TOTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS

Thursday, March 01, 2007

In which blogger Ningen tutors Los Alamos' Dr. Jones on academic standards. Ningen's blog January 16, 2007:

"One of Jones' three main arguments in support of his "planes" thesis, which he presents as a rebuttal of the "no planes theory," is the deceleration argument, as follows:

An 18% deceleration of "Flight 175" during its impact with the South Tower, which Jones states can be observed in a video by Evan Fairbanks, is consistent with the expected loss of kinetic energy from such an impact as modeled by Tomasz Wierzbicki, Professor of Applied Mechanics in MIT's Department of Ocean Engineering and director of the department's Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory.

My criticism is that Jones does not address subsequent research done by Karim and Hoo Fatt who are on the engineering faculty at the University of Akron, and who address Wierzbicki's model in concluding that a much higher amount of kinetic energy would be lost in such an impact.

[...]

Both Jones and Salter should have disclosed and addressed this contradictory data that was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

I have now learned of other pertinent and contradictory data that was not disclosed by Jones and Salter, even though it was available 9-12 months before each of their publications.

NIST NCSTAR 1-5, pages 24-26, analyzes the Scott Myers video of "Flight 175" and concludes that the tail of "Flight 175" "did not slow as the aircraft entered the building."

I repeat: "the tail did not slow as the aircraft entered the building."

That means 0% deceleration, as opposed to the 18% found by Salter and cited by Jones.

Jones and Salter state that the plane decelerated 18% in support of their conclusion that the video of "Flight 175" is real, but do not disclose NIST's data and conclusion to the contrary.

Please click on the below JPEGs of three pages from NIST NCSTAR 1-5, pages 24, 25, and 26.

Read section 2.3.2, Estimated Aircraft Speed on the first page. It refers to Figure 2-7 on the second page, which is frames of the Scott Myers video on the second page. It also refers to Figure Figure 2-8 on the third page, which shows parallel lines of pixel location of the nose and tail over time, and which NIST says is evidence that the tail of "Flight 175" in the Scott Myers video "did not slow as it entered the building." [...]



Note that Jones used the lower graph in support of his "planes" thesis, as discussed here.

Thus, he cannot reasonably argue that he did not know about the upper graph on this page, which contradicts Salter's 18% deceleration result.

Note also that both of these results were obtained from NIST's analysis of the same Scott Myers video (the "stable video in section 2.3.3 of the above page of NIST text). How can Jones offer the second graph but not the first, without acknowledging the first graph and explaining why he thinks it is invalid?

At Journal of 9/11 Studies, Jones published a Power Point presentation, dated July 2006...

Jones cites the Scott Myers video as evidence that a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower:


[...]
In the page below, Jones cites an analysis of the Evan Fairbanks video by Eric Salter, who concludes that the video shows an 18% deceleration as "Flight 175" enters the South Tower...Jones fails to cite to the NIST study of the Scott Myers video that he used in the previous page, and which showed 0% deceleration as opposed to 18% deceleration. One can also see that he failed to disclose the Karim/Hoo Fatt study which found a 46% loss in initial kinetic energy from piercing the external columns alone, without considering the increased resistance of the external columns when backed by floors, without considering the resistance of the floors themselves, and without considering the resistance of the core columns.



Salter's 18% deceleration compared to Hoo Fatt's 46% kinetic energy loss (really much closer to 100% as I show in my paper) gives a drastically larger discrepancy that would not be "consistent with the data within allowable tolerances."

NIST's result compared to Hoo Fatt's data gives an even more drastic discrepancy, and that's without even considering the massive resistance of the floors and core columns found in Wierzbicki's paper,as Hoo Fatt looked only at the resistance of the external columns.

Jones' own reasoning is that the relationship between observed deceleration and modeled kinetic energy loss is important evidence of a video's authenticity or lack of authenticity.

Any one of these combinations proves that the videos of "Flight 175" slipping into the South Tower are falsified.

Given Jones' failure to disclose these results, he has no business stating that the "assertion . . . real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers . . . has been disproved by the evidence."

By his own reasoning, this assertion has been proved by the evidence that he fails to acknowledge.

I ask Steven Jones to be more careful in the future about academic standards, both in his own work and in his editing of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

-----

This is a slightly condensed version of an essay which can be found in full here. The most valuable conclusion to take away from this data is that in Ningen's first endnote, "It may be that neither the Scott Myers video nor the Evan Fairbanks video are authentic, or it may be that one but not the other is authentic." Thus the conclusion that TV fakery was a central component of the 9/11 psy-op is inescapble.

Labels: 9/11, tvfakery

| Posted at 20:54 | PERMA-LINK |

Comments:

Post a Comment