WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[femr2]

Your audience here at the JREF keeps telling you that your graphs and graphics, in their current form, are unpersuasive and unecessarily complex.

If you are having problems with some point or other, by all means say so.

 

[femr2]

First, whatever happened to the word 'deduction?' I can't imagine Dr Watson exclaiming 'Brilliant deducement, Mr Holmes'. LOL

LOL ? Have a look in t'dictionary.

Anyway, I'm going to ignore the various ramblings from Femr2 for the moment, because I directed the answer to achimspok, not his personal pitbull.

You shouldn't be quoting my post if you're ignoring what I'm saying

Truthers, however, are deliberately confusing the two.

Nope. Clarifying what NIST actually did.

So there are two methods outlined and at play here. Both achimspok and Femr2 incorrectly, IMO, treat them as one thing.

Nope. You are ignoring the supporting trace data Achimspok has provided.

neither of them has lifted a finger to query NIST about this, in order to clarify the point.

By all means, go ahead and contact NIST.

As I've said, I have no need. I have my own data, which bearing in mind I know exactly how it was produced, I have full confidence in.

Have Messrs A or F done measurements along various parts of those upper structures to find out what the accelerations were?

Yup, and you know exactly where the NW corner data is.

I might post some more points fairly soon. Depends if I can be bothered to waft the inane crap inevitably spewing from tfk when I do. Tis very tedious.

As you're a member at the911forum, I suggest you ask again over there. You're more likely to get what you want.

 

[alienentity]

Thanks TFK, I hadn't caught the p600 statement 'The chosen feature was the top of the parapet wall on the roofline aligned with the east edge of the louvers on the north face. The distance was the difference between the elevation of the roofline prior to the collapse and the last elevation where the roofline could be observed before it was obstructed by a building in the foreground'

We now understand that the points they are referring to are 2 different ones, and achimspok's strange parody is fully disconnected with this reality.
Femr2 is doing a bang-up job, as usual, biting our ankles as we wade thru the nonsense.

Sit, Femr, bad dog!

 

[alienentity]

Now, I'll respond to a couple of Femr2's other mistakes (I did say I would ignore them for the moment, I didn't mean permanently)

I really hope you're not going to suggest that NIST traced a diagonal, as highlighted by Achimspok earlier in this thread...

No, we're not foolish enough to agree with achimspok's tortured logic.

No need. The point they traced was on the top of the West Penthouse. End of.

I call bull on that. Perform a trace from there which matches their data.

 

[alienentity]

Before I begin Tom...Tom, Tom, Tom...when are you going to learn eh ?

Here...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/370825048.jpg[/qimg]
It is not possible to determine the location of the roofline from the Cam#3 viewpoint in terms of a pixel colour value transitioning to the colour of the sky.

Sorry, but it is. That was easy.

 

[femr2]

Now, I'll respond to a couple of Femr2's other mistakes

Okey dokey. I assume refudation follows if you are stating mistakes...

I call bull on that.

You don't KNOW ?

Oh, then I suggest you refrain from stating *mistake* simply by pulling an opinion out of your posterior.

Perform a trace from there which matches their data.

Done a long time ago. As I've said repeatedly above, I'll put some time aside and post some data.

Why don't YOU also perform a trace ? It's not rocket science you know. Having an opinion on these topics without even bothering to get your hands dirty ? Hmm.

 

[femr2]

Sorry, but it is. That was easy.

Yet again, no, not at the time when the West penthouse was still standing, and inline with the lower marker...

 

[alienentity]

Yup, and you know exactly where the NW corner data is.

Nice dodge. I specifically asked about 'those upper structures', referring to the screenwall and West Penthouse.

Allegations have been made, but data is M.I.A.

Femr2, you've just been schooled several times, most notably about the pixel location and the rather large booboo regarding the fall of the E PH and subsequent open sky above the parapet wall.

Youch! Time to step back and think things thru a little more carefully, you two..

 

[DGM]

Is this thread really based on a miss-placement of a location on the building that NIST describes in fairly exact terms?

 

[achimspok]

Never gonna happen! This is all about the attention, not the truth. Which is why they left Gregory U's forum. Not enough people to argue minutia with.

Continue...

Poop!

Continue...

 

[alienentity]

Yet again, no, not at the time when the West penthouse was still standing, and inline with the lower marker...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/355345606.gif[/qimg]

Femr2, say it ain't so. You've made yet another horrible blunder. Look at your image. Then read this statement again 'The chosen feature was the top of the parapet wall on the roofline aligned with the east edge of the louvers on the north face'

Hint: East is East (no Penthouse anymore in your picture....hmmm)
West is not East.

The reference to the West Penthouse, once again, is a red herring.

Too bad, so sad, you're wrong again.

 

[alienentity]

Is this thread really based on a miss-placement of a location on the building that NIST describes in fairly exact terms?

What else can truthers bring to the table but misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the facts?

They are trapped in this endless loop, won't/can't correct their errors and won't/can't move on.

 

[achimspok]

Yeah.

If the twoofs here are correct, and free fall began earlier than NIST has stated, then it validates the engineering principles behind Newton's Bit showing how it's more likely than not that columns would break at the connections before they even bend.

And it also shows that when NIST says that once the ext collapse begins, the FEA is increasingly inaccurate, to also be true.

IOW, further validation of zero intervention from man is needed to see the details that twoofs whine about.

Seymour buzzzzed that the free fall was INEVITABLE.
So don't be shy! Do you see the free fall of
- East Penthouse
- Screenwall
- West Penthouse
- Perimeter?

Btw, the inevitable free fall of WTC1 lasted for 2ft.

Buzzz a little bit about the resistence of the structure, please. Do it for your readers. Otherwise your statement looks like a little bunker lie due to omitting the half of it.

 

[Myriad]

Is this thread really based on a miss-placement of a location on the building that NIST describes in fairly exact terms?

Yep! Not only did they measure it in the wrong place, but they then got the description of where they measured it wrong.

Similarly, when NIST says that the World Trade Center was in New York, we know they really meant it's in Chicago, which is a beginner's mistake, and that they also misspelled Chicago as "New York," which is another beginner's mistake. Since they keep making all these beginner's mistakes, how can we believe anything they say?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tfk]

femr,

Wow.
Using a frame from several seconds before the collapse began.

Are you quite sure about that statement Tom ?

Yup, I'm certain.

Figure 5-197 (NCSTAR1-9) vol 1, pg 269 shows 2 things:

1. at 3.5 seconds (all times after start of EP collapse), the EP was invisible above the roofline. That image also shows that the north face has not descended, compared to the previous images (Figures 5-196 & 5-195). Best shown for certain by looking at the vertial location of the 33rd story windows next to the white (bluish) block structure in the foreground.)


2. Figure 12-75 NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 601 shows that the main collapse did not begin until about 6.8 seconds after EP collapse.

Your image is at least 5.7 seconds before the start of collapse, by comparison to Fig 5-193.

So, yeah.

I'm right.
You're wrong.

As usual.

Using a frame from several seconds before the collapse began.
Hmmmm…. one might think that you're just being deceitful.

Nope. A frame showing the various members visible above the North Facade roofline. It's not stated as being from a particular time.

Of course, "… not stated as being from a particular time."
In other words, irrelevant.

You don't say anything. You don't claim anything. You don't provide info that's relevant to the discussion.

Why would I expect you, at this late date, to start posting images that were actually relevant to the conversation?

I don't.

Why don't you post an image from the time when that tracing was taken?

I'll probably post several Tom, in animated form

Oh wow. Gifs from the clueless.

ANIMATED gifs from the clueless.

Can't wait...

Why will you now run from, and not address, the STATIC pictures, with time info, that I've provided in this post?

"Why?"

Because, that's your style. That's why.

That would be within 1 second of the beginning of the north wall collapse.

Are you quite sure about that statement Tom ?

Yup. Anything up to, and including, 3.2 seconds before the beginning of north wall collapse will show that the EP is invisible from Camera 3, your previous image was deceptive, and your conclusion was wrong.

You'll find something, uh, "interesting" about the position of the East Penthouse...

Is that so ?

Yup. That's so.
Proven above.

Perhaps you have trace data showing the earliest motion of the central region of the roofline ? Perhaps you have trace data allowing comparison between the Cam#3 behaviour and the Dan Rather viewpoint behaviour ?

I'd be a little cautious of making too many further statements until you do, Tom.

… let the hand-waving, smoke blowing, pompous bloviating begin ...

 

[achimspok]

achimspok,

Couple of questions:

1). Are you going to discuss with me my post #174?

I went back, wrote a lot of words and deleted the words because it wont help anyone to argue with you about you political correct view of things and may be skill or something. So no, you try to play the little "slow it down". I'm bored. That's it.

2). Are you going to publish your findings to the scientific community? If so, when do you plan on doing so?

How often ...? I'm bored.
Hey, I will publish yesterday.

 

[tfk]

What I'm saying has waist-level quantities of trace data soup behind it too. as I've said numerous times.

LMAO.

This is nothing new.

"... waist level quantities of trace data soup ..."

All of it invalidated by simple, trivial, erroneous assumptions.

 

[Sabretooth]

I went back, wrote a lot of words and deleted the words because it wont help anyone to argue with you about you political correct view of things and may be skill or something. So no, you try to play the little "slow it down". I'm bored. That's it.

How often ...? I'm bored.
Hey, I will publish yesterday.

You're kidding me, right?

Look if you don't know how to have an actual debate or discussion, just say so. But I've been very cordial with you throughout this thread...so blowing me off just means you never had the intention of actually backing up your accusations...especially once you realized they are flawed pretty badly.

I had hope for you...too bad.

 

[tfk]

Is this thread really based on a miss-placement of a location on the building that NIST describes in fairly exact terms?

Yup.

Alpha... Omega.


tom

PS. But we get GIFs - O - Plenty to show, uh, to show, uh, squat.

 

[femr2]

Nice dodge. I specifically asked about 'those upper structures', referring to the screenwall and West Penthouse.

And I specifically said *yup*. That means yes. You'll find it in the same place as the NW corner data, or why not download it directly...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/

Numerous sets of trace data there for you.

Allegations have been made, but data is M.I.A.

Nope, you're just too lazy, or unwilling to do any looking unless held by the hand.

Femr2, you've just been schooled several times, most notably about the pixel location and the rather large booboo regarding the fall of the E PH and subsequent open sky above the parapet wall.

Incorrect.