WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

Fires not fought destroyed WTC7. A fact you can't comprehend due to lack of knowledge, or a need for paranoid conspiracy theories? 911 truth thinks opinions are facts, and they failed for over 9 years; they are locked in for 10 years of delusions based on ignorance.
"It" raises questions for those who lack knowledge.

I did not start with a conclusion, it is a fact, and it turns out to be the correct conclusion. Like 2+2=4, you can't form the conclusion yet ... due to? As an angry young man I became an engineer, and flew jets for the USAF; they like engineers who want to fly. Who will steal our country, a few marines will stop that nonsense. How do you make up this nonsense, you sound like Balsamo, the idiot pilot who can't do math.

I am not the one who should be angry, you have wasted 9 years and you can't figure out fire, 911, physics, photo interpretation, or "publish or perish". Good luck.

If you had some valid information, you could publish it. When I had unanswered questions, I got a degree; more questions, got a master degree. When we did projects in the Lab, we published our work and answered the questions; not ask more questions out of ignorance.

You got a degree for questions?
And a master degree for more questions?

Let me answer a question and publish it right here! Otherwise I would perish immediately.

CONCLUSION:

1) NIST had no **** of photo interpretation.

2) NIST dotted by hand the fall of the screenwall + the transition into the bowing of the north face + the transition into the vertical fall of the north face.

3) NIST used the following method to smooth the dotted curve without being aware of the 3 different movements

4) the mathematical smoothed curve was used to

a) determine T=0
b) calculate the vertical velocity

5) the result was never back checked or peer reviewed by any expert in the field of video or photo interpretation

6) The following description of stage 1 in the NIST report NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 p. 602 is false and need to be corrected including possible conclusions base on this failure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the usual phrase over here:
Thanks for playing!

 

[beachnut]

...
CONCLUSION:

1) NIST had no **** of photo interpretation.

2) NIST dotted by hand the fall of the screenwall + the transition into the bowing of the north face + the transition into the vertical fall of the north face.

3) NIST used the following method to smooth the dotted curve without being aware of the 3 different movements

4) the mathematical smoothed curve was used to

a) determine T=0
b) calculate the vertical velocity

5) the result was never back checked or peer reviewed by any expert in the field of video or photo interpretation

6) The following description of stage 1 in the NIST report NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 p. 602 is false and need to be corrected including possible conclusions base on this failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the usual phrase over here:
Thanks for playing!

Nonsense, and sad it will not be published. Not as delusional as Heiwa, but this garbage has nothing to do with 911 conspiracy theories. You won again! Good job.

Wow. The conclusion is, WTC7 was destroyed by fire. Does it matter if NIST is wrong?, fire did it. You are obsessed with NIST, like an angry want-to-be engineer. How does your nonsense relate to failed 911 conspiracy theories?

What's the usual phrase over here:

As "Publish or Perish" eludes you, so does understanding NIST ... welcome - the phrase is , "nice try, but no cigar", or "close, but no cigar", or in your case, "not close, no cigar", or "failure, no cigar".

 

[ozeco41]

...6) The following description of stage 1 in the NIST report NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 p. 602 is false and need to be corrected including possible conclusions base on this failure...

So you have an easy way forward achimspok:
If the NIST analysis is wrong three simple questions will decide whether there is any value in progressing the detailed analysis:

• Did NIST reach any conclusions which could be wrong as a consequence of this possible error?
• Which conclusions are they? AND
• Are they of any significance to those authorities who rely on the NIST work for policy recommendations?

 

[achimspok]

To engineers:
"Parapet" means "Parapet".
"Aligned" means "Aligned".

and
"… top of the parapet wall on the roofline aligned with the east edge of the louvers … "

means this:

[ETA: 2nd point that was NOT the tracked point.]

Just like it says.

No, Achimspok is just as agenda-driven as you are.

How would you say? LMFAO!

You say - and the report of course - that the real enineers had chosen exactly the location of the later kink.
Indeed, that's the most distorted point of all points. Good choice!

"Center East 47" = east edge of the louver

But it's of course the point where engineers get such a strange feeling. Can't describe it.

...feels like dotting whatsoever down until a building comes into sight - taking a ruler - calculating a nice smooth nonsense - calculating more nonsense out of nonsense ...

Get ready for the ruler!

Btw, what's your agenda?

 

[achimspok]

Nonsense, and sad it will not be published. Not as delusional as Heiwa, but this garbage has nothing to do with 911 conspiracy theories. You won again! Good job.

Wow. The conclusion is, WTC7 was destroyed by fire. Does it matter if NIST is wrong?, fire did it. You are obsessed with NIST, like an angry want-to-be engineer. How does your nonsense relate to failed 911 conspiracy theories?

As "Publish or Perish" eludes you, so does understanding NIST ... welcome - the phrase is , "nice try, but no cigar", or "close, but no cigar", or in your case, "not close, no cigar", or "failure, no cigar".

"failure, no cigar" - that's nice. I keep that in mind until published.

 

[achimspok]

So you have an easy way forward achimspok:
If the NIST analysis is wrong three simple questions will decide whether there is any value in progressing the detailed analysis:

• Did NIST reach any conclusions which could be wrong as a consequence of this possible error?
• Which conclusions are they? AND
• Are they of any significance to those authorities who rely on the NIST work for policy recommendations?

Exactly!

I would add a fourth point:
* is the phenomenon of "faster than free fall" buckling of any scientific or political intrest

 

[ozeco41]

Exactly!

I would add a fourth point:
* is the phenomenon of "faster than free fall" buckling of any scientific or political intrest

Sure. Recall that I have suggested clarity of objective several times.

Interest in the technical details is itself a valid objective. Call that "Level 1"

Then, at a slightly higher level, interest in exploring whether or not NIST was correct including defining where they were correct and where they were not correct. And that level could also be a valid objective. Call it "Level 2".

Then I suggest the top level question is "Why and how did WTC7 collapse?" Call that "Level 3". And that question covers a range of technical, human and political issues.

Now I agree that your suggested fourth point is a valid interest also. I am not fully comfortable with labelling it "scientific" without qualifying what we mean. Hence many of the calls for "publishing and "peer reviewed papers" and quite a few of the analogies to "scientific method" get a little off target. The scientific method and the "publish or perish' ethos of academia are a valid part of the picture but not all. We are after all discussing an exercise in engineering forensics for a set of one-off non replicable events. Not proposing "theories" so we can reproduce those events. However explaining that side track is probably too much of a diversion at this stage.

So your fourth point raises "scientific" and "political" interest. Scientific falls cleanly into Level 1 and is necessary support for any critique of NIST in level 2.

Political is a level three or higher matter - what does the political process do with the issue if NIST is shown to be partially wrong or worse and on matters that "Are...of...significance to those authorities who rely on the NIST work for policy recommendations?"

Probably it is "Level 4" - after all the level three questions have been worked through - "what should the political process do now?"

And my main interest would be if we reach "Level 3" discussions leading to the potential for Level 4 political outcomes.

 

[beachnut]

Exactly!

I would add a fourth point:
* is the phenomenon of "faster than free fall" buckling of any scientific or political intrest

Political interest? No.

Scientific interest? Old news.





The delusional conspiracy theories of 911 are baseless, no science is used. Engineers disagree with NIST, but they agree fire did it. Does 911 truth have any clue what did it, or any theory? Evidence?

 

[achimspok]

Sure. Recall that I have suggested clarity of objective several times.

Interest in the technical details is itself a valid objective. Call that "Level 1"

Then, at a slightly higher level, interest in exploring whether or not NIST was correct including defining where they were correct and where they were not correct. And that level could also be a valid objective. Call it "Level 2".

