WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

Funny this guy makes that rule for himself, yet expects us to believe him about NIST mistakes, without showing NIST and letting them check it to see if he is right...LMAO

Wow...

Ah, still around. Have you read page #1 in the meantime or do you still don't know what we are (trying to) talk about?

 

[The Platypus]

Everyone here has to do with it because
1) he had chosen to read this topic for whatever reason.
2) he commented on it otherwise I wouldn't know he's around

Easy enough?

You can choose to leave and you have nothing to do with it anymore.

So think everyone in this thread is now obligated to accept what you say, just because you say it, and go confront NIST at your command, regurgitating what you said, in a thread you made, just because we happen to read it?

Wow... this get's more bizarre and ridiculous by the minute...

 

[achimspok]

No wonder you don't understand "Veröffentlichen oder untergehen" ...

Only 2900 plus entries for the correct phrase. Your analysis of this topic is like your OP, nonsense backed by nothing.

Wow, you indeed googled.
Does it change anything about >9.81m/s²?

 

[The Platypus]

Ah, still around. Have you read page #1 in the meantime or do you still don't know what we are (trying to) talk about?

I read your OP, hence my question, why aren't you bringing this up with NIST instead of posting it on a little known skeptics forum and acting like your just trying to fluff up your ego?

 

[uke2se]

Ah, still around. Have you read page #1 in the meantime or do you still don't know what we are (trying to) talk about?

He makes a good point, achimspok. You are setting up rules for yourself that you don't allow for NIST or the engineering community. That is called having double standards, which isn't a good thing.

You have to understand: to us you're just another loony out for 15 minutes of e-fame. If you believe so firmly that you are right and the global engineering community is wrong, you have to go to them, not to us.

 

[femr2]

You're not getting it. It's not that we don't enjoy having twoofers like you around for a laugh. What we don't understand is that if you believe you have such strong evidence, why don't you do something productive with it rather than post on an obscure internet forum. It really casts serious doubts on your evidence for you to take the action you have chosen.

So what you are saying is that you, without actually doing any checking, doubt that one or more of the following is correct ?

1) The flexing of the facade when viewed from the Cam#3 viewpoint is incorrectly interpreted by NIST and co as primarily vertical displacement when it is primarily non-vertical motion.

2) NIST used the top of the West Penthouse incorrectly as the roofline marker for their displacement trace, and so subsequently used bad data to determine their single point descent rate calculations ?

3) The period of over-G descent of the NW corner implies it was pulled down by the core structure descending in advance.

etc...

Which of those are you going to attempt to refute ?

Why do you think such relatively simple observations should be progressed only by the regular JREF side-step of calling for putting the information through *peer review* ?

I guess you don't think anyone around here has the ability to do so. Bizarre. It's really not a difficult topic. By all means highlight any issues you find with the points listed above.

 

[achimspok]

So think everyone in this thread is now obligated to accept what you say, just because you say it

No! I'm here because I want you to tell me WHY you don't accept it.
If you never read page #1 than your reasons are less of interest for me.
If my language or subconscious or something like that is your problem then it is also not that useful.

... this get's more bizarre and ridiculous by the minute... You say it.

Read page one!

 

[achimspok]

He makes a good point, achimspok. You are setting up rules for yourself that you don't allow for NIST or the engineering community. That is called having double standards, which isn't a good thing.

You have to understand: to us you're just another loony out for 15 minutes of e-fame. If you believe so firmly that you are right and the global engineering community is wrong, you have to go to them, not to us.

Sorry for being here?

What is the purpose of this forum again?

And what do you mean by my "double standards"?
...expecting that someone reads post ONE just to know a little bit before he types some pitiful emptiness into this thread.
Is it too much expected to read before hooting?

Double standard?

 

[uke2se]

So what you are saying is that you, without actually doing any checking, doubt that one or more of the following is correct ?

1) The flexing of the facade when viewed from the Cam#3 viewpoint is incorrectly interpreted by NIST and co as primarily vertical displacement when it is primarily non-vertical motion.

2) NIST used the top of the West Penthouse incorrectly as the roofline marker for their displacement trace, and so subsequently used bad data to determine their single point descent rate calculations ?

3) The period of over-G descent of the NW corner implies it was pulled down by the core structure descending in advance.

etc...

As it is accepted by the engineering community, I'm not going to doubt it unless prompted by new evidence.

Which of those are you going to attempt to refute ?

None of them. I'm not an engineer, which is precisely my point. If he or you believe you have evidence that NIST is wrong, you should put it in a paper, publish it in a journal and let the scientific process correct any mistakes, be they NIST's, or more probably, yours.

Why do you think such relatively simple observations should be progressed only by the regular JREF side-step of calling for putting the information through *peer review* ?

What do you have against peer-review?

I guess you don't think anyone around here has the ability to do so. Bizarre. It's really not a difficult topic. By all means highlight any issues you find with the points listed above.

I am not qualified to do so. I understand you think you are qualified. You should write a paper and publish it for the scientific community to see. Give me a reason why you shouldn't.

 

[uke2se]

Sorry for being here?

What?

What is the purpose of this forum again?

Discussing conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. You dodged the point. Again. If you have such strong beliefs in your measurements why don't you get them published for the scientific world to see? Do you understand that you gain nothing at all by publishing them here?

 

[achimspok]

You're not getting it. It's not that we don't enjoy having twoofers like you around for a laugh. What we don't understand is that if you believe you have such strong evidence, why don't you do something productive with it rather than post on an obscure internet forum. It really casts serious doubts on your evidence for you to take the action you have chosen.

In the moment I am the one who has fun playing wit bunker-heads who claim to know but don't say ...

Any answer on femr2's questions?

PLEASE! Give it a chance before it's published and thrown right into my face!

 

[femr2]

As it is accepted by the engineering community, I'm not going to doubt it unless prompted by new evidence.

That's just silly.

None of them. I'm not an engineer, which is precisely my point.

The points listed are not engineering problems. They are simple video analysis, image feature selection and basic physics. Are you telling me you don't understand the nature of the listed points to such an extent ?

If he or you believe you have evidence that NIST is wrong, you should put it in a paper, publish it in a journal and let the scientific process correct any mistakes, be they NIST's, or more probably, yours.

My god man. I'm afraid that says so much more about your own skillset than mine.

Evidence NIST is wrong ?

Here, take point (2) above...

2) NIST used the top of the West Penthouse incorrectly as the roofline marker for their displacement trace...

The *evidence* as you put it is blatantly clear, and should be obvious to primary school whipper-snappers if pointed in the right direction, as is done in the OP. Read it.

Here's an image of the building from Cam#3...

And here is how they state their ROOFLINE pixel tracking method...

The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

Simple observation of the piccy shows you with 100% certainty that, in order for the pixel colour to be transitioning to the colour of the SKY, NIST are actually using the top of the West Penthouse, NOT the roofline...

What do you have against peer-review?

You want the information I just presented above to be put through peer review in a scientific journal ? Wow. Pretty funny.

I am not qualified to do so.

Really ? Shame. It's mind-numbingly simple, as you can see.

What makes you think you should comment on the thread then ?

I understand you think you are qualified.

Splendid.

You should write a paper and publish it for the scientific community to see. Give me a reason why you shouldn't.

Read this post.

 

[achimspok]

I am not qualified to do so. I understand you think you are qualified. You should write a paper and publish it for the scientific community to see. Give me a reason why you shouldn't.

You are not qualified to play with twoofers?

Now I'm baffled!

There is no reason to NOT PUBLISH it.

 

[tsig]

achimspok, if you are so sure of what the CT websites have said about NIST, and you think this performance is so effective, then why don't you bring it to NIST, or a reputable scientific organization, or even the legal experts, challenge them and prove them wrong, showing the world that you are right?

I get the feeling sometimes that twoofers think the JREF is a scientific organization.

 

[twinstead]

I get the feeling sometimes that twoofers think the JREF is a scientific organization.

Yea, as if somehow "winning" us over would change the mind of the scientific community, and no other work needs to be done.

 

[achimspok]

Discussing conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. You dodged the point. Again.

OK, let's say my conspiracy theory is:
Some strange horizontal wind consisting of a tremendous conspiracy from outer space micro butterflies bowed the north face of WTC7 towards south.

Do you see the bowing?

 

[tsig]

The free fall issue is some crucial argument in the so called "conspiracy theory" about WTC7. The respected engineering or scientific community isn't that interested in that issue at all especially 9 years after...
So the conspiracy sub-forum is exactly the place where it belongs. And you know right here are all the members of the respected engineering or scientific community on Earth who still deal with these issues, who know all the necessary information to understand the meaning, to know about wich building and wich day "we" are talking etc pp

Yet, I'm here and had a little message for you guys.

So your head might tell you not to trust me but I think - deep in your heart ;-) you do because I layed out my cards. You can check it bit by bit. You don't need to trust me. That's the trick. Something that alienentity for example doesn't do. At least it seems so. He just argues around the corners and uses "we" to draw the line between his inability and my layed out cards.

Has he any critique about my method? Can he describe the movement of the building in a more compelling way? Can he show any curve of his "measurements"? ... OK, I leave that poor guy alone. What's about NIST and the respected engineering or scientific community? I many more information might that community have than I got from NIST? None.

One example - just for fun: The data for AA11 crashing into the tower - speed and trajectory - were analyzed by an MIT professor who obviously never did anything like that before. He took a sheet of paper draw some skyline without any perspective and ... his result was WAY OFF. 5 other institutes analyzed it. Nevertheless, these WAY OFF data are in the report an were the basic dataset for the damage estimation. Tell you what, the respected engineering or scientific community don't care. Why?
They have to buy the so called prerequisites and may have an opinion about the result under the conditions of these prerequisites. If the prerequisites are wrong then nobody in the respected engineering or scientific community can and will notice it without doing the work from scratch.

Here we go.

I see, we know you're right but we're too proud to admit it.

How big is your hat size?

 

[twinstead]

You want the information I just presented above to be put through peer review in a scientific journal ? Wow. Pretty funny.

No, you need to somehow get this information to the NIST so they can comment on it. This forum is NOT the way to accomplish that. All I am hearing is one side of the story. What I am also hearing is somebody trying to cast doubt on the NIST report not so it can be clarified or responded to, but casting doubt so you can insert whatever cockamamie theory you want (CD, LOL) no questions asked.

God of the Gaps, if you will.

 

[femr2]

I get the feeling sometimes that twoofers think the JREF is a scientific organization.

I don't think anyone thinks that in the slightest. It's interesting to note, however, how many members here profess to be engineers, physicists, rocket scientists, ... yet any discussion that appears to some to be a bit sciency is repeatedly requested to be shifted to a proper scientific arena with real scientists.

Funny stuff.

Oh, and when said self-professed experts don't even recognise the simplicity of stated observations or get others just plain wrong, funny-squared.

But hey, ho. It's all permanent.

 

[The Platypus]

No! I'm here because I want you to tell me WHY you don't accept it.
If you never read page #1 than your reasons are less of interest for me.
If my language or subconscious or something like that is your problem then it is also not that useful.

... this get's more bizarre and ridiculous by the minute... You say it.

Read page one!

It's not my obligation to simply believe you because you says so... But i will tell you why i don't believe you.

I don't believe you because all you have done is same old game of regurgitate a hodgepodge of nonsense from websites made by others that promote these delusions.

Which you/they then boldly claim concludes that NIST is not only in error, but they are totally incompetent at best or has even more sinister motives at worst. To back this up you simply arrogantly prance around pretending that you and this crap you have recited, from your CT sites, are both totally infallible. I've seen this game many many times.

Meanwhile, not you nor anyone you recite this info from has the credentials to be the experts you all claim to be. Nor will you will confront NIST or any other reputable group of experts, or professionals. You all just run around like drones, programmed to play the same games, constantly trolling the internet for mentally ill or gullible people, to fool into joining your cult.

That's why I don't believe you.