Stick around, we've seen this problem with F2 before. It's like he speaks a language all his own at times. Using words from the English lexicon, mind you.
Warning:
Don't ever mention fps!
Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
Stick around, we've seen this problem with F2 before. It's like he speaks a language all his own at times. Using words from the English lexicon, mind you.
Warning:
Don't ever mention fps!
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
So the official version is correct?
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."
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.
As you said..........this is free debate forum. Pot, kettle, black. lol. You misrepresented my post and the reason I posted it. You have been off on a tangent ever since simply because you didn't like the responses to your opinion. It was pointed out to you that you where asking posters to use the correct terminology when discussing myths and lies! In my book and IMO that is stupidity. You appear to like discussing the ins and outs of a ducks arse, even though it's really a chickens arse. Yet you want us to ensure that whilst we are discussing the ducks arse, that is really a chickens arse, that we should all be truthful, knowledgeable and use the correct terminology. That is bollox. Spin it any which way you like.
Accuracy is not important when discussing none occurances!!! Get it! But jog on!
In plain speak..........you proffer lies and crap to the kids on youboob, they lap it up and you get some kudos from the gullible. You actively encourage them knowing full well that they don’t understand what it is you proffer. They are not in a position to refute you. They are dumb. It makes you feel smart. Being wrong makes you feel smart. lol. You then join open forums to debate irrelevant minutia with more lies, semantics and when you are in a corner or have had your hat nailed on you snerk. Cool stuff. Pod sticks. Squibs stick. Nose flash sticks. Shadowy thingy’s stick. Flight Explorer sticks. All **** proffered by you and all wrong. Have you admitted that you where wrong? Cool stuff. lol. Appears that you have a following right here that are not only willing to debate this stupid with you but are now calling for it to be debated correctly and using the correct terminology. The barrel is dry, been scraped and now resorting to debates with lunatics. lol.
Selective manipulation of all and anything in an attempt to fool. femerisms MO.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
As Myriad is probably aware, the problem he's about to point out is in the GIF file itself, not in our browsers.
As femr2 may not be aware, the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) uses lossless compression, so everyone who examines femr2's GIF images frame by frame will see exactly the same problems.
A somewhat similar flaw can be seen in the fifth frame of femr2's heavily processed (false-color?) GIF image. All of the frames in that image have problems in the lower left corner.
There are two possibilities:
- The glitches were already present in his sources.
- The glitches were introduced by femr2's processing or by the software he used to convert to GIF.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I still have no idea what femr2's theory is. Does he have a theory?
Displays perfectly on my browser, and having asked others, on theirs too. It's a system specific issue.
Incorrect. Again, fine on my browser and the browsers of many others.
Neither. They are a platform and/or browser specific issue.
Even standard windows picture and fax viewer displays the animated gifs correctly. Whilst I can understand your frustration, there's little I can do about it I'm afraid.
If you could state platform, browser and version (anyone) if such problems occur, perhaps a pattern will emerge.
None that I know of, Carlitos have elaborated a bit on why.
His theory, the "official story", 19 terrorists doing 911, is fiction. He doesn't believe the air puffs at the WTC collapse are due to a gravity collapse. Covert "Demolition" truther. He names many of his videos showing the gravity collapse of the WTC as "Demolition". No big deal. I was thinking about getting Peter Maybeck to help him refine his work, but failure to model system errors precludes that prospect (his overall conclusion about 19 terrorists and gravity collapse being fiction, makes reality based help not an option).
So... about those "Shockwaves"
For those interested in learning a few things, the phenomenon seen in WTC 7's facade is not a shockwave.
A shockwave, as I mentioned this morning, has a very specific physical meaning. It is a propagated wave whose waveform experiences a sharp discontinuity, which puts it into a different behavioral category altogether. Most forms of waves cannot support a shockwave because the medium simply doesn't hold together -- transverse waves on a string, for instance, do propagate but there can be no shocks, because this means the string is actually detached.
The one type of wave where we most commonly find shockwaves is in pressure waves, either in fluids or in solids. An ordinary pressure wave is an acoustic wave, viz. sound, and it travels at the well publicized "Speed of Sound." This speed is a function of the density and the viscosity of the medium -- understanding that in a solid, rather than "viscosity" we are dealing with the "stiffness," or elastic moduli, of the material. The speed of sound is pretty much constant except with respect to temperature (changes the density of air, and the stiffness of materials, for example).
