never before in the history of skyscrapers, has any building done as was done on 9/11/2001 and all I get is "argument from incredulity" right .... or something ......
and you do not see as how the complete and total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 is a clear indication that there had to have been some form of intervention, some prior- planning to make it happen like that, the very fact of complete destruction is a factor in an investigation of criminal activity. do you not get that fact?
On the subject of "fear of debate", I'm not sure g-Bob has actually addressed this issue. he was kind enough to PM about another point. Perhaps he'll get around to looking at this.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf This is but one of many papers critical of Bazant's presentation on the "collapse" of the WTC tower(s). May I also recommend looking at the picture in message #23 in "FEA data regarding WTC1" and why is this picture any less credible than the official story? What magic would hold the mass of rubble together such to remain on top of the as yet undamaged structure all the way down?
Let's focus on Bazant right now. Conclusions: We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti supposedly "prove" this by staring at video frames and measuring pixels using a lot of impressive sounding trigonometry. But it doesn't change the fact they are measuring video frames by sight. "Crackpot" is the kindest word for this methodology. But MacQueen and Szamboti are not the most scientific souls: Graeme MacQueen is another religious studies guy like David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. Tony Szamboti is an engineer, but is being irresponsible working on a scientific project with a "religious studies" guy. This looks like another case of exploiting people's(in this case truthers) expectations by inflation their credentials. You have anyone else who has proven "the infamous "Bazant" paper" a farce? For the record: original title: The North Tower’s Missing Thump: by Graeme MacQueen 5/7/2009
We should first examine the problems with G&T's analysis. Is it falsifiable? Too open to subjective interpretation? Has their methodology been used elsewhere by credible sources? Since they're using video frames a. do they have the highest quality video available? b.even if they do, can such analysis yield anything more than a hypothetical "wild ass guess"? They wrote the paper in 2009, 8 years after the attacks. Let's just pretend their methodology makes since. If it was that simple NIST would have done this in a week. This confirms to my satisfaction people like G & T are flimflam artists, taking advantage of truthers emotional investment in the conspiracy. Of course it's possible either of these gents really believe he's found something.
Note that it is a very basic "Science 101" bit that students get to measure the velocity of moving objects given either frames of movie film or video to analyze. The jolt caused by energy transfer from the moving bit to the stationary bit would have to be very significant in order to transfer significant energy to do the job that it was alleged to have done. in short, the methodology has precedent, and it is sound.
Then please share with us links to research accepted by the scientific community using this methodology. This should be easy if it's as common as you think. Real science only please. No "conspiracy" subjects.
Apparently some people believe this statement is an "attack": "This confirms to my satisfaction people like G & T are flimflam artists, taking advantage of truthers emotional investment in the conspiracy. "
A few posts ago, I asked "l4zarus" How would you go about conducting the research? and there has been no response except to reject out of hand whatever I have offered up. So there you have it, the "loyal opposition" has no proof that the WTC tower(s) should have "collapsed" in the manner observed & without help from explosives.
Allow me to quote one of my replies: "Then please share with us links to research accepted by the scientific community using this methodology. This should be easy if it's as common as you think. Real science only please. No "conspiracy" subjects. " On your own time.
In other words, If I cite something that is from one of those conspiracy sites, it is to be rejected before even being read, because its one of those conspiracy things. - - - Updated - - - and after you alleged that my sources were "crackpots" without any substantiation of that claim.
Actually I was referring to the methodology G & T used to "discredit" the Bazant paper. Anyone can scroll back and read for themselves. You claim their methodology is sound, but can't link or reference it's use in credible scientific research. This is why, IMHO, truthers are being manipulated by frauds and flimflam artists. And yes calling out a scientific fraud does belong in a debate that alleges to be about science.
OK, lets turn this around, a pivotal bit of the story is the allegation that an airliner can be flown at >500 mph at near sea level, anybody have any proof that this can be done? lets see the PROOF, what?
Or your can just answer the questions you've been asked on multiple threads, including this one: "Then please share with us links to research accepted by the scientific community using this methodology. This should be easy if it's as common as you think. Real science only please. No "conspiracy" subjects. " Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
http://www.topendsports.com/biomechanics/video-analysis-speed.htm Just search on "speed measurement using video" enjoy ..... there are lots of links to common usage of video to find speed.
Great, that's one valid usage...for speed in sports. Now show where it's been applied to scientific research involving disasters, building collapses, etc.
obviously the same speed measuring technique used to measure athletes, is not applicable to building collapses .... or? REALLY?
