The 9/11 Forum

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-26/a ... tiles-wtc2

we've seen the ridiculous artifical nist collapse function of wtc#7 that had a >g double derivative. But now David Chandler used his physics toolkit for a falling part he found on a video. Has this already been analysed here? He claims a >g due to ejective force. He should provide an error margin but it is an interesting piece.

I question his precision in tracing the motion of a falling and rotating (in how many zxes?) object which is 36'x10'.. assuming it is a facade panel. The weight is also questionable as the 4 ton weight would be a panel from probably above floor 90. I can produce the location of a 4 ton panel.

Tom has shown panels are rotation vertically and some land top down impaled in the street. My guess is that his trace is off since he can't actually tag a precise point on the panel to use to compute its motion. Vertical rotation in a falling object could produce faster than G acceleration in a trace.

And then there's the issue of how this rocket fuel remains attached to this assembly? And how is it/ was it positioned to provide the downward impulse?

This looks like voodoo science to me. This appears to me that Chandler and Harrit are hunting for evidence of nanothermite and them offering junk science to *prove it*.

It seems to me that Chandler is being forced more and more to the periphery - in more ways than one.

His early work tried to come to grips with the realities of the main collapse mechanisms of the Twin Towers. I recall the first video of his which I used to explain "progression" by the mechanism that we would now call "ROOSD". Chandler was talking about "squibs" but I used the same video - minus Chandler's audio - to illustrate "ROOSD". Back in those days (early 2008 I think) I didn't have a name for it.

He then tried looking for his version of "Missing Jolt" so on "initiation" but still on main stages of collapse. And his application of physics not improving IMO.

Now he is out at the periphery looking at one bit of debris.

Even if it was a rocket process - so what? I won't start listing the next dozen or so questions...

You could say the object Chandler is describing couldn't have the weight Chandler says it has - prove it.

You could say his measurements are off because the object he's measuring is rotating around its vertical axis - so prove his measurements wrong.

As it stands, if his measurements are correct, an object accelerating past g indicates propulsion by some other force, and not just gravitational pull. That doesn't mean it was nanothermite, because that would be another example of what I call "falsification-speculation".

If you want to be a skeptic then be one. Snide remarks are just that. I suspect this thread is just going to go to sleep and we'll never see any follow-up. Maybe I should learn SynthEyes and try to do what Femr2 does.

David Chandler wrote:In most of my videos I use 0.2 second intervals for velocity computations. The original data are ~30 frames per second, but numerical differentiation is an inherently "noisy" process, especially when the amount of motion involved is comparable to the pixel measurement error. Trying to extract more precision leads only to cluttering the picture with more noise.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-26/a ... ent-253345

Tony Szamboti has made similar comments in the past:

Tony Szamboti wrote:The measurement frequency used to determine the fall rate of the North Tower upper section, which served as the basis for the Missing Jolt paper, was every fifth frame in a 30 frames per second video, or every 0.167 seconds. That was as high a frequency and resolution as we could get per Graeme, who did the measurements. He did try to go finer and it wasn't possible to get accurate measurements. There is no way to "enhance" the resolution and anyone who tells you that is either being dishonest or doesn't know what they are talking about.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-06/s ... ent-247388

I almost failed to find that second quote, it's been a while...Femr2, care to comment? I know you've discussed this at length in the JREF thread. Do we have a thread here? This issue needs to be decided.

SnowCrash wrote:You could say his measurements are off because the object he's measuring is rotating around its vertical axis - so prove his measurements wrong.

I'll perform appropriate traces, though there's not much point imo.

The object simply appears to have an earlier descent start time as far as I can see, but I'll do the trace regardless. Trace resolution in DC's video is pretty poor. Will see what drops out the bottom (so to speak).

SnowCrash wrote:

Tony Szamboti wrote:The measurement frequency used to determine the fall rate of the North Tower upper section, which served as the basis for the Missing Jolt paper, was every fifth frame in a 30 frames per second video, or every 0.167 seconds. That was as high a frequency and resolution as we could get per Graeme, who did the measurements. He did try to go finer and it wasn't possible to get accurate measurements. There is no way to "enhance" the resolution and anyone who tells you that is either being dishonest or doesn't know what they are talking about.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-06/s ... ent-247388

I almost failed to find that second quote, it's been a while...Femr2, care to comment?

Yeah, Tony is talking utter tosh.

Object position can be extracted on a per-frame basis, of course. NOTHING at all stopping you doing such, of course.

In addition, for 29.97fps interlaced video, the first thing to do is separate the interlaced images allowing you to perform a trace with a 59.94 sample per second frequency...0.01668s interval. TEN times that used by Graeme and co.

There is, agan, of course, the need to handle that data properly afterwards, and not use near adjacent samples for determining derived velocity and acceleration metrics, but if you've followed the tracing discussions here and over there you'll see we/I've progressed the data handling techniques to get the maximum possible accuracy.

femr2 wrote:I'll perform appropriate traces, though there's not much point imo.

Okay, I hope you will... you're the best qualified I know to do it. You've become an authority on the subject.

femr2 wrote:The object simply appears to have an earlier descent start time as far as I can see, but I'll do the trace regardless. Trace resolution in DC's video is pretty poor. Will see what drops out the bottom (so to speak).

I don't understand... regardless of the descent start time, the object's velocity increment is what matters here is it not?

(Double post removed)

SnowCrash wrote:

femr2 wrote:There is, agan, of course, the need to handle that data properly afterwards, and not use near adjacent samples for determining derived velocity and acceleration metrics, but if you've followed the tracing discussions here and over there you'll see we/I've progressed the data handling techniques to get the maximum possible accuracy.

Yeah, I have, and although I've understood some important parts of it, and amusingly, saw a whole pack of JREFers march off a cliff trying to 'debunk' it (they're quite obsessive about 'debunking' anything that originates with an 'outsider', regardless of whether or not such 'debunking' is justified) there are some parts about it I still don't fully understand. I do intend to fill that lacuna. It's a key issue. I find it fascinating. I also saw OWE's recent explanation about the best way to compute the velocity changes between data points.

Yet, I was wondering about Chandler and Szamboti's comments about 'noise'. What about this 'noise' they speak of? Chandler has an MS in mathematics, does he simply fail to see that this noise can be compensated for with filters? That seems unlikely, I wish Chandler would expand on this point. They seem to want to ignore your work. That discussion needs to be had soon. You've been able to extract far more information from CAM #3 imagery than anybody ever thought possible, and I have faith in that data, but at the same time I've become aware of the limitations of video, mostly due to frame rate.

SnowCrash wrote:... and amusingly, saw a whole pack of JREFers march off a cliff trying to 'debunk' it (they're quite obsessive about 'debunking' anything that originates with an 'outsider', regardless of whether or not such 'debunking' is justified)....

I have made the statement several times over there. I don't think I have explained it here.

The mindset against "outsiders" (AKA "truthers" over there - "if you don't agree with us you are a truther")

...if a designated outsider/truther was to claim that "the cloudless daytime sky is blue" "they" would race each other to make out that was false. The need to disagree with an outsider trumps the truth in that twisted world.

SnowCrash wrote:...I don't understand... regardless of the descent start time, the object's velocity increment is what matters here is it not?

That bit puzzled me too.

From the thread mentioned at the old queens place.

quad4 72

Are you guys *********** serious with this ****** Grow up twoofers.

Poster oblivious to his pure comedy genius, a school yard retort, the cringingly embarrassing irony is comedy gold to me.

Few if any in that forum can distinguish truthers from twoofers from trolls from genuine sceptics. So they put everyone they disagree with in the one basket.

Most of the alleged "truthers"/"twoofers" etc over there are pure and simple trolls. I doubt that there are any genuine truth seeking truthers of the class who would be proud to stand by the name. Possibly a few who are cringingly embarrassing to read.

However the climate is so polarised and loaded one way that I would count it almost a lost cause trying to put a serious truther side argument into that arena. And, admitting my pre-set bias, I cannot think of such an argument in the technical domain. I am sure there are many in the socio-political domain where my own gut feeling is there could well be some failures to act and a bit of arse protection plus inter agency rivalry summing to low grade LIHOP. But I don't have the expertise in those areas.

oz

the recent Lloyds insurers broadside courtcase, which was withdrawn without prejudice after 11 days is huge really, an industry looking to retrieve billions of dollars, it was some kind of test of the system imo, heres the details.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 56857.html

One might inquire as to what pressure was applied to Lloyd's to force this abandonment of the lawsuit.

Could it be that the discovery process on such a case would be highly embarrassing to elements within the U.S. government? I certainly suspect so.

If anyone breaks the cover-up of saudi/bush administration involvement, it will be the insurance carriers.

senators like bob graham can write pulitzer winning books about their suspicions, the administrations own counter-terrorism czar, can publically accuse bush of leaving him out of the loop in presidential meetings, and letting 911 happen.
And the C.I.A. having to bring injunction after injunction out against broadcasters who try to broadcast interviews with him, it wont stay covered up much longer, theres a literal blizzard of books comig out now all adding little bits more of the jigsaw, bit of a snowball effect, but with a generally apathetic society, the snowball has to get a right gallop up to be really noticed by more than just those that are interested after all these years.

And theres no way bob graham will let this go.

look at his credentials oz, see what he chaired, technically he should be the most well informed man on the events of 911 in the world.

yet the fbi who were directly answerable to him, lied and covered up, the whole thing is a cess-pit.
Heres just alittle bit of what was buried by them about the saudi support network of the terrorists whilst in america.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/new-eviden ... 3#comments