This is an excellent summary of not only your beliefs, but of many other regular posters on this forum.
If one could summarize the underlying beliefs expressed in the entire history of this subforum in one sentence, this small statement is as good as it gets.
I am not teasing you by saying this. It is not easy to formulate so many years of posting in one sentence. It takes an acute observer to do this, someone who can feel the pulse underlying so many different threads and different posters.
I do not think anyone is capable of stating it better than this.
Definition of terms is integral to Science’s accruing knowledge success, allowing scientists worldwide to communicate clearly with each other. The confusion created by the lack of precisely defined terms outside the science and arts worlds is evident.
Belief: A statement presented as being true by the speaker.
This is a neutral definition of belief, prior to truth testing, and is often confused with false-belief.
False belief (ignorance): (I believe ) Smoking is not harmful to one’s health; (I believe) The Towers were demolished by a number of evil US government employees and private contractors and concealed by lying worldwide private and public engineers, to start a war to steal the resources of Muslim countries. (It is cheaper today to buy the commodities in the open market).
True belief (knowledge): (I believe) Steel buildings can disproportionately collapse solely due to damage by fire; (I believe) a2 + b2 = c2 (Euclidian)
Untestable belief (metaphysics) : (I believe)There is a God ; (I believe) Agate balances ying-yang energy.
Conclusion: The summing-up of an argument or text.
Correct: Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
2. The difference between testing scientific statements and testing historical statements. How do you know you are right? (Epistemology)
Science statements are universal and repeatable; Historical events , like the collapse of The Towers, are singular and not repeatable, so testing for truth differs between the two due to the one way arrow of time.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
- Omar Khayyám (translation by Edward Fitzgerald).
How does one truth - test historical events, then?
By proportioning one’s belief to the evidence.
“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” -David Hume
NIST’s WTC1,2 Conclusions: From NIST FAQ: “6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
"Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:
(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (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.
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.
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—support this sequence for each tower.” http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
NIST’s WTC7 Conclusions: From NIST FAQ: 5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). (Credit: NIST)
Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
Are NIST's conclusions for the causes (see above) of the collapses of WTC1,2 incorrect because the NorthTower top section rotated 1 degree or 8 degrees before falling vertically? - No.
Are NIST's conclusions for the causes (see above) of the collapse of WTC7 incorrect because one can mine better data points for Stage 1 of the collapse? – No.
From the aforesaid, one can then better understand my statement:
I believe due to the proportion of the evidence that “NIST's conclusions for the causes of the collapses of WTC1,2,7 remain correct.”
My alliterative statement could end up in your book. If so, don’t forget to also include my conditional comments.
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 [/SIZE]of each of the towers.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor.
Are NIST's conclusions for the causes (see above) of the collapses of WTC1,2 incorrect because the NorthTower top section rotated 1 degree or 8 degrees before falling vertically? - No.
There is good reason to doubt the initiation sequence, as I am sure you will have seen discussed.
Are NIST's conclusions for the causes (see above) of the collapse of WTC7 incorrect because one can mine better data points for Stage 1 of the collapse? – No.
Not related to descent timings, but again there is doubt about the sequencing. Early motion tracing suggests a sequence beginning long before EPH descent.
In terms discussed elsewhere, I suspect these are your "blind spots".
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.
Yes. NIST called it "the probable collapse sequence" after weighing the proportion of the evidence, due to the structural details, the location of the fires on the 12th floor and temperatures at the 13th floor at the time of collapse. ETA: See comment No.2 in my post above.
There is good reason to doubt the initiation sequence, as I am sure you will have seen discussed.
The transmission tower (antenna) roof trusses were connected to and partially supported by the center perimeter columns. Failure of the antenna truss core and center perimeter columns was therefore simultaneous and indistinguishable. The antenna attached to the roof trusses moved in the direction of the failed center perimeter columns, not the core proving that the dominant failure was at the perimeter columns. Your data shows a lag in time between the failure of the antenna and perforce center perimeter columns and the time lag of the sequential perimeter column failures to the SW corner and then to the NW corner, not inward toward the core.
Not related to descent timings, but again there is doubt about the sequencing. Early motion tracing suggests a sequence beginning long before EPH descent.
...
Not related to descent timings, but again there is doubt about the sequencing. Early motion tracing suggests a sequence beginning long before EPH descent.
In terms discussed elsewhere, I suspect these are your "blind spots".
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.
No, you haven't. Motion analysis quite strongly suggests core failure preceeding perimeter failure. Chicken-and-egg arguments cleared up by checking antenna motion.
Yes. NIST called it "the probable collapse sequence" after weighing the proportion of the evidence, due to the structural details, the location of the fires on the 12th floor and temperatures at the 13th floor at the time of collapse. ETA: See comment No.2 in my post above.
Again, motion behaviour contradicts their "probable" conclusion. It is possible that they are wrong. It is possible that column 79 was not the initiating element. It is possible that propogation from failures around column 20 (which was completely destroyed) was the culprit. NIST's suggestion is obviously not "fact", yet you state it as such. In reality they have no way of knowing for sure.
The transmission tower (antenna) roof trusses were connected to and partially supported by the center perimeter columns. Failure of the antenna truss core and center perimeter columns was therefore simultaneous and indistinguishable.
Tsk. Nope. A blatantly obvious blind spot is that you take "possible" or "probable" SUGGESTIONS as FACT, based upon FAITH and BELIEF.
It's "possible" they are correct. It's possible, and observations suggest this may be the case, that they are not correct in their specific suggestions.
Saying "that is exactly what happened" is, er, unwise.
These discussions have been had before of course, and I'm sure there are more appropriate threads, with lots of data, which would be more appropriate than this one.
Note that static motion (camera movement) is subtracted from positional data. Static motion accuracy is very high, as a large trace region can be employed...
Vertical axis is in pixels.
Fidelity of the "shake" region (which is a period of vigorous shaking about 12s prior to initiation)...
(The fidelity of "normal" camera motion is, again, very high. (Note the smooth decay of the vertical shaking)
In that footage, is it the one where it shows the antena falling straight down ?
A lengthy discussion. There are various threads here on JREF and at the911forum which deal with early motion and trace data. I'll try and dig out a few.
The reason I ask is because Tony Szamboti insists it descended straight down at first.
He's not accurate. It certainly began to move/descend prior to NW corner motion, but full 3D motion analysis is required to get a handle on exactly how and where it moves. Achimspok has done some good work on that front.
I'll dig out a full double-resolution copy of Sauret if you're interested in looking at fine detail...though I suggest perhaps locating the various lengthy threads on the topic first.
As I have said before this data is above my head, I do try to understand it but in the scheme of things, it's more about whether nist made mistakes and not about "the inside job" which is what I have a problem with.
You don't seem the usual truther to me and this was pointed out in another thread by oze41. I get the feeling you don't subscribe to the Richard Gage thing yet have to use 911 truth as a platform.
The reason I joined in this thread is because Tony has not really posted since Basque put him straight on a few things, one of which was the antena.
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.
I get the feeling you don't subscribe to the Richard Gage thing
The point is made perfectly clear in my post immediately afterwards, namely the sensitivity of the trace data to exceedingly small motion magnitude.
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.
Re platform: I have just been looking on your you tube account, back to 2009 and reading the comments. You get it from all angles. I think it's more of a case of truth wanting to use you as a platform. Lol my bad.
Re Tony: I believe it was the girder thread.
I can see you have put major amounts of time and effort into this.
How would you describe yourself ? I've not had a chance to look at all your you tube but have not seen 911 was an inside job yet?
It's not a grid. It's 9 separate trace center-points, as shown in the video included above, demonstrating the high congruence of separate trace points at different locations on the frame, validating their relationshiop to the actual motion within the frame being traced.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
