ozeco41
Philosopher
While I may disagree with femr2 on some of the 9/11 stuff.... my version.
The claim "the cloudless sky is blue" is either true or false no matter who makes it.
Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
While I may disagree with femr2 on some of the 9/11 stuff.... my version.
The claim "the cloudless sky is blue" is either true or false no matter who makes it.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Using the nitpicking to claim that there were bombs in the building is a little disingenuous to say the least. Instead of quibbling about semantics,femr2 should be telling us how it was done. That is what interests me,not definitions of gravity and energy which he doesn't understand.
It's the responses of others that muddy the waters if you ask me. If you look at what I actually write it's fairly clear imo.
I'm not at all interested in discussion of *the big picture* as some here call it, nor do I have any intention of furnishing any demands for such, especially given their continnual nonsense.
Early motion is a critical part of understanding the building behaviour, not just for WTC7, but WTC1 and WTC2 also.
If you track back through my discussion here, the vast majority of it is related to determining whether there is any actual evidence of progressive tilt/creep/... not just by assuming it is there, or theorising that it should or must be.
Bizarre. I've not seen such. Being part of the bunch of folk promoting things like ROOSD and implications of early motion (both of which sit in opposition to many existing *theories*) the opposite seems true.Good luck with that. I'm not sure he knows. He does get a lot of "atta-boys" and "back-pats" on "truther" sites for all his "hard work".
More accurately, many folk here criticise whatever I say, regardless of the validity, simply because of their opinion of which *camp* I sit in. Similarly those in other *camps* do the same the other way around. That behaviour shows me that most folk are not at all interested in actually doing anything apart from baiting each other. Boring. I don't want to be bundled into ANY camp. Die-hard *debunkers* are morons, as are die-hard *twoofers*.
Therefore, the very LAST thing I shall do is add a full-stop to viewpoint on the *big picture*.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Then the answer to the question I asked was "nothing". You have deduced nothing more from your motion analysis than the conclusion already reached by analysis of window breakage and superficial audio analysis. All you've done is taken a longer, more complex and more difficult route to get to a place all of us were at already. As for...
That detail alone requires the majority of that group you call *twoofers* to re-think their position at a number of fundamental levels, and you criticise me for doing so ? What a joke
Do you honestly think the Tony Szambotis of this world will even pause for breath before simply asserting that the pre-collapse movement is the result of smaller pre-weakening charges going off prior to the main demolition charges, and is thus not disproof, but further proof, of explosives?
Dave
<tips hat>
No, motion beginning around 100s in advance of release has been identified. Much earlier than previously identified. The data is much more *absolute* by being taken from specific building features over lengthy periods of time...it's not abstracted or inferred (such as is the case for window breakage).
I'm sure you are right, however I don't need to change the world. I do what I do for my own purposes. If it alters the viewpoint of others (as it certainly should do for some) that's fine.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Actually Clinger I meant to include you in that listing as well.....I've read some of your stuff.....and it's good work.
I agree.....but when someone starts claiming I'm somehow defending truthers overall theories because I agree with a truther and disagree with a debunker on the use of a technical term...well that is beyond retarded...
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
To prove that bombs were planted in the buildings? By whom and how and when and why and what happened to the passengers and...................
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
I don't think my latest assessment of femr2's intentionally vague motives is a result of tribalism. I stand by it. He pretends to study these phenomena for their own sake, with no motive or goal. Same as he did with "pods" and his "demolition" youtubes. I don't believe him. At least his anti-vaccine paranoia videos are honest in their motives, if not in their content*. I like my dishonest fear-mongering delivered in a straightforward manner, with full disclosure as to motive.
*mercury causes autism, etc., swine flu paranoia, etc.
*mercury causes autism, etc., swine flu paranoia, etc.
Last edited:
Regardless of your *assessment*, I'm afraid you're wrong.
Good for you. It's wrong by the way.
Incorrect.
Bless.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Making a claim, i.e."there were bombs in the building" is not what I would call nitpicking, nor what I was referring to. A contention/claim/theory is exactly that. 'Nit picking' is a vernacular reference to one correcting another person's usage of wording.
If someone said that a car drove by at a "high rate of speed" , I would correct them by pointing out that 'speed' is a 'rate' and thus "rate of speed" is at best redundant and literally incorrect regardless of whether or not I would agree that the speed of the car was high ('for a car' being implied).
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The discussion about 'into its footprint' did little other than point out that although on the face of it the term is precise, it is however a subjective term in usage. Sure the 'footprint' of a structure is defined by the area of its base and that is the common usage when speaking about intact structures for discussions about the impact of said structure in the urban envoroment. However when one starts using this term when describing a structure that has collapsed by any means at all, whether it be one that succumbed to fire or one that was deliberatly brought down with explosives, its usage ALWAYS becomes subjective. There is no destruction of any building, anywhere(at least I defy anyone to find one) in which the debris is totally confined to the original footprint of the structure.
(long winded but bear with me)
"near free fall speed" is obviously a subjective term and techically incorrect. Free fall in a gravity well is acelleration not speed and the word "near" is a subjective term.
In both cases the 911 conspiracist (or anyone else using these terms) should be taken to task to use correct terminology and to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Unfortunately many 911 conspiracists use highly subjective reasoning. If someone is taken to task about a certain aspect that was described in subjective terms it allows them to simply change what they meant by it.
For eg. the above 'footprint" issue. Demolitions experts will say that they want a building to collapse into its footprint sometimes. They do not expect every stone and mote of dust to do so. Its an exaggeration brought on by the fact that being highly specific about where all the dust and debris will end up is both not possible and even if it were it would take up pages of text to describe ("the 27th brick from the northwest corner of the 3rd floor, 12th layer from floor level will end up 3.7 meters NNE from its original position").
The conspiracist sees that the debris from the WTC towers ended up as far as 500 feet horizontally from its original position and other than dust all of the debris was within this distance from the towers and compares that with what demolitions experts say and concludes that the building technically(because they hear the term used by a technician) fell in its own footprint, and therefore it was a demolition.
The subjective useage of the term allowed for this.
femr2 is quite the opposite though. He delves into deep minutia, did the NW corner move x cms or x + 0.1x cms? My beef with this is not that femr is at least being technical, he is, but that he does not bother too much with determining whether or not such minutia is significant. I have also taken issue with some of his methods and descriptions of technical aspects. However there is no need to delve into discussion of them again here.
Fact is that hyperbole, subjective wording, incorrect terminology, and incorrect usage of techical terms should always be pointed out when the debate is to be technical, no matter who does it or whether or not you feel a kinship with that person's viewpoints.
Just out of curiosity, then -- which of femr2's alternative answers to the question of "where the energy came from to completely demolish about 260 floors of steel and cement into rubble" did you agree with in preference to dafydd's?
Dafydd's was "gravity."
Femr2's preferred answers were:
Howsabout cranes, or petrol, or even plankton
Femr2 objected that:
It's not *gravity*, that's for sure. Gravity != energy
If femr2' preferred answers are more accurate than dafydd's, then can we surmise that cranes = energy? Petrol = energy? Plankton = energy?
Of course, femr2 is completely aware that his answers and his rationale for those answers is also imprecise, but it's okay because his imprecision is only for purposes of
As I am sure you well know, we're talking about gravitational potential energy, and that all basically came from converting chemical energy into kinetic energy with some cranes elevating mondo masses high into the air, giving rise to the potential if that mass then displaced earthwards
I'm asking because, while I have no objection to calling out erroneous or (in this case) incomplete answers on either side, I do object to double standards on either side, or preferences for a less accurate answer on either side. Had dafydd answered "plankton" to the original question, I have no doubt femr2 would have found that laughable as well, and would have eagerly explained that plankton, being a form of marine life, is not equal to energy.
Respectfully,
Myriad
And I wouldn't, unless for some reason that technical point were important to the conversation. Otherwise I'd accept that "rate of speed" is an idiomatic expression synonymous with "speed" and is used as such even in milieux requiring some degree of verbal precision, such as police accident reports and courtroom testimony.
Sure, when I hear it a part of my brain cries out "that's wrong," but the other parts of my brain that enjoy having friends and staying married tells that first part of my brain to shut up.
Respectfully,
Myriad
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Just out of curiosity, then -- which of femr2's alternative answers to the question of "where the energy came from to completely demolish about 260 floors of steel and cement into rubble" did you agree with in preference to dafydd's?
Dafydd's was "gravity."
If femr2' preferred answers are more accurate than dafydd's, then can we surmise that cranes = energy? Petrol = energy? Plankton = energy?
Of course, femr2 is completely aware that his answers and his rationale for those answers is also imprecise, but it's okay because his imprecision is only for purposes ofcomprehensioncondescension:
Where did you see me discuss anything about alternative answers to the question "where the energy came from to completely demolish about 260 floors of steel and cement into rubble"?
I do not even discuss anything about those posts. Nada. Zip. Nothing.
So I am not sure why you are even bringing such issues up honestly.
My discussion was limited in scope to the fact that when Femr2 was getting "pedantic" about how we define certain terms he was correct.
How did femr2 know the correct usage of the terms? Did he read Wikipedia? Did he take a physics class? Is he an Engineer? Is he a Physicist? Does he have some online physics book open ready to correct any erroneous terms he sees? I have no idea...and I don't care.
The fact is that he was correct and instead of people saying "You know what.....you're right. I used the term inaccurately and the correct terminology is.....etc etc etc." Is that what people did? Nope....people just continued debating...maybe because they didn't want to be wrong...maybe because they don't believe it's important to be completely accurate....maybe because they just want to debate to debate...again I have no idea and I don't care.
Here is what I originally posted...you will notice it is quite limited in scope...
newton3376 said:Femr2 is correct Gravity is not equal to energy.
If truthers are corrected for using the term "free fall speed" instead of "free fall acceleration" then we should correct "debunkers" when they use inaccurate terms.
Using inaccurate terms is sometimes due to simple informalities in language.....other times it can be due to laziness....but often it shows someones lack of knowledge about a topic.
People who misuse technical terms often have only a very basic understanding of a concept with a lot of misunderstandings mixed in.
An example would be someone using "dB" instead of "dBm" to describe a signal level from a transmitter....I have heard fellow Engineers do this very thing and after talking about it the problem was not laziness or being informal....the problem was not understanding what those terms really meant.
We ask the truthers to be accurate, honest, and rigorous in their arguments and terms.
We should do the same.
That was all I said....
I expected a reaction like this: "You know what.....you're right. We should be as accurate and correct as possible, even if it is just "semantics". And what Femr2 is saying is a "more" correct usage of the terms."
Instead of
1. Claiming FEMR2 knows nothing about physics, math, science, engineering, etc.
2. Claiming I am somehow defending truthers overall arguments.
3. Claiming accuracy is not important.
4. Claiming debating truthers on a free debate forum in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section is a waste of time and the root of the problem.
At this point I don't care anymore....if anyone wants to say that the energy "came from gravity" go right ahead...I won't comment. It's not worth the never ending debate, justifications, and excuses. I'll just move on to other topics within this and other threads.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Your evidence is what brings you to the *big picture*
If you're not clear as to what your evidence is pointing to, I'm not sure how you expect people to take it for what it's worth. If you're doing this out of personal interest, and don't care to discuss what your conclusions are, then one has to ask why you're bringing the issues up in the first place.
Fair enough, but do these details have any significant impact on the current acceptance of key issues on the WTC? NIST's research here led to major building code revisions that may have been unecessary or incompetent, if their mistakes are large enough. I would think if there are any impacts like this that I would be at least making these points public, if not to investigate on your own terms but for someone else to maybe have a look into. Issues like what I mentioned here aren't exactly trivial. Maybe building codes aren't the end matters affected but you never say, so how does anyone take action?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
While police and lawyers should be correct when using technical terms, they are not mostly because tthey are not trained in such things. It grates on m e to no end that this is the case in those situations. Its wrong and should not be used.
Having actually corrected friends on this specific point I know very well the actual result. For a while my nickname was, "Deitrich" from the "Barney Miller" sitcom.
I too bite my tongue when I want to correct my wife. Then again she and I usually are not debating technical issues.
OTOH when a person comes here to debate technical issues and in the first few sentences uses the term "free fall speed" or worse "near free fall speed" or even "faster than free fall" and actually believes that they are being accurate and trying to convince us of their credibility it is quite right to point out that their terminology is incorrect.
On the flip side of that coin, if we are doing this to them it is encumbent upon us to be technically accurate as well. To act otherwise is hypocrisy.
- Status