"I see that Miragememories is determined to continue posting basic errors and misinterpretations, in the hope that a sufficiently large body of work will establish him as a reliable authority."
I would just be happy to get a coherent and explicit response from you David.
"Blatantly? Well Dave you are very careful to not say much of anything. Characterizing those questionable NIST measurements as "nonetheless measurements", doesn't exactly place the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on them."
"It differentiates them from unfounded beliefs such as, for example, "A "roofline kink" is a classic indicator of a controlled demolition by implosion". "
Now why are you compelled to make statements like that David? You know that is untrue.
http://mountainrepublic.net/2011/03...der-for-controlled-demolition-inc-speaks-out/
Tom Sullivan – Explosives Loader said:
“I knew from day one this was a controlled event. And why I did that was simply looking at Building 7. You have a sudden collapse of a building; it’s fairly symmetrical as it comes down. There’s a classic kink, which means the center core collapses first. You can see that on the video. And the building falls near freefall. So I really, honestly, didn’t believe this from day one, because this is the way buildings classically come down with controlled demolition.”
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
FEMA WTC7 Report said:
“~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south “kink” or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).
The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially “peeled” outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the façade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."
Yes I know this is old news to you. If you need further evidence that roofline kinks are quite commonly associated with building implosions, I guess I can throw together a photo composite.
"For my use, it means that TIME (T) equals ZERO (0).
As in the clock hasn't started yet.
As in there is nothing yet measurable that has a time component."
"Strange that you try to refute the suggestion that you don't understand something by demonstrating it beyond any possible doubt. The time T=0 is a specific instant used as a reference point, rather than the totality of time up to the moment a specific process begins. At least, any competent scientist or engineer would understand it as such."
Beyond any possible doubt? Instead of conceding the point you just raise the ante with a bigger lie.
I know that
"time T=0 is a specific instant used as a reference point", the starting point of an event about to happen.
Regardless, it is also a reference to the fact zero time has passed which does make it abundantly clear that with regard to T=0 and the global collapse of WTC7,
nothing has happened yet. The velocity of the global collapse is at zero and therefore, so is the acceleration. Any 2 year old would understand that David. I was not aware that a scientist or an engineer had to be competent to understand such a fundamental concept as "zero time on the clock".
"Acceleration is the change in velocity over the change in time.
a = dv/dt"
"Unusually, this is actually correct."
Unusually?
Of course it is correct.
"Although this, strictly speaking, isn't; if you're using the differential form for acceleration, then you're referring to the instantaneous acceleration, therefore you should also use the differential form for velocity."
For the sake of this discussion, what I am going to use, and see no reason to get side tracked about, are the basic global collapse numbers accepted by the NIST in their final report on the WTC7.
"So, if we have a condition where an object is falling at zero velocity over a zero period of time, than we must have an acceleration of zero."
"And this is both scientifically or mathematically illiterate. If you throw a ball vertically upwards at less than escape velocity, there will be an instant in its motion when it is falling at zero velocity over a zero period of time, but has an acceleration of precisely 1G. Miragememories is therefore demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of simple Newtonian mechanics with this statement."
Only if you wish to turn this into a 'red herring' of a college course David.
It is wholly unnecessary for the specific example of the global collapse of WTC7, if we use the NIST's Stage 1 and Stage 2 published calculations and observations.
Regarding your irrelevant comparison example of the upwardly tossed ball.
There is an easy to use word in the english language which clearly describes the motion condition of your upwardly moving ball when is
"falling at zero velocity over a zero period of time". It is called
stopped David. From that extremely brief "stopped" condition, T=0, it will enter into a state of freefall or an acceleration of 1G.
I gather the whole thrust of your argument is to bog me down in superfluous academic excreta and to drive visitors away by boring them to death.
It does not alter the engineering facts required for WTC7 to be in a state of freefall for 100 feet.
It does not alter the fact that at least 100 feet of zero structural resistance must have existed for the NIST's WTC7 global collapse Stage 2 freefall to have occurred.
I suggest that any reader wishing a more academic approach to this subject should visit;
PhysForum.com
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=0
"So we are going to go into nitpick, or diamond cutting mode now are we?
I agree there was a kink, but too qualify my comment about uniformity as "completely incorrect", I would expect an irregularity in the roofline much more pronounced than the kink. A "roofline kink" is a classic indicator of a controlled demolition by implosion I might add.
Since, as you know I believe that the collapse of WTC7 was the result of an implosion-based controlled demolition, of course I expect the core to fail first. That is after all, how implosions are designed.
I never presented any acceleration numbers, so I see no point in quibbling over your hand waving numbers which, after all is said and done, represent a less than freefall acceleration for NIST's Stage 1."
"No. We are simply going to note that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you make numerous completely false statements."
"And you of course are going to bigoted opinion as a response. Nice elucidation of your argument Dave."
"No further comment from Dave noted."
Dave is remaining remarkably silent on this.
"Ahh. A time less than zero. So you are getting into time travel or what?"
"Apparently, in truther world, the word "before" has no temporal meaning."
It has no "temporal" value to me when it is being used as a hand waving diversion David.
"I thought zero was a well understood term but apparently for the religious it is not.
T=0 is my reference, not for the collapse of the WTC7 east penthouse, but the time reference for the start of the WTC7 global collapse (as observed from the complete roofline)."
"I, on the other hand, was already well aware of the inability of the religious to grasp the simplest scientific concepts. Miragememories, as a true believer in the religion of 9/11 truth, is a very good example.
Again you provide nothing but empty words David.
"The one who apparently does not know what they are talking about is yourself Dave.
Of course Stage 1 "includes a period of near zero acceleration", since at T=0, the time reference for the beginning of Stage 1, the global collapse had not yet started and thus it had zero acceleration."
"It's impressive that Miragememories manages, at the same time, both to admit that he was wrong when he described stage 1 as a period of near-freefall acceleration, and to demonstrate that he doesn't even understand how or why he was wrong. At T=0, by his definition, the global collapse started. Even neglecting the fact, pointed out by femr2, that the building was already moving prior to the facade collapse, he doesn't understand that the acceleration of an object released from a height goes abruptly from zero to 1G, that the facade of WTC7 did not do this but rather increased smoothly from zero to 1G over 1.75 seconds, and that therefore the behaviour of the facade of WTC7 during Stage 1 was not just quantitatively, but also qualitatively, different to that of an object in freefall. To describe this behaviour as "near freefall" demonstrates a total lack of understanding, yet again, of simple Newtonian mechanics, or an intent to deceive. No third option is available."
bolding is mine
More hand waving David.
I never denied there was movement in WTC7 prior to NIST's Stage 1.
But I had to start somewhere so I accepted the NIST's Stage 1 global collapse roofline reference and accepted their description of what they were measuring;
NIST WTC7 Report said:
"To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline."
Regarding the rest of your statement David.
Abruptly, does not have the same meaning as
instantly. It infers a small, but definite time delay.
And I doubt it was possible, considering the rather crude video measurements available to the NIST, for them to precisely state that Stage 1 was a perfectly smooth zero to 1G acceleration over 1.75 seconds.
It is good to see you acknowledge that at Time = zero (start of Stage 1), that WTC7 had a global collapse acceleration of
zero.
The use of
"near freefall" to characterize the Stage 1 portion of the WTC7 collapse, is clearly intended to convey a relative value to the observed descent. This would seem to be a fair description given that after 1.75 seconds, WTC7 was in freefall.
"How you feel this pointless, moronic quibbling is making a case for your quasi-religious faith in the NIST theory about the collapse of WTC7, is truly bemusing Dave?"
"And finally he demonstrates that he can't even construct a coherent sentence.
The point I'm making here is that Miragememories is doing no more than appeal to his own authority, while at the same time demonstrating that he lacks the competence in any subject that would make him an authority. It seems to me that it's quite rigorously established by now."
I make no lofty claims as to being an authority.
Maybe if you showed some deference to the engineering reality of what amazingly happened to WTC7, David, you might earn the authority that you so arrogantly attempt to promote.
MM
