NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

[DGM]

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.

So you're trolling. I don't remember him using this as his only defense.

 

[NoahFence]

I prefer to call it "needling"...

It's really the only contributions I can make on this retarded sub-forum now.

 

[twinstead]

Ask them.

Why would I ask them? You're the one saying they blew it. You'd think you'd be interested in their response.

 

[DGM]

Why would I ask them? You're the one saying they blew it. You'd think you'd be interested in their response.

I doubt NIST would be interested.

What he says is true but, it really has no bearing on NIST's report/conclusions. It's of interest but, not really to them.

 

[twinstead]

I doubt NIST would be interested.

What he says is true but, it really has no bearing on NIST's report/conclusions. It's of interest but, not really to them.

Yea, from what I can see he isn't claiming something that isn't true, it's just irrelevant.

 

[DGM]

Yea, from what I can see he isn't claiming something that isn't true, it's just irrelevant.

I don't think "irrelevant" would be the right word.

Nothing he has posted changes the gist of the report. In fact for the most part it's in support.

What's a word for "why the hell did we bother trying to break it down like this"?

You do know this was all to try to explain "free-fall" that at the time was an internet sensation. Why they paid any attention is anyone's guess.

 

[ozeco41]

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.

So you're trolling. I don't remember him using this as his only defense.

I don't think femr2 ever used "incorrect' as "his only defence". Certainly his most common use of the word was as a synonym for "wrong" and he used it most often when opponents persisted in making false statements in response to something femr said. After he had clearly made a point, sometimes several times, he would respond with "incorrect" meaning "wrong", "in error" or "not true". Pithy, brief and to the point and efficient use of the English language when directed at members who persisted in not reading what had been said or were unable or unwilling to respond with reasoned discussion.

 

[ozeco41]

Yea, from what I can see he isn't claiming something that isn't true, it's just irrelevant.

It could well be "irrelevant" for some people. That very much depends on who those persons are, their type of interest and context of the discussion.

femr2's involvement in this WTC7 discussion was in response to various requests for accurate tracking of building movement. Obviously those asking about movement thought it was relevant to them. So it is not irrelevant in that context.

It may well be "irrelevant" in the bigger picture where it does not change the overall findings in the "CD or No CD?" debate.

And, on that aspect, femr's own comment is to the pint:

.....As I have said many times, WTC7 was in motion several minutes prior to release. Those proposing explosives->immediate descent must ask themselves what was causing the early motion.

(My emphasis) To me that looks like a rational and objective comment.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think "irrelevant" would be the right word.

Nothing he has posted changes the gist of the report. In fact for the most part it's in support.

What's a word for "why the hell did we bother trying to break it down like this"?

You do know this was all to try to explain "free-fall" that at the time was an internet sensation. Why they paid any attention is anyone's guess.

Well said DGM. A clear and concise summary.

 

[DGM]

Well said DGM. A clear and concise summary. [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

It took me awhile.

Once I got past the "this guy's a truther" and moved on, I discovered nothing he's claimed really is in support of some "inside job". It's easier to accept when you realize he doesn't claim it does.

 

[ozeco41]

It took me awhile.

Once I got past the "this guy's a truther" and moved on,¹ I discovered nothing he's claimed really is in support of some "inside job". It's easier to accept when you realize he doesn't claim it does.²

1 Did I ever explain my "blue sky" code phrase to you? I used it to allude to the problem that people have when they classify other members as "truthers" and refuse to objectively consider what is being discussed. Several classic examples. My comment to femr2 a couple of years back was "If a person classed as a truther was to claim 'The cloudless daytime sky is blue' the debunkers would line up to tell him he was wrong." We've seen a few examples directed at femr2 in recent days.

2 femr is very careful to ensure that what he actually claims doesn't go beyond the evidence available to him. I admire that - I forget the details but I once went a bit too far in suggesting that one of his findings supported the official version. He gently reprimanded me by inserting a "could" or similar cautionary word. He was right on that bit too.

The style of "anti-truther" attack I find most childish is when femr claims the equivalent of "the sky is blue" and a regular member says, in effect, that cannot be true because you're a truther and ten years ago you said something about CD OR accuses femr (or M_T et al) of "trying to back in CD". The claim was about blueness of sky and the colour of socks the man wore to his wedding is irrelevant to the colour of the sky whether we agree with his choice of footwear or not. My examples are deliberately trivial but they are not as silly as the counter claims some of our members endure with stoic patience.

I've long thought that it is a pity we don't see debunkers using the same rigour of logical debate as we insist on from truthers.


PS (Er --"rigour"? Yes - my spell-checker is set to Aussie English)
(And "Aussie English" is probably an oxymoron.)

 

[beachnut]

Gutted by fire, WTC 7 collapsed. WTC 7 was totaled by fire before it collapsed, it would never be used again, even if it stood. Attacking NIST is the work of armchair want to be engineers who think 911 was an inside job. Picking minor points and presenting goal free nonsense, a waste of time, and never ends. No conclusions, no goals. The work of these neutral fake-engineers inspires the crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists to produce lies about 911.

Look at the work done by on the fence covert inside job fake-engineers, it amounts to nothing, and never had a goal. Does not change anything. Or did it?

What is the point? When this is answer a pile of BS is posted, never answering what is the point. Meaningless studies, no goal. What is the obsession with NIST?

Don't need NIST to know WTC 7 failed after fires gutted the building. Means the NIST study is not needed, and want to be engineer studies are extra credit nonsense. Thermal expansion, one of the oldest phenomenon know before man, this is not new; tired of hearing thermal expansion is new. Who is sick of hearing no buildings have collapsed due to fire?

An executive summary would be cool, expressing why this means something should be included. What journal will carry this stuff? Where is the executive summary? Why is there air?

 

[Justin39640]

And, on that aspect, femr's own comment is to the pint:

As I have said many times, WTC7 was in motion several minutes prior to release. Those proposing explosives->immediate descent must ask themselves what was causing the early motion.

(My emphasis) To me that looks like a rational and objective comment.

That was the ninjas getting out of the building real quick [/truther]

 

[LSSBB]

I have found femr2's contributions quite useful, especially in pointing out the flaws in the freefall means cd argument. Complaints about him not coming to a conclusion are the same as blaming Gallup for not promoting a particular candidate or AC Nielsen for not liking your favorite show. Femr2 is valuable even more for his contributions because of his neutrality.

 

[ozeco41]

I have found femr2's contributions quite useful, especially in pointing out the flaws in the freefall means cd argument. Complaints about him not coming to a conclusion are the same as blaming Gallup for not promoting a particular candidate or AC Nielsen for not liking your favorite show....

Agreed especially this bit:

Femr2 is valuable even more for his contributions because of his neutrality.

The sad reflection is that a number of members here seem to be incapable of objectively assessing and responding to femr2's work.

However - back on the topic of this thread - there is a big issue not being adequately dealt with.

I have no doubt that femr2 is right that, from certain more detailed perspectives, NIST "blew" the analysis.

BUT the questions are "At what level of detail?" and " What effect do these errors of detail have?"

The detailed errors (even if they are errors) certainly do not affect the big question "CD or Not?" so those members who prefer that global level will see no purpose in femr's findings.

So they only affect people who are interested in details?????

 

[femr2]

Why would I ask them?

You appeared interested in their viewpoint.

You're the one saying they blew it. You'd think you'd be interested in their response.

I'm simply highlighting the issues and errors within the 'NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis' in response to the OP of this thread.

I have no doubt that NIST would have little interest in the higher accuracy details I have extracted, nor, sadly, critique of their methods.

It is unlikely that NIST will be required to perform further video feature tracing, and so that their method was poor is unlikely to matter in the future.

The sad part is that the details within the flawed analysis have been "accepted" by "the masses", with meme's such as "40% longer than freefall" and "2.25s of freefall" having now been written into the history books...even though they are inaccurate...aka wrong.

Video feature tracing is not rocket science, and although my methods are superior to those NIST used (primarily due to me spending much more time and effort refining the methods than NIST bothered to) more of an issue is that numerous problems with the analysis are human error...misinterpretation of motion direction, choice of trace location, ...etc. Perhaps, if NIST ever have to perform tracing in the future, they will be aware of these discussions on the infrawebz and ensure they do a "proper job" of it.

 

[femr2]

"What effect do these errors of detail have?"

A few meme's have gone into the history books, as per my previous post, at the very least. Folk have subsequently spend thousands and thousands of hours discussing and arguing about NIST vs Chandler, or similar, when the sad fact is that both sets of data are "sub standard" and the conclusions "flawed".

The detailed errors (even if they are errors) certainly do not affect the big question "CD or Not?" so those members who prefer that global level will see no purpose in femr's findings.

I disagree. I think the early motion data is absolutely crucial for determination of any "event->descent" type scenario. As you highlighted earlier, how can "event" lead to "motion" if "motion" began before "event" ?

Without early motion data, folk could continue to argue about the release phase ad infinitum.

With early motion data there is replicable hard evidence that removes "isolated event->descent" type scenarios.

 

[Spanx]

Hi femr2
I'm just curious, what was your reason for checking the NIST information?

 

[femr2]

Hi femr2
I'm just curious, what was your reason for checking the NIST information?

I check all information. Blindly accepting data is not in me genes, like. Why would you not check ?

 

[femr2]

And thank-you ozeco41, LSSBB, DGM & twinstead for your input It's refreshing to see non-confrontational dialogue.