Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

[Free]

Please stop pretending that there was ever a discussion seeking a specualtive hypothesis.
That is entirely your fabrication.

I said I was trained as an engineer and that's how we go about finding the truth. We ask a question, collect observations, propose hypotheses, and explore those hypotheses to see which ones are more or less likely to account for those observations.

For me, that's the gold standard for finding the truth in any matter. If you don't want to do that, then all we've got are our opinions.

You are equating the amount of effort you have put into the physics of 9/11 as the gold standard?
Sorry, but I'm not buying it and you are still ignoring the ~one~ issue that I brought to this discussion.
The observed and measured speed at which WTC7 collapses.

I've edited the post above with a video that covers some simple high school physics that it seems your gold standard effort does not.

You can find more at http://ae911truth.org/

Save yourself the work of a thousand experts in the field.
Here's the youtube again on the measured speed of the collapse.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Regarding your comments, Warren...

Please stop pretending that there was ever a discussion seeking a specualtive hypothesis.
That is entirely your fabrication.

I said I was trained as an engineer and that's how we go about finding the truth. We ask a question, collect observations, propose hypotheses, and explore those hypotheses to see which ones are more or less likely to account for those observations.

For me, that's the gold standard for finding the truth in any matter. If you don't want to do that, then all we've got are our opinions.

You are equating the amount of effort you have put into the physics of 9/11 as the gold standard?

Please read what I said again, and you'll see that I was saying that the Scientific Method (question, observe, hypothesize, test) is the gold standard. That's the method ... and it is the gold standard. I never said that I equated my efforts in the physics of 9/11 (which have been minimal) with that gold standard. But I was proposing that we try to apply that method to see where it leads us. But as with Tad, I'm not going to waste much of my time if you're not open to the possibility that you're wrong.

Regarding the Video ...

The observed and measured speed at which WTC7 collapses.
...
You can find more at http://ae911truth.org/
Save yourself the work of a thousand experts in the field.

Warren, out of respect for you (and the scientific method) I watched that video several times. I paid particular attention to the graph which appears to be the main supporting evidence provided:

Building7_slope_0.png (105 KiB) Viewed 7276 times

I looked into the slope (green line) that they drew on top the data points. I started by calibrating the pixel values on the screen with the engineering units shown on the graph. I used the far corners of the plot (0,0) and (5,-35) to get the most accurate measurement. I've included the detailed notes of the calibration below. Here's a picture of the calibration points:

Building7_slope_1.png (114.67 KiB) Viewed 7276 times

From that calibration, I was able to calculate the slope of the line that they drew and found that it indeed reflected an acceleration greater than the speed of gravity. In my calculation from that line, I got an acceleration of 9.927 (greater than the standard of 9.81 that we used in college). But then I asked myself what would an acceleration of less than 9.81 look like on that same graph. So I plugged a lower value (9.80) back into the equations and re-drew the line for that acceleration (see Java program attached below). I plotted the two alternately (one with "Gravity" greater than 9.81 and one with it less than 9.81) and combined them in an animated GIF. The result is shown directly below. Please watch this animation carefully for at least 10 seconds and watch as the two red lines alternate between the two different accelerations ("Gravity > 9.81" and "Gravity < 9.81"). You'll see that they're both about the same line, and it's hard to claim that one of them represents the data so much better than the other - especially given the spread of the data points. Here's the animation:

Building7_slope_4ab.gif (88.5 KiB) Viewed 7275 times

The red lines (that switch about once every second) show the results of the velocity with the acceleration ("Gravity") both greater than and less than 9.81. You'll see that the difference between falling at an acceleration greater than or less than gravity is not all that different (in fact, you have to look carefully to see the lines change). Remember that the fat green line they drew to give them the "smoking gun" acceleration, was simply drawn through a bunch of points which were taken from a video camera. Look at those points. How accurate do you think they are? And given the dispersion of those points, do you think that one of those red lines is so much better than the other line that it justifies an entire conspiracy theory? I'm sorry, but that graph is not the "smoking gun" that they claim it is.

Here's a quote from the video:

Buildings cannot fall at freefall through themselves because even a weakened building requires energy to break up the pieces, crush the concrete and push things around. When the falling building pushes things, the fall is not free. The things push back and the reaction forces will measurably slow the descent of the building. This is why one would reasonably expect crumbling structures to come down in a tumbling, halting, irregular manner. In short, the evidence is clear. We are witnessing not the collapse of a building, but it's demolition. And we have received not a report from an independent scientific investigation, but a cover up by a government agency.

That's pretty strong language for a line that could be drawn with 4 pixels of difference and give a totally different conclusion. Additionally, if you look at the actual data points (which are difficult to see because they're partially covered up with their green line), you'll see that those data points are all over the place. Between some of the points, the building seems to be accelerating slower than the acceleration of gravity. But between other points, the building seems to be accelerating faster than the acceleration of gravity. How can that be? Are they hypothesizing that something is "pushing" or "pulling" the building down? Where would that force come from? I suggest that these "super gravitational" accelerations are simply showing the large margins of error in their data.

This is a classic case of "Garbage In / Garbage Out". The data they took was not accurate enough to support the conclusions that they drew. You can see that by the variations of the individual data points and how sensitive the result is to simply drawing a slightly different line through the data points (only 4 pixels of difference made a significant difference in the outcome). This kind of sloppy work does not set a good example for Mr. Chandler's students. Consequently, I suggest that Mr. Chandler be reassigned to teaching in the school's Video Arts and Drama program (where he's amply qualified) and stay away from teaching Physics and Mathematics.

Supporting Notes, Software, Numbers ...

Detailed Notes on Calibration

From the figure, we can calculate engineering units (velocity and time) from the pixel values on the graph. But first we have to calibrate the pixel values with the engineering units. We start by taking two points from the graph and relate the engineering units (shown with decimal points) with pixel coordinates (shown as integers without decimal points):

From the upper left corner we get:
EQ1: (0.0,0.0) = (100,32)

From the lower right corner we get:
EQ2: (5.0,-35.0) = (585,471)

Therefore, converting pixels (capital letters X and Y) to engineering units (lower case x and y) we get:

In x we use the standard point-slope forumla:

EQ3: x = mX + b

We substitute our known relationships for our corners to create two simultaneous equations:

EQ4: 0.0 = 100m + b
EQ5: 5.0 = 585m + b

We solve the first equation for the intercept (b):

EQ6: b = -100m

We substitute that into the second equation and solve for the slope (m):

EQ7: 5.0 = 585m -100m
EQ8: 5.0 = m (585-100)
EQ9: m = 5.0 / 485

We substitute the slope back into EQ6 to find the intercept:

EQ10: b = -100m = -500 / 485

Therefore:

EQ11: x = (5.0/485) X - (500/485)


In y we repeat the process again starting with the standard point-slope forumla:

EQ14: y = mY + b

We substitute our known relationships for our corners to create two simultaneous equations:

EQ15: 0.0 = 32m + b
EQ16: -35.0 = 471m + b

We solve the first equation for the intercept (b):

EQ17: b = -32m

We substitute that into the second equation and solve for the slope (m):

EQ18: -35.0 = 471m - 32m
EQ19: -35.0 = m (471-32)
EQ20: m = -35.0 / 439

We substitute the slope back into EQ17 to find the intercept:

EQ21: b = -32m = -32 ( -35 / 439 ) = 1120 / 439

Therefore:

EQ22: y = (-35/439) Y - (32/439)

Taken together:

EQ23: x = (5/485) X - (500/485)
EQ24: y = (-35/439) Y + (1120/439)

This gives us a way to use pixel values (X,Y) from the graph to calculate engineering values (x,y) to use for further calculations. As a check, here are some of the corresponding pixel values converted to engineering units on the graph:

Pixel values: (100,32) gives engineering units of (0.0,0.0)
Pixel values: (585,471) gives engineering units of (5.0,-35.0)

Java Program to Perform Calculations

import java.io.*;

import java.util.*;

public class free_fall_graph {

  public static double X_to_x ( int X ) {
    // EQ23: x = (5/485) X - (500/485)
    double x = ( (((double)5.0)/((double)485.0)) * X ) - (((double)500.0)/((double)485.0));
    return x;
  }

  public static double Y_to_y ( int Y ) {
    // EQ24: y = (-35/439) Y + (1120/439)
    double y = ( (((double)-35.0)/((double)439.0)) * Y ) + (((double)1120.0)/((double)439.0));
    return y;
  }

  public static double x_to_X ( double x ) {
    // EQ23: x = (5/485) X - (500/485)
    // So x + (500/485) = (5/485) X
    // And X = ( x + (500/485) ) / (5/485)
    double X = ( x + ((double)500.0/(double)485.0) ) / ((double)5.0/(double)485.0);
    return X;
  }
  
  public static double rnd ( double d, int n ) {
    double v = d;
    for (int i=0; i<n; i++) v = v * 10.0;
    v = java.lang.Math.round(v);
    for (int i=0; i<n; i++) v = v / 10.0;
    return ( v );
  }

  public static void main ( String args[] ) {
    int X, Y;
    double x, y;
    
    // Test the upper left corner of the plot (should be 0,0)

    X = 100; Y = 32;
    x = X_to_x ( X );
    y = Y_to_y ( Y );
    System.out.println ( "Pixel values: (" + X + "," + Y + ") gives engineering units of (" + rnd(x,3) + "," + rnd(y,3) + ")" );


    // Test the lower right corner of the plot (should be 5,-35)

    X = 585; Y = 471;
    x = X_to_x ( X );
    y = Y_to_y ( Y );
    System.out.println ( "Pixel values: (" + X + "," + Y + ") gives engineering units of (" + rnd(x,3) + "," + rnd(y,3) + ")" );
		
    // Test the point at (2,-10)

    X = 296; Y = 158;
    x = X_to_x ( X );
    y = Y_to_y ( Y );
    System.out.println ( "Pixel values: (" + X + "," + Y + ") gives engineering units of (" + rnd(x,3) + "," + rnd(y,3) + ")" );
		
    // Now produce the slope of the graph

    int X0, Y0, X1, Y1;
    double x0, y0, x1, y1;
    X0 = 162; Y0 = 32;
    X1 = 504; Y1 = 471;

    x0 = X_to_x ( X0 );
    y0 = Y_to_y ( Y0 );

    x1 = X_to_x ( X1 );
    y1 = Y_to_y ( Y1 );
    
    System.out.println ( "x0,y0 = " + rnd(x0,3) + "," + rnd(y0,3) );
    System.out.println ( "x1,y1 = " + rnd(x1,3) + "," + rnd(y1,3) );

    double slope;
    slope = (y1 - y0) / (x1 - x0);
    
    System.out.println ( "The slope is " + rnd(slope,3) );
    
    // Now solve for the X1 value that gives a slope of 9.81 (approximately gravity)
    
    double x1g;
    x1g = ( (y1 - y0) / -9.81 ) + x0;

    System.out.println ( "The required x1 for g=-9.81 is " + rnd(x1g,3) + " instead of " + rnd(x1,3) );
    System.out.println ( "Therefore the bottom pixel should be " + rnd(x_to_X(x1g),3) + " instead of " + rnd(X1,3) );
    
    // Now solve for the X1 value that gives a slope of 9.80 (less than gravity)
    
    double x1gm;
    x1gm = ( (y1 - y0) / -9.80 ) + x0;

