Derek,
Your English is as bad as your engineering...
["Specifically says"] has meaning, or did you make another mistake?
Yes, it does have a specific meaning. One that you've gotten wrong.
specific: (adj) detailed, explicit, express, clear-cut, unequivocal, precise, exact, meticulous. antonym vague.
Not one of the dictionaries or thesauruses that I consulted defined "specifically" as synonymous with "quoted".
By example:
If Suzy tells me that she went to the bank, and then the dry cleaners and then to work, & I ask her if she's certain of that order, and she says "yes"...
Did she say "I went to the bank before I went to work"? No. That is a
quote that she never uttered.
Did she
specifically say that she went to the bank before she went to work? Yes, she did. But only if one is capable of trivial logic.
Quotations are easy. Any twoofer who can manage a Control-C & Control-V key sequence can produce one. So can you, it seems.
To deduce an accurate "specifically says" (like the "Suzy example" above) takes a minimum of about 250 working brain cells tho. This seems to be above the average twoofer's capacity.
And yours, in this instance.
___
Now, as to my comment, that you quote-mined...
NIST specifically says that the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at "approximately g".
Where did NIST specifically say this?
Gather up all your working brain cells, and let's go on a little trip thru NIST-land. All of the excerpts below are direct cut & pastes from NCSTAR1-9, on the pages noted. So they are exact quotes.
We'll take it a piece at a time.
"... the external north wall fell ..."
NIST said:
Initial downward motion of the north face roofline at the eastern section of building
(Table 12-2, pg 599)
and
NIST said:
After the exterior facade began to fall downward at 6.9 s, the north face developed a line or “kink” near the end of the core at Column 76.
(pg. 600)
___
"... for approximately 100 feet ..."
NIST said:
This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft),
pg. 602.
My conversational "approximately 100 feet" is substantially equivalent to NIST's "approximately 8 stories (105 ft)"
___
"... at 'approximately g'."
NIST said:
Velocity data points (solid circles) were also determined from the displacement data using a central difference approximation.
The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s.
To estimate the downward acceleration during this stage, a straight line was fit to the open-circled velocity data points using linear regression
The slope of the straight line, which represents a constant acceleration, was found to be 32.2 ft/s2 (with a coefficient of regression R2 = 0.991), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g.
[All from pg. 602. All emphasis added]
Note that, as stated above, the velocity data is AN APPROXIMATION of the real velocity, based on a central difference calculation.
Note that the acceleration was ESTIMATED from a least squares fit of the APPROXIMATE velocity data. A least squares fit is, itself, only AN APPROXIMATION to the actual data.
Now, while it may elude poets & below average baby engineers, every competent engineer (& scientist & mathematician & anyone with common sense) would immediately realize that an APPROXIMATION ("least squares fit") to APPROXIMATE calculations ("central difference calculated velocity") from raw data can NOT be considered an exact value.
But can be considered, at best, AN APPROXIMATION to the exact value.
Ergo, regardless of the any statement of the precision OF THE MATH MODEL, the best, most accurate, and only defensible statement that can be made about the acceleration of THE MEASURED POINT on the roof line of THE ACTUAL BUILDING is that it is "approximately g".
So, Derek, did NIST specifically say that "
the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at 'approximately g'?"
You bet they did.
QED.
PS. Subsequent info, which you have clumsily & obviously ignored, shows that this
approximation is, at best, merely a gross average. And that, when examined at higher time resolution, the acceleration was never really ANY constant value. (Much less a constant value of 32.2 ft/sec^2)
___
Finally, let's show that your honesty is as abysmal as your English and engineering skills.
Let's pull up my ENTIRE quote about which you are obsessing. About which you are being both deceptive & intentionally, dishonestly evasive.
To be precise:
NIST specifically says that the building did NOT fall at "near G" acceleration. NIST makes no statement regarding at what acceleration the building fell, because nobody could see the building, because it was behind an opaque external wall.
Plus, it didn't fall as a unit. It fell piecemeal.
NIST specifically says that the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at "approximately g".
That is NIST's precise statement. You KNOW that this is NIST's precise statement.
And yet you chose to intentionally misstate it, implying that NIST attributed that acceleration to the building.
Does Jesus tell you to be intentionally deceptive? Or did he suggest that simple honesty has some intrinsic ethical value?
[All emphasis in original text]
It is blatantly obvious that my focus is the distinction between
the building and
the external north wall of the building.
Or are you too oblivious to discern this, even assisted with
bold text?
This is exactly the point that you
REFUSE to address. Because you know full well that, as soon as you acknowledge it, all of your energy "gotcha's" (even the LoL "Lagrangian" ones) go flying right out the window.
Because there is no "missing energy" if
the building took 10 to 19 seconds to fall. As it REALLY did.
Feel free to answer that "Jesus question" now...
___
So thanks, Derek. For a superb example of "the Twoofer Six-Step".
1. Quote mine.
2. Intentionally strip away context & substance. (In this case, the difference between the north wall & the whole building.)
3. Incompetently interpret quote mine. (in your case, your own private definition of the word "specifically".)
4. Repeat, and repeat, and repeat your turd of a "gotcha" like it was a jewel. (As you have done here.)
5. Evade, evade, evade. Adamantly refuse to address the substance of the original statement. (As you have done here.)
6. Stupidly proclaim your victory.
Twooferism in a nutshell ...
___
Now, to break this silly impasse, ANSWER THE FARKIN' QUESTION, Derek.
Did NIST specifically say that the insides of the building fell at the same time and at the same accelerations as the external north wall? Or does NIST specifically say that the insides started to fall approximately 13 seconds before the external north wall began to descend?
[Note that there are no quotation marks, Derek. At least 250 functioning brain cells are required. Let's see if you are up to the challenge.]
tom
