The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[uke2se]

Saying that it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration isn't entirely factual. It would be more factual to say that Chandler, Szamboti et all were unable to measure any deceleration, but the reason for that was their incompetent use of physical theorems and their preconceived bias.

video evidence is factual. making up theories is theoretical

Video evidence doesn't on it's own show that there was no measurable deceleration. One has to measure in the video evidence to come to that conclusion. That's what Chandler and Szamboti did, and that's what they got wrong.

[Kat Dorman]

not a particular verinage... all of them show deceleration.

Oh. I only saw the one (Balzac) in the video above. Others have been measured? All of them have been measured?

Any thoughts on the other questions?

[econ41]

Here is really good criticism against ROOSD (the only natural collapse explanation which might of had any worth):
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective

A comment in passing only but I agree that ROOSD is essentially the only natural collapse explanation which might have had any worth BUT we are not discussing ROOSD per se and, topic title aside, I don't see the thread you reference rebutting ROOSD - unless you have a better link.

I don't agree with your theories econ41.....

great. That is a good place to start a discussion. However you do not address my explanation. And this:

For instance, you seem to think that everything from above fell on the floors (in a way where the hits for each subsequent would only make a tiny minijolt) and that is why there is no deceleration found in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1....

...does not address my explanation other than in confused misrepresentation.

The Verinage demolitions do their part in proving you wrong. All the 'Verinage' graphs show measurable deceleration:

We are not discussing Verinage and you show no reason for your assertion that "Verinage demolitions do their part in proving you wrong." What aspect of Verinage relates to what aspect of my claim?

...The 9/11 WTC1 collapse.....[lots of assertions] a yeah that's Szamboti in the Geraldo video....

We are not discussing Chandler or Szamboti:

• Neither of them has ever published an explanation of demolition
• Both of them make some irrelevant conclusions about "deceleration".
• As well as being irrelevant those conclusions are false

So lets get back on the track.

• Are you intending to show what you claim is wrong with my explanation? If so them please address my explanation and cease false parallels to irrelevant matter.
• Do you have an alternate explanation? If so can you present it.

pss. econ41, it seems like you keep denying the existence of any and all controlled demolition evidence because you are specifically campaigning against this "conspiracy theory"...

I am not "campaigning" against anything. Merely offering explanations as to the technical aspects of 9/11, specifically the collapses of the WTC buildings.

My comments on the political context were explicit and clear. There was no demolition at WTC and anyone with genuine concerns about US Government involvement in conspiracy/collusion/corruption would be better off pursuing those goals rather than tie them to false claims of demolition at WTC.

I am not involved and am very unlikely to become involved in US politics. But my comments identify the two options available to those who want to pursue US political agendas. Those options are:

1. Disconnect the genuine concerns they have about corrupt political processes from the false claims of demolition at WTC on 9/11; OR
2. Continue to attach the false claims for demolition to their political agenda thereby weakening their case.

My political comment as an outsider bystander is that dragging a false claim into the political arena is likely to be counter productive. Hence my summary comment:

...So a crazy political strategy tying genuine concerns about conspiracy to a dead set loser in demolition.

Now, side tracks aside, do you want to:

1. Address my "theories" as you describe my explanations; OR
2. Present your own.

[Patriots4Truth]

And it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration.

1) What about the margin of error? That straight line is an approximation and cannot be used to conclude no measurable deceleration.

The margin of error is tiny because Chandler and Szamboti's video analysis was measured to the exact pixel of the roof's tip. (The footage they used is clearer then the .gif animation I made above).

When thinking about the magin of error, picture the red circles in my animation to be moved a teeny-tiny bit. I would suggest an alpha level of .01 because exact pixels are measured but if we use the standardized error coefficient then alpha would be .05. In layman terms this means each pixel could be off by .05 pixels allowing any of the red circles to be displaced by merely .05 pixels.

2) I can't be sure, but it looks like the red dots go down faster than the spire and the rooftop.

The green list below is how the video analysis was conducted for The Missing Jolt paper (and yes I'm aware that debunkers think Graeme MacQueen & Tony Szamboti errored by saying there can only be one conclusion). Chandler conducted his video analysis in essentially the same way as MacQueen and Szamboti. Anyone can do their own video analysis (like debunkers if they wanted to). Dave Thomas, the guy who posted his minijolt theory (a component theory of ROOSD) to debunk the conclusions of Chandler's video analysis told me personally that he has no desire to do any actual video analysis because he has more important things to do - I posted the link where he says this a few pages back when I mentioned him. Why wouldn't a debunker do video analysis...? Anyways, this is how the video analysis was conducted for The Missing Jolt paper. There isn't any errors in the proceeding process:

1.
We save the Sauret footage to our hard drive.
2.
We break the 1 minute, 56.53 second clip into 3497 equal segments or “frames.” Each frame
is approximately 0.033 seconds in length (33 thousandths of a second).
3.
We find two points associated with the roof of the upper block of the North Tower whose
progress we can measure. Two points are necessary since neither one is consistently visible but one of the two is always visible. The point whose fall we shall use in our computations is at the tip of a white device on the roof. (The distance between this point and the upper frame is called Distance A in Figure 1 below.) The other point is located at the interface of the upper white section of the roof and the lower dark section. (The distance between this point and the upper frame is called Distance B in Figure 1.) The difference between Distance B and Distance A is approximately 28 pixels. Where the white device on the upper right-hand corner of the roof is obscured by smoke, measurements of the roof interface have been taken and the position of the device has been obtained by subtracting 28.

4.
We choose a set of frames that stretches from Frame 929, before the discernible beginning of
the roof’s fall, to the last frame in which our point can be recognized before it disappears into the dust cloud, Frame 1024.
5.
We measure the number of pixels separating the white device from the fixed upper edge of
the video frame, computing the position of the device when necessary by measuring the position of the roof interface. We take one measurement at each five frames in the progress of the Tower’s collapse, ending up with 20 points.
6.
Our measurement stretches from 30.93 seconds into the clip to 34.1 seconds into the clip,
giving us a total interval of 3.17 seconds.
7.
We find that during this interval the white device on the roof has fallen a distance represented
by 130 pixels.
8.
In order to get an approximation of the real distances at issue; we find a known vertical
distance on the north face of the North Tower. (The Tower’s proportions have been distorted as it has been rendered into frame-by-frame format. See Appendix A for a description of our method of determining the known vertical distance and the ratio of pixels to feet.) We discover that in our frame-by-frame version of the Sauret video 1 pixel = 0.88 feet. We now know that the point on the roof has fallen approximately 114.4 feet. The figure is not precise--there are the effects of foreshortening to consider (the roof and device are higher than the camera and the upper block, as it moves downward, tilts away from us)--but the figures are close enough for our purpose because we are looking for changes in acceleration over time, not exact velocity values.
9.
We know that d = ½ × g × t2
where d stands for distance, g stands for acceleration due to gravity, which is 32.174 ft./s2 at sea level, and t stands for time. Using this formula, we discover that a freely falling object would travel 161.6 feet in the time it took the roof to drop 114.4 feet.
10.
We create two graphs. In the first the roof’s descent is given in pixels. In the second the roof’s fall is given in feet.
Journal

Knowing the distance the roof fell, in equal time intervals, from our measurements, we can now determine its actual velocity, at each measured point through its fall, using symmetric differencing. The equation is

[Patriots4Truth]

Now, side tracks aside, do you want to:

1. Address my "theories" as you describe my explanations; OR
2. Present your own.

So is ROOSD a part of your theory or not?
Do you disagree with the process in how the video analysis was conducted? Why?
Why isn't no measurable deceleration a big deal for you?
(the falling upper section of WTC 1 exhibited no measurable deceleration when it impacted the lower section.)

[Patriots4Truth]

Patriots4Truth, a few questions. Do you believe that because a particular verinage shows deceleration that WTC1 must also, if it's also natural?

