NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

[tfk]

I've set up this thread for achimspok & uglypig to make their arguments that NIST blew the calculation of the Stage 1 of WTC7 collapse.

Apparently, achimspok believes that NIST mistook horizontal motion for vertical motion, resulting in an actual Stage 1 descent of much less than 1.75 seconds.

And uglypig believes that there was approximately 2 minutes of collapse going on prior to "global collapse" that was measurable from some motion of the external wall(s) of the building.

Why don't you guys go ahead & make your respective cases.

It'd be, like, you know totally way cool if you could make some statement, after you've made your cases, as to how your interpretation of the timing impacts the question of "CD vs. no CD", or "inside job vs. outside job".

 

[Oystein]

tfk,

they are obviously talking about two different things here. Not sure if they should be conflated.

Also, the question about accurate description of the movements can validly be decoupled from any questions about mechanisms.

This said, I am sure both have already made their case elsewhere, or taken their beliefs from someone else's case elsewhere, and I'd be satisfied with a link to the best presentation of these cases plus a synopsis.

Oh, and yes, it would be nice if both would be open about where they currently stand with regard to the "big picture" of what caused the collapse. But beware of unnecessary conflation.

 

[Major_Tom]

Achimspok analysis has already been written and available for some time.

Why would you expect him to waste more time on you?


So has the Femr2 analysis of the same motion.


You can read it or you can feed your own ego a little more.

You will have to walk that path yourself. They have exercised enough. Please learn how to use the resources already available.

 

[beachnut]

Achimspok analysis has already been written and available for some time.

Why would you expect him to waste more time on you?

So has the Femr2 analysis of the same motion.

You can read it or you can feed your own ego a little more.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CWM4tI1mWzM/SeO2U6dZviI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1NNCA5RQjt0/s320/Hamster-wheel.jpg

You will have to walk that path yourself. They have exercised enough. Please learn how to use the resources already available.

Is this the evil Satan like bad guy finding device you use to stop evil and prove CD? Will it help you make a conclusion on your "book"?

How long to you have to ride that device to solve 911, and how will it make your CD claims into reality? It does not seem to offer the links the work in question.

Thanks for the links, you are as insightful and on top of 911 issues?

...
These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind.

Please stay tuned as we discuss each of these factors in detail, ...

Have you found the Satan like bad guys who did the CD? Again, the links you supplied are top notch, equal to your work. Super.

 

[uglypig]

MT is not a truther and his work is superior to yours. In case you didn't know there is a thing called "scientific curiosity" which drives people to understand things.

Not possible for him to believe in CD. He knows that the pre impact DCR of core was 0.5.


And yes, there are a few threads that deal with a) wtc7 leaning and b) the photograph of huge dust cloud in front of WTC7 approx. one minute before the collapse (and many more smoke releases in the final hour leading to collapse).

 

[NoahFence]

MT is not a truther and his work is superior to yours. In case you didn't know there is a thing called "scientific curiosity" which drives people to understand things.

Not possible for him to believe in CD. He knows that the pre impact DCR of core was 0.5.


And yes, there are a few threads that deal with a) wtc7 leaning and b) the photograph of huge dust cloud in front of WTC7 approx. one minute before the collapse (and many more smoke releases in the final hour leading to collapse).

When I "work" - I have a reason. Something is incomplete, and I have to work at it until it IS complete. We call this a conclusion.

MT has no such thing. He has only work, whose value is debatable, but no conclusion.

 

[alienentity]

MT is not a truther and his work is superior to yours. In case you didn't know there is a thing called "scientific curiosity" which drives people to understand things.

Not possible for him to believe in CD. He knows that the pre impact DCR of core was 0.5.


And yes, there are a few threads that deal with a) wtc7 leaning and b) the photograph of huge dust cloud in front of WTC7 approx. one minute before the collapse (and many more smoke releases in the final hour leading to collapse).

Go ahead and state your cases and evidence, if you have any. Unless you're afraid to have your ideas examined skeptically, then by all means avoid this thread.

 

[alienentity]

Achimspok analysis has already been written and available for some time.

Why would you expect him to waste more time on you?


So has the Femr2 analysis of the same motion.


You can read it or you can feed your own ego a little more.

[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CWM4tI1mWzM/SeO2U6dZviI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1NNCA5RQjt0/s320/Hamster-wheel.jpg[/qimg]

You will have to walk that path yourself. They have exercised enough. Please learn how to use the resources already available.

In that case there's no need to have a 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum, as there are already dozens of truther websites to read. No need to have any discussion here, nor any presentation of ideas by truthers or their pseudo-scientific supporters.

No need for you to even post what you did, nor even read the threads. Why are you even here???
Oh yes, you need the attention which you'll never get anywhere else but in obscure truther forums.....

When y'all roll out Ye Olde Grande Conspiracie Theorums™ in all the major scientific journals, travel the world lecturing enthralled university engineering departments with your fabulous insights, and win your Nobel and Pulitzer prizes, you can give JREF credit for helping to refine the pure genius that is you.

 

[Major_Tom]

Please learn how to read your own forum. The information was presented there as well.

Within the threads the participants seemed so preoccupied attacking those presenting the information that they didn't notice the actual contents?

Short memory? Can't find the discussions through all the noise?


Use your search engines. You can do it if you try!

 

[triforcharity]

So MT, you're just here to do what exactly.........

This is what we call a discussion. It involves two or more people, who converse about a given topic. It can range from Food to fat guys with bad combovers.

 

[Major_Tom]

So MT, you're just here to do what exactly.........

This is what we call a discussion. It involves two or more people, who converse about a given topic. It can range from Food to fat guys with bad combovers.

Take notes. Discussion hardly rises to a technical level in this forum so I take notes on why this is so. Would you like a demonstration?

 

[alienentity]

Take notes. Discussion hardly rises to a technical level in this forum so I take notes on why this is so. Would you like a demonstration?

It's up to the others to respond to TFK in this thread, you're not their nanny RU?

If they're too shy to put forward their ideas then that's fine. Go present your Grande Truth™ at a major scientific conference then. Please let us know when this happens, and be sure to videotape your presentations and the responses from the scientific community. Good luck and goodbye!

 

[beachnut]

Take notes. Discussion hardly rises to a technical level in this forum so I take notes on why this is so. Would you like a demonstration?

Yes, it is very technical where the forum members don't care if you have no conclusion for you "book", because you have the super technical level, the super... http://the911forum.freeforums.org/just-plain-idiots-split-from-smart-idiots-t576.html

... we have very technical stuff at JREF.

He hasn't been able to produce the photos, has he?

And he won't. This was my guarantee.

That was technical. I had to get out my books by Maybeck to decode that one. A guarantee, very technical.

Basing further investigation on his juvenile "man challenge"? How old are you folks?

Very technical; guessing age across the Internet is ... very

You provide a noisy backdrop, nothing more.

Look! We have some information theory! I still have my book.
Very technical.

These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind.

Please stay tuned as we discuss each of these factors in detail, while, of course, sticking to the subject originally posted in this thread.

The Satan part is so technical I ruined a keyboard - need a photo?

When I did my thesis work in college, I could repeat the work without effort. To quibble and say look it up is cute, and is used all the time - rude as it is. There are some who are not guilty.

If someone can't summarize and cover their work again, and again, and again, then their work is garbage. I mean, you fail to even link to it. If they can't regurgitate and be specific on the fly, their work is nonsense. Must be worthless work if they can't condense it into a simple pdf, or web-page, etc. When will this vaporware be published?

Get technical. Just plain, "technical". Numbers? Some math? A bit with a dog?

 

[Major_Tom]

Do you remember the poster Femr2 discussing this earlier?

(Think kink! Think kink!) Any memory?

Do you remember achimspok starting a thread on this same subject?

I don't think they are shy, just very, very bored.

All those wiggly graphs and stuff? None of that stuck?


Can you find those discussions among your own noise? I am telling you where to find the information requested in the OP. In your own forum.

It is strange because posters seemed more interested in the fact that achimspok speaks german better than english than they did in the argument or data. Since he is from Germany, that didn't surprise me.
.................

Maybe you will remember W. D. Clinger attacking Femr2 and me repeatedly better than the contents of the discussion. Perhaps the emotional reactions stick in the collective memory better than all those squiggly graphs and stuff. Just look in the same thread and other threads around the same time.

 

[triforcharity]

Take notes. Discussion hardly rises to a technical level in this forum so I take notes on why this is so. Would you like a demonstration?

I've seen your posts, they are exhibit 1A.

Cheers!

 

[beachnut]

Do you remember the poster Femr2 discussing this earlier?

(Think kink! Think kink!) Any memory?

Do you remember achimspok starting a thread on this same subject?

I don't think they are shy, just very, very bored.

All those wiggly graphs and stuff? None of that stuck?

Is this part of the "don't care why they fell", "we just want to study the collapse for no reason club"?

WTC 7, totaled by fire before it collapsed. No need to collapse, it is already totaled. We have many examples of buildings with fires fought which were totaled. WTC 7 fires NOT fought, is totaled long before it collapses, will never be used again; EXCEPT by nuts in 911 truth who jump on it as the Smoking Gun of Inside Job, the big MIHOP, the evil Satan stuff. WTC 7 FOR 911 truth is the flypaper to catch "just plain idiots" to fuel the "movement", and the "technical" studies, goal free, and never completed, no conclusions, etc.

We have people who study the collapse, and ignore the initiation in hopes they can discover CD. That was the purpose of all the studies - and if those people were technical, they would never fallen for CD in the first place, titled their work on-line as "Demolition", or complained when they fail to set goal and make conclusions.

I thought the goal was to understand why WTC 7 collapsed, like understand why a dam breaks. Yet people are studying the collapse, not why they collapsed, only the collapse after the why took place. Like studying the flood, when you were suppose to be studying the reason the dam broke. When does the "just plain technical" arrive?

 

[ozeco41]

I've set up this thread for achimspok & uglypig to make their arguments that NIST blew the calculation of the Stage 1 of WTC7 collapse....

Good suggestion tfk - provided we heed Oysteins cautions about the risks of conflation and duplication.

...Apparently, achimspok believes....

And uglypig believes....

Why don't you guys go ahead & make your respective cases....

Agreed. Both have made contributiona to 9/11 discussion which are worthy of objective consideration. I don't agree with everything they say but they make valid contributions IMO.

...It'd be, like, you know totally way cool if you could make some statement, after you've made your cases, as to how your interpretation of the timing impacts the question of "CD vs. no CD", or "inside job vs. outside job".

Yes!

tfk,

they are obviously talking about two different things here. Not sure if they should be conflated.

Also, the question about accurate description of the movements can validly be decoupled from any questions about mechanisms.

This said, I am sure both have already made their case elsewhere, or taken their beliefs from someone else's case elsewhere, and I'd be satisfied with a link to the best presentation of these cases plus a synopsis.

Oh, and yes, it would be nice if both would be open about where they currently stand with regard to the "big picture" of what caused the collapse. But beware of unnecessary conflation.

Good points which I fully support Oystein.

I will restate this for the record in this thread:

My Personal Position - on the question "Was NIST right?"

I am agnostic on many aspects of NIST. For example the "Column79 collapse and Girder Walkoff" issue. Personally I regard it as a plausible explanation. It would not concern me if there was another explantion or if NIST was wrong on the details of mechanism. I am not aware of any alternative explanation. I am aware of some not valid claims that NIST was wrong - see the other thread and unanswered critiques of the so far unsupported claims by Tony S.

 

[beachnut]

...
.................

Maybe you will remember W. D. Clinger attacking Femr2 and me repeatedly better than the contents of the discussion. Perhaps the emotional reactions stick in the collective memory better than all those squiggly graphs and stuff. Just look in the same thread and other threads around the same time.

W. D. must of had problems with your lack of math to support your non-conclusion. You have no technical work, and proof is the lack of publication. When will your non-technical book be published? Why can't the people who have this NIST-defying Stage 1 work discuss it off the top of their heads? When will it be published? Like published in a technical journal since it is very "technical", when?

Wonder how this would change the probable collapse sequence, and do the other parties have a probable collapse sequence worked out? Do you have a probable collapse sequence worked out? And how do your conclusions and work dovetail with achimspok & uglypig stuff? Please be very technical.

 

[Myriad]

How could any horizontal motion have occurred independently of, or prior to, vertical motion? What powered the horizontal motion, if not descent (i.e. vertical motion) of the center of gravity of the moving mass? Was someone pulling on a cable somewhere?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[triforcharity]

Myraid,

Midgets. With ropes. Lots of really small, nano-ropes. Maybe even nano-midgets, since I didn't see them......