12-01-2012, 03:36 PM
From a meta analysis perspective we might step back and observe what is going on with those leading the truth movement... and providing what they claim is evidence and analysis.
How can a someone... or a group of researchers exemplify sound logic and science in their study of one set of observations and show almost the opposite in another? Should this cause is to question the credibility of both the scientists/researcher and their work/findings?
It appears that many in the truth movement have lined up behind Chandler explanations of the destruction of the WTC based on some of his work... such as the trace of the descent of the facade of bldg 7 during the first 2.25 seconds of movement visible to the naked eye. This trace revealed that the descent was at free fall acceleration indicating that there was no resistance to it's fall. NIST was caught in a deception of not noting or accounting for this observation... and in fact being deceptive by starting the clock sooner, thus extending the duration of the movement which would hide the period of free fall descent. They were caught red handed by Chandler.
However the observations of what was taking place were much more complex and nuanced than simply the 2.25 second observation of the descent of the facade. And the conclusions drawn may have been incomplete or hasty... as it later turned out when other scientists looked in great detail at bldg 7 during its destruction. For example, careful observations revealed the following about bldg 7:
There was movement of the tower.. swaying back and forth for several seconds before the easily unaided eye observations of the downward movement.
There was the the observation of the descent of the East penthouse before the observations of the downward movement of the facade. This can both be seen as the East penthouse disappears *into* the roof and as its descent is telegraphed in the distortions of reflections on the facade windows. The East penthouse descent is evidence that something happened INSIDE the building before we observe the descent Chandler measured.
We observe various distortion of the facade/curtail wall descends... There is a marked inward bowing if the entire norith facade. The extend of this strongly suggests that there was nothing behind it to restrain it and maintain the facade in a flat plane as the structural system including the floors would do. The seems to indicate that there was nothing behind the facade/curtain wall during the observed descent. Some might see this as a dipping in the center of the entire facade... but had this been the distortion of the facade/curtain wall... the glass would have all shattered as the frames were distorted from rectangles to parallelograms. Inward bowing would allow the frames to remain rectalinear which the frames themselves *hinged* / rotated inward. Careful measured observations indicate that the entire shape of the facade/curtain was was twisting and torquing... being distorted as it descended.
The implications of the above observations and data.. is that what we are directly observing is the movement of the facade / curtain wall ONLY and not the entire building coming down. Yes the facade/curtain wall did descend at FF for 2.25 seconds....meaning it was not resisted and that whatever had held it up/in place was no longer there. But if the inside of the building was gone... before the observed facade/curtain wall movent we need to revise the statement that the BUILDING was decending at free fall to the FACADE / CURTAIN wall was descending at FF for 2.25 seconds.
This does not mean that there wasn't a controlled demolition INSIDE the tower. Something caused the *guts* of the tower to collapse or be destroyed leaving the facade/curtain wall with no support. We need to figure out what it was... And we need to use the best and most precise observations and science to inform our understanding.
My sense is that Chandler was very hasty in reaching the CD conclusion... only one possibility... however likely. He doesn't even discuss what's happening inside... leaps ahead to conclude the structure was CDed...because we see the facade drop at free fall acceleration.
The of course he takes this perspective and it filters all his other reports / observations. He seems to then be looking for the signs of CD instead of describing the observations (accurately please) and what forces explain them... and then propose what could have released or caused those forces. Chandler has led to way to looking for evidence to support a CD conclusion and most truthers seem to follow his lead. I am not impressed with his scientific rigor... but he did catch NIST is a big lie.
The best case that something is fishy is that the OCT is not credible and full of lies, deception and junk science. So we know that the government and the media lap dogs are peddling a cover story. We can't conclude this is cover FOR the government, or parts of it... or perhaps something else... like a coup d'etat which leaves the government in place but pulls all the strings (somehow) behind the scenes. So instead of the coups we are familiar with in say South America... there is the sort of coup which holds the existing government hostage and gets it to enact their policies they want... I am not proposing this as much as I am stating that it could be a possibility and would mean that it might not have been a MIHOP or even a LIHOP.
