the force of gravity is, at most, a bit player in the annihilation of the WTC complex and it is absurd to assert otherwise.
Care to Comment
- Thread starter rsalinger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
the force of gravity is, at most, a bit player in the annihilation of the WTC complex and it is absurd to assert otherwise.
Thanks for telling us about the cue ball. I, however, am more interested in assessing the annihilation, in 11seconds, of the WTC Twin Towers. Gravity had next to nothing to do with those episodes of annihilation because gravity is too weak a force under the circumstances.
No there aren't. Kerosene based fires are not ever a problem for structural steel. Further, there was no fire at all below, at most, the 60th floor of each tower. Further, as to the amount of kerosene involved, it was less than enough to fill a BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL, and that is BEFORE THE DIMINUTION of the kerosene as seen in the exterior explosive event (which is all that actually happened) is factored into the supposition that kerosene (jet fuel) was involved.
Is there a point you are trying to make? If so make it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And, just in case everyone had forgotten, here it is again. I've taken the numbers from the table in Szamboti & McQueen, calculated the velocities using the balanced difference approach, and calculated the acceleration the same way.
There's a clearly visible jolt at 1.7 seconds, with an intensity of -0.8G, and another of about -0.5G at 2.3 seconds. Personally I think these are within the bounds of quantisation error, so I'm not convinced the apparent jolts are anything more than that; however, no genuine scientist could present the above data and seriously claim it proves the absence of any jolt. And, let me repeat, this is Tony Szamboti's data, and he's making that claim.
Dave
Oh, No!, not again. Have you still not learned that it is inappropriate to lay unsubstantiated claims to "lots of people" in the context of either what was heard, let alone what was seen on 9/11?
In fact, the witnesses actually say the annihilation of the towers was quiet, as it was heard to be in the available audio of that part of the event of 9/11.
Because it was quiet, it requires another form of explanation as to what destroyed the Twin Towers. The sound, yet again, is an important epistemological consideration in this aspect of 9/11 (annihilation of the towers) just as sound is important in ruling out the claim jetliners were involved.
The sound of the annihilation process is utterly inconsistent with a gravity driven destructive phase and is also troublesome for explanations based on explosives, however, explosives cannot be fully ruled out, in my opinion.
As posters know, I assert DEW destroyed the towers, but that is just by way of saying what I hold to be true and is not an essential element in the discussion of the excellent video that informs this thread. I do not care whether people disbelieve DEW. I do, however, assert here that gravity did not have much of anything at all to do with the annihilation seen to have taken place.
You need to complete your claim: None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence of a gravity-only annihilation either.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Your uninformed opinion on this topic is worthless. Try working out the gravitational potential energy of a single WTC tower, then explaining why this is a negligible amount of energy. Tall buildings are energetically unstable; this is a well-known fact of civil engineering. In other words, they are easily capable of annihilating themselves with nothing more than their own weight to do it, once their collapse is initiated.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You need to complete your claim: None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence of a gravity-only annihilation either.
Again, your uninformed opinion is worthless. All the noises consistent with a gravity-driven collapse initiated by fire and impact damage were heard and recorded on 9/11. Pretending otherwise does not constitute evidence.
Dave
That is correct.
What makes a Torquemada able to compel answers is that he will take actions (specifically, actions detrimental to you) if you do not answer.
Members here cannot do that.
But what they, along with journalists, prosecutors, politicians, heads of state, engineers, scientists, business leaders, historians, and the general public can do is not take actions (specifically, actions favorable to your beliefs) if you do not answer.
Have you noticed? Truthers do not answer the difficult critical questions about their claims, and no actions occur. Cause and effect. Or rather, lack of cause and lack of effect. No oars in the water, and the boat doesn't move. No shovels in the ground, and no well gets dug. No one can make you row. No one can make you dig. Your right to do nothing prevails. So nothing happens. Congratulations!
No published papers in peer reviewed journals. No rewriting of engineering textbooks. No "inside job" in history textbooks. No public executions. No prosecutions. No exposure of vast conspiracies or space-opera weapons programs. No civil judgments in your favor. No new investigations. No political shift in consensus. No labor union support. No favorable attention from the mainstream press. No grass roots swell of support. No riots, no marches, no demonstrations, no referenda.
So, here are more questions. You have every right to refuse to answer them, of course. Just keep in mind that by exercising that right, you necessarily indicate that you don't care whether anything ever actually happens or not:
Do you expect this situation to change? And if so, by what mechanism?
Respectfully,
Myriad
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Wait, what? So fire is not a problem for steel? Great. Someone tell every single engineer, fire safety expert, firefighter, and ifre proofing company that they are wrong.
Proof please? Thanks.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Cite your source please? I have seen a few describe as it being quieter than they expected.
I can show you many different quotes that say that it was very loud, or some variation of that.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Utter bollocks. The kerosene was just an accelerant to ignite paper and other Class A fuels which burn a hell of a lot hotter.
But kerosene is, itself, a hazard to steel. It burns hot enough to melt aluminum, which is far more than hot enough to make steel expand and crack its joints.
Freakin sunlight will lift raiolroad tracks off the ties if they do not have adequate expansion joints.
Have you ever seen a blacksmith hammering away at non-molten steel?
Or wondered why structural steel is insulated against the heat of a fire?
The steel that was softened by fire and caused the collapse were also the centre of the pile fire and therefore unlikely to survive for later identification.
Stundied. When things fall down, it has nothing to do with gravity? Awesome.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I have to wonder what he thinks fire-protection on structural members if for in the first place. Perhaps he thinks it's for thermite induced fires rather than kerosene accelerated fires?
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
You need to complete your claim: None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence of a gravity-only annihilation either.
Here you go.
Ignore away!
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
You repeated an idiotic and pathetic lie. Why should he have to prove anything? There were no FEMA guys there before the attack ready to roll. Your usual delusional and fantastical claims with no support.
Your claim was wrong, man up or do one.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
My bolding
.
.
.
Tony Szamboti Disputes Tony Szamboti's Claim Tony Szamboti Wrong Says Tony Szamboti
______________________________________________________
.
"Doesn't look like a straight line to me." - Stevie Wonder
______________________________________________________
.
"Doesn't look like a straight line to me." - Stevie Wonder
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
This response is even more laughable than your last. It appears that you don't know the difference between a change in acceleration, from a higher positive acceleration to a lower positive acceleration, from a deceleration.
There is no deceleration or visible jolt in that graph, only less positive acceleration at times. Although it varies, the acceleration remains positive at all times. To have an impulsive load and amplification, which is being called a jolt here, the upper section would need to decelerate and lose velocity. The fact that the acceleration is always positive shows the upper section is always gaining velocity, thus there was no impulsive load.
Anyone who understands what impulsive loading is could not possibly take these comments of yours seriously, as your comments here aren't just wrong, they are actually ignorant.
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Thats as stupid a Stundie as I have seen for a long time considering Tony is an "engineer". However. A dishonest liar like Tony does not deserve the nomination.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I'm trying to debate this point seriously. Honestly, I'm trying. But when confronted by idiotic garbage like this it's difficult. I've explained over and over again that, when a force less than mg acts on a falling body of mass m, the acceleration of that body is reduced but does not fall below zero. I've explained over and over again that the expected upward force on the upper block due to structural resistance is less than mg, and that therefore any negative peak in the acceleration would not fall below zero. And I've demonstrated that Tony Szamboti's data agrees, very clearly and very precisely, with this prediction; it has a negative peak which does not fall below zero. And all Tony can do is laugh at the fact that his own data proves him wrong. Such a level of ignorance and arrogance is extremely difficult to meet with anything other than ridicule. But I'll keep trying.
And I've also explained, again and again, that the tilt of the upper block results in the column-on-column impacts, if they occur at all (the discretisation error in the data is comparable with the peak height, so it's by no means certain that we're seeing anything other than discretisation noise here) will occur sequentially rather than simultaneously; this is obvious to anyone with the most rudimentary grasp of geometry. It's relatively simple to work out that, if the columns are capable of resisting three times the weight of the upper block, then even resting the lower block on a third or less will collapse that part of the structure. Anyone with the vaguest understanding of structural engineering should be able to deduce from this that no dynamic loading is needed for collapse propagation; a tilt alone will do it, and no force greater than mg will ever be exerted on the top block.
The level of irony here is a little difficult to cope with. Tony, you are not only ignorant, but deliberately and wilfully ignorant, and you're accusing everyone else on the forum of your own ignorance. We all understand your theory better than you do, and we can all see why it's groundless. And unless and until yo can overcome your quasi-religious, dogmatic inability to believe anything other than that every piece of evidence proves whatever hypothesis you want it to prove, you'll keep on going round in this same circle of proposing your long-refuted hypothesis, having it refuted again, then pretending that the people refuting it are the ones who don't understand it.
I suspect the rest of the world will get bored with it before you do.
Dave
I will address parts of the above post, starting with the question it asks:
Change in the status quo denial of the plain as day facts that 9/11 was a psyop involving deception (no planes) and high tech weaponry as the means of destruction (dew) is certain, in my opinion. The timing is uncertain. Like everyone else in existence now, I do not have any capacity at all accurately to predict future events, let alone shifts in public perception on the order of magnitude associated with the 9/11 event.
What I can, however, take note of is the anecdotal information provided by forums like this one, populated, as it were, by a super-landslide majority of people who self-identify as "debunkers" as per recent polling results:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=61749
Incidentally, while I cannot lay hands on a specific post right now, there have been several in different threads that have sought to engage me in the question of why do I post here in an environment where >90% oppose me.
While I may not choose to engage in responding to such questions, I have, nonetheless, posted several times that I am not here seeking to change anyone's beliefs; that people can hold onto their acquiescence in the common storyline of 9/11 for as long as they can; that it is understandable why people would choose to hold onto such beliefs; etc.
A recent example of posting along those lines was:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5996922&postcount=63
I understand that many view the exchanges we have as being primarily competitive in nature. What is interesting is that people here nearly always declare themselves right and me wrong. I am not here seeking to win or lose; much less be right or wrong. In fact you start your post with the words "That is correct." I don't think you'll find more than about a dozen posts in which something I have said has been acknowledged to be true, in the more than 1,200 posts I have made in this forum.
Likewise, between and amongst those who largely agree with each other, everyone is almost always right, no one is hardly ever wrong. In fact, it seems that people enjoy "preaching to the choir" as I see it. I suppose there are those who enjoy "shooting fish in a barrel" too, if you get my drift.
I am seeking solely and only to post up information for consideration and to draw proper and reasoned inferences and conclusions from that information.
The shift in public opinion will likely come about as a result of the following awareness:
More and more deadly 9/11 false-flag psyops will continue to occur for as long as what happened on 9/11 is ignored.
Therefore, when enough people learn that their own survival is in jeopardy by virtue of acquiescence in the existing structure that allows 9/11 psyops to be carried out, a change is likely to occur.
Does that answer your question, Myriad?
My question to you:
Would you agree that I normally post up sources for the claims that I make, unless I'm expressing an opinion, such as the opinion expressed here?
The above strikes me as being disingenuous. Inquisitional questioning, or what I call "20 questions" or "gotcha" are each processes that do not end until the word "false" or "liar" can be claimed. And, the most important factor to understand, is that the claim of "false" and the claim of "liar" can be predetermined by the control of the flow of questions.
You do know that to be true, don't you, Myriad?
Respectfully,
jammonius
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The tilt would not provide for the full mass of the upper section to act on just a third of the columns at a time. That is preposterous to even claim.
There needs to be impulsive loads and amplification to overcome the lower section column reserve strength and that requires deceleration. Whether the impacts are separate or all at once. There is none in either case. Your feigning that it isn't required is ridiculous.
Jonathan Cole, the professional engineer who made the video which is the subject of this thread, has the correct understanding of what is necessary for a natural collapse to propagate in a structure designed to handle at least several times the load above it. No other example bears out what you are trying to say and the Verinage demolitions refute what you are saying. You obviously don't understand or are knowingly attempting to proffer a surreal and incorrect explanation for your own reasons.
The reality is that the resistance was much less than mg at all times and it should have been many times more. There is only one explanation for that and it is removal of column strength prior to impact.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Are you the master of not answering tough questions or what? LOL
there is a reason why NOBODY listens to you. You just don't understand why.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Utter rubbish. There is absolutely no requirement that any impact coincides with any other impact. If you believe that the full mass cannot act on a third or less of the columns at any time, then you must invoke deformation of the upper block, in which case your entire analysis is irrelevant as it assumes that the motion of the entire upper block is characterised by the motion of a single fixed point on it. If, on the other hand, you believe your own assertion - which, let me remind you, you have very specifically defended in the past - that deformation of the upper block is negligible, then any impact involving the upper block must create a load path that transmits very nearly the entire weight of the upper block. Your analysis therefore rests entirely on two contradictory assumptions being simultaneously true.
Clearly not. The video demonstrates that he has a very poor grasp of simple physics, particularly in that he starts from a statement that is demonstrably untrue - that the impacting body decelerates in any collision, with no exceptions. Given that his ignorance of vector arithmetic is even poorer than yours, his expertise is hardly impressive.
Verinage demolitions are designed to minimise tilt. Tilt tends to eliminate jolt. The WTC collapses exhibited tilt. All this is entirely consistent.
Wrong. The only way for the lower structure to exert its entire strength is for all impacts to be column-on-column, axial and simultaneous. Any deviation from that impossibly ideal condition reduces the instantaneous force available, and any deviation as significant as a 2º tilt reduces it below mg. Your irreducible delusion, at the moment, is an inability to recognise that your entire theory rests on this appeal to perfection.
Dave
Last edited:
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
I guess some still don't.
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
“Acceleration can be positive or negative. When the acceleration is negative (but the velocity does not change direction), it is sometimes called deceleration. For example, when a car brakes it decelerates. “
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
from Dave Rogers chart above
Change in acceleration for the following :
Acceleration at 1.6 sec = 8 ft/sec2 minus
Acceleration at 1.3 sec = 31 ft/sec2 = - 23 ft/sec2 (change in acceleration from earlier to later time is negative)
Negative acceleration with positive velocity = deceleration
The deceleration is a decrease in acceleration and velocity.
“For example, when a car brakes it decelerates. “ Note that the car still has positive decreasing velocity yet it is decelerating.
Note that TS believes that a forward moving car needs to move backwards to decelerate.
TS's own data shows a deceleration in three places.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No, it doesn't. It's a chart of acceleration vs. time, not velocity vs. time. Acceleration is the second derivative; you're talking about the third derivative, which - for the sake of argument - we could refer to as jolt. What it does appear to show [1], given that the falling mass is experiencing a downward force of mg due to gravity, is that there is an upward force of about 0.7mg applied briefly at around 1.7s, and another of about 0.5mg at around 2.3s. The data therefore indicates the presence of a retarding force, which is exactly what Tony claims to be looking for and is unable to see [2].
Dave
[1] As I said earlier, the discretisation error is so high - about ±0.5g - that I'm not convinced this is a real difference.
[2] The ultimate irony, of course, is that Tony has written a paper drawing conclusions from the time dependence of the acceleration of the falling block, in which at no point does he actually calculate the instantaneous acceleration as a function of time; this graph is completely absent from his paper. Such a staggering level of incompetence is rarely seen outside the 9/11 truth movement, though of course it's pretty much the norm within it.
Last edited:
Not exactly. In Szamboti's data the acceleration (as well as the velocity) is always positive, unlike in a braking car in which the acceleration becomes negative (while the velocity remains positive). So calling the negative slopes decelerations is not accurate.