    System.out.println ( "The required x1 for g=-9.80 is " + rnd(x1gm,3) + " instead of " + rnd(x1,3) );
    System.out.println ( "Therefore the bottom pixel should be " + rnd(x_to_X(x1gm),3) + " instead of " + rnd(X1,3) );
    
  }

}

Output from Running the Previous Java Program

Pixel values: (100,32) gives engineering units of (0.0,0.0)
Pixel values: (585,471) gives engineering units of (5.0,-35.0)
Pixel values: (296,158) gives engineering units of (2.021,-10.046)
x0,y0 = 0.639,0.0
x1,y1 = 4.165,-35.0
The slope is -9.927
The required x1 for g=-9.81 is 4.207 instead of 4.165
Therefore the bottom pixel should be 508.075 instead of 504.0
The required x1 for g=-9.80 is 4.211 instead of 4.165
Therefore the bottom pixel should be 508.429 instead of 504.0

[Free]

You've got to be kidding.
I'm the one that is talking to a brick wall.

We are to believe the tiny variation you massaged out of data points changes anything?
Yeah, I had to stare at the animated line for 10 seconds or so just to see the miniscule difference.
How does this change anything?

I wish I hadn't read your answer so close to bedtime.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Yeah, I had to stare at the animated line for 10 seconds or so just to see the miniscule difference.
How does this change anything?

The fact that you had to stare so hard to see a "miniscule" difference is the main point!!

That presentation of data (from that video) is super-sensitive to how the line is drawn to fit the points. If it's drawn one way, it appears that buildings are falling without resistance (at the unrestricted acceleration of gravity). But if that somewhat arbitrary line is drawn slightly differently, then it appears that the buildings ARE falling with some resistance.

In other words, the data is inconclusive, and the lines can be drawn with a 4 pixel difference (2 pixels at each end) to produce an apparently different conclusion. That's not the kind of evidence that supports a conspiracy theory. But it's a perfect example of what's wrong in our public school system. The teacher either didn't understand the sensitivities of his data model or he intentionally skewed it to draw the conclusion he wanted from the data. Neither is helping us build better citizens.

[Free]

Buildings cannot fall at freefall through themselves because even a weakened building requires energy to break up the pieces, crush the concrete and push things around. When the falling building pushes things, the fall is not free. The things push back and the reaction forces will measurably slow the descent of the building. This is why one would reasonably expect crumbling structures to come down in a tumbling, halting, irregular manner. In short, the evidence is clear. We are witnessing not the collapse of a building, but it's demolition. And we have received not a report from an independent scientific investigation, but a cover up by a government agency.

Bob K
That's pretty strong language for a line that could be drawn with 4 pixels of difference and give a totally different conclusion.

Oh yeah.. totally different conclusion... a couple thousandths of a second, maybe.

This is a classic case of "Garbage In / Garbage Out". The data they took was not accurate enough to support the conclusions that they drew. You can see that by the variations of the individual data points and how sensitive the result is to simply drawing a slightly different line through the data points (only 4 pixels of difference made a significant difference in the outcome).

I see no significant difference in the outcome.
The building fell at too damn near the speed of free fall to have been a natural collapse.

This kind of sloppy work does not set a good example for Mr. Chandler's students. Consequently, I suggest that Mr. Chandler be reassigned to teaching in the school's Video Arts and Drama program (where he's amply qualified) and stay away from teaching Physics and Mathematics.

I'll do what I can to see that Mr. Chandler, recieves this sage bit of advise.

[Bob Kuczewski]

That's pretty strong language for a line that could be drawn with 4 pixels of difference and give a totally different conclusion.

Oh yeah.. totally different conclusion... a couple thousandths of a second, maybe.

It's not the time, but the acceleration that counts. I still haven't seen your hypothesis of what you think happened.

This is a classic case of "Garbage In / Garbage Out". The data they took was not accurate enough to support the conclusions that they drew. You can see that by the variations of the individual data points and how sensitive the result is to simply drawing a slightly different line through the data points (only 4 pixels of difference made a significant difference in the outcome).

I see no significant difference in the outcome.
The building fell at too damn near the speed of free fall to have been a natural collapse.

Try this experiment. Drill a small hole in a 2x4 and stand a single strand of dried spaghetti upright in that hole. Then film it with a video camera as you drop a brick on it. Tell me how accurately you can measure the deceleration of the brick due to the spaghetti after it has started to break. Tell me if the brick is falling "too damn near the speed of free fall" when it crushes that spaghetti.

This kind of sloppy work does not set a good example for Mr. Chandler's students. Consequently, I suggest that Mr. Chandler be reassigned to teaching in the school's Video Arts and Drama program (where he's amply qualified) and stay away from teaching Physics and Mathematics.

I'll do what I can to see that Mr. Chandler, recieves this sage bit of advise.

Better yet, please invite him to the Free Speech Zone for a debate.   

[Free]

The fact that you had to stare so hard to see a "miniscule" difference is the main point!!

A miniscule difference is your only point.
A main point, not so much.

That presentation of data (from that video) is super-sensitive to how the line is drawn to fit the points. If it's drawn one way, it appears that buildings are falling without resistance (at the unrestricted acceleration of gravity). But if that somewhat arbitrary line is drawn slightly differently, then it appears that the buildings ARE falling with some resistance.

In other words, the data is inconclusive, and the lines can be drawn with a 4 pixel difference (2 pixels at each end) to produce an apparently different conclusion. That's not the kind of evidence that supports a conspiracy theory.

Please stop the insanity.
We aren't dealing with shaving the line one thousandths one way or the other.
This is more of a cognitive dissonance demonstration.
You find one little strand of distraction to hang your hat on, and you can ignore what your lying eyes are seeing.

[Free]

Try this experiment. Drill a small hole in a 2x4 and stand a single strand of dried spaghetti upright in that hole. Then film it with a video camera as you drop a brick on it. Tell me how accurately you can measure the deceleration of the brick due to the spaghetti after it has started to break. Tell me if the brick is falling "too damn near the speed of free fall" when it crushes that spaghetti.

You keep digging the hole deeper.
Couldn't come up with anything weaker than dried spaghetti to make such a non-sensical comparison?

I grew up on a farm in Missouri. I've never seen so much bulls...

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Warren,

Back on page 4 you wrote:

My question referred to known laws of physics that happen to have been altered on 9/11

Do you have any more proof of altered laws of physics other than that video? If not, and if you're not willing to put forth your own hypothesis, then I think there isn't much more to talk about. I'd like to move all of these topics (except maybe this one) to either the Free Speech Zone or the Mo Hawks forum. Which destination would you prefer? Either way, I'll leave a shadow topic in the main forum so people can find it.

I'll say again, that I do share your concerns about the government using 9/11 as an excuse to tighten its grip on our lives. But I think they're being opportunists in taking advantage of that unfortunate event rather than having directly caused it. I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, but I'll remind you that it's not the cause of the excuse that's the problem. The problem is that we tolerate our loss of freedom under any excuse.

[Free]

I'll say again, that I do share your concerns about the government using 9/11 as an excuse to tighten its grip on our lives. But I think they're being opportunists in taking advantage of that unfortunate event rather than having directly caused it. I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, but I'll remind you that it's not the cause of the excuse that's the problem. The problem is that we tolerate our loss of freedom under any excuse.

I'm glad we can agree on that.
Apathy and willful ignorance is a big problem leading to our downfall.
I've been screaming that message for a long time. People don't want to hear it.
I know I've pushed the envelope here. I don't know any better.
Sorry to have been so abrasive last night. I paid for it in poor sleep and I'm tired today.
I'm tired of pointing things out that people should be getting on their own.
Actually giving some thought to selling out and moving elsewhere to better enjoy the time that's left.
I've been 40 years old the last 20 years and now my bones tell me I'm really 60.