Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
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.
femr2 wrote:Yeah, Tony is talking utter tosh.
SnowCrash wrote:I don't understand... regardless of the descent start time, the object's velocity increment is what matters here is it not?
SnowCrash wrote:All of which is interesting but OT...
Moreover, the Poteshman paper proves with mathematical certainty that there was insider trading. The counterarguments are circumstantial and cannot debunk Poteshman's statistical analysis.
SanderO wrote:He is very sloppy in his work.
The weight might not actually matter much...
SanderO wrote:What strikes me odd about Chandler's finding is that the object supplying the impulse is doing it exactly in the direction of motion of the object as it apparently does not change course if I understood his claim.
I don't think it can be ruled out because of the improbability of the coincidence of alignment of the impulse with gravity but it strikes me as odd.
And then why does this impulse kick in at about floor 50 or so for only .5 sec.... what could be the mechanism to explain that?
The trace data, seems to indicate something odd and his analysis seems OK... My sense is that his data was inaccurate and so it's a garbage in equal garbage out affair.
If Chandler has accurately computed the velocity he should be able to identify the floor it came from...
I also would find it odd that the object was NOT rotating or twisting... the trajectory seems to be moving from east to west and so it has some lateral force applied from the beginning of its decent. And if this is the case that since it is free falling it would likely be rotating and that would or could skew his trace data.
I find the presentation similar to his others.. mostly hyping his theses.
DavidSChandler at 911Blogger wrote:Doing your own analysis
I am not the only one capable of doing this kind of analysis. All the software is out there and free. If you try some of this on your own you would get a much better feel for the power and limitations of the technique. Here is a tutorial I put together for my students:
DavidS wrote:In any measurement it is important to have an idea of the magnitude of the noise. Even if you feel the noise is insignificant compared to your signal, it is still important to include it, usually in the form of error bars.
Without error bars, it is very difficult for someone reviewing your work to determine whether the different slopes are measurement error or actually a result of different accelerations. The need for error bars in the graph you have presented is particularly strong since only 3 data points (the bare minimum) were used in determining the slope.
Cluttering up the graph with more noise (by using additional data points) is okay, because it will also give a better idea of the amount of noise in the measurement.
Haze wrote:But I'd like to learn more about these issues:
- An estimate of the error bars for the measurement of larger than g acceleration.
- Some thought into whether vertical/horizontal rotation can explain the change in motion and downward acceleration
- An estimate of vertical and horizontal rotation
- Some kind of thought into whether the object started rotating vertically due to an asymmetrical downward force, or whether somehow the force acted symmetrically on the girder in which case one should wonder why smoke apparently appears only on one side.
All these points are not clear to me and I only raise them in order to help provide some humble "peer review".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests