Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[femr2]

I was being serious though.

I'm sure you were, though my point stands...Pity you can't see all his errors.

You ... do the same intentionally obtuse / vague thing

Incorrect.

How did you establish the provenance of the DVD footage?

I didn't.

For example, how was it recorded, digitized, processed, encoded?

I can give you full technical details from the last chain forwards, but not any prior definitively. Given the quality, it's highly likely to be a digital mpeg-2 recode from a DV original.

What is clear, as I said, is that:

a) It wasn't grabbed from a television broadcast - Alternate interlaced fields have no inter-field bleed. It's a digitally interlaced file.

b) There was no inverse telecine applied - No inter-frame or inter-field blending or duplication confirmed by laborious manual checks, and the resulting trace data. would result in obvious data behaviours.

Both of the above can be checked and confirmed with the video data itself.

 

[DGM]

femr2:

Have you measured any drop (movement) in the roof line starting at the first sign of parameter wall buckling (or before that even)?

 

[femr2]

femr2:

Have you measured any drop (movement) in the roof line starting at the first sign of parameter wall buckling (or before that even)?

I'm afraid, for clarity, you'll have to refine the question.

Differentiating between vertical and horizontal movement.
Specifying what element of the roofline you mean.
Specifying what you mean by wall buckling, and in which region.

One thing that must be appreciated is that trace data always contains an amount of noise, which is why trend behaviour is stated, and why velocity curves (rather than displacement) are used to determine *release* points.

 

[DGM]

I'm afraid, for clarity, you'll have to refine the question.

Differentiating between vertical and horizontal movement.
Specifying what element of the roofline you mean.
Specifying what you mean by wall buckling, and in which region.

One thing that must be appreciated is that trace data always contains an amount of noise, which is why trend behaviour is stated, and why velocity curves (rather than displacement) are used to determine *release* points.

It's a little hard to rephrase. I'm curious about any visual effect the redistribution of loads through the "hat-truss" might have made. I'm thinking this might be the reason for the "antenna" movement. Obviously the "hat-truss" was under an enormous amount of stress.

 

[BasqueArch]

My last posts must have hit their mark.
Not a single refutal by Major Tom or his minion.

The antenna dropped when the center of the south wall failed. The building section rotated about 8 degrees and then fell vertically.

 

[BasqueArch]

Thanks BasqueArch. That was very clear and easy to understand.

Thanks carlitos. My gf thinks I'm wasting my time replying to True Believers, but perhaps there are others that will be helped. I dunno.

eta: however, she doesn't think watching videos of Maltese on cuteoverload is a waste of time

 

[femr2]

My last posts must have hit their mark.

Nope.

Not a single refutal by Major Tom or his minion.

I asked you a number of questions above, which you've ignored. The reason was to give you a nudge to actually drill into the detail.

I've also stated to Carlitos a couple of times already suggesting he's not able to spot your errors, and I guess you either don't know what they are, or choose not to recognise them.

I guess you want the more embarrasing response. No problem. I'll respond in detail to your posts in the morning (gives you a chance to respond to my previous questions, and gives me time to assemble the required detail...it'll be fairly lengthy.)

The antenna dropped when the center of the south wall failed.

You have NIST report blinkers on I'm afraid. (I think I'll call that NISTitis^TM from now on.)

The building section rotated about 8 degrees and then fell vertically.

There's just no excuse for this inept statement. NISTitis Nonsense.

 

[femr2]

Missed this bizarre post...

Let's just highlight this response, shall we? You claim to have data that may expose one of the greatest crimes of the decade and prove that the US Government deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 of its own citizens in order to create public support for two unjustified and illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East, but you refuse to publish this information until a group of people you don't know on an obscure Internet forum answer a series of yes/no questions even though you'll take no notice of the answers.

You have completely lost the plot.

I've claimed nothing of the sort.
I've made no mention of the US Government.
I've made no suggestion of finger-pointing.
I've made no comment on justification or legality of any conflicts, present or past.
I've not refused to give you my opinion on the 40 OP observations. How many of them do you think I disagree with ?
That I'd ignore your response is simply false. BasqueArch has stepped up and stated his viewpoint. What's your problem ?

In addition, even if you agree that each of the 40 OP observations is entirely correct, WHAT is it that makes you think that the result links to your mentioned elements ?

It looks far more like your own personal political viewpoint, which I have zero interest in I'm afraid.

Can you honestly expect, with such a petulant, childish and trivial excuse for inaction, to be taken seriously, ever, by anyone?

Dave

Have a look in the mirror Dave.

Bizarre post. Have a holiday mate.

 

[BasqueArch]

Nope.


I asked you a number of questions above, which you've ignored. The reason was to give you a nudge to actually drill into the detail.

I've also stated to Carlitos a couple of times already suggesting he's not able to spot your errors, and I guess you either don't know what they are, or choose not to recognise them.

I guess you want the more embarrasing response. No problem. I'll respond in detail to your posts in the morning (gives you a chance to respond to my previous questions, and gives me time to assemble the required detail...it'll be fairly lengthy.)


You have NIST report blinkers on I'm afraid. (I think I'll call that NISTitis^TM from now on.)


There's just no excuse for this inept statement. NISTitis Nonsense.

Bring it on.

 

[carlitos]

femr2 comfirms that he is a "no claimer." How exciting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've claimed nothing of the sort.
I've made no mention of the US Government.
I've made no suggestion of finger-pointing.
I've made no comment on justification or legality of any conflicts, present or past.

Not directly. However, it's obvious to anyone who's spent as much time as you have looking into this topic that those are the implications of your suggestion that there is some doubt as to whether the WTC collapses were caused by fire and impact, or by saome other unknown means. So please don't play the faux innocent card; we all know you're not that stupid.

I've not refused to give you my opinion on the 40 OP observations. How many of them do you think I disagree with ?

What you said in the post I replied to is that you refused to submit a paper until JREF members had answered the forty questions. That gives the strong impression that you have no interest in serious discussion, and that you're just playing Gotcha! games on the forum. If you want to be taken seriously, behave seriously.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Not directly. However, it's obvious to anyone who's spent as much time as you have looking into this topic that those are the implications of your suggestion

Nonsense. If there was additional nefarious activity it could have been undertaken by all manner of elements other than *da you ess gubmint*. You're talking utter crap.

Don't apply your own assumptions to me again.

To reiterate...

You claim to have data that may expose one of the greatest crimes of the decade and prove that the US Government deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 of its own citizens in order to create public support for two unjustified and illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East

...is utter fabrication. aka total lie. You have admitted such above.

What you said in the post I replied to is that you refused to submit a paper until JREF members had answered the forty questions.

Again, absolute nonsense.

Firstly, they are NOT questions. They are observations.

Secondly, I said I'll give my list of which of the observations I agree with after some of you lot have too.

Not surprising you're struggling with this stuff if you think it's a list of 40 questions. LOL.

I have no intention of submitting a paper at all.

That gives the strong impression that you have no interest in serious discussion, and that you're just playing Gotcha! games on the forum. If you want to be taken seriously, behave seriously.

ROFL.

Which of the 40 OP observations do you agree exist, and which do you disagree with ? If you have an issue with any of them, state why.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hey Femr,

Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals.

Bentham and JO911S don't count.

I await your papers. I will gladly pay to see them.

Yeah ?


Sure, no problemo...

...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's.

There is no reason for you not to.
Nothing for you to be afraid of.

I have no intention of submitting a paper at all.

So, just another lying time-waster.

Dave

 

[femr2]

So, just another lying time-waster.

Dave

Rather creative post-editing there Dave. Here is the actual to-and-fro...

Howsabout you do this simple thing...

State clearly which of the 40 OP observations you agree with, and which you don't. To speed the process further, include your reasons for those you don't agree with.

Why don't you do the same.

Sure, no problemo...

...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's.

Stop making a fool of yourself Dave.

 

[tsig]

Nonsense. If there was additional nefarious activity it could have been undertaken by all manner of elements other than *da you ess gubmint*. You're talking utter crap.

Don't apply your own assumptions to me again.

To reiterate...

...is utter fabrication. aka total lie. You have admitted such above.


Again, absolute nonsense.

Firstly, they are NOT questions. They are observations.

Secondly, I said I'll give my list of which of the observations I agree with after some of you lot have too.

Not surprising you're struggling with this stuff if you think it's a list of 40 questions. LOL.

I have no intention of submitting a paper at all. ROFL.

Which of the 40 OP observations do you agree exist, and which do you disagree with ? If you have an issue with any of them, state why.

Why should anybody care about your 40 arbitrary observations?

 

[femr2]

Why should anybody care about your 40 arbitrary observations?

1) Not my observations
2) They form the point of the thread
3) If you have no interest in the thread topic, don't comment

 

[Dave Rogers]

Rather creative post-editing there Dave. Here is the actual to-and-fro...

I didn't edit any posts at all, and you can scroll up and look at them if you like. You're the one who's edited the post you were replying to. You've edited down triforcharity's request from "Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals" to "Why don't you do the same", and everybody can see you've done it.

Not just a liar, but a stupid liar.

Dave

 

[femr2]

I didn't edit any posts at all

Yes, you did. You brought back elements of the post that had nothing to do with my response. That is the creative editing to which I refer.

You incorrectly stated that I was talking about writing a paper, which I clearly was not. You are clearly aware of the actual context.

I've stated repeatedly during this thread that I have no intention of writing a paper.

You're making a fool of yourself.

You've edited down triforcharity's request from "Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals" to "Why don't you do the same"

Absolutely. That is the portion I responded to at the time, and the context of my reply is abundently clear.

That you are trying to infer otherwise is laughable. Get a grip. Flailing around trying to justify your inept interpretation is not doing you any favours.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, you did. You brought back elements of the post that had nothing to do with my response. That is the creative editing to which I refer.

Ah, I see. Triforcharity asked you a question, you edited the question, replied to a different question, didn't tell anyone, and expected everyone to figure out that the "Why don't you do the same" you were replying to didn't mean the same thing as when triforcharity asked it. And then, when I assume you were answering the question triforcharity actually asked - which, as triforcharity made perfectly clear was "why don't you publish a paper" - you thought I must be losing the plot.

Well, if you're operating under that level of self-deception and confusion, no wonder you think the rest of the world doesn't make sense.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Ah, I see.

Good. About time.

Triforcharity asked you a question, you edited the question

No, I didn't.

He asked a question...

Why don't you do the same

...as response to my question...

Howsabout you do this simple thing...

State clearly which of the 40 OP observations you agree with, and which you don't. To speed the process further, include your reasons for those you don't agree with.

His additional suggestion to then take that response and assemble a paper is entirely separate, and nothing to do with the direct point-to-point discussion.

Not good with the English language Dave ?

That you misinterpreted, fine. That you go off on a ridiculous tangent making stupid accusations is another thing entirely.

It's ridiculous that I'm having to waste my time with your nonsense, which seems more about trying to pull yourself out of making your prior ridiculous accusations.

Well, if you're operating under that level of self-deception and confusion, no wonder you think the rest of the world doesn't make sense.

Again, look in the mirror Dave.

Again, I have no intention of writing a paper, and have not suggested that I do, nor have I even inferred that I would after you lot do the trivially simple thing of just stating which of the 40 OP blindingly simple observations you disagree with.

So, yet again...

Which of the 40 OP observations do you agree exist, and which do you disagree with ? If you have an issue with any of them, state why.