North Tower Acceleration

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. have you watched Chandler's video?

Chandler says, "as long as the top section of the building is in uniform downward acceleration, it cannot possibly be providing sufficient force to destroy the building."

But has Chandler proven that the top section of the building is in uniform downward acceleration? Hell, no. His points don't even form a straight line, although they're pretty close. (Of course Chandler imposed that line; if you connected different dots, you'd get a different line. Again, fact, not opinion.)

If Seger estimated Chandler's measurement error, you would say that was just opinion -- and you might even be right. But if you construe that those points are pretty much in a straight line, then you can start to get a feel for the problem by sketching (or imagining) lines connecting each pair of adjacent dots. For instance, in the screen shot I just took, one circle is about 14 pixels below the one to its left, and about 32 pixels above the one to its right. So, one line will be about twice as steep as the other.

For Chandler, apparently, an apparent doubling in acceleration is within the range of measurement error -- and it probably is. I'm certainly not convinced that the actual acceleration of his reference point changed in that fraction of a second; maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But if an apparent doubling in acceleration is within measurement error, then how could anyone say that the top section (or even his reference point) is in uniform downward acceleration?