NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

[Spanx]

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

Thanks for the reply

I agree information should be checked, perhaps you could help with an issue I have from Richard Gage & co

He says the wtc 7 fires had died out and the smoke coming from the building was being drawn from elsewhere.

How would it be possible to check this information and how did Gage collect this information ?

Sorry for going of topic and I hope you don't mind answering?

 

[femr2]

Thanks for the reply

I agree information should be checked, perhaps you could help with an issue I have from Richard Gage & co

He says the wtc 7 fires had died out and the smoke coming from the building was being drawn from elsewhere.

How would it be possible to check this information and how did Gage collect this information ?

There is very little imagery of the South side of WTC7.

There is also limited imagery for the lower floors of WTC7 from the North.

I'd have to trawl through the videos and photos I do have to be more specific than...

Smoke observed behind WTC7 is likely to be from both fire within WTC7 and GZ fires caused by descent of WTC1&2. It is probable that fire within WTC7 was far from it's "peak" at the time of descent.

Determining the ratio between WTC7 and GZ would require detailed analysis of available imagery.

It is very unlikely that there were zero fires within WTC7 at the time of descent.

There is certainly misrepresentation of some imagery appearing to show smoke emerging from the entire South facade. It is highly likely that such smoke is not emerging from where it appears, and could be from either lower in WTC7, or GZ. A similar effect is seen with WTC1 after descent of WTC2, where the entire (East?) face of WTC1 appears to emit smoke.

Am sure there is detailed data on smoke/fire progression, which could be checked/verified.

 

[DGM]

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

Your welcome.

You appeared interested in their viewpoint.


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.

I believe their biggest mistake was falling for the "truther" meme and bothering to explain this "free-fall". It added nothing to the report and I've never heard any building professional asking for an explanation. They saw it this way also and didn't put in much effort. I doubt it had anything to do with ability to do it correctly.

 

[Spanx]

I think the lack of south side footage is part of the problem.

To "truthers" the lack of footage is part of the cover up and makes it easy to make false claims. The reality is, the south side was a huge pile of rubble and no one could get near.

As far as the smoke, I would say part was from fires around the base and the remainder from the building itself.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxEfjuJsPTQ&feature

The above clip shows a white flicker in the centre of the building which could be fire? Or some may say its a laser guiding a missile

 

[carlitos]

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.

Not really. History books note that some terrorists flew planes into buildings. Those who look further will find that some collateral damage resulted from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, including the Salomon Brothers Building. That's what "the masses" know.

Your "history books" quibble is like saying that "the masses" don't know history because they don't know whether the first bomb at Pearl Harbor landed at 7:48:30 or 7:48:31. Superfluous minutiae like these aren't needed to disabuse "truthers" of their notions. They believe based on faith. Their singular lack of a coherent narrative debunks itself.

 

[femr2]

I believe their biggest mistake was falling for the "truther" meme and bothering to explain this "free-fall". It added nothing to the report and I've never heard any building professional asking for an explanation. They saw it this way also and didn't put in much effort. I doubt it had anything to do with ability to do it correctly.

I think it rather depended upon who "in the office" performed the task.

Whilst I'm no fan of their over-complex and limited "moire method" traces (Appendix C - VIDEO ANALYSIS OF WTC 7 BUILDING VIBRATIONS BEFORE COLLAPSE) , which preceeded the vertical descent traces in the investigation timeline, they were performed with far better rigour and depth.

If they had applied the same standards to the descent traces, they would have gained the, in my view, pivotal early motion data, which if interpreted correctly would have given them a much better way to rebutt the "freefall" argument. Even without that they should have at least traced accurately enough to show effectively zero "freefall" for any sustained period, rather than the unhelpful "2.25s of freefall" conclusion.

With the early motion data they could have pointed out the rather important "event->descent" flaw, and if they treated T₀ as being the start of such motion (although not vertical descent) they could have, instead of "40% longer than freefall" said "over 120s from motion start to ground...>1800% longer than freefall".

But they didn't bother. Instead several groups of folk arguing endlessly about their various "meme's". NIST's accepted as "good enough" by some, forcefully defended by others, and branded lies by others still, who prefer other similarly flawed datasets. All a bit sad really.

 

[carlitos]

All a bit sad really.

I'd like to take this moment to note where we agree.

 

[ozeco41]

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

thank you.

...I believe their biggest mistake was falling for the "truther" meme and bothering to explain this "free-fall"...

They tried to assist and it fed the dishonesty of the truth movement - the crap about Chandler "forced" NIST to "admit" freefall. Still we have had a bit of fun explaining the free body physics and why parts of a falling sub-system can exceed G. And, in doing that, we revealed that quite a few "debunkers" also get a bit lost in the basics so "truthers" aren't the only ones who don't comprehend basic physics.

