Nicko wrote:Patriots4Truth wrote: the big font was in regards to uke2se refusing to paraphrase the link he keeps on using (was just mentioned in his last post). "The professional explains it better than I ever could". But if you can't explain your links
at all then you shouldn't be allowed to submit it as evidence on the grounds that you have no idea what you are arguing. And that is what uke2se continues to do.
He put the link in context the first time.
No he didn't:uke2se wrote:Patriots4Truth wrote:First of all, "no measurable deceleration" doesn't refer to free fall acceleration or free fall speed.
I'm not getting what your point is with this. If you tell me who's graph that is it will be easier for me to find you an answer. I'm leaning towards Chandler, but I'm not certain.
This post on JREF nicely deals with Chandler's mistakes when it comes to constant downward deceleration.
Patriots4Truth wrote:Secondly, acceleration and speed are different and the free-fall that you are mentioning is probably free fall speed since there was some free fall acceleration.
As far as I understand it, there was no free fall acceleration when WTC 1 collapsed. I might be wrong of course. I'm rusty when it comes to WTC 1 as no 9/11 conspiracy theorist of note is talking about it anymore. They all gave up on that to focus on the Solomon Brothers building.
However, I decided to research uke2se's link using the valuable resources over at thefreeforums - lots of independent and what appears to be professional opinions (some users might be working either the debunker side or truther side but it isn't very apparent - jref/randi, on the other hand, has so many biased posters that I have a hard time believing things posted over there).
And while I was researching uke2se's link I've been trying to get some more professional-type opinions of econ41's global collapse theory because he has been avoiding to do so himself - evidence in me repeatedly asking him if he has any desire to do so. Fortunately for him, his global collapse theory seems to hold up so far (there hasn't been much discussion about it yet because they want me to point out what specifically they should discuss).
econ41, I apologize if you didn't want me to share your posts/theory but you know that I've been wanting to see what techies have to say about about it.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/econ41-ozeco41-s-theory-does-it-hold-t437.html----------------------------------
The results are in about some things. Debunkers will be happy to know that
there was measurable deceleration and that there wasn't free fall acceleration (with exception to the 2.25 seconds of freefall that Nist was forced to admit after Chandler confronted them about it). Now I wouldn't of had to go on for several posts about these things if debunkers had explained themselves clearly in the first place. Also, econ41's global collapse theory has yet to be entirely debated over there. If it's mostly ROOSD then it will probably hold up as a feasible theory
My quote about about "no measurable deceleration" originated from the first sentence of Tony Szamboti's
newsflash at
http://www.ae911truth.org on Nov. 8th:
"Many people who think they have been keeping up with the revelations of the last several years about the destruction of the three high-rises in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001, will nonetheless be surprised to discover that the falling upper section of WTC 1 exhibited no measurable deceleration when it impacted the lower section. This is a startling revelation because it adds to the collection of “smoking guns” proving that the “collapse” of that building was not caused by the jetliner impact and ensuing fires."
Tony Szamboti has been proven wrong - most visible by femr2's post from the the first freeforums link I posted. Also, I think it's worth noting that femr2 doesn't believe a "big jolt" is expected (what is expected though? I'll have to ask him)
I tend to trust femr2. Tony Szamboti has almost entirely lost my trust (he should of researched "no measurable deceleration" better). David Chandler is off and on
I'll let the debunkers celebrate these victories. But next time I would prefer if I didn't have to do all the work for them