How is camera shake accounted for in this footage?
Not just the details of the type of camera etc, but also where it was and how it was mounted.
How is camera shake accounted for in this footage?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 11:07 AM)
Trippy --- The B&V crush-down equation sorta overestimates the drop at other times, not shown above. It is, of course, only an approximation to reality and so only fits quite well, not perfectly. Quite well means with a standard deviation of 0.119 meters.
That's not bad, means IIRC all of those deviations in that range of data are within 1sd of the mean, but still.
Part of my job involves finding patterns in data, and were neccessary instigating procedures to take legal action on the basis of what's in the data, but still in the back of my head, I have those questions running around.
That's not bad, means IIRC all of those deviations in that range of data are within 1sd of the mean, but still.
Part of my job involves finding patterns in data, and were neccessary instigating procedures to take legal action on the basis of what's in the data, but still in the back of my head, I have those questions running around.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 11:07 AM)
As for OneWhiteEye's data, I gave you the anser to your pixel size querstion already (but incorrectly): correct is 0.247725 meters per pixel for the first meter of drop and growing quite slowly thereafter.
Duh.
Sorry about that.
I'll have a poke at the data and see what falls out.
I'm almost curious about confidence intervals, but i'm not sure I can say anything about that yet - hey tell me, would it be possible to get a list of residual error (B&V-OWE) v's frame number so I can have a look at that?
I'm not questioning anyone's competence (except maybe Szambotti), i'm just genuinely curious - if it helps I can PM you an email address.
Duh.
Sorry about that.
I'll have a poke at the data and see what falls out.
I'm almost curious about confidence intervals, but i'm not sure I can say anything about that yet - hey tell me, would it be possible to get a list of residual error (B&V-OWE) v's frame number so I can have a look at that?
I'm not questioning anyone's competence (except maybe Szambotti), i'm just genuinely curious - if it helps I can PM you an email address.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 13 2009, 11:14 AM)
Is there somewhere to look to get the details of the camera the footage was shot with.
Not just the details of the type of camera etc, but also where it was and how it was mounted.
I once asked Szambotti these questions as well, but was essentially brushed off for my trouble.
I find that rather impressive, myself.
N.B. The formal t0 is very close to being frame 909.
Not just the details of the type of camera etc, but also where it was and how it was mounted.
I once asked Szambotti these questions as well, but was essentially brushed off for my trouble.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 13 2009, 11:14 AM)
How is camera shake accounted for in this footage?
I don't have an answer for this one either, but I imagine you could do so by performing a similar exercise on a foreground object, and then convert that to an angular figure so you can use it at the distance of the twin towers, but there in lies the catch, you need to know the distance.
I don't have an answer for this one either, but I imagine you could do so by performing a similar exercise on a foreground object, and then convert that to an angular figure so you can use it at the distance of the twin towers, but there in lies the catch, you need to know the distance.
Trippy --- The standard deviation probably is an underestimate of the actual variance as the residuals appear to be autocorrelated (as in the sample here). This autocorrelation, the persisting tendency be skewed to one side or the other rather than "random error" might be because the sturcture's descent did not precisely follow the B&V crush-down equatiion, just quite close to it, or it might be because the movements of the intervening air (near the structure) were certainly going to exhibit some autocorrelation, maybe even on the scale of a second+. This latter effect would then persist. Anyway, I just ignore the autocorrelation since the general shape of the entire measured drop agrees so well with the B&V crush-down equation.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 12:48 PM)
Trippy --- The standard deviation probably is an underestimate of the actual variance as the residuals appear to be autocorrelated (as in the sample here). This autocorrelation, the persisting tendency be skewed to one side or the other rather than "random error" might be because the sturcture's descent did not precisely follow the B&V crush-down equatiion, just quite close to it, or it might be because the movements of the intervening air (near the structure) were certainly going to exhibit some autocorrelation, maybe even on the scale of a second+. This latter effect would then persist. anyway, I just ignore the autocorrelation since the general shape of the enitre measured drop agrees so well with the B&V crush-down equation.
The more I look at this data, the more concerened (to some extent) I become.
Both OWE and Szambotti examined the same footage right? The Sauret footage?
The more I look at this data, the more concerened (to some extent) I become.
Both OWE and Szambotti examined the same footage right? The Sauret footage?
Trippy --- OneWhiteEye took automated measurements from a feature of a dish on the antenna mast from the Sauret video, DVD version. I have no idea what Szambotti did.
