If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

FalseFlag said:
I am not an expert. If you can't accept this as fact, what on earth makes you believe that anyone thinks you can accept any facts at all?
Click to expand...

Oh, no one here has any doubt whatsoever in that regard.

You proclamations vis a vis physics and scaling and other tidbits demonstrate both that you aren't an expert, yet seem to be convinced you have enough knowledge to recognize them. Of those, the former you are correct, you aren't an expert in anything demonstrable in these forum pages. The later, your belief that you can recognize expertise, in that you are simply wrong.
 
jaydeehess said:
Oh, no one here has any doubt whatsoever in that regard.

You proclamations vis a vis physics and scaling and other tidbits demonstrate both that you aren't an expert, yet seem to be convinced you have enough knowledge to recognize them. Of those, the former you are correct, you aren't an expert in anything demonstrable in these forum pages. The later, your belief that you can recognize expertise, in that you are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

We need FF's, and Cole's vast knowledge to investigate, these other misterious engineering disasters, Top heavy equipment accidents caught on tape, Mos…: http://youtu.be/ZxpOpBvzyRQ obviously the NWO, doesn't like heavy equipment.
 
FalseFlag said:
Let me get this straight.

NIST is comprised of thousands of experts, but that does not matter when you don't like what they say. So, if I make a point you don't like, you say NIST has experts. If NIST says something you don't like, you ignore that and then come up with your own BS.

Got it.

Excuse me while I LOL at the absurdity of your logic and severity of denial.
Click to expand...

Are you utterly incapable of thinking for yourself??

Do you know nothing about remedial, 12th grade calculus?

What happens EACH & EVERY TIME that one fits a "linear interpolation" to any velocity data, no matter how scattered that data might be?
Answer: one gets, exclusively from the use of a linear fit, a "constant acceleration". The constant acceleration is an inevitable consequence of using a linear fit.

Now, if the data points are right on the interpolated line, then the acceleration may well be linear. But it might also not be.

There is a condition called the Nyquist Criteria that states that you can detect no frequencies higher than about 1/6th your data sampling rate.

But if the data points are NOT on the interpolated line, then the acceleration is NOT constant. And the assertion that it is constant is:

  • purely an artifact of the choice to perform a linear interpolation, and
  • the result of mathematical ignorance.
  • wrong.


Chandler's data points are NOT on his interpolation line.
Therefore the acceleration id NOT constant.

Since the acceleration of gravity IS a constant, the acceleration of the fall of WTC7 is NOT "equal to G".

Once again, you might want to take a more careful look at Chandler's real numbers. His linear interpolation does NOT give an acceleration of 9.81 m/sec2, which is "G".

It does not say a = 9.88 m/sec2, which is the numerical slope of his "best fit" line.

An accurate statement of his results says that the acceleration is 9.88 m/sec2, with a standard deviation of 0.456 m/sec2.

That means that there is a 68,3% probability that the acceleration is between 9.42 & 10.34 m/sec2.

That means that there is a 95.5% probability that the acceleration is between 8.97 & 10.79 m/sec2.

That means that there is a 99.7% probability that the acceleration is between 8.51 & 11.25 m/sec2.

Those are accurate, defensible statements, employing a competent analysis of Chandler's own data set.

Asserting that "the building fell at G" is indefensible.
And Chandler knows it.

Even if you don't.

__

PS. NIST's guys are engineers.
So am I.
NIST's engineers would agree with me 100% on this post.

NIST's engineers would not require me to provide for them the correct statements above.
Just as I don't require NIST's engineers to provide for me with those statements.
NIST's engineers & I agree on this matter.
We understand.
You don't.

Because you, as we've established, are an amateur.
You should be keeping your attitude in check & trying to learn a few rudimentary things about experimental data analysis.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Really? Please provide a link to a credible source that claims the freefall observed during the collapse of WTC7 is meaningless. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Here ya go:
NIST NCSTAR1A pg 45,
NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 601 - 607

You're welcome.
 
tfk said:
Here ya go:
NIST NCSTAR1A pg 45,
NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 601 - 607

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
Where does NIST say freefall is meaningless?

It's also worth noting that the 2.25 seconds of freefall is almost half the time of the total collapse (when compared to their arbitrary start and end times). I guess that is also meaningless, too. Right?
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Where does NIST say freefall is meaningless?

It's also worth noting that the 2.25 seconds of freefall is almost half the time of the total collapse (when compared to their arbitrary start and end times). I guess that is also meaningless, too. Right?
Click to expand...
So you don't consider the penthouses and the kink as part of the collapse. Good to know your level of disconnect with reality. (or your math is as poor as you physics)
 
DGM said:
So you don't consider the penthouses and the kink as part of the collapse. Good to know your level of disconnect with reality. (or your math is as poor as you physics)
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't. Truthers find that whole destruction before total collapse to be inconvenient , and..... meaningless.
 
FalseFlag said:
Where does NIST say freefall is meaningless?

It's also worth noting that the 2.25 seconds of freefall is almost half the time of the total collapse (when compared to their arbitrary start and end times). I guess that is also meaningless, too. Right?
Click to expand...

2.25 seconds is almost half the total collapse?

Lets see if I can do maths as well as tfk.

2.25x2 = 4.5 seconds.

Total collapse time = 18 seconds



4.5 seconds is shorter than 18 seconds. I think your math is wrong FF! Weird.
 
FalseFlag said:
The arbitrary time that NIST used is 5.3 seconds long. Please show me where NIST uses a collapse time of 18 seconds.
Click to expand...

Who cares about NIST?
The collapse was 18 seconds. Most likely a bit more, as the collapse started before the penthouse collapsed. Why would NIST matter when I can time it myself?

At any rate, it ain't 4.5 seconds.
 
Originally Posted by tfk
NIST's engineers & I agree on this matter.
We understand.
You don't.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
The 2500+ architects and engineers at AE911T don't agree. That is what matters.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Do you think it might help their case with the world's scientists and engineers if they published a paper explaining why it matters? It's too late to publish anything before AE911T is again humiliated at the AIA Convention less than two weeks from now. But there's always tomorrow. :rolleyes:

Oh yes -- How did Gage's presentation in East Anglia go? Any reports yet? :D
 
FalseFlag said:
The 2500+ architects and engineers at AE911T don't agree. That is what matters.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. No one cares what those morons think.

FalseFlag said:
It keeps getting larger. Imagine how many "idiots" there would be if the media gave AE911T any substantive airtime whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they don't get this airtime?

Might it have to do with them being laughable idiots?

Have you called CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. and talked to anyone there?

If not, how come?

You're not being lazy again are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom