NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

[BasqueArch]

Yawn. Ongoning discussion about "femr2" continues...

No it's not about femr2, I don't know or care who you are, it's about femr2's mistaken propositions. You are only straw herring fooling a few people.

 

[femr2]

Wrong. Yes I have.

No. You limited yourself to a single IB mechanism. Numerous exist.

You don't practice what you preach.

I can but try and remind you that you are having this discussion in the wrong thread.

I have provided pretty thorough details on NIST Stage 1 analysis, which you ignore in preference to boring femr2 senseless.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

He expressed frustration.

"Debunkers" call me "twoofer"
"Truthers" call me "Debunker"

You can't please everybody

I told him why that was the case and how to stop it. Simple, really.

 

[BasqueArch]

NIST saved a lot of money by not studying nonsense to the n^th+1 degree. The report would be pending.

In addition, these distinctions without a difference don't change NIST's conclusions.

 

[BasqueArch]

No. You limited yourself to a single IB mechanism. Numerous exist.


I can but try and remind you that you are having this discussion in the wrong thread.

I have provided pretty thorough details on NIST Stage 1 analysis, which you ignore in preference to boring femr2 senseless.

You can type more and type last, still wrong. Cold comfort.

 

[NoahFence]

In addition, these distinctions without a difference don't change NIST's conclusions.

Exactly. That's where I get all confused.

What's the point? The conclusions remain precisely the same.

Tall building + Massive fire = Collapse.

 

[BasqueArch]

Exactly. That's where I get all confused.

What's the point? The conclusions remain precisely the same.

Tall building + Massive fire = Collapse.

I believe it's something to do with finding fault with NIST,
but I could be right.

 

[DGM]

It is unlikely/impossible anyone will ever know "exactly" what happened, which of course depends upon what your personal interpretation of "exactly" is.

You're right.

I disagree, of course.

As is your right, I respect that.

Indications are that specific details and conclusions within the NIST report are inaccurate and/or wrong.

OK, What exactly is being done to correct these? If the effort is just to point them out, then the answer is nothing. Correct?

If you don't care/are not interested in looking in detail at such things, don't.

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't ask. I also want to know what this actually means (besides "they got it wrong). What's right?

If you want to infer some nefarious intent about "casting doubt" then I'll just have to and .

I never said anything like that. I'm asking for a better explanation.

 

[femr2]

The biggest problem with quite a few members on this sub-forum is that they are incapable of actually forming an opinion upon anything other than personality and specifically which side of the so-called fence they have aligned themselves with. All such "battle lines" are utterly irrelevant to any kind of discussion I engage in here.

Without the pathetic banner-waving they don't know whether to disagree with what someone says or not, so they don't cross the "party line". Others are simply incabale of discussing anything bar "CD/No CD" repeatedly. (How such folk could be so utterly, er, not very clever, to continue asking me such questions given the wealth of information I've presented...really, really funny)

"Oh no, oh no, oh no, I don't know if you're on my team, so regardless of what you say I don't know whether to insult you and reject what you say, or pat you on the back shouting high-five, brother (even if you're talking utter crap) !!1!! eleventy"

Some of the details I highlight support NIST, some don't.

What is particularly funny is that the group of folk I'm referring to don't have the noodle to recognise when details I'm presenting support NIST, and argue against them.

Similarly, the same group of folk argue against details I present indicating NIST are wrong, not because I am wrong (not that such bother to even check), but because of their support for the NIST "team", the pointlessness of "disagreeing with NIST", and simply because it's me pointing out such details rather than someone who declared allegience to "the team".

Yawn.

NIST Stage 1 analysis is rubbish. Anyone ?

 

[NoahFence]

Its all about context. Where are you coming from?

If you'd actually come out and say it, the source of your frustrations would evaporate quicker than free-fall speed.

If this is some hobby, say so.
If you're trying to prove a conspiracy, say so.
If you're just trying to prove how superior you are, just say so.

It helps greatly to know the context. How can we have a discussion without proper context?

You know, speaking only for myself, I understand perfectly every syllable, every keystroke and every data point you've provided. What you haven't provided is simple.
Why?

We are fully capable of understanding your answer. Try us.

 

[DGM]

NIST Stage 1 analysis is rubbish. Anyone ?

Could you define what "rubbish" means? I've already said I agree with most of your data.

What exactly is the implications of being "rubbish"? Are there any, and if so, what?

If it's just for historical accuracy, just say so.

 

[BasqueArch]

The biggest problem with quite a few members on this sub-forum is that they are incapable of actually forming an opinion upon anything other than personality and specifically which side of the so-called fence they have aligned themselves with. All such "battle lines" are utterly irrelevant to any kind of discussion I engage in here.

Without the pathetic banner-waving they don't know whether to disagree with what someone says or not, so they don't cross the "party line". Others are simply incabale of discussing anything bar "CD/No CD" repeatedly. (How such folk could be so utterly, er, not very clever, to continue asking me such questions given the wealth of information I've presented...really, really funny)

"Oh no, oh no, oh no, I don't know if you're on my team, so regardless of what you say I don't know whether to insult you and reject what you say, or pat you on the back shouting high-five, brother (even if you're talking utter crap) !!1!! eleventy"

Some of the details I highlight support NIST, some don't.

What is particularly funny is that the group of folk I'm referring to don't have the noodle to recognise when details I'm presenting support NIST, and argue against them.

Similarly, the same group of folk argue against details I present indicating NIST are wrong, not because I am wrong (not that such bother to even check), but because of their support for the NIST "team", the pointlessness of "disagreeing with NIST", and simply because it's me pointing out such details rather than someone who declared allegience to "the team".

Yawn.

NIST Stage 1 analysis is rubbish. Anyone ?

You're solipsistic babbling.

 

[tsig]

I see bigfoot in there.

Playing tic-tac-toe.

 

[tsig]

The biggest problem with quite a few members on this sub-forum is that they are incapable of actually forming an opinion upon anything other than personality and specifically which side of the so-called fence they have aligned themselves with. All such "battle lines" are utterly irrelevant to any kind of discussion I engage in here.

Without the pathetic banner-waving they don't know whether to disagree with what someone says or not, so they don't cross the "party line". Others are simply incabale of discussing anything bar "CD/No CD" repeatedly. (How such folk could be so utterly, er, not very clever, to continue asking me such questions given the wealth of information I've presented...really, really funny)

"Oh no, oh no, oh no, I don't know if you're on my team, so regardless of what you say I don't know whether to insult you and reject what you say, or pat you on the back shouting high-five, brother (even if you're talking utter crap) !!1!! eleventy"

Some of the details I highlight support NIST, some don't.

What is particularly funny is that the group of folk I'm referring to don't have the noodle to recognise when details I'm presenting support NIST, and argue against them.

Similarly, the same group of folk argue against details I present indicating NIST are wrong, not because I am wrong (not that such bother to even check), but because of their support for the NIST "team", the pointlessness of "disagreeing with NIST", and simply because it's me pointing out such details rather than someone who declared allegience to "the team".

Yawn.

NIST Stage 1 analysis is rubbish. Anyone ?

The point of an analysis is to reach a conclusion. Have you or will you ever do that?

 

[beachnut]

... Yawn.

NIST Stage 1 analysis is rubbish. Anyone ?

Not as much rubbish as the woo called technical papers. http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 Two failed papers of woo. femr2 youtube work fuels the nuts of 911 truth.

I have provided a wealth of information, highlighting a whole range of issues and errors within such.

What was the goal? How does study of the collapse after initiation debunk the crazy claims made by 911 truth?

 

[femr2]

I understand perfectly every syllable, every keystroke and every data point you've provided.

Incorrect.

What you haven't provided is simple. Why?

Within this thread, tfk asked for detail about the NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

I have provided a wealth of information, highlighting a whole range of issues and errors within such.

We are fully capable of understanding your answer. Try us.

LOL. Go team NoahFence. High five. Woop woop

 

[NoahFence]

Incorrect.

Actually, I do. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume you know what I do or don't understand.

Within this thread, tfk asked for detail about the NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

I have provided a wealth of information, highlighting a whole range of issues and errors within such.


LOL. Go team NoahFence. High five. Woop woop

Indeed you have provided a wealth of information. Just not the really important part of it. Such as, what's the point?

Is that REALLY that difficult to answer?

You've been asked that rudely.
You've been asked that politely.
You've been asked that by people you don't like because you see them as inferior.
You've been asked that by people who are far more qualified than you.
You've been asked that by people who are far less qualified than you.

Under no circumstances have you ever given us the proper context with which to read your posts. Are they sarcasm? Are they intended to be legitimate? Are you simply being coy for the sake of doing so?

We need this for proper context.

 

[femr2]

Actually, I do. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume you know what I do or don't understand.

I could cite a plethora of examples to the contrary, but it's not necessary...

Indeed you have provided a wealth of information.

I know.

Just not the really important part of it.

To whom ? You ?

Such as, what's the point?

Again, the point is to provide information about the NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

Is that REALLY that difficult to answer?

No.

We need this for proper context.

Go team NoahFence !

 

[NoahFence]

I could cite a plethora of examples to the contrary, but it's not necessary...

No, please do.

To whom ? You ?

To people reading on a 9/11 conspiracy website. You know, WHERE YOU ARE.

 

[ozeco41]

Incorrect.


Within this thread, tfk asked for detail about the NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis..

Correct. To be even more specific tfk asked:

...for achimspok & uglypig to make their arguments that NIST blew the calculation of the Stage 1 of WTC7 collapse. .....building.

Why don't you guys go ahead & make your respective cases....

He then extended the scope to the more global context of CD as a further challenge to achimspok and uglypig in the context of their claims:

...It'd be, like, you know totally way cool if you could make some statement, after you've made your cases, as to how your interpretation of the timing impacts the question of "CD vs. no CD", or "inside job vs. outside job".

femr has provided data in responses which clearly relate to the first and primary challenge even though he is not either of achimspok or uglypig.

So he has provided data. It is not his responsibility to support either of achimspok or uglypig's cases. And extending it to the bigger picture goes way beyond the provision of data to support the OP.

...I have provided a wealth of information, highlighting a whole range of issues and errors within such....

...LOL. Go team NoahFence. High five. Woop woop

Once again femr I commend your restraint in the face of such a load of crap.

So I did a count of the comments directed at you on this page only i.e. posts 281 through 297. Here is a summary of various "dubious" claims:

• False denials 5
• Unsupported/unproven counter claims 2
• Thinly disguised (or overt) ad homs 4
• Attempts to change scope of discussion OR shift the goal posts 3
• Evasive answers 2.

Hardly an example of courteous discussion procedures.

How about we address the topic?

Femr has addressed the topic by providing data. Members who disagree with the data are free to provide their own. Discussion of the differences would be legitimate.

But why continue this constant barrage of partial truths, personal attacks and raising of irrelevant references to issues which are not under discussion?