There is also a slight dependence on frequency, but mainly because different frequencies can cause heating of the medium. Nonetheless, this is important. The frequency dependence is called the dispersion relationship of the wave. The best known example is how a prism refracts light of different frequencies by different amounts, which is not a great example for our study here. But if there is a significant dispersion relationship, it means that waves after a long travel will either tend to spread out, or actually bunch together.
The shockwave, on the other hand, travels faster than the speed of sound. Sometimes much faster. Because it represents a sudden jump in pressure, it follows a totally different relationship. You can also think of a shockwave as having no defined frequency, as the Fourier transform of a discontinuity has energy at all frequencies. This wave enters a different kind of dispersion relationship -- a sharp discontinuity will always propagate faster than infinitessimal ones. Sound waves can be thought of as a superposition of many infinitessimal waves. Shockwaves cannot, and thus they will outrun and scoop up sound waves they traverse.
In ordinary situations one is likely to encounter, shockwaves are produced by two things: Supersonic phenomena, such as high-performance aircraft, in air; and explosives, particularly in solids. A detonation, as I have remarked elsewhere, is a supersonic blast front, and is a type of shockwave. There are a few other phenomena that will lead to shockwaves in solids but they involve extraordinary kinetics, such as gravity-driven shockwaves in supernovae.
Now, what we see in the perimeter structure of WTC 7 is most definitely NOT a shockwave. In building structure, a discontinuity is a crack or a rupture. It does not propagate in that fashion. Such a wave would also travel faster than the speed of sound in steel or glass or whatever, or several times the speed of sound in air. Thus it would be too fast to capture by a television camera.
What we see, instead, is a different propagation known as flexure. This is similar to the wave-on-a-string. There are two possible causes:
In either case, the correct term is "flexure." I also note that this effect was known and discussed here many times even before the NIST WTC 7 findings, and indeed used by NIST in support of its own hypothesis testing. Not sure what the fuss is all about now.
For those interested in learning a few things, the phenomenon seen in WTC 7's facade is not a shockwave.
A shockwave, as I mentioned this morning, has a very specific physical meaning. It is a propagated wave whose waveform experiences a sharp discontinuity, which puts it into a different behavioral category altogether. Most forms of waves cannot support a shockwave because the medium simply doesn't hold together -- transverse waves on a string, for instance, do propagate but there can be no shocks, because this means the string is actually detached.
The one type of wave where we most commonly find shockwaves is in pressure waves, either in fluids or in solids. An ordinary pressure wave is an acoustic wave, viz. sound, and it travels at the well publicized "Speed of Sound." This speed is a function of the density and the viscosity of the medium -- understanding that in a solid, rather than "viscosity" we are dealing with the "stiffness," or elastic moduli, of the material. The speed of sound is pretty much constant except with respect to temperature (changes the density of air, and the stiffness of materials, for example).
There is also a slight dependence on frequency, but mainly because different frequencies can cause heating of the medium. Nonetheless, this is important. The frequency dependence is called the dispersion relationship of the wave. The best known example is how a prism refracts light of different frequencies by different amounts, which is not a great example for our study here. But if there is a significant dispersion relationship, it means that waves after a long travel will either tend to spread out, or actually bunch together.
The shockwave, on the other hand, travels faster than the speed of sound. Sometimes much faster. Because it represents a sudden jump in pressure, it follows a totally different relationship. You can also think of a shockwave as having no defined frequency, as the Fourier transform of a discontinuity has energy at all frequencies. This wave enters a different kind of dispersion relationship -- a sharp discontinuity will always propagate faster than infinitessimal ones. Sound waves can be thought of as a superposition of many infinitessimal waves. Shockwaves cannot, and thus they will outrun and scoop up sound waves they traverse.
In ordinary situations one is likely to encounter, shockwaves are produced by two things: Supersonic phenomena, such as high-performance aircraft, in air; and explosives, particularly in solids. A detonation, as I have remarked elsewhere, is a supersonic blast front, and is a type of shockwave. There are a few other phenomena that will lead to shockwaves in solids but they involve extraordinary kinetics, such as gravity-driven shockwaves in supernovae.
Now, what we see in the perimeter structure of WTC 7 is most definitely NOT a shockwave. In building structure, a discontinuity is a crack or a rupture. It does not propagate in that fashion. Such a wave would also travel faster than the speed of sound in steel or glass or whatever, or several times the speed of sound in air. Thus it would be too fast to capture by a television camera.
What we see, instead, is a different propagation known as flexure. This is similar to the wave-on-a-string. There are two possible causes:
First, the wave truly is a flexure of the perimeter, instigated by a large and sudden impulse somewhere in the structure. This is an actual wave and would be correctly said to propagate. In this case the speed of the wave is dependent on the effective stiffness of the entire perimeter assembly, which will be limited by connections, tolerances, structural seismic / wind damping, and further damping due to drywall and windows and all the other interior stuff. If you were standing near the wall when this happened, you would see the wall next to you wiggle and flex at all of its connections, and the squeak and groan of it all would be terrifying.
Second, the wave is indicative of progressive load shifting in the interior, perhaps due to ongoing core collapse and / or shearing of connections to core elements. In this case we do not actually have a wave, rather we see a secondary effect caused by a progressive phenomenon that changes the load on the perimeter. Here the speed of the progression would be driven by gravity, momentum transfer due to interior collisions, stacking and compaction.
Second, the wave is indicative of progressive load shifting in the interior, perhaps due to ongoing core collapse and / or shearing of connections to core elements. In this case we do not actually have a wave, rather we see a secondary effect caused by a progressive phenomenon that changes the load on the perimeter. Here the speed of the progression would be driven by gravity, momentum transfer due to interior collisions, stacking and compaction.
In either case, the correct term is "flexure." I also note that this effect was known and discussed here many times even before the NIST WTC 7 findings, and indeed used by NIST in support of its own hypothesis testing. Not sure what the fuss is all about now.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Femr2,
Can you get to your ******* point sometime this weekend? I have to work alot next week, and as such, will not have much free time.
A simple paragraph or two explaing WTF your point is.
Thanks.
-Everyone in this thread.
Can you get to your ******* point sometime this weekend? I have to work alot next week, and as such, will not have much free time.
A simple paragraph or two explaing WTF your point is.
Thanks.
-Everyone in this thread.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
It was not chunks of 8 floors pulling down on the exterior frame, it was ~40 floors and the core frame work [minus the east end that had already collapsed]. The exterior columns were designed to hold up 3 to 5 times their specified load but the core framework and the floors combined pulling down was more than the exterior walls could handle and they folded and bent in an irregular manner.
The exterior columns did not "break". The moment frame held the exterior columns together and the exterior walls folded up as can be seen in the NIST collapse model video. This folding up in the NIST model was occurring during the period of FFA. That is a conundrum.
There was no leveraging because "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit" at FFA for ~100 feet.
There may have been a momentary and minute faster than FFA of the exterior walls but only because the core and exterior walls were falling at FFA with the core slightly ahead of the exterior. It is more likely that the minute faster than FFA NIST calculated was due to the fact that they were working from a video.
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"
The attempts to talk around this simple fact are nothing more than bombastic obfuscation.
This is very simple. Free fall acceleration means falling thru air - no resistance.
[air resistance would be minute/negligible in this case]
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The dogs were looking for people and then body parts, not explosives. They would not have been sniffing the steel beams, girders and columns.
[FONT="]"Our dogs, and the dogs we train for incendiary work are specifically trained to react to certain chemicals found in explosives/incendiaries. In the case of thermite/thermate that chemical is Barium Nitrate. Sulfur is also one of the compounds we train for that are found in thermate and explosives either as an initial component or as a by product of detonation."
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1241099880000#c1478786432859045273
The nano-thermite did not contain barium nitrate or sulfur. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was corroded by a eutectic containing sulfur but the dogs did not detect it.
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Who said it was ? I said I thought it was a reasonable word to use (in the spirit of a propogating wave), but given the complaints, as I said yesterday, I changed the video title. No big deal.
Where ?
Where ?
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Are you saying that the dogs should have sniffed the sulphur in the eutectic?
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Wow...what a bizarre reply....
I'll try to keep in mind that accuracy is not important to you depending on the topic. Got it.
Thankfully not everyone on this site shares your opinion.
ozeco41
Philosopher
"bizarre" is hardly the word. The idea that being less than honest with people we disagree with is acceptable is not for me. Nor many others I suspect.Wow...what a bizarre reply....
I'll try to keep in mind that accuracy is not important to you depending on the topic. Got it.
Thankfully not everyone on this site shares your opinion.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Yes....I would be among those others.
- Status