It's a velocity plot of a verinage demolition showing what it looks like in terms of velocity and acceleration when the top of a building drops onto it's remainder.

Large intervals of time? lol if that's the best you can come up with.

It's a standard method. He's dealing with measurements, not some theoretical continuous position equation so that's what you have to do. When he applied it to the verinage demolition he got what one would expect per the laws of physics. If there was any truth to Bazants theory we would see an even larger acceleration drop than the verinage due to the greater resistance as well as the downward increasing density gradient. What we saw was no acceleration drop at all.

I'm not saying you should open up to the idea that someone other than some young foreign rejects directed by someone living in a cave pulled off this unbelievable feat. That's too much for you. But you should really let go of this Bazant nonsense and admit you don't have the first clue as to how any of those 3 buildings came down. You are like petulant children at this point. It's a pitiful display.

Since you still wont provide a link about that plot I dont have to pointlessly walk you through the differences between the two situations. That's nice.

So, are you willing to make a bet out of that idiotic debate, or not? I'm making the claim that Chandler's method misses the large variations in acceleration that necessarily exist. I'm suggesting two ways to verify that claim. The first way would be the one from my previous post: apply Chandler's method to data from a free-fall/impacts model of the TT collapse and see if impacts get smoothed out. The second one would be to apply a less ******ed method to Chandler's own data and see if larger variations of the acceleration appear.

In both cases we would need to come up with a quantitative criterion to determine who won the bet, but that shouldnt be a problem. I dont really care who does the calculations as long as everyone can check them.

It doesnt necessarily have to be a money bet. I'm ok with an exile bet or an avatar bet.

Here is the video that shows Chandler's generation of the plot that Deuces posted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

What he has done is look at a plot of roughly 50% of the collapse of a building dropped by perfectly symmetric point destruction of the support columns and compared it to roughly 5% of the collapse of a building dropped by heat failure combined with non-symmetric impact failure of support structures. Because the two plots differ he concludes that the total collapse of the buildings has different causes. This is nonsense. Only the initial collapse is different due to the fact that the initiating events are indeed very different.

I was thinking about this and I started to wonder why Chandler only analyzes the north tower. I searched on the web and found videos of the south tower collapse that he posted, but they were all taken from angles that obscured the initial tower collapse. I also recalled and confirmed that the north tower was struck first but collapsed last.

I found this site that has a clear image of the start of the collapse of both towers. The south tower starts at about 1:30 into the video.

http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-timeline

You can clearly see that the south tower starts to collapse and the roof line immediately angles sharply to the corner of the building that was struck by the airplane. Later in the video you can see that the north tower collapse almost straight down. That is the difference between north and south, the south was very off center and the plane was more angled, damaging a wider swath of floors. That is why it collapsed first, that is why it collapsed at an angle and that is why Chandler does not analyze it. If he did, he could not hide the fact that the initial failure of the building is asymmetric. That coincides perfectly with the off center strike of the south aircraft, a simple fact that torpedoes his entire premise that the airplanes were not the cause of the collapse.

In all high-rise buildings the density of the construction decreases with the height of the construction, for obvious reasons. Nobody calls that "downward increasing density gradient". Using sciency words doesn't make your statements sound any smarter.

And no: steel framed buildings will not offer more resistance than reinforced concrete buildings, and the reason should also be pretty obvious. The biggest decelerating effect comes from the inertia of the mass that is being displaced, and the mass per constructed floor area of reinforced concrete constructions is much bigger than that of steel framed buildings.

RLK's link above is good.

So far I have an assertion from MvdB that the two impacts are not comparable because one is a steel framed structure, no reasoning given. I have argued that a steel structure would provide a larger acceleration drop because of it's larger safety factor. No actual response was given to my argument. So that's the state of the discussion unless you can out think MvdB. He's the more clever sophist in my view. Maybe you can gain some ground since you act like there is some opening for you. Your acting as though this opening is dependent on some link is obvious dissembling though, so I am not optimistic.

A bet with someone who is never wrong no matter much evidence contradicts them? I'll pass.

Still not reading that memo? You seem unaware that this is exactly what Chandler has already done with the verinage example. I will reiterate the result: Chandler's method did not miss the variation is acceleration caused when a building top is acting like a hammer. The claim is verified.
Because Chandler is open with his data and methods, as a scientist should be, this is actually theoretically possible. I would really like to know what you think is "less ******ed" than what would appear to be the best way. I hope, for your sake, that you're not trying to drag this into the weeds. My guess is this is going to blow up in what's left of your face. It doesn't matter anyway because we have the verinage as an extremely convincing empirical analog. So no matter what you come up with it doesn't matter. However, if you can show me that there is a better way to estimate the acceleration I am interested in that.

I already have an exile bet going with gambool so you can root against me there.

You're talking about different buildings that collapsed under different conditions. If you want to argue that the impacts are comparable, the burden of proof is on you. You'll have to consider many things for each building including (but not limited to) the mass of the falling parts, the collapse mechanisms, and the corresponding forces and displacements during impact. You can not just invent new sciency-sounding phrases and handwave all that away. Do the work and show it.

The point of the bet would be to have a clear-cut yes/no question with a verifiable answer, in order to prevent the guy who is wrong (hint: that's you) from bull****ing his way out of it. Not suprised that you are reluctant.

If you just copy-paste Chandler's numbers and calculate the acceleration in the most straightforward way possible ( a(i)=(z(i+1)-2*z(i)+z(i-1))/dt^2 ) instead of using his warped method, you get:



omg, the acceleration varies! If Chandler had been less sloppy and had looked at every frame instead of every 6th frame it's possible that we might even had seen decelerations.

Keep lecturing us about the soundness of Chandler's work and the implications of his constant acceleration, though.

I wanted a bet to see you lose it out of idiocy and stubbornness, not to deprive the forum of the entertainment you provide.

Here we see a true marvel. A real live yellowbellied cock in the wild.

Is verinage not the closest possible 'experiment' possible? do you have another in mind? I mean, your belief is that the top block came down and crushed the remainder. I would be interested to know how to better make a comparison. Don't be shy.

LOL you guys are just gluttons for punishment. Hard to believe you wouldn't realize that you are using an equation which assumes a constant acceleration. That's not correct. We are building a model from data, not assuming a model, feeding it data, and getting outputs. It's also hard not to believe that you weren't suspect when your results show acceleration increasing downward while, under your mechanistic model, impacting the building. That doesn't make any sense under the Bazant model and should have alerted you that you were not helping your case.

So go back and compute the velocity from the position and the acceleration from the this velocity in a way that is supposedly better than Chandlers. Show your work. That's what I really want to see, what better way you have that the method Chandler used to compute the velocity from the position data. Then use a valid method to derive the acceleration.

Don't sell yourself short. I kind of think of myself and a posters such as yourself as a comedy team.

"density of the construction decreases with the height of the construction"

"downward increasing density gradient"

Same smartness. One is shorter. I don't see the "sciency" in either so please explain that.

Well a column of water held in place inside a giant rubber tube would be even denser. Would that provide more resistance? No, it would just buckle and fall sideways.

Again, you're not understanding the physics. You're problem is you keep focusing on the properties of single objects instead of the relationships between them. The TTs were designed to support a mass 3-5 times above the static load. Therefore idea that you could drop part of the building onto itself from one floor and it would just plow through itself without even registering any effective impact force is absurd. You never see anything like that in nature and you don't see it here either. You simply have no clue as to how any of those buildings fell.

Once again Deuces unclear of the difference between "dynamic" and "static" loads.

You can maintain incredulity for some items in the list all you like. At the very least, some others are beyond reproach. In my view, all of them pass the sniff test. We're talking about some fairly awful human beings.

In the God-fearing forum, you once proclaimed we're all slaves to our instincts. Your instinct here is to defend the Bush League to at least a position of negligence, regardless of their horrid reputation. But there is no question that at least some of the crimes in that list were perpetrated or defended by the cabal of men I'm referring to (torture, Iraq WMD, Iran Contra among them). Their lack of credibility is unmistakable, and that's before any hypothetical deliberation begins. ... unless your "instinct" is to insist they're good people, despite the record.

"Either side" ... it's just that you're only willing to acknowledge the presumed and vague "cya" motives of intel officials. When it comes to the documented motives of neoconservatives, you prefer to remain silent.

To be clear, "screw up" theory is your position. It's also the "official" position, which most Americans don't buy. Even if it was no more than a "screw-up," the fact that no one lost their job only further buttresses the supposition that loose ends needed to be tied up and deeper examination never undertaken.

Imagine the inclination to speak up and defend yourself if you're sacked as the head of NEADS, or the FAA or NORAD soon after 9/11? Just look at how much damage Richard Clarke did to the laughable official story narrative when he resigned in disgust.

Again, it's curious that in this instance, you prefer to heap almost 100% of your skepticism on the credibility of CIA officers and executives and, so far, almost 0% of your skepticism on certain PNAC signatories. Men who literally reminded us all of the need for "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to bring about real change toward our control of ME oil reserves. Why is that?

I didn't expect it to "impress." Not from the viewpoint of someone who can't seem to articulate a single deceitful act the men he's defending ever committed (though, he wants us to know they probably exist... somewhere). But like gravity, their testimony is still there whether or not you chose to accept it.

You mean like sanctioning torture?

Well, dumb re: world affairs is usually a pre-requisite for post-Nixon era disciples, so agreed. ... But Ashcroft most certainly was a dangerous pro-life, pro-gun, Christian crusading zealot who was 100% loyal to whatever agenda Perle, Wolfy, Rummie and Cheney cooked up.

Right. Must be overreaction. ... Look at the Shenon book. Previous warnings are peppered throughout (see Warren Rudman, among many others). I just chose that particular passage because it so clearly shows direct push back against the warnings by the highest law officer in the land.

Well, of course you "could" see it that way, because your thought process starts from a standpoint (instinct) that we're somehow talking about relatively noble men who did the best they could and deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure Cheney's threatening Jan. 2002 phone call to Daschle to stop all public hearings on the attacks was nothing more than an effort to help the nation heal and remain unified in the struggle to find bin Laden.

Specifics were abundant. Certainly enough to do the exact opposite of cutting funding.

Ah, there it is again. It must be all these disparate individuals long retired who are remembering it all wrong (lying) to award-winning NYT reporters. Not RW fascists with a long, specific history of deadly controversy (and Vietnam deferments).

That's a little ridiculous. No, see, expanding counter-terrorism funding and re-opening surveillance trails doesn't amount to just "telling everyone to 'work harder' " at all. They're quite specific steps, actually, just as Pickard's recommendations to Ashcroft were. "Nothing" is nothing. Cutting funding in the face of a requested increase is, in fact, worse than "nothing."

But do keep defending them based on the ironically vague notion that they didn't have specific enough instructions in order to lift a finger and thwart anything.

You were not aware that Indian intel and our own FBI identified the source of wire payments to Atta from the Pakistani ISI chief? A man who was in Washington as the attacks unfolded, and was allowed to step down a few weeks later due to his increased "radicalization?" Yes, that's well documented. That he was never detained or extradited or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report is also well documented. Perhaps his phone number wasn't specific enough.

A complex answer not provided by any of the existing poll options, but absolutely not "AQ acting alone."

Can't remember the last time this site logged an "AQ acting alone" vote.... Over a month now, I'd say. ... Stands to reason.

oh look, the list of U.S. lawmakers wanting to raise the curtain on Saudi funding 9/11 is officially growing. ...

Holiday Rush: 8 More Reps Urge Release of 28 Pages on 9/11

In general I support this.

Oh


My


God


Who caaaaaarrreeees?

Yeah, that's what we all say. But because we don't say "OH MY GOD THIS SHOULD BE RELEASED IN EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE AND EVERYONE RELATED TO NOT RELEASING IT IS AN EVIL MONSTER THAT SHOULD BE SHOT AND BURIED 30 FEET UNDERGROUND TO PREVENT THEIR RETURN AS LEADERS OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE" Jiggz thinks we actually don't want it released and instead would prefer to spend our days fellating George W while our evil God Cheney looks on approvingly from above.

I also support this. Let's have a look.

I don't think that report is any of my business. Keep it classified.

Waffle crushing as usual.

LOL... sounds like straw-man prep work for the day when you have to walk it all back. The logical end point I expected. Reminds me of moderate cons and "liberals" who all clamored for war before the bombs started to fall on Baghdad, but now insist they were skeptical the whole time. "I never trusted Bush!"

You team of trolls has spent years presenting the plausible deniability case at every turn. ... The ****-storm of Congressional hearings that would/will ensue once the public at large absorbs the fact our closest business ally in the region paid for it all. ... No wonder they've put an imperative on keeping that section redacted to the bitter end.

Your figurative felching of Lord Cheney all this time is beside the point.

I don't want anyone shot.... I just want to always be able to remind people like you of posts like this:

I don't think that post means what you think it means.

"Regardless of 9/11 complicity" means - that the best look for Saudi Arabia is bad. 9/11 complicity can only make them look worse.

"I'm a pragmatic person and realize you have to work with countries you don't respect" - This is trivially true. The only people that don't think this are simpletons - typically found in Trump rallies.

Oh, but I do. Because it also means you don't officially buy it, but you wanna leave the door ajar, like a true coward.

Ah, no.... Open acknowledgement changes the dynamic completely. That you can't seem to recognize that shows how clueless you are re: world affairs.

Cool story. Cept that we consistently don't do that. See Cuba since 1959.

While I agree we shouldn't alienate an entire nation state based on the radical fringe of its leaders, it's important to be honest about what your heroes want from that nation AND how deep our cooperation runs.

Get it yet?

You're a special kind of stupid aren't you?

Jiggs, you're basically just foaming at the mouth ranting nonsense now.


Unlike you, I don't think its cowardice to not treat everything like a religion that requires 100% faith even when shown conflicting information.

You should try it sometime!


My statement has nothing to do with how open acknowledgement would change the dynamic. I'm pretty sure it was in response to you talking about how we LOVED Saudi Arabia and didn't want to admit they were bad people.

And my response was that we already think they're bad people.


Lol. So you want to treat more countries like the US has treated Cuba up to a year or so ago?

Of course, my statement wasn't about what historical US actions. But Jiggz gonna Jiggz.

Good writers know how to express ideas with few words only. "Downward increasing density gradient" is the opposite. It's a contrived and opaque way of stating something that is really obvious.

I don't think you define resistance correctly, because yeah, moving the water out of the way costs energy, so it will have an impact on the speed of the top part, however marginal it may be.

Sorry, but somebody who believes idiotic crap like "the top x floors of a building can never crush another x floors in a collapse" doesn't get to lecture other people on the physics at play.

Or do I read you correctly, and did you abandon that position in favor of "the top part of a building, when it crushes the bottom part, will show periods of deceleration that will be readily detectable by measuring its speed at 0.2 second intervals"? If you did, it's time to own that and admit you were really mistaken about your first position.