WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy

qed said:

So it was only one point that you guys measured.

Click to expand...

Again - I never measured anything at all! Not sure why you say "you guys" - you surely don't mean to include me? I think I have been perfectly clear all along that I never measured anything. I'd prefer if you'd cut out that leading rethoric, it makes you look like a dishonest debatant.

qed said:

Now comes the moment I ask you for a null-hypothesis.

• What can I show that would disprove that the building collapsed >g for this period (which you still haven't given)?

Click to expand...

I stopped reading right there.

What a massive strawman!

Absolutely no one here - not I, not econ41, not SanderO, not femr2, not Major_Tom - ever claimed "that the building collapsed >g for this period" or any other.

In fact, econ, Sander and I have always, from the very beginning, maintained that of course "the building" never fell at freefall acceleration.

Please read the claim more carefully. It's always been "that for SOME point, an average of =g for SOME time interval is real", or some variation thereof.
Read that again: "that for SOME point, an average of =g for SOME time interval is real"
Read that again: "that for SOME point, an average of =g for SOME time interval is real"
Read that again: "that for SOME point, an average of =g for SOME time interval is real".

Please note, and think about this for a bit: A "point" is not a "building".

I hope this clears your confusion.

Since this is devolving into a personal argument, please continue in PMs.