Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Jackanory]

The word is *non*, not *none*.

And................?

 

[Jackanory]

What you are seeing is most likely an artifact caused by extreme photo processing. Both GIF and JPG image storage is subject to such errors and can produce images of things and actions that never were there in the first place. Truthers put much stock in subjective interpretation of such artifacts, calling them "anomolies." Photo processing experts (of which I am one) call it absolute nonsense.

It's a lot like a portrait painter, creating a crude pencil sketch from a snapshot he saw 10 years ago and saying, "Here's what happened, and my drawing proves all other observers and photos are wrong!"

Like the dancing pixels from 1000 + m away. lol. Birds shaking a camera guff. Fancy shadows and pods. lol. Squibs that react as they should from pressure. lol etc etc etc ahhhhhh propogation in WTC means something....or do we already know.......he just wont say. lol.

 

[femr2]

Whatever "wave propagation" that femr2 wants me to see, I simply cannot see.

It takes a discerning eye to see, but if you follow the prompts supplied and watch it over and over, you'll get there.

femr2, If you have only heard from 2 people that your gifs are a mess, add me to the list.

Went back to one, now back up to two. Oh well, you have the video links.

Every gif you or Major_Tom ever post does not appear like you think it does on Firefox or Safari (Mac) or Safari (PC).

I very much doubt MT uses the same tools that I do, increasing the likelyhood that you have a local problem.

I'll keep an eye on it.

 

[femr2]

What you are seeing is most likely an artifact caused by extreme photo processing.

It's just colour range enhancement to highlight behaviour which is already there.

Both GIF and JPG image storage is subject to such errors and can produce images of things and actions that never were there in the first place.

JPEG is lossy, GIF is not. Your statement makes little sense.

Truthers put much stock in subjective interpretation of such artifacts, calling them "anomolies."

Try reading the discussion before commenting.

What *anomoly* is it that you think I am highlighting ?

Photo processing experts (of which I am one) call it absolute nonsense.

A *photo processing expert* (interesting choice of word triplet. giggle) would not suggest similar artefact behaviour between GIF and JPEG formats. Two entirely different beasts.

 

[Jackanory]

.


I very much doubt MT uses the same tools that I do

I suspect the same for most here. I wonder if your peers who do have the same would agree with you? Have you shown them your work? What did they say? Did you remain anonymous? Results have a habit of change when done in person rather than on teh internet. Just sayin. lol.

Easy to rectify isn't it! Specific to one video is it? Tried 'your tools' on a compilation on video of same face of building that get the same result? Post them with the original unedited video source. Tell us what 'tools' ya use. Simple.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What you are seeing is most likely an artifact caused by extreme photo processing.

It's just colour range enhancement to highlight behaviour which is already there.

Both GIF and JPG image storage is subject to such errors and can produce images of things and actions that never were there in the first place.

JPEG is lossy, GIF is not. Your statement makes little sense.

Sherman Bay's statement makes perfect sense. Unless your original video was itself a GIF, you had to convert from some other format to GIF. That conversion introduced at least the first of these kinds of compression error:

• GIF cannot represent more than 256 colors per image, so any conversion from natural-color video formats to GIF involves lossy compression of color.
• If you changed the pixel resolution at any stage of your conversion to GIF, then that conversion introduced additional loss of information.

Both of those losses come on top of whatever lossy compression may have been used to create your source materials.

Photo processing experts (of which I am one) call it absolute nonsense.

A *photo processing expert* (interesting choice of word triplet. giggle) would not suggest similar artefact behaviour between GIF and JPEG formats. Two entirely different beasts.

Sherman Bay demonstrated considerably greater understanding of processing artifacts than you did in your reply to him.

 

[NoahFence]

No, change in reflectivity state is the means by which the behaviour being highlighted becomes visible, but *what it is* is the CAUSE of that state change, which is a disturbance/a flexure (as Ryan put it)/a distortion...of the facade.

Just say it. You need to be right. Fine. Whatever.

The FACT of the matter is, the 'distortions' as you now call them, are WINDOWS REFLECTING SUNLIGHT.
The CAUSE of the 'disturbance' is oh... .I dunno. THE BUILDING COLLAPSING???

There's no need to get more technical. In all your mumbo-jumbo, the bottom line is it shows us exactly what we'd expect to see. Nothing more, nothing less. I already admitted I was wrong once - are you too proud for that?

After seeing that last video I put up, there can be no doubt about it. Call it whatever your little heart desires, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the SUN REFLECTING OFF OF WINDOWS.

Are you saying it's not?

You now know that belief to be inaccurate.

Hardly. I'd be willing to bet if I put a poll up somewhere asking what you think of when you hear "shockwave" the VAST majority, like over 90% would say explosions. It was an intentionally misleading term you used to get a 'wow' factor. EXACTLY like Richard Gage and his pyroclastic clouds. Same. Exact. Thing.

 

[dafydd]

My *theory*, as you put it, in relation to my video that beachnut so lovingly highlighted, is that it shows visual evidence supporting the notion of propogation of failure from low down in the building beneath the East penthouse propogating up to said penthouse, then showing the effect upon the facade as the penthouse and surrounding structure descends through the building...as I have stated many times.

And you think that is bizarre ? I see


The prefix is *non*, not *none*.

Are you suggesting that the behaviour I have described did not occur ?


Are you suggesting I am engaging in discussion of a fake occurance ?

What caused the failure?

 

[Jackanory]

No, change in reflectivity state is the means by which the behaviour being highlighted becomes visible, but *what it is* is the CAUSE of that state change, which is a disturbance/a flexure (as Ryan put it)/a distortion...of the facade.

CAUSED by what? Say it!

Was it the building materials?

Was it 'pulled' down?

Was it CD'd?

Something is amiss fem. Have you spotted it yet. lol.

 

[femr2]

Sherman Bay's statement makes perfect sense. Unless your original video was itself a GIF, you had to convert from some other format to GIF. That conversion introduced at least the first of these kinds of compression error:

[*]GIF cannot represent more than 256 colors per image, so any conversion from natural-color video formats to GIF involves lossy compression of color.

Downsampling of colour range, sure. Doesn't really introduce much in the way of artefacts of the kind he was hinting at.

To compare to JPEG is a very silly thing to do when talking about artefacts, as it is inherently mathematically lossy and could certainly *produce images of things and actions that never were there in the first place* though such would certainly NOT be in the slightest bit like the very clear progression of facade disturbance evident in the image he referred to...

To suggest that facade distortion behaviour is due to compression artefact is UTTER NONSENSE.

[*]If you changed the pixel resolution at any stage of your conversion to GIF, then that conversion introduced additional loss of information.

Compare the videos (full 24-bit colour information, HD resolution) to the GIFs. Same behaviour.

Both of those losses come on top of whatever lossy compression may have been used to create your source materials.

I use lossless compression at all times (HuffYUV). See note above about how silly the suggestion is otherwise.

Sherman Bay demonstrated considerably greater understanding of processing artifacts than you did in your reply to him.

I beg to differ.

 

[NoahFence]

All this because apparently Sunlight reflects off of glass.

 

[DGM]

I'm a bit confused.

femr2 is showing the visual effects of the collapse progression as NIST describes it and people are arguing about it. Should we not expect visual distortion in the buildings exterior facade? Looks basically how I would imagined it to look. In fact, I think I asked him about doing this view over a year ago.

 

[femr2]

I'm a bit confused.

femr2 is showing the visual effects of the collapse progression as NIST describes it and people are arguing about it.

Quite revealing, isn't it Quite an insight into the minds of rather a lot of the posters here.

Should we not expect visual distortion in the buildings exterior facade?

Took quite an effort to find it, though I don't think *expect* would be quite right.

In fact, I think I asked him about doing this view over a year ago.

Don't recall that at all. The video has been online since 4 August 2009.

I also placed a non-YT copy online...
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A9SCYN9X
2:23 - 1280x720 - H264 - 298.45 MB

 

[Jackanory]

All this because apparently Sunlight reflects off of glass.

Not to mention those damn pixels at 1000m and a shaky camera. Still, he could always produce other shots that show the same. lol.

Did that glass crack during that 'shockwave'? lol.

Did that fascade splinter or throw out during that 'shockwave'.? lol.

Did those bricks tumble during that 'shockwave'. ? lol.

Very distinguishable that 'shockwave' if ya have a good eye and the right tools. lol .

 

[DGM]

Quite revealing, isn't it

I did an edit. there's more.

 

[Jackanory]

I'm a bit confused.

femr2 is showing the visual effects of the collapse progression as NIST describes it and people are arguing about it. Should we not expect visual distortion in the buildings exterior facade? Looks basically how I would imaged it to look. In fact, I think I asked him about doing this view over a year ago.

Who's arguing? Just wantinhg to know what he thinks the CAUSE was. When he stops dancing any blowing his own trumpet about the special tools he uses perhaps he can tell us what the CAUSE was.

 

[DGM]

Who's arguing? Just wantinhg to know what he thinks the CAUSE was. When he stops dancing any blowing his own trumpet about the special tools he uses perhaps he can tell us what the CAUSE was.

He seems to be confirming what NIST says. Until he does otherwise I'm taking it as such. Simple really.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm a bit confused.

femr2 is showing the visual effects of the collapse progression as NIST describes it and people are arguing about it. Should we not expect visual distortion in the buildings exterior facade? Looks basically how I would imagined it to look. In fact, I think I asked him about doing this view over a year ago.

The original problem was his use of "shockwave" - I've since linked to a video proving that it was indeed sunlight off of the windows.

 

[newton3376]

Crack on. lol.

The majority on this site dont visit this sub forum. They actively wanted this **** moved away. Thats point one!

The majority of the planet don't visit this site or any other ct site. They have no need. Thats point two!

Why am I here? Laughs and giggles. It started with the 'truthers' but I am beginning to see a steady stream of 'none truthers' or 'debunkers' warranting laughs and giggles. Not out of them being 'wrong' or 'uneducated' but purely out of them 'argueing over pinnoccio'. lol.

Weird....

Your responses are somewhat strange.....funny.....but strange.

Crack an Newton. Or ya could just refer all the nutjobs to gravy's site. Simple. Job done for ya long ago. Engineer or not..........still discussing pinnoccio the kids to no end.................as shown below:-

I'm not the one who brought up Pinnoccio....

I brought up things like "gravitational potential energy"......

I could use my techy knowledge and experience with explosives and demolitions to **** on anyone here. lol. Alas I realised it would be to no avail long ago. One day you will too. lol.

But hey Engineer.........crack on, femr2 is listening to ya. lol.

Actually there IS a reason to debate this stuff besides just entertainment.....correcting the errors the truthers make sometimes causes someone riding the fence to stop and look at both sides more carefully.

Plus most people are simply not very knowledgable in math, physics, engineering, etc and this debate can actually serve the purpose of educating people, at least a little bit, about those topics.

So while you might never convince a die hard truther, because to them this belief is almost like a religious belief, you can sometimes convince someone who is considering the truther side and hasn't heard the whole story.....

No need to call me "Engineer" and use the term as some kind of a derogatory or snide comment.....this discussion has strayed far from the actual topic and I'm content to let you have the last word, because now it's boring and you seem to be getting upset or something by the conversation.

The last word is yours....you can even claim you "won" the exchange if you want to

 

[carlitos]

Every gif you or Major_Tom ever post does not appear like you think it does on Firefox or Safari (Mac) or Safari (PC).

I very much doubt MT uses the same tools that I do, increasing the likelyhood that you have a local problem.

I'll keep an eye on it.

The last gif you posted shows the building literally splitting in two. I can't get a screencap, 'cause I can't pause a gif. Seems odd that the same thing would happen on both Mac and PC and with different browsers. Maybe I'm having a lucid dream or hallucination.

Now that you mention MT, I think he actually intends his graphics to look the way they do, so my problem could just be with your stuff.

Anyway, it seems highly unlikely that it's just me; you likely just aren't hearing from other posters because they can't figure out what your picture proves either way. Or they just aren't interested in this years-long 'slow pitch' approach.