NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[ozeco41]

A study in psychology, it was.

Had to keep the enemy on side until we turned them round. The victory really was with the medium high level debunker members - the long established self appointed leaders on JREF all retired from active posting in the same time frame. Saved me from needing to go head to head with some. And those still retain their pro Bazant and pseudo Bazantian understanding AFAICS from their occasional drop in posts.

Yes, the ironically titled "Some Misunderstandings..." paper.

So true. And so reminiscent of the "projection" of own shortcomings on to others that we see so regularly here. We could make a fortune selling mirrors.

By "acknowledgement" did you mean "handwave" before disappearance?

Yes - if I am following you.

It's not as much better as you might think.

Oh I know - don't get my recent bits of isolated commendation out of perspective. I've done a full critique somewhere. "Too little too late". The interesting theme being in the context of "from there Global collapse was inevitable" or however NIST said it. The irony being that NIST may have been right but for the wrong reasons. They seemed to accept B&Z when they made the claim. B&Z's numbers arguably wrong BUT only discovered in 2013? - when the original Bazantian basis is way past use by date. We - on these forums - now know "ROOSD" whether from my 2008>> postulations or from M_T or from femr's catchy acronym. Although it is not in the realms of academic publishing - the first T Sz false claim in that paper BTW - the others may not have known but T Sz subscribed to "no other explanation than Bazant and PCF" when T Sz was aware of the mechanism we now call ROOSD.

I'm sure it's true that it caused discussion because there are thousands of threads still littering the internet. To be fair, the character of the discussion changed radically over the course of these key intervals in time:

- before Chandler submitted his criticism
- after the submission and before the release of the final report
- after the release of the final report

I'll dip into those next.

Yes to the change of focus with time. BTW I remember arguing for "over G" and being opposed vigorously by debunkers - "bears of little physics".

Actually the debunker side opposition is the more challenging because they routinely have at least medium level physics as their starting point.

Then the NEXT higher grade - when folk started quoting the "beam, ball and cup" model and "spinning aircraft propellers" (AKA spinning in vertical plane falling beams) THEN those newly enlightened medium level physics types tried to go a step further and got their explanations of the proofs of "over G" wrong.

mmmm :3oops: :3oops: full disclosure I went within a hairs breadth of posting the same error myself before brain clicked in..... AND (on JREF) the state of discussion is stalled at that stage.

 

[mike2810]

That's also narrow minded and it answers why you rabidly defend the OCT. You won't accept any possible other alternative.

when no evidence supports the "what if", your correct. I don't accept alternatives that have little to no supporting evidence.

What if space invaders carried out 9/11? One poster says no planes, it was an orb. Do you accept the what it was an orb explanation?

 

[Kat Dorman]

The following remarks apply to the "debunker community"; that is, the largest and most vocal segment which I could perceive over the years.

Before Chandler submitted his criticism
Freefall was explicitly denied.
Average acceleration was frequently and dishonestly derived from the time of first penthouse motion to final static pile.

After the submission and before the release of the final report
Freefall was explicitly denied.
Chandler was derided as an incompetent idiot.

After the release of the final report
Freefall ain't no thing but a chicken wing (i.e., freefall is no big deal)
Freefall is even expected!
NIST merely acknowledged what they already knew (and... SAID), namely that freefall would occur, of course.
Chandler merely confirmed NISTs findings.
NIST's finding of (near or actual) freefall validates their earlier work.


That's a sad ****ing compilation right there.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Yes - if I am following you.

You are.

Yes to the change of focus with time. BTW I remember arguing for "over G" and being opposed vigorously by debunkers - "bears of little physics".

Well and good, but an honest assessment is I don't see a debunker problem here, I see a truther problem. Was trying to be fair, but proportionality requires I drop "nits about NIST" and go back to "nukes - WTF"?

Actually the debunker side opposition is the more challenging because they routinely have at least medium level physics as their starting point.

True.

mmmm :3oops: :3oops: full disclosure I went within a hairs breadth of posting the same error myself before brain clicked in.....

Also true. It's wise to be careful before committing words when it comes to this.

AND (on JREF) the state of discussion is stalled at that stage.

Finally, also true. And a shame. That part of it is no better than here.

 

[Kat Dorman]

deleted

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony... What I wonder is what would happen if you get your new investigation only to find it overrun by speculation of nukes and holograms. What if you saw an investigation you worked hard and honestly to obtain was run off the rails by Judy Wood devotees? How would you feel if some pushed for your execution without trial because you felt you had to take a stand (FINALLY!) and called nonsense what it is?

I don't know how you can say what you are here. I said something about the silly claims made by Judy Woods several years ago. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/...olled_demolition_and_beam_weapon_theories.pdf

I am also sure you realize I don't subscribe to execution and would not want anyone convicted of anything without a fair trial. With that said, I would like those who had a hand in bringing those buildings down brought to some form of justice and for this entire affair to have some sort of closure.

 

[Kat Dorman]

I don't know how you can say what you are here. I said something about the silly claims made by Judy Woods several years ago. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/...olled_demolition_and_beam_weapon_theories.pdf

Wasn't aware of it, and I commend you. I'll stop short of commending you for failing to take certain people here to task for nukes and no-planes; that's your business but that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure you privately have no concern about any of these things gaining traction, but I find it less than honorable to ignore it the vast majority of the time but get chummy when it's convenient.

Avoiding "internal squabble" to this extent really looks bad. If you don't care, you don't care.

I am also sure you realize I don't subscribe to execution and would not want anyone convicted of anything without a fair trial.

Good. You might want to distance yourself from those who do, because there's probably a much bigger divide between you and them and you and me. Proportionality, and fairness.

 

[Bob0627]

That is your belief. They disagree. Your opinion trumps theirs?

Nope, it's my opinion and that of many others. It doesn't trump anything, it's just an opinion.

No... I'm on record going back years as saying "the 9/11 Commission Report reads like a bad TV treatment" and "the NIST WTC7 physics sim is no more than boys with toys", as well as other substantial critical remarks. I've said "I smelled a rat on that day." I've said "Bazant's work is irrelevant to the actual collapse mechanics" more times than I can count. I've agreed with Tony Szamboti that his engineering estimates for residual capacity seem more accurate and credible than Bazant's. I've now acknowledged (in this forum for the first time) that it looks like Chandler got a valid finding of freefall (on one point of the building).

So, there is what you ascribe to me without knowing jack, and then there's the objective truth.

Good, I stand corrected, you're open minded.

Starting to get a sense of why I'm unwilling to turn the investigation, if any, over to you?

That's ok, I think it's unlikely I would have anything to do with any 9/11 investigation. So you can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[Bob0627]

Before I put words in your mouth, perhaps you could very concisely summarize the key points you feel are truths.

With respect to what? If you mean government, I couldn't tell because too many things don't make sense.

My pardon if it is simply to have a new investigation which you deem satisfactory but, if there's anything else you feel certain about, do tell.

I'm certain there never was a real investigation into 9/11.

 

[Bob0627]

Okay. You're asking me what if there were an investigation which met your acceptance criteria (not mine or anyone else's here) which found the USG or elements thereof (and possibly including but not limited to globalist power brokers, foreign government agencies, academic institutions, professional journals and so on) culpable of the some or all of the events of 9/11?

I wasn't really asking that so much as I was more trying to point out a possible other side of the coin.

Yes, hang them.

I understand the penalty for treason is still hanging. I've already stated my own opinion on state sanctioned murder.

 

[Bob0627]

when no evidence supports the "what if", your correct. I don't accept alternatives that have little to no supporting evidence.

Ok. neither do I.

What if space invaders carried out 9/11?

I don't know, what if? There are theories out there about the US government (a rogue element, then again it's all rogue) and the Greys cutting a deal.

One poster says no planes, it was an orb. Do you accept the what it was an orb explanation?

It's one poster's theory, there are many out there.

 

[ozeco41]

...Good. You might want to distance yourself from those who do, because there's probably a much bigger divide between you and them and you and me. Proportionality, and fairness.

A good point. There may be wide differences of understanding in the technical arena specifically WTC collapses. But I would expect a lot more common ground in the arena of personal and interpersonal values.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wasn't aware of it, and I commend you. I'll stop short of commending you for failing to take certain people here to task for nukes and no-planes; that's your business but that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure you privately have no concern about any of these things gaining traction, but I find it less than honorable to ignore it the vast majority of the time but get chummy when it's convenient.

Avoiding "internal squabble" to this extent really looks bad. If you don't care, you don't care.

I have made it clear that I believe the mini-nuke and beam weapon theories are nonsense. Maybe you should do more yourself.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Maybe you should do more yourself.

Did you say do more bass practice? Great idea.

 

[ozeco41]

The following remarks apply to the "debunker community"; that is, the largest and most vocal segment which I could perceive over the years.

Before Chandler submitted his criticism
Freefall was explicitly denied. [SUP]1[/SUP]
Average acceleration was frequently and dishonestly derived from the time of first penthouse motion to final static pile. [SUP]2[/SUP]

After the submission and before the release of the final report
Freefall was explicitly denied.[SUP]3[/SUP]
Chandler was derided as an incompetent idiot.[SUP]4[/SUP]

After the release of the final report
Freefall ain't no thing but a chicken wing (i.e., freefall is no big deal) [SUP]5[/SUP]
Freefall is even expected![SUP]6[/SUP]
NIST merely acknowledged what they already knew (and... SAID), namely that freefall would occur, of course.[SUP]7[/SUP]
Chandler merely confirmed NISTs findings.[SUP]8[/SUP]
NIST's finding of (near or actual) freefall validates their earlier work.[SUP]9[/SUP]


That's a sad ****ing compilation right there.[SUP]10[/SUP]

That is an interesting perspective Kat - and it forced me to test my memory. Fwatits wurth we both need to be careful about 20/20 hindsight. Now some comments.

1 But in the context of "Whole of Building" free fall. Neither side was talking about sub-system or "bits" Except comparing near free falling perimeter panels which fell faster than the main body of the Twins. And remember the initiating framework was truther claims. Whether they should or should not debunkers tend to respond within the framework set by the truther claim. You've seen me decry that tactical error of debunkerdom many times.

2 I doubt "dishonestly" i.e. intentional - no doubt about "untruthfully" esp "untruthfully in hindsight when we get rid of the implicit limited context of whole of building"

3 Same error of context - remember (IIRC) Chandler and his supporters were presenting if as "whole building freefall".

4 Yes. But don't black and white it. his application of physics was - still is - poor AND is used untruthfully - claiming free fall == CD when it doesn't. Much of that could be the users of Chandler rather than the man himself.

5 Yes - happens to be true. The problem if there is one is that that specific truth wasn't identified earlier - by many. Still denied by some truthers AND not understood by some debunkers.

6 Try to avoid the implied false generalisation. Free fall of some portions is to be expected. True - despite many taking a while to get there and many still haven't.

7, 8, 9 Privilege of the winners to brag about it. Problem is that with WTC 9/11 the winners are mostly on one side.

10 It's been a learning process. The sad aspect here is that so many have been isolated from the learning. Some currently by their own choice.

And muse on this tidbit:

How many people agreed - accepted - argued for free fall averaging G for a period....

....whilst strenuously denying "over G". :doh :roll:

All same issue as the oft quoted research findings that showed:

"Half the Aussie population were above average intelligence" WHILST

"Half the XXXXX population were below average intelligence."

Then - "Why do white sheep eat more than black sheep"

etc...etc...etc

 

[Kat Dorman]

Didn't mean to let this one go unattended, but only so many hours in a day until I succeed in self-cloning.

That is an interesting perspective Kat - and it forced me to test my memory. Fwatits wurth we both need to be careful about 20/20 hindsight.

In most cases, it would be possible that my memory is faulty, but with this particular issue I was following the subject quite closely as it unfolded and formed my opinions at that time. My comments were explicitly stated also at that time, and haven't wavered since. I do base this impression primarily - but not exclusively - on threads at JREF and Physorg, which were exemplars for above-average debunking activity.

The reason I followed it closely is that I was already involved in measurements of displacement which was a nascent field at the time. Long before femr2, and before Chandler, I elevated the discourse considerably. I was the first one to quantify pre-release motion of WTC1. My interest in this has always been characterization of the dynamics, so naturally I followed issues related to this with atypical interest. I'd already determined that the visible portions of WTC7 were awfully damned quick in descent.

So quick it required explanation, from a mechanician's point of view. Not that there is no explanation, but there most certainly were none being offered at that time because debunkers were - to a one - stuck on the idea that freefall absolutely did not occur. The discussion did not rise to the level of considering that portions of the building might achieve or even exceed freefall while not "violating" any physical laws, freefall was off the table, period. So, the situation unfolded pretty much as my chronology indicates. Freefall remained off the table until the NISTians saw the holy script of NIST, then it was cool, likely even expected!

1 But in the context of "Whole of Building" free fall. Neither side was talking about sub-system or "bits"

Right. That was a big part of the problem. Why was this so? Unquestionably, it was due to debunkers giving priority to destroying truther talking points rather than making any attempt to quantify it. I've seen that phenomena in action more times than I remember.

Except comparing near free falling perimeter panels which fell faster than the main body of the Twins.

I've got an interesting study on that very thing here. It approaches the problem from a rigorous footing in mechanics and utilizes a simple CSP solver to enumerate all of the possible circumstances in which interior progression rate can appear (to the eye, and even most measurements) as keeping pace with or even outpacing panels falling in air. It's a bit cryptic because a lot of **** is condensed into one post, but I dare say it is the most sophisticated approach to the question I've seen employed, by far.

I know, I know, more self-congratulatory bull****. But, you know, at the time it wasn't anything like that. There was no fanfare. Look at how that post is tucked away on an obscure forum where no one will ever see it. Questions came up, and a straightforward solution was implemented. That's not debunking, that's computational experimentation to obtain the truth. And it's a case where a little math actually does answer the question of plausibility, not some ivory tower rot.

This is what should've been done with WTC7, and was by Greening and me together, and Chandler independently. We took our time and didn't come to any specific conclusions and, in the meantime, Chandler did his measurements and submitted a critique within the allotted NIST period. During this phase, there was a lot of heat at JREF and the emphasis was on "clearly Chandler is mistaken (because he's a truther)." I may have missed things, and you may find counterexamples, but that was the gist. I thought Chandler was wrong because I thought he was wrong. But I've recently conceded that his finding of freefall - FOR ONE POINT ON THE BUILDING - is likely valid. Certainly unassailable by me unless I devote ungodly hours to prove him wrong. Why? He may be right! Probably is. Also, there are other factors at play in interpreting the result, and I don't care that much anymore.

However, once I was provided with sufficient evidence to come to that conclusion, it took me all of about 5 minutes to concede and change my tune, i.e., admit I was wrong. That's what was missing at JREF. And usually is. 'Bad truther!' trumps actual truth.

 

[Kat Dorman]

And remember the initiating framework was truther claims.

Well, yeah, and the stunning thing is they turned out to be correct to the most basic letter (not details and implications).

Whether they should or should not debunkers tend to respond within the framework set by the truther claim. You've seen me decry that tactical error of debunkerdom many times.

Absolutely, and I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one. The post was meant as an overall indictment of debunker tactics and behavior and, as usual, you're excluded from the shotgun criticism. That I don't call that out specifically may be obnoxious since various audiences might not know what I take as a given.

For the record, DP forumites, Oz is NOT to be considered a 'debunker' when I speak disparagingly of debunkers.

That goes for quite a few other people, too, but if I get in a position of naming names, then anyone I forget at the moment could be offended. The real key to not being offended is to stop self-identifying as a debunker... truth is determined by the sweat of the brow, not by ideological concerns; if you know that, you're not a debunker as we generally know it. You may debunk things, but you're not a debunker any more than someone who plays sandlot is a baseball player.

2 I doubt "dishonestly" i.e. intentional - no doubt about "untruthfully" esp "untruthfully in hindsight when we get rid of the implicit limited context of whole of building"

If you mean dishonest in the sense of deliberately being misleading or promoting falsehoods with intent to deceive - which is the meaning - I agree it was not dishonest. What I meant and should've said was kneejerk ignorance.

3 Same error of context - remember (IIRC) Chandler and his supporters were presenting if as "whole building freefall".

Still do. At least the debunkers evolved when presented with suitable stimulus.

4 Yes. But don't black and white it. his application of physics was - still is - poor AND is used untruthfully - claiming free fall == CD when it doesn't. Much of that could be the users of Chandler rather than the man himself.

He does it, too. He's leading the charge in that regard. This prevents the conversation from moving forward and meeting in the middle... or rather more the debunker side of middle.

5 Yes - happens to be true. The problem if there is one is that that specific truth wasn't identified earlier - by many. Still denied by some truthers AND not understood by some debunkers.

I think there's still an interesting discussion to be had on the subject. Maybe I'll start a thread, maybe not. Just another time suck, haha!

6 Try to avoid the implied false generalisation.

What? That Chandler was derided as an idiot? He was. Still is. He, in my opinion, IS an idiot in many respects.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Free fall of some portions is to be expected.

Hm, I personally would downgrade that to 'is plausible'. I don't know of anyone who expected it in advance of the finding, do you? Did you? I didn't. The true mark of something being expected is it being expected BEFORE the outcome, not afterward. The fact that the discussion did not progress to this point prior to the outcome is not really an excuse (I knew there was differential motion even on the roofline). Again, there is still an interesting discussion to be had on the actual kinematics of WTC7.

True - despite many taking a while to get there and many still haven't.

In that sense, I have one foot in the "not there yet" camp. I am aware of and understand all the arguments, but I do have some rebuttals to those. In fact, I have one additional pro argument I haven't seen elsewhere. While it gets increasingly difficult to ignore g(+) by way of "provisional acceptance" of the measurements, I think the rush to patch over the finding with 'expected' scenarios which actually weren't expected runs ramshod over the larger issue: the building fell too goddamned fast.

Now listen up, everyone: I'm NOT saying the the building fell too fast, therefore it was CD. I'm saying simply it fell too fast. And too easily.

From an integrated systems perspective, this is an example of a metastable system far too close to catastrophic failure conditions while in an nominal operational envelope. I don't care about the unfought fires for 7 hours, nor the petty little rip down the side. Many buildings have endured much more and fared much better. It wouldn't even matter if any had; they SHOULD. Having a day of unfought fires will be the norm in any seismically active zone after an 8.0+. It would be funny (sad) if seismically qualified connections survive the initial shake, but a fire brings it down while rescue efforts are underway in the general area.

7, 8, 9 Privilege of the winners to brag about it. Problem is that with WTC 9/11 the winners are mostly on one side.

Yes, but I think this is one case (not the only one) where claiming title of 'winner' is unjustified. Scrambling for explanations only when that's the last recourse, so as to transform and patch over previous (contradictory!) arguments is a very weak way of winning.

 

[Kat Dorman]

I think there's still an interesting discussion to be had on the subject. Maybe I'll start a thread, maybe not. Just another time suck, haha!

Naturally, there already is one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...freefall-and-building-7-9-11-w-371-640-a.html

Wade through it, or not... ?

 

[Kat Dorman]

From the first few pages, I'd say no.

While it should be a good place for the topic of freefall, since that's the title, I doubt it. Ugh. I'm thinking about the physics end of it, mostly. Sigh.

 

[Mark F]

Naturally, there already is one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...freefall-and-building-7-9-11-w-371-640-a.html

Wade through it, or not... ?

Definitely not

 

[ozeco41]

Naturally, there already is one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...freefall-and-building-7-9-11-w-371-640-a.html

Wade through it, or not... ?

Not worth the effort.

 

[Bob0627]

Not worth the effort.

Nah, ignorance is always the best policy when it comes to 9/11. It's better to just bend over and accept everything one is fed by government and just automatically assume anything else or even any question comes from truthers, conspiracy theories or tin foil hat wackos.

 

[Fledermaus]

Nah, ignorance is always the best policy when it comes to 9/11. It's better to just bend over and accept everything one is fed by government and just automatically assume anything else or even any question comes from truthers, conspiracy theories or tin foil hat wackos.

Nah, ignorance is always the best policy when it comes to 9/11 TRUTH. It's better to just bend over and accept everything one is fed by fear mongers and liars out to make a buck on the intentionally ignorant.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Nah, ignorance is always the best policy when it comes to 9/11. It's better to just bend over and accept everything one is fed by government and just automatically assume anything else or even any question comes from truthers, conspiracy theories or tin foil hat wackos.

Speaking of those who "automatically assume".


The irony is delicious.