WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

twinstead said:
Is there a point buried deep within this thread?
Click to expand...
Kind of strange isn't it? I mean this being the conspiracy sub forum and all. No conspiracy here, Just mass. Core pulling down perimeter, dancing buildings, moments of free fall. Does he know we have a science and technology forum?
 
The Platypus said:
The nitty gritty.

Here we have the same situation over and over. We are expected to take the word of some arrogant young guy on the internet from a cult, who thinks he can just recite some conspiracy site and say gotcha........over the evalutions of 1000's of experts, dozens of professional institutions and organizations, that were consulted by NIST to assist and investigate. We are expected to also believe that NIST and everyone involved are a bunch of devious liars, that dude online would never lie, neither would any of the CT sites he's reciting from...

LMFAO... These people are too comical...
Click to expand...
Sorry, what are you saying by all these words? Anything?

...1000's of experts, dozens of professional institutions and organizations, that were consulted by NIST to assist and investigate...

Do you say the wall bow downwards or fell slower or stretched to the east? What?
Do you think 1000's of experts did that wrong measurement and dozens of professional institutions and organizations peer reviewed the result?

Edited by LashL: 
Removed breaches.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A W Smith said:
Kind of strange isn't it? I mean this being the conspiracy sub forum and all. No conspiracy here, Just mass. Core pulling down perimeter, dancing buildings, moments of free fall. Does he know we have a science and technology forum?
Click to expand...
Do you think I'm pro consiracy and therefore I have to start a therad with a proper "who did it" theory? (If so then 90% of all threads are misplaced here, right? e.g. the Warren Stutt paper. I mean I didn't read that thread because we had several emails while he wrote the paper and I exactly knew what he wrote. Do you think it should go to the science and technology forum?)
But I'm glad that you finally got the basic movement of the building.
...just instead of dancing I prefer contracting and instead of moments you might say 4+ seconds.
 
achimspok said:
Sorry, what are you saying by all these words? Anything?

...1000's of experts, dozens of professional institutions and organizations, that were consulted by NIST to assist and investigate...

Do you say the wall bow downwards or fell slower or stretched to the east? What?
Do you think 1000's of experts did that wrong measurement and dozens of professional institutions and organizations peer reviewed the result?

Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of moderated content
Click to expand...


LOL... it's like watching a little kid having a tantrum... LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
femr2 said:
No need to be sorry. No matter what version of the Dan Rather clip you used, or how much video processing you applied to increase contrast between the roofline and the East Penthouse North wall there's no way to reliably determine the transition point, and I wouldn't touch that location with a barge pole. .
Click to expand...

I don't want you to touch anything with your pole, you might decide to measure it 500,000 x and talk about it for 2 years.

I did in fact measure the descent correctly, certainly within a few frames of NIST's measurements.

So there.

Next.
 
achimspok said:
Sorry, what are you saying by all these words? Anything?

...1000's of experts, dozens of professional institutions and organizations, that were consulted by NIST to assist and investigate...

Do you say the wall bow downwards or fell slower or stretched to the east? What?
Do you think 1000's of experts did that wrong measurement and dozens of professional institutions and organizations peer reviewed the result?

Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of moderated content
Click to expand...

Well that didn't last long, was it something I said?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most amusing part of these efforts at one-upmanship by Messrs Achimspok and Femr2 just came clear to me:

I just rechecked a couple of my measurements (which were done on nice hi res DV dubs in FCP and other programs btw) and looked at the collapse from the Dan Rather and Camera 3 locations.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that you accept the argument that the building was only bowing inwards (due to the collapse of the 'core', says achimspok) and was generally distorting before finally the whole exterior fell fairly straight down.

When, pray, does one start counting the 'collapse' of the building, in order to yield a perfect timing for the descent? And what does the descent tell you?

The answer to the first question is that it is arbitrary: it depends what you want to measure. If you want the start of the collapse, it's impossible to do anyway, since technically it began out of sight, some time before the E Penthouse descended.

So you can only guess at that, even with fancy programs like A and F use. No advantage there..

If you want to measure descent, then you quickly realize that the building didn't collapse all at once in the same way, but in several phases (quick phases) across the structure.
So again, you can see a different result according to what you measure.

My method is pretty straightforward: you wait until the parapet wall starts to move, and that's a really fair point to start your timing of the final collapse.
My second video on that subject used the Camera 3 footage. Same result. Wow. That's cause I didn't start counting til things were well underway.


What does the descent tell you? Well, it tells you that the building was already collapsing and continued to do so. That's it.

The question of the acceleration is really not very important, since the whole thing was multiphase and progressive. The final acceleration numbers don't tell you HOW, they just measure the 'what' - as in, what was the speed of this part, or that part.

Truthers, doggedly determined to find something suspicious in anything they come across (ok, they're paranoid), have seized on the tiny aspect of acceleration to somehow imply a controlled demolition, while misrepresenting and/or ignoring any other bit of info.

A and F's method is to focus on an optical measurement protocol, declare theirs superior to everyone elses, and then fail to make many relevant points regarding the 'HOW' or 'WHY'.

It's humorous because it's so bloody irrelevant to the 'HOW' and 'WHY'. It's like measuring a car crash video from multiple views and arguing about the speeds and deceleration, completely forgetting why the crash happened in the first place, and not really even caring.

The big, relevant story about WTC 7 is the debris from WTC 1, and the fires.(The WHY) And their effect on the structure which led to failure (The HOW). That's where the serious inquiry went, as it should. The rest (how many degrees back it tilted, and what the acceleration was of various points) is footnotes and details.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
...The big, relevant story about WTC 7 is the debris from WTC 1, and the fires.(The WHY) And their effect on the structure which led to failure (The HOW). That's where the serious inquiry went, as it should. The rest (how many degrees back it tilted, and what the acceleration was of various points) is footnotes and details.
Click to expand...
'They' are entitled to fossick around in the detail....but pretending that it is the whole story is ridiculous. Yet that is what achimspok does:
achimspok said:
...The mechanism of the collapse - this is what it is all about...
Click to expand...
...well, no, it isn't what it is all about. The mechanism of collapse is one relatively small part of a 'total picture'. That 'total picture' is about a building which collapsed as the result of accumulating damage from unfought fires. We are all aware of the not too well hidden wish of some people to add some form of 'MIHOP' human assistance into the causes of collapse. But addressing that top level question is not 'their' objective we are told.

However the objective is explicit that it includes 'prove NIST wrong'. Well 'they' can even attempt to prove NIST wrong. I am satisfied that NIST has given a plausible explanation for the WTC7 collapse. It will not unduly perturb me if someone comes up with an alternate explanation - whether alongside NIST's version OR as a plausible alternate. But achimspok seeks to misrepresent that possibility:
achimspok said:
...even if you try to play it down like the usual "it collapsed - it doesn't matter how"...
Click to expand...
...well it really doesn't matter how unless your genuine objective is to study the mechanism of collapse and take it no further. But achimspok's posts make it clear he is interested in something that is so big that it qualifies as 'this is what it is all about'. Well the details of which column or beam failed first certainly don't qualify as 'this is what it is all about'.

The only WTC7 on 9/11 question which satisfies that criterion of 'what it is ll about' is the big question of 'demolition or not?' and the answer to that question is 'not'. So if achimspok wants to tackle that real big question then he should stop wasting his time in technical detail. There is a lot of 'no demolition' evidence awaiting rebuttal which is not in the domain of micro technical details. So much that no matter what this detailed technical exploration comes up with it will not shift the weight of 'no demolition' evidence.
 
ozeco41 said:
The only WTC7 on 9/11 question which satisfies that criterion of 'what it is ll about' is the big question of 'demolition or not?' and the answer to that question is 'not'. So if achimspok wants to tackle that real big question then he should stop wasting his time in technical detail. There is a lot of 'no demolition' evidence awaiting rebuttal which is not in the domain of micro technical details. So much that no matter what this detailed technical exploration comes up with it will not shift the weight of 'no demolition' evidence.
Click to expand...

In fact, this is the root of why all this discussion is futile.

Achimspok, however much he may deny it, is trying to construct a proof that WTC7's collapse was due to means other than fire and impact damage. Now, if he were serious about doing so rigorously, here's a set of steps he might like to follow.

(1) Construct viable hypotheses for collapse due to fire and impact damage, and collapse due to explosives or incendiaries.
(1a) If possible, identify known examples of both and compile observations on them.

(2) Analyse both hypotheses, and identify key differences between them that will result in specific observables.

(3) Look for key observables in the dataset from WTC7, and determine which hypothesis is a better fit.

Part (1) is pretty well done for the fire and impact scenario; the NIST report is a good enough starting point. No truther has made the slightest attempt to generate a hypothesis in anything approaching the same level of detail for collapse by other means. This should be, yet never is, the focus of effort for anyone wanting to challenge NIST. Part (1a), though optional, is one rarely approached by truthers too; very little work has been done by truthers on identifying even the key characteristics of the explosive demolitions they claim WTC7 to have resembled.

Part (2) is, of course, impossible without having carried out part (1). One cannot draw conclusions from a model that does not exist.

Part (3) is only worth doing, in any detail, when informed by part (2). Without any idea of what key observables differentiate between scenarios, there is absolutely no point in refining, to an ever-increasing level of detail, the interpretation of the motion of the building from the dataset available. If we have no idea which effects are necessary to one hypothesis and excluded by the other, no amount of observation will ever be of value in choosing the better hypothesis.

So, achimspok, by addressing (3) in greater detail - given that there is already a dataset of reasonable quality in existence - is putting the cart before the horse. Without hypotheses and prediction of specific observables, no amount of refinement of understanding the details of the dataset is of any value whatsoever in assigning causes.

In other words, come back when you have a fully formed hypothesis.

Dave
 
achimspok said:
Sorry, what are you saying by all these words? Anything?

...1000's of experts, dozens of professional institutions and organizations, that were consulted by NIST to assist and investigate...

Do you say the wall bow downwards or fell slower or stretched to the east? What?
Do you think 1000's of experts did that wrong measurement and dozens of professional institutions and organizations peer reviewed the result?

Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of moderated content
Click to expand...

Wait... waitwaitwait. You feel that you have found evidence that the NIST at best are grossly incompetent, at worst are lying. You feel that the video & math backs you up. You feel that you've caught something that some of the best engineers in the world missed... and you post it on little known web forums?!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave post 133: "Achimspok, however much he may deny it, is trying to construct a proof that WTC7's collapse was due to means other than fire and impact damage. "

He is showing a relation between sections of core descending and clear perimeter deformations in which we can practically see the core imprint within the deformations themselves.

It is far superior even in it's present form to the crappy simulation by the NIST. We can see the relation between penthouse movement and inward flexing of the perimeter with our own eyes.

It stands in direct contradiction to the NIST description and simultations of WTC7.

In addition, the momentary faster than free-fall movement fits perfectly with a loaded spring action between collective core and perimeter.

The NIST descriptions and simulations cannot explain this unique character of WTC7: Inward flexure.

The inward flexure is a vital clue which tells us that the NIST is incorrect, while bulk collective core movement explains it pretty damn well.

It should be the leading theory to explain all observables, including inward flexure and faster than freefall movement near the NW corner.

A spring-loaded system is a great model.
 
Last edited:
major_tom I hope for your sake you are right, because otherwise the idea that the the cream of the crop of the world's engineers are idiots makes you sound pretty arrogant.
 
alienentity said:
I don't want you to touch anything with your pole, you might decide to measure it 500,000 x and talk about it for 2 years.

I did in fact measure the descent correctly, certainly within a few frames of NIST's measurements.

So there.

Next.
Click to expand...

2freefall.gif


So there.

Next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom