I found the missing Jolt.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I know. It was a rhetorical question. After all if an average, or a best fit on a graph of point accelerations is g, then it REQUIRES that some points have acceleration greater than g.

Wait, what?

Let me give you a chance to correct that statement, or double down on it.

Wow, just wow.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin

 

[FalseFlag]

We both agree that, during the global collapse phase, NIST’s model diverges significantly from the actual building during that time.

If we both agree, then why did you use the model? If it's not right, it's not right.

Please answer this question:
Do you believe that experienced Structural Engineers consider this fact to falsify the results of NIST’s analyses?

I'm not an expert. My non-expert opinion is as follows:

I would say that credible structural engineers, solely motivated by the truth and not for any political reason, would agree that NIST's models are not accurate. The reasons for this inaccuracy are the subject of a separate debate.

I would also expect every credible engineer to demand access to the data that was used in order to determine if the results could be duplicated, and if the input data matched reality.

I would not expect a credible structural engineer to endorse the NIST investigation. I would expect that a credible structural engineer would demand a new, legitimate one.

Let me ask you a second question: How many mathematical models of highly chaotic dynamic systems have you ever done?

Zero. Why? I'm not an expert.

Even though I am not an expert, I do understand the limitations computers have. However, that is not an excuse for NIST to fall back on.

I do not submit the following link as a credible source. I only submit it for the purposes of discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_and_validation_of_computer_simulation_models

That link discusses verification and validation. Has NIST posted everything they did to verify and validate their computer models? I think the answer is no, considering they won't release the data.

I would also refer you to Richard Feynman - "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." What real-world experiments did NIST perform to validate their models?

You’re not paying attention.
Or your reading comprehension sucks.
Or (most likely by FAR) you’re too lazy to bother reading the information that I provided you.

Didn't you start your post by stating that you wanted to have a "mature conversation"?

Two thirds of the engineers who wrote the NIST report … do NOT work for NIST.
They are all independent, working in industry or academia.

Was their work compartmentalized, or did everyone working on the NIST reports have access to everything? Did each and every one of them have editorial review of the final report?

The NCSTAR Advisory Board is made up of highly respected Structural Engineering experts … NONE of whom work for NIST.

Is that some sort of a prerequisite for being paid to commit fraud? I'm pretty sure everyone likes money. I know I do.

None of them were “NIST answers”.

I doubt any of them were true answers, as well.

The only thing that you “fixed” is your reputation for stupidity.

Is this what you consider a "mature conversation"?

NO Professional Engineer is going to risk his reputation by signing his name to a fraudulent report.

Are the last few pages not part of the NIST report? Didn't you see them?

There is precisely zero possibility that a massively fraudulent report (as you assert the NCSTAR to be) would survive the slightest, most cursory examination by competent engineers. Who would immediately blow the whistle on them.

www.ae911truth.org

What do you suppose the 2,553 professionals who signed the petition are doing?

Instead, we have hundreds of engineering papers, published in peer reviewed journals, that either:
a) explicitly confirm various aspects of NIST’s methodology & results,
b) implicitly support NIST’s methods & conclusions by citing the NIST report as references,

Are the journals peer-reviewed, or the papers? Please post links to hundreds of engineering papers supporting NIST that have survived a credible peer review process. I would really like to see this.

Not one single competent engineer has published an engineering paper in any peer reviewed engineering journal which negates NIST’s assumptions, methods, or conclusions.

This might be true, but only on a technicality. Why is that? Don't you think AE911T would publish their findings in any journal that would accept them? I'm sure they would. The issue is that the major journals won't let them.

Not one of whom has satisfied the “published in a peer reviewed engineering journal” criterion.

Nor satisfied the “competent engineer” criterion.

Engineers don't have to commit fraud to be considered competent. You should really take some time to reflect on that statement.

 

[FalseFlag]

LMFAO.
I guess we can add 9th grade statistics to the long, LONG list of things about which FF hasn't the slightest clue...

Really?

There is a group of 50 skeptics. Each skeptic has an IQ of 15. If there are 50 skeptics, and each and every one of them has an IQ of 15, then the average IQ of that group of skeptics is 15.

How is that wrong?

Please, oh please, learn me good on how to do skeptic math.

 

[FalseFlag]

Seriously? There's no point in using that data to take an average, because your measurement device is obviously broken!

No, that would only tell you it's time for a new tape measure or yardstick or whatever.

You can prove me wrong, easily. Just go out and start measuring the heights of people in random groups of one thousand. When you finally get a group whose heights fall within the same inch - it doesn't even have to be 5' 6" - then you can come back here and crow to your heart's content.

Wait for it...

Once again, you fail to grasp a hypothetical example, and you also prove that my skeptic IQ example is real-world.

 

[skyeagle409]

You have posted links. You have yet to post what was requested.

That won't work for you because you have failed to answer the questions that I have posed to you and if you had been paying attention, you would not be asking for what I have already posted.

 

[skyeagle409]

OK. Let's use your example. Let's show the videos of WTC7 collapsing to MANY other experts all over the world.

Just to let you know the experts do not support the use of CD at the World Trade Center.

Then let's get their opinions. You know how we can do this? They do - www.ae911truth.org

It is apparent that you did not read the facts surrounding Richard Gage and his discredited AE911 Truth organization. I have posted comments of those who have worked with AE911 Truth and they have trashed that discredited AE911 Truth organization, but you would have known that if you had read the report on AE911 Truth.

To sum it up, AE911 Truth is a discredited joke!


The Shaky Moral Foundation that AE911Truth is Built Upon

We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything.

Our tendency to act as old fashioned journalists in exposing corruption eventually got us completely banned from the organization. Now, discussions about us are officially discouraged by the management of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as if we were the targets of a cult shunning.

http://healthwyze.org/tidbits/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon


AE911 Truth Fails, Again

The Troofers were all excited that they got a vote held at the Americans Institute of Architects annual meeting, unfortunately it failed by the overwhelming vote of 3,892 to 160. AE911 Truth claims over 100 of their members are in the AIA, which means that they barely managed to get votes from any other architects at all.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2015/05/ae911-truth-fails-again.html


American Institute of Architects rejects WTC 7 resolution with 160 for and 3,892 against.

A vote against a new investigation into WTC7 by the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

 

[skyeagle409]

My company was NOT a subcontractor to the government. It was a subcontractor to Boeing Aerospace.
Boeing Aerospace was not, has never been, “the government”.
LoL.

Other than American Airlines, what other company supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77, which debunked conspiracy theories regarding that aircraft? That's right, Boeing.

 

[skyeagle409]

follows:

I would say that credible structural engineers, solely motivated by the truth and not for any political reason, would agree that NIST's models are not accurate. The reasons for this inaccuracy are the subject of a separate debate.

I would also expect every credible engineer to demand access to the data that was used in order to determine if the results could be duplicated, and if the input data matched reality.

Let's take a look here.


WTC 7 Investigation

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

https://www.metabunk.org/does-nist-...sting-wtc7-steel-invalidate-everything.t1763/

I would not expect a credible structural engineer to endorse the NIST investigation. I would expect that a credible structural engineer would demand a new, legitimate one.

In addition, "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."

Verdict: No CD of the WTC buildings

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Where are they? How many did they produce? How many did they release? If they only released two, then those are the ones that count.

Translation: HotRodDeluxe can't argue against facts.

1). Show me a credible source demonstrating those two models are the only ones produced.

2). Show me a credible source where these two models are the final results produced from the data.

I await your response.

Translation: Troll is 'winging it'.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Also, please explain "average acceleration".

This is what I think he means:

Note how in this comparison of smoothing techniques, that free fall is not 'fixed', and that it was actually exceeded.

 

[tfk]

I bring the scans to MANY other neurologists.

OK. Let's use your example. Let's show the videos of WTC7 collapsing to MANY other experts all over the world. Then let's get their opinions. You know how we can do this? They do - www.ae911truth.org

Thank you very much.
Your reply will do just fine.

There are (to my embarrassment) approximately 350 Mechanical engineers in AE911Truth.
There are approximately 40 structural engineers.

ALL the rest of the clowns at AE911T are clueless amateurs.
Their opinions are as irrelevant as yours.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are in the US well over 300,000 mechanical & structural engineers.

99% of these people are completely aware of the collapse of all 3 buildings on 9/11.

Just as 99% of us, who went to real universities (& not diploma mills), are also acutely aware of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse, the Hyatt Regency Hotel skywalk collapse, the Challenger & Columbia disasters, the Titanic sinking, the Hindenburg disaster, Chernobyl, & 3 Mile Island. The older of us are also aware of the USS Thresher, and the deHavilland Comet failures.

These are all classic engineering failures, and teaching points, in engineering education.

(Gage simply lies when he says that “most engineers he talks to are unaware of WTC7 building collapse”. Just like he lies when he says that “most engineers & architects that he presents to agree with him after his presentations.” And his enrollment numbers at AE911T, after presenting at AIA conventions, PROVE that he lies.)

You’ve managed to produce 390 self-identified incompetents, out of a pool of >300,000.

That ONE engineer says “CD” for every 790 who either:
a) says “No CD” or
b) “says nothing in public, to the newspapers, to their co-workers, & chooses to NOT march on Washington DC & demand that NISTs engineers be

You, in your cluelessness, are going to assert (as you have before) that the reason these 99.9% of mechanical & structural engineers have accepted NIST’s conclusions is that:
a) we are cowards,
b) we are unprincipled, unethical frauds, willing to sell their honor for money,
c) we are traitors to our country, or
d) we are unaware of the evidence & its implications.

Once again, we see exactly the same pattern. You are projecting YOURSELF onto all these engineers.

I can assure you that you are wrong on all 4 counts.

We are not cowards, unethical frauds, traitors or clueless.
__

Meanwhile, NONE of the AE911T morons have lifted one finger to to bring their talents to bear, and produce one single study, followed up by a competent paper that is good enough to get published in any engineering journal.

Or good enough to convince any competent engineer in industry.

Congratulations. That one GIANT helping of fail, you’ve got there.

For “immorality”, a week or so ago, you stated (paraphrase) that “If someone offered me (FalseFlag) a bunch of money to lie & defend what I (FF) knew to be a lie, I’d do it.”

I'm still waiting for offers. I could do a much better job than you, too. Want proof? Have your bosses write a check for $1 million. Once it clears, I will provide proof.

Yup.
YOUR lack of ethics.
Projected onto others.

ETA: I am not directly accusing you of being a paid shill. Please change "your" bosses to "the" bosses.

You accuse the hundreds of competent, honest, honorable engineers who produced the FEMA report & the NIST report of lying, fraud & accessory to the murder of thousands of innocent Americans.

You accuse me, and every other competent engineer in this country, of accessory to all of the above, by virtue of our cowardice or “fear for our jobs”.

Your accusations are baseless & despicable.
And say far, FAR more about you than they do about anybody that you accuse.

I sincerely doubt that there is one debunker here who would take that money.

That is the most fraudulent, ludicrous, hilarious, absurd, outlandish, and utterly false statement that any skeptic has made this year.
Congratulations. You finally did something worthwhile.

Grow a pair.
Name names.
Provide evidence.

I actually doubt that you would take that money either, but you find it convenient to lie.

I will take that money and sit my ass on a beach sipping piña coladas while I support the skeptics' cause. No, I have no shame. Neither do some skeptics here, who are obviously on the payroll of the misinformation effort.

You have no honor.
You admit it.

You have no clue that other people are not so bereft of self-respect & honor.
THAT is your main problem.

Even more than your colossal ignorance.

I’ve asked you to state clearly the laws of physics that you believe are broken by NIST’s conclusions.

I have also said that the laws of physics can not be broken, and you agreed. If you already agreed, why do you keep asking?

See if you can read just TWO SIMPLE SENTENCES & figure out the difference between them..

Statement 1: “State clearly the laws of physics that you believe are broken by NIST’s conclusions.”
Statement 2: “State clearly the laws of physics that were broken.”

Do you notice ANY DIFFERENCE between those two sentences?
Perhaps it would help you if you were to count the number of words in each sentence.

Why are you incapable of comprehending the difference between those two sentences?

Do you have a learning disability?

I’ve asked you this before, facetiously.
Now, I’m asking it seriously.

Without sound, there is a guy that I know to be a musician & a physicist walking thru some high tech facility. No additional info is available.

So you can't understand the experiment being performed unless it is explained to you? In other words, you need to be told what you are seeing in order for you to understand it. What kind of "expert" are you?

You walked right into that. Don't you think I planned that example and expected your reply?
LoL.

Perfect. Let’s play, Let’s see who walked into what …

Without the sound, would you have known …

… that this was a NASA facility?

… how big it is?

… how many tons of air was in it?

… as a direct result of the above, how many tons of air from each floor of the WTC had to be pushed out in {1.07 second, then 0.44 second, then 0.34 second, then 0.29 second, then 0.25 second, then 0.23 second, then 0.21 second, then 0.20 second, then 0.18 second, then 0.17 second, then 0.17 second, then 0.16 second …} during the crush down of the {1st, 2nd, 3rd, … , 12th story} below the collapse initiation floor?

… that the chamber was built for testing of nuclear propslsion systems? (which I SERIOUSLY doubt to be true. I think it was highly likely built to test ICBMs & nuclear warhead re-entry vehicles during the exo-atmospheric portion of their trajectories.)

… the SEMINAL CONCEPT of this video: that it is an investigation of “the true nature of gravity”, rather than an investigation of “the nature of air resistance”?

… that it takes HUGE pumps three hours to pull the air out of this chamber?

… that the 2nd SEMINAL CONCEPT of this video is about Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity?

… that Einstein’s Theory says that “there is no force acting on the feather or the bowling ball at all?

… that the bowling ball & the feathers are, in fact, NOT FALLING AT ALL. That they are “standing still”?
​

No. Without the sound, you would have gotten NONE of that info.

You would have gotten only the most trivial, superficial, & LEAST interesting information: that under some conditions, the bowling ball & feathers fall at the same acceleration.

Just exactly as in the collapse video that the lying Twoofers showed Jowenko provided him with the most trivial, superficial, & LEAST interesting information: that the building fell down suddenly.

The video provided him with NONE if the crucial, deeper, richer most significant information that was available to “experts” who restrained their clueless blatherings until they had an opportunity to review ALL the data: that there were zero explosive detonation, that there were zero explosively cut or melted columns, girders or beams in the rubble pile. And therefore, precisely zero possibility that it was brought down by CD.

Stupid, stupid, incompetent “CD expert”…

(Good show, FF. You really punched me hard in my fist with your nose on that one. Walking into one of your carefully laid traps is like ... well, like nothing at all. It's exactly like addressing all the rest of your senseless, trivial-to-demolish nonsense. LoL.)

When are YOU ever going to address the "9 facts that disprove CD" that I've now listed for you several times, FalseFlag?
Or, like a coward & an intellectual fraud, are you going to run away from them forever?

 

[tfk]

Other than American Airlines, what other company supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77, which debunked conspiracy theories regarding that aircraft? That's right, Boeing.

I thought it was L3 Communications, because they made either the FDR or some forensic software to download data from FDRs.

 

[skyeagle409]

I thought it was L3 Communications, because they made either the FDR or some forensic software to download data from FDRs.

It was American Airlines and Boeing. The solid state FDR was a Loral Fairchild Model F-2100 and the transcribed data were reduced from the recorded binary values to engineering units using conversion formulas obtained from American Airlines and Boeing, and the NTSB Vehicles Recorder Division received the unit on Sept. 14, 2001.

L3 Communications is one of the companies I'd worked for at Travis AFB, CA. and at Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, Texas.

 

[JSanderO]

Just to let you know the experts do not support the use of CD at the World Trade Center.




It is apparent that you did not read the facts surrounding Richard Gage and his discredited AE911 Truth organization. I have posted comments of those who have worked with AE911 Truth and they have trashed that discredited AE911 Truth organization, but you would have known that if you had read the report on AE911 Truth.

To sum it up, AE911 Truth is a discredited joke!


The Shaky Moral Foundation that AE911Truth is Built Upon

We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything.

Our tendency to act as old fashioned journalists in exposing corruption eventually got us completely banned from the organization. Now, discussions about us are officially discouraged by the management of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as if we were the targets of a cult shunning.

http://healthwyze.org/tidbits/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon


AE911 Truth Fails, Again

The Troofers were all excited that they got a vote held at the Americans Institute of Architects annual meeting, unfortunately it failed by the overwhelming vote of 3,892 to 160. AE911 Truth claims over 100 of their members are in the AIA, which means that they barely managed to get votes from any other architects at all.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2015/05/ae911-truth-fails-again.html


American Institute of Architects rejects WTC 7 resolution with 160 for and 3,892 against.

A vote against a new investigation into WTC7 by the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

I was (un)fortunate enough to have been a board member of AE911T and active inside their organizatiion from 10-09 thru 02-10. I can confirm everything that the Sarah Corriher, whom I never met nor heard of, rings true... based on my experience.

I don't know about paid USG infiltrators and so on. The organization exists as a job and ego massage for Gage and serves no other purpose than to raise money to carry on raising money. It IS a cult essentially. What they do is fool naive people with fake and hollow claims and bilk money from them.

What they do is probably not illegal and so there is no attempt to shut them down. It is no different than a group advocating creation science... or scientology... both of which have many vocal followers who are down the rabbit hole and don't know or understand it... and when they are told refuse to accept it or just go quietly away trying to avoid embarrassment.

I got involved with AE because I had a legitimate interest in more technical explanations for large building collapses. They were completely not interested in this sort of study.... only in building a false scenario, raise claims of CD, false flags and so forth to attract naive people to give them money. Lying is not a criminal offense unless under oath in a court... so they can carry of their deception. But you can be damn sure that their "leaders" and experts would never appear in a court case.

There remains a need to better understand how fire destroys structures such as those towers. There is no doubt that it does and did on 9/11. It's the details, the sequence that is of technical interest. There is no proof, other than settled material science principles and no detail data to literally create a model or simulation. All that can be done is use reasonable assumptions. The chaos and complexity are beyond the scope of current technology to simulate these collapses.

It is absurd to make claims that NIST lied or attempted to deceive anyone. Did they make errors? Probably yes? Were they significant to change the conclusions and recommendations? mostly certainly no!

There was no evidence of CD or a false flag and none will be found.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Thanks for the compliment.

You bring the fraud and nonsense.

I bring the lulz.

It's a pretty good deal. I just wish I could get some of that "gubbamint cheese" too.

Yeah except the lurkers are now laughing too, keep up the good work!

That "gubbamint cheese" is amazing you should try it sometime. I'm typing this from my government funded yacht, off the coast of Monaco.

Like I said your stuff is comedy gold!

 

[pgimeno]

Show me a credible expert, and let's see.

Again, we all know your definition of "credible". If it doesn't agree with your prejudiced ideas, you'll reject it as not "credible". That's just one reason why your epistemology fails so blatantly.

Test me. Show me a credible expert and let's see what happens.

Now, let's do a quick review of the facts from a demolition expert.

You say expert.
I say fraud.

There's quite a difference between the two, unless you want to agree that he is an expert at being a fraud.

I rest my case.

 

[jaydeehess]

Is this what NIST said?

Quote the passage in the NIST report.

Also, please explain "average acceleration".

In common terms it would be adding up all the point measurements and divide by the number of said measurements. In a "best fit" line on a graph, well the term is self explanatory, its a best fir STRAIGHT LINE on a graph containing multiple point measurements. In either case, there must be some points above the average value or best fir line, and some points below the value or best fit line.
This is not rocket science although it might get used by rocket scientists.

Odd that you display a complete and utter inability to grasp this reality.

<<snip idiotic ad hom>>.

 

[jaydeehess]

LMFAO.
I guess we can add 9th grade statistics to the long, LONG list of things about which FF hasn't the slightest clue...

Indeed, whereas I would agree that statistical analysis of plots on a graph in a proper and acceptable scientific manner is university level math, a simple average was taught in my jurisdiction, in the 1960s, in grade 6. It was considered not that tough a calculation as it only involves one step of adding, and one step of dividing.

Weighted averages were taught in grade 10 or 11. But we should not get into that as it might cause FF's head to explode.

 

[jaydeehess]

Meanwhile, NONE of the AE911T morons have lifted one finger to to bring their talents to bear, and produce one single study, followed up by a competent paper that is good enough to get published in any engineering journal.

Thank you tfk, for that. I have been saying similar for a decade now.
Would engineers, architects, pilots, and lawyers be among some of the most comfortable persons wrt their compensation for services rendered? Why yes they would, of course. Yet all they do in the "xxxxx for 911 Truth" groups is give money for more words, rather than actions.

Did Pilotsf911t produce a strictly technical paper outlining their conclusion that flight 77's DFDR shows it followed a different path than illustrated by the ground damage? NO!
Has AE911T produced a detailed report on the order of complexity produced by NIST or Nordenson, structural FEAs or fire spread/intensity sims? No!

 

[JSanderO]

There is no "the missing jolt" to be found. Once the top mass was disengaged from the structure... it was breaking apart and there were no axial collisions to register in a perceptible jolt. But ever collision would produce a deceleration or the moving part hitting a stationary one. And there were tens of thousands of these "collisions" spread out over a bit of time.

This missing jolt theory is a waste of time.