Well ROOSD is the only working global theory for fire/natural cause collapse that I know of and it pays homage to verinage type collapse

Would architectural or situational differences matter? If the leading destruction were in the interior as something like ROOSD specifies, how would that affect any expectation of deceleration at the roofline?

Yes, architectural and situational differences would matter. I would expect a steel framed building (although there isn't any verinage footage I know of with steel framed buildings) to put up more resistance, slowing down the collapse, if verinage is at all possible with a steel-framed building (theoretically it's possible with some steel framed buildings). I reckon there is a good reason why demolitionists haven't tried it yet and why debunkers hush up when you mention verinage and steel-frame in the same sentence.

[Patriots4Truth]

Here is really good criticism against ROOSD (the only natural collapse explanation which might of had any worth):
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective

A comment in passing only but I agree that ROOSD is essentially the only natural collapse explanation which might have had any worth BUT we are not discussing ROOSD per se and, topic title aside, I don't see the thread you reference rebutting ROOSD - unless you have a better link.

The link doesn't have a full rebuttal but it establishes plenty of reasonable doubt to deny ROOSD. If anything the link has good information for anyone interested in the science and possibility of a global natural collapse (it's the theory that most debunkers support).

[econ41]

Here is really good criticism against ROOSD (the only natural collapse explanation which might of had any worth):
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective

A comment in passing only but I agree that ROOSD is essentially the only natural collapse explanation which might have had any worth BUT we are not discussing ROOSD per se and, topic title aside, I don't see the thread you reference rebutting ROOSD - unless you have a better link.

The link doesn't have a full rebuttal but it establishes plenty of reasonable doubt to deny ROOSD. If anything the link has good information for anyone interested in the science and possibility of a global natural collapse (it's the theory that most debunkers support).

Understood. "the911forums" has a lot of good technical discussion free of the noise on other forums. Not all of it I agree with but that's not the issue. It is a great forum for reading some of the technical stuff. A lot of the posters are "details first" and "serial processors" including and in the style of femr2 and Major_Tom.

Anytime you want to discuss the global collapse just say so. Take the downwards movement of the "top block" as the definable starting point.

It gets us clear about from all this fogged objective stuff about claimed decelerations, jolts and all the SZamboti/Chandler red herrings. Remember that Szamboti's logic on "jolts" is circular - he assumes a situation equivalent to demolition then "proves" his assumption correct. That is the simplest way I can express it in a 'nutshell'.

Edit - clarity - used wrong word.

[Xaihe]

And it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration.

1) What about the margin of error? That straight line is an approximation and cannot be used to conclude no measurable deceleration.

The margin of error is tiny because Chandler and Szamboti's video analysis was measured to the exact pixel of the roof's tip. (The footage they used is clearer then the .gif animation I made above).

When thinking about the magin of error, picture the red circles in my animation to be moved a teeny-tiny bit. I would suggest an alpha level of .01 because exact pixels are measured but if we use the standardized error coefficient then alpha would be .05. In layman terms this means each pixel could be off by .05 pixels allowing any of the red circles to be displaced by merely .05 pixels.

You can draw many different lines through those circles (actually, I figured the circles represented their margin of error), and not all those lines need to be perfectly straight. This is why I said you cannot use it to conclude no measurable deceleration.

[econ41]

Now, side tracks aside, do you want to:

1. Address my "theories" as you describe my explanations; OR
2. Present your own.

So is ROOSD a part of your theory or not?...

Yes and no - sorry for that.

"Yes" because the scope of OOS fits within my explanation as a part of it. But "No" because Major_Tom takes it further than I have done so far. He does a fair bit of quantification of OOS floor loadings by separating into "zones". I only relied on the fact that materials falling on the OOS would grossly overload the floor joist to column connectors without distinguishing the long span, short span or corner "zones". (Those comments from memory - I would have to re-read the paper and the subsequent modifications - IIRC it is still in "draft" form.)

Do you disagree with the process in how the video analysis was conducted? Why? ...

I have no opinion on the video techniques overall. My reason is that the video is irrelevant. Both Szamboti and Chandler are pursuing a phantom. They (certainly Chandler, almost certain without re-reading Szamboti) seem to accept the truther mythology that free fall must always mean demolition. That claim is bullshit. But you see it relied on implicitly in many truther claims, especially in the context of WTC7 which attracts truthers for the obvious reason that the collapse mechanism details are mostly hidden - therefore harder to rebut on purely technical structural grounds.

...Why isn't no measurable deceleration a big deal for you?...

Because it is based on a false preconception. Let me be rigorous in logic at this stage of our discussion and state that there are two possibilities before us, viz (A) demolition and (B) no demolition. The false preconception is built into your next sentence:

(the falling upper section of WTC 1 exhibited no measurable deceleration when it impacted the lower section.)

...note that "when it impacted" which is a preconception linked to "demolition". It presumes that the "top block" fell through some relatively free space THEN came into contact. Which is an OK presumption if you are considering the possibility "(A) demolition". But my scenario for possibility "(B) no demolition" does not have that drop through relatively free space. The "top block" remains in contact with its multiplicity of failing members through the "initial collapse" and leading into the "global collapse".

(Sure I have said this before but I will restate rather than go looking for the quote:)
The process of the "initial collapse" which led to and ended when the "top block" started to move downwards was a cascading failure of buckling columns. As those columns started to fail each one as it failed released its load which was redistributed to remaining columns. That failure would generally be by one of a couple of mechanisms. Plastic buckling where the top bit folds past the bottom OR shear failure occurs at bolted joints associated with plastic buckling. The number of failed columns continues to increase until the remaining capacity of columns cannot support the top block which then starts to move downwards. That process sees a continuously increasing velocity until and if it meets a resistance sufficient to cause a jolt. In all that mess some individual member may at some stage "fall through a gap" but there is no stage where the total top block falls through a gap which is another way of describing Szamboti's false premise. He claims there is - because demolition created the gap. From there his logic circles. I have challenged him repeatedly on that specific point on another forum. He refuses to acknowledge it. My explanation states why there was no gap to cause the deceleration.

And that is where the Szamboti et al logic goes crazy. There wasn't a "big jolt" and all that the absence of a big jolt does to the case I make is to identify that, among the multitudes of little or medium jolts there wasn't one big enough to satisfy Szamboti et al.

[Patriots4Truth]

1) What about the margin of error? That straight line is an approximation and cannot be used to conclude no measurable deceleration.

The margin of error is tiny because Chandler and Szamboti's video analysis was measured to the exact pixel of the roof's tip. (The footage they used is clearer then the .gif animation I made above).

When thinking about the magin of error, picture the red circles in my animation to be moved a teeny-tiny bit. I would suggest an alpha level of .01 because exact pixels are measured but if we use the standardized error coefficient then alpha would be .05. In layman terms this means each pixel could be off by .05 pixels allowing any of the red circles to be displaced by merely .05 pixels.

You can draw many different lines through those circles (actually, I figured the circles represented their margin of error), and not all those lines need to be perfectly straight. This is why I said you cannot use it to conclude no measurable deceleration actually you can.

First, thanks for pointing out the thing about the outer circle being a margin of error - I'm glad you caught that

But you can use the circles to conclude 'no measurable deceleration'.

I'm using a graph already saved on my hard drive. I added horizontal lines. Notice how none of the horizontal lines from a point further in time go above the horizontal line from a point earlier in time

[uke2se]

For those paying attention, the results Patriots keeps pushing are faulty as the person who did them didn't know what he was doing. While the measurements themselves might be correct, the data sampling is erroneous and does not point to no deceleration. See this for details. Patriots knows this but has chosen to ignore it.

