Originally Posted by
Gamolon
”If I look at the individual points in Chandler's graph I posted not posted above, I see both an increase and decrease between plotted points.
Is Tony ignoring the fact that at some points the roofline SLOWED down compared to some of the previous plotted points?
Is this why he and others insists on using the AVERAGE of those points in order to avoid the truth hidden in the graph?
Originally Posted by
Criteria
And what possible significance can you place on extremely minor measurement variations recorded for that non-laboratory timed event, which had a total span of only a few seconds?
Originally Posted by
Dave Rogers
Ask Tony. He's the one claiming that the absence of these minor variations is evidence of explosives, despite the fact that he can see them right under his nose.
As usual, he's pretending evidence isn't there because he thinks it weakens his case if he admits it exists.
Dave
Originally Posted by
Criteria
I’ve looked through this thread and have not found any post by Mr. Szamboti that matches your spin.
Originally Posted by
Dave Rogers
Well, the best way not to find what you don't want to find is not to look all that hard.
Originally Posted by
Tony Szamboti
Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.
Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start.
Originally Posted by
Dave Rogers
Whereas we actually see (a) the building has an initial, and apparently significant, period of constant velocity fall, and (b) the acceleration appears on the graph to vary quite considerably rather than being "in free fall right from the start”.
Sorry about all the re-quoting but the context is important. The original poster Gamolon, failed to include the graph he was referring to. I presumed he was talking about the primary data points, and particularly those that clearly showed the seconds of freefall.
Mr. Szamboti explained that the program was placed in run mode before Mr. Chandler starts the video. The video was parked at the point closest to where WTC7 began to drop. The data that you and Gamolon are so intrigued by is just the program free-running while it awaits the change from FREEZE to PLAY of the incoming video.

The magenta vertical line shows the start point where the video went into PLAY.
Originally Posted by
Criteria
What I see are plot variations which are so minor, that they are not worthy of consideration.
There are certainly no time deviations dramatic enough to suggest that WTC7 was meeting enough resistance to argue against freefall.
Originally Posted by
Dave Rogers
It's painfully obvious from the graph that Tony's claims about what the graph says are wrong. As usual with Tony's lies, he doesn't actually need to tell them, because they don't help his case; but he lied, not about the actual movement of WTC7, but about what the graph shows.
You clearly do not have a clue as to how the Physics Toolkit software functions.
I know it would pain you to do so, but I suggest you watch his video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkqL...Q&spfreload=10
Start around 10:10.
Originally Posted by
Criteria
Surely Mr. Rogers you are not back to disputing both Mr. Szamboti and the NIST regarding the proof that WTC7 sustained 8 storeys of freefall?
The fact that you reached the above conclusion from a statement that basically agreed with a part of your original point, specifically that the later deviations from linearity are not significant, indicates that you don't have the faintest clue what's going on here. I don't feel like explaining it to you yet, so please give me a good laugh with your next statement of indignant misunderstanding.
Dave
ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks![/quote]
Even the NIST was forced to agree with the free fall conclusion derived from that chart. You should be embarrassed by your lack of understanding Mr. Rogers.