cmatrix's Own Challenge Thread

[dafydd]

Where is cmatrix? Chickened out again.

 

[femr2]

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.

Incorrect. NIST was wrong.

I've performed a more detailed determination of the acceleration profile for WTC7 which shows the assertion to be false.

Firstly, their assertion is based upon a single point and not applicable to the entire facade behaviour.

Secondly, their method suffers from a low quality method and is inaccurate.

Thirdly, if data is taken from the NW corner, freefall was achieved for probably 2 very small moments in time, with over a second being over-g. Beforehand acceleration quite rapidly ramped up, and afterwards ramped down rather more slowly...

Acceleration (ft/s^2) / Time (s)
Each frame shows the effect on profile for increase in the poly-fit order (steps of 2 per frame)

if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.

Incorrect(ish). See above. There was no instantaneous entrance into freefall. Rather, there was a period of near-to-over-g behaviour of parts of the facade that can be observed during the global descent.

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results.

I've repeated the production of empirical data, and whilst I have, imo, proven NIST wrong (by low accuracy), that doesn't mean you are right.

Once you get past these simple points, and I ask you to confirm you accept the clarifications above, I will ask you again to consider the importance of 100 seconds worth of movement of the facade in advance of descent.

 

[DGM]

.
I've repeated the production of empirical data, and whilst I have, imo, proven NIST wrong (by low accuracy), that doesn't mean you are right.
.

I think it would be more appropriate to say they were sloppy on an issue they didn't consider important in the first place.

 

[femr2]

I think it would be more appropriate to say they were sloppy on an issue they didn't consider important in the first place.

But that's your propensity to *twoofer bait* or score points coming out. It would have been much more appropriate and productive for you to say nothing at all, and allow the post to sit until cmatrix responds (or not). You just can't help yourself though it seems. As you agree, NIST were very sloppy, and their data is inaccurate enough to be correctly labelled as wrong. Indeed SO wrong that they come to the same flawed conclusion as your friend Chandler. Poor show.

 

[beachnut]

Incorrect. NIST was wrong.

...

They said fire destroyed WTC. They were right, your theory must be wrong if fire is not in it. You think the official story of 911 is false, and you are unable to prove your opinion. 19 terrorists did 911, which you claim is false, will you be able to help cmatrix drop his anti-intellectual approach with dancing gifs? Have you figure out flight explorer on 175, and would your method to understand flight explorer be applicable to helping cmatrix with physics, or comprehending NIST?

When will you publish your dancing gifs and expose NIST in a reality based journal? Heiwa tried and failed. The Ross paper is wrong and you still have it posted as a "technical" paper on 911. Ross was wrong, NIST is right in the big picture, and you need to publish your work in a real journal, save the part you said NIST said jet fuel caused the towers to collapse silly comment on your web page, a page you could fix to not sound so silly. Good luck proving the official story is false; have you tried to list your evidence to support your theory it is false. Can you help cmatrix with physics? Would your work on NIST support or refute cmatrix's claims?

 

[femr2]

They were right, you are wrong.

You make a fool of yourself every time you deliberately misrepresent context beachnut. I'm clearly talking about the NIST claimed period of freefall. Your response implies you think they are correct about that. They are not. You are wrong. If that is not your *belief* then you are intentionally misquoting, which I am sure you are aware is rather frowned upon. Sort it out mate I know you won't listen to me so go and have a word with tfk. He'll bore you to death Remember context. The NIST stated >2s period of freefall is wrong. Enjoy your other delusions.

 

[beachnut]

You make a fool of yourself every time you deliberately misrepresent context beachnut. I'm clearly talking about the NIST claimed period of freefall. Your response implies you think they are correct about that. They are not. You are wrong. If that is not your *belief* then you are intentionally misquoting, which I am sure you are aware is rather frowned upon. Sort it out mate I know you won't listen to me so go and have a word with tfk. He'll bore you to death Remember context. The NIST stated >2s period of free-fall is wrong. Enjoy your other delusions.

How does this support your "official story" is false opinion, and how does it impact cmatrix's claims? Why did you fail to figure out Rosa's paper is wrong, but you pick an insignificant issue on NIST? Do you think cmatrix could figure out Ross's work is wrong, the paper you have on your "technical" paper page?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 At least you dropped the more delusional papers you once held up as "technical", will cmatrix move to reality?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf cmatrix would like this paper. But it is a failed technical paper, proved wrong by events. Ross's conclusion is wrong, is NISTs overall conclusion wrong? Publishing date?

Why has cmatrix failed to use Ross's work to support his claims? Why do you list a "wrong" paper as "technical"? Do you still hold the official story, 19 terrorists did 911, as false? I assume cmatrix does, but he can't get past calling NIST's work names.

 

[dafydd]

How does this support your "official story" is false opinion, and how does it impact cmatrix's claims? Why did you fail to figure out Rosa's paper is wrong, but you pick an insignificant issue on NIST? Do you think cmatrix could figure out Ross's work is wrong, the paper you have on your "technical" paper page?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 At least you dropped the more delusional papers you once held up as "technical", will cmatrix move to reality?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf cmatrix would like this paper. But it is a failed technical paper, proved wrong by events. Ross's conclusion is wrong, is NISTs overall conclusion wrong? Publishing date?

Why has cmatrix failed to use Ross's work to support his claims? Why do you list a "wrong" paper as "technical"? Do you still hold the official story, 19 terrorists did 911, as false? I assume cmatrix does, but he can't get past calling NIST's work names.

Why is cmatrix avoiding this like the plague?

 

[ozeco41]

Do you think cmatrix could figure out Ross's work is wrong, the paper....
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf cmatrix would like this paper. But it is a failed technical paper, proved wrong by events. Ross's conclusion is wrong,...

I will even give cmatrix a hint as to why the paper is wrong:

Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands.....

...the bit about "the first impacted columns" - a classic mistake made regularly by those people who put theory and maths first - before they work out what happened. No point engaging the maths if you don't know what you are applying the maths to. And whatever Ross thought he was mathificating it sure wasn't the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.

 

[femr2]

whatever Ross thought he was mathificating

The reason it's linked is that, as per the other references on that page, it looks at the event in numerical form...with each author having a different view. I have my own, which basically bundles a few 1D step-wise energetics model mechanics together, but as it's implemented in a functional excel form...you can change all the numbers. Useful to see how various parameter range changes affect the outcome.

beachnut can make as many assumptions as he pleases, but as I said, really does make a fool of himself with the nonsensical personal attacks.

Keep in mind, cmatrix is probably completely unaware of such documents, and the point of the recent dialogue is to highlight the reliance upon the NIST freefall figure...which is wrong...and therefore nullifies the rigid stance cmatrix about it.

When are these people going to stop stuffing their boots in their mouths, showing they a) don't get the point, b) aren't interested in making any thread productive in any way and c) only interested in so-called *twoofer baiting*. That ol' confirmation bias thing again. Funny stuff.

The only useful possibility within this thread is for cmatrix to actually respond to appropriate questions. Any other mindless banter is an utter waste of everyones time.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I will even give cmatrix a hint as to why the paper is wrong:
...the bit about "the first impacted columns" - a classic mistake made regularly by those people who put theory and maths first - before they work out what happened. No point engaging the maths if you don't know what you are applying the maths to. And whatever Ross thought he was mathificating it sure wasn't the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.

That's not why Ross is wrong. He adds momentum losses" with the strain energy of the structural members when in reality they're the same exact energy sink.

Columns impacting each other is a perfectly valid limiting case to use when studying the towers. Dr. Bazant uses that scenario in his initial paper. And given that Ross was addressing this initial paper by Bazant it is perfectly reasonable for him to use the exact same scenario.

Ross is a great example for how truthers get it wrong. But please, if you use Ross as an example, know why he did he set up the problem the way he did, and why his physics is wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

That's not why Ross is wrong...

I was aware of several flaws in the Ross paper. Deliberately took the shortcut simple example and one example only to give cmatrix a chance.

The subtleties of the validity of the Bazant limiting case was more complex than I wanted to deal with in the challenge I posted.

In doing so I seem to have put the wrong slant on the issue for those who have deeper knowledge.

 

[ozeco41]

...Keep in mind, cmatrix is probably completely unaware of such documents, and the point of the recent dialogue is to highlight the reliance upon the NIST freefall figure...which is wrong...and therefore nullifies the rigid stance cmatrix about it...

Understood. I couldn't help musing to myself that, if NIST had access to your measurements, they would be in a bind. They have copped enough flack from "not admitting free fall". What flack would they have got if they had claimed greater than free fall.

... only interested in so-called *twoofer baiting*. That ol' confirmation bias thing again. Funny stuff...

...and increasingly the need to separate "truthers" from "trolls" - not a straight forward issue.

..The only useful possibility within this thread is for cmatrix to actually respond to appropriate questions....

which seems unlikely given the past record.

.. Any other mindless banter is an utter waste of everyones time.

..agreed provided you limit it to "mindless" - nowt wrong with a bit of fun attached to a bit of a lesson.

 

[beachnut]

... beachnut can make as many assumptions as he pleases, but as I said, really does make a fool of himself with the nonsensical personal attacks. ...

I find it ironic cmatrix claims he read NIST and ignores the fact his claims are failed. I find it ironic you have failed papers, one is Ross's paper, in your "technical paper" section at your web site. You removed failed papers before. Would it be interesting if cmatrix finds the paper useful to support his nonsense, as he supports your overall claim the "official story" is fiction?

This section lists a number of papers detailing calculated aspects of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.

You are encouraged to read them:

Should be failed papers, or some warning the work is flawed and biased.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 Don't forget, cmatrix might need Prof. Kuttler failed paper also listed in your technical paper section to help keep his delusions strong. More nonsense.

However, if one ignores energy needed to crush the concrete, a reasonable estimate using resistance of the columns also produces surprisingly long times to collapse.

With work like this in your technical paper section, I understand why you claim what happen on 911 is fiction made up by the NWO. You list failed work as technical papers. I am only curious if cmatrix can use them to support his claims, it would be funny to see the results. I understand your mistakes are due to lack of knowledge, it is not a personal attack. At least the first time I pointed out one of your papers in your tech paper section was nonsense, you removed it; it is your web site, it only seems to me when people like cmatrix find a site like yours, they will be mislead since they are not like me, a fool, making a fool of himself.
Prof. Kuttler seems to be trying to back in CD.


Would cmatrix think Ross's paper supports his false claims? What about Prof. Kuttler paper? When will you do a study and expose Ross's and Prof. Kuttler's errors? No personal attack, just questions of things I find ironic, and wonder what cmatrix thinks about the tech papers.

I found Ross's paper extremely ironic since the WTC did collapsed, proving his paper wrong before he did his paper - will cmatrix see the irony?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

To be blunt, if he hasn't responded since the thread was made in August it's unlikely he's participate at all, especially given his attitude towards the so called "OCT." If you don't already know, he made a video to tell that whole side of the "story"

 

[femr2]

Understood. I couldn't help musing to myself that, if NIST had access to your measurements, they would be in a bind. They have copped enough flack from "not admitting free fall". What flack would they have got if they had claimed greater than free fall.

Worse than that. They've supported the claims of David Chandler by admitting to an extended period of freefall. The consequences of that have resulted in all the ensuing dialogue about the impossibility of such. There is now a bunch of *twoofers* claiming that *proves* simultaneous failures whilst, rather ironically, there's a similar bunch of *debunkers* claiming that such behaviour is completely normal. There was no 2.25s period of freefall. Both sets of folk are wrong. And yet I get attacked by both sides for pointing out the error

 

[Newtons Bit]

I was aware of several flaws in the Ross paper. Deliberately took the shortcut simple example and one example only to give cmatrix a chance.

The subtleties of the validity of the Bazant limiting case was more complex than I wanted to deal with in the challenge I posted.

In doing so I seem to have put the wrong slant on the issue for those who have deeper knowledge.

Except it's not a shortcut simple example. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Ross set out to do. And you cannot simultaneously accept Bazant's model while rejecting a different analysis that uses the exact same assumptions to further exam Bazant's analysis.

 

[ozeco41]

Except it's not a shortcut simple example. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Ross set out to do. And you cannot simultaneously accept Bazant's model while rejecting a different analysis that uses the exact same assumptions to further exam Bazant's analysis.

I consider myself seriously reprimanded. I won't bother commenting on the crap logic. If you are that desperate for a win consider yourself one point ahead.

 

[ozeco41]

Except it's not a shortcut simple example. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Ross set out to do. And you cannot simultaneously accept Bazant's model while rejecting a different analysis that uses the exact same assumptions to further exam Bazant's analysis.

I consider myself seriously reprimanded.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I consider myself seriously reprimanded. I won't bother commenting on the crap logic. If you are that desperate for a win consider yourself one point ahead.

That's rather passive aggressive. If you don't think your objection to Ross is valid just say so. But know this: the axial strike assumption that Ross uses is perfectly valid for a limiting case. All he's doing is further developing the Bazant model. Moreover, if he does the physics right, he would find that it continues to collapse.

You're being an "anti-truther", not a debunker. And I find that just as annoying as "truthers".