Then I suggest the top level question is "Why and how did WTC7 collapse?" Call that "Level 3". And that question covers a range of technical, human and political issues.

Now I agree that your suggested fourth point is a valid interest also. I am not fully comfortable with labelling it "scientific" without qualifying what we mean. Hence many of the calls for "publishing and "peer reviewed papers" and quite a few of the analogies to "scientific method" get a little off target. The scientific method and the "publish or perish' ethos of academia are a valid part of the picture but not all. We are after all discussing an exercise in engineering forensics for a set of one-off non replicable events. Not proposing "theories" so we can reproduce those events. However explaining that side track is probably too much of a diversion at this stage.

So your fourth point raises "scientific" and "political" interest. Scientific falls cleanly into Level 1 and is necessary support for any critique of NIST in level 2.

Political is a level three or higher matter - what does the political process do with the issue if NIST is shown to be partially wrong or worse and on matters that "Are...of...significance to those authorities who rely on the NIST work for policy recommendations?"

Probably it is "Level 4" - after all the level three questions have been worked through - "what should the political process do now?"

And my main interest would be if we reach "Level 3" discussions leading to the potential for Level 4 political outcomes.

Agree - that would be great. I will try to help as good as I can.

 

[achimspok]

Political interest? No.

Scientific interest? Old news.





The delusional conspiracy theories of 911 are baseless, no science is used. Engineers disagree with NIST, but they agree fire did it. Does 911 truth have any clue what did it, or any theory? Evidence?

OMG
can someone stop that broken record?

Btw, POLITICAL INTEREST - may be. ;-)))
Btw, never link any YT-video! Only stupid twoofers do!

 

[femr2]

We've been talking about the collapse of the North Wall.

And what data have you been shown that doesn't relate to the North facade ?

You're silly, silly attempt to change the definition now is, how shall I put it, uh, "silly".

No change in definition Tom. More like you back-pedalling from your silly assertion...

Using a frame from several seconds before the collapse began.

...and repeating that assertion when asked if you are absolutely SURE of what you are saying.

Funny stuff.

You claim "collapse"…

… but you show HORIZONTAL motion.

Pssst… "collapse" happens in a, ahem, "different direction".

Then have the corresponding vertical component motion then ...

Of course, all traces relate to the North facade.

Haven't you interesting people been claiming that "the building" and/or "the north wall" collapsed in 5.4 seconds

Nope.

Now, according to your latest goal post shift, in the last image, the North Wall has been collapsing since BEFORE the beginning of the collapse of the EP. Hopefully employing some definition of the word "collapse" that involves movement in the vertical direction...

No goal-post shift Tom. No change in definition. Simply calling you on your silly assertion, which I note you are frantically shifting to one side with your irrelevant tirade.

In this horizontal motion graph that you posted, EXACTLY what point in time, EXACTLY, do you think that your graph demonstrates "the initiation of collapse". (Clearly now, we're not talking about the North Wall, but the whole building.

LMAO. Pick a T₀ yourself Tom. Apply a TFK certified error analysis to it as well if y'like.

Why don't you post your VERTICAL motion data.

See above.

Instead of throwing up crappola about "skyscrapers 'collapsing' horizontally"?

That's your crappola Tom.

And yet, despite this little pile of intentional deception, you made a claim that it PROVES something about a very specific point in time: the time when NIST was trying to determine the brightness of a specific pixel, during a specific point in time.

Incorrect.

But you feel it's appropriate to put up a time-lapse picture, of a different point in time

To show all rooftop features, absolutely. The entire roofline is in motion in advance of the East Penthouse descent, so there's the inherent requirement from the Cam#3 viewpoint to start the traces very early. Only by cross-referencing to Dan Rather viewpoint can more useful T0 values be determined, IMO (You see, there's that annoying twisting, bowing motion of the facade coming into play in the Cam#3 viewpoint, which messes up interpretation of the movement somewhat. NIST had a few problems with that, you know )

Continue...

