WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

achimspok said:
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.
Click to expand...

No respected engineering or scientific community anywhere on Earth has said the collapse of the WTC7 is suspicious, or the NIST is wrong about fire and damage alone bringing down the building. My head says don't trust some guy on the internet claiming he knows something they don't. You'll need to convince somebody who matters that you are right in order for me to believe you. Sorry, but that's how the game is played.

Of course, if your issue with NIST has nothing do do with claiming the building couldn't have collapsed by fire and damage alone, then I have no problem. It would probably be a good thread in a physics or engineering thread.

What does your head say?
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Love this stuff. I wrote:
'So you can only guess at that, even with fancy programs like A and F use. No advantage there..'
Click to expand...
...referred to (probably your own ability of) measurements.
Referred to your ability you are right.
Referred to the preciseness of measurements you are wrong.
Prerequisite: a basic understanding of the movement and perspective.

alienentity said:
So he agrees that we can only guess, but thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Click to expand...
Referred to 'what caused that collapse'.
Not referred to the movement.

So your little comparison of the word "guess" is once again the same way you lie. ...probably a question of your style.

By the way, it is funny how you use the word "he" opposite to "we".
It's a pitful way to involve other in your failure.
Yup, it's all very coherent. (vomit smiley)(vomit smiley)(vomit smiley)

alienentity said:
And off-topic? Hardly.
Click to expand...
And in that pitful way you need to repeat that tiny joke of others about my English. That's all very coherent charakter and off topic, of course, because you cannot show "us" how you ideed replicated the NIST failure. I "guess" it would be a little to obvious for "them" and therefore embarrassing for the "you" in the "we".:boxedin:

alienentity said:
But as I said, Truthers ...
Click to expand...
And that's the point I need to stop reading because you don't know what you are talking about.

Show me the way you replicated the NIST failure!
...if you ever really did it.
 
achimspok, if you are so sure of what the CT websites have said about NIST, and you think this performance is so effective, then why don't you bring it to NIST, or a reputable scientific organization, or even the legal experts, challenge them and prove them wrong, showing the world that you are right?
 
twinstead said:
No respected engineering or scientific community anywhere on Earth has said the collapse of the WTC7 is suspicious, or the NIST is wrong about fire and damage alone bringing down the building. My head says don't trust some guy on the internet claiming he knows something they don't. You'll need to convince somebody who matters that you are right in order for me to believe you. Sorry, but that's how the game is played.

Of course, if your issue with NIST has nothing do do with claiming the building couldn't have collapsed by fire and damage alone, then I have no problem. It would probably be a good thread in a physics or engineering thread.

What does your head say?
Click to expand...

The free fall issue is some crucial argument in the so called "conspiracy theory" about WTC7. The respected engineering or scientific community isn't that interested in that issue at all especially 9 years after...
So the conspiracy sub-forum is exactly the place where it belongs. And you know right here are all the members of the respected engineering or scientific community on Earth who still deal with these issues, who know all the necessary information to understand the meaning, to know about wich building and wich day "we" are talking etc pp

Yet, I'm here and had a little message for you guys.

So your head might tell you not to trust me but I think - deep in your heart ;-) you do because I layed out my cards. You can check it bit by bit. You don't need to trust me. That's the trick. Something that alienentity for example doesn't do. At least it seems so. He just argues around the corners and uses "we" to draw the line between his inability and my layed out cards.

Has he any critique about my method? Can he describe the movement of the building in a more compelling way? Can he show any curve of his "measurements"? ... OK, I leave that poor guy alone. What's about NIST and the respected engineering or scientific community? I many more information might that community have than I got from NIST? None.

One example - just for fun: The data for AA11 crashing into the tower - speed and trajectory - were analyzed by an MIT professor who obviously never did anything like that before. He took a sheet of paper draw some skyline without any perspective and ... his result was WAY OFF. 5 other institutes analyzed it. Nevertheless, these WAY OFF data are in the report an were the basic dataset for the damage estimation. Tell you what, the respected engineering or scientific community don't care. Why?
They have to buy the so called prerequisites and may have an opinion about the result under the conditions of these prerequisites. If the prerequisites are wrong then nobody in the respected engineering or scientific community can and will notice it without doing the work from scratch.

Here we go.
 
The Platypus said:
achimspok, if you are so sure of what the CT websites have said about NIST, and you think this performance is so effective, then why don't you bring it to NIST, or a reputable scientific organization, or even the legal experts, challenge them and prove them wrong, showing the world that you are right?
Click to expand...
Good idea, why not.

Btw, do you think that duck looks somehow pretty arrogant like some bad-teacher-smiley? I just wanted to mention it because may be you are a nice person and not aware of the influence of your public face.
avatar31447_1.gif
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
Good idea, why not.
Click to expand...

Let's see you go do it then. Why waste your time here on some obscure forum trying to convince a few joe nobodies? If you are so smart and so irrefutably correct, and that your game is so tight with your bad ass arrogant attitude, then you're ready for the challenge, you should be able to defeat all the experts and professionals and their scrutiny no problem then, right?

I have no doubt that you will quickly show the world which side are the liars with an agenda...
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
The free fall issue is some crucial argument in the so called "conspiracy theory" about WTC7. The respected engineering or scientific community isn't that interested in that issue at all especially 9 years after...
So the conspiracy sub-forum is exactly the place where it belongs. And you know right here are all the members of the respected engineering or scientific community on Earth who still deal with these issues, who know all the necessary information to understand the meaning, to know about wich building and wich day "we" are talking etc pp

Yet, I'm here and had a little message for you guys.

So your head might tell you not to trust me but I think - deep in your heart ;-) you do because I layed out my cards. You can check it bit by bit. You don't need to trust me. That's the trick. Something that alienentity for example doesn't do. At least it seems so. He just argues around the corners and uses "we" to draw the line between his inability and my layed out cards.

Has he any critique about my method? Can he describe the movement of the building in a more compelling way? Can he show any curve of his "measurements"? ... OK, I leave that poor guy alone. What's about NIST and the respected engineering or scientific community? I many more information might that community have than I got from NIST? None.

One example - just for fun: The data for AA11 crashing into the tower - speed and trajectory - were analyzed by an MIT professor who obviously never did anything like that before. He took a sheet of paper draw some skyline without any perspective and ... his result was WAY OFF. 5 other institutes analyzed it. Nevertheless, these WAY OFF data are in the report an were the basic dataset for the damage estimation. Tell you what, the respected engineering or scientific community don't care. Why?
They have to buy the so called prerequisites and may have an opinion about the result under the conditions of these prerequisites. If the prerequisites are wrong then nobody in the respected engineering or scientific community can and will notice it without doing the work from scratch.

Here we go.
Click to expand...

All I can say is you need to convince somebody who can do something about it that you are right instead of debating on relatively obscure internet forums. Until then, in my head AND my heart I have NO reason to think you are just another woo woo in a world of woo woos posting stuff on the web.
 
twinstead said:
All I can say is you need to convince somebody who can do something about it that you are right instead of debating on relatively obscure internet forums. Until then, in my head AND my heart I have NO reason to think you are just another woo woo in a world of woo woos posting stuff on the web.
Click to expand...
But you have an own head, didn't you?
 
achimspok said:
1) no assignment
2) no time
3) no money
4) hot potato
5) and a report for a pure conscience
nobody really likes to do that
Click to expand...
Some of the findings and subsequent recommendations cost developers big bucks. That wouldn't be enough incentive (not to mention the moral one).
 
achimspok said:
.
And in that pitful way you need to repeat that tiny joke of others about my English.
Click to expand...

I won't respond to the nonsense of your last post, achimspok, since it doesn't actually address any technical issue.

However, I made no intended reference to your English. I only replied that my remarks were on-topic, not off-topic as you alleged.

Frankly your writing is not very comprehensible, but I attribute that to your thought processes, not your command of the English language. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's just your lack of communication skills.

Either way, I'm sorry I can't help you. Maybe we should stick to technical discussions.
 
achimspok said:
So your head might tell you not to trust me but I think - deep in your heart ;-) you do because I layed out my cards. You can check it bit by bit. You don't need to trust me. That's the trick. Something that alienentity for example doesn't do. At least it seems so. He just argues around the corners and uses "we" to draw the line between his inability and my layed out cards.
Click to expand...

Don't project. You don't know what we think, and vice-versa.

I think you're getting rather confused about what 'we' means. You used the phrase 'Of cause, we can only guess what all that meant' and I mentioned that you (he) agree that we can only guess.

Are you not a 'he'? Perhaps I should have written 'she'. But do you want me to refer to you as 'we'? Oui or non?

Perhaps it's a language barrier thing, in which case why don't you slow down a bit and try to comprehend what is being written before flaming this kind of nonsense? Thanks so much, we do appreciate it..;)
 
DGM said:
Some of the findings and subsequent recommendations cost developers big bucks. That wouldn't be enough incentive (not to mention the moral one).
Click to expand...
True words. Does it change anything? Do you know any developer that checked the prerequisites?
For example: What if the problem of the towers was not the catenary floor sagging that allegedly pulled the perimeter inwards until the building collapsed?
Do you know any institute or developer who checked that theory at all?
So what if the problem was different?
Well, subsequent recommendations cost developers big bucks but who is financially and political able to check that?

Little secret: All subsequent measurments point a big fat finger on the core of the building. Imho that thing collapsed below 98 and pulled the perimeter down. The subsequent recommendations know nothing about it.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
I won't respond to the nonsense of your last post, achimspok, since it doesn't actually address any technical issue.
Click to expand...
I won't respond to your nonsense at all, alienentity, until you either show your measurments or describe the movement of the building in a different and more compelling way.;)
 
achimspok said:
True words. Does it change anything? Do you know any developer that checked the prerequisites?
For example: What if the problem of the towers was not the catenary floor sagging the allegedly pulled the perimeter inwards until the building collapsed?
Do you know any institute or developer who checked that theory at all?
So what if the problem was different?
Well, subsequent recommendations cost developers big bucks but who is financially and political able to check that?

Little secret: All subsequent measurments point a big fat finger on the core of the building. Imho that thing collapsed below 98 and pulled the perimeter down. The subsequent recommendations know nothing about it.
Click to expand...
I'm a general contractor and yes I know several developers and engineers that "looked into it".

What exactly are your qualifications that would make your "honest opinion" more then just a wild guess.
 
achimspok said:
Little secret: All subsequent measurments point a big fat finger on the core of the building. Imho that thing collapsed below 98 and pulled the perimeter down. The subsequent recommendations know nothing about it.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain 79 below the E Penthouse?
 
achimspok said:
Little secret: All subsequent measurments point a big fat finger on the core of the building. Imho that thing collapsed below 98 and pulled the perimeter down. The subsequent recommendations know nothing about it.
Click to expand...
The core was the last thing standing, but you are saying that it fell first too? Can you elaborate on this?

On edit - I almost put strikethrough on the above post because I thought I misunderstood what might have been an on-topic reference to WTC7. But he's saying 98 (I'm assuming 98th floor), so I guess I'll leave it. :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom