• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MM, Let's Discuss NIST

WildCat said:
Do you have any specific problems to report, using your engineering education pdoherty Miragememories?
Click to expand...

Your shooting blanks WildCat.

I'm sorry to disapoint you but I'm not pdoherty. I'd admit it if I was. I have the same alias in the LC Forums.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Gee and I bet your 1,181 posts are all gems Arus808.

MM
Click to expand...

I'd say about 75% of them are gems (meaning, i do bother to research in order to give answers) 25% were mostly jibes, jokes and meaningful banter with other forum members

However, 84 posts of yours are nothing more than repeated claims of woo-woo (hence boring) and unsubstantiated conjecture, ad hom arguments, and of course far out claims that you have provide no proof for.


In your 84 posts; you've only proved that you're nothing more than a troll.
 
Miragememories said:
I may not be a structural engineer but I am a qualified expert on video compression.

MM
Click to expand...

oooh. and now he lies.

btw, you're far from a being an "expert" on video compression.


Making Anime Music Videos in your spare time doesnt make you an expert on anything video related.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
It's going to take a lot more compression to mask the truth Pardalis.

I may not be a structural engineer but I am a qualified expert on video compression.

MM
Click to expand...

One of Merc's cronies made the same claim.

*scratches head* But gosh golly, how are we gonna know you're telling the truth?

Hmm, how about if you actually make an argument and support it, instead of a fallacious ipse dixit? It's clear you already claimed to have sufficient knowledge in engineering to challenge NIST, and then you backed down. Now you're an expert in "video compression" (what degree is that)? How long is this claim going to last?
 
yet smoke coming out of nearly all the floors indicate that there fire was widespread. The fires could have been centered on each floor (not by the windows). Just because you dont see the fire, doesn't mean there wasn't any.
 
One of the absolute best things about Jref, as opposed to a lot of other boards, is it actually got people who know's what they are talking about. This thread bears the promise of an actual debate on a high level around NIST (As opposed to "Fire couldn't have melted all that iron"-claims) - hopefully in the end with a short summary for us laymen.

I think its a good initative and I'd really like to see Almond and MM get on it. May I suggest for forms sake - and to avoid a lot of namecalling and mush - MM to make one particular claim on a defined portion of the NIST-report and then we (Ah, well Almond and MM at least) could stick to that for as long as it takes?

Seriously, it would be interesting.

Cheers,
SLOB
 
Miragememories said:
Gee you really squeezed your engineering brain to reply "false" to my assertion that the NIST computer model was the crux of their case. I can see you are really relishing the opportunity for an exchange of thoughts with another engineer. BS. Your so-called serious offer of discussion is just another ploy to entertain your JREF cronies.
Click to expand...
Wait, let me get this straight:
Your series of one-word unexplained replies are not worth the sweat of typing answers to.
Click to expand...
You can make unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims to the NCSTAR, and when I call you on them, you resort to childish name-calling. You want to debate like an engineer, start writing like someone who finished high school. Reference your claims, provide evidence and show me your equations.
Once you start fudging the numbers,
Click to expand...
When did NIST fudge the numbers? How do you know?
the results are effectively guesswork.
Click to expand...
According to whom?
NIST is a U.S. government organization and they were working on a scenario that never seriously considered anything but plane crash and fire.
Click to expand...
Why should NIST consider explosive demolition? Do you have some evidence that bombs were placed in the towers?
Yes this is old news but the news is the news...get over it..sorry rehashing is so boring.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't old news. It's the same off-the-shelf, moronic drivel CFists have been saying for years. Not a single one of the statements you made is backed up by anything other than your own opinion, and frankly, you've simply parroted the opinions of others. So, I guess what I'm criticizing is the fact that you've rehashed someone else's opinion, portrayed it as your own, and then refused to provide any references or evidence.
I will say, for my own amusement, that 5.5 years is awfully long time to explain or decide they can't explain the collapse of WTC7!
Click to expand...
Is this based on your years of experience doing collapse forensics? Or is it based on the class in structural engineering you took? I'll note that you didn't respond to my point. You criticize (invalidly) NIST for making too many approximations based on material constraint, and in the same statement, criticize them for not working fast enough on the WTC7 issue. That's a flawed paradigm.
If Gravy's WTC7 Report is so gooood; why not send it to NIST? Save them alot of hard work and money.
Click to expand...
Gee, I guess it's because Gravy's work focuses on exposing the lies, fallacies and out of context quotation inherent to the CF argument about the WTC7. Gravy is at least wise enough not to claim to be a structural engineer and not to present his work as equal in magnitude to that done by NIST.
 
Arus808 said:
oooh. and now he lies.

btw, you're far from a being an "expert" on video compression.


Making Anime Music Videos in your spare time doesnt make you an expert on anything video related.
Click to expand...

Unless you know me in real life, you are the liar Arus808 for claiming knowledge you don't possess.

I have 35 years of professional experience in the field of video..believe it or not.

MM
 
The Almond said:
Wait, let me get this straight:

You can make unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims to the NCSTAR, and when I call you on them, you resort to childish name-calling. You want to debate like an engineer, start writing like someone who finished high school. Reference your claims, provide evidence and show me your equations.

When did NIST fudge the numbers? How do you know?

According to whom?

Why should NIST consider explosive demolition? Do you have some evidence that bombs were placed in the towers?

No, it isn't old news. It's the same off-the-shelf, moronic drivel CFists have been saying for years. Not a single one of the statements you made is backed up by anything other than your own opinion, and frankly, you've simply parroted the opinions of others. So, I guess what I'm criticizing is the fact that you've rehashed someone else's opinion, portrayed it as your own, and then refused to provide any references or evidence.

Is this based on your years of experience doing collapse forensics? Or is it based on the class in structural engineering you took? I'll note that you didn't respond to my point. You criticize (invalidly) NIST for making too many approximations based on material constraint, and in the same statement, criticize them for not working fast enough on the WTC7 issue. That's a flawed paradigm.

Gee, I guess it's because Gravy's work focuses on exposing the lies, fallacies and out of context quotation inherent to the CF argument about the WTC7. Gravy is at least wise enough not to claim to be a structural engineer and not to present his work as equal in magnitude to that done by NIST.
Click to expand...

Ever hear the expression that "passion rules reason"!

That's what I see here on JREF.

You folks are too emotionally attached to your beliefs. Regardless of how valid or well thought out your arguments are, you are so convinced and heated about how right you are, you can't relax and open your minds to the possibility that you got it wrong.

In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM
Click to expand...
This thread was started because you claimed to have knowledge of engineering. You lied about that, and refuse to actually discusss anything. You've proven yourself to be a troll who lies about his credentials, what did you expect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom