WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[JimBenArm]

Nonsense.

Wow! Such a scathing retort!
You've got him on the ropes now, buddy!

 

[achimspok]

You have observations but no hypothesis. Attempting to refine the observations is not the most productive way to achieve progress.

Dave

Observations led to the hypothesis that the earth is not flat like a pancake.
Observations led to the hypothesis that weather wasn't caused by witches.

Science
1) choose a theme
2) identifies the problem
3) develops a hypothesis
...
I had the hypothesis that NIST interpreted the movement in the wrong way.
4) I created a little experiment
5) tested the hypotesis (by animation and measurement)
6) analyzed the result
7) formulated my conclusion (failure / free fall from the very beginning)

and you got a problem.

Next I
1b) choose a theme (WTC7 consiracy theories and the free fall issue)
2b) identified the next problem (my last conclusion obviously doesn't fit in the old collapse hypothesis)
...and if all around here agree with that then we should move on to step 3 of the scientific method and develop a new hypothesis.

Do you agree with 1-2b, Dave?
Can we move on? ...may be in a new thread?

(You see, your attempt is pure rethoric.)

 

[achimspok]

Wow! Such a scathing retort!
You've got him on the ropes now, buddy!

No, it wasn't worth of more than that.

Btw, what ropes? What's your goal, idiot?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Observations led to the hypothesis that the earth is not flat like a pancake.

But we needed a hypothesis to determine that it was in fact an oblate spheroid.

Observations led to the hypothesis that weather wasn't caused by witches.

But we needed a hypothesis to determine that it was in fact caused by hydrodynamics, coriolis forces, etc., etc., etc.,

The bottom line is this: I don't believe you when you say you're just trying to come up with a better collapse hypothesis than NIST. I think you're trying to cast doubt on the general conclusion that the collapse was in any way due to the fires, then try to use that to convince the uninformed that explosives are a viable hypothesis. The only way you'll do that is by trying to gloss over your failure to even outline that hypothesis.

Dave

 

[JimBenArm]

No, it wasn't worth of more than that.

Btw, what ropes? What's your goal, idiot?

Ah, idiom impaired as well.

I like you, You're cute.

 

[achimspok]

But we needed a hypothesis to determine that it was in fact an oblate spheroid.



But we needed a hypothesis to determine that it was in fact caused by hydrodynamics, coriolis forces, etc., etc., etc.,

The bottom line is this: I don't believe you when you say you're just trying to come up with a better collapse hypothesis than NIST. I think you're trying to cast doubt on the general conclusion that the collapse was in any way due to the fires, then try to use that to convince the uninformed that explosives are a viable hypothesis. The only way you'll do that is by trying to gloss over your failure to even outline that hypothesis.

Dave

It doesn't matter what you believe.
Do you agree with 1-2b?

 

[JimBenArm]

It doesn't matter what you believe.
Do you agree with 1-2b?

Only what you believe.

I believe I'll have another beer.

 

[achimspok]

Ah, idiom impaired as well.

I like you, You're cute.

"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom

 

[JimBenArm]

Just keep that in mind going forward.

 

[twinstead]

It doesn't matter what you believe.

Nor does it matter what you believe.

 

[achimspok]

Nor does it matter what you believe.

Wow, that's great.
Therefore I came up with pure measurements instead of a hypothesis based on my believes (without measurements). Do you get the difference?

Most of you are only interested in my believes - not in measurements at all.
Strange but true.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It doesn't matter what you believe.
Do you agree with 1-2b?

And I'm not interested in playing the classic conspiracy theorist's game of "I'm not developing my hypothesis until you agree with my premises" either. If you want to develop a hypothesis, go ahead; why should you have to wait till everyone agrees with you?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Wow, that's great.
Therefore I came up with pure measurements instead of a hypothesis based on my believes (without measurements). Do you get the difference?

Most of you are only interested in my believes - not in measurements at all.
Strange but true.

But there appears to be a difference of opinion on whether your measurements are correct. So who should be the ultimate judge of this?

 

[Sabretooth]

Lokk at the topic. I feel that NIST made a mistake in the interpretation of the movement and therefore a mistake in the interpretation of their measurement.

I feel that you are really reaching hard and going out of your way to find a mistake with the preconceived conclusion that there is a mistake in the NIST calculations.

To answer your question: I'm not certain what mechanism was involved that caused such a fast collapse but I'm confident that a proper mechanism will either affirm the believed cause or not.

Not sure what you mean here. I read this as: “I don’t know what happened, but whatever caused it, it will be right or wrong.” Basically, you gave a nonsense answer to skirt the question.

The NIST simulation confirms the believed mechanism of a slow buckling and an ongoing disintigration of the core. It do not confirm the measurement in question and the actual movement of the visible building parts.
So if fires caused the collapse then these fires caused a different mechanism.
If office fires cannot cause a different mechanism then we should watch out for something that can.

If I recall, NIST could not exactly replicate the disintegration of the core in their simulation. Since we don’t have x-ray video of WTC7, no one ever will be able to do so. That being said, the time fractions you are trying to play with do not change or alter the mechanism of the collapse. You are focused on a single point of reference and are seemingly ignoring the ongoing changes to the building’s core and outer structure leading to the critical point of global collapse.

It do not omit anything. NIST measured the transition between 3 different movements and thought it was just one.
They measured the fall of the screenwall + the bowing sidways of the parapet + the fall of the parapet and interpreted the entire dataset as downwards movement of the parapet. ...a failure at least in my opinion.

The 1.5 seconds I’m referring to is the difference between 5.4 seconds (NIST) and 3.9 seconds (total freefall). And I still don’t see a 1.5 second relevance between the screenwall and parapet.

But I do. I show you the precise measurement of the entire movement of several floors. How is a set of curves "intentionally deceptive"?

You show a set of curves without a live reference to the points in the Cam 3 real-time video. You put a lot of work into these clips trying to analyze this “mistake” you claim to have found, but ultimately you are holding back on the final product. Why? Show us your points and timeline on the live video. Because, honestly, I don’t see that you’ve found a “mistake”…it’s just an illusion in your head and all this is an attempt at deception.

These "bouncing little flutters" (I guess you talk about the little 3D animation) is neither real time nor accurate in the movement.
The entire purpose of these animations is to show the effect of that movement on the appearance for the vantage point of camera 3.

I know, and they are interesting, but they don’t really confirm your theory…they just show the point of reference you’re using. But, that’s like me proving you can’t fly from New York to Miami in 3 hours because St. Louis is my starting point.

For what purpose? Since you know the kind of movement you are watching you simply can watch the original videos. It wouldn't help anything to animate it in my little animation program, right?

See above.

May be this might help. Here you see the tracked points for the measurements I gave.
[qimg]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8121/measurementwp.gif[/qimg]
Watch the highest tracking point. You clearly see the moment when it started to move with all the points below. Thats the moment when that point really starts to catch the movement of the parapet instead of the movement of the screenwall.

Right, I know. But again, show how your references work in real time and in its entirety. You’re in a forum full of skeptics. By leaving out the final product, it seems as though all you are doing is puffing your feathers to make yourself bigger than you really are.

 

[tsig]

Wow, that's great.
Therefore I came up with pure measurements instead of a hypothesis based on my believes (without measurements). Do you get the difference?

Most of you are only interested in my believes - not in measurements at all.
Strange but true.

As opposed to the evil measurements that NIST came up with?

 

[alienentity]

Love this stuff. I wrote:
'So you can only guess at that, even with fancy programs like A and F use. No advantage there..'

Wrong. <snip out inferred allegation of demolition explosions>
Of cause, we can only guess what all that meant. Was it the beginning of the collapse may be? ...but that's off topic.

So he agrees that we can only guess, but thinks that it is wrong to do so.

Yup, it's all very coherent..
And off-topic? Hardly.

But as I said, Truthers seem to avoid or ignore what doesn't feed into their obsession with controlled demolition. achimspok is no different from any other truther in that regard.

I will give A. props for the detail of his analysis and his attempt to explain the building behavior. Not sure what he means with the term 'core' - maybe it's just a vague reference to the interior structure, which included core columns.

 

[achimspok]

And I'm not interested in playing the classic conspiracy theorist's game of "I'm not developing my hypothesis until you agree with my premises" either. If you want to develop a hypothesis, go ahead; why should you have to wait till everyone agrees with you?

Dave

Just a question of facts.
...to end 9 years of failure.

 

[achimspok]

But there appears to be a difference of opinion on whether your measurements are correct. So who should be the ultimate judge of this?

I see no opinion at all so far regarding the measurements.
All I see is the anxious question: Why did I do that and what's next?

 

[twinstead]

I see no opinion at all so far regarding the measurements.
All I see is the anxious question: Why did I do that and what's next?

Then why should I trust YOU to tell me they are right? Shouldn't I wait for a second opinion? What do I do if experts tell me you don't know what you are talking about, yet you still insist you are right?

So many questions.

 

[achimspok]

Then why should I trust YOU to tell me they are right? Shouldn't I wait for a second opinion? What do I do if experts tell me you don't know what you are talking about, yet you still insist you are right?

So many questions.

That's an argument but there is no expert who tell you I don't know what I'm talking about. Where is any critique regarding the movement of the building or the measurements? We are alone. So use your head.