NIST has no evidence, the official "Story" is DEAD

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Apr 7, 2013.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    well the sap software that nist used forst off does not allow for freefall and anyone with a stop watch can time it and woola the real building freefell.

    So their model lies about that.

    second please try and keep up, I said the left corner on the model caves prior to the right corner movement which is fraud because it did not happen that way on the real building. So be my guest, deny it LOL
     
  2. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Idiot boy Chandler does not allow for the fact that the spot he was measuring was moving away from him. Note, too, that the full-ength version shows the walls at the base bulging outward as the shell collapses. Stand on a chair and allow someone to kick it out from under you and measure how long it takes you to fall.

    Even if accurate, that clown Chandler proved nothing.

    The model shows a slightly longer lag than real life, but the left did move first. That is why the kink formed. This is not that complicated.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I said the left corner not the roof kink

    that and the roof kink in the model even happens in a different place than the real building more fraud.

    fraud upon fraud upon more fraud
     
  4. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How careless of NIST. They should have edited the animation so that it matched EXACTLY what the live footage showed. That way no basement dwelling Internet detectives would have discovered their "error" and accused them of fraud, eh?

    Instead they gathered data which resulted in a model that replicates 99% of what happened on video but because 1 window broke in the model before the same window broke in real life, it proves that they were just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to cover for the government.

    Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    well your joking is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and has no basis in anything but bul(*)(*)(*)(*).

    they did not make just an error the whole things is fully of what you would like to label error as their apologist.

    However you are welcome to prove it was an "error" along with the rest of them. Especially since it made a model that in no way goes down the same way the real building did.

    Even a child with no knowledge of except to see the two pictures spotted the glaring differences.

    be my guest how ever apologize for them but then dont forget to prove it was error and factual data.

    good luck with that
     
  6. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The computer produced what would happen with only the known damage. A butterfly fart would deflect it in part. You got another shiment of FAIL.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    thats right that is what computers do, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.

    yes we understand your problem only too well! LMAO

    [​IMG]
     
  8. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still have not shown that the model is wrong in any major way. Nobody will ever have the exact data needed to produce a model that exactly matches what we can observe and that a ranting psychotic like Chandler will accept.
     
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The model is meant to demonstrate the mechanism of collapse. The model is not meant to track the position of every element of the building at any given point in time.
     
  10. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Another point which needs to be stressed is that these models and conclusions are not set in stone. NIST clearly state that their conclusions are based on their most probable collapse hypothesis. They are not stating this is 100% what happened millisecond by millisecond, they are simply stating that after an elaborate investigation by them, based on the known variables, models, and visual observations, that the most probable collapse initiation and sequence is what they base their conclusions on.

    Of course, there is always room for correction, for example several people hypothesised that not only did the thermal expansion weaken the structure, but also the contraction of the steel after the fire had left the area. Ryan Mackey, for example, talks about how the contraction of steel beams after they begin to cool, would have created a 'pull' effect which could have acted to help dislodge key structural members.

    But it should be noted that NIST, and many others, put the cause of collapse as a direct consequence of the prolonged, un-fought fires. Again, the collapse hypothesis is not going to be 100% correct, but it is the best, most probably collapse hypothesis which can be determined.

    Truthers like to fool others, and themselves, but claiming that because they don't know 100%, it must therefore be all wrong. Basically, it's like having a 1,000 piece puzzle with 2 pieces missing. Truthers deny the remaining 998 pieces show a picture, and instead focus on the 2 pieces missing and call the entire picture a lie.
     
  11. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never claimed it was an error. I said they gathered data that resulted in a model.

    And you have yet to prove that they were wrong, committed fraud, or were lying.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    thats right a model does not track anything, it would duplicate and show the demolition precisely the same as we see it on the real building. that is the sole purpose of simulation software.


    [​IMG]
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83

    no one can prove anything to someone in denial but it has already been proven. you just blinked and missed it.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    well then they admit its bull(*)(*)(*)(*) anyway.

    they most likey consulted leftys genie. :eyepopping:
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    so are you color blind or suffering from astigmatism double vision, to much to drink maybe? Whats the problem that that you are unable to see there is no simularity here?


    [​IMG]
     
  16. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please show me where it has been proven because you know . . .

    I guess if you can't produce those documents then by your own standards, you must be lying.
     
  17. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The computer model is what should have happened to the structure to the extent that they could calculate where any element was. The problem is that the fires and the resulting warpage of the steel moved a lot of minor elements around.

    The fire was a massive butterfly fart and no model can be entirely accurate because the data are simply unobtainable for specific regions. Globally, it is as accurate as they can get.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    what documents

    its been proven get glasses
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    well you finally admitted that they made all that (*)(*)(*)(*) up
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,469
    Likes Received:
    20,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No kidding, I just wonder when you will get your head out of your behind?
     
  21. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    *sigh

    Ignore entire post, cherry pick one part, remove all context. There is no dialog with koko. What a waste of time. He does not, and will never, get it.

    I think koko-no-planer is going on the ignore list very soon.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He lost me when he insisted electricity wasn't a form of energy
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    soon as you get yours out of the way....ewwwww
     
  24. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But you said the only way to prove a lie is with certified documents. You said so right here.

    And if the person can't produce those documents he is lying. So were you lying?

    Koko is a no-planer?? :smile:

    LOL. I must have missed that one. But then I have been gone for awhile.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    i know that was a good one still laughing about that one, caught you all in one clean sweep

    - - - Updated - - -

    in some cases there are other ways. I have just shown you.
     

Share This Page