• 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.

NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

tfk said:
...Others have accurately portrayed the specific reasons that I set up this thread:...
Click to expand...
I would be one of those who has the disturbing habit of asking "why are we discussing this?" AND checking the OP to get back on track. It probably comes from years of management reminding staff who are "up to their arses in alligators" to remember "the objective is drain the swamp." (Alternatively "forests and trees" for those who prefer that version.) ;)
tfk said:
...Third, amusing childish taunts...
Click to expand...
Don't hog all of them - I seem to be getting my fair share. :)
tfk said:
...Fourth, ... I deny all the rest of you the singular, uh, "pleasure" of your own back-and-forths with him....
Click to expand...
My "rules of engagement" are different to many. I have posted several reasoned arguments based on facts which are demonstrably objective. 95% of the several responses being evasions - attribution of personal motives; confusion over the meaning of "opinion" in contrast with "reasoned objective facts"; conflations taking the form of answering "they are both fruit" when the discussion is about the differences between "apples" and "oranges" ...and misunderstood analogies which probably means that my last comment about "fruit" will fall on deaf ears.
nono.gif


Bottom line is I will not be taking pleasure in my "own back-and-forths with him" until and if ever he responds with reasoned objective argument rather than personalised, emotive and falsely argued rubbish. :rolleyes:

tfk said:
...I decided that was selfish of me. And that I should share.
:D
Click to expand...
Much appreciated.
clap.gif
 
ozeco41 said:
Bottom line is I will not be taking pleasure in my "own back-and-forths with him" until and if ever he responds with reasoned objective argument rather than personalised, emotive and falsely argued rubbish. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who are you referring to ? (And happy birthday.)
 
femr2 said:
I suggest you start here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8399239&postcount=104
Click to expand...

You can suggest anything you want.

That, & $3.45, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I'll post again, for the unpteenth time, your errors in all the above in my own good time. When it fits into my schedule. Not yours.

You'll ignore substance, provide one syllable denials, get caught up in brain-dead word games (most recently, IIRC, the enormous difference between "fall" and "descend" ???) that go nowhere.

Just the usual.

Meanwhile, I'm still having too much fun watching you behave as the same petulant child to others that you regularly did to me. And getting the same response.

It's fun.

And I don't have to waste my time replying to your nonsense.

Whooppee...!! :D



Whine to mods "... tk's picking on me again!" in 3... 2... 1...
 
tfk said:
I'll post again, for the unpteenth time, your errors in all the above in my own good time.
Click to expand...

Why not link to your "umpteen" previous justification for your accusations instead ? Or are you simply avoiding answering because you can't justify them, aka you were talking crap ?

31st May...
If you want, I'll happily go back there and show clearly:

1. where you intentionally quote-mined one of my postings to present an impression that was (& that you KNEW was) 180° divergent from my opinion.
Click to expand...
Please do.

That's called "lying", femr.
Click to expand...
Can you justify that slur ?

2. Where there are several blatant errors in your repeat-at-every-opportunity, tedious list of "NIST deficiencies" in their collapse timing data.
Click to expand...
Please do.

That's called "incompetent", femr.
Click to expand...
Can you justify that slur ?

3. Where you and your buddies in your 9/11 Tree house have completely screwed the pooch on your back-slapping, in-bred, rah-rah conclusion about NIST's "erroneous beginning & end of stage 1 portion" of the descent of WTC7.
Click to expand...
Strike-out mine. I'm not responsible for what anyone else says.

Please do.

You screwed this particular pooch because your club is comprised of a bunch of incompetents (synonymous with "Truther") & you are all way too enthusiastic about achieving a "yeah, yeah, that's right. NIST blew it" conclusion to ANY question.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not responsible for what anyone else says.

By all means, please do state your case for the inflamatory remarks above.
 
ozeco41 said:
Bottom line is I will not be taking pleasure in my "own back-and-forths with him" until and if ever he responds with reasoned objective argument rather than personalised, emotive and falsely argued rubbish. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Again, who are you referring to ?
 
Myriad said:
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?
Click to expand...

Thermal creep that changed the configuration of the buillding short of actually separating critical elements from one another.

We have reports of fire fighters' hearing things falling inside long before collapse. (There is even one clip of some iron workers walking away from the building, in which one of them says"Keep your eye on that building, she'll be coming down," after hearing an explosion-like sound behind him.)

You simply can't have parts of the cross-bracing of such a tall structure discombobulating without its somewhat altering the geometery of the entire structure to some degree. Bear in mind that any structure that size is expected to sway at least a little bit in the wind, but then to flex back.
 
Oystein, here is a good place to study the problem of the NIST "stage 1" claim and its connection to the NIST acceleration profile.
 
NIST blew WTC7 stage 1 analysis

NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

I have provided details about NIST stage 1 analysis numerous times within this thread...

Visual Stage 1
NIST Trace Method Critique
Detailed NIST Stage 1 Critique
Early Motion
Precision of subpixel tracing
Replicating the sum of four decaying modes determined by NIST
Derivation of NIST's displacement linear fit derivation for velocity
What the NIST data actually relates to

I assume, given that none of these details have been successfully contended, that it is accepted that NIST did indeed "blow" WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.
 
What does NIST have to say about the fact they blew the stage 1 analysis?
 
DGM said:
I don't believe he is. Why do you say this? What part did he get wrong?
Click to expand...

:p

Just harkening back to when that was his only reply to anybody who dared contradict his edicts.

I actually don't care one way or the other. Folks that use 9/11 as a hobby can all pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom