DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I know but, it's getting on my last nerve. We've had our differences but, I do believe we both have progressed.It's the "blue sky" effect ozeco41 alluded to earlier. Used to it
NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
I suggest you need to understand what "early motion" data is being discussed before further silly posturing.
All "early motion" is prior to T0 (release).
Data stretches minutes prior.
Check it out
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Who said it was?
MileHighMadness
Muse
I suggest you need to understand what "early motion" data is being discussed before further silly posturing.
All "early motion" is prior to T0 (release).
Data stretches minutes prior.
Check it out
Yes...I read everything...all this is pointless...they are minor unimportant details.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So what. Why does this bother you? NIST did not do a very good job in this respect. Is this a problem for you?
Last edited:
Splendid.
I'm afraid not. It's pretty useful. Well handy like.
What are ? What is the "they" you are referring to ?
Are you intending to have a stab at what the early motion data indicates ?
I'll make it simpler for you...
Why did the building start moving quite a while before it began to rapidly descend ?
(I'm not trying to trick or confuse you btw)
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I don't know if there is enough information or visual evidence to know a lot of things that happened to WTC7. All I know is that it was smacked with a sizable chunk of building, and had unchecked fires on multiple floors until it collapsed.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
That works.................
(point remains, nothing in this thread argues against this)
ozeco41
Philosopher
Talking about "blue sky syndrome"......That makes no sense what so ever. He documents movement that complements and in many ways bolsters the NIST findings. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
Have you even looked at his work?
@DGM Sure it bolsters NIST but femr's logic would still be correct if it worked against NIST.
AND - I shouldn't need to say this - but it is an issue of logic NOT one of engineering. We don't even have to look to the engineering to know why MHM is wrong.
And playing the "I'm an engineer - you're not" card in that situation is beyond being funny.
MHM your posts are generally spot on. What went wrong with this recent series?
HINT You have dug yourself into a hole. When you dig yourself into a hole don't dig deeper. Or, at least work out what the hole is before you do any further excavation.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I won't say "told you so!!"You never know...Aren't you risking a "blue sky" response there femr.
MileHighMadness
Muse
No...I'm dead on...you all missing the point...but I will leave you now, with that little gem to think on...never to return....bye-bye
ozeco41
Philosopher
I'm sorry to see that. At some stage you may understand why. Meanwhile my thoughts are drawn to the old saw:
"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
I don't think it is "us" who are not seeing. The big reason several of us are interested in this issue of early motion has been stated. You make no reference to that aspect whilst declining to explain your own position. Plus you rely on a claim of engineering authority for a matter which is not engineering.
However one last hint. This statement of yours is true in a quite narrow sense:
...however remember that in 9/11 conspiracy discussions there are broadly two classes of alleged "...cause(s) of the collapse...".
And the sequence of the occurrence of early movement well before the start of rapid global collapse eliminates one of those two classes of collapse mechanisms.
And that is a consideration of logic - not of engineering.
Cheers for now.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
It doesn't require much energy to drop a couple of <256 character messages to Sarns once someone gives you a link and you click on it. Nothing I wrote there required research, I wrote the facts from memory.
Why feed Sarns? Hmmm someone is wrong on the internet, someone else's gotta do sumpin' about it!!
ozeco41
Philosopher
You know my attitude - and the reality that I am in the minority....Why feed Sarns? Hmmm someone is wrong on the internet, someone else's gotta do sumpin' about it!!
I don't feed trolls. They are driven by ego goals into seeking attention. They have no honest interest in 9/11 learning or truth seeking. So why feed their egos by jumping when they jerk the strings? Chris Sarns I still rank as one of them most successful poster of trolling to visit these pages. A viewpoint that experience tells me few members would accept.
Beyond the trolls and in former years there was a valid secondary benefit of posting sound reasoned answers for the benefit of genuine truthers and lurkers. That is no longer the case - there are near zero of those left.
Apart from the sciency stuff about dust and the tailing off of interest in the Mohr rebuttals nearly all the continuing posting here is two way trolling.
And I have this funny idea that all us good guys should set an example of sound reasoning and logical debate.. We don't do that when we are so desperate for activity that we follow the trolls down into their evasive "discussions" of details.
And, as I said, I am well aware that I am in the minority. My success rate at lifting discussions up to the real issues is near zero. Hence my partial retirement from forums in recent weeks. The other forum is worse - dominated by one person whose persistent errors of logic I have identified many times both here and "over there".
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
NIST Stage 1 data (the initial vertical movement near the NE side of the north wall), Chandler's data (NW corner), femr2's data (NW corner) all agree that the initial period of fall is less than FFA, so no, NIST did not "blow" WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
For those interested in the details of the accuracy of NIST and femr2's models I refer to W.D.Clinger's posts here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7152221#post7152221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7152221#post7152221
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Myriad's also.
You're well out of date I'm afraid. May 2011 ?! Really ? It was a flawed calc by Will, as his personal "blue sky" perspective led him down avenues he really shouldn't have.
A pretty irrelevant biased accuracy comparison between a very old "smoothing" method, whith Will deliberately including data from a poly fit which was out of the range of applicability, long since supersceded by the Savitzky-Golay method.
Nice try. The NIST data itself is badly flawed, even before starting down any road of deriving velocity and acceleration from it.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Incorrect. I wasn't aware Will being right had an expiration date. He used your NW corner data, applied your and NIST's parameters and found NIST's for Stage 1 (topic of this thread) more accurate than yours.
Still mistaken, re-read that thread.
Erroneous, video shows NIST NE wall fall simultaneous with kink. Wall can't move sideways without columns falling down.
Last edited:
Nope.
Correct. He was out of whack at the time. He chose to perform his calcs in a way that was innapropriate.
Not quite. He estimated coefficients for a Poly10 curve fit, ignoring region of interest, which given that the NIST T0 is a full second before that resulted in the early moments being massively skewed by early behaviour of the poly fit...which should have been cropped. Poly10 fit was a very old smoothing method used simply to show trend. Such has very little bearing on the accuracy of the actual trace data, which Will has freely stated is superior to that of NIST. You're talking about a curve fit I didn't perform, using innapropriate time range, not the accuracy of "my data". Will even highlights the T0 difference, but still chose to start earlier. Tsk, tsk. Sorry. Try again.
Not my paramaters. NIST's stage 1 profile is pants. If you want another viewpoint, other than mine, as you clearly have issues there, how about tfk...
Doesn't seem to resemble the NIST acceleration profile determined by deriving their function for velocity...
Oh, what a quandary
LOL. I wrote much of it
I'm fully aware of its contents.It's pretty clear you haven't looked at this in much detail. Simultaneous ? Er, no. "Kink" is not a good word to use in this context.
The building experienced flexure, lesser of course, for years prior to descent without columns "falling down". Must be magic
You're not going to get data of higher quality than I have provided.
For additional information, look at the comparison between the velocity profiles (with the NIST T0 shifted 1s as appropriate)...
And, of course, make sure you remember that the NW corner is not a wandering position nearish the East side of the louvers.
Were you expecting them to behave in exactly the same way ?
