Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Nice post editing there.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6596204#post6596204
shows the post you replied to before you edited it, in context of the thread. But I see that you only posted your edit, out of context. Now why would you want to do a thing like that?
Dave
There is no list of 40 observations in the OP. There is a list of 40 links.
I looked at the links in order.
Some of the links link to photos or videos (some with, some without, accompanying claims as to what the image shows), some to discussion threads, some to essays and graphs.
First link: "Ejection from 75th floor during AA11 impact."
This links to a photograph that shows an unexplained dark rectangular spot at about 75th floor level, in a single still photo from a single camera.
An ejection of what, by what mechanism? No rationale or evidence is offered for calling it an ejection. It doesn't look like smoke or any other fluid substance to me, hence not likely an ejection from the 75th floor. It left no smudge or mark on the building that is visible in any later images. There is no confirmation of any visible ejected substance from any other angle or any other photo in the same series. A piece of falling debris? A shadow? I don't know.
Yes or no? Yes, I agree that a photograph with a dark patch exists. No, I don't accept the speculation that it is an ejection as in any way reliable. So, change the title of the first "observation" to "Unexplained dark patch on single photo of WTC1 during AA11 impact" and I would have no objection, but as it is, a "yes" answer would be too readily misrepresented as agreement with the unsupported assertion that the dark patch is an ejection from the 75th floor, so my answer has to be no, on the basis of insufficient evidence for the claimed nature of the phenomenon.
Second link: "Damage to basement and lobby."
This is not a link to an observation, it is a link to a forum thread, in which multiple observations are presented and discussed. This includes such items as pictures of plants in the lobby that are still green in color and therefore, it is claimed, show that nothing much could have happened in the lobby at all. So is the observation that there was damage or that there wasn't damage? We have multiple sources of observations that there was damage to the basement and lobby. A link to a forum thread does not make any clear claim in particular about that damage.
Yes or no? I agree that there was damage to the basement and lobby but beyond that no clear claim is made to agree or disagree with. A "yes" answer would be too readily misrepresented as agreement with everything claimed in the entire discussion thread linked to (including mutually contradictory claims in the course of discussion) so my answer has to be no, on the basis of the claim being too ambiguous to agree with.
Third link: "Fire and smoke ejections as WTC2 is struck"
There do appear to have been an increased rate of smoke ejection from WTC1 as WTC2 was struck, and the linked images appear adequate to show that.
The accompanying text, however, is highly questionable: "A type of shock wave is a possibility, though by observing the smoke we can see that the initial ejections in question happen before the pressure wave affects the surrounding smoke along the facade. You can then see the effects of the pressure wave hitting the facade moments later, followed by an underpressure wave, by the way the smoke moves." What that text is calling pressure waves appear in the video to be thermal updraft from the fireball (and in any case are moving much more slowly than a pressure wave could). Meanwhile, the most likely explanation for the ejections, which is an actual pressure wave propagated inside the building via the shared basement floors, goes unmentioned.
This applies to smoke ejections. The single instance of fire ejection shown in the video appears to be a pulsing flame out of one window, which is pulsing before the AA11 impact in a manner completely consistent with normal fire, and continues pulsing afterward, so no causal connection with the AA11 impact is apparent.
Note that the text gives no time marks for the video so any claims that I'm erroneously looking at the "wrong" features in the wrong segments are the claimants' problem, not mine. The sole still photo is claimed to show "the moment the ejection was first visible" but there is no way to confirm this from a still photo (as the fire was emitting smoke before the impact in the typically chaotic manner of turbulent fluid flow so a significant increase in the rate of smoke emission must be shown) and no description of the method by which this "moment" was determined is offered.
Yes or no? I agree that some increase in smoke emission near the time of the AA11 impact was observed, but I cannot agree with all the elements of the claimed observation in toto. No evidence for causality in the fire ejection, unclarity (no video time marks, no methodology for determining the first moment claimed for the still photo) in the reference to supporting evidence, and discussion that omits the most obvious and likely explanation for the phenomena that are shown, adds up to "no."
Fourth link: "Strong fire ejections as WTC2 collapses"
Yes, there do appear to be fire ejections from the fire floors of WTC1 near the time of the WTC2 collapse, and the linked videos and stills show this adequately.
But, the accompanying text says: "Visual evidence which demonstrates that 'something; big happened to the south wall of WTC1 at 9:59, just as WTC2 was collapsing."
Nope, the evidence does not demonstrate that. As with the previous item, the most likely explanation for the phenomenon, in this case overpressure caused by the crushing of basement areas propagated up from the basement floors inside the building, is omitted. Instead, straw man explanations regarding elevators or exterior winds are vigorously attacked. At the same time, no explanation of what the "something big" that happened to the south wall (with no visible movement of the south wall) or how that "something" could have caused the fire ejections ejections are offered. (Even omitting the most obvious causal connection with the collapse of WTC2, wouldn't "something big" happening to the floors/ceilings of WTC1, rather than its south wall, be a better explanation?)
Yes or no? There are fire ejections, sure enough, but they do not show that "something big happened to the south wall of WTC1" at that time. So, overall, no.
Fifth link: "Inward bowing of the south perimeter"
We're 0 for 4, but here it is, the big chance for a "yes." Everyone knows the inward bowing happened, there's plenty of evidence for it, including the linked photos in the link, and NIST not only acknowledges it but bases some of its conclusions on it, as the accompanying quotes show.
But the accompanying text also claims: "But if the core went first at a tilt angle of less than 1 degree, all this seems like bunk."
Yes or no? "But if the core went first at a tilt angle of less than 1 degree, all this seems like bunk" is not an observational claim I can agree with. So overall the answer must be "no."
At this point we're 0 for 5, so though there are 35 more to go, I don't see any point in continuing.
Regardless of which specific claims anyone agrees or disagrees with, the basic problem is that the overall claim here, that what is offered in the OP is a list of simple observations suitable for "agree yes/no" responses, is false and has now been demonstrated false. It is a list of links not observations, and the links refer to various mixtures of observation, photographic evidence, subjective description, argumentation, discussion, theorizing, opinion, and editorializing.
If you were to present a list that is limited to actual observations along with the supporting evidence for each observation, then yes/no responses (along with some chance that some responses will be yes) will be more likely to be forthcoming.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Oh my many gods.
How completely anal are you ?
I'm linking to the discussion. No attempt to mislead in the slightest.
Yet again...I have no intention to write a paper, never said I did, never implied I did. I've pointed out how you misinterpreted the discussion. I've pointed out the context of the discussion.
Get a grip. If you want me to list out the many times prior to that juncture which I stated I have no intention of writing a paper, no problemo, but later. This is very boring. Misinterpreting my response given the numerous clarifications is just dumb.
Have a nice day. And, of course, for the terminally inept, if anyone quotes the preceeding sentence, without including this one, it does not imply that you are agreeing to this one, in which I am saying you are a fool, fool
Now then...
Which of the 40 OP (ETA: feature descriptions) do you agree with, and which do you disagree with ? If you have an issue with any of them, state why.
Last edited:
A reasonable suggestion, and exactly the kind of feedback I imagine MT is after.
I'll have a run through your finer detail asap. The prior nonsense has eaten my available time.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You're linking to your own edit of the post you pretended I edited when I presented it in full. You're still trying to pretend that your edit of triforcharity's post is in some way the real post, and the real post isn't. And the more you say it, the more ridiculous you look.
I think Myriad's post sums it up very nicely. In every case, there is commentary attached to the "observation". To sum it up, Major Tom is committing a carefully disguised variant on the Complex Question Fallacy.
Dave
There is indeed a plethora of additional detail and commentary attached to each.
I have no issue with Myriad making such a response, and it's exactly the kind of dialogue that should have ensued from the OP well over 300 posts ago.
A much more productive use of time than your recent behaviour.
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
"femr2: Post 324
Oh my many gods.
How completely anal are you ?
I'm linking to the discussion. No attempt to mislead in the slightest."
Hmmm....Post # 253 and 254 shows the discussion in it full context..and show you said you would submit a paper on this topic to a respectable journal for proper peer review "No Problemo".
Just curious..if you still want to stick by the idiotic lie that you were not saying you would submit your 'paper' for 'peer review'...why would you mention, and I qoute
"once you and your, er, peers ..."
..in your reply?
Please, be succint in your answer.
AHAHAHA Yet another time you messed up...
Oh my many gods.
How completely anal are you ?
I'm linking to the discussion. No attempt to mislead in the slightest."
Hmmm....Post # 253 and 254 shows the discussion in it full context..and show you said you would submit a paper on this topic to a respectable journal for proper peer review "No Problemo".
Just curious..if you still want to stick by the idiotic lie that you were not saying you would submit your 'paper' for 'peer review'...why would you mention, and I qoute
"once you and your, er, peers ..."
..in your reply?
Please, be succint in your answer.
AHAHAHA Yet another time you messed up...
Last edited:
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Femr2..I was hopeful this would jog that faulty memory of yours...2nd time posted:
Post # 253:
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.
Posted by triforcharity
Post # 254
Reply by femr2
Sure, no problemo...
...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's
Post # 253:
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.
Posted by triforcharity
Post # 254
Reply by femr2
Sure, no problemo...
...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's
Last edited:
Everyone present. You are one of them, however much that may embarrass some of the other members here.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Our recent behaviour. Don't try to pretend anyone's been forcing you to respond.
And, in fact, the OP is no less a waste of time, in that it is not the simple list of observations it claims to be, but instead a collection of speculation and selective interpretation.
Dave
Dave, the list of features is just a video and data record of what actually occurred.
There are over 40 features. Which ones do you think are speculative?
I would argue that it is your own denial of measured and recorded events that is being challenged, not the items on the list.
As far as I can tell, most of the posters are in total denial that the building moved quite differently than the NIST description illustrated by R Mackey and Greg Urich.
There are over 40 features. Which ones do you think are speculative?
I would argue that it is your own denial of measured and recorded events that is being challenged, not the items on the list.
As far as I can tell, most of the posters are in total denial that the building moved quite differently than the NIST description illustrated by R Mackey and Greg Urich.
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
I will just chalk your complete fruadulent avoidance of why you used 'PEERS' in your reply up to 'more of the same'
Please continue doing what you do kid...it makes for good reading and heavy humour.
Once again..for dexterity sake:
Post # 253:
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.
Posted by triforcharity
Post # 254
Reply by femr2
Sure, no problemo...
...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's
Remember, according to you, you never agreed to publish your paper in a peer reviewed paper.
NO PROBLEMO...AHAHAAH
Looks like you just illustrated that you don't know the meaning of the word. Crikey.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
The big problem here as I see it is that you are simultaneously claiming that your measurements show that the antenna was moving independantly to the building (a 2ft drop and "hook" curve) while also using the variance in the distance between 2 points on the antenna to determine the building's tilt.
That's not even mentioning the difficulty of determining tilt by measuring tiny, sub pixel, variations in these distances. Assuming the antenna is rigidly attached to the building, over 3° the difference in perceived distance between your ant and ball features amounts to 220mm , slightly less than the pixel size in the video.
I really don't see how you can maintain both of these positions.
MT,
I asked "where is the same antenna tilt vs. frame no. analysis of video taken from camera looking at WTC1 closest to 90° (either direction) from the Sauret video?
No answer yet.
I asked "how did you determine the location of the cameras?
No answer yet.
Any time now...
I asked "where is the same antenna tilt vs. frame no. analysis of video taken from camera looking at WTC1 closest to 90° (either direction) from the Sauret video?
No answer yet.
I asked "how did you determine the location of the cameras?
No answer yet.
Any time now...
Last edited:
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
^^ This.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871