lol.
I see tfk is still totally ignoring this thread.
NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis.
NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
lol.
I see tfk is still totally ignoring this thread.
NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I think they didn't really consider it important so not much time and effort was used. If they left that section out, what effect would it have on the report (objective wise)?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
femr2, really, read the OP again, for context! This is silly!
tfk didn't propose that NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis.
tfk says that uglypig and achimspok think NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis.
Notice the difference?
tfk created this thread so uglypig and achimspok could present their cases.
You see, it appeared like uglypig and achimspok have contradictory reasons for why NIST "blew it".
Unfortunately, uglypig is now banned, and achimspok has no further interest.
So this thread is dead, and tfk can do nothing to breath life in it - and has no reason to, anyway.
What is your beef??
tfk didn't propose that NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis.
tfk says that uglypig and achimspok think NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis.
Notice the difference?
tfk created this thread so uglypig and achimspok could present their cases.
You see, it appeared like uglypig and achimspok have contradictory reasons for why NIST "blew it".
Unfortunately, uglypig is now banned, and achimspok has no further interest.
So this thread is dead, and tfk can do nothing to breath life in it - and has no reason to, anyway.
What is your beef??
Firstly, I've presented information showing many problems with "NIST WTC7 stage 1 analysis", with zero response.
I've responded in fair detail to...
...or is it that no-one else is allowed to "make that case" ?
Case made.
Secondly...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8331926&postcount=11
femr2 said:
tfk has yet to respond to any of the above, in any way.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I guess anyone can try and make that case.
I consider it only semi-made: Your data is more accurate, or conversely, NIST's is inaccurate.
The question is: Does that constitute NIST having "blown" it? What does that even mean? Taking tfk's long-standing position as a gauge, NIST would have "blown" it if they had made any significant engineering conclusions from the parts that could be corrected by your better accuracy. Is that so? Has NIST "blown" it? Or did they merely not abide by some arbitrary standard of accuracy?
Or, in NoahFence's undying words: So what?
The issues with the NIST "stage 1 analysis" are not limited to lack of accuracy.
Who knows ? I'd imagine it would depend upon what tfk changed it to mean depending upon his needs.
Ask the OP.
ozeco41
Philosopher
The obvious issue is the classic trick of "reverse burden of proof".I wager a guess here: Tfk would himself be asking the question of "so what?", and it would be directed at uglypig and achimspok
The OP:
So tfk is asking achimspok and uglypig to support a claim which tfk implies that they have made.
If we accept that they made the claim, either in the words used by tfk (e.g. "blew") or words to the same effect, then we see two issues here:
1) Issue #1 is that femr2 is wrong when in response to the reference to NoahFence's classic and explicitly accurate saying "So what?" he says "ask the OP." The "So what?" question is directed at the person who is attempting to make a claim. Specifically a claim about detail which appears to have no effect on the higher level outcomes on which the questioner (Noah or similar) is focused. Hence "reverse burden of proof". It is up to a claimant to support their claims - i.e. achimspok and/or uglypig. Not the person who asks them to support their claims - which was tfk.
2) Issue #2 is the logic error itself - the false claim that any error of detail is always relevant and significant to any person interested in the topic. Or taken to the absurd consequence of the false attitude - the implied claim that Noah is wrong to limit his interest to the top level - "Aircraft impact and fires caused the collapse" and the complementary concept that only those who share the obsession with detail are correct and the rest of humankind is somehow wrong - "idiots" to use M_T's preferred description for us - me included.
I recognise that it is a valid position for some people to have an interest in details. It is wrong when they insist that everyone else should share their obsession. Their attitude is only relevant to other people who are not detail devotees when they - the detail persons - can show that an error in detail is both relevant and significant in the level of issue that affects the other person. For NoahFence and numerous other members here that level is if the detail changes "aircraft impact and fire caused the collapses".
Ye gads man. All getting a bit pedantic you think ?
No, I'm not "wrong". I'm effectively saying "ask someone else", or "not interested".
What is going "wrong" is your inferred meaning. Can happen when you get frustrated, in this case it seems that your disagreements with MT are bleeding into this thread too.
Again, ye gads man. I suggest you keep your issues with MT between the pair of you. I'm not particularly interested your incorrect suggested implications to be honest, in the same way that many folk are not interested in some of ghe details I present. I don't really care whether everyone in the thread has the slightest interest in any of the details. The details I've highlighted with "NIST Stage 1 Analysis" are all correct to my knowledge. I've even made it clear that I have no idea what "blew" actually means in this context, but simply presented information showing the very many problems with the analysis, and attempted to get tfk to respond to silly and rude accusations. One reason I present details is to ensure that folk don't repeat false details. Lot of that about still, even after more accurate details have been presented.2) Issue #2 is the logic error itself - the false claim that any error of detail is always relevant and significant to any person interested in the topic. Or taken to the absurd consequence of the false attitude - the implied claim that Noah is wrong to limit his interest to the top level - "Aircraft impact and fires caused the collapse" and the complementary concept that only those who share the obsession with detail are correct and the rest of humankind is somehow wrong - "idiots" to use M_T's preferred description for us - me included.
Whether it is or not is irrelevant. You're entitled to your opinion.
Who is ?
You seem to be speaking for lots of people. I don't really think that is wise. It sounds like your nose is well out of joint tbh, though that has nowt to do with me, innit.
So ?
Chill.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
So unless new information places that conclusion in doubt, it hasn't yet reached the threshold of relevance for discussion in a forum entitled "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." It's extremely relevant and of considerable interest to a forum discussing the events of 9/11 in general, or to a forum discussing the mechanisms of structural collapse, but this forum is neither of those.
Dave
ozeco41
Philosopher
Not really. A simple issue of where burden of proof rests. Putting it with the wrong party leads almost inevitably to wrong conclusions. (Or right conclusions for wrong reasons
) The rest of your post shows a moderately clever ability to miss the point. I could respond in detail BUT the points I needed to make were accurately made in my earlier post so I will let the record stand unless and until someone else indicates confusion.
So I will resist the temptation to respond on the bits I don't agree with and focus on where we seem to agree:
Great to see that you agree on differences in need for details.
I have said in several other posts that my default position is that I assume you and M_T are correct on research details - unless I see a gross error or someone shows errors. I cannot recall either of those two situations arising.
Agreed - but it is not a point in contention between us.
Correct. Also not a point in contention.
err....who?
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not up to you I'm afraid.
As no-one seems to have issue with the OP...
I've presented detail affirming the above.
I've presented early motion data confirming movement of the NW corner long before release.
I've even said a few words about that too...
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No forgivness is required. As I'm sure you understand, I was simply highlighting that what is or is not of relevance within this forum, for everyone, is unfortunately not up to you. That you personally do not think the details are relevant within this forum is absolutely fine, of course, as you are entitled to your opinion.
I'm sure you will
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Let me rephrase, then: Forgive me for stating, in rather more detail, the nature of the body of opinion about which you gave the impression of having inquired. I'll remember in future that your questions are not to be taken as requests for clarification.
Dave
What consitutes NIST "blowing it" is always going to be subjective, though in my opinion scope is defined to be within "stage 1", not outside it. Usage (or not) of information within that scope in other areas of the report is separate and beyond the scope of "stage 1".
In my opinion, NIST "blew it" if they got it wrong, significantly wrong.
As I said earlier, the issues with the stage 1 analysis are not merely accuracy based.
What the data actually IS is flawed.
Whether their results are "not that much different" to my own bears no direct relation to how valid, applicable or "real" it is.
- NIST did not deinterlace their source video.
- NIST tracked the *roofline* using a pixel column, rather than an actual feature of the building.
- NIST chose a trace endpoint which could not be traced from their selected T0 time, and so subsequently merged data from two separate traces together, without accounting for change in scaling metric.
- NIST used the Cam#3 viewpoint which includes significant perspective effects
- NIST did not recognise that the initial movement at their chosen pixel column was primarily north-south movement resulting from twisting of the building before the release point of the north facade.
- NIST did not perform static point extraction
Those issues do not simply affect the accuracy of the data, but "what it actually relates to".
It's not all vertical data, containing "enough" non-vertical data to adversely affect results. It's not even data that sticks to a fixed point on the building.
It's not great data.
Analysis of that data...
Definitely. I think that NIST blew it, but my own interpretation is that it's writing that whole section (the speed of fall analysis) that was "blowing it". I think it was written for PR reasons as there's no reasonable justification otherwise, and that it was done with little motivation, which leads to several of the blunders you mention, as the goal seemed to be to put something together more than do a rigorous analysis.
Have to agree there, especially given the more in-depth detail within their separate moire based motion analysis. The number of glaring and unnecessary errors is very high.
That's a good guess. And it is one of the things that I'd find interesting. (It's included in the OP's last paragraph.
Others have accurately portrayed the specific reasons that I set up this thread:
1. to stop derailing of another thread with the specific assertions of UP & achimspok.
2. to give UP & achimspok an opportunity to state their cases on this matter clearly.
(But, alas, your explanations have - predictably - fallen on deaf ears.)
It seems, to some degree, to have achieved goal #1.
But neither UP (before he was banned) nor achimspok have shown any inclination to make their cases. So there really is nothing more to say on the matter.
But there are several other serendipitous benefits, that I have found quite amusing, that emerged explicitly from my silence on this thread.
First, I can't ever remember being cited as frequently in any other thread.
Second, far, far less effort.
Third, amusing childish taunts. (The reason for the frequent citations.)
Fourth, when I get into the inevitable
with a certain "he who shall not be named as a truther", I deny all the rest of you the singular, uh, "pleasure" of your own back-and-forths with him.I decided that was selfish of me. And that I should share.
Last edited:
Fourth, when I get into the inevitable
I suggest you start here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8399239&postcount=104