Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
I look forward to seeing the FEA supporting this hypothesis (seriously), until then I think I'll stick with the modelling that's been presented.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
I look forward to seeing the FEA supporting this hypothesis (seriously), until then I think I'll stick with the modelling that's been presented.
My mistake. You took derivatives from the WTC7 descent to 16 decimal places and I conflated the two. For all anyone could know your blurry gif shows exactly what you claim it does, but I still think I see a little bigfoot.
And silly me, calling something that looks like a grid a "grid."
I forget that some people don't use the English language in the same way as most of us.
By the way, I've mentioned this before, but 3 megabyte animated gifs don't perform very well on all broswers / devices. They freeze up my tablet, for instance.
And silly me, calling something that looks like a grid a "grid."
I forget that some people don't use the English language in the same way as most of us.By the way, I've mentioned this before, but 3 megabyte animated gifs don't perform very well on all broswers / devices. They freeze up my tablet, for instance.
Yup
I'll have a peek.
Too much. Much less these days. Only back here as I noticed request for WTC2 trace data. Cue ongoing "trace data" is **** ping-pong.
I don't. I put in my two cents when I have an opinion, or can provide resource.
You know, I think there are some other folk you've conversed with who have been "Calling something that looks like a..."And silly me, calling something that looks like a grid a "grid."
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
e.
Those fine motions are crucial in order to answer "what moved first" type questions, which is what was being discussed with BasqueArch, and queried by Spanx.
Keep up
This would be so if the person presenting them could show the relationship with the actual structure. What exactly moved (what piece) to cause what you have documented?
If you can't answer this, then this detail is just that. A detail.
In short. It's meaningless unless it can be shown why it's significant past the point of questioning the accepted theory.
Last edited:
Ye gads. Numerous threads full of such discussions. An assertion based upon such is given above, namely core failure before perimeter fracture.
If you've forgotten the very lengthy discussions on these topics I'm afraid I'm not going to be repeating them all again on the JREF 5 minute memory hamster wheel. Use the search function.
Thanks femr, I found this.
On September 11th 2001, following structural damage from aircraft impacts, ensuing explosions and subsequent fires, the World Trade Centre Twin Towers both collapsed totally and completely to the ground.
These tragic events have been the subject of much discussion since, as many believe that the collapses were in fact the result of Controlled Demolition, and not an unforseen result of the aircraft impacts, ensuing damage and subsequent fires.
The primary aim of this project is to provide information and tools enabling users to understand fundamental laws of physics which affect the progression of the 'collapse' of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers.
It is not our aim to dictate opinion or conclusions upon anyone, but to highlight simple methods which assist in gaining a clear understanding of the basic underlying phyics of the tragic events which took place.
You know where I got it from
On September 11th 2001, following structural damage from aircraft impacts, ensuing explosions and subsequent fires, the World Trade Centre Twin Towers both collapsed totally and completely to the ground.
These tragic events have been the subject of much discussion since, as many believe that the collapses were in fact the result of Controlled Demolition, and not an unforseen result of the aircraft impacts, ensuing damage and subsequent fires.
The primary aim of this project is to provide information and tools enabling users to understand fundamental laws of physics which affect the progression of the 'collapse' of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers.
It is not our aim to dictate opinion or conclusions upon anyone, but to highlight simple methods which assist in gaining a clear understanding of the basic underlying phyics of the tragic events which took place.
You know where I got it from
Of course. It could really be more prominent. However, I do frown upon even assessment of user "position" or "people/background profiling" as I would term it, as it is (should be) completely irrelevent in the context of discussion.You know where I got it from
I suggest, to all, take what is said, by anyone, on the value of what is said, and certainly not on what is not said.
The daytime cloudless sky is blue
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
But never an engineering study to support these posts.
Maybe AE 9/11 could help out with this. I heard they have 1600 engineers.
Truth be told. All of this is to cast doubt on what is accepted. Present something that can be absorbed by the worlds engineers that significantly changes the accepted view (piece A moved causing piece B) . To date, no one has.
Do you agree?
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Well, there's a pretty damn easy way to get around that bit of frustration, you know. Like drawing a conclusion besides "I'm brilliant and you're not".
For instance, reality clearly states that hijacked aircraft piloted by terrorists caused every shred of damage at the WTC site. Now, simply replying with one word clears up any doubts of where you stand.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Now, I'm sure you'll say something along the lines of no, because the planes didn't cause the damage at WTC 7. La-dee-frickin da. You know what I mean. Terrorists caused 9/11.
Agree or disagree?
I don't subscribe to monikers. In this environment, simply questioning NIST is enough to have a rabbid section of the forum suggest you have a mental illness, let alone simply brand you a "twoofer". Blinkered and polarised perception (rather than reality) causes some folk here to argue against suggesting the sky is blue
"Debunkers" call me "twoofer"
"Truthers" call me "Debunker"
You can't please everybody
Faux polarisation, so the simple don't get lost.
There are many severe issues with even the list of "features" bandied around.
Do I ? Says who ?
Did Tony Szamboti post within this thread ?
Maybe I have lost the plot
but I don't think femr is saying that ?DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
None of this is relevant. You're assuming he's casting blame (a point you can't support). Even a CD could be caused by terrorists.
Your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why?
What exactly happened and why? If you can't answer this, it would be just casting doubt.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
your bold
Originally Posted by BasqueArch
Yes. The perimeter columns were seen progressively bowing and the trusses were seen sagged. From there, engineering analysis of the applicable forces explained the rest. MT's proposed pulling in of the perimeter columns by the collapse of the core columns was impossible due to the necessary 23 foot drop of these core columns as I have shown before.
Wrong. Yes I have. See link.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7511649#post7511649
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened.
You are confused. For science, the repeatable test has to be correct 100% of the time. To test this 9/11 historical singular event for correctness, you proportion your belief to the evidence. The proportion of the evidence is less than 100%, but more than for any other explanation.
No
You need to define prove.
You are confused. The NIST conclusions are a combination of facts and the proportion of the evidence as derived from analysis of known behavior of steel and fire.
"Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:
(1) the impact of the planes (fact) severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns (proportion of evidence), and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors (fact); and
(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (fact) (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. (proportion of evidence)
This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. (proportion of evidence)
Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse (fact)—support this sequence for each tower.” (proportion of the evidence)
You don't practice what you preach.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Several viewpoints. Most time spent with Sauret, as it's the highest quality.
.....
This jiggling can be caused by heat mirage, which you haven't considered. See this effect for 102 deg F.
The stationary posts jiggle.
It is unlikely/impossible anyone will ever know "exactly" what happened, which of course depends upon what your personal interpretation of "exactly" is.
I disagree, of course.
Indications are that specific details and conclusions within the NIST report are inaccurate and/or wrong.
If you don't care/are not interested in looking in detail at such things, don't.
If you want to infer some nefarious intent about "casting doubt" then I'll just have to
and 
.Some, of course. And smoke. And numerous other noise sources.
Incorrect. Static features at multiple locations were traced, analysed, and subtracted from primary trace feature data. Remaining noise was left in place, of course.
Focus upon the resultant data is, for me, more about trend.
Whilst you are correct that heat (and all manner of other sources) can cause image distortion and result in your really technical sounding "jiggle", such factors do not cause ongoing trend motion.
"I haven't considered"
NIST saved a lot of money by not studying nonsense to the nth+1 degree. The report would be pending.