rationalskepticism.org

Patriots4Truth wrote:...you see everything in black and white.
"There was no big jolt therefore Szamboti's hypothesis is wrong."
I hypothesize that a fire collapse would have shown at least a small or medium sized jolt...

I have gone as far as I am prepared to go in giving you a logical presentation to address.

I will simply point out the ridiculous comments in your post and leave it there until you either:

• Address my reasoned explanation ; OR
• Present a reasoned explanation of your own.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...you are arguing against any "big jolt" at all because you believe that the top part fell and hit everything in the 9 subsequent floors in only a mish-mash way which would look like minijolts if you decided to do an video analysis.

... ridiculously false. The fact as shown by multiple persons both "truther side" and "debunker side" and implicit in your own posts is that there was no big jolt. So I am not arguing against any big jolt. I am quoting the same persons you quote and we should be on common ground.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...I would argue that if you showed some middle ground between your crushing down "mish-mash hypothesis" (which is all that your huge text above is by the way) and a single section hitting another single section hypothesis you would find a measurable jolt: a small-medium sized jolt. We can call this the "middleground mish-mash hypothesis" and I think it's a lot more acceptable than your "mish-mash hypothesis". It also follows "#3" in your list by the way.

First my "huge text" was simply to call your bluff in refusing to engage in debate. Mission accomplished. Second your middle ground is within the range of my #3 setting

Patriots4Truth wrote:...Hypotheses aside, lets take into account what actually happened....

...any day you want.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...We should take free-fall acceleration into consideration.....

...get real. One sentence after saying "...lets take into account what actually happened..." There was no free fall of the main structural elements of wTC1 and WTC2 at any stage other than the fall of outer tube columns detached from the main body plus aluminium cladding ditto and some miscellaneous thrown clear materials.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...any Video analysis shows the absence of jolts, mini or huge.

...you actually mean video analysis looking for "big jolts", flawed in that purpose and deliberately structured so that mini-jolts are dampened out.

Look at what you are trying here. You are deflecting into discussion of video measurement. An evasive ploy. The real issue is that the falling top section of tower falling onto the bottom section would have shown a "big jolt" if there had been demolition as per Szamboti and Chandlers claims. There was no big jolt so their claims were wrong. Sorry you don't like "black and white" when it goes against you. That's life.

Patriots4Truth wrote:... We should take that into consideration.

Then do so - properly.

Patriots4Truth wrote:... And know what? Both freefall acceleration and the absence of jolts strongly support controlled demolition..

freefall acceleration is irrelevant to what we are discussing. And it does not support "demolition" over "no demolition" - I am well aware of the canards of truther lore. That one is wrong.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...I would like to mention one thing that you didn't consider in your post (something that I've had to repeat already for someone else). There was no measurable deceleration when the upper section hit the bottom section. not even a mini-jolt. The Verinage collapse graphs show measurable deceleration. Szamboti's video analysis does not show measurable deceleration. Therefor Verinage does not in fact support what actually happened.

Take a while to think that one through again. Starting at "The Verinage..." from there on plus some knowledge of what "Verinage" is is all you need to get the answer right.
\
End of comments.

Clearly I have done you the courtesy of laying out an explanation in fullsome detail. The ball is in your court to either address my explanation OR provide your own. And, yes, I am aware that for your hypothesis to "beat" mine you have to do both - show where mine is wrong AND present a better one of your own. I'll go along with one step at a time.

Your play.