Tony, you asked earlier 'I would be interesting to hear how you think a jolt(s), of the size and magnitude necessary, could take place without being visible.'
A glib answer to that would be along the lines of 'the jolt would be much more difficult to detect than explosive cutting charges removing 10 stories of perimeter columns'.
The main problems with detecting the jolt are fairly well understood, I believe. They include:
1) resolution limitations of video footage
2) frame-rate limitations of video footage
3) methods of sampling and calculating expected artifacts
There are several areas where errors in your method are possible. That's why, even though you were unable to detect the jolt you were looking for, it is not certain that it didn't happen.
What then? I would suggest you identify more closely the margins of error at each step, in consultation with video analysis experts. It may very well turn out that your method is not capable of detecting a very short deceleration. I don't know that, but I'm skeptical.
One possible way to test the methodology would be to create an animation which could simulate the effect you're looking for very precisely, then subject it to your protocols. You'd have to process the video so it matched the actual video as closely as possible.
However, the Bazant model which you're examining is an approximation that doesn't really attempt to account for all the variables you're interested in - ie the 31g figure is theoretical and not realistically expected because of the asymmetry of the collapse, and the variables of pre-weakened structure of the upper block.
As such, a much more sophisticated model would be necessary if you really wanted to calculate a more precise figure for the jolt. It might very well be that the 'jolt' is different in nature from what you or Bazant have envisioned.
I don't know.
But I'm not making the accusation of explosives, vast conspiracies, and such, based on little or no solid evidence. That's exactly what I think you're doing, as you know. I think you've got a valid idea, I don't think you've met a high enough standard of proof to say that your observations are correct.
I don't think you can blame people like me for expecting a very high standard of proof for the accusations the 9/11 truth movement is making. If you were a NASA engineer, working to send a team to Mars on a multi-year mission, I bet you'd leave no stone unturned to make certain your work was flawless. You'd probably try to recruit the opinions of top experts in every area under your responsibility, and cut no corners.
That's because the lives of a handful of astronauts would depend on your competence.
The responsibility you're attempting to assume, that of creating irrefutable scientific proof to bring down a vast and powerful conspiracy which permeates your entire government, defense industries and god only knows what else - is a monumentally more daunting and demanding one. (I honestly don't think most of you have thought through the implications of what you're attempting)
No offense, but you guys are not up to the task. Who would be? It would be very difficult indeed to find real evidence of something that never happened - which is the most probable scenario. In terms of a scientific approach, you've screwed the pooch by reaching a verdict (controlled demolition) and then looking around for anything that might possibly support it.
IMHO you truthers become so accustomed to ignoring or rationalizing away contrary evidence that it's become an ingrained habit. You've also become systematically hostile to any strong science not supportive of your movement, and thus are not able to benefit from a lot of the knowledge that would otherwise be at your disposal.
Anyway, that's just a few thoughts on the matter.