I think the lack of south side footage is part of the problem.

To "truthers" the lack of footage is part of the cover up and makes it easy to make false claims.

I agree but I see it as part of a broader situation.

The "truth" movement was desperate to prove CD at WTC for whatever dishonest or deluded reasons. The mechanisms of the collapses of the Twins were very much mostly in view - only two critical stages with three ways of introducing CD. (Pre weakening of the core, initiation stage and/or progression or "global collapse" stage.) All of those pretty much visible so hard to hide CD and easy to show why "natural" collapse occurred and why no CD was needed. Leading through to strong indications that there was no CD - allowing for the logic problem of cannot prove a negative. So claiming CD with the twins was always going to be a losing tactic despite the debate being dragged out for many years.

With CD of the Twins easily rebutted the situation with WTC7 was a boon to the truthers. All the mechanisms were hidden. Remember that the TM has never put forward a pro CD hypothesis worthy of the name "hypothesis" and meeting prima-facie standard of a "case to answer". All their claims AFAIK rely on reversing burden of proof - in the form of "It looked like CD - you debunkers prove it wasn't". OR "there was therm*te in the dust prove it wasn't therm*te before we even get to prove it wasn't CD".

And lots of us gullible debunkers fall for the trap because we like explaining sciency (engineering forensic) things. Reality says that there is no truther claim worthy of response. "Genuine truthers" - those who realy do not understand - are satisfied with reasoned explanations. But we don't see any "genuine truthers" around forums these days. Most are playing the trolling game and pretending to not understand so basically they are dishonest game players.

And the point I try to make here is that WTC7 collapse suited the dishonest game players or deluded truthers because nearly all the details were hidden. They could keep us going round in circles as we accepted "reverse burden of proof" and attempted the logical impossible of proving a (lot of) negative(s).

Not that many truthers are intelligent enough to make that a deliberate strategy. The reason many of them are truthers is that they cannot think anyway but that is another topic which we don't discuss for some reason... I've posted the concept about half a dozen times and got no response from either side.

 

[ozeco41]

...If they had applied the same standards to the descent traces, they would have gained the, in my view, pivotal early motion data, which if interpreted correctly would have given them a much better way to rebutt the "freefall" argument. Even without that they should have at least traced accurately enough to show effectively zero "freefall" for any sustained period, rather than the unhelpful "2.25s of freefall" conclusion...

It's hard to know even in hindsight. The downside is obvious in hindsight. Responding to the "freefall" issue gave an appearance of credibility to the truther article of faith that freefall always means and only occurs with CD. So NIST really faced two choices - ignore the issue and get misrepresented OR deal with the issue and get misrepresented. I agree with your suggestion - essentially "if they had done it better there would have been less grounds for disagreement" BUT I don't underestimate the ability of devious minds to create disagreement.

...With the early motion data they could have pointed out the rather important "event->descent" flaw, and if they treated T₀ as being the start of such motion (although not vertical descent) they could have, instead of "40% longer than freefall" said "over 120s from motion start to ground...>1800% longer than freefall"...

Yes. The same "event->descent" relationship that occurs as a fundamental and fatal bit of anachronism in missing jolt style arguments.

...But they didn't bother. Instead several groups of folk arguing endlessly about their various "meme's". NIST's accepted as "good enough" by some, forcefully defended by others, and branded lies by others still, who prefer other similarly flawed datasets. All a bit sad really.

Take care - misuse of the expression "good enough" is becoming an art form in other arenas.
However it is the key issue here - arguably NIST misread the required level of "good enough" needed for the audience. So it wasn't good enough for that bit of the audience. And the "cost benefit" questions of how far should a public agency go to satisfy minority groups is a more complex issue than we need to discuss here. Bottom line is no matter how far you go a determined nit picker opponent will want you to go further. And lines have to be drawn at some stage.

That much is obvious. The difficult question is where and when to say "that's enough" and draw the line.

 

[Spanx]

Hi ozeco41
As an example of today's truther trolls, please look at the message board on the below link.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature

Prime gullibles for ae911 truth.

Maybe the last two comments are directed at sarns and not oy ?

 

[ozeco41]

Hi ozeco41
As an example of today's truther trolls, please look at the message board on the below link....

Greetings Spanx.. I did. I admire Oysteins energy but why feed Sarns?

...Prime gullibles for ae911 truth.

Yes. I'm to old to give much attention to the trivial discussions of "social media" I have never posted comments on youtube - never ever looked at twitter or face book. You should be able to decode the "41" in the username.

...Maybe the last two comments are directed at sarns and not oy ?

You wish? I don't comprehend what Oystein is trying to achieve by going to that cesspool. But others here also put effort in. Beyond me......

BTW the AE911Lies video timed 30 seconds to first lie and 59 secs to the second. I gave up at 67 seconds.

 

[DGM]

But they didn't bother. Instead several groups of folk arguing endlessly about their various "meme's". NIST's accepted as "good enough" by some, forcefully defended by others, and branded lies by others still, who prefer other similarly flawed datasets. All a bit sad really.

For the people that branded them lies, nothing they could have done would change that. No one else really considered it an issue. You provided a much better data set and even that has had no effect with those that claim "free-fall" is an issue.

NIST should have ignored it and stayed with what was the important details. NIST made a wrong decision when they decided to play "debunker" for an issue that had no merit in the first place (CD).

 

[femr2]

For the people that branded them lies, nothing they could have done would change that. No one else really considered it an issue. You provided a much better data set and even that has had no effect with those that claim "free-fall" is an issue.

Perhaps that is due to the continued focus on acceleration, which you may be astounded to hear I'm not particularly interested in

Early motion again for me.

Perhaps those you refer to should be directed to consider "What caused early motion ?".

 

[ozeco41]

...NIST should have ignored it and stayed with what was the important details. NIST made a wrong decision when they decided to play "debunker" for an issue that had no merit in the first place (CD).

On balance that is what I support. In a confrontation with the TM NIST would be misrepresented so why bother even giving them any credibility?

Perhaps that is due to the continnued focus of acceleration, which you may be astounded to hear I'm not particularly interested in ...

Agreed - it is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is what I usually frame as "understanding the mechanism" which parallels what you say in this:

...Early motion again for me.

Perhaps those you refer to should be directed to consider "What caused early motion ?".

What causes "early motion" is the mechanism of collapse getting under way. You look for the motion. I look to examining mechanisms. They are different approaches to the same thing - complementary and mutually supporting.

Which is part of the reason for my earlier reference to the fatal anachronism in "missing jolt". It presumed a future impact when the starting point of the argument was after the point where the impact could occur. A "T₀" placement error if I understand your terminology.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps that is due to the continued focus on acceleration, which you may be astounded to hear I'm not particularly interested in

Strange how that was the focus of why they did that part of the report.

Early motion again for me.

Perhaps those you refer to should be directed to consider "What caused early motion ?".

Perhaps. The point is according to the NIST report movement in the building would be expected for long before the actual collapse. Maybe even hours before. Translating these into something useful in the grand scheme would almost be an impossible task.

 

[femr2]

The same "event->descent" relationship that occurs as a fundamental and fatal bit of anachronism in missing jolt style arguments.

Do you mean the "What actually impacts What ?" flaw ?

arguably NIST misread the required level of "good enough" needed for the audience.

I suggest "level of effort" and "mistakes" are separate. Avoidable mistakes were made, which didn't change effort applied, but did affect the results.

 

[Spanx]

Greetings Spanx.. I did. I admire Oysteins energy but why feed Sarns?

Yes. I'm to old to give much attention to the trivial discussions of "social media" I have never posted comments on youtube - never ever looked at twitter or face book. You should be able to decode the "41" in the username.

You wish? I don't comprehend what Oystein is trying to achieve by going to that cesspool. But others here also put effort in. Beyond me......

BTW the AE911Lies video timed 30 seconds to first lie and 59 secs to the second. I gave up at 67 seconds.

Surely your not older than Mr Sarns

It's my fault Oystein ended up there. I noticed sarns was there when Oystein posted a link. It looks like sarns is using a Mr Miyagi approach

 

[femr2]

The point is according to the NIST report movement in the building would be expected for long before the actual collapse. Maybe even hours before. Translating these into something useful in the grand scheme would almost be an impossible task.

There is a marked and quite dramatic change in motion a couple of minutes prior to descent...

...with a clear inflexion in direction around the 160s mark (nearly 15s before the start of East Penthouse descent).

I agree that some of those to whom the information would be most useful are unlikely to accept the implications.

 

[DGM]

I agree that some of those to whom the information would be most useful are unlikely to accept the implications.

I'm a bit slow today (Saturday in all). I don't really follow. What implications are you talking about?

 

[femr2]

I'm a bit slow today (Saturday in all). I don't really follow. What implications are you talking about?

If WTC7 was structurally sound immediately prior to descent, and "Instantaneous removal of 8 stories worth of supporting structure"/"explosives were detonated"/"wires were pulled"/"space beams were switched on" to bring it down immediately afterwards...then the building would not already be in motion minutes prior to release.

It would be static. Sound. It wasn't. Early motion data is the clearest replicable confirmation of the behaviour of the building during the lead up to release.

Assertions about building behaviour without that real-world data will always be seen as conjecture by those being asked to consider such assertions.

Early Motion data. Data about the behaviour of the actual building.