04-01-2012, 10:43 AM
I suppose what Lynn did was look at what was presented to her as evidence. I suspect this is pat of the problem I have with some who use their brains well... they accept the *evidence* statements that others make... and do not vet them, verify, or test them. However based on what they believe is sound evidence they reach a logical conclusion. I believe that not only is the very common but it is understandable because we all can't verify, vet, test and do fundamental research about most things. We simply accept what some *expert* says.
An example might be the duration of the collapse/destruction of the twin towers. For one thing it is quite difficult to fix the end of the event... because it was shrouded in a dust cloud. Also the core stood very several seconds after the floors were gone... is this considered when duration is taken into account? How do we know that there was acceleration of the collapse destruction? Obviously there was acceleration since the movement began from 0 velocity. But when we drive, for example, we start at 0 velocity... accelerate to say 40 mph and then drive at that constant speed until we come to a traffic signal and then decelerate to 0. Most of the duration of the journey was at 40 mph... the average was lower...there were periods of acceleration and deceleration. To describe the motion we need to have a detailed time/distance study.
And in the case of the towers collapse time/distance studies have been done for portions of the destruction where it was possible. Those studies reveal the the motion was NOT accelerating but moving at 65 mph. If this is true can we assume that the the velocity stayed constant or accelerated or slowed down for the parts we can't see which were obscured by fall debris? Don't know.
But we shouldn't be stating that the towers collapsed at *close to free fall* acceleration... because that is not an accurate statement... that is not a fact, and therefore it can't be used as *evidence* of some process. Whatever the behavior of the parts of the building as it came apart is or would be evidence of what was going on. But we need to have real data before we can interpret the meaning of it.
My sense is that many people are not looking at real data derived from the visual record and instead taking conclusions more from assumptions that facts and data.
Another example is the collapse of bldg 7. There was a period of 2.25 seconds which was clocked at free fall acceleration. But what was actually clocked at that rate? The FACADE of the building... we can't tell if the entire bulk of the building was dropping at that rate because we are only looking at the skin... the curtain wall of the building. YES THAT is dropping at FF for 2.25 seconds... THAT had nothing below it to resist its descent. But that was not RESTING on any columns. There is some visual evidence to strongly suggest that there was actually nothing behind and attached to the curtain wall facade when it cam down. For one, we saw the east Penthouse drop down BEFORE the facade moved downward. This implies that the portions beneath the East penthouse were *gone* and so at least that portion was gutted or *not there*. Secondly as we see the collapse we observe an inward bowing of the curtain wall... and a distortion of it as well. This too, suggests that there was nothing behind the curtain wall to support it... and that what we saw was not the building collapsing, but the curtain wall collapsing. Regardless we need to explain how the floors, and structure of the building collapsed before the facade... But we need to begin with accurate observations and data... not sloppy conclusions that the building was descending at FF for 2.25 seconds... when the observation was that the facade was descending at 2.25 seconds at FF. If we don't use accurate observations we can't expect to understand what we are seeing.
Neither of the above examples means that the collapses were natural events. We don't know. But framed as we often hear is really unsound conclusions and sloppy science... and it's deceptive... and nothing more than garbage in equals garbage out.
Lynn should know better. Trust but verify... I see trust... but I don't see any verification.
An example might be the duration of the collapse/destruction of the twin towers. For one thing it is quite difficult to fix the end of the event... because it was shrouded in a dust cloud. Also the core stood very several seconds after the floors were gone... is this considered when duration is taken into account? How do we know that there was acceleration of the collapse destruction? Obviously there was acceleration since the movement began from 0 velocity. But when we drive, for example, we start at 0 velocity... accelerate to say 40 mph and then drive at that constant speed until we come to a traffic signal and then decelerate to 0. Most of the duration of the journey was at 40 mph... the average was lower...there were periods of acceleration and deceleration. To describe the motion we need to have a detailed time/distance study.
And in the case of the towers collapse time/distance studies have been done for portions of the destruction where it was possible. Those studies reveal the the motion was NOT accelerating but moving at 65 mph. If this is true can we assume that the the velocity stayed constant or accelerated or slowed down for the parts we can't see which were obscured by fall debris? Don't know.
But we shouldn't be stating that the towers collapsed at *close to free fall* acceleration... because that is not an accurate statement... that is not a fact, and therefore it can't be used as *evidence* of some process. Whatever the behavior of the parts of the building as it came apart is or would be evidence of what was going on. But we need to have real data before we can interpret the meaning of it.
My sense is that many people are not looking at real data derived from the visual record and instead taking conclusions more from assumptions that facts and data.
Another example is the collapse of bldg 7. There was a period of 2.25 seconds which was clocked at free fall acceleration. But what was actually clocked at that rate? The FACADE of the building... we can't tell if the entire bulk of the building was dropping at that rate because we are only looking at the skin... the curtain wall of the building. YES THAT is dropping at FF for 2.25 seconds... THAT had nothing below it to resist its descent. But that was not RESTING on any columns. There is some visual evidence to strongly suggest that there was actually nothing behind and attached to the curtain wall facade when it cam down. For one, we saw the east Penthouse drop down BEFORE the facade moved downward. This implies that the portions beneath the East penthouse were *gone* and so at least that portion was gutted or *not there*. Secondly as we see the collapse we observe an inward bowing of the curtain wall... and a distortion of it as well. This too, suggests that there was nothing behind the curtain wall to support it... and that what we saw was not the building collapsing, but the curtain wall collapsing. Regardless we need to explain how the floors, and structure of the building collapsed before the facade... But we need to begin with accurate observations and data... not sloppy conclusions that the building was descending at FF for 2.25 seconds... when the observation was that the facade was descending at 2.25 seconds at FF. If we don't use accurate observations we can't expect to understand what we are seeing.
Neither of the above examples means that the collapses were natural events. We don't know. But framed as we often hear is really unsound conclusions and sloppy science... and it's deceptive... and nothing more than garbage in equals garbage out.
Lynn should know better. Trust but verify... I see trust... but I don't see any verification.