It's just hard to know but it's easy to create scenarios...
How can a someone... or a group of researchers exemplify sound logic and science in their study of one set of observations and show almost the opposite in another? Should this cause is to question the credibility of both the scientists/researcher and their work/findings?
It appears that many in the truth movement have lined up behind Chandler explanations of the destruction of the WTC based on some of his work... such as the trace of the descent of the facade of bldg 7 during the first 2.25 seconds of movement visible to the naked eye. This trace revealed that the descent was at free fall acceleration indicating that there was no resistance to it's fall. NIST was caught in a deception of not noting or accounting for this observation... and in fact being deceptive by starting the clock sooner, thus extending the duration of the movement which would hide the period of free fall descent. They were caught red handed by Chandler.
However the observations of what was taking place were much more complex and nuanced than simply the 2.25 second observation of the descent of the facade. And the conclusions drawn may have been incomplete or hasty... as it later turned out when other scientists looked in great detail at bldg 7 during its destruction. For example, careful observations revealed the following about bldg 7:
There was movement of the tower.. swaying back and forth for several seconds before the easily unaided eye observations of the downward movement.
There was the the observation of the descent of the East penthouse before the observations of the downward movement of the facade. This can both be seen as the East penthouse disappears *into* the roof and as its descent is telegraphed in the distortions of reflections on the facade windows. The East penthouse descent is evidence that something happened INSIDE the building before we observe the descent Chandler measured.
We observe various distortion of the facade/curtail wall descends... There is a marked inward bowing if the entire norith facade. The extend of this strongly suggests that there was nothing behind it to restrain it and maintain the facade in a flat plane as the structural system including the floors would do. The seems to indicate that there was nothing behind the facade/curtain wall during the observed descent. Some might see this as a dipping in the center of the entire facade... but had this been the distortion of the facade/curtain wall... the glass would have all shattered as the frames were distorted from rectangles to parallelograms. Inward bowing would allow the frames to remain rectalinear which the frames themselves *hinged* / rotated inward. Careful measured observations indicate that the entire shape of the facade/curtain was was twisting and torquing... being distorted as it descended.
The implications of the above observations and data.. is that what we are directly observing is the movement of the facade / curtain wall ONLY and not the entire building coming down. Yes the facade/curtain wall did descend at FF for 2.25 seconds....meaning it was not resisted and that whatever had held it up/in place was no longer there. But if the inside of the building was gone... before the observed facade/curtain wall movent we need to revise the statement that the BUILDING was decending at free fall to the FACADE / CURTAIN wall was descending at FF for 2.25 seconds.
This does not mean that there wasn't a controlled demolition INSIDE the tower. Something caused the *guts* of the tower to collapse or be destroyed leaving the facade/curtain wall with no support. We need to figure out what it was... And we need to use the best and most precise observations and science to inform our understanding.
My sense is that Chandler was very hasty in reaching the CD conclusion... only one possibility... however likely. He doesn't even discuss what's happening inside... leaps ahead to conclude the structure was CDed...because we see the facade drop at free fall acceleration.
The of course he takes this perspective and it filters all his other reports / observations. He seems to then be looking for the signs of CD instead of describing the observations (accurately please) and what forces explain them... and then propose what could have released or caused those forces. Chandler has led to way to looking for evidence to support a CD conclusion and most truthers seem to follow his lead. I am not impressed with his scientific rigor... but he did catch NIST is a big lie.
The best case that something is fishy is that the OCT is not credible and full of lies, deception and junk science. So we know that the government and the media lap dogs are peddling a cover story. We can't conclude this is cover FOR the government, or parts of it... or perhaps something else... like a coup d'etat which leaves the government in place but pulls all the strings (somehow) behind the scenes. So instead of the coups we are familiar with in say South America... there is the sort of coup which holds the existing government hostage and gets it to enact their policies they want... I am not proposing this as much as I am stating that it could be a possibility and would mean that it might not have been a MIHOP or even a LIHOP.
It's just hard to know but it's easy to create scenarios...