What becomes negative is the time derivative of acceleration. The time derivative of acceleration is usually called jolt or jerk. In this case the jolt is caused by forces in opposition to the force of gravity that is causing the acceleration.
The point is, the jolt is not missing, it is merely of insufficient duration and magnitude to reduce the acceleration to below zero. And the dynamics of the situation adequately predict that that will be the case.
Respectfully,
Myriad
ETA: Cross-posted but worth the repetition, for clarity; the physics involved here is elementary but not intuitively easy to understand.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
And here's the graph of velocities (not accelerations) calculated from Tony's own data using simple differencing:
Note the actual decrease in velocity at about 1.7 seconds.
Tony is denying that his own data show that decrease in velocity, while accusing all and sundry of incompetence because we don't understand why we're supposed to be upset about not seeing the deceleration that we do in fact see.
As Dave Rogers said (see below), the observed decrease in velocity at 1.7 seconds might just be measurement error combined with quantization error, but it's absurd for Tony to continue to claim his data show no evidence of a jolt.
Tony's use of balanced (symmetric) differencing hides the jolt, because balanced differencing is a form of smoothing that also degrades the resolution by a factor of two. Although there are legitimate reasons for using balanced differencing, its degraded resolution tends to hide any short-lived jolts that may be present in the unsmoothed data. In other words, Tony's data and analysis just aren't good enough to reveal the jolts he claims to be seeking. As consequence, he can't legitimately claim that his smoothed data show there is no jolt; even if there were a jolt (and his unsmoothed data show there does indeed appear to be a jolt), that jolt would be obscured by Tony's smoothing of data whose resolution was inadequate even before Tony began to manipulate it.
My bolding.
I won't comment on the truth of these matters, as the physics is a little beyond me. But I understand enough to be able to phrase a question, if only to test my own understanding.
Tony's graphs show velocity vs. time. The slope of these is a measure of acceleration (rate of change of velocity). He uses these to demonstrate a lack of "jolt".
However, "jolt" here is actually the rate of change of acceleration, yes? So others have used his own data to plot a graph of acceleration vs. time, the slope of which represents "jolt". This in fact does show periods where the rate of change of acceleration is indeed downwards.
When shown this Tony leaves rate of change of acceleration behind and decides to talk about rate of change of velocity instead. Which was totally not his point.
Is this a reasonable description of what's going on here?
Tony's graphs show velocity vs. time. The slope of these is a measure of acceleration (rate of change of velocity). He uses these to demonstrate a lack of "jolt".
However, "jolt" here is actually the rate of change of acceleration, yes? So others have used his own data to plot a graph of acceleration vs. time, the slope of which represents "jolt". This in fact does show periods where the rate of change of acceleration is indeed downwards.
When shown this Tony leaves rate of change of acceleration behind and decides to talk about rate of change of velocity instead. Which was totally not his point.
Is this a reasonable description of what's going on here?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Yes, that's a good point. If we calculate the velocity from single-point differences in position, and then the acceleration from single-point differences in velocity, we get a graph that looks like this:
This tells us two quite interesting things.
Firstly, note that all the points have values of approximately 64, 32, 0 or -32 (or +2G, +1G, 0G or -1G). This is because the raw data doesn't have enough resolution to give any values in between these numbers. Therefore, the best possible information that can be obtained from the raw data - assuming no experimental errors at all - is that the average acceleration is about -1G, 0, +1G or +2G. Clearly a result of +2G is impossible; we can see therefore that there's a significant amount of measurement error as well. Overall it appears that these numbers have a spread of at least ±1G of acceleration; in other words, if the acceleration calculated from the data is 1G, then all we know about the real acceleration at that point is that it's somewhere in a range going from zero to 2G, or possibly more.
Secondly, note that the lowest point is actually below zero; it's showing a measured deceleration of 1G. Add our measurement error of at least ±1G, and we have at that point a possible maximum deceleration of 2G, or possibly more. Since the downward force due to gravity is mg, and Tony Szamboti claims a safety factor of 3, then the net force on the upper block for his hypothetical perfect impact is 3mg - mg = 2mg, giving an upward deceleration of 2G. The raw data cannot rule out a jolt of the exact size that Tony claims not to see! The only reason he doesn't see it is that he's smoothing his data.
Quite simply, his data analysis is appallingly bad. He seems to understand nothing about experimental errors or the effects of data smoothing; indeed, he seems unaware of whether he's smoothing his data at all!
Dave
MattTheTubaGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 261
Gravity is a weak force? right.
So is the Coriolis force, but it is the most important force in weather patterns.
Gravity may be weak compared to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, but for large scales, gravity overpowers the rest of them. the twin towers were very big buildings, so gravity exerts a very large force on them. that is why big buildings are a lot more expensive to build than smaller ones. if you got a 30 floor building, and scaled the structure up to a 60 floor building, then the mass is going to be 8 times larger, but the area of a cross section through the structure would only be 4 times as large, so the total force on any particular piece is going to be twice as big, so to scale a structure up properly by a factor of two, the structure needs to be twice the size, and twice the strength, or eight times the cross sectional area.
another thing to remember is that force = mass*acceleration.
Gravity is an acceleration, not a force, so the bigger the mass, the bigger the force involved. there was a lot of mass in the twin towers, so of course there is going to be a lot of force involved.
I am half way through a uni degree in physics, so I kind of know what I am talking about (unlike some other people, who have no idea what they are talking about)
So is the Coriolis force, but it is the most important force in weather patterns.
Gravity may be weak compared to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, but for large scales, gravity overpowers the rest of them. the twin towers were very big buildings, so gravity exerts a very large force on them. that is why big buildings are a lot more expensive to build than smaller ones. if you got a 30 floor building, and scaled the structure up to a 60 floor building, then the mass is going to be 8 times larger, but the area of a cross section through the structure would only be 4 times as large, so the total force on any particular piece is going to be twice as big, so to scale a structure up properly by a factor of two, the structure needs to be twice the size, and twice the strength, or eight times the cross sectional area.
another thing to remember is that force = mass*acceleration.
Gravity is an acceleration, not a force, so the bigger the mass, the bigger the force involved. there was a lot of mass in the twin towers, so of course there is going to be a lot of force involved.
I am half way through a uni degree in physics, so I kind of know what I am talking about (unlike some other people, who have no idea what they are talking about)
Why are you anti-science? Oops, if you had a rational use of science your delusions would dustify!
LOL, you have no idea what physics is or how to use it.
E=mgh
This simple formula is the energy in the WTC. The energy released during collapse due to the WTC mass, the WTC height and gravity is more energy than that of 200 2,000 pound bombs.
Gravity was the major player in the collapse of the WTC; you are wrong again. Got Physics?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,911
I don't know either, but I always tell them that if they have a problem with the policies set out by the IBC then they really need to confront whoever writes it, since they obviously need a taste of reality about why the codes are enforced in the first place.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
What an inaccurate load of conjecture you are showing here.
If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that the basis for saying there was no deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper section is that there was no measureable velocity loss during the time it would take the velocity to recover to what it was pre-impact, over a significant period where 4 data points were taken.
You are introducing more noise here by taking a second derivative and then trying to extrapolate that a 2g deceleration could be missed. The problem for your point is that it isn't necessary to take a second derivative and it is less precise than the first derivative, which shows very clearly that there was no velocity loss.
Any small error in the symmetric differentiation of the distance vs. time of those four data points in the velocity recovery period would not possibly allow one to say a velocity loss was being smoothed out. Another proof for this is the Verinage demolitions. The same methodology used there shows a deceleration and velocity loss in every one of them. Nothing was smoothed out in any of those measurements.
Keep trying Dave. I was wondering today if you have a job other than posting on this forum. Do you?
Last edited: