Some reasoned argument desperately required

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Lausten » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:39 pm

Lausten wrote:There are no "sides" here
djbmw wrote:Really? It doesn't look that way.
Do you consider "young earth creationists" another "side" of the evolution debate?

There is physics and authoritative data that can be explained by experts in the relevant fields. And there are truthers. Those aren't "sides".
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:32 pm

Do you consider "young earth creationists" another "side" of the evolution debate?
In a way yes. Just because one side has science to back it up and the other does not doesn't mean that they are not opposing sides of an argument.
There is physics and authoritative data that can be explained by experts in the relevant fields. And there are truthers. Those aren't "sides".
Yet in online debates in seems as if people take sides. That is why the two academic papers I cited compare 'truthers' and 'debunkers'.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by JO 753 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:08 am

I agree that just kuz sientists andor the relevant officialz are claiming sumthing duznt mean its true. I try to go by lojik and facts to see wich 'side' iz making more sense.

Usually in big newz casez, its very eazy to tell the differens between reazonable explanationz and wakko conspirasy theoryz. The first clue iz that its a big story kuz thoze alwayz bring out the wakkoz. Maybe youv seen the other topic here about the newz crew shooting? You dont hear much about zoning ordinans conspirasyz, even tho they are real, common and important.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Lausten » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:37 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Do you consider "young earth creationists" another "side" of the evolution debate?
In a way yes. Just because one side has science to back it up and the other does not doesn't mean that they are not opposing sides of an argument.
There is physics and authoritative data that can be explained by experts in the relevant fields. And there are truthers. Those aren't "sides".
Yet in online debates in seems as if people take sides. That is why the two academic papers I cited compare 'truthers' and 'debunkers'.
Okay, you don't understand what science is, that's fine, lots of people don't. Start here.

"just because one side has science" is a nonsensical phrase. The scientific method is something you agree to use if you have a difference of opinion. It's a way to independently interpret data. Everyone shows their work and if the results don't match, experiments are repeated or new ones are devised until everyone is satisfied. It is not only accurate, it is a peaceful way of resolving conflicts.

I agree it "seems as if people take sides", but that has nothing to do with determining the truth.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:37 pm

"just because one side has science" is a nonsensical phrase. The scientific method is something you agree to use if you have a difference of opinion. It's a way to independently interpret data. Everyone shows their work and if the results don't match, experiments are repeated or new ones are devised until everyone is satisfied. It is not only accurate, it is a peaceful way of resolving conflicts
I agree with all this except for the first sentence. I agree that science is often an excellent method of resolving differences of opinion but a) it is not the only method, b) it is more appropriate in some contexts than others, c) not every scientific theory is valid d) the validity of many theories is expressed as a probability that the results are different from chance.

The relevance of a & b is that science is not always the best method of resolving differences of opinion. For example it is not very good at aesthetic value judgements such as whether a work of art is good or not. The relevance of c & d is that having science on your side does not automatically make you right.

Btw I am a huge fan of the scientific method and have a Ph.D in cognitive neuroscience so I have a pretty good understanding of the scientific method, hypothetico-deductive logic, Popperian epistemology etc

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28044
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:18 pm

What's with the sudden onset of quoting difficulties, djembeweaver. You did so well in the beginning? :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Lausten » Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:39 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
"just because one side has science" is a nonsensical phrase. The scientific method is something you agree to use if you have a difference of opinion. It's a way to independently interpret data. Everyone shows their work and if the results don't match, experiments are repeated or new ones are devised until everyone is satisfied. It is not only accurate, it is a peaceful way of resolving conflicts
I agree with all this except for the first sentence. I agree that science is often an excellent method of resolving differences of opinion but a) it is not the only method, b) it is more appropriate in some contexts than others, c) not every scientific theory is valid d) the validity of many theories is expressed as a probability that the results are different from chance.

The relevance of a & b is that science is not always the best method of resolving differences of opinion. For example it is not very good at aesthetic value judgements such as whether a work of art is good or not. The relevance of c & d is that having science on your side does not automatically make you right.

Btw I am a huge fan of the scientific method and have a Ph.D in cognitive neuroscience so I have a pretty good understanding of the scientific method, hypothetico-deductive logic, Popperian epistemology etc
I don't care what credentials you have, you're spouting some major BS. You started this post with a question about a physical building that fell in real time, now you're rambling on about theories that aren't proven and discussions about atheism. You used that phrase "science on your side" again as if it meant something. What does that mean to you other than "I don't like your facts so I'll make up my own"?

If you think there are alternative methods of resolving this, propose one. So far you only used the argumentum ad populum.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:59 pm

Lausten wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
"just because one side has science" is a nonsensical phrase. The scientific method is something you agree to use if you have a difference of opinion. It's a way to independently interpret data. Everyone shows their work and if the results don't match, experiments are repeated or new ones are devised until everyone is satisfied. It is not only accurate, it is a peaceful way of resolving conflicts
I agree with all this except for the first sentence. I agree that science is often an excellent method of resolving differences of opinion but a) it is not the only method, b) it is more appropriate in some contexts than others, c) not every scientific theory is valid d) the validity of many theories is expressed as a probability that the results are different from chance.

The relevance of a & b is that science is not always the best method of resolving differences of opinion. For example it is not very good at aesthetic value judgements such as whether a work of art is good or not. The relevance of c & d is that having science on your side does not automatically make you right.

Btw I am a huge fan of the scientific method and have a Ph.D in cognitive neuroscience so I have a pretty good understanding of the scientific method, hypothetico-deductive logic, Popperian epistemology etc
I don't care what credentials you have, you're spouting some major BS. You started this post with a question about a physical building that fell in real time, now you're rambling on about theories that aren't proven and discussions about atheism. You used that phrase "science on your side" again as if it meant something. What does that mean to you other than "I don't like your facts so I'll make up my own"?

If you think there are alternative methods of resolving this, propose one. So far you only used the argumentum ad populum.
I don't care what credentials you have
Fair enough. You implied that I did not understand science and I was just trying to show that I am not completely ignorant of the scientific method.
you're spouting some major BS
Surely minor BS at most?
You started this post with a question about a physical building that fell in real time, now you're rambling on about theories that aren't proven and discussions about atheism
You moved the discussion from the specific to the general by arguing that an unscientific argument cannot be considered a 'side'. I responded to this general claim with general points illustrating that science is not always the best method of resolving differences of opinion and that not all scientific theories are valid. What you are referring to regarding 'discussions about atheism' I have no idea...
You used that phrase "science on your side" again as if it meant something. What does that mean to you other than "I don't like your facts so I'll make up my own
Look - I think we're getting side-tracked here. I never argued anything unscientific nor did I make anything up. David Chandler's calculation of the acceleration of WTC7 at various points in its collapse was accepted by NIST and used to revise their report prior to publication. It was good science and it came from a 'truther'. I merely sought to understand how this could be reconciled with a progressive collapse theory. This doesn't mean that I endorse his conclusion.

On a more general note, not all of the 9/11 debate revolves around scientific issues and, therefore, the scientific method is neither universally applicable nor a panacea in all debates.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:12 pm

Dj, can you clarify your concern with the NIST statements? In the initial response the spokesperson provides to David Chandlers, he (in my opinion, anyway) seems to interpret the question as referring to the time it took for the building, as a whole, to fall (hence 5.4 seconds for the whole building to go; 40% more time than if the whole building, from start to finish, were to fall at free fall). His answer therefore incorporates all 3 of the stages of fall, stages which they later identify, including the second stage of free fall (that second stage being the 2.5 seconds Chamblers refers to). Remember, the NIST speaker is put on the spot so he's referring to the calculations as a whole, which show the total time to fall, and not the 2.5 seconds Chamblers refers to. There's some obvious confusion there.

Later, after NIST goes back to look at what Chamblers actually refers to, they account for the 2.5 seconds in the stage 2 portion of the building's fall. This seems perfectly reasonable and doesn't strike me as anything nefarious afoot. I think Chamblers, from quickly reviewing the start of these videos, very unfairly characterizes the NIST response with his own commentary. I don't think his response to them in the first video even accurately represents what they said.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:31 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:Dj, can you clarify your concern with the NIST statements? In the initial response the spokesperson provides to David Chandlers, he (in my opinion, anyway) seems to interpret the question as referring to the time it took for the building, as a whole, to fall (hence 5.4 seconds for the whole building to go; 40% more time than if the whole building, from start to finish, were to fall at free fall). His answer therefore incorporates all 3 of the stages of fall, stages which they later identify, including the second stage of free fall (that second stage being the 2.5 seconds Chamblers refers to). Remember, the NIST speaker is put on the spot so he's referring to the calculations as a whole, which show the total time to fall, and not the 2.5 seconds Chamblers refers to. There's some obvious confusion there.

Later, after NIST goes back to look at what Chamblers actually refers to, they account for the 2.5 seconds in the stage 2 portion of the building's fall. This seems perfectly reasonable and doesn't strike me as anything nefarious afoot. I think Chamblers, from quickly reviewing the start of these videos, very unfairly characterizes the NIST response with his own commentary. I don't think his response to them in the first video even accurately represents what they said.
Firstly bear in mind that I do not endorse or agree with everything David Chandler says.

Secondly remember that he is responding to NIST's draft report. They did not introduce the three-stage collapse model until after the consultation on the draft and did so in response to DC's criticisms.

Thirdly it is quite clear from NIST's graph that the building remained motionless for the first 0.5 sec after the initial movement of the penthouse, and then proceeded to descend with negligible acceleration up to 1.75 seconds. Furthermore acceleration slowed significantly in the final 1.5 seconds. Calculating average acceleration over this entire period, therefore, is meaningless and it is very surprising that such highly qualified people would make such an obvious mistake.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:07 am

Why would the points in which the building's fall experienced the greatest resistance due to the structure of the building be meaningless?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:58 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:Why would the points in which the building's fall experienced the greatest resistance due to the structure of the building be meaningless?
Because the point which was monitored for movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:51 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Why would the points in which the building's fall experienced the greatest resistance due to the structure of the building be meaningless?
Because the point which was monitored for movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds.
Which doesn't mean the building wasn't falling (or portions of the building, anyway), but only that one point of the building was motionless (by the way, do you have the specific video being referenced here, so we can confirm if David Chamblers is even correct that it's not moving for those 2 seconds? I wouldn't take him at his word). Also, there's still the third stage after the free-fall, in which it slows down. Anyway, even if we exclude those stages and only look at the period of free fall -- what does that tell us? Even this still does not disagree with the report.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:10 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Why would the points in which the building's fall experienced the greatest resistance due to the structure of the building be meaningless?
Because the point which was monitored for movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds.
Which doesn't mean the building wasn't falling (or portions of the building, anyway), but only that one point of the building was motionless (by the way, do you have the specific video being referenced here, so we can confirm if David Chamblers is even correct that it's not moving for those 2 seconds? I wouldn't take him at his word). Also, there's still the third stage after the free-fall, in which it slows down. Anyway, even if we exclude those stages and only look at the period of free fall -- what does that tell us? Even this still does not disagree with the report.
I didn't take his word for it but rather looked at NIST's own graph of velocity against time. DC used the same video as NIST did for his analysis btw.

Whether the period of free-fall is consistent with the report is exactly the issue under discussion, along with the apparent initial obfuscation of this. Then there is the fact that their observed collapse time precisely matches the predicted collapse time from the computer model, which DC calls 'dry labbing'

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:39 pm

From the NIST report:

"In the following discussion, the time at which motion of the roofline was first perceived (6.9 s) is taken as time zero."

This doesn't appear to be an arbitrary start point. Do you disagree?

As well:

"It was difficult to detect the exact instant that the north wall began to collapse because of the resolution of the video image and because, as columns buckled, vertical movement was initially very small."

This suggests non-zero movement for the initial 1.75 seconds, although movement is very small. That's not precisely the same as when you said the "movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds."

Do you disagree?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:53 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:From the NIST report:

"In the following discussion, the time at which motion of the roofline was first perceived (6.9 s) is taken as time zero."

This doesn't appear to be an arbitrary start point. Do you disagree?
In principle no, but that movement is very difficult to detect (NIST did it by measuring the brightness of a single pixel) and is followed by a period of little or no movement. DC suggests that it is a glitch in the video.
This suggests non-zero movement for the initial 1.75 seconds, although movement is very small. That's not precisely the same as when you said the "movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds."

Do you disagree?
I do not.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:10 pm

djembeweaver wrote:In principle no, but that movement is very difficult to detect (NIST did it by measuring the brightness of a single pixel) and is followed by a period of little or no movement. DC suggests that it is a glitch in the video.
You may be misinterpreting NIST's report. In those 1.75 seconds, the building falls 7 feet. As well, the 1.75 seconds (7 feet) of slow fall is not followed by a period of little or no movement, as you suggest, but rather is directly followed by the period of near free fall. NIST is not suggesting that the building started falling a little, then stopped moving entirely, then fell at free fall. It went from standing still, to falling 7 feet over 1.75 seconds, to falling 105 feet in 2.25 seconds. Those are the first 2 stages of the building's collapse.

I understand DC suggests it's a glitch; I suggest that DC is wrong. And the fact that, in the video linked in the OP of this thread, he actually edits out the first 1.75 seconds of the building' fall, which is what the NIST report refers to, and instead starts the video precisely at stage 2, the period of free fall, suggests to me he is being intentionally deceptive.
djembeweaver wrote:
This suggests non-zero movement for the initial 1.75 seconds, although movement is very small. That's not precisely the same as when you said the "movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds."

Do you disagree?
I do not.
Good. Then we're agreed: the building had a small amount of movement for the first 1.75 seconds of the video. The NIST report accounts for this initial period of time. DC does not. That, I think, is the source of the confusion.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:52 pm

You may be misinterpreting NIST's report. In those 1.75 seconds, the building falls 7 feet. As well, the 1.75 seconds (7 feet) of slow fall is not followed by a period of little or no movement, as you suggest, but rather is directly followed by the period of near free fall
You have misunderstood my claim slightly. I was claiming that initial movement of the single pixel was followed by a period of little or no movement.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:56 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
You may be misinterpreting NIST's report. In those 1.75 seconds, the building falls 7 feet. As well, the 1.75 seconds (7 feet) of slow fall is not followed by a period of little or no movement, as you suggest, but rather is directly followed by the period of near free fall
You have misunderstood my claim slightly. I was claiming that initial movement of the single pixel was followed by a period of little or no movement.
Where did you see that?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:39 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
You may be misinterpreting NIST's report. In those 1.75 seconds, the building falls 7 feet. As well, the 1.75 seconds (7 feet) of slow fall is not followed by a period of little or no movement, as you suggest, but rather is directly followed by the period of near free fall
You have misunderstood my claim slightly. I was claiming that initial movement of the single pixel was followed by a period of little or no movement.
Where did you see that?
Well, I suppose it's the same period you are referring to: 7 feet in 1.75 seconds followed by 105 feet in 2.25 seconds. To pre-empt your objection I accept that 7 feet is significantly more than 'no movement'.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by supervitor » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:20 pm

evolution of djembeweaver's line of thought, as he gets cornered:
Because the point which was monitored for movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds.
is followed by a period of little or no movement.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:04 pm

supervitor wrote:evolution of djembeweaver's line of thought, as he gets cornered:
Because the point which was monitored for movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds.
is followed by a period of little or no movement.
When I made the initial statement I was thinking that you can't detect any movement by eye. When confronted with some data I accepted it and revised my statement. Nothing to do with being cornered or disingenuous or lying.

You seem to view argument and discussion as a game one has to win, scoring points along the way. We were doing fine until you poked your nasty little nose in, importing ad hominem animosity from another thread and contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

So yes I made a mistake and you highlighted it for all to see. Well done. 15 love. Good for you. You have once again demonstrated your intellectual superiority over me.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:08 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
You may be misinterpreting NIST's report. In those 1.75 seconds, the building falls 7 feet. As well, the 1.75 seconds (7 feet) of slow fall is not followed by a period of little or no movement, as you suggest, but rather is directly followed by the period of near free fall
You have misunderstood my claim slightly. I was claiming that initial movement of the single pixel was followed by a period of little or no movement.
Where did you see that?
Well, I suppose it's the same period you are referring to: 7 feet in 1.75 seconds followed by 105 feet in 2.25 seconds. To pre-empt your objection I accept that 7 feet is significantly more than 'no movement'.
No objections here. Unlike certain others, I won’t hold you to task for evolving your language and/or position as the conversation continues, should you feel inclined. Nitpicking like that would be idiotic and childish. I’d hope for the same courtesy should I need to do the same.

Anyway, I’m aware of the section you’re referring to – stage 1 of descent; however, when I read you saying “initial movement of a single pixel followed by a period of little or no movement,” I don’t see where you get “a period of little or no movement” anywhere reflected in the NIST response, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from. Unless by “period of little… movement,” you’re just referring to the 7-foot drop?

If that’s the case, here are some facts we’ve learned:

Stage 1

- Over a period of 1.75 seconds, the building drops 7 feet. This does not appear to be a graphical “glitch.”
- A 7-foot drop in the building is a significant event, and must be accounted for in an overall theory of the building’s collapse.
- DC ignores this initial 1.75 seconds of the building’s fall and even goes out of his way to deliberately edit it out of his response video, mischaracterizing what is being discussed.
- The NIST report categorizes these 1.75 seconds as “stage 1” of the building’s fall.
- The NIST report explains that the majority of the 40% additional time it took for the building to collapse over free fall is a result of stage 1, and not of the subsequent stages.

Stage 2

- Both DC and NIST agree that building 7 fell at approximately free-fall speeds for 2.5/2.75 seconds (DC and NIST, respectively).
- DC starts his video response with this stage, omitting the earlier stage of descent, resulting in the conclusion that the building fell at free-fall speeds, allegedly contradicting NIST’s claim that the building took 40% longer to fall than free-fall speed.

Stage 3

- The building’s acceleration slows down due to the debris pile above, lasting a final 1.4 seconds, which is slower than free-fall.

Conclusion

NIST concludes that, when the 1.75 seconds in stage one is accounted for, along with stages 2 and 3 (free fall and hitting the subsequent debris pile), the total time it takes for the building to fall is 40% longer than if there were no resistance at all, starting from time = zero. Almost all of this 40% increase is accounted for by stage 1 of descent.

DC concludes that, when the 1.75 seconds in stage one is ignored, the building falls at nearly exactly free fall. NIST does not disagree with this statement — it gives the exact same analysis; though, it does make a strong case for including stage 1 in the conclusions. DC gives no satisfactory reason for excluding stage 1 of the building’s fall, aside from the ad hoc conclusion that the video ‘must be glitched.’

DC, to put it bluntly, is making an egregious error in omitting stage 1. But even if we do omit stage 1, this only serves to make DC’s conclusions and NIST’s conclusions consistent with one another. Omitting stage one does not contradict NIST’s conclusions, except insofar as NIST concludes that stage 1 is a necessary component of WTC 7’s fall.

Please feel free to add to or correct any of the above points if you feel my conclusions are not sound.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by supervitor » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:29 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:evolution of djembeweaver's line of thought, as he gets cornered:
Because the point which was monitored for movement remained motionless for almost 2 seconds.
is followed by a period of little or no movement.
When I made the initial statement I was thinking that you can't detect any movement by eye. When confronted with some data I accepted it and revised my statement. Nothing to do with being cornered or disingenuous or lying.
Yeahhhh, sure.
You seem to view argument and discussion as a game one has to win, scoring points along the way.
No, I don't.
We were doing fine until you poked your nasty little nose in, importing ad hominem animosity from another thread and contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Not really an ad hom, I merely identified the evolution of your line of thought, as the thread progresses. Not sure what's wrong with that.
If you don't want that to happen, just pay more attention to the misleading statements you seem to rely so much on.
So yes I made a mistake and you highlighted it for all to see. Well done. 15 love. Good for you. You have once again demonstrated your intellectual superiority over me.
Thanks :)

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:53 pm

Canadian Skeptic: Thank you for the succinct summary.
Unless by “period of little… movement,” you’re just referring to the 7-foot drop?
Yes that is what I'm referring to. One can't detect any movement by eye and I presume that DC's software could likewise detect no movement. I imagine that is why NIST use the method of monitoring the brightness of a single pixel. However, I don't think that this issue is addressed by either NIST or DC directly. In fact one of DC's criticisms is that NIST will not release the data so no-one can independently verify their results.

Stage 1

- The 7 foot drop is difficult to verify because of the issues I raise above. However:
- If we accept the 7 ft drop then I agree that it is a significant event that must be accounted for in an overall theory of the building’s collapse.
- DC explains why he is disregarding the initial 1.75 seconds so I'm not sure that he is mischaracterizing what is being discussed. He thinks that NIST picked this particular start time to ensure the observed events matched their computer model. Do you not find it odd that NIST's calculation of the actual collapse time matches their computer simulation exactly?
- The NIST report categorizes these 1.75 seconds as “stage 1” of the building’s fall. - Agreed
- The NIST report explains that the majority of the 40% additional time it took for the building to collapse over free fall is a result of stage 1, and not of the subsequent stages - Agreed

Stage 2

Agreed.

Stage 3

Agreed.

Conclusion

Agree with 1st para.
DC concludes that, when the 1.75 seconds in stage one is ignored, the building falls at nearly exactly free fall. NIST does not disagree with this statement — it gives the exact same analysis; though, it does make a strong case for including stage 1 in the conclusions
I agree with all that. I don't think that DC has a problem with stage 1 per sé but rather in including it in the calculation of the average acceleration. Likewise while NIST may make a strong case for including stage 1 in the conclusions they do not make a case for including stage 1 in the calculation of average acceleration
DC gives no satisfactory reason for excluding stage 1 of the building’s fall, aside from the ad hoc conclusion that the video ‘must be glitched.’
As I point out above he gives the additional reason that this start point was chosen to force the observed events to match the simulation. Furthermore he argues that it skews the calculation of average acceleration and asserts that the critical factor is that free-fall occurred at all.
DC, to put it bluntly, is making an egregious error in omitting stage 1
Not sure I agree with that statement.
But even if we do omit stage 1, this only serves to make DC’s conclusions and NIST’s conclusions consistent with one another
Yes but only because NIST revised their report to address DC's critique of the draft.
Omitting stage one does not contradict NIST’s conclusions, except insofar as NIST concludes that stage 1 is a necessary component of WTC 7’s fall.
Agreed.

I would add that the most important issue is whether or not an internal asymmetric progressive collapse could allow an external symmetric collapse at the rate of free-fall.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:28 pm

djembeweaver wrote:However, I don't think that this issue is addressed by either NIST or DC directly.
I don’t think this is an issue that you or I will resolve, but I do suspect NIST’s evaluation of per-pixel brightness satisfactorily addresses this issue; as good as one could possibly hope for from a relatively poor-quality video. If the video simply isn’t good enough for this, then neither NIST’s nor DC’s conclusions can possibly be satisfactory here, and we’re left at a standstill. NIST would give us the best-possible chance at accuracy, given superior modeling technology, and you’re suggesting even that may not be good enough. If it isn’t, then this conversation is over and there’s nothing left to discuss – we have no evidence either way.
djembeweaver wrote:DC explains why he is disregarding the initial 1.75 seconds so I'm not sure that he is mischaracterizing what is being discussed.
The mischaracterization comes because he deliberately edited it from his response, not because challenges including the 1.75 seconds in the conclusion. If he wanted to honestly challenge NIST on this, he should have at least included it in his video so we could see it for ourselves – not delete it, making it appear as though the building’s only movement occurs when it enters into free-fall stage, which may not be the case and is, in fact, the point in dispute here.
djembeweaver wrote:He thinks that NIST picked this particular start time to ensure the observed events matched their computer model.
NIST specifically identified that their reasoning was because this was the point the building began to fall – there was a change in the pixel’s brightness. This clearly indicates that their methodology was not to pick an arbitrary point to match their computer model. DC’s criticism is wrong, here, and he is completely disregarding their explanation for no good reason.
djembeweaver wrote:Do you not find it odd that NIST's calculation of the actual collapse time matches their computer simulation exactly?
If NIST’s calculations are an accurate representation of WTC 7’s collapse, would you not expect it to match the computer simulation?

By the way, where did you get that the actual collapse time was “exactly” identical to the simulation? From DC? Again, this is a mischaracterization from DC.

NIST reports: “As expected, there were some deviations from the observable evidence at computation times after the global collapse was underway.” The simulations were not a perfect representation, but a very, very close approximation — exactly as one would expect from an accurate model. What else might you expect? For it to be totally off?
djembeweaver wrote:I agree with all that. I don't think that DC has a problem with stage 1 per sé but rather in including it in the calculation of the average acceleration.
And I contend that DC is wrong on this count.
djembeweaver wrote:As I point out above he gives the additional reason that this start point was chosen to force the observed events to match the simulation.
And as I pointed out, NIST very clearly did not do this, and in fact explained exactly why and when they selected the start point. DC offers no logically sound rebuttal to this — he gives his reasoning, but it is not satisfactory.
djembeweaver wrote:Furthermore he argues that it skews the calculation of average acceleration and asserts that the critical factor is that free-fall occurred at all.
Because to salvage his conclusions, DC has to argue this point. He is wrong. And again, that free fall occurred at all is not in dispute, and is not a surprising result.
djembeweaver wrote:Yes but only because NIST revised their report to address DC's critique of the draft.
They revised their report to clarify their position. As I’ve offered you that same latitude in this conversation, it might be prudent for you to offer NIST the same. It’s okay to be caught on stage with a microphone and a question you hadn’t previously modeled, then give the best answer you’re aware of, followed by testing it afterwards to confirm and clarify your statements. That’s what NIST appears to have done, and strikes me as a very honest approach to this issue.
djembeweaver wrote:I would add that the most important issue is whether or not an internal asymmetric progressive collapse could allow an external symmetric collapse at the rate of free-fall.
Why wouldn’t that be possible? Once the internal supports had collapsed, what was left to hold the building back from falling at free-fall until it reached the debris below? This seems entirely plausible and very clearly fits the evidence that it did, in fact, free fall for ~2.75 seconds.

Moreover, given that it did free fall for 2.75 seconds, I’m not sure what other argument even could be made – even following the reasoning that explosives or some other method of destruction were used, this would still involve the destruction of internal supports resulting in a free fall of the building. Either way, we have to accept that the building fell at free fall, and that a destruction of the internal supports was a necessary condition for that free fall to occur.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:02 pm

I don’t think this is an issue that you or I will resolve, but I do suspect NIST’s evaluation of per-pixel brightness satisfactorily addresses this issue; as good as one could possibly hope for from a relatively poor-quality video. If the video simply isn’t good enough for this, then neither NIST’s nor DC’s conclusions can possibly be satisfactory here, and we’re left at a standstill. NIST would give us the best-possible chance at accuracy, given superior modeling technology, and you’re suggesting even that may not be good enough. If it isn’t, then this conversation is over and there’s nothing left to discuss – we have no evidence either way.
That's the problem with this issue. The reason I used the wording, "little or no movement" before is because I can't detect any movement. Whether, given the resolution of the video, 7 feet can even be measured with any degree of accuracy is important to know here. I think this is an example of an issue that could be independently verified if NIST released their data.
The mischaracterization comes because he deliberately edited it from his response, not because challenges including the 1.75 seconds in the conclusion. If he wanted to honestly challenge NIST on this, he should have at least included it in his video so we could see it for ourselves – not delete it, making it appear as though the building’s only movement occurs when it enters into free-fall stage, which may not be the case and is, in fact, the point in dispute here
Actually he does include that period in his video. At one point he marks the frame representing t=0 in the NIST model, then proceeds frame by frame looking for any noticeable movement. As far as I can see the only point at which he excludes the 1.75 seconds from his analysis is in calculating the average acceleration. In this specific case I agree with that decision.
NIST specifically identified that their reasoning was because this was the point the building began to fall – there was a change in the pixel’s brightness. This clearly indicates that their methodology was not to pick an arbitrary point to match their computer model. DC’s criticism is wrong, here, and he is completely disregarding their explanation for no good reason
It all revolves around the validity of that measurement doesn't it?
If NIST’s calculations are an accurate representation of WTC 7’s collapse, would you not expect it to match the computer simulation?
I would expect it to be very close, but not to match precisely to the nearest tenth of a second.
By the way, where did you get that the actual collapse time was “exactly” identical to the simulation? From DC? Again, this is a mischaracterization from DC.
No, I checked it in the NIST report
djembeweaver wrote:
I agree with all that. I don't think that DC has a problem with stage 1 per sé but rather in including it in the calculation of the average acceleration.


And I contend that DC is wrong on this count
If we were measuring the acceleration of a car and the driver missed the signal and did not start accelerating until 1.75 secs after the clock was started that would skew the calculation.
Why wouldn’t that be possible? Once the internal supports had collapsed, what was left to hold the building back from falling at free-fall until it reached the debris below? This seems entirely plausible and very clearly fits the evidence that it did, in fact, free fall for ~2.75 seconds.

Moreover, given that it did free fall for 2.75 seconds, I’m not sure what other argument even could be made – even following the reasoning that explosives or some other method of destruction were used, this would still involve the destruction of internal supports resulting in a free fall of the building. Either way, we have to accept that the building fell at free fall, and that a destruction of the internal supports was a necessary condition for that free fall to occur
I think that many people would expect an internal asymmetric progressive collapse to lead to an external asymmetric progressive collapse. That is what I think is surprising but here I must admit that I know nothing about how buildings should collapse so common sense is irrelevant here. That is why I posed the question in the first place.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:36 pm

Dj, it appears your concerns boil down to not being able to see with your own eyes the change in movement in t= 0 to 1.75 seconds. The video is available to you; I suspect if you really want to do the experiment yourself, you don't actually need NIST's data, you just need the video and to zoom in far enough to see the pixels moving during the operative times. Otherwise, that you, personally, cannot see movement with your unaided eye is not an argument that there was no/little movement.

Further, even if we set the 1.75s aside, as I've said, it does not matter. NIST's report is perfectly consonant with that, if we're to assume stage 1 was a measurement error.

I'm not sure there's much more to say on this issue. I haven't heard convincing arguments against NIST's report, nor anything to make me suspicious of NIST's intent. Personally, I think NIST did the best job they humanly could under the circumstances, and some random physics teacher merely overlooked some things.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:48 pm

By the way, you'll note even in DC's second video, where he looks at NIST's start time, he does not show his own data (except for frames ~25+, but we need frames 0-25 to compare to NIST). He says there is no movement until frame ~40, but he doesn't show us the whole picture. Furthermore, DC even admits himself that he may be using a poorer quality version of the video than what NIST had access to. That point alone disqualifies his measurements, as they are not measuring the same thing.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:51 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
If NIST’s calculations are an accurate representation of WTC 7’s collapse, would you not expect it to match the computer simulation?
I would expect it to be very close, but not to match precisely to the nearest tenth of a second.
Is that your expert opinion?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:00 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
If NIST’s calculations are an accurate representation of WTC 7’s collapse, would you not expect it to match the computer simulation?
I would expect it to be very close, but not to match precisely to the nearest tenth of a second.
Is that your expert opinion?
I refer you to one of my previous statements:
That is what I think is surprising but here I must admit that I know nothing about how buildings should collapse so common sense is irrelevant here
So no, it is a lay opinion, though I have had some experience of modelling in a different context.
Otherwise, that you, personally, cannot see movement with your unaided eye is not an argument that there was no/little movement
I accept that, except to say that 7ft in 1.75 seconds is quite small compared to 105ft in 2.25 seconds. Where I agree with DC is in claiming that because these are two distinct stages that are qualitatively different they should not be added together when calculating average acceleration of the global collapse.
I'm not sure there's much more to say on this issue
I too feel that we might have gone as far as we can with this discussion.

Personally I have really appreciated having had an opportunity to discuss these issues in a reasoned way with someone who sees it in a different way. Through this discussion I have looked much deeper into the issue, the NIST report etc and now have a pretty clear idea of some good counter-arguments to DC's accusations, which is, I suppose, what I was after in the first place.

This last point is a general one about the debate and not aimed at you in the slightest:

I do wish that just expressing a teensy-weensy bit of doubt about the official version of events didn't attract a barrage of insults and abuse. Many many people harbour doubts and have questions they'd like to ask but it is very difficult to do this online without being attacked. Personally I think that this kind of reaction is likely to turn people who are on the fence towards, rather than away, from the 9/11 truth movement.

Anyway, thanks for taking this one on. I appreciate it.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:59 pm

Btw here is a link to an article written by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, published in the New York Times, that describes one way in which the CIA 'obstructed' (their choice of word) the commission:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opini ... .html?_r=0

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:05 pm

One other thing that I forgot to throw into the discussion was John Kerry's statement regarding building 7 that:
They made a decision based on the danger it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:03 am

djembeweaver wrote:I accept that, except to say that 7ft in 1.75 seconds is quite small compared to 105ft in 2.25 seconds. Where I agree with DC is in claiming that because these are two distinct stages that are qualitatively different they should not be added together when calculating average acceleration of the global collapse.
If we do accept a 7ft drop in 1.75 seconds, considering that buildings do not tend to fall 7 ft spontaneously as a consequence of their existing, I do not agree that we can qualitatively (or quantitatively) say the two stages are different and should not be added together. If a building drops 7 entire feet in a couple seconds, followed by a complete collapse over a few more seconds thereafter, it is not reasonable to say those are independent events.

By the way, bear in mind that DC did not just argue they are separate events; he argued that the 7ft drop did not happen at all, though he has no good evidence of that (aside from what he admits is a crapper quality video that may not even show the change due to its low resolution).
djembeweaver wrote:I do wish that just expressing a teensy-weensy bit of doubt about the official version of events didn't attract a barrage of insults and abuse. Many many people harbour doubts and have questions they'd like to ask but it is very difficult to do this online without being attacked. Personally I think that this kind of reaction is likely to turn people who are on the fence towards, rather than away, from the 9/11 truth movement.
That's fair; though, again, bear in mind that even in the DC videos you brought up, he uses the whole third video to essentially say he's proven (strongly argued?) that controlled demolition was used. There are many, many extremely good arguments against controlled demolition (and it's a total non-sequitor to suggest that, by challenging the official account, therefore controlled demolition is likely -- it's a separate argument and challenging the official account is not a positive argument for controlled demo), however, and as asking these questions was almost certainly a window for him to argue controlled demolition (which, in my opinion, is a genuinely stupid argument), asking the questions as a gateway to stupidity is what raises the ire of skeptics (like myself). Though, I do at least try to temper myself if I think the other person is sincere, like I think you are.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28044
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:03 am

Image
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34981
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gord » Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:49 am

djembeweaver wrote:One other thing that I forgot to throw into the discussion was John Kerry's statement regarding building 7 that:
They made a decision based on the danger it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion
Kerry says he doesn't know, then suggests an answer he doesn't know to be true based on the question he was asked. If he's right, then the decision to place explosives into Building 7 and then demolish it on purpose would have come after the building was on fire. That's not only impossible, it's ridiculous to rely on such a statement from someone who starts it off with "I do remember that that wall was in danger, and I think they made a decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion". He THINKS they did something, but he clearly has no plausible idea.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:22 pm

If we do accept a 7ft drop in 1.75 seconds, considering that buildings do not tend to fall 7 ft spontaneously as a consequence of their existing, I do not agree that we can qualitatively (or quantitatively) say the two stages are different and should not be added together. If a building drops 7 entire feet in a couple seconds, followed by a complete collapse over a few more seconds thereafter, it is not reasonable to say those are independent events
I only meant in the context of the timing of the global collapse. For example, in an actual controlled demolition, if one wanted to measure the acceleration of the collapse one would not start the clock when the first detonation took place but rather when the building as a whole began to descend.
That's fair; though, again, bear in mind that even in the DC videos you brought up, he uses the whole third video to essentially say he's proven (strongly argued?) that controlled demolition was used. There are many, many extremely good arguments against controlled demolition (and it's a total non-sequitor to suggest that, by challenging the official account, therefore controlled demolition is likely -- it's a separate argument and challenging the official account is not a positive argument for controlled demo), however, and as asking these questions was almost certainly a window for him to argue controlled demolition (which, in my opinion, is a genuinely stupid argument), asking the questions as a gateway to stupidity is what raises the ire of skeptics (like myself). Though, I do at least try to temper myself if I think the other person is sincere, like I think you are
I wasn't referring to DC...I was referring to the reactions I have drawn simply through posing some questions. I have never once argued for a controlled demolition and I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion. As you point out it's a total non-sequitor to suggest that, by challenging the official account, one can conclude that controlled demolition is likely. I have kept the two things entirely separate by arguing one but not the other. The fact that some people think that because I argue the first that I make the same conclusion makes them guilty of exactly the non-sequitur that you refer to.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:51 pm

djembeweaver wrote:One other thing that I forgot to throw into the discussion was John Kerry's statement regarding building 7 that:
They made a decision based on the danger it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion
This post was in the 'Science, Technology and Mathematics' category where I posed a question about the validity of David Chandler's critique of the NIST report. My point in the other thread concerned the extent to which security services' use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' contributed towards it becoming synonymous with 'irrational person'. It seems that the relevant posts have now been deleted so the conflation has now been covered up (or am I to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist regarding that too?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28044
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:18 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:One other thing that I forgot to throw into the discussion was John Kerry's statement regarding building 7 that:
They made a decision based on the danger it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion
This post was in the 'Science, Technology and Mathematics' category where I posed a question about the validity of David Chandler's critique of the NIST report. My point in the other thread concerned the extent to which security services' use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' contributed towards it becoming synonymous with 'irrational person'. It seems that the relevant posts have now been deleted so the conflation has now been covered up (or am I to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist regarding that too?
Do you mean sv's post in the thread in the Conspiracies subforum?

What has been deleted? (You can link us to the relevant posts by right-clicking on the topic/Re of the post(s), copying the link and pasting it here.)
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:51 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:One other thing that I forgot to throw into the discussion was John Kerry's statement regarding building 7 that:
They made a decision based on the danger it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion
This post was in the 'Science, Technology and Mathematics' category where I posed a question about the validity of David Chandler's critique of the NIST report. My point in the other thread concerned the extent to which security services' use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' contributed towards it becoming synonymous with 'irrational person'. It seems that the relevant posts have now been deleted so the conflation has now been covered up (or am I to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist regarding that too?
Do you mean sv's post in the thread in the Conspiracies subforum?

What has been deleted? (You can link us to the relevant posts by right-clicking on the topic/Re of the post(s), copying the link and pasting it here.)
While I was writing a response the post was deleted so I can't find it now. It confused the two threads, suggesting one of my posts in one thread had actually appeared in the other and accusing me of derailment again.