WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[uke2se]

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

Who in particular are you calling "bunker-heads"? You may be telling yourself you're having fun, but your frustration over not being believed is palpable.

Any answer on femr2's questions?

The answers have already been given.

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

I'll hold comment until after it's published if that's your honest intention.

 

[achimspok]

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

How big is your hat size?

Read the cards! Have an opinion!
Trust is not a question of agree or not agree.

 

[uke2se]

That's just silly.

No, it's rational.

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 ?

I understand that people more qualified than me (and probably you) disagree with the OP's assessment, and I won't comment on the points until they are published for the engineering community to dissect. To me this is a scientific problem, and the scientific process should be applied. I realize when I'm not qualified or haven't got all the necessary information, and I don't pass judgment in those cases. Science is rarely a matter of "common sense".

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

It wasn't a commentary on either mine nor your skill set. It was simply a request to adhere to the scientific process.

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...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/370825048.jpg[/qimg]

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


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...

[qimg]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/486/lowcontrast.png[/qimg]

Why are you telling me? Tell NIST. I'm sure they would love to hear your opinions on the subject. Of course, they would expect you to go through proper channels.

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

Is the scientific process scorn worthy in your view? How come?

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

It rarely is that simple. I don't believe all information is provided. I request that you bring this before someone who's qualified to pass judgment, i.e, NIST or the engineering community.

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

I comment because what I see here is normal twoofer bluster - something which I can't abide.

Read this post.

Your post has been read and it did not contain a single reason for why this information should not be published. What has been presented is an accusation that NIST is in error. Apparently you agree that this is so. Why don't the two of you come together and publish a paper that points out these errors and give NIST a chance to respond? Why don't you utilize the scientific process?

 

[uke2se]

You are not qualified to play with twoofers?

Now I'm baffled!

That you are baffled is apparent. That you misunderstand me is equally so. This doesn't speak well for your abilities to present a coherent argument on this site when you can't understand written English.

There is no reason to NOT PUBLISH it.

Exactly, so why don't you?

 

[uke2se]

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.

It might be because this isn't the proper venue for scientific discourse. You're an engineer, aren't you?

Don't you know this???

 

[achimspok]

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.

How much time gave NIST to comment on their final report?

I really do not expect that NIST will comment right here.

If a measurement done by a machine - so to say - cast doubt on NIST then... holy God in heaven!

 

[tsig]

"publish or perish" is really the only thing one can say in this situation, where one with an extreme minority view arrogantly proclaims that he is right and the majority is wrong. I'm sure in Germany they have some idiom that means the same thing.

I suspect, achimspok, that a debate with one of the NIST contributors will wipe that little smirk right off your face.

Wonder if he's from Nantucket?

http://www.jokes2go.com/poems/9719.html

 

[tsig]

He laughs best that laughs last.

Engineering isn't a laughing matter.

 

[uke2se]

How much time gave NIST to comment on their final report?

A number of months. Don't know for sure. I'd say between 4 and 6.

I really do not expect that NIST will comment right here.

Then why post here?

 

[tsig]

Oh btw, I did not "proclaim" that I am right and the majority is wrong.
I presented some - I would say - evidence for my point of view and asked the majority for any opinion about that topic.
All I got was some patronizing analysis about my personality and "Why would I commit such a sacrilege". That's it.

You know, I was frequently around and ALWAYS I read comments about years and years of professional expertise and so on. How could I know that I would get only some hot air instead of a dozen experts who show me exactly my mistakes in
- the method
- the calculation
- the perspective issue
- the movement of the parapet ...

SMIRK

Yep.

cape codder all the way.

http://search.surfcanyon.com/search...ikipedia.org/wiki/Nantucket&now=1294975807261

 

[tsig]

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!

Don't worry you have to buy stuff that good. Nobody will throw it in your face guaranteed.

 

[tsig]

That's just silly.


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 ?


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...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/370825048.jpg[/qimg]

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


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...

[qimg]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/486/lowcontrast.png[/qimg]


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


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

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


Splendid.


Read this post.

Primary school whipper-snappers are your preferred audience?

 

[tsig]

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.

Seems to apply equally to you.

 

[Athyrio]

Originally Posted by twinstead
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.

How much time gave NIST to comment on their final report?

I really do not expect that NIST will comment right here.

If a measurement done by a machine - so to say - cast doubt on NIST then... holy God in heaven!

So, what's your point? What do you expect to achieve here? You seem to have spent a lot of time on this matter.

 

[tsig]

Read the cards! Have an opinion!
Trust is not a question of agree or not agree.

Then what is it?

 

[The Platypus]

Why are they so desperate to be believed by us?

 

[achimspok]

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.

Wrong. I did a measurement.

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.

Do you visit often those sites? Professionally may be?
I don't. Recited? No.

Meanwhile, not you nor anyone you recite this info from has the credentials to be the experts you all claim to be.

I simply don't know who you are talking about. Recited? No credentials?

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.

And I though the cult is right here - some kind of holy NIST cult or something.
Who are "we" who run around?
I'm sitting in a nice chair and have fun about something ridiculous, Platypus.

That's why I don't believe you.

Got it.

 

[uke2se]

And I though the cult is right here - some kind of holy NIST cult or something.
Who are "we" who run around?
I'm sitting in a nice chair and have fun about something ridiculous, Platypus.

Seriously, are you going to keep dancing around this fairly glaring issue? Will you or will you not take whatever beef you have up with NIST directly or at least put it out to the scientific community for review? If you are, why are you so desperate for us to believe you? If not, you're really just trolling for attention.

 

[achimspok]

So, what's your point? What do you expect to achieve here? You seem to have spent a lot of time on this matter.

It wasn't that much time. 2 afternoons.

What's the point?

A building fell down.

The NIST report missed the point.

I saw threads like these:
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
Firefighting and Fire Protection Systems on 9/11
Structural Engineer Kamal Obeid compares WTC 7 to a beer can
Questions about nano-thermite
Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud?
Discussion of femr's video data analysis
Steel didnt collapse in NIST burn tests
What do competent scientists find in WTC Dust?
According to truther "logic" WTC 7 should have fallen over
NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data
'What about building 7'?

I thought it was a good place to discuss the WTC7 free fall with so called "debunkers" - you know - some kind of ordeal or something.

... just a mistake.

 

[achimspok]

Seriously, are you going to keep dancing around this fairly glaring issue? Will you or will you not take whatever beef you have up with NIST directly or at least put it out to the scientific community for review? If you are, why are you so desperate for us to believe you? If not, you're really just trolling for attention.

No one should believe me. Check it! Prove it! Discuss it! Forget it!
Whatever you want but don't "believe" me because you believe NIST!
You cannot believe both at least in the range of the topic.

Will I ...? I think I will.