WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

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.

Beachnut, this is always your mistake.
You start with A conclusion before you get the facts straight.
Btw, that's the problem of NIST too. You are not alone.
Bunny no brave!

 

[femr2]

Femr2, you're tedious and repetitive.

Bizarre. One would think that to be repetitive I'd have to have said similar before. Hmmm. Go find AE.

Just to clarify one of your misinterpretations/assumptions, yes, I used a point about midway.

Oh dear, then. You cannot use a point mid-way without getting yourself all confuzzled by the complete lack of any definite way to separate the roofline from the other roof-top structures.

You therefore make the same silly mistakes as NIST.

So unroll your eyes, because you're talking wet.

Speaka da English.

Further, your constant misinterpretations of blatantly obvious details are not even entertaining, they're just plain irrelevant.

I already suggested popping-off and analysing the movement from multiple viewpoints. Sub-pixel tracing methods a definite plus for doing so.

Both camera angles show vertical displacement.

Eventually, sure (building eventually hits t'ground see), but, unless you're suggesting that the vertical position of the roofline oscillates down AND up, then, nah, you're just wrong

I measured it

...and didn't do a very good job of it.

Chandler measured it

...and didn't do a very good job of it, though at least he used a consistent spot, rather than the NIST roof-top feature-> roofline nonsense.

(but from the right corner, which moves later, as was also documented by NIST)

Ish. Right corner ? You mean NW corner of course. Want a whole series of traces at points along the roofline ? Data is in my piling system if you ask very nicely.

and it's a fact.

No excrement, Sherlock

Stop trying to obfuscate

Eh

God only knows what you hope to accomplish

Simply supporting the assertion that the apparent vertical movement of the centre of the North face of WTC 7 seen during the early moments of the Cam#3 viewpoint are NOT primarily vertical movement at all, but a side-effect (aka illusion) resulting from the perspective. Correlating the movement from multiple viewpoints clarifies the general behaviour.

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

You're becoming more irrational by the vent.

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

So, not only have you not actually seen my *analysis*, don't understand the point I'm making (as you're asking what it is) and are comparing said unseen analysis to your fandazzling YouTube video PROOF !!!1!1! ... you're throwing out that unseen analysis of*whatever* and sticking with your own that doesn't even discuss multi-viewpoint vertical displacement illusions at all.

Nice work ! (Where's the big thumbs-up smiley, eh.)

Thanks for playing the 'attempt to revise physical reality' game.

I'm not playing. Wasting my time on you no doubt, but hey ho.

 

[tsig]

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.

Couldn't have been unicorn horns because unicorn horns are well known for their healing powers so if there'd been any unicorn horns there we'd have seen the fires go out, the building zip themselves back up and all the people made whole.

Maybe the horns have pretemporal power so we'd have seen the planes pass thru the buildings like smoke and continue on their way with nothing disturbed.

Questions, questions, we need a new investigation to prove my conclusions, whatever they are.

 

[alienentity]

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

Excuse me? Are you now denying that Iraq had WMD programs?

Wow.Just.Wow. The denial is strong with this one.

UNSCOM was created in 1991, after Iraq's defeat in the first Gulf War.
'After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction'

UNSCOM documents

It's not speculation, it's fact that Iraq had both chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

It is speculation, not fact, that the WTC buildings were brought down with Controlled Demolition involving variously high explosives, thermitic materials and Directed Energy Weapons.

Again, truthers are basically arguing whether the unicorn horn is made of thermite or thermate. What your point is I cannot fathom.

 

[femr2]

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?

I have no issue with the Dan Rather viewpoint being used (tho it is possible to extract higher fidelity trace data from my 1Gb DV version of the Cam#3 footage from NIST).

The important point (pardon the pun) is the choice of point used. Chandler used the NW corner, which is fine for its purpose. You stated you used a point in the middle. Now then, exactly how did you choose a point in the middle and determine the position of the roofline ?

 

[JimBenArm]

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

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.


ditto

What's the name of the baby?


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!

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.

Ah, I see, so because some of the people here act immature, that makes it okay? I didn't buy that argument from my teen-aged daughters. Why do you think it works for you? Are you a teenager, too?
Also, see the quotes above and see if you can spot the childish taunts in them. Along with the name-calling. That's just from this page. Didn't even have to look too far back.
You're doing a fine job. That is, if you're trying to convince people you are not capable of carrying on maturely.
Next snide remark in 5, 4, 3, ...

 

[tsig]

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

Yes it is and you know what's in the bottom of rabbit holes don't you? Right?

 

[alienentity]

Bizarre. One would think that to be repetitive I'd have to have said similar before. Hmmm. Go find AE.

Oh you have, and you are. Your style, your method of argumentation. That's repetitive and boring. It's almost like having a conversation with a cryptic denialbot. It's indistinguishable, really.

I'm not playing. .

No? Then you're really sincerely trying to revise physical reality. Good luck with that.

Please get back to us when your research has been accepted in the scientific community and you've received your Nobel Prize in infinite parsing of irrelevant data.

 

[alienentity]

Ah, I see, so because some of the people here act immature, that makes it okay? I didn't buy that argument from my teen-aged daughters. Why do you think it works for you? Are you a teenager, too?
Also, see the quotes above and see if you can spot the childish taunts in them. Along with the name-calling. That's just from this page. Didn't even have to look too far back.
You're doing a fine job. That is, if you're trying to convince people you are not capable of carrying on maturely.
Next snide remark in 5, 4, 3, ...

When challenged on his words, he dives down the nearest semantic hidey-hole.

And his grand theory is?? Oh, does anybody have a clue what his point is? Must be too damn clever for us I suppose.

 

[tsig]

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.

Yea, the fact that someone else did it too always worked for me in the third grade, you must have went to the same school.

Good old Ignatius Reform Institute known affectionately as IggyRI.

 

[alienentity]

I have no issue with the Dan Rather viewpoint being used (tho it is possible to extract higher fidelity trace data from my 1Gb DV version of the Cam#3 footage from NIST).

The important point (pardon the pun) is the choice of point used. Chandler used the NW corner, which is fine for its purpose. You stated you used a point in the middle. Now then, exactly how did you choose a point in the middle and determine the position of the roofline ?

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/759212128.jpg[/qimg]

It's all explained in my videos.
But basically I randomly chose a spot about halfway along, created hi-contrast images to locate and count floors, determined by scrubbing the video when the first discernible motion began at that point (zooming in of course) and ran it down, frame by frame until it reached the point formerly 18 floors below. 5.4 seconds. My point was not to measure instantaneous acceleration, I didn't even have the tools to do that; my point was to verify the NIST timing and in the process I disproved Chandler's erroneous claim.

I actually started the measurements because I thought Chandler might be right, but I didn't take his word for it - I measured it for myself.

Once I discovered that prominent truthers such as Chandler were either lying or misrepresenting a lot of the facts, I got more interested in truther videos and truther claims.

For the record I think a lot of the measuring you do is very precise and interesting. I just think it's ultimately a conceptual dead-end. It doesn't begin to refute the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, so I lose interest at that point.

 

[femr2]

Oh you have

Quote please.

It's almost like having a conversation with a cryptic denialbot.

I'm not interested in a conversation with you. I'm currently simply highlighting your mistakes.

So, again...

Now then, exactly how did you choose a point in the middle and determine the position of the roofline ?

 

[achimspok]

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?

Interesting, before you allow yourself to think about the presented "motion" you need to know my intention to show it.
Simple answer: I think that anything else is wrong! Is it enough of a DESIRE to present you the result of measurements?
If not, I would say your second guess comes closely.

The core collapsed in 3 distinct parts with the penthouses on top.

Why is it a dishonest attempt? How could it discredit the entire NIST report by presenting such a minor detail? Is it just because that minor detail is the crucial part of it? Or is it just your attempt to descredit some measurements?
Those measurements are pretty simple. Try it by your own! I can tell you how to do it.

Or are you saying that the major interest of the WTC7 report was some fire simulation without any interest in the collapse mechanism as long as the thing comes down somehow? ...and may be the question "can we simulate fires hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel around column 79 to get it buckle?"

The mechanism of the collapse - this is what it is all about even if you try to play it down like the usual "it collapsed - it doesn't matter how". I hope you don't share that (imho) stupidity.
How matters because it is the crucial question for WHY! If the report doesn't answer that question then it failed - it's simple like that.

 

[alienentity]

Quote please.


I'm not interested in a conversation with you. I'm currently simply highlighting your mistakes.

So, again...

Now then, exactly how did you choose a point in the middle and determine the position of the roofline ?

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/759212128.jpg[/qimg]

Answered above. Conversation is complete. Oh, we weren't having one. Fine.
Let's end the discussion we weren't having then.

Ah, denial, it's so reflexive and..... how shall I say..repetitive.

 

[A W Smith]

So what is it that your motion study disproves?

 

[alienentity]

So what is it that your motion study disproves?

We're dying to know..

 

[femr2]

It's all explained in my videos.

No, it's not.

But basically I randomly chose a spot about halfway along, created hi-contrast images to locate and count floors, determined by scrubbing the video when the first discernible motion began at that point (zooming in of course) and ran it down, frame by frame until it reached the point formerly 18 floors below.

You cannot determime the location of the roofline whilst the penthouses are still present. There is simply not enough contrast in ANY footage.

You chose a point on the roof of the West Penthouse, yes ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Interesting, before you allow yourself to think about the presented "motion" you need to know my intention to show it.
Simple answer: I think that anything else is wrong! Is it enough of a DESIRE to present you the result of measurements?
If not, I would say your second guess comes closely.

Is English not your first language? I simply can't tell what you're trying to convey here.

Or are you saying that the major interest of the WTC7 report was some fire simulation without any interest in the collapse mechanism as long as the thing comes down somehow?

Pretty much, yes, except that it went beyond fire simulation to investigate the structural response up to collapse initiation. Once collapse is initiated, it's a waste of engineering trying to stop it. NIST's main purpose was to investigate the cause of collapse initiation and recommend ways to prevent it. In my opinion, studying the collapse dynamics once the building was moving downwards was as much a waste of time as looking for evidence of explosives.

How matters because it is the crucial question for WHY! If the report doesn't answer that question then it failed - it's simple like that.

"Why" is a question about initiation. Propagation is assured by simple thermodynamics.

Dave

 

[achimspok]

Excuse me? Are you now denying that Iraq had WMD programs?

Wow.Just.Wow. The denial is strong with this one.

Let's start with CNN:
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-21/us/iraq.weapons_1_nuclear-weapons-hans-blix-iaea?_s=PM:US
Go on an goole for Blix or Powell and WDM ...

If you have any further questions about that topic, please do it in a new thread. I will come over and help you out with some facts.

 

[dafydd]

We're dying to know..

Yes,we are.