Chocolate bunny squares
Then it would seem that an examination of the movements of the structure several hours prior to collapse would be in order to help ensure you are not in error.
See the bolded section.
It's ongoing research. You want the conclusions before they have been reached ? Awesome. Let me look in my crystal ball
Common you noob, Richard Gage has already explained this to us:
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage
"The explosives had to be so intense, because this is not a typical controlled demolition, SO intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage
So there you have it, dafydd. They used unusually intense explosive non-explosives to both cut the beams and to launch some of them laterally. This is simple stuff here people, gawl!
Some of its content is useful. If anyone makes false claims about the content, I'll point out the error.
ROFL. There is no such thing as the *official story* beachnut
...and any false claims can be highlighted. Again, the math base is useful, as I've already said. My interest is the significantly different approaches used. If you have a problem with that, tough luck beachnut. I don't claim to support or reject any of the content. It's useful. Again, I have my own energetics model within which you can change all the numbers. A tool for learning and understanding.
A blatant lie beachnut. You are getting too carried away with your village idiot/court jester routine
Time will tell. Useful to note that it is you drawing attention to the papers.
ROFL. What mistakes ? You do nothing but address the arguer beachnut. Nothing you have said here is about the 2.25s period of freefall claimed by NIST. Deliberate derail in my book. Deliberate address the arguer. And full of lies.
You said it mate
When will you ? I have no need to waste my time critiquing obscure papers. Discussed Greenings with him for a while, which has problems, and he's fine with the limited usefulness and scope. Rabid *debunking* of every issue is for folk such as yourself (though you don't actually do that, just repeat the same old rhetoric over and over again. <pat on head>)
With a few notes...1) The data is derived from position/time data which obviously contains some noise...2) The graph relates only to thw NW corner, not the entire facade...
~1.5s for g and over-g. ~1s for over-g
Of course it matters beachnut. The 2.25s freefall phase NIST included in their conclusions is inaccurate...aka wrong. Not only is it wrong, but has resulted in NIST supporting the assertions of David Chandler, and fuels the stance of many folk, such as cmatrix, who use that conclusion to say things like...
cmatrix article said:
Not for the Dan Rather data, no. No need. Perspective effects checked, and fine. Minimal. For the NIST Cam#3 view I've performed perspective correction, but not lens distortion correction. Lens distortion is of little importance for the video in question. You have mentioned the effect a number of times, and I imagine you do so because you think it makes you sound knowledgeable. It doesn't. Is there noise in the base data...of course. Is it better quality data than that used by NIST...absolutely. Not only did they use the NIST cam#3 viewpoint, which does require perspective correction (which they didn't bother to perform, nor your pet lens distortion correction), they (at best) spliced together data from two separate positions at an unstated and arbitary point in time which bearing in mind they didn't bother to correct for perspective, makes the data even poorer. Shoddy work by NIST. Very poor.
No excrement Sherlock.
No, that was crap too. The only *output* from it was the similarly inaccurate (aka wrong) "40% longer than freefall" conclusion. As they misinterpreted North-South movement of the building with vertical motion using the Cam#3 viewpoint, their T0 is off by about a second, making the conclusion there more like "13% longer than freefall".
NIST did a very poor job.
It does not change WTC 7 was a gravity collapse. It does not matter. David Chandler can't figure out 911, and the many folk can't do physics and prefer to repeat the failed opinions of Chandler, and 911 truth.
You mean NIST there I assume
Incorrect. Where is the NIST lens correction data by the way ?
What errors beachnut. Be very specific. I'll have to laugh if you just wave your hands around.
Data noise is treated in a number of ways beachnut, but you should raise your concerns on the "discussion of femr2s trace data" thread, where I'll go into great detail
Speak English beachnut.
Methods are tried and tested. Wonderfully good quality data. If you want to critique the data, go for it, but you're going to have to get the actual data on the table, replicate data of your own and highlight what you think is of issue. tfk tried and failed to reject the data quality, but has now accepted it's about as good as is possible to extract from the available video base. Excellent methods, and resulting in trace data much, much better than that produced by NIST. Good work me
