I found the missing Jolt.

[skyeagle409]

Oh...sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your fantasy by asking relevant questions.

You are confusing fiction with facts, which is backed by the fact there is no evidence of CD.

 

[Axxman300]

Why were they there?

To help evaluate the surrounding damaged buildings for safety, and plan for their demolition in the future months.

How did they get there?

Walked, drove.

Where did they come from?

There are at least 12 demolition companies in walking distance from Ground Zero.

How did they get access to GZ?

Probably wore their uniforms and hard-hats, and asked if they could help. Plus Demo companies work with the city so phone calls were made.

If they were not already in Manhattan, how did they get on the island?

They're called "Bridges", and they are structures built to cross bodies of water.

Who organized these "teams"?

Who cares?

What companies did they work for?

Google "Demolition Companies in Manhattan, NY" and off you go.

Where are the individual statements from each and every member of these "teams" verifying your claim?

Where are the individual statements of the demo team members who saw evidence of CD?

Who is the spokesperson making the claims you are quoting?

Who cares?

Does he have approval from each and every member of the "demolition team" to make the statements he is making?

Was he speaking on their behalf?

Also, didn't you start a thread where you criticized the FDNY for fighting to keep oral histories secret? They argument was that they didn't think they had legal authorization from the individual firefighters to release them publicly...and you said that this was no excuse 'cuz 9-11!

Does each and every member of the "demolition team" agree with the spokesperson?

Have you ever tried to get a demo guy to shut up about something important?

You're a human clown car, a never ending stream of stupid comes out of you.

 

[tfk]

Why is this credible? If it's more credible than the NIST report, why not support a new investigation?

LMAO.

It's not "credible" in the slightest.
Because femr is not credible.

It just so happens that he happens to be correct about one thing in this graph, tho: The acceleration is far, FAR from a constant.

And if it is not a constant, then it is NOT "at G".

femr has zero engineering knowledge. His background is video processing of some sort.

Just like you, just like 99% of ALL Twoofers, femr won't tell anyone what his real background is. He just let the "something in video" slip after years of unrelenting BSing.

But he is correct: the actual acceleration over that interval is NOT a constant.

It's not the curve that he's presented, but it's not a constant.

But, one thing in his favor, he is far, FAR closer to the truth than Chandler's & Gage's "falling at freefall speed" stupidity.

If you weren't such an unremitting dick, I'd show you the actual acceleration.

Unlike femr, I DO know how to solve this problem.

I haven't executed the solution yet, but the correct method is obvious.
It just took me a little bit of time to find it.
__

PS. To answer your other silly assertion, femr is a rank amateur.

He's far, far better than you are, but that falls squarely into the "damned by faint praise" category.

One could really stub one's toe getting over the bar of "better than you".

But, he is also a clueless amateur. Just like you.
A slightly higher class of clueless amateur than you.

In contrast, NIST had access to hundreds of seriously world-class structural engineers.

 

[JSanderO]

LMAO.

It's not "credible" in the slightest.
Because femr is not credible.

It just so happens that he happens to be correct about one thing in this graph, tho: The acceleration is far, FAR from a constant.

And if it is not a constant, then it is NOT "at G".

femr has zero engineering knowledge. His background is video processing of some sort.

Just like you, just like 99% of ALL Twoofers, femr won't tell anyone what his real background is. He just let the "something in video" slip after years of unrelenting BSing.

But he is correct: the actual acceleration over that interval is NOT a constant.

It's not the curve that he's presented, but it's not a constant.

But, one thing in his favor, he is far, FAR closer to the truth than Chandler's & Gage's "falling at freefall speed" stupidity.

If you weren't such an unremitting dick, I'd show you the actual acceleration.

Unlike femr, I DO know how to solve this problem.

I haven't executed the solution yet, but the correct method is obvious.
It just took me a little bit of time to find it.
__

PS. To answer your other silly assertion, femr is a rank amateur.

He's far, far better than you are, but that falls squarely into the "damned by faint praise" category.

One could really stub one's toe getting over the bar of "better than you".

But, he is also a clueless amateur. Just like you.
A slightly higher class of clueless amateur than you.

In contrast, NIST had access to hundreds of seriously world-class structural engineers.

The "appeal to authority" argument is weak. Sure you need people to do competent analysis... but a degree and experience in engineering does not make one incapable of error, nor does not having qualification preclude an intelligent person from doing a competent analysis.

The actual precise motion rate and speed is not very important. One needs to understand that something at rest... above the ground will "fall" and accelerate subject to the resistance of "things" in the way. Those things slow the rate of acceleration down and limit the "terminal velocity".

So there had to be "acceleration" in the initial period... and there had to be a decrease or attainment of terminal velocity if the resistance was reasonably consistent... like the same floors design at every level.

None of the collapses show the actual time a free falling object at the roof height would reach the ground. All of the collapses involved interior collapse BEFORE the movement of the roof line. The latter renders the "rate of collapse" into a non issue.

The collapse of the twins shows mass falling INSIDE the perimeter.

The collapse of 7wtc shows the perimeter collapse after the interior had collapsed. It's motion tells us that its collapse was unsupported from probably the 8th floor or so based on the 100' of acceleration and then the market resistance at the bottom edge of the perimeter is encounter the ground.

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to make these observations. FF has nothing to do with the collapses. Nor does anyone's qualifications require them to see and have basic understanding of what is in plain sight.

All I see are clueless people, to use your term, using all manner of unsound arguments to justify their beliefs.

 

[NoahFence]

Why were they there?
How did they get there?
Where did they come from?
How did they get access to GZ?
If they were not already in Manhattan, how did they get on the island?
Who organized these "teams"?
What companies did they work for?
Where are the individual statements from each and every member of these "teams" verifying your claim?
Who is the spokesperson making the claims you are quoting?
Does he have approval from each and every member of the "demolition team" to make the statements he is making?
Does each and every member of the "demolition team" agree with the spokesperson?

Oh...sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your fantasy by asking relevant questions.

 

[tfk]

The "appeal to authority" argument is weak.

You need to learn what an “appeal to authority logical fallacy” really is.

It is when someone, who has an expertise in one field, claims that their expertise extends into other, different fields.

It is NOT an “appeal to authority” when one claims that a correct analysis is not going to come from a person who has no background & no knowledge in the field in which he is expounding.

It is NOT an “appeal to authority” when one claims that a correct analysis is likely to come from a person who does have a background & knowledge in the field in which he is expounding.

femr is a walking, bloviating personification of “appeal to authority”.

He asserts that his background in the arcana of video production gives him authority in (in this case) kinematics & solution of one particular class of “ill-posed math problem”. Specifically, finding best-fit, multiple derivatives of noisy, poor precision, digitized, & oversampled data.

He thrashed around, making one math error after another, in his usual manner, pissing off everyone here who COULD HAVE helped him learn what he was trying to do.

The people that he pissed off were … “pretty much everybody”, including Ryan Mackey (physics), WD Clinger (math) & me (kinematics & sampling theory), all of whom could have helped him understand his continuous stream of technical errors.

Sure you need people to do competent analysis...

Bingo.
Which is NOT going to come from someone who doesn’t understand the fundamentals of the topic.

And who “doesn’t understand that he doesn’t understand”.

femr was in precisely the same state as FalseFlag is with his “I know physics” assertions … while being unable to correctly answer the most trivially easy question about the field.

but a degree and experience in engineering does not make one incapable of error,

Thanks for the straw man, Cap’n.

Nobody has ever made that assertion.

… nor does not having qualification preclude an intelligent person from doing a competent analysis.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the lack of qualifications WILL preclude an intelligent person from doing good technical work.

The qualifications are NOT a piece of paper.
The qualifications are “knowledge, understanding & rigor”.

femr had none of those.

The actual precise motion rate and speed is not very important.

Dumb statement. You also are very weak in the math, JS. You’re in no position to judge.

First, learn what the term “rate” means. It means “a derivative of the stated variable, usually with respect to time”.

The “motion rate” IS the speed.
The “velocity rate” IS the acceleration.

And the question here was: is this graph “credible”.
The first & foremost attribute to “credible” is “correctness”.

The ONLY thing that is important to the correctness of this graph is … duh … the correctness of the graph. In other words, “is the value of acceleration plotted on the graph an accurate portrayal (i.e., an accurate approximation) of the real acceleration of the identified point at each point in time.

The chance of that being true is slim. I’ll explain below.

I knew the concept well, from having performed lots of similar analyses in the past, but I didn’t know the terminology before, or the proper math way around the problem.

I do know that now.

I learned the proper way to approach this problem NOT by insisting that my uninformed ignorance be given “just as much credence as someone who had a much deeper knowledge & understanding”.

I learned by suppressing my ego, admitting to myself that I did NOT understand the details, and turning for help to other, more knowledgeable people (usually called “teachers”, or “authors of competent papers in the pertinent field”).

One needs to understand that something at rest... above the ground will "fall" and accelerate subject to the resistance of "things" in the way. Those things slow the rate of acceleration down and limit the "terminal velocity".

Wrong.

If this were all one needed to know, then anyone, including firmer, FalseFlag or you, could scribble any line whatsoever on a graph & claim “this might be wrong, but it is good enough”.

“Wrong” is never good enough.

So there had to be "acceleration" in the initial period... and there had to be a decrease or attainment of terminal velocity if the resistance was reasonably consistent... like the same floors design at every level.

Wrong.

The resistance is a force, acting mostly upwards. The weight is a force, acting exactly downward.

The difference between these 2 forces is the Resultant Force acting on the falling mass.

If the resistance stays constant, then the Resultant Force stays constant, and the resultant acceleration stays constant & the object continuously speeds up, thereby NOT reaching terminal velocity.

Objects reach a terminal velocity when the resisting force (frequently air drag) increases to the point that it equals (& negates, by acting in the opposite direction) the gravitational force (the weight).

At THIS point, the Resultant Force drops to zero, the acceleration drops to zero, & the velocity stays constant, i.e., at “terminal velocity”.

None of the collapses show the actual time a free falling object at the roof height would reach the ground. All of the collapses involved interior collapse BEFORE the movement of the roof line. The latter renders the "rate of collapse" into a non issue…

The question was, “is that graph credible”?

All the rest of your post is irrelevant to that question.
__

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to make these observations.

Your observations are irrelevant to the only pertinent question in that specific post: “Is that graph credible?”

You need a background, a solid background, in a couple of very arcane, specific fields of math & sampling theory, to produce a correct graph.

The General Error that he made was to think that he could “buy his way to competence”. He bought a good software package, but did not know the details of how it worked. He never learned the details of how the tools work.

The specific error that femr insisting on making, which shows up in this graph, is called “overfitting”. He did this because he insisted on using 10th, 20th, 30th order polynomials in the curve fitting portion of filters.

The graph below illustrates the problem:

Overfitting produces the wildly oscillating blue line.

The answer to his error is called “Regularization”.
Regularization tames the oscillations.

There is a specific form of Regularization that can be invoked to produce the "best fit" curve for the 2nd derivatives (i.e., acceleration) of sampled, noisy data (i.e., the position vs time data that can be extracted from the video frames).

All I see are clueless people, to use your term, using all manner of unsound arguments to justify their beliefs.

You are invited to learn the details of THIS and THIS, and then come back & tell me that a person can produce a competent analysis without that knowledge.

 

[FalseFlag]

You are confusing fiction with facts, which is backed by the fact there is no evidence of CD.

I would suggest you consult a dictionary to learn the definition of "fact". You would benefit from looking at a credible source for once.

 

[FalseFlag]

You're a human clown car, a never ending stream of stupid comes out of you.

You would benefit from spending less time thinking of insults, and more time looking for facts to support your claims.

 

[FalseFlag]

If you weren't such an unremitting dick

 

[ozeco41]

You are confusing fiction with facts, which is backed by the fact there is no evidence of CD.

I would suggest you consult a dictionary to learn the definition of "fact". You would benefit from looking at a credible source for once.

..and the difference between "no evidence" and "weight of evidence"

 

[waypastvne]

All I see are clueless people, to use your term, using all manner of unsound arguments to justify their beliefs.

Would you mind giving us a sound argument to justify this belief of yours ?

SanderO

If I had to hazard a guess about 93... I'd say it was shot down

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/collection-of-aircraft-debris-and-crash-site-photos-t524-15.html

 

[skyeagle409]

..and the difference between "no evidence" and "weight of evidence"

Fact of the matter is, there is no CD evidence. I might add that the weight of the evidence can be found as the upper floors collapsed upon a lower floor, which increased in weight at each floor level.

 

[skyeagle409]

I would suggest you consult a dictionary to learn the definition of "fact". You would benefit from looking at a credible source for once.

WTC Fact:

No CD explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings.

 

[ozeco41]

Fact of the matter is, there is no CD evidence.

Hogwash. But you are misunderstanding the basic concept of what evidence is and how it is used. It is a common error made by both "sides".

And I sincerely hope that this is intended as a joke:

I might add that the weight of the evidence can be found as the upper floors collapsed upon a lower floor, which increased in weight at each floor level.

...and if that is your sense of humour in play accept a word of caution. Many members around here wont get the joke.

 

[skyeagle409]

Hogwash. But you are misunderstanding the basic concept of what evidence is and how it is used.
.

Facts and evidence back me up, and to sum that up, that is just the way it is!!

 

[skyeagle409]

So far I have not seen anything in your technical claims which raises concerns for me.

You have to understand that reality isn't going to change based on what you think.

 

[JSanderO]

Understanding the collapses of the WTC buildings involves first and foremost accurate observations. And this involves for the most part video processing of vids and stills... which extract some sort of "data" about the motion etc.

There are other observations... the debris, the sound, the weather... and so on and one needs to have the information about the buildings, how they were designed, built and what what in them.

From a technical level one would need to have knowledge of statics, physics, materials, fire science and I suppose aeronautical engineering.

My point was simply prefessional degrees and experience doesn't make one incapable of error nor is a person without formal experience and professional degrees and qualifications precluded from explaining what happened... that is what made the buildings collapse as they did... and did the process unfold.

One also needs to

 

[ozeco41]

Facts and evidence back me up, and to sum that up, that is just the way it is!!

You have to understand that reality isn't going to change based on what you think.

My apology. I thought you were a serious poster - possibly misguided in responding to an obvious troll.

I missed that you are a "tag team" participant in the trolling.

No problem. My advice still stands and if you decide to join in serious discussion let me know.

Meanwhile - and the irony does NOT escape me - you should check:
1) your understanding of the meaning of the word "fact" - there are three usages where you have been playing fast and loose;
2) The concept of "weight of evidence" - contrary to the false opinions of many debunkers as well as trolls of your style - there is evidence FOR most truther claims. Reality is that the evidence against the truther claim outweighs the evidence in favour. But it is NOT "zero" evidence.
3) Which raises the two other words you are misusing viz "reality" and "weight" as used in "weight of evidence". Look in the dictionary first THEN simply ask for help and one or more of us will oblige.

So if you need help with the points I have advised and you do not understand - just ask - otherwise I'll leave you to play your trolling and denial games in "tag team" with FF. Who - incidentally - has given sound advice.

 

[skyeagle409]

My apology. I thought you were a serious poster - possibly misguided in responding to an obvious troll.
No problem. My advice still stands and if you decide to join in serious discussion let me know.

Just to let you know that I deal in reality, not fantasy. I hope that will allow you to avoid making further mistakes of the way you think.

 

[waypastvne]

One also needs to

It seems you quit typing before you justified your belief that FLT 93 was shot down.