Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[tsig]

(Childish WYSIWYG formatting removed)

Strikes me that MT is doing something about it, namely posting the information into the public domain.


Whining ? Nope, highlighting the rather pathetic belief based reasoning being posted by your other members. If the other members don't make such pointless belief based comments, there will be no need to highlight the failings of such a position.


Submit a paper about what ? A paper on the many failings of the NIST report ?
To achieve what ? You think they'll respond by saying *oh yeah, we messed up, we'll get right on to an updated report.* ? That's not going to happen now, is it. NIST made it quite clear following the ridiculously short 21 day public review period for the WTC 7 final report that they would be *closing that book*.


Who is crying ? Looks like you are from where I'm sitting.


It appears you have no issues with the information presented (or you would surely say so and not whine or cry about other factors), so, given your signature, it begs the question...

Do you *get it*, or not ?

That would be a good place to start.

 

[twinstead]

Do you *get it*, or not ?

What you don't seem to get is that you are a member of a tiny cult debating conspiracy theories on a relatively obscure internet forum.

I could care LESS what you "get", or what you want us "to get". It's all about what the real world "gets" and you ain't on board.

 

[Dog Town]

Do you *get it*, or not ?

I think we all get it! You're afraid to do something about it! Just like MT!
Yes, write NIST, publish a paper! Get on with it. No one here is going to give you satisfaction, unless attention is all you are after. From here that's exactly what it looks like. DO YOU GET IT?

 

[excaza]

Submit a paper about what ? A paper on the many failings of the NIST report ?

Why does that not strike you as the logical starting point? It should, in your mind, be essential to show academia and the rest of the people who actually matter (stop using the 'posting on a web forum is putting it in the public domain' BS) that the findings of the NIST report are flawed, along with specific reasons why. Doing so accurately would show the people who matter that the investigation was insufficient and the conclusions invalid. That's how you get a new one.

An obscure web forum is not the place to do this.

 

[carlitos]

Strikes me that MT is doing something about it, namely posting the information into the public domain.

Just you. Doesn't strike anyone else here.

Submit a paper about what ? A paper on the many failings of the NIST report ?

Obviously yes. This is how the engineering community communicate with each other. Is this new information to you?

To achieve what ?

Great point. What is your goal?

 

[femr2]

That would be a good place to start

To whom ? And I assume from that that you agree with MT on the errors highlighted ?

What you don't seem to get is that you are a member of a tiny cult debating conspiracy theories on a relatively obscure internet forum.

Incorrect.

I could care LESS what you "get", or what you want us "to get".

Fine and Dandy. Guess you have nothing further to say then.

It's all about what the real world "gets" and you ain't on board.

Incorrect.

I think we all get it!

Splendid.

You're afraid to do something about it!

Incorrect.

Just like MT!

MT is doing something about it. If you feel you want to take the information further, you are free to do so I am sure.

Yes, write NIST, publish a paper!

ROFL.

Get on with it.

Stop, what was the phrase... *whining and crying*.

No one here is going to give you satisfaction, unless attention is all you are after.

You either agree with the information presented, or you do not. If you do, say so. If you don't, say so, but be specific about what specific observation you disagree with.

Why does that not strike you as the logical starting point?

It's the JREF *appeal to authority* default response to everything they can't be bothered to verify for themselves...as MT is pointing out, you simply want *someone else* to tell you details you're too lazy to check yourself.

I have very little interest in *submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal* on how poor NIST are. If you feel like doing so, be my guest.

It should, in your mind, be essential to show academia and the rest of the people who actually matter

According to whom ? You ? No worries.

(stop using the 'posting on a web forum is putting it in the public domain' BS)

No.

that the findings of the NIST report are flawed, along with specific reasons why.

They can read it in several locations if they feel they want to. By all means ask them to if you feel that they should.

It is your opinion in focus within this post, so do YOU agree with the errors highlighted ?

Doing so accurately would show the people who matter that the investigation was insufficient and the conclusions invalid.

Go ahead.

That's how you get a new one.

Is it ? If that's your goal, go for it.

An obscure web forum is not the place to do this.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[excaza]

So what's the point in putting in the effort if you're going to leave it only for a small cabal of people on the internet? What exactly is your goal?

 

[beachnut]

... Submit a paper about what ? A paper on the many failings of the NIST report ? ...

Your failed obsession with NIST, no one would want a paper on failed analysis and moronic claims you can't back with anything but failed analysis.

911 truth, write a paper, about what;, you are right there is nothing based on reality 911 truth could do a paper on. Examples of what you might do, a paper on moronic lies about NIST, published on the only venue that allows pure nonsense to survive (oops, you did that, your web site). You list pure nonsense papers at your web site as technical papers; what would you publish as a paper? What?

You could do a paper on the fraud of made up studies and failed claims of CD. After 9 years of failure what would anyone in 911 truth write a paper about. You have delusions about NIST, write a paper.

Writing a paper is on topic, you make wild claims NIST is so wrong and other made up junk; prove it, write a paper and get some feedback from other engineers. Major Tom needs to publish his ideas too. Heiwa wrote a letter, is he the best 911 truth has?

Writing a paper, prove your claims are not failed delusions made up with lies of CD. Major Tom, write a paper, prove you have something more than failed claims.

 

[excaza]

I have very little interest in *submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal* on how poor NIST are. If you feel like doing so, be my guest.

Why would I? I'm not the one stating that their methods are flawed and their conclusions invalid. If you're so concerned, shouldn't your goal be to express your concern to a group of people that can actually do something about it?

 

[twinstead]

If you're so concerned, shouldn't your goal be to express your concern to a group of people that can actually do something about it?

That is the absolute farthest from his--and the truth movement's--goal as one can get.

 

[femr2]

I'm not the one stating that their methods are flawed and their conclusions invalid.

Yeah, you're suggesting I write a *paper* on the topic, in a thread which presents many observations, none of which you are disagreeing with. If you do not agree with specific observations, state why.

If you're so concerned

Strikes me that it's you that is *concerned*.

All this *write a paper* rubbish is simply off-topic spam.

State what observations you dis/agree with, or don't waste your time and say nothing at all.

 

[twinstead]

State what observations you dis/agree with, or don't waste your time and say nothing at all.

It's been done. On a thousand threads on this forum. You are in the abject minority on the subject, not only on this forum but in the whole world. You however still totally believe you are right and believe nobody here, as well as the world's engineering and scientific communities, knows what they are talking about.

So, instead of agreeing to disagree (that's boring) the next step is to PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Convince real people who can do real things in the real world that NIST is full of crap.

It's simple. You think you're right. We don't. Who should "moderate" this disagreement?

 

[femr2]

It's been done.

Which post on this thread ?

On a thousand threads on this forum.

Nonsense. There are 40 observations in the OP of this thread. Which ones do you not agree with ?

You are in the abject minority on the subject, not only on this forum but in the whole world.

Nonsense. I doubt you even know what subject you are referring to.

You however still totally believe you are right

Which of the 40 OP observations are you referring to ?

It's simple. You think you're right. We don't.

Which of the 40 OP observations are you referring to, and who else are you speaking for ?

 

[tfk]

Which is what I said

No, it's only "what you said" in "femr-speak".

Which means, in reality it's not "what you said". It's just about the opposite of "what you said".

Can't have the antenna descending without the structure underneath it deforming tom.

Nope.

Irrelevant.

Nope.
Specifically, explicitly relevant.

You can't see those columns tom

Wrong.
You can see ALL of the external columns. NIST has given you over 1500 data points that you could check.

The bottom figure here is just one data set with about 200 data points.

Lots of creep ? Where ? In the NIST (boys with toys) virtual model only ? (See your complaint above)

Lots of creep in NIST's FEA models.

See image above.

The WTC 7 early motion traces show movement up to 5 minutes prior to release, in the order of a couple of inches of oscillation. Creep ? Perhaps. Unlikely as it's an oscillation. Early motion of WTC 1 doesn't *recover* so more likely to be creep.

Creep is not a property of the building as a whole. It is a property of small portions of individual components.

Gross motions of the building are the RESULTS of creep in individual components.

Your problem is exactly the following:
You can solve the forward problem (using creep in individual components to figure out global movement of the building).
You can not (AFAIK) solve the inverse problem (figuring out creep in individual components from gross motions of the building).

Nonsense. There has been no testing or verification of the system NIST used, nor their results. Bespoke modules bolted into an off-the-shelf FEA with no attempt to verify its validity.

You haven't a clue...

Boys with toys (as you have previously agreed)

Another of your typical lies.
Speak for yourself.

Stop claiming to interpret my statements. You're either incompetent at that interpretation or intentionally deceitful.

 

[femr2]

No, it's only "what you said" in "femr-speak".

Incorrect. Pedantic. Childish. Get a grip tom.

Specifically, explicitly relevant.

Incorrect.

You can see ALL of the external columns.

Can't see the core tom.

Lots of creep in NIST's FEA models.

And ?

See image above.

Inviseeb'le.

Creep is not a property of the building as a whole. It is a property of small portions of individual components.

Have a badge

Your problem is exactly the following:
You can solve the forward problem (using creep in individual components to figure out global movement of the building).
You can not (AFAIK) solve the inverse problem (figuring out creep in individual components from gross motions of the building).

Cool. Who is it that you think is trying to determine creep of individual components tom ? Did you get a bit confuzzled along the way mayhap ?

You haven't a clue...(about the behaviour and effect of the NIST bespoke bolt-on modules to the FEA system)

Correct. Neither do you. No details available. Might as well be code to *turn each column into fluffy bunny rabbits*.

Another of your typical lies.

Nonsense. Discussion on DBS. There's a quote I like to post when folk such as yourself make such silly accusations...

'You lie,' said Wormtongue.

'That word comes too oft and easy from your lips,' said Gandalf. 'I do not lie. See, Théoden, here is a snake! With safety you cannot take it with you, nor can you leave it behind. To slay it would be just. But it was not always as it now is. Once it was a man, and did you service in its fashion. Give him a horse and let him go at once, wherever he chooses. By his choice you shall judge him.'

Speak for yourself.

I always do matey

Stop claiming to interpret my statements.

You wot ?

You're either incompetent at that interpretation or intentionally deceitful.

See above J.R.R.Tolkien quote.

 

[Dog Town]

MT is doing something about it. If you feel you want to take the information further, you are free to do so I am sure.

Make up your mind, and speak for yourself, as you claimed.
MT,and you should do something with this earth shattering information.
Yet, you don't. Shows how much you really "believe" in it!

Stop, what was the phrase... *whining and crying*.

That would be you, and MT! We have explained to y'all what you can do with your research! You are acting dense! Get on with it. Stop crying about, do we believe you or not!

You either agree with the information presented, or you do not. If you do, say so. If you don't, say so, but be specific about what specific observation you disagree with

So that's all your after? Do the debunkers agree? What a waste of time!
You have a responsibility to advance this, long winded research you have done. Change the world of engineering standards, and building codes. Why won't you do this?
Don't bother answering, everyone here knows why.
You are the first person I've put on ignore!

Good riddance!

 

[twinstead]

So Femr2 you have been declared incompetent. You disagree. What exactly do you think the remedy to that situation is?

 

[femr2]

Make up your mind, and speak for yourself, as you claimed.

I do.

MT,and you should do something with this earth shattering information.

I'm doing everything with it I'm inclined to. If you think something further should be done with it, by all means do so.

We have explained to y'all what you can do with your research!

Incorrect. Again, who is this *we* of which you speak ? Specific list of names ?

Stop crying about, do we believe you or not!

Eh ? No crying a-goin' on 'ere. You are commenting upon a thread with an OP containing 40 observations. Specify which you don't agree with. Belief ? Nothing to do with it. Agree or disagree for each point. If you disagree, state why.

So that's all your after? Do the debunkers agree?

Are you a *debunker* then ?

Splendid. Debunk away...

What a waste of time!

Yet you are compelled to post

You have a responsibility to advance this, long winded research you have done.

Incorrect.

Change the world of engineering standards, and building codes. Why won't you do this?

Which codes ? Which standards ? By all means feel free to do so if you feel strongly enough about it.

Don't bother answering

Too late Don't bother asking if you don't want to hear the answer.

everyone here knows why.

Cue spooky music. LOL.

You are the first person I've put on ignore!

Splendid.

Good riddance!

Bye then matey.

 

[femr2]

So Femr2 you have been declared incompetent. You disagree. What exactly do you think the remedy to that situation is?

Laugh in your general direction ?

 

[BasqueArch]

Many posters have asked why they should believe the information presented.

I insist you should believe nothing. That is why all source video is provided for download.

Major Tom
It's a little confusing trying to piece the edited bits . Can you provide links to the raw videos you used to form your claims.