[econ41]

For those paying attention, the results Patriots keeps pushing are faulty as the person who did them didn't know what he was doing. While the measurements themselves might be correct, the data sampling is erroneous and does not point to no deceleration. See this for details. Patriots knows this but has chosen to ignore it.

Thanks for the advice. I was aware of the flaws in Szamboti's work and the rebuttal post you have linked. I have once again advised Patriots that Szamboti's work is both irrelevant and false. For myself I have no interest in discussing this red herring any more than the thermXte red herrings - my focus will remain on support of my own explanations for the WTC collapses, any directly related matters and responding to any counter explanation - i.e. a pro demolition claim supported by proper reasoning - if ever we see one.

[Kat Dorman]

Here is really good criticism against ROOSD (the only natural collapse explanation which might of had any worth):
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective

Not to be disagreeable for its own sake, but I have to offer my opinion on that thread. That big sucking sound you hear is my time going down the toilet as I try to address some of the most inane and ill-founded criticisms which could possibly be wrought by the human mind. The thread is a split, and it's essentially identical to another half-dozen or so like it in which the same pedantic points and misunderstandings of physics and engineering principles are made over and over again.

If you really want a critique of ROOSD, try this, starting at the top of the page:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc1-debris-ejecta-traversal-rate-linear-terminal-velocity-t237-135.html

This is an attempt to fit a discrete slab accretion model (i.e. inclusive of ROOSD) to actual displacement of ejecta traversing the SW corner of WTC1. To cut to the chase, either it's not accretion at all or some very unlikely initial conditions were present.

[Nicko]

Patriots knows this but has chosen to ignore it.

He has already stated his position that it is legitimate to raise assertions debunked elsewhere, as they have yet to be debunked in this specific thread. In fact, when told where his assertions had already been dealt with, he retorted with his strongest argument to date: a big font.

It's like arguing with a creationist (or "proponent of intelligent design"). No matter how many times the cosmological argument gets refuted, they'll always try it on when they find a new audience. Same with the telelogical argument etc etc...

Patriots is just doing the same thing with the thermXte argument. And the freefall argument. And the microsphere argument...

[Patriots4Truth]

Patriots knows this but has chosen to ignore it.

He has already stated his position that it is legitimate to raise assertions debunked elsewhere, as they have yet to be debunked in this specific thread. In fact, when told where his assertions had already been dealt with, he retorted with his strongest argument to date: a big font.

It's like arguing with a creationist (or "proponent of intelligent design"). No matter how many times the cosmological argument gets refuted, they'll always try it on when they find a new audience. Same with the telelogical argument etc etc...

Patriots is just doing the same thing with the thermXte argument. And the freefall argument. And the microsphere argument...

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.

Its past 4:30 AM. I'm hitting the hay

[Nicko]

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.

[Patriots4Truth]

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:

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.

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

[uke2se]

But next time I would prefer if I didn't have to do all the work for them

I gave you the link to that post several pages ago. You could have just read the post then. You decided to take it further and research it by asking other people. Not at all a bad thing to do, in fact I would applaud you for it. However, claiming that it was our (my) responsibility to ask people you trusted if the post in my link was correct is just mind blowingly stupid. Sorry.

Also, NIST wasn't forced by Chandler to admit anything. That's just another 9/11 conspiracist talking point.

[Patriots4Truth]

But next time I would prefer if I didn't have to do all the work for them

I gave you the link to that post several pages ago. You could have just read the post then. You decided to take it further and research it by asking other people. Not at all a bad thing to do, in fact I would applaud you for it. However, claiming that it was our (my) responsibility to ask people you trusted if the post in my link was correct is just mind blowingly stupid. Sorry.

You didn't once try to explain the link. If you are not aware, it consists of humongous amounts of techno-babble that could easily fly over people's heads. Technobabble can be used dishonestly to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. I expect more honesty in a debate.

Also, NIST wasn't forced by Chandler to admit anything. That's just another 9/11 conspiracist talking point.

It sure looks like Nist plays dumb (maybe "forced to admit freefall" is too strong of wording): part 1, part 2, part 3