WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I leave it up to you to decide if either NIST did several "beginners mistakes" in a row while being very aware of the higher screenwall or if NIST just tries to hide the facts. The measurement itself is unambiguous

The people in NIST are professionals, you are not a professional. NIST didn't hide the facts, you're just handwaving the evidence like a good Truther does on 1 of their bad days.

You know nothing about mathematics!

 

[achimspok]

Oh good grief! ...
How are we supposed to take criticisms seriously when basic errors of fact are so blatantly pushed?

Where are the WMD?

(Sorry for being off topic.)

 

[alienentity]

hilarious

I forgot to mention that I used the same clip Chandler did in his video.

You might mention to Chandler that he is also hilarious for not using the Camera 3 angle.

But he's a truther so I think in his case it's a stroke of genius, dontcha think?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Where are the WMD?

(Sorry for being off topic.)

You mean Weapons of Mass Delusions? They're in your head!

 

[alienentity]

Oh joy, yet more blather regarding the free fall. The OP goes through a hell of a lot of "study" just to throw the free fall into question. All that was achieved was to reinforce what I have always said is that in the scope of the overall collapse it means nothing. Whether it was there or not, the free fall that is, doesn't make CD any more plausible.

If the deniers ever bothered to consider the entire event, 9/11 that is, they would realize that their focusing on a few things here and there makes them look foolish. The reason they have no working hypotheses for the entire 9/11 event is because there are massive gaps that require massive generalizations and leaps of faith to explain what went down on 9/11.

Exactly. Their work appears to be just an elaborate version of 'CD in the gaps'.
Any detail of the NIST reports that can be called into question is going to be conflated into 'Inside Job'

 

[alienentity]

Where are the WMD?

(Sorry for being off topic.)

Same place the Truther CD explosives are, only the WMD programs and the weapons actually existed and were destroyed by the UN.

The Truther CD explosives? They are pretty unicorn horns.

 

[achimspok]

OK, you may be right. It may have been the same point.

So, we've determined that when achimspok uses a different methodology to measure the rate of fall of a different point on WTC7 using a different definition of T=0, he finds that the collapse took place at a slightly different rate.

"when" but achimspok didn't use a different methodology or different T=0.
You can easily see that "stage 2" do not alow a lot of interpretation about T=0. It is what it is.

What does that tell us, other than that NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened to WTC7 after collapse initiation, when it was already certain to be completely destroyed?

It was already certain? How do we know if NIST's theory results in a slow east west disintegration of the core that never happened. Imho the disintegrated part harly could pull the north face inward. Imho the still not disintegrated part cannot either. In other words, it looks like the entire theory micht be wrong may be because NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened. They had a working theory written in the Interim report and made it fit. What difference does it make?

 

[Myriad]

No, they aren't. It's the same 3D model and the same animation in two different views. I just split the windows because otherwise each window would be very small.

You might have been told it's the same model and same movement. But it's inconsistent.

On the top down view, the southwest corner moves north and east, almost perfectly parallel to the orientation of the west wall. From any viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall hidden, that movement must appear as left to right. (Perspective, due to the movement of the point away from the camera, might change the magnitude of the apparent movement but cannot reverse its direction.)

The camera view, from a viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall is hidden, shows that corner moving right to left.

Now, if there were also vertical movement in the model, then the difference might be explained. (A vertical drop brings the corner closer to the camera, which could explain apparent right to left movement as being caused by perspective.) But wasn't your whole point that the model did not include vertical movement, that the vertical movement is just an illusion?

So, is this another case of beginner's mistake, or intentional deception?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[achimspok]

Both camera angles show vertical displacement.

I measured it, Chandler measured it (but from the right corner, which moves later, as was also documented by NIST) and it's a fact.

Well, the entire building tilted slightly to the east. The east corner fell at free fall, the west corner fell at free fall just a tiny little bit later, the east penthouse fell at free fall and at least the screenwall fell at freefall in a nice sequence.
You took the first falling as start and the last falling part as end and get - what a wonder - a "slower than free fall... You are wrong. You don't know what you are doing or you simply lie.

Stop trying to obfuscate - God only knows what you hope to accomplish....

ditto

hoping that people will dismiss the entire report, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?

What's the name of the baby?

Tell you what, I'll throw out your incorrect analysis, and stick with what I've already verified for myself.

It's your problem. I told you again and again about your mistakes in 5th grader physics you did to verify it for you and the YouTube community.
Go with god!

 

[achimspok]

You mean Weapons of Mass Delusions? They're in your head!

Any argument about the topic besides the babble of your Chewinggum Inquisition? What are you defending Chewy? Some physical nonsense you don't understand?

 

[achimspok]

Exactly. Their work appears to be just an elaborate version of 'CD in the gaps'. ...

Bunny gets frightened... CD? Has anybody said CD?

 

[achimspok]

...only the WMD programs and the weapons actually existed and were destroyed by the UN...

LOL You have no clue. You should read the paper sometimes.

 

[JimBenArm]

So, why the childish namecalling? You're here to influence people with the strength of your argument, yet all you do is act like an immature, foot-stomping child.
If people don't agree with you, there are two explanations. Either you are wrong, or you haven't explained it sufficiently. Calling people ridiculous names will not change this. The responsible adult will try to find a way to make himself understood, as well as take time to examine the argument put forth by the person disagreeing with him. You are not doing either, and are making yourself look foolish, childish and frankly, not worth listening to.

But then, I know I'll get another snide remark from our oh-so-mature teacher.

 

[beachnut]

Bunny gets frightened... CD? Has anybody said CD?

Bunny not published Bunny's NIST critique. Bunny frightened? Heiwa Published nonsense letter, why Bunny no brave?

You have no conclusion? That is the first red flag of failure.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It was already certain? How do we know if NIST's theory results in a slow east west disintegration of the core that never happened.

I'm trying to ascribe some meaning to this sentence. Are you arguing that the collapse of the core never happened, despite the collapse of the mechanical penthouses and the screenwall and the visibility of sky through several storeys of facade windows? Or are you suggesting that NIST's theory may have predicted some other mechanism than the actual one for the core collapse, which could somehow have been observed by more careful measurement of a different part of the structure after it had already occurred?

Or are you simply engaging in a dishonest attempt to discredit the entire NIST report by disputing one minor detail of it?

Imho the disintegrated part harly could pull the north face inward. Imho the still not disintegrated part cannot either.

That sounds nicely non-falsifiable.

In other words, it looks like the entire theory micht be wrong may be because NIST didn't waste their time obsessing about the fine details of what happened.

Thank you for your uninformed opinion.

Dave

 

[tsig]

So you're saying that NIST didn't fall at free-fall velocity?
Man, that changes everything.

You're behind on your twoofer arguments. Now NIST fell at faster than free fall and also fell slower than free fall and dustified all of which proove inside jerb.

 

[JimBenArm]

They had gerbils inside them?
Wow, the rabbit hole is deeper than I thought.

 

[achimspok]

You might have been told it's the same model and same movement. But it's inconsistent.

On the top down view, the southwest corner moves north and east, almost perfectly parallel to the orientation of the west wall. From any viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall hidden, that movement must appear as left to right. (Perspective, due to the movement of the point away from the camera, might change the magnitude of the apparent movement but cannot reverse its direction.)

You are right. My SW corner of the model is slightly moving north. That's not the intention. That's just because of a simple surface manipulation effect that pulls in two opposite sides at the very same radius. It was done to show the effect (without wasting to much time in the tiny details so to say) of the general movement.

The camera view, from a viewpoint south of the building and east of the plane of the west wall, from which the south and east walls are visible but the west wall is hidden, shows that corner moving right to left.

Oh, got it. You mean the camera view north and west of the building just like "camera 3". Do you see the towers in the background? The towers were south of WTC7.
Well, the east side was hollow and the east wall tilted north during the contraction.

...But wasn't your whole point that the model did not include vertical movement, that the vertical movement is just an illusion?

That's the point. The model do not include any vertical movement of the perimeter. Just the center part of the core 3x3 columns goes straight down (even if it looks a little angular to the bowed perimeter in the end).

Respectfully[/QUOTE]

 

[tsig]

Oh joy, yet more blather regarding the free fall. The OP goes through a hell of a lot of "study" just to throw the free fall into question. All that was achieved was to reinforce what I have always said is that in the scope of the overall collapse it means nothing. Whether it was there or not, the free fall that is, doesn't make CD any more plausible.

If the deniers ever bothered to consider the entire event, 9/11 that is, they would realize that their focusing on a few things here and there makes them look foolish. The reason they have no working hypotheses for the entire 9/11 event is because there are massive gaps that require massive generalizations and leaps of faith to explain what went down on 9/11.

Yep, let's worry about the mouse in the corner and ignore the elephant trumpeting in the middle of the room.

 

[achimspok]

So, why the childish namecalling? You're here to influence people with the strength of your argument, yet all you do is act like an immature, foot-stomping child.
If people don't agree with you, there are two explanations. Either you are wrong, or you haven't explained it sufficiently. Calling people ridiculous names will not change this. The responsible adult will try to find a way to make himself understood, as well as take time to examine the argument put forth by the person disagreeing with him. You are not doing either, and are making yourself look foolish, childish and frankly, not worth listening to.

But then, I know I'll get another snide remark from our oh-so-mature teacher.

Did I call someone names? No.
I think I used some kind of metaphor in the general sense.
"Bunny"! = anxious animal.
...just something like the "Truthers - Murder" metaphor. Oh, that wasn't a metaphor. That was more like name calling I guess. Some kind of comparison.