29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Dave Rogers]

Violation of rule 12

No, it isn't. Your post makes it clear that you are completely ignorant of the meaning of experimental error, because anyone who had any knowledge of the concept would not infer such an obviously absurd interpretation of Newtons Bit's question. This discussion is being held in a language where terms such as "error" have a specific meaning, one which clearly you do not know. This explains why your arguments are so nonsensical; you simply don't understand the meaning of the words you yourself are speaking. Those of us who do understand them are faced with an unbridgeable gulf of understanding, because you are not prepared to consider the possibility of your own misunderstanding. As long as you are totally convinced that everything you say is right, it's a little difficult for the rest of us to point out to you exactly why everything you say is nonsense. However, nonsense it is.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

You are saying the input data is inaccurate. NIST came up with the same result. Do you think their input data was incorrect too?

[Attack on arguer deleted]
Dave

Your refusal to answer the question is very telling.

 

[FineWine]

Your refusal to answer the question is very telling.

Your inability to comprehend his very precise answer is even more telling.

 

[FineWine]

Your refusal to answer the question is very telling.

If a poll with a 3% margin of error indicates that candidate A holds a lead of 51-49 over candidate B, and candidate B wins 51-49, was the poll wrong?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You are saying the input data is inaccurate. NIST came up with the same result. Do you think their input data was incorrect too?

No, that's not what we're saying.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If a poll with a 3% margin of error indicates that candidate A holds a lead of 51-49 over candidate B, and candidate B wins 51-49, was the poll wrong?

This is a good analogy. I wonder if he'll get it.

 

[Christopher7]

No, that's not what we're saying.

You are saying that Mr. Chandler and NIST are wrong. You are saying WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration.

NIST was very specific:
the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, . . . This free fall drop continued [FONT=&quot]for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[/FONT]

 

[lapman]

You are saying that Mr. Chandler and NIST are wrong. You are saying WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration.

NIST was very specific:
the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, . . . This free fall drop continued [FONT=&quot]for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[/FONT]

So? Why is this such an issue with you?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You are saying that Mr. Chandler and NIST are wrong. You are saying WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration.

No. That's not what we're saying. How many times do I have to say that? What I am saying, is that there is sufficient noise in the data that makes an exact determination of what the acceleration are impossible. It's definitely close to the acceleration of gravity. But with the margins of error in this kind of analysis, it's impossible to know if it was more than g, a little less than g, exactly g, etc. An ERROR ANALYSIS could determine what these bounds are.

 

[tfk]

<deleted>

 

[H'ethetheth]

Maybe this helps:

Yes, both Chandler's and NIST's data are flawed, as are all data ever.
Are they both incorrect?
No, only Chandler is incorrect, because only he derives a conclusion from the data that isn't warranted by the accuracy of the data.

More importantly, the issue is just exceedingly silly, seeing how the simulation of the collapse, without explosives modeled, produced a phase of downward acceleration at roughly g.

 

[tfk]

You are saying the input data is inaccurate. NIST came up with the same result. Do you think their input data was incorrect too?

.
Well, I'm done attempting to crash thru determined ignorance. And that means that I'm done addressing him.

But for people that still have functioning brains and might be curious about his nonsense...

There is a fundamental principle of all experimentation, that C7 doesn't understand.

Every Single Experimental Data Point Ever Taken In The History Of Science And Engineering Is "incorrect".

Or, in a language that he doesn't understand, has "an error band" associated with it.

Anyone who doesn't account for error bands in their conclusions is a incompetent amateur. Even a high school physics teacher should know this.

Tom

 

[Christopher7]

You are saying that Mr. Chandler and NIST are wrong. You are saying WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration.

No. That's not what we're saying. How many times do I have to say that? What I am saying, is that there is sufficient noise in the data that makes an exact determination of what the acceleration are impossible. It's definitely close to the acceleration of gravity. But with the margins of error in this kind of analysis, it's impossible to know if it was more than g, a little less than g, exactly g, etc. An ERROR ANALYSIS could determine what these bounds are.

Double talk. NIST did NOT say close to gravitational acceleration, they said at gravitational acceleration. If they felt there was a error factor, they would have said so. They considered the results conclusive. The results are almost identical with David chandlers results. This is scientific conformation and your denial only proves that no one here will accept any fact that undermines the OCT.

No one here is qualified to dispute NIST and David Chandler.
Anonymous claims of expertise are worthless, and in this case, obviously false.

 

[Christopher7]

.

Every Single Experimental Data Point Ever Taken In The History Of Science And Engineering Is "incorrect".

The 'errors' are insignificant or NIST would have mentioned it. You are engaging in the denier tactic "nitpick and babble"

Anyone who doesn't account for error bands in their conclusions is a incompetent amateur. Even a high school physics teacher should know this.

He does. The error is insignificant. There are enough data points to establish free fall acceleration.

 

[lapman]

Double talk. NIST did NOT say close to gravitational acceleration, they said at gravitational acceleration. If they felt there was a error factor, they would have said so. They considered the results conclusive. The results are almost identical with David chandlers results. This is scientific conformation and your denial only proves that no one here will accept any fact that undermines the OCT.

How does this undermine anything? It collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a moment. So what? Oh, you're going back to your fictitious claim that it can't happen without explosives.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Double talk. NIST did NOT say close to gravitational acceleration, they said at gravitational acceleration. If they felt there was a error factor, they would have said so. They considered the results conclusive. The results are almost identical with David chandlers results. This is scientific conformation and your denial only proves that no one here will accept any fact that undermines the OCT.

No one here is qualified to dispute NIST and David Chandler.
Anonymous claims of expertise are worthless, and in this case, obviously false.

The chart from NIST and with tfk's chart (which plots NIST's data), both show points in time where acceleration is greater than g, this at g in your world???

BTW, NIST does allude to a margin of error in their chart.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The 'errors' are insignificant or NIST would have mentioned it. You are engaging in the denier tactic "nitpick and babble"

He does. The error is insignificant. There are enough data points to establish free fall acceleration.

I see you've modified your argument now that you know what the word error means.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I see you've modified your argument now that you know what the word error means.

I'd call that progress.

 

[Christopher7]

It collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a moment. So what?

"A moment" is double talk, intentional obfuscation.

How does this undermine anything?

Free fall acceleration for 105 feet in 2.25s is not possible if there is structural resistance.

Shyam Sunder - Technical briefing 8-26-08
The analysis show that the difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not is not all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything is not instantaneous.

 

[Christopher7]

The chart from NIST and with tfk's chart (which plots NIST's data), both show points in time where acceleration is greater than g, this at g in your world???

BTW, NIST does allude to a margin of error in their chart.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_163294a45444493da1.gif

As you say, the input data is not exact but there are enough data points over a long enough period of time to establish free fall acceleration. The slight variation does not mean a change of acceleration.

NIST did not have any doubts about the results. Why do you?