If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

FalseFlag said:
The arbitrary time that NIST used is 5.3 seconds long. Please show me where NIST uses a collapse time of 18 seconds.
Click to expand...

It's all in NCSTAR 1-9, FF! Table 5-3. It actually adds to 16.5 seconds.

YOU HAVEN'T READ THE REPORTS, HAVE YOU, FF? How do expect to hope to refute NIST with anyone from Pete and Patty in Peoria, to the world's scientists and engineers, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute? :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • NIST Table 5-3.jpg
    NIST Table 5-3.jpg
    154.8 KB · Views: 29
FalseFlag said:
The arbitrary time that NIST used is 5.3 seconds long. Please show me where NIST uses a collapse time of 18 seconds.
Click to expand...
No idea where you pull that number out of (ok, I do have an idea), but this is what NIST say:

Beginning at roughly 6.9 s the brightness increases irreversibly to a value of 100 percent at which time the pixel under study represents the sky. Thus, the relative time at which the roofline began to move was estimated as 6.9 s. The time when the roofline dropped from view behind the buildings in the foreground was 12.3 s. Thus, the time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4 s.​
NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 p.601
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
It keeps getting larger. Imagine how many "idiots" there would be if the media gave AE911T any substantive airtime whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Hardly a surprise. Once one is foolish enough to sign up to that nonsense, it is virtually impossible to get removed. There are hundreds of professionals who have had that "Wait a minute" moment and have demanded their names be removed. Gage refuses to take anyone off the list.
 
abaddon said:
Hardly a surprise. Once one is foolish enough to sign up to that nonsense, it is virtually impossible to get removed. There are hundreds of professionals who have had that "Wait a minute" moment and have demanded their names be removed. Gage refuses to take anyone off the list.
Click to expand...

I believe this is untrue. There are a few changes to personal information all the time, and occasionally a signature is removed. The best explanation I have for this is that AE911T makes changes as signers demand them.
 
abaddon said:
Sure. I shall get you that data.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

abaddon said:
But I am puzzled as to why your google is broken and only your google.

Care to explain that?
Click to expand...
No problem - partly that I use DuckDuckGo not google and partly that I tried searching for 'name removed ae911truth petition' and got only unrelated articles mostly about a person who says he got his name removed from the petition for asking Richard Gage a question about Judy Wood. My general policy when asking for info on here is to search first myself, and if the answer is not in the first page of results, to ask.
 
Georgio said:
Thanks.


No problem - partly that I use DuckDuckGo not google and partly that I tried searching for 'name removed ae911truth petition' and got only unrelated articles mostly about a person who says he got his name removed from the petition for asking Richard Gage a question about Judy Wood. My general policy when asking for info on here is to search first myself, and if the answer is not in the first page of results, to ask.
Click to expand...

Then just go ahead and google it. What's the problem?

It is some years ago now but basically, there was a list of hundreds. None of them could get themselves removed from the list. Some of them were entirely unaware that the list even existed, let alone that unbeknownst to them they had involuntarily signed up and could not get removed. Tricky dicky does not care.
 
abaddon said:
Then just go ahead and google it. What's the problem?

It is some years ago now but basically, there was a list of hundreds. None of them could get themselves removed from the list. Some of them were entirely unaware that the list even existed, let alone that unbeknownst to them they had involuntarily signed up and could not get removed. Tricky dicky does not care.
Click to expand...

I have been monitoring the petition closer than anyone else since, I think, late 2011, and don't remember having come across this information.
Before me, Boloboffin's blog kept the closest watch, and I can't find it there:
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
 
abaddon said:
Then just go ahead and google it. What's the problem?
Click to expand...
I prefer DuckDuckGo, that's all. I've now searched using google but still no luck. I tried, 'name removed ae911truth petition' (I checked the first four pages of results), 'can't remove name ae911truth petition' (checked first page) and 'won't remove name ae911truth petition' (checked first page).
 
FalseFlag said:
Let me get this straight.
Click to expand...

And, to absolutely zero surprise, you get nothing straight.

FalseFlag said:
NIST is comprised of thousands of experts, but that does not matter when you don't like what they say.
Click to expand...

And this is, again, your ignorance on display.
NIST has said nothing that I “don’t like”.
And the NIST engineers would disagree with nothing that I’ve written.

YOUR failure to understand is YOUR failure.
Not NIST’s errors.
Not my errors.

Your error. Your problem. Your failure.

FalseFlag said:
So, if I make a point you don't like, you say NIST has experts. If NIST says something you don't like, you ignore that and then come up with your own BS.
Click to expand...

“… then come up with (my) own BS.”

So, you are unable to follow simple, trivial calculus.
You are unable to look at a simple graph & correctly interpret what the dots & lines mean.
You are unable to understand the relationship between velocity & acceleration.
You are unable to understand the concept of fitting straight lines to scattered data on a graph.
And you are unable to understand the difference between something that is constant versus something that is changing.

You are unable to understand concepts which are accessible to any moderately clever 15 year old.

Then, being unable to understand these trivial concepts, you are reduced to quote-mining words that you don’t understand.
You are reduced to quote-mining, with no understanding whatsoever, the text of an engineering report whose writers disagree 100% with your ignorant mis-interpretation of their words.

Yet, when someone else, who does understand what they wrote, attempts to clarify the concepts for you, you toss around insults & hold up your ignorant mis-interpretation as the correct one, and claim that I am disagreeing with NIST’s engineers.

And you perform your little farce while strutting around like a pompous little peacock.

There. THAT is “getting this straight”.

FalseFlag said:
Got it.
Click to expand...

No.
In point of fact, you don’t.

FalseFlag said:
Excuse me while I LOL at the absurdity of your logic and severity of denial.
Click to expand...

LOL away.
Strutting & LOLing appear to be the only things for which you have any talent.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
It is some years ago now but basically, there was a list of hundreds. None of them could get themselves removed from the list. Some of them were entirely unaware that the list even existed, let alone that unbeknownst to them they had involuntarily signed up and could not get removed. Tricky dicky does not care.
Click to expand...


You might be confusing Gages petition with Patriots Questions, no one get's removed from that list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom