Re: Any mathematicians amongst us?

On Dec 7, 12:11 pm, "Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@xxxxxx> wrote:
"Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@xxxxxx> wrote in message

news:vpXZk.100912$_03.7912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



.....
In the video that started this thread, about 4:18 into the video, it is
shown that the NIST final report says "Assuming that the descent speed was
approximately constant, ...". As the speaker in the video says, and as
any, even untrained, person can see from the video, this assumption is
clearly false. To me, a carefully prepared report that errs in such basics
is not reliable.

I have now taken some more time with this matter, and the case appears to be
this:

The NIST report towards which the critique on the video is directed, is
marked "Draft for Public Comment". The final report, published a few weeks
later, does not contain the above irrelevant and false assumption (a person
who has passed high school physics would not have put it there in the first
place).

Both the final NIST report and the critique of it by Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth have the mathematics and physics right in this particular
issue (free fall or not). Their disagreement is about the duration of the
collapse, as visible on the video: NIST says the duration is 5.4 seconds;
A&E says it is 3.87 seconds. This latter value would indicate free,
unobstructed fall. Both sides have published the criteria by which they
determine the duration of the collapse, and I am not in a position to say
which one is correct.

If someone wishes to form his/her opinion on the basis of primary data, here
are a couple of pointers:

The Final NIST Report on WTC7 collapse:http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf(10 MB)
For details, this report refers to another one. To form an opinion on the
"free fall or not" issue, details from this report are needed.http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf(46 MB)

Comments about the Draft version of the report by A&E and others:http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Quite interesting reading, IMO.

Matti P.

Matti thanks for those links, I shot off my last reply to you before I
read through the last link. I through the Public Comments on WTC 7
Draft Reports.

This part was interesting.......

NIST omitted from the Report information relating to foreknowledge by
several groups of people that WTC 7 was going to collapse
Such knowledge is highly significant in light of the facts that (a) no
steel framed skyscraper in history (indeed, NIST says, "no tall
building" in history) had ever before collapsed from fire alone; and
(b) the collapse, according to NIST, was the result of a series of
accidental and unpredictable factors, which did not come together in
such a way as to determine the fate of the building until minutes, or
possibly even seconds, before the collapse took place.
NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC's collapse
by implying:

(a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the damage to the building caused
by the collapse of WTC 1 and rationally concluded that WTC 7 might
collapse.

From NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.16:

"The emergency responders quickly recognized that WTC 7 had been
damaged by the collapse of WTC 1...

As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY recognized that there was no water coming
out of the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With
the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern
that WTC 7 too might collapse..."

(b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw the damage to the building
and concluded it might collapse, passing on this assessment to others
(Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen
on CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario, Aug. 25, 2008)

It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some
firefighters and led a few of them (about seven) to worry that the
building might collapse, but the great majority (approximately 50) who
were worried about collapse did not base this worry on what they
perceived but on what they were told. (See Graeme MacQueen, "Waiting
for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories",
Journal of 9/11 Studies, June 11, 2008) Moreover, while it is
apparently also true that an engineer communicated his opinion, early
in the day, that the building might collapse, neither this
communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to
explain the evidence of foreknowledge that we possess.

Below are seven reasons why the above NIST explanations of
foreknowledge are inadequate. One example is given to illustrate each
of the seven reasons. More details can be found in the paper by Graeme
MacQueen titled "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the
FDNY Oral Histories" published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven...).

1. Certainty
To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one
thing; but to be certain that it will collapse is another. Detailed
study of the accounts of the FDNY shows that over half of those who
received warnings of WTC 7's collapse (where degree of certainty can
be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with
certainty that it was coming down. (The figures are: 31 out of 58. See
"Waiting for Seven".)

2. Early announcement
If someone was observing the fires in WTC 7 and was able to determine,
in the last few moments of the building's existence, that a peculiar
set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that
would be one thing; but to receive warnings of the building's collapse
well before this set of circumstances was in place raises far more
suspicions. Yet a detailed study of the FDNY reports show that of the
33 cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases
warnings were received two or more hours in advance and in six cases
warnings were apparently received four of more hours in advance. (See
"Waiting for Seven.") In other words, long, long before the unique set
of circumstances had come together to cause the building's collapse,
the collapse was being spoken of widely.

3. Precision
If the collapse warnings derived from vague worries and concerns they
would not have been precise. No building had come down from these
causes before, and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC
1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled
demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11,
speaking of one of the Towers, "Any time I've heard of a collapse, it
was never an entire building like this turned out to be." (See
"Waiting for Seven.") Yet, despite the rareness of complete collapse,
many people apparently knew in advance that WTC 7 would be undergoing
such a collapse. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:

Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "You were still there?"
A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going
to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand."
Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that
building came down?"
A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on
point, the cloud stopped right there." (See "Waiting for Seven.")

4. New information
If the collapse warnings derived from worries and concerns expressed
early in the day by engineers and firefighters, why would the collapse
of WTC 7 have been reported by CNN (one hour and 10 minutes in
advance) and BBC (23 minutes in advance) as breaking news based on
just received information? CNN anchor Aaron Brown said "We are getting
information now." CNN anchor Judy Woodruff: "We're hearing for the
first time" (See Appendix.) BBC anchor: "We've got some news just
coming in".

5. Premature announcement
CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or
that it might collapse; they prematurely announced its actual
collapse.

CNN's Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the
collapse: "We are getting information now that one of the other
buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire
and has either collapsed or is collapsing..."
BBC anchor, 23 minutes before the collapse: "the Salomon Brothers
Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also
collapsed."
No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming about these premature
announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to these
announcers.

6. Continuity
The BBC continued to announce that WTC 7 had collapsed, even when the
building could be seen standing directly behind reporter Jane
Standley, for about 17 minutes until the story was pulled abruptly.

.