• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
Yeah youre quite right, but have you ever tried to phone these guys? We have, many times. Im just making a point in a youtube video, if all you can do is to refer me to NIST rather than dispute the points that are made, then im fine with that.
Click to expand...
Why would you be? This is important, is it not? Write a freaking report and stick it in their faces. Maybe get the 1500+ AE engineers to do something for once.

All I'm saying to you is, if you consider this important, **** or get of the pot. Get it?
 
gerrycan said:
OK, no problem, i just thought that you guys were interested in this sort of stuff, and that you had a forum set up here to debate it on. I can see why you dont want to on this occasion.
Click to expand...
We are. We are having difficulty getting you to clearly state what your concerns or claims are. We cannot debate or discuss them unless you make clear what you want to discuss.
gerrycan said:
Not at all, something could be misrepresented out of incompetence, and lack of technical ability. Do you think it suited NISTs story to leave out these elements in their analysis?
Click to expand...
If you are not prepared to demonstrate clear thinking how can we respond with clarity?

What I think about possible malfeasance by NIST is not in question. It is your claim we are trying to address not mine.

Do you want to discuss "Why WTC7 fell down" OR "NIST is both incompetent and wrong".



(And to pre-empt the trolling tactic - they are separate topics and not interdependent.)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Why would you be? This is important, is it not? Write a freaking report and stick it in their faces. Maybe get the 1500+ AE engineers to do something for once.

All I'm saying to you is, if you consider this important, **** or get of the pot. Get it?
Click to expand...

YES I GET IT. What i am saying to you is that i have many directions to take this, and maybe NIST is one of them. One of them happens to be this forum, so if all you have to say about the videos is 'take it to nist', that is fine, youve said it, and i take that on board.
 
gerrycan said:
YES I GET IT. What i am saying to you is that i have many directions to take this, and maybe NIST is one of them. One of them happens to be this forum, so if all you have to say about the videos is 'take it to nist', that is fine, youve said it, and i take that on board.
Click to expand...

What else do you expect us to say? You can't be expecting us to go "Hoboy you're right, NIST sucks, it's all a conspiracy", can you? The fact of the matter is that most of us - I dare say, save a handful of twoofers, everybody on this forum - don't believe you.
 
uke2se said:
What else do you expect us to say? You can't be expecting us to go "Hoboy you're right, NIST sucks, it's all a conspiracy", can you? The fact of the matter is that most of us - I dare say, save a handful of twoofers, everybody on this forum - don't believe you.
Click to expand...

ok, so what in these 3 videos is wrong specifically?
 
gerrycan said:
So you are saying that a 'layman' should contact the people who have been described on this very page as being the best in the US, to point out their mistakes? aye ok. ...
Click to expand...
If nothing else, it should be good entertainment.

I love how you suddenly start using our terms when you want to imply that we're trying to lure you into some sort of trap.
 
gerrycan said:
ok, so what in these 3 videos is wrong specifically?
Click to expand...

I'm not qualified to judge that. You see, for me as a layman who won't create an imaginary internet persona that has higher credentials than I actually have, I have to deferr judging technical evidence to those more able than I. The engineers at NIST happen to be deemed the most qualified in their field, so I deferr to them. They have earned my trust. You're just a nameless person on the internet. You have earned nothing.

For you to be taken seriously at all, you will need to have your evidence peer reviewed. That means typing up a report and submitting it. If you don't do that, you will never be more than a nameless person on the internet with a big claim and no real evidence.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
YES I GET IT. What i am saying to you is that i have many directions to take this, and maybe NIST is one of them. One of them happens to be this forum, so if all you have to say about the videos is 'take it to nist', that is fine, youve said it, and i take that on board.
Click to expand...
"Maybe NIST is one of them"? Isn't your problem with them? Maybe you should contact the Vatican or the League of Woman Voters and ask them first. When are you guys going to "grow a pair".

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
So you are saying that a 'layman' should contact the people who have been described on this very page as being the best in the US, to point out their mistakes? aye ok.
Which of these elements do you think would have not been present in the 'as built' drawings, and why?
Click to expand...
your focus seems to have shifted firmly towards "NIST is wrong".

So what is your objective?

Are you looking for a way to get the message to NIST?

If so:
What is the message you want to give to NIST?
Who do you want to take the message?
How do you want it delivered?
What are you wanting NIST to do with the message?
How will you know that you have succeeded?


Or, backing off a little:
What do you want to achieve?
How do you want to go about achieving it?
 
DGM said:
"Maybe NIST is one of them"? Isn't your problem with them? Maybe you should contact the Vatican or the League of Woman Voters and ask them first. When are you guys going to "grow a pair".

:boggled:
Click to expand...

Right now i am here to debate the content, Taking it to NIST is another issue, and not one i came on here to discuss, though i do thank you for the advice.
 
ozeco41 said:
your focus seems to have shifted firmly towards "NIST is wrong".

So what is your objective?

Are you looking for a way to get the message to NIST?

If so:
What is the message you want to give to NIST?
Who do you want to take the message?
How do you want it delivered?
What are you wanting NIST to do with the message?
How will you know that you have succeeded?


Or, backing off a little:
What do you want to achieve?
How do you want to go about achieving it?
Click to expand...

Right now we are making a series of videos for youtube. For now, that's all. Feel free to comment on them.
 
gerrycan said:
Right now we are making a series of videos for youtube. For now, that's all. Feel free to comment on them.
Click to expand...

Comment: Stop making videos. If you think your work is important, write reports. If you don't think your work is important, stop trolling.
 
gerrycan said:
YES I GET IT. What i am saying to you is that i have many directions to take this, and maybe NIST is one of them. One of them happens to be this forum, so if all you have to say about the videos is 'take it to nist', that is fine, youve said it, and i take that on board.
Click to expand...

Take as many directions as you wish. I would suggest that NIST would be at the top of your list. Have you passed you conclusions to other engineers or have you so far restricted them to youtube? What did other engineers say? Do they find it worthy or relevent? Would your findings change the outcome?

If you have found something that will benefit the world of engineering then go at it. Your barking up the wrong tree here. JREF & youtube can't help you. No patents or changes to building regs done here. We primarily deal with delusional truthers and trolls. Engineers with something legitimate don't frequent these parts very often, if at all. Try those 1500 that Richard has. What did they say?
 
gerrycan said:
Right now i am here to debate the content, Taking it to NIST is another issue, and not one i came on here to discuss, though i do thank you for the advice.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. How are we supposed to know what information NIST used? Can you tell me with any certainty that these drawings were all they had to work from? No, you can't. You want us to argue against (or pat you on the back) your incomplete information with ours, Is that right?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Right now we are making a series of videos for youtube....
Click to expand...
Why?
gerrycan said:
For now, that's all.
Click to expand...
Either it's pointless - you don't know why you are doing it - or you are not prepared to tell us why
gerrycan said:
Feel free to comment on them.
Click to expand...
Same problem as I have commented previously. You start at the wrong end.

"Why should I look at your videos?" comes at least one step before "Why should I comment on them?"

If you don't know why you are making them the number of reasons for me to look at them is a diminishing small number.
scratch.gif
 
DGM said:
You still don't get it. How are we supposed to know what information NIST used? Can you tell me with any certainty that these drawings were all they had to work from? No, you can't. You want us to argue against (or pat you on the back) your incomplete information with ours, Is that right?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm just interested as to your opinion, thats all. Im not looking for a pat on the back, im looking for the truth about wtc7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom