• 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

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

MM
Click to expand...

ahah, yeah, you claimed that you had "engineering" experiences and were caught in that lie.


since you've provided nothing on your "Expertise" about engineering, when you were posed with questions concerning engineering, I dont think we can believe anything you say about your "other" credentials.
 
Miragememories said:
NIST admitted, that in their model, the opposite building face from the aircraft entry was limited to a coarser design due to the limitations of their computing facility. Accuracy of their test simulations was based on matching actual visual evidence of damage to the opposite building face to what occured in the simulation. These design compromises necessarily reduced the accuracy of their model's behaviour.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.

Independent laboratory fire-testing (Underwriter Labs) failed to produce the necessary results required to validate the extreme case scenario NIST 'coaxed' out of their computer model.
Click to expand...

First, it wasn't a "coarser design" it was a coarser mesh. We are talking about finite element analysis. Coarser mesh does not necessarily reduce accuracy; it really depends on what behavior you are modelling. For areas away from the impact, where local effects are not so significant as the global ones, a coarser mesh is insignificant. Matching the behavior of a model to observed behavior is a very well established and recognized means of checking the accuracy of the model.

Please define "extreme case". Expand on which data is "unsubstantiated" and "speculative".

Finally, which UL test are you referring to? The ones performed in 2004 under a contract from NIST which are richly documented in 200+ pages of the NIST report?
 
Miragememories said:
In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM
Click to expand...

You can expect discussion at the LC forums? Shame you won't get it.

What you can expect is a lot of juvenile back slapping, censorship, insults and paranoid delusions.

What you can expect is a bunch of frauds and conmen squeezing every last penny that they can from an ignorant audience.
 
WildCat said:
You've been caught red-handed lying about taking engineering courses in school, why should we believe you now?
Click to expand...

I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM
Click to expand...

MM, cant you just ignore everyone but the thread-starter? Its no point in going into ad hominem vs ad hominem and Almond hasn't been anything than courteous. I really would like to see advanced critisicim towards the NIST report. I havent seen much of it so far so I thought, finally a truther with the right skills.

Seriously,
SLOB
 
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

Passion does not rule science or facts however, MM. What you'll find here are people passionate about logic and proven truths. In fact, we're married to our ideals because they cannot be disputed. They've been proven through scientific evidence and complete explanation by experts who have nothing to gain by falsifying thier findings. They know what they're talking about and the basis of their findings are wrought with logic, sound math and expertise. Your views are wrought with emotion, political bias and "gut" feeling. The two sides are simply not compatible. We don't argue what we feel is right...we argue what cannot be disproven because you cannot change facts based on science. It's easy to stand by what has been proven to be true...not what you think happened because a video leads you to believe it. Our minds are open to facts and evidence...and if you had some that were to disprove those experts...then we'd listen with great anticipation and hope. After 5 years...all we hear are cocky amateurs, with a chip on thier shoulders, say "ARE YOU BLIND...CANT YOU SEE THAT!!???". The experts have seen what you've seen...and they simply DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!.

At the LC forum you get discussion because you bang heads with other people who buy into what you believe. Anybody who goes there with tough questions get booted. I was booted after one post that simply asked what hard evidence the CTs had to back up their claims. A simple question...and a neccessary one, too. You surround yourselves with like-minded people and think that you're having meaningful debates...you're not.

Unless you people come here with evidence contrary to what the experts say...you'll never get what you're looking for. Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts...so don't think people here aren't willing to discuss civily. What you need to arm yourself with is sound judgement, a willingness to change your thinking, a willingness to accept facts that you're not qualified to comment on and a boatload of evidence that proves the experts wrong...or at least shows something they've missed.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
"I took engineering in college. Structural engineering was my best grade. I wouldn't for a moment expect people in the profession to challenge the NIST findings without some assurance that it wouldn't bite them in the ass. "

"I have told no lies.
You are just a typical JREF slanderer.
I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!"

This bears closer examination. No, MM, you haven't actually *lied*. However, your usage of information about engineering courses you took, and the practices of the structural engineering community which you comment upon, is highly ingenuous - to say the least (that is, vague enough to be denied if challenged about yet seemingly well up to speed if unchallenged). Apropos that second post, did you actually qualify as an engineer, and then change careers? Or change to a different graduate discipline whilst still in higher education?
I notice you haven't given any details of what your presumed university qualifications are, not any subsequent professional qualifications - that would be useful, and presumably verifiable for the JREF members over there in the US.

Finally, I think your posts here could stand as models of CT thinking and posting - longggg pauses, ad hominem posts, strawman posts and Avoiding The Question posts. How about some precision "math" (as I believe you Americans call mathematics) to confound The Almond, contradict NIST and contumelise* JREF?


* This may not be a proper word, but I was on a "con-" roll.
 
It's a common Fantasist tactic; don't ever actually come out and say anything, just insinuate 'til the cows come home.
 
Miragememories said:
I have told no lies.

You are just a typical JREF slanderer.

I took engineering but switched to a different career because I couldn't stand all the closed-minded as##oles taking engineering!

MM
Click to expand...

Every time you repeat a CT truth movement idea is it a lie.

I doubt there is really anything typical about anyone here.

Talking about slander? They (which you called *%*&%*&) did not have closed minds, they had logical minds which you are void. You do not fit in as an engineer; you have to use your brains and facts.

How can truth never fail to throw in the ironic stuff in their post. Do you truthers take a course on how to be ironic without really trying?
 
Miragememories said:
Veteran or not. I looked at his video and listened to his voiceover.

I didn't buy what he was selling.

MM
Click to expand...

There's 2 possible explanations that you "didn't buy what he was selling [sic]":

1) He's not telling the truth.

2) You refuse to accept evidence that contradicts your claims of conspiracy theory.

If 1 is true, please explain why- completely. It would need to involve video fakery, as far as I see it. You claimed to have expertise in a similar field, so what is your scientific analysis? Furthermore, if you have no scientific analysis- why should we reject Mr. Spak- who is well-known for capturing much of the details of that day, providing much evidence, in a very expedient process. If he's lying- he would have to be a very good liar- he would have to be part of the Grand Conspiracy, and I see no rational reason to conclude he is.

But that's just my take. What's yours?
 
Miragememories said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, let me get this straight:
1) You claim to have advanced knowledge of structural engineering, and you have specific criticisms of the NCSTAR.
2) I ask you to list them
3) You rephrase Griffin, without citing, or referencing anything. You write your opinions as facts, and provide nothing in the way of technical criticism.
4) I call you on it.
5) You respond that NIST made too many approximations to be valid, but that the WTC 7 investigation is taking too long. You post this assertion for your own amusement.
6) I call you on it.
5) Your response is an insulting generalization about JREF and the forum members.

So, do you expect to change minds? Do you expect to have a fruitful discussion? You have failed at both. Now grow up and answer my question:
What are your specific, technical criticisms of the NIST NCSTAR?
In the LC forums I can expect a discussion. Here I can only expect to get dumped on.

MM
Click to expand...
Rather, you like LC because everyone there agrees with you. This is accomplished through Avery's fascistic dominaiton of the forum and policy of banning anyone who does not tread his CF line. If you believe that the quasi-fellative back-slapping and agreement that goes on at LC constitutes a "discussion," then you are sorely mistaken.
 
Arus808 said:
ahah, yeah, you claimed that you had "engineering" experiences and were caught in that lie.


since you've provided nothing on your "Expertise" about engineering, when you were posed with questions concerning engineering, I dont think we can believe anything you say about your "other" credentials.
Click to expand...

You folks are awfully casual about the calling people liars!

It's particularly irritating when you have no evidence to back up your acusations!

It's rather ironic how you display the traits of those you despise the most.

You accuse at will without an ounce of evidence to back up your claims.

The university I attended had a common engineering year. The idea was that first year students would be exposed to all the engineering fields so they would be sure of their choice when they specialized in the second year.

My best course results were in Statics.

I majored in electronics.

My passion was photography.

My career was public television.

My future as a human being is the same as yours.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, I will be most relieved. My ego doesn't need the gratification of knowing I was right about 9/11. I much prefer to be proven wrong and that amazingingly those 19 arab terrorists were able to perform what we have been told they did.

You folks have been doing this so long it's become a game for you.

It's no longer a matter of thoughtful discussion, it's all about winning at any cost.

What do you win?

We all lose in the end.

Over population, global warming, peak oil, yadda yadda yadda...you can run, but you can't hide!

You really think the government think tanks haven't considered what's obvious to the rest of us?

You really think they haven't considered contingency plans?

You really think oil reserves aren't a global issue?

You really think Middle East oil reserves aren't a major consideration to those who control the reins of the world's only super power?

Determining the truth behind 9/11 won't resolve these issues.

I could say f**kit and join the JREF general belief but that won't improve the future.

It's all about power!

The U.S.A. is currently the world's No.1 power..we all know that.

Whether we admit it or not, we all know there isn't enough oil to sustain the growth occuring in the U.S. as well as China and India.

It won't be long before things come to a boil and 9/11 will be old news.

You folks can have your smugness but the greater reality is going to give you an early grave while the power structure you have so much faith in protects itself.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You folks are awfully casual about the calling people liars!

It's particularly irritating when you have no evidence to back up your acusations!

It's rather ironic how you display the traits of those you despise the most.

You accuse at will without an ounce of evidence to back up your claims.

The university I attended had a common engineering year. The idea was that first year students would be exposed to all the engineering fields so they would be sure of their choice when they specialized in the second year.

My best course results were in Statics.

I majored in electronics.

My passion was photography.

My career was public television.

My future as a human being is the same as yours.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, I will be most relieved. My ego doesn't need the gratification of knowing I was right about 9/11. I much prefer to be proven wrong and that amazingingly those 19 arab terrorists were able to perform what we have been told they did.

You folks have been doing this so long it's become a game for you.

It's no longer a matter of thoughtful discussion, it's all about winning at any cost.

What do you win?

We all lose in the end.

Over population, global warming, peak oil, yadda yadda yadda...you can run, but you can't hide!

You really think the government think tanks haven't considered what's obvious to the rest of us?

You really think they haven't considered contingency plans?

You really think oil reserves aren't a global issue?

You really think Middle East oil reserves aren't a major consideration to those who control the reins of the world's only super power?

Determining the truth behind 9/11 won't resolve these issues.

I could say f**kit and join the JREF general belief but that won't improve the future.

It's all about power!

The U.S.A. is currently the world's No.1 power..we all know that.

Whether we admit it or not, we all know there isn't enough oil to sustain the growth occuring in the U.S. as well as China and India.

It won't be long before things come to a boil and 9/11 will be old news.

You folks can have your smugness but the greater reality is going to give you an early grave while the power structure you have so much faith in protects itself.

MM
Click to expand...

Holy red herring.

It's particularly irritating when you have no evidence to back up your acusations!
Click to expand...

(This is my favorite part...)

Pot, have you met kettle?
 
SLOB said:
MM, cant you just ignore everyone but the thread-starter? Its no point in going into ad hominem vs ad hominem and Almond hasn't been anything than courteous. I really would like to see advanced critisicim towards the NIST report. I havent seen much of it so far so I thought, finally a truther with the right skills.

Seriously,
SLOB
Click to expand...

This is Almond being courteous?;

"I'm a structural engineer, too" is part of the conspiracy fantasist debating strategy."
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
This is Almond being courteous?;
MM
Click to expand...

I rather think it is. Notice how that statement did not mention you, nor did I call you a conspiracy fantasist. How about proving that you're not one?

Edited to add:
And it's an entirely true statement to boot!
 
HyJinX said:
Passion does not rule science or facts however, MM. What you'll find here are people passionate about logic and proven truths. In fact, we're married to our ideals because they cannot be disputed. They've been proven through scientific evidence and complete explanation by experts who have nothing to gain by falsifying thier findings. They know what they're talking about and the basis of their findings are wrought with logic, sound math and expertise. Your views are wrought with emotion, political bias and "gut" feeling. The two sides are simply not compatible. We don't argue what we feel is right...we argue what cannot be disproven because you cannot change facts based on science. It's easy to stand by what has been proven to be true...not what you think happened because a video leads you to believe it. Our minds are open to facts and evidence...and if you had some that were to disprove those experts...then we'd listen with great anticipation and hope. After 5 years...all we hear are cocky amateurs, with a chip on thier shoulders, say "ARE YOU BLIND...CANT YOU SEE THAT!!???". The experts have seen what you've seen...and they simply DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!.

At the LC forum you get discussion because you bang heads with other people who buy into what you believe. Anybody who goes there with tough questions get booted. I was booted after one post that simply asked what hard evidence the CTs had to back up their claims. A simple question...and a neccessary one, too. You surround yourselves with like-minded people and think that you're having meaningful debates...you're not.

Unless you people come here with evidence contrary to what the experts say...you'll never get what you're looking for. Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts...so don't think people here aren't willing to discuss civily. What you need to arm yourself with is sound judgement, a willingness to change your thinking, a willingness to accept facts that you're not qualified to comment on and a boatload of evidence that proves the experts wrong...or at least shows something they've missed.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
"Our minds are open to facts and evidence...and if you had some that were to disprove those experts...then we'd listen with great anticipation and hope."

BS

Why would you want to be proven wrong??

In your own words, "..we're married to our ideals because they cannot be disputed.." your convinced of your infallibility!

"Chistophera's thread went for over 10,000 posts.." because no one here is capable of a 'maybe' response.

NIST admits they didn't have all the necessary data to create an unquestionable computer model. They made assumptions because they had no data to prove how much damage occured from the aircraft collisions.
They didn't know what temperatures were reached, how long they lasted and how extensive they were distributed. They knew there was a plane crash and there was a subsequent fire. They had no proof of CD so they could comfortably eliminate it, especially since it lead in directions no sane person would want to go.

NIST wouldn't have tried lesser, medium and extreme case scenarios if they were so sure of one set of data.

Ultimately they went to the extreme scenario (their own words) in order to make a non-CD explanation fit.

Yet you folks think it's a matter of equations, math etc. That even though NIST realizes data modeling is critical, you folks think it can be resolved by a few math calculations. Now how smug and over confident is that?

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom