NIST Errors

[bknight]

Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, your case is WRONG: full free fall acceleration was indeed observed for a brief period, so it would be flat out WRONG to demand it be qualified to "nearly" at free fall acceleration. It was NOT nearly - it was AT free fall acceleration. So you were WRONG. You now act like a Truther, who would never correct themselves when shown to be WRONG.

The problem is not so much that the qualifier "nearly" is missing from their claim (a weazle word, anyway: how nearly is nearly? Within 5%? 0.5%? 50%), the problems are that they falsely equivocate "roofline" and "the building", and that a brief episode of free fall late into the collapse sequence would not be all that interesting anyway.

The roof may have collapsed at free fall for a very brief time, but the whole building did not fall at free fall. If you are implying that it did then you are wrong and the same goes for the twin tower. No nearly does not have a qualifier of any percentage in my vocabulary, but any time greater than free fall is nearly. You put on your own percentage to weasel.
Now I have defined my position prove me wrong and unless you can do that I'm asking you again politely to get off my case.

 

[bknight]

With all due respect, Oystein, I think you're taking a light-hearted comment far too seriously.

What he said^^^

 

[Oystein]

The roof may have collapsed at free fall for a very brief time, but the whole building did not fall at free fall.

Yes, correct. Notice how the word "nearly" doesn't come into play here? Neither for the roof nor the building?

If you are implying that it did then you are wrong

Do you think I was implying that?

and the same goes for the twin tower. No nearly does not have a qualifier of any percentage in my vocabulary, but any time greater than free fall is nearly.

You would say "nearly free fall" if the building took two weeks to come down?!?

You put on your own percentage to weasel..

No, I have not. Silly.

Now I have defined my position

Your position is that, literally, any distance is defined as "near", which is a highly unusual definition and pretty much obliterates all the conventional meanings.

prove me wrong

A definition cannot be proven wrong - by definition.

and unless you can do that I'm asking you again politely to get off my case.

You didn't plan this, but you set up a perfidious trap there, a veritable Catch-22. I have seen Stephen Jones try stuff like this to bully his way out of losing a debate. The difference is that he is smart enough to do it on purpose, where you just struggle with language and concepts.

 

[Oystein]

With all due respect, Oystein, I think you're taking a light-hearted comment far too seriously.

And?

I have a problem with debunkers who happen to have chosen the "right" side of history, but can't string together a coherent argument based on true premises.
Put differently: I know Truthers who are smarter - and sometimes even more correct .- than bknight. Would you come to a Truther's rescue like that if I took a light-hearted, but plainly wrong (or irrelevant) comment of theirs serious and pointed out how it's false (or irrelevant)?

You see, I am quite against the concept of defending or letting pass my team's errors. In fact, I am more critical with my team members than with the opposing team's members. I want my team members to be better than them.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And?

I have a problem with debunkers who happen to have chosen the "right" side of history, but can't string together a coherent argument based on true premises.
Put differently: I know Truthers who are smarter - and sometimes even more correct .- than bknight. Would you come to a Truther's rescue like that if I took a light-hearted, but plainly wrong (or irrelevant) comment of theirs serious and pointed out how it's false (or irrelevant)?

You see, I am quite against the concept of defending or letting pass my team's errors. In fact, I am more critical with my team members than with the opposing team's members. I want my team members to be better than them.

You may imagine you are justified in this, and that the means justify the ends, but I seriously doubt that this approach will achieve the goals you desire.
You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you end up doing more harm than good. It can be better just to let some things go.

 

[bknight]

Yes, correct. Notice how the word "nearly" doesn't come into play here? Neither for the roof nor the building?

I was talking about free fall, if I wanted to added nearly then I would have. You were assuming facts not in evidence. But I digress the whole building fell at nearly free fall.

Do you think I was implying that?

I asked the question, I didn't "think" anything and you sidestepped answering my question.

You would say "nearly free fall" if the building took two weeks to come down?!?

Sarcasms are not needed/desired in any discussion. You are putting meanings into my thoughts.

No, I have not. Silly.

If you didn't then why did you submit a list of percentages?

Your position is that, literally, any distance is defined as "near", which is a highly unusual definition and pretty much obliterates all the conventional meanings.

NO I don't define "any distance" as near, but near defines the time it took to free fall. So your comment concerning unusual definition has no meaning and since it has no meaning then the "obliterates all the conventional meanings" has no meaning. The distance the building fell is predefined by its original height so it is not nearly a distance. And last as a matter of practicality, I really don't believe that the roof fell at free fall because any resistance to falling by structural members would slow it down, whereas a free falling body is just that free falling not stopping albeit momentarily prior to proceeding. But to prove your comment there would have had to be a high speed camera recording the drop. You are assessing your belief on very imprecise measurements.

A definition cannot be proven wrong - by definition.

Since you took my definition of near to be incorrect, then your statement is incorrect. The buildings fell at near free fall. Prove that wrong or drop the subject.

You didn't plan this, but you set up a perfidious trap there, a veritable Catch-22. I have seen Stephen Jones try stuff like this to bully his way out of losing a debate. The difference is that he is smart enough to do it on purpose, where you just struggle with language and concepts.

I didn't set up anything, you nitpick on a word you choose.
I have posted the last lines on this subject post back if you really believe you need to post and get the last word, but I am done.

 

[ozeco41]

I have a problem with debunkers who happen to have chosen the "right" side of history, but can't string together a coherent argument based on true premises.

Agreed.

Put differently: I know Truthers who are smarter - and sometimes even more correct .....

There have been several lengthy "discussions" resulting from just that situation. In fact go back to 2008 and one famous "split" - when key issues of correct understanding were put on the table by persons who were ridiculed and denigrated as "truthers".. There are several historic threads which clearly show the mental gymnastics arising from assumptions "truthers are always wrong" -- when they weren't and "we are always right" -- when "we" were not. Including at least one ridiculous situation when the debunkers claim was almost explicitly "It is true when we say it but wrong when you say it because you are a truther".

I am more critical with my team members than with the opposing team's members. I want my team members to be better than them.

I share the frustration.

You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you end up doing more harm than good. It can be better just to let some things go.

I've made that pragmatic choice many times. Looking back over 12 or more years I've probably been too easy with debunker responses which were far from accurate. I'm not sure about the "more harm than good" aspect but it was definitely a choice I took - possibly too many times over the years.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You may imagine you are justified in this, and that the means justify the ends, but I seriously doubt that this approach will achieve the goals you desire.
You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you end up doing more harm than good. It can be better just to let some things go.

Error should be pointed out or it will come back and bite you later.

 

[carlitos]

Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, ....

Maybe the truthers that you interact with. The ones that are left in my observation are all over the board and not nearly so nuanced.

I linked to a radio show called 9/11 Free Fall. Not 9/11 Roofline 2.25 Seconds Freefall, or "we don't mean the actual World Trade Center but rather the Salomon Brothers Building only one part of it Freefall." The guy who hosts it is apparently a no plan at the Pentagon guy.

 

[Fonebone]

Maybe the truthers that you interact with. The ones that are left in my observation are all over the board and not nearly so nuanced.

I linked to a radio show called 9/11 Free Fall. Not 9/11 Roofline 2.25 Seconds Freefall, or "we don't mean the actual World Trade Center but rather the Salomon Brothers Building only one part of it Freefall." The guy who hosts it is apparently a no plan at the Pentagon guy.

Hello Carlitos ...Fonebone is a truther.

 

[Robin]

Bitterly disappointed to have missed Gage at the Red Pill Expo. That sounded positively enriching. Still I am glad to see that the AE911Troof people are going to educate engineers. They could do with educating, those engineers.

Waiting with baited breath to see this law suit. Apparently they are going to sue the NIST people about things like seismology data and melted steel that aren't even in the Hulsey report so, yeah, that sounds almost as enriching as Gage at the Red Pill Expo.

 

[pgimeno]

Sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt.

   SEND
 + MORE
________
  MONEY

 

[Robin]

Sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt.

   SEND
 + MORE
________
  MONEY

I guess that with the Pilots gone and Aldo and Craig gone quiet then they have the whole field to themselves more or less.

Amazing that you can fund a set of full time salaries on the basis of donations from the gullible. Well, come to think of it, not so amazing.

 

[JSanderO]

Gage and truthers never made an evidenced based case and so were not taken seriously by the engineering community. Their swill did seem to impress the uneducated and gullible much the way people fall for cults. It's Gage's "work" and he's done well with his dog and pony shows at keeping him well compensated.

The upside to all of this was some decent "independent" research revealing how structures collapse and cascading failures. I learned a lot.

 

[bknight]

I guess that with the Pilots gone and Aldo and Craig gone quiet then they have the whole field to themselves more or less.

Amazing that you can fund a set of full time salaries on the basis of donations from the gullible. Well, come to think of it, not so amazing.

Gotta keep pumping the prime to ensure livelihood.