 

[femr2]

It seems the order of the trendline suggests an earlier start just to fullfill the order of the trend being smooth.

Hmm. Perhaps that's a better way of interpreting the anomoly and mismatch between Cam#3 and Dan Rather traces.

Interestingly the transition between bowing and falling is straighten out.
How could that happen?????
One possibility: They used the trendline between the painted displacement dots to calculate some velocities.

Again, possibly a way of piecing together the NIST data.

One can only guess what NIST really did but whatever it was,
- both curves don't show the same motion
- both curves are not really measurements of motion visible from "camera 3"
- both T=0 are different and do not reflect the beginning of motion in the graphs

Will cross-reference to previous traces and post some results.

 

[achimspok]

Will cross-reference to previous traces and post some results.

Yes, NIST measured above the east edge of the louver (same movement, same T=0)

early movement, max deformation, trendline smooths the kink between bowing and falling

 

[achimspok]

tiny little correction for the perspective

 

[femr2]

tiny little correction for the perspective
[qimg]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1387/nistmeasurement.gif[/qimg]

Perhaps you are right. My traces from the West Penthouse fit very well, but perhaps the explanation is indeed that they've fudged the initial moments and spliced traces from two separate locations along the roofline later in the Cam#3 clip to generate the full-length position/time data.

Ew. Nasty. Never considered they'd actually do something so poxy.

Would make my prior statements that the trace was taken from the top of the West Penthouse wrong (wait for it) but still leaves the timing differences over the full timespan.

So, yeah, if they've spliced together several traces and fudged the beginning, I'll take that as refutement of the trace being done from the top of the West Penthouse. Is the only other thing that could explain the problems with a trace from the East edge of the louvers and the problems getting to the lower marker.

I'll still cross-check. The original match looked particularly good, and explained the timing issues.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps you are right. My traces from the West Penthouse fit very well, but perhaps the explanation is indeed that they've fudged the initial moments and spliced traces from two separate locations along the roofline later in the Cam#3 clip to generate the full-length position/time data.

Ew. Nasty. Never considered they'd actually do something so poxy.

Would make my prior statements that the trace was taken from the top of the West Penthouse wrong (wait for it) but still leaves the timing differences over the full timespan.

So, yeah, if they've spliced together several traces and fudged the beginning, I'll take that as refutement of the trace being done from the top of the West Penthouse. Is the only other thing that could explain the problems with a trace from the East edge of the louvers and the problems getting to the lower marker.

I'll still cross-check. The original match looked particularly good, and explained the timing issues.

So when are you guys going to present this evidence to NIST? If not, Why?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This thread is just a reawakening of the 2006 debate about WTC7.

Hundreds of FDNY Firefighters said that fire was the main cause of the collapse. The Fire Investigators even concluded that fire was the main cause. Free fall of the building was only a FRACTION of free fall.

END OF STORY!

 

[tsig]

Yes, NIST measured above the east edge of the louver (same movement, same T=0)
[qimg]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7620/kinkmeasure.gif[/qimg]
early movement, max deformation, trendline smooths the kink between bowing and falling

The overlay on the graph is backwards and upside down plus it's flashing almost too fast to see.

 

[DGM]

The overlay on the graph is backwards and upside down plus it's flashing almost too fast to see.

That's their way of "outing" the government shills.


Nice going!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[beachnut]

This thread is just a reawakening of the 2006 debate about WTC7.

Hundreds of FDNY Firefighters said that fire was the main cause of the collapse. The Fire Investigators even concluded that fire was the main cause. Free fall of the building was only a FRACTION of free fall.

END OF STORY!

Failed truthers are angry at NIST, they think steel is indestructible. If you failed for 9 years you would be angry too. Failed truthers ignore 7 hours of fires not fought, and over 11 seconds of internal collapse before they study the facade collapse, a delusional narrow study with no goal. The anti-intellectual obsession with NIST, not a surprise when "publish or perish" was for one.