Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[femr2]

You are comedy

Bless.

trying to back in CD after 9 years.

Where ?

You study stuff which means nothing, and you have no goal, no objective, no thesis, no nothing, which ends up nowhere.

Incorrect. I've just stated one of the major benefits of the trace data, and it's quite a biggie. If you can't grasp why it's important, then...well, bless.

Your data has discontinuity in it

Which data, where ?

and you never close the loop to correct your errors

What errors ?

explain your errors

What errors ?

or correct your lies

No lies.

your implied lies

No implied lies (whatever the hell they are ) either.

You make up fake ways to study stuff

Incorrect. You simply and clearly don't understand the methods used, nor their validity.

that goes nowhere

Incorrect, early motion proof being a prime example.

Never did correct your errors in 175 speeds

I've never calculated 175 speeds. Looks like you are getting me confused with others. Might explain a lot of your nonsensical ramblings.

after showing what appears to be data problems due to lens zooming.

You are mixing impact orientation and trajectory parameter errors on the part of NIST with calculations of *speed*

And no, nothing to do with *lens zooming* (again, your use of such terminology shows your understanding of the subject to be rather lacking). The NIST Flight 175 impact orientation and trajectory base data is wrong. Quite badly wrong. Their method for determining it was fatally flawed. Mine is cool

You have no clue what error models are

Incorrect.

and as you take data readings out well past their resolution limits

Incorrect. Focus is on trend, not readings, a point neither you nor tfk ever managed to grasp.

you fail to post the error budgets associated with the system.

To a certain extent, correct, but if you can understand the implication of my point above (trend, not reading) you should see that specific error bands (again, terminology Beachnut. tfk would be doing his nut by now. lol.) are not required to make the observations I have, namely early motion beginning at around time (x).

You study the collapse, a system which means nothing

Utter nonsense.

and you refuse to set goals, or explain what you are trying to prove.

Again, incorrect.

If your studies were not nonsense, they would be published in a journal.

Incorrect.

Got a date for that

As I've said, I have no intention of publishing in journals, but feel free to cite my data and results wherever you please (as long as you acknowledge your source )

any goals set?

Of course, stated many times.

Have you fixed your data?

What problem with what dataset ? (I have no doubt you will ignore these questions. You know full well you are talking crap.)

No, you will blame others for your failed data and ignore your errors.

Incorrect. If there is a problem with any specific set of my data that you have identified and can prove to be incorrect, then by all means highlight it. If there's a problem, and not just your lack of understanding, then I'll of course resolve the issue.

You can't go back and fixed what you made up in the first place using your own made up analysis system.

A particularly stupid thing to say Beachnut. The data can be generated by anyone with the inclination to do so. All the data can be verified. Given that you have stated problems with it, please show me your analysis.

Good luck.

No luck required. Go back up all your feeble accusations Beachnut. Good luck.

 

[femr2]

My guess is none.

Contextually specious.

You need to show explosives (or boom) were needed and exactly how much.

No I don't. We've discussed the context before.

 

[DGM]

No I don't. We've discussed the context before.

Yes we have. There is a perfectly acceptable theory that is well backed by science and observations of the day. There has never been any reason shown to think there should be "booms". So why study what they would have sounded like? I believe this is the point you never address.

 

[femr2]

Having seen your work here, you are trying waaaaaay too hard to avoid the obvious that automatically refutes the nonsense you just wrote.

Nonsense. I'm not trying hard at all. I'm not even looking at the audio path pot at the moment. I might get around to it at some point, but there's no rush.

You know damn well that any significant blast noise would be picked up by a Radio Shack microphone miles away from the source.

No, I don't know the true and correct behaviour, and would of course not make the argument so thin. Response pattern of directional microphone on broadcast camera, or perhaps being held by another person nearby. Pointing in what direction ?

There's all manner of loud sound sources that many mics just don't pick up.

Ever miked up a drum kit ?

Ever noticed how little you hear the bass drum on the other mics ?

Case in point.

Which would suggest that there are potentially dozens, if not a hundred, different recording points within a 2 or 3 mile radius of GZ.

The level of exaggeration is always funny.

I'd imagine a small *boom* in the middle of the central core up near the roof would be picked up by, well, not a lot.

All I'm saying is PROVE that previous sentence to be wrong. It may well be. SAYING it's wrong is hand-waving. Prove it. Complex sound wave propogation rendering through reasonable accurate tower model to reasonable well modelled microphone ahoy...

Yet, none of them pick up the faintest inclination of a *boom* immediately prior to any of the building collapses.

Have you actually checked them ? What frequency bands did you analyse ?

Quit trying to bury your head in the sand.

Not I.

You may choose to trust your belief system that a boom would be picked up, but get ye busy and prove it my lad.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread today, early motion data.

You think I'm looking for a *boom* just before the buildings drop ? HA HA.

 

[femr2]

So why study what they would have sounded like? I believe this is the point you never address.

I've addressed it directly to you on several occasions.

The reason is that folk (perhaps including yourself) have repeatedly state as PROVEN FACT that...because there is no BOOM in audio track X that PROVES there was no BOOM at location X in tower Y.

That's just nonsense. The lack of boom in the audio PROVES f'all...until at the very least SOME kind of simulation is run to determine what the limiting cases are.

 

[DGM]

Ever miked up a drum kit ?

yes.

Ever noticed how little you hear the bass drum on the other mics ?

Case in point.

If you look at the raw tracks, it is still there. Filters are funny like that (or frequency specific mics).

 

[carlitos]

I would just like to compliment the many audio-savvy JREF posters who have resisted the temptation to do what femr2 suggests.

 

[DGM]

I've addressed it directly to you on several occasions.

The reason is that folk (perhaps including yourself) have repeatedly state as PROVEN FACT that...because there is no BOOM in audio track X that PROVES there was no BOOM at location X in tower Y.

That's just nonsense. The lack of boom in the audio PROVES f'all...until at the very least SOME kind of simulation is run to determine what the limiting cases are.

Your augment is to prove that an argument used to argue against an argument with no point in the first place somehow makes the original reason for the argument valid (now that's spin). Point is, there still is no reason to think boom so, why study the sound.

Goes back to the original burden of proof.

 

[femr2]

If you look at the raw tracks, it is still there. Filters are funny like that (or frequency specific mics).

Depends on the mic set, and the specific setup. If done well, it's amazingly difficult to find the bass on some of the other mics. A big boom right near a mic, and it barely registers

 

[femr2]

why study the sound

Don't say... *no boom on recording (x) proves no boom at location * ...and we're all fine

 

[DGM]

Depends on the mic set, and the specific setup. If done well, it's amazingly difficult to find the bass on some of the other mics.

Difficult for the ear.

A big boom right near a mic, and it barely registers

Ah, no.

 

[DGM]

Don't say... *no boom on recording (x) proves no boom at location * ...and we're all fine

I'm good with that.




Now, convince the "truthers" to give up on CD without proof (or specific reason to believe).


Deal?

 

[femr2]

Now, convince the "truthers" to give up on CD without proof (or specific reason to believe).


Deal?

Well, I'll be putting the early motion details in video form at some point soon, which might change a few perspectives, but I'm not at all inclined to spend time ad infinitum correcting the no-planers, space beamers, and mini-nukers, a-la my opening post on the thread that got merged in here and resulted in the ensuing discussion of motivation.

 

[DGM]

Well, I'll be putting the early motion details in video form at some point soon, which might change a few perspectives

Unless you can specify how much explosives were needed, I hope you are not going to imply CD.

 

[triforcharity]

Depends on the mic set, and the specific setup. If done well, it's amazingly difficult to find the bass on some of the other mics. A big boom right near a mic, and it barely registers

Do bass rums typically produce 140 db?


My guess is..............not even close.

 

[Sabretooth]

You may choose to trust your belief system that a boom would be picked up, but get ye busy and prove it my lad.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread today, early motion data.

You think I'm looking for a *boom* just before the buildings drop ? HA HA.

Whoa. You're suggesting that explosives were detonated, the building stood for (x) time, then fell?

Quiet explosives that destroy things a few seconds after they detonate? Do you proof-read what you write?

On December 27, 1983, there was a large propane tank explosion in a warehouse located in the city of Buffalo. The explosion was heard up to 7.5 miles away. You going to have a real hard time explaining to me how an explosion strong enough to initiate a building collapse was quiet enough to not be picked up by recording equipment within 2 miles of its source.

 

[femr2]

Unless you can specify how much explosives were needed, I hope you are not going to imply CD.

Presenting details of early motion points firmly in the direction of refuting the notion of explosives initiating descent...a-la the vast majority of MIHOP hypotheses.

I would have though that was pretty obvious. Where does the imply you write come from ?

 

[femr2]

Do bass rums typically produce 140 db?


My guess is..............not even close.

Why guess ? Depends upon how mental the drummer is, but 110dB is not unreasonable.

A couple of feet from a mic and insignificant to the ears relative to the sound of a hi-hat that mic is *listening to*. All good stuff

 

[carlitos]

Even worse than conspira-spanking is just plain-old spanking.

If someone wants to discuss audio measurement, they should start a thread in the science sub-forum.

 

[femr2]

Whoa. You're suggesting that explosives were detonated, the building stood for (x) time, then fell?

I've made no such suggestion.

Quiet explosives that destroy things a few seconds after they detonate? Do you proof-read what you write?

It appears you are reading something other than what I;ve written. Quote me saying such.

You [are] going to have a real hard time explaining to me how an explosion strong enough to initiate a building collapse was quiet enough to not be picked up by recording equipment within 2 miles of its source.

Explain to you? What ? What is the smallest amount of nefarious activity required for, say, WTC 1 ?