NIST WTC7 computer animation question

Dave Rogers said:
Yes, I am. It's obvious to anyone who isn't idealogically committed to denying the obvious that post #2 contains large amounts of relevant factual information.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but an opinion can be fact based or absent of facts, but it's still an opinion.

All Mackey was doing was providing one possible explanation for why the animations do not corellate to visual evidence. It's not gospel, it's simply an opinion, valid or invalid as it may be.
 
RedIbis said:
Hate to break it to you, but an opinion can be fact based or absent of facts, but it's still an opinion.

All Mackey was doing was providing one possible explanation for why the animations do not corellate to visual evidence. It's not gospel, it's simply an opinion, valid or invalid as it may be.
Click to expand...
And all your are doing is exposing you don't understand models. And you do it without knowing. What was your opinion? What is your conspiracy theory?
 
beachnut said:
And all your are doing is exposing you don't understand models. And you do it without knowing. What was your opinion? What is your conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that the NIST model does not corellate to visual evidence. Granted, I'm not a scientist or engineer, but very legitimate questions have been raised regarding NIST's methods and conclusions by reputable scientists.

I think you guys put far too much faith in NIST and their models and assume that this is the best possible analysis that can be done. The sad part is that there is not likely to be any independent organization that will have access to necessary evidence and data to make a competing analysis. On this Mackey is unfortunately correct. There can no longer be any truly exhaustive investigation other than NIST's.
 
RedIbis said:
Hate to break it to you, but an opinion can be fact based or absent of facts, but it's still an opinion.

All Mackey was doing was providing one possible explanation for why the animations do not corellate to visual evidence. It's not gospel, it's simply an opinion, valid or invalid as it may be.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. And, in typical truther style, a big claim based on a false assertion coupled with the false inference that it has global application across all of the target statement.

WRONG

There are ten paragraphs in R Mackey's post and most of them do have an element of opinion.

However only in two out of the ten is the matter of opinion the primary claim of the paragraph. (Paras 1 and 7 in case you want to check)

In all the others the primary claim of the paragraph is a matter of either well established fact or fact that can be readily confirmed as to its truth. And that primary fact stands whether or not the secondary bit of tagged on opinion is correct.

And, whilst I am at it, even if some of those claims of fact happen to be false (they aren't), it does not transform them into "opinions".
 
RedIbis said:
My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that the NIST model does not corellate to visual evidence. Granted, I'm not a scientist or engineer, but very legitimate questions have been raised regarding NIST's methods and conclusions by reputable scientists.

I think you guys put far too much faith in NIST and their models and assume that this is the best possible analysis that can be done. The sad part is that there is not likely to be any independent organization that will have access to necessary evidence and data to make a competing analysis. On this Mackey is unfortunately correct. There can no longer be any truly exhaustive investigation other than NIST's.
Click to expand...
Don't need NIST to tell me what could happen when I see this. How do you model fire?

wtc7fire3.jpg

LOL, 911 truth is not legitimate! They are liars, failure for 10 years.

Don't need NIST or another study to explain fire destroys; learned that when I was kid. I am an engineer, and I am not surprised you expose your ignorance on models and like to attack NIST. I don't' need NIST, you do, and you can't understand 911, you did not read the NIST report, and it shows.

Too bad you can't explain what R.Mackey said and make a valid critique. Which lies do you support of 911 truth, they have no legitimate questions, and they have no reputable scientists on 911 issues to support their claims.
 
RedIbis said:
My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that the NIST model does not corellate to visual evidence. Granted, I'm not a scientist or engineer, but very legitimate questions have been raised regarding NIST's methods and conclusions by reputable scientists.
Click to expand...

And those legitimate questions from reputable scientists still point to the fact that fire was the main culprit, correct? Those reputable scientists also think any type of explosives used to bring down the towers is pure hogwash, correct?
 
RedIbis said:
My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that the NIST model does not corellate to visual evidence. Granted, I'm not a scientist or engineer, but very legitimate questions have been raised regarding NIST's methods and conclusions by reputable scientists.
.
Click to expand...

But its different if they say that NIST was wrong for some tiny minor reason vs truthers saying that its a complete fraud and steel buildings are impervious to fire and cannot collapse and everyone knows NISTs theory goes against the laws of physics.

What reputable scientists say stuff like that?
 
:rolleyes:

Once again, Edx asked a question, and that question is answered. Thread has served its purpose. That purpose is not for Truthers to engage in unbridled sophistry or semantic argument, all with the sole aim of being argumentative. Ignore is your friend.
 
Edx said:
But its different if they say that NIST was wrong for some tiny minor reason vs truthers saying that its a complete fraud and steel buildings are impervious to fire and cannot collapse and everyone knows NISTs theory goes against the laws of physics.

What reputable scientists say stuff like that?
Click to expand...

Again, legitimate questions, like those posed by Dr. Q are not "tiny minor" reasons. Just because he doesn't assert CD theories, doesn't mean he isn't questioning the entirety of NIST's methods and conclusions. These are not tiny, minor, or subtle differences.
 
RedIbis said:
Again, legitimate questions, like those posed by Dr. Q are not "tiny minor" reasons. Just because he doesn't assert CD theories, doesn't mean he isn't questioning the entirety of NIST's methods and conclusions. These are not tiny, minor, or subtle differences.
Click to expand...
911 truth has no legitimate questions. They have beam weapons, nukes and delusions of explosives, nano-thermite, and other insane claims.

Fire did it, what did it in your fantasy? What was your point?
 
RedIbis said:
Again, legitimate questions, like those posed by Dr. Q are not "tiny minor" reasons. Just because he doesn't assert CD theories, doesn't mean he isn't questioning the entirety of NIST's methods and conclusions. These are not tiny, minor, or subtle differences.
Click to expand...

Stop misrepresenting what I said!

Dr Q's points about NIST are certainly not minor on an engineering level, but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about them being minor and subtle compared with truthers. When will you realise that he promotes something thats even further away from what you believe? His study validated NISTs conclusions, only in minor and subtle ways did it differ compared with truthers. It is impossible for a truther to argue that NIST are a bunch of liars while Dr. Q is not.The ways in which Dr. Q disagree's truthers would consider even more ridiculous. And if Dr. Q is lying, then why did he say all these nice quotes for you to mine? The only option is for you to claim he is incompetent if you don't want to say he is lying, but you won't want to do that because then why does his opinion about NIST matter if he is so incompetent he believes something even further away from what truthers think?
 
Last edited:
Good grief, not this again. Quintiere and NIST are arguing about whether it's a Labrador or a German Shepherd, and RedIbis claims that this supports his theory that it's an eleven-legged unicorn.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Good grief, not this again. Quintiere and NIST are arguing about whether it's a Labrador or a German Shepherd, and RedIbis claims that this supports his theory that it's an eleven-legged unicorn.

Dave
Click to expand...

I was trying to think of a simile analogy to this and you nailed it.
 
ConspiRaider said:
...
2. All of us - including the truthers - would have seen an actual controlled demolition bring down the Tower. As deeply damaged as WTC-1 was, I doubt there'd have been any choice other than a CD. Had it somehow withstood the jet strike.
Click to expand...

Hate to be technical, but the towers did survive the strikes...it was the aftermath that brought them down...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom