Tfk, Much of Adam Taylor's blog posts are scientifically minded in the sense that they correct false or misleading statements, as well as counter blanket statements with other information that provides ambiguity.
Same old crap.
Adam Taylor: liberal arts & political science major. Punk. Knowledge of engineering: ZERO.
Jim Hoffman: computer graphics major. Knowledge of engineering: ZERO.
David Chandler: high school physics teacher Knowledge of structural engineering or collapse dynamics: ZERO.
“… scientifically minded …”
This topic ain’t “science”.
It’s “engineering”.
The fact that you don’t know the difference merely proves how clueless you are on ALL these issues.
Adam Taylor has never sat thru 5 minutes of a structural engineering class. He is a 100% clueless, know-nothing amateur about the issues.
NOTHING that he “figures out on his own” can be informed. It’s all dreck.
The one, the ONLY way that Taylor could possibly write something that was informed is exactly the same way that you could:
If you both gave up entirely all attempts to “figure it out for yourself”, and to take on the role of a rigorous, competent reporter, and cite only the accurate quotes of REAL experts. And verifying with those experts that your quotes are accurate BEFORE publishing any story.
That means, giving up ALL of your current, clueless amateur sources.
He, among others, discredited the Popular Mechanics garbage, which did nothing but attack cleverly selected strawman arguments.
LMFAO.
Popular Mechanics did exactly what I told you to do. They did NOT attempt to answer the questions themselves, they went to experts.
They had a team of “fact checkers” working on the project.
Jim Hoffman is the same way, and he made an adequate response to Blanchard, including what he said about the seismic evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/
Jim Hoffman is a clueless moron, a complete 100% amateur, who thinks that “talking fast in simple, declarative sentences” turns “giant, steaming piles of crap” into "correct assertions".
I’ve forced myself, thru peals of laughter, to listen to him attempt to make mechanical/structural arguments.
Do you have the slightest idea what Hoffman’s background is? Computer graphics.
Here’s a clue: Zero mechanical engineering. Zero structural engineering. Zero explosives demolition. Zero seismic recording.
And your clueless ass thinks that Hoffman is competent to “debunk” Blanchard???!!
LMFAO.
Did you even bother to read Hoffman’s paper?
A giant, steaming pile of WRONG.
Tell me what argument that you believe that Hoffman made that debunked anything that Blanchard said.
Please. Run thru this exercise.
I know you still deny this, but a Youtuber high school physics teacher named David Chandler compelled NIST to admit freefall in their final report, when before they denied it and stated that it would be inconsistent with the structural failure they were studying.
Because I have a soft spot for teachers, I exchanged emails with Chandler when he first started this.
I explained several of his errors to him.
First, I told him that his data was 100% meaningless without a competent error analysis. Something that he’s NEVER done.
But if you look carefully at his videos, you’ll see the standard deviation error associated with his calculation.
His number comes in as “9.88 m/sec^2” (almost 8% higher than the real value of G). And if you look at what Chandler doesn’t mention, you’ll see the standard deviation of his measurement: 0.456 m/sec^2.
AT BEST, his results say that the AVERAGE acceleration was between 8.97 m/sec&2 and 10.79 m/sec^2.
That is NOT the same as saying, "The acceleration was 'G'."
I explained to him, just like to you, that this was not science, not physics, but engineering. And the vast majority of the simplifying assumptions used in high school (read: MOST rudimentary) physics are violated in real-world engineering.
For example, the statement that the building can only fall “at or slower than free fall acceleration” is 100% wrong.
That statement would apply only to the Center of Gravity of a Free Body, with no other forces acting on them except gravity.
Is the western most point on the roofline of WTC7 the same as the Center of Gravity?
NO, it is the FURTHEST POINT POSSIBLE from the CG. It is the WORST point to take readings.!
Is the face of WTC7 a “free body” when it was falling?
Hell, no. It was attached to tens of thousands of tons of other structure that you cannot see on the far side of the external wall. You have NO IDEA what that material is doing, but one knows for certain that it is exerting enormous forces on the north wall of the building.
Were there “no forces other than gravity” acting on the north face of WTC7?”
NO. The face of WTC7 had a couple hundred thousand tons of building attached to it, while it was standing. And it had an (unknown) hundred thousand tons of building still attached, much of it having begun its fall prior to the external wall, and therefore capable of exerting enormous forces on the external wall, including "
downward acting forces".
Does any aspect of Newton’s Laws say that “no point on a falling body can exceed G during a fall?”
NO, it says nothing of the sort.
I begged Chandler to take his nonsense to a team of experienced structural engineers, who would have confirmed the things that I told him.
He didn’t then.
He NEVER HAS.
He never will.
Why not?
Why does Chandler refuse to submit his work to competent review?
For the same reason that Gage refuses to submit his crap to competent review.
Both of them know that they’ll get laughed out of the review. NOT because all structural engineers are subservient minions of Da Gubbamint.
Because they (Chandler & Gage) are f****** incompetent.!
And because, at this point, their egos won't let them admit, "crap, I've been wrong about this all along."
So, they choose to continue to LIE to people, rather than admit the truth.
__
PS. The external wall did NOT fall “at G”.
NIST didn’t say it fell “at G”.
They said it fell “at approximately free fall”.
Every competent analysis of the fall of the north wall of WTC7 shows that it did NOT fall at a constant acceleration over any interval of time, including Chandler's 2.25 seconds.
Even Chandler's own data shows this.
"G" IS a constant.
Any acceleration that is NOT a constant, can NOT be "equal to G".
WTC7's fall was not a constant.
WTC7's fall was not "at G".
WTC7's AVERAGE acceleration was APPROXIMATELY equal to G, for that period of time.
There is nothing the slightest bit remarkable, much less "impossible", about that fact.
Also, if the "OEM engineer" actually worked for the FDNY as you claim, then his name would be known and Peter Hayden would have known who he was.
LMFAO at another baseless, clueless assertion.
First, there is ONLY ONE person saying “OEM Engineer”. That is YOU.
YOU made that up.
By not acknowledging that you mashed to gather unrelated quotes, by not acknowledging that there is no statement in any of your quotes that the engineer was from the OEM, by continuing to assert that the engineer was an “OEM engineer”, YOU are continuing to LIE about that.
Why do Twoofer feel the need to LIE constantly?
How many engineers/techs, who are trained to use a transit to determine the stability of a building, would you estimate that the FDNY has? Answer: On the order of 10. (Minimum 5, probably less than 100).
How many engineers/techs, who are trained to use a transit to determine the stability of a building, would you estimate that the OEM has? Answer: On the order of 0.
It is a MANAGEMENT organization.
They don’t DO anything.
They MANAGE other people who do things.
Then they report to the mayor.
Then attempt to take credit for other people’s work, & deflect blame for other people’s screw-ups.
Because, THAT is what management does.!
How does one exit a JREF thread, again?
Just go away.
God forbid you actually put your ego aside, ask some pertinent questions in a polite, respectful manner … and learn anything.
God forbid you actually put in some effort to learn the things that you are currently clueless about.
Wouldn’t want any of THAT to happen.
So, perhaps it’d be best for you to “exit”.