What about this data concerns you? Looks quite good to me and agrees remarkably well with OneWhiteEye's earlier manual analysis of some frames with attention paid to the dark band higher on the antenna mast. (I need this data as well as it extends the measurements past 3 seconds.)
Here is the last (manual) measurement (seconds, measured, calculated, difference):
What about this data concerns you? Looks quite good to me and agrees remarkably well with OneWhiteEye's earlier manual analysis of some frames with attention paid to the dark band higher on the antenna mast. (I need this data as well as it extends the measurements past 3 seconds.)
Here is the last (manual) measurement (seconds, measured, calculated, difference):
CODE
3.7678 44.540 44.488 -0.052
I find that rather impressive, myself.
N.B. The formal t0 is very close to being frame 909.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 01:19 PM)
Trippy --- OneWhiteEye took automated measurements from a feature of a dish on the antenna mast from the Sauret video, DVD version. I have no idea what Szambotti did.
Szambotti measured to the roof line, and to the window cleaning platform, he also used the Sauret DVD version, so their frame numbers should match up.
Szambotti measured to the roof line, and to the window cleaning platform, he also used the Sauret DVD version, so their frame numbers should match up.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 01:19 PM)
What about this data concerns you? Looks quite good to me and agrees remarkably well with OneWhiteEye's earlier manual analysis of some frames with attention paid to the dark band higher on the antenna mast. (I need this data as well as it extends the measurements past 3 seconds.)
Hmmm, I would love to get my hands on that data as well.
At this stage it's the discrepaencies that bug me - specifically the differences between OWE's data and S&M's published data.
Also, Szambotti's flawed methodology for calculating velocity is really starting to drive me batty, it has the potential to completely obfuscate any features that might be lurking in the data.
Hmmm, I would love to get my hands on that data as well.
At this stage it's the discrepaencies that bug me - specifically the differences between OWE's data and S&M's published data.
Also, Szambotti's flawed methodology for calculating velocity is really starting to drive me batty, it has the potential to completely obfuscate any features that might be lurking in the data.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
Potentially, although, when you think about it, and about the binning, and what the footage represents, Szambotti's data represents a period 5 rolling average.
Sorry to say, just poor time resolution. They only took a point every (1/6)th second, then mangled most of that with the symmetric differences, which does sort of make it a running average but now over 10 frames. For the raw data, each point is just an instantaneous position measurement so it's the same as removing 80% of the frames. That's OK, if you're not looking for a jolt.
No, I hadn't, but now I have. I see 4-6 regimes, roughly linear. Let me guess: the corners are at the jolts?
The accuracy of the last portion of the horizontal data is questionable due to entering shadow. The feature is ~4 pixels wide, you can imagine a change of illumination gradient can account for the last jog backwards a pixel or so. Also, the point at which it entered the shadow may be associated with one of the jolts, vertically; that can be checked.
No, I hadn't, but now I have. I see 4-6 regimes, roughly linear. Let me guess: the corners are at the jolts?
The accuracy of the last portion of the horizontal data is questionable due to entering shadow. The feature is ~4 pixels wide, you can imagine a change of illumination gradient can account for the last jog backwards a pixel or so. Also, the point at which it entered the shadow may be associated with one of the jolts, vertically; that can be checked.
2. What's the scale in feet per pixel of this data? (i'm interested in checking a couple of things which may or may not be useful, but need this information to do so).
You got the number, you might notice there's about an 8% difference in the scaling compared to their figure. Why? Who knows? The difference in target location is part of it. I'm sure the number could be improved on both sides. It's not really OK to approximate it as a constant over the entire range, David Benson doesn't do that but TZ does.
I'll dig it up for you.
I'll dig it up for you.
At this stage it's the discrepaencies that bug me - specifically the differences between OWE's data and S&M's published data.
I'd certainly be interested in hearing what's up, but bear in mind there should be some discrepancies. The locations are pretty far apart, the dish is much farther from any hinge than the roofline. In the aforementioned manual data, the curve for the roofline is easily seen to be different from the mast locations, due to tilt. Any jolts, should they exist, might be dissimilar because of flexure in the mast or even the structure as a whole. I mean, it's taking quite a pummeling, the mast breaks shortly thereafter, at least the tip if not more. Suggests jolts, definitely not indicative of a smooth ride.
What are you seeing that distresses you? (that can't be fixed by adjusting distance scale a bit)
The table of measurements is the raw data, as far as I know. Pay no attention to the graphs.
(time for a disclaimer?)
My preference is to publish pixels and let the consumer take responsibility for interpretation, including scaling and/or perspective correction. What I offer is what you can see in the GIF. It's about as close to a meaningful scalar value as can be derived from tuples of <frame,red,green,blue> and the only thing slightly subjective about it, besides the choice of target and interval, is threshold or criteria for pixel inclusion. Oftentimes this is necessarily a fairly narrow range by the nature of the target itself.
The table of measurements is the raw data, as far as I know. Pay no attention to the graphs.
(time for a disclaimer?)
My preference is to publish pixels and let the consumer take responsibility for interpretation, including scaling and/or perspective correction. What I offer is what you can see in the GIF. It's about as close to a meaningful scalar value as can be derived from tuples of <frame,red,green,blue> and the only thing slightly subjective about it, besides the choice of target and interval, is threshold or criteria for pixel inclusion. Oftentimes this is necessarily a fairly narrow range by the nature of the target itself.
I'm almost curious about confidence intervals...
I suppose you might be talking about post-processing, but for the data itself it's the size of the feature as judged by the algorithm. In the physforum post I linked earlier, at the end, there are graphs showing the bounding box of the feature, that's what this is. I can get you that data. The location of the target - in the image plane - is guaranteed to be inside those bounds, and the smart money is on the green dot. Where that is in real 3D space is up to you to determine, I haven't done that yet...
Well the controlled demo got started (I believe) by first glance. If someone were to just watch the collapse and not have any knowledge of what happened then they would most likely assume demolition. Especially when compared to known demolition footage and confirmed when compared to known fire burning collapses.
However I believe that the thermite rumor started for a 2 main reasons...
1. It's very easy and cheap to make.
2. There was no audible series of explosions. Thermite doesn't go boom it burns (unless the powder is too fine then it can go boom).
Well the controlled demo got started (I believe) by first glance. If someone were to just watch the collapse and not have any knowledge of what happened then they would most likely assume demolition. Especially when compared to known demolition footage and confirmed when compared to known fire burning collapses.
However I believe that the thermite rumor started for a 2 main reasons...
1. It's very easy and cheap to make.
2. There was no audible series of explosions. Thermite doesn't go boom it burns (unless the powder is too fine then it can go boom).
Just from the videos available at youtube is easy to see the colossal amount of pulverised dust escaping horizontally hundreds of meters from the TWC towers along with tons of steel beams ejected horizontally hundreds of meters from the World Trade Center Towers , it is obvious the controlled Demolition Team have done a professional inside job
.
Sorry to say, just poor time resolution. They only took a point every (1/6)th second, then mangled most of that with the symmetric differences, which does sort of make it a running average but now over 10 frames. For the raw data, each point is just an instantaneous position measurement so it's the same as removing 80% of the frames. That's OK, if you're not looking for a jolt.
QUOTE
1. Have you ever plotted the data (that you linked me to) as a straight out scatter plot (cX v's cY). If you haven't, may I recommend that you do so, it's potentially suggestive of a couple of things.
If you're using Excel, allow me to make a couple of suggestions, first, plot the data as open circles, second, reduce the line weight (but include one none the less).
If you're using Excel, allow me to make a couple of suggestions, first, plot the data as open circles, second, reduce the line weight (but include one none the less).
No, I hadn't, but now I have. I see 4-6 regimes, roughly linear. Let me guess: the corners are at the jolts?
The accuracy of the last portion of the horizontal data is questionable due to entering shadow. The feature is ~4 pixels wide, you can imagine a change of illumination gradient can account for the last jog backwards a pixel or so. Also, the point at which it entered the shadow may be associated with one of the jolts, vertically; that can be checked.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Have you ever plotted the data (that you linked me to) as a straight out scatter plot (cX v's cY). If you haven't, may I recommend that you do so, it's potentially suggestive of a couple of things. If you're using Excel, allow me to make a couple of suggestions, first, plot the data as open circles, second, reduce the line weight (but include one none the less). |
No, I hadn't, but now I have. I see 4-6 regimes, roughly linear. Let me guess: the corners are at the jolts?
The accuracy of the last portion of the horizontal data is questionable due to entering shadow. The feature is ~4 pixels wide, you can imagine a change of illumination gradient can account for the last jog backwards a pixel or so. Also, the point at which it entered the shadow may be associated with one of the jolts, vertically; that can be checked.
2. What's the scale in feet per pixel of this data? (i'm interested in checking a couple of things which may or may not be useful, but need this information to do so).
You got the number, you might notice there's about an 8% difference in the scaling compared to their figure. Why? Who knows? The difference in target location is part of it. I'm sure the number could be improved on both sides. It's not really OK to approximate it as a constant over the entire range, David Benson doesn't do that but TZ does.
QUOTE
Hmmm, I would love to get my hands on that data as well.
I'll dig it up for you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hmmm, I would love to get my hands on that data as well. |
I'll dig it up for you.
At this stage it's the discrepaencies that bug me - specifically the differences between OWE's data and S&M's published data.
I'd certainly be interested in hearing what's up, but bear in mind there should be some discrepancies. The locations are pretty far apart, the dish is much farther from any hinge than the roofline. In the aforementioned manual data, the curve for the roofline is easily seen to be different from the mast locations, due to tilt. Any jolts, should they exist, might be dissimilar because of flexure in the mast or even the structure as a whole. I mean, it's taking quite a pummeling, the mast breaks shortly thereafter, at least the tip if not more. Suggests jolts, definitely not indicative of a smooth ride.
What are you seeing that distresses you? (that can't be fixed by adjusting distance scale a bit)
QUOTE
Also, Szambotti's flawed methodology for calculating velocity is really starting to drive me batty, it has the potential to completely obfuscate any features that might be lurking in the data.
The table of measurements is the raw data, as far as I know. Pay no attention to the graphs.
(time for a disclaimer?)
My preference is to publish pixels and let the consumer take responsibility for interpretation, including scaling and/or perspective correction. What I offer is what you can see in the GIF. It's about as close to a meaningful scalar value as can be derived from tuples of <frame,red,green,blue> and the only thing slightly subjective about it, besides the choice of target and interval, is threshold or criteria for pixel inclusion. Oftentimes this is necessarily a fairly narrow range by the nature of the target itself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, Szambotti's flawed methodology for calculating velocity is really starting to drive me batty, it has the potential to completely obfuscate any features that might be lurking in the data. |
The table of measurements is the raw data, as far as I know. Pay no attention to the graphs.
(time for a disclaimer?)
My preference is to publish pixels and let the consumer take responsibility for interpretation, including scaling and/or perspective correction. What I offer is what you can see in the GIF. It's about as close to a meaningful scalar value as can be derived from tuples of <frame,red,green,blue> and the only thing slightly subjective about it, besides the choice of target and interval, is threshold or criteria for pixel inclusion. Oftentimes this is necessarily a fairly narrow range by the nature of the target itself.
I'm almost curious about confidence intervals...
I suppose you might be talking about post-processing, but for the data itself it's the size of the feature as judged by the algorithm. In the physforum post I linked earlier, at the end, there are graphs showing the bounding box of the feature, that's what this is. I can get you that data. The location of the target - in the image plane - is guaranteed to be inside those bounds, and the smart money is on the green dot. Where that is in real 3D space is up to you to determine, I haven't done that yet...
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 11:14 PM)
Is there somewhere to look to get the details of the camera the footage was shot with.
Not just the details of the type of camera etc, but also where it was and how it was mounted.
Don't know. I emailed Sauret a long time ago, he never answered. He's a professional film maker, so I expect he had a decent enough camera. The shot has superb detail. As to where it was, I did attempt to reverse engineer the location with a rendering, moderately successful.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry280115
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry280116
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry280118
There is uncertainty in this, naturally, but it can be refined up to a point. Some numbers came out of this, don't have them handy. Recommend fat error bands.
There is, at this time, no measurement of or compensation for motion of the camera. Would you believe me if I said it was rock steady?
Not just the details of the type of camera etc, but also where it was and how it was mounted.
Don't know. I emailed Sauret a long time ago, he never answered. He's a professional film maker, so I expect he had a decent enough camera. The shot has superb detail. As to where it was, I did attempt to reverse engineer the location with a rendering, moderately successful.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry280115
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry280116
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry280118
There is uncertainty in this, naturally, but it can be refined up to a point. Some numbers came out of this, don't have them handy. Recommend fat error bands.
QUOTE
How is camera shake accounted for in this footage?
There is, at this time, no measurement of or compensation for motion of the camera. Would you believe me if I said it was rock steady?
.
