15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[ATM]

I've read as much of this thread as I reasonably can. If you stated something else/additionally that constitute NIST "falling on their swords", I missed it.

You could easily go to 'search thread' up at the top and type in nist. It will bring up at least 23 posts in which I specifically mentioned them (a few of those in direct conversation with you).

If you can't find anything that fits the bill among my posts which mention nist, I'll quote the video I posted where two of their engineers squirmed when corrected by independents, unable to defend the fundamental 'mistakes' but also unwilling to admit the mistakes. (The mistakes were later changed and/or obscured with a completely different approach).

Did you miss all that?

 

[chipbennett]

You could easily go to 'search thread' up at the top and type in nist. It will bring up at least 23 posts in which I specifically mentioned them (a few of those in direct conversation with you).

If you can't find anything that fits the bill among my posts which mention nist, I'll quote the video I posted where two of their engineers squirmed when corrected by independents, unable to defend the fundamental 'mistakes' but also unwilling to admit the mistakes. (The mistakes were later changed and/or obscured with a completely different approach).

Did you miss all that?

I have not watched videos. I don't plan to watch videos. I'm not interested in argument-by-proxy. I am asking you to articulate what you mean by, and how, exactly, NIST "fell on their swords".

 

[JollyMon]

I want scientific proof of explosives in the wreckage.... Truthers say Nano-thermite was found in the wreckage.... where are the explosives? The entire truther hypothesis of controlled demolition rely on "eye-witness" testimonies where they say they saw explosion and flashes during collapse..... Thermite does explode, it burns...... where is your evidence of explosive material.... I'll be waiting....... and waiting..... and waiting.... and waiting....

Are you saying these truthers were able to find trace amounts of nano thermite in the dust..... yet no trace of explosive materials.....

:AnxiouslyWaitingForBucketKickingToTheBoogeyman:

 

[Dan35]

I have not watched videos. I don't plan to watch videos. I'm not interested in argument-by-proxy. I am asking you to articulate what you mean by, and how, exactly, NIST "fell on their swords".

I love videos as do a lot of people who are too lazy to read.

 

[ATM]

I have not watched videos. I don't plan to watch videos. I'm not interested in argument-by-proxy. I am asking you to articulate what you mean by, and how, exactly, NIST "fell on their swords".

Why would I need to argue by proxy? That briefing was recorded. Would watching two gentlemen from NIST fall on their swords be acceptable evidence that they were willing to?

Watching videos of planes and collapses seems to be acceptable to most.

Are you accustomed to dismissing that which has been presented, then demanding that it be presented again and again? Is that a method of investigation and discovery or a technique of suppression?

Just watch from 20:00 to 30:00, that should be sufficient.

...

[video=youtube;x-jWUzhtTIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jWUzhtTIY[/video]

...

 

[ATM]

I want scientific proof of explosives in the wreckage.... Truthers say Nano-thermite was found in the wreckage.... where are the explosives? The entire truther hypothesis of controlled demolition rely on "eye-witness" testimonies where they say they saw explosion and flashes during collapse..... Thermite does explode, it burns...... where is your evidence of explosive material.... I'll be waiting....... and waiting..... and waiting.... and waiting....

Are you saying these truthers were able to find trace amounts of nano thermite in the dust..... yet no trace of explosive materials.....

:AnxiouslyWaitingForBucketKickingToTheBoogeyman:

Who cares what you want? You can't just demand what you want to change the subject, you still have a rather pointed response from me you haven't addressed. I want you to address those points.

I want to see that the government investigators even bothered to test for explosives to rule them out, myself, but they admittedly did not perform such a test.

I want.

I want.

Don't drink bleach.

 

[chipbennett]

Why would I need to argue by proxy? That briefing was recorded. Would watching two gentlemen from NIST fall on their swords be acceptable evidence that they were willing to?

Because I'm not having a discussion with a video, or with the people in the video. I'm having a discussion with you. Why are you unwilling and/or unable to articulate exactly what you mean by NIST "falling on their swords"?

 

[JollyMon]

Who cares what you want? You can't just demand what you want to change the subject, you still have a rather pointed response from me you haven't addressed. I want you to address those points.

I want to see that the government investigators even bothered to test for explosives to rule them out, myself, but they admittedly did not perform such a test.

I want.

I want.

Don't drink bleach.

So like I am saying Truthers were able to find trace amount of "nano thermite" in the dust.... yet TRUTHERS were not able to find any trace of explosive materials in the dust.... But when no evidence is there..... it must be the boooooogeyman

But continue the bucket kicking.... I will be waiting.... and waiting .... and waiting and waiting......

 

[JollyMon]

Because I'm not having a discussion with a video, or with the people in the video. I'm having a discussion with you. Why are you unwilling and/or unable to articulate exactly what you mean by NIST "falling on their swords"?

because he cant

 

[Alpo]

I don't know what Chandler's graph is supposed to represent. It isn't free fall. For example at 1 second, free fall distance should be 4.9 meters; 2 seconds 19.6 meters. At 5.4 seconds 143 meters.

Velocity at 1 second is 9.8 m/s; 2 seconds 19.6 m/s; 5.4 seconds 53 m/s. At 4 seconds it would be 39.2 m/s, but the chart shows 33.5 m/s according to Chandler.

You can perform the same calcs online at Free fall (distance and velocity) Calculator - High accuracy calculation

I think you make a fatal error when trusting anything that Chandler has to say. He has been debunked many times.

 

[ATM]

Because I'm not having a discussion with a video, or with the people in the video. I'm having a discussion with you. Why are you unwilling and/or unable to articulate exactly what you mean by NIST "falling on their swords"?

I watched a recording of the briefing where two NIST engineers where willing to publicly sacrifice their own integrity and that of their so-called investigation report to protect not only a faulty conclusion, but further, what was likely only a typo in another spot.

That level of willing self-sacrifice resembles the willingness to fall on one's own sword for a greater cause (and not necessarily the cause of truth, in many cases).

Refute the evidence supporting my many NIST comments already available in this thread and quit tasking me to produce that which you won't even bother to examine.

 

[Alpo]

I've refuted Chandler's assumption using the "evidence" you tell us to rely on in the video. QED

 

[ATM]

I don't know what Chandler's graph is supposed to represent. It isn't free fall. For example at 1 second, free fall distance should be 4.9 meters; 2 seconds 19.6 meters. At 5.4 seconds 143 meters.

Velocity at 1 second is 9.8 m/s; 2 seconds 19.6 m/s; 5.4 seconds 53 m/s. At 4 seconds it would be 39.2 m/s, but the chart shows 33.5 m/s according to Chandler.

You can perform the same calcs online at Free fall (distance and velocity) Calculator - High accuracy calculation

I think you make a fatal error when trusting anything that Chandler has to say. He has been debunked many times.

Chandler didn't appear to be dry labbing for any particular time, rate or result, those were just measurements from a video.

If free fall wasn't suggested, why was NIST forced to change their presentation to agree that a period of freefall acceleration did indeed occur? They'd have loved for you to save them the indignity of having to admit they 'missed' or attempted to obfuscate that fact if it wasn't a fact. I bet they still would. Present your analysis, show your work and get paid, sir.

He may have been debunked many times, supposedly you just did. Why couldn't NIST?

 

[ATM]

I've refuted Chandler's assumption using the "evidence" you tell us to rely on in the video. QED

Well, you are obviously more competent than those hacks at NIST. Why aren't you getting paid? Debunk freefall and you will be paid.

 

[chipbennett]

I watched a recording of the briefing where two NIST engineers where willing to publicly sacrifice their own integrity and that of their so-called investigation report to protect not only a faulty conclusion, but further, what was likely only a typo in another spot.

What was the faulty conclusion that they were protecting? What was the likely typo that they were protecting?

That level of willing self-sacrifice resembles the willingness to fall on one's own sword for a greater cause (and not necessarily the cause of truth, in many cases).

And most importantly, because it is a subjective conclusion: on what evidence do you assert that they were "falling on their sword", or "sacrific[ing] their own integrity"?

Refute the evidence supporting my many NIST comments already available in this thread and quit tasking me to produce that which you won't even bother to examine.

You've articulated nothing to examine. You've articulated no evidence to refute the final NIST conclusions. You have merely asserted that lack of evidence about arbitrary avenues of investigation is evidence of a conspiracy. This is why I want to have a discussion with you, around the points that you articulate.

If you can answer the questions above, I'll even watch the video, in the context of your answers, so that I can draw my own conclusions, and then continue the discussion.

 

[Alpo]

Chandler didn't appear to be dry labbing for any particular time, rate or result, those were just measurements from a video.

If free fall wasn't suggested, why was NIST forced to change their presentation to agree that a period of freefall acceleration did indeed occur? They'd have loved for you to save them the indignity of having to admit they 'missed' or attempted to obfuscate that fact if it wasn't a fact. I bet they still would. Present your analysis, show your work and get paid, sir.

He may have been debunked many times, supposedly you just did. Why couldn't NIST?

I believe the building did approach free fall acceleration in the middle of the fall. Without really accurate data, it's difficult to compute, but I'd say the NIST data shows close to that acceleration midfall. Is that unreasonable or, said differently, is that any indication of explosive demolition? Not enough data. Demolitions normally don't convert all potential energy instantaneously. That's a difficult calculation.

But, I don't think Chandler comes close to proving anything. NIST did make an error in their draft. They corrected it. I'm not sure they could say much more than "Here is the plot of acceleration for the collapse".

The tinfoil guys are willing to say so much more.

n the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. 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.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

 

[chipbennett]

Chandler didn't appear to be dry labbing for any particular time, rate or result, those were just measurements from a video.

If free fall wasn't suggested, why was NIST forced to change their presentation to agree that a period of freefall acceleration did indeed occur? They'd have loved for you to save them the indignity of having to admit they 'missed' or attempted to obfuscate that fact if it wasn't a fact. I bet they still would. Present your analysis, show your work and get paid, sir.

He may have been debunked many times, supposedly you just did. Why couldn't NIST?

I think your response here epitomizes what's wrong with your entire analysis. To wit: does a period of freefall acceleration make a critical difference? If a bad assumption was made, or a wrong calculation used, does it change the analysis in any meaningful way?

If it doesn't change the analysis in any meaningful way, then it is a bridge too far to claim that the issue is evidence of a cover-up, or of some other conspiracy.

 

[ATM]

So like I am saying Truthers were able to find trace amount of "nano thermite" in the dust.... yet TRUTHERS were not able to find any trace of explosive materials in the dust.... But when no evidence is there..... it must be the boooooogeyman

But continue the bucket kicking.... I will be waiting.... and waiting .... and waiting and waiting......

Waiting does not advance or even defend the reasonableness of your claimed position. Take the lead, as I do.

You're not dealing with "truthers", you're dealing with ATM. Deal with it or flee again, I care little. You've posed no threat to further investigation and no support for the story you adopted, what I've called a lie.

Become significant, put it on your to-do list.

 

[Alpo]

That's very smug, ATM. I'd suggest a more conciliatory demeanor.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

.