[QUOTE=buttershug,Oct 12 2009, 12:35 PM] Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
. [/QUOTE]
How did the idea that there was thermite at 9/11 start? [/QUOTE]
I dont agree the controlled demolition team that wired with thermite or thermate the World trade Center the 9/11 was a Controlled demolition team from the United States , some people say that the Controlled Demolition Team involved into this inside job was from Israel and after installing the controlled demolition Thermate explosives into the Three World Trade Center Buildings went back to Israel , I am not sure if was a controlled Demolition Team from Israel or somewhere else , but the Controlled demolition of the Three WTC buildings was a Professional job , a team of Controlled Demolition Experts did this Inside Job
.
[QUOTE=buttershug,Oct 12 2009, 12:35 PM] Yes I know everybody skip this hard evidence of controlled demolition , the 47 internal Super Extra Strong and Reinforced Pillars were out of sight and therefore the controlled demolition team were able to install the cutting explosive charges freely and this is the reason most of the external perimeter columns at street level were still standing after the controlled demolition thermite explosions at the WTC , on the other side none of the 47 super exta Strong and reinforced internal ( out of sight ) Columns were able to survive to the Thermite Cutting Explosive Detonations
. [/QUOTE]
How did the idea that there was thermite at 9/11 start? [/QUOTE]
I dont agree the controlled demolition team that wired with thermite or thermate the World trade Center the 9/11 was a Controlled demolition team from the United States , some people say that the Controlled Demolition Team involved into this inside job was from Israel and after installing the controlled demolition Thermate explosives into the Three World Trade Center Buildings went back to Israel , I am not sure if was a controlled Demolition Team from Israel or somewhere else , but the Controlled demolition of the Three WTC buildings was a Professional job , a team of Controlled Demolition Experts did this Inside Job
.
QUOTE
How did the idea that there was thermite at 9/11 start?
Well the controlled demo got started (I believe) by first glance. If someone were to just watch the collapse and not have any knowledge of what happened then they would most likely assume demolition. Especially when compared to known demolition footage and confirmed when compared to known fire burning collapses.
However I believe that the thermite rumor started for a 2 main reasons...
1. It's very easy and cheap to make.
2. There was no audible series of explosions. Thermite doesn't go boom it burns (unless the powder is too fine then it can go boom).
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Oct 13 2009, 08:07 AM)
There is, at this time, no measurement of or compensation for motion of the camera. Would you believe me if I said it was rock steady?
I would if you can prove there were not collapsing buildings nearby...
I would if you can prove there were not collapsing buildings nearby...
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]No, I hadn't, but now I have. I see 4-6 regimes, roughly linear. Let me guess: the corners are at the jolts?[/quote]
It's the clusters of points that i'm interested in, it's suggestive of little or no movement over a group of frames.[/quote]
It's also the wobble that i'm interested, something needs to have happened to cause the points being measured to accelerate enough to reverse their direction of motion, or at least to significantly change it.
The combination of the above is suggestive to me that I may have been on the right track when I suggested to Szambotti that maybe the Jolt occured, but he failed to capture it because it simply wasn't transfered to the parts of the building he took his measurements from (for example, the building did not behave as a perfectly rigid solid like he assumes).
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]You got the number, you might notice there's about an 8% difference in the scaling compared to their figure. Why? Who knows? The difference in target location is part of it. I'm sure the number could be improved on both sides. It's not really OK to approximate it as a constant over the entire range, David Benson doesn't do that but TZ does.[/quote]
I had wondered about that.
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]I'll dig it up for you.[/quote]
Thanks.
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]I'd certainly be interested in hearing what's up, but bear in mind there should be some discrepancies. The locations are pretty far apart, the dish is much farther from any hinge than the roofline. In the aforementioned manual data, the curve for the roofline is easily seen to be different from the mast locations, due to tilt. Any jolts, should they exist, might be dissimilar because of flexure in the mast or even the structure as a whole. I mean, it's taking quite a pummeling, the mast breaks shortly thereafter, at least the tip if not more. Suggests jolts, definitely not indicative of a smooth ride.
What are you seeing that distresses you? (that can't be fixed by adjusting distance scale a bit)[/quote]
I indexed your data so that your frame numbers matched up with Szambotti's, you took different ranges, but I can live with that.
Your data shows the same broad features as Szambotti's, which is also great.
One of the main things I find problematic however is that there's a consistent difference in velocity between your two data sets. Through the entire sequence, your data has the building falling 9-13 ft./s faster than his does. I'm sitting here wondering if rotation could account for that, but i'm not sure how likely that is.
My preference is to publish pixels and let the consumer take responsibility for interpretation, including scaling and/or perspective correction. What I offer is what you can see in the GIF. It's about as close to a meaningful scalar value as can be derived from tuples of <frame,red,green,blue> and the only thing slightly subjective about it, besides the choice of target and interval, is threshold or criteria for pixel inclusion. Oftentimes this is necessarily a fairly narrow range by the nature of the target itself.
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]I suppose you might be talking about post-processing, but for the data itself it's the size of the feature as judged by the algorithm. In the physforum post I linked earlier, at the end, there are graphs showing the bounding box of the feature, that's what this is. I can get you that data. The location of the target - in the image plane - is guaranteed to be inside those bounds, and the smart money is on the green dot. Where that is in real 3D space is up to you to determine, I haven't done that yet...[/QUOTE]
Hmmm.
Interesting.
What I'd really like to know is if there are any parts of the fall where the measured data is 'significantly different' from the B&Z crushdown equation.
It's the clusters of points that i'm interested in, it's suggestive of little or no movement over a group of frames.[/quote]
It's also the wobble that i'm interested, something needs to have happened to cause the points being measured to accelerate enough to reverse their direction of motion, or at least to significantly change it.
The combination of the above is suggestive to me that I may have been on the right track when I suggested to Szambotti that maybe the Jolt occured, but he failed to capture it because it simply wasn't transfered to the parts of the building he took his measurements from (for example, the building did not behave as a perfectly rigid solid like he assumes).
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]You got the number, you might notice there's about an 8% difference in the scaling compared to their figure. Why? Who knows? The difference in target location is part of it. I'm sure the number could be improved on both sides. It's not really OK to approximate it as a constant over the entire range, David Benson doesn't do that but TZ does.[/quote]
I had wondered about that.
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]I'll dig it up for you.[/quote]
Thanks.
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]I'd certainly be interested in hearing what's up, but bear in mind there should be some discrepancies. The locations are pretty far apart, the dish is much farther from any hinge than the roofline. In the aforementioned manual data, the curve for the roofline is easily seen to be different from the mast locations, due to tilt. Any jolts, should they exist, might be dissimilar because of flexure in the mast or even the structure as a whole. I mean, it's taking quite a pummeling, the mast breaks shortly thereafter, at least the tip if not more. Suggests jolts, definitely not indicative of a smooth ride.
What are you seeing that distresses you? (that can't be fixed by adjusting distance scale a bit)[/quote]
I indexed your data so that your frame numbers matched up with Szambotti's, you took different ranges, but I can live with that.
Your data shows the same broad features as Szambotti's, which is also great.
One of the main things I find problematic however is that there's a consistent difference in velocity between your two data sets. Through the entire sequence, your data has the building falling 9-13 ft./s faster than his does. I'm sitting here wondering if rotation could account for that, but i'm not sure how likely that is.
My preference is to publish pixels and let the consumer take responsibility for interpretation, including scaling and/or perspective correction. What I offer is what you can see in the GIF. It's about as close to a meaningful scalar value as can be derived from tuples of <frame,red,green,blue> and the only thing slightly subjective about it, besides the choice of target and interval, is threshold or criteria for pixel inclusion. Oftentimes this is necessarily a fairly narrow range by the nature of the target itself.
[QUOTE=OneWhiteEye,Oct 13 2009, 07:50 PM]I suppose you might be talking about post-processing, but for the data itself it's the size of the feature as judged by the algorithm. In the physforum post I linked earlier, at the end, there are graphs showing the bounding box of the feature, that's what this is. I can get you that data. The location of the target - in the image plane - is guaranteed to be inside those bounds, and the smart money is on the green dot. Where that is in real 3D space is up to you to determine, I haven't done that yet...[/QUOTE]
Hmmm.
Interesting.
What I'd really like to know is if there are any parts of the fall where the measured data is 'significantly different' from the B&Z crushdown equation.
All this analyzing and then coming to assumptive conclusions because there is no foundation to compare it to. And you call yourselves scientists. How about you take all the analyzing and scrutiny and apply it to a couple multistory buildings that is known to have been demo'ed then do it to a couple of multistory buildings that is known to have burned to the ground.
Compare the data with all of them, then scrutinize about the similarities/differences between them.
My assumption....the data of the towers will have more in common with demo'ed structures then ones that have burned to the ground.
And you call yourselves scientists. How about you take all the analyzing and scrutiny and apply it to a couple multistory buildings that is known to have been demo'ed then do it to a couple of multistory buildings that is known to have burned to the ground.Compare the data with all of them, then scrutinize about the similarities/differences between them.
My assumption....the data of the towers will have more in common with demo'ed structures then ones that have burned to the ground.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 13 2009, 03:36 PM)
Well the controlled demo got started (I believe) by first glance. If someone were to just watch the collapse and not have any knowledge of what happened then they would most likely assume demolition. Especially when compared to known demolition footage and confirmed when compared to known fire burning collapses.
However I believe that the thermite rumor started for a 2 main reasons...
1. It's very easy and cheap to make.
2. There was no audible series of explosions. Thermite doesn't go boom it burns (unless the powder is too fine then it can go boom).
Just from the videos available at youtube is easy to see the colossal amount of pulverised dust escaping horizontally hundreds of meters from the TWC towers along with tons of steel beams ejected horizontally hundreds of meters from the World Trade Center Towers , it is obvious the controlled Demolition Team have done a professional inside job
.
Then why so much dust?
It's like finding your house full of soot, a crashed chimney then assuming that a chimney sweep did a very professional job.
It's like finding your house full of soot, a crashed chimney then assuming that a chimney sweep did a very professional job.
Trippy --- The window washer kinda bounced up and down, I am led to believe. Not a wise choice of object to measure.
I do parameter estimation. There are no discrepancies between the B&V crush-down equation with best fitting parameters for resistive force, stretch and actual start time and OneWhiteEye's measurements up to the stated standard deviation.
And another possible source of autocorrelation could be some shaking of the antenna mast. Another, and in my opinion more likely, is that I have guestimated the titl past the end of NEUFONZE's data. So the tilt corrections are wrong but I don't know how badly off this is. Using no tilt at all results in slightly different parameter values and a standard deviation of only 0.110 meters. By that metric, I'm within 10%.
giuseppe --- Plenty of excess energy made available by the collapses; plenty beyond the KE and the energy consumed by the resisting forces. So plenty available to throw everything which was thrown and still have lots left over as just heat.
I do parameter estimation. There are no discrepancies between the B&V crush-down equation with best fitting parameters for resistive force, stretch and actual start time and OneWhiteEye's measurements up to the stated standard deviation.
And another possible source of autocorrelation could be some shaking of the antenna mast. Another, and in my opinion more likely, is that I have guestimated the titl past the end of NEUFONZE's data. So the tilt corrections are wrong but I don't know how badly off this is. Using no tilt at all results in slightly different parameter values and a standard deviation of only 0.110 meters. By that metric, I'm within 10%.
giuseppe --- Plenty of excess energy made available by the collapses; plenty beyond the KE and the energy consumed by the resisting forces. So plenty available to throw everything which was thrown and still have lots left over as just heat.
.
The external perimeter columns at street level survived the controlled demolition detonations because the expert controlled demolition team were not able to install cutting charges upon the external perimeter columns at street level because such external perimeter columns were at sight , the internal core 47 Super Extra Reinforced Steel Columns at the Street level were unable to survive the detonations because the controlled demolition team were able to install freely plenty of explosive cutting charges in such hidden out of sight 47 internal Super Reinforced and extra strong Steel columns
.
The external perimeter columns at street level survived the controlled demolition detonations because the expert controlled demolition team were not able to install cutting charges upon the external perimeter columns at street level because such external perimeter columns were at sight , the internal core 47 Super Extra Reinforced Steel Columns at the Street level were unable to survive the detonations because the controlled demolition team were able to install freely plenty of explosive cutting charges in such hidden out of sight 47 internal Super Reinforced and extra strong Steel columns
.
giuseppe --- Actually, in both towers, some of the core columns susrvived the progressive collapse only to fall over and apart some few seconds later. In the case of WTC 1 this so-called spire was quite tall. In the case of WTC 2 it was shorter but broader.
And what was seen and videoed is best described as a vertical avalanche. Thank about that for a bit.
And what was seen and videoed is best described as a vertical avalanche. Thank about that for a bit.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 13 2009, 11:48 PM)
.
Quote :
a vertical avalanche. .
[.....]
? Vertical Avalanche ? , the vertical avalanche only is possible if those buildings were made completely of wood/timber or controlled demolished with detonations if were made of Steel ,therefore the avalanche only happened in controlled demolished detonated buildings
.
Quote :
a vertical avalanche. .
[.....]
? Vertical Avalanche ? , the vertical avalanche only is possible if those buildings were made completely of wood/timber or controlled demolished with detonations if were made of Steel ,therefore the avalanche only happened in controlled demolished detonated buildings
.
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 13 2009, 08:21 PM)
? Vertical Avalanche ? , the vertical avalanche only is possible if those buildings were made completely of wood/timber or controlled demolished with detonations if were made of Steel ,therefore the avalanche only happened in controlled demolished detonated buildings
Your unusual punctuation reveals your true identity. You are either the same person as WTC Control Demolished or you are copy/pasting from the same source.
Your unusual punctuation reveals your true identity. You are either the same person as WTC Control Demolished or you are copy/pasting from the same source.
giuseppe --- Yes, the columns were steel. However, the tops were tilted, the welds failed, some perimeter columns buckled and that was enough to start the vertical avalanche. The stuctures were not designed to withstand vertical motion.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 13 2009, 03:57 PM)
I would if you can prove there were not collapsing buildings nearby...
You mean if it were shown there was less than a pixel peak-to-peak shake during the time in question, regardless of what's collapsing 'nearby', you wouldn't believe it?
You mean if it were shown there was less than a pixel peak-to-peak shake during the time in question, regardless of what's collapsing 'nearby', you wouldn't believe it?
Trippy, still need to dig up the data.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
It's the clusters of points that i'm interested in, it's suggestive of little or no movement over a group of frames
Ah, I'll have to look again.
The smallish stuff or the big horseshoe shape (or whatever it was, I'm not looking at it right now)? The antenna does go this way then that. There's a video from the NW that really shows it, here (in projection) it's just a couple of pixels. Still, I take the later horizontal data with a grain of salt because of smoke if nothing else. Not the same concern for vertical; what's a pixel or two of slow drift against many pixels per second of motion? Besides, most of the contamination seems to be laterally oriented.
The smallish stuff or the big horseshoe shape (or whatever it was, I'm not looking at it right now)? The antenna does go this way then that. There's a video from the NW that really shows it, here (in projection) it's just a couple of pixels. Still, I take the later horizontal data with a grain of salt because of smoke if nothing else. Not the same concern for vertical; what's a pixel or two of slow drift against many pixels per second of motion? Besides, most of the contamination seems to be laterally oriented.
One of the main things I find problematic however is that there's a consistent difference in velocity between your two data sets. Through the entire sequence, your data has the building falling 9-13 ft./s faster than his does.
That's a problem. Let me look into it.
That would be David B. Benson's area of expertise, for sure.
Ah, I'll have to look again.
QUOTE
It's also the wobble that i'm interested, something needs to have happened to cause the points being measured to accelerate enough to reverse their direction of motion, or at least to significantly change it.
The smallish stuff or the big horseshoe shape (or whatever it was, I'm not looking at it right now)? The antenna does go this way then that. There's a video from the NW that really shows it, here (in projection) it's just a couple of pixels. Still, I take the later horizontal data with a grain of salt because of smoke if nothing else. Not the same concern for vertical; what's a pixel or two of slow drift against many pixels per second of motion? Besides, most of the contamination seems to be laterally oriented.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's also the wobble that i'm interested, something needs to have happened to cause the points being measured to accelerate enough to reverse their direction of motion, or at least to significantly change it. |
The smallish stuff or the big horseshoe shape (or whatever it was, I'm not looking at it right now)? The antenna does go this way then that. There's a video from the NW that really shows it, here (in projection) it's just a couple of pixels. Still, I take the later horizontal data with a grain of salt because of smoke if nothing else. Not the same concern for vertical; what's a pixel or two of slow drift against many pixels per second of motion? Besides, most of the contamination seems to be laterally oriented.
One of the main things I find problematic however is that there's a consistent difference in velocity between your two data sets. Through the entire sequence, your data has the building falling 9-13 ft./s faster than his does.
That's a problem. Let me look into it.
QUOTE
What I'd really like to know is if there are any parts of the fall where the measured data is 'significantly different' from the B&Z crushdown equation.
That would be David B. Benson's area of expertise, for sure.
I had forgotten I had found that...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...#a111099wtcfire
Apparently, the 1975 fire did in fact cause some buckling of the floor trusses.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...#a111099wtcfire
Apparently, the 1975 fire did in fact cause some buckling of the floor trusses.
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.