Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Christopher7]

So, Chris, now you're contending that the conspirators tore out the walls and exterior panels of WTC 7 and blowtorched the splice plates on the exterior columns, then, presumably wired the building with explosives and put everything back together again, without anyone noticing.

No
I'm describing what i can see in the photograph.

You deny the obvious implosion of WTC 7 with the deniers favorite refrain
"there is no way they could have done it"
as if you had universal knowledge.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, the blue discolouration appears to have been caused by poor white balancing, or file compression, or both.

If you had a closer shot of the beams I could make a more accurate judgement, but thats the most likely cause of the 'blue discolouration' you're seeing.

"poor white balancing" ?

"file compression" ?

Sounds like BS to me, please explain.

 

[Christopher7]

7 seconds would be starting only when the penthouse was actually beginning to sink. This now ignores , as I stated earlier, any interior failures that occured out of sight of the cameras.

Standard nit pick and babble.
I have stated, and a reasonable person would agree, that "the building" means the entire building, but you know that.
You cannot deny that the north face fell at near freefall and the entire event is consistant with a professional building implosion.

 

[Gravy]

The news video clips were public.

Second request: please explain this statement.

 

[Gravy]

No
I'm describing what i can see in the photograph.

Then please explain, as clearly as you can, how you think the splice plate was blowtorched, and if you think that was part of the conspirators' demolition work.

 

[Christopher7]

Second request: please explain this statement.

Asked and answered.

You are a master of point evasion.

There was NO justification for collecting these video clips and pictures and keeping them from the public for 5 years.

There is NO justification for releasing them only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[Gravy]

Asked and answered.

Third time: please explain how video shot by a news company is public property.

 

[Christopher7]

Third time: please explain how video shot by a news company is public property.

When it is broadcast

 

[Gravy]

When it is broadcast

Fourth time: when CNN shoots and broadcasts news video, who owns the rights to it: you, or them?

 

[LashL]

The link says he'll be discussing the issues with an activist. It doesn't say what side he's taking. If he's a conspiracist, I look forward to reading his engineering analysis: he'll be the first!

ETA: I assume, by the way he's promoted by the symposium ad, that he's a truther. I'll email him to see. To be clear, he was "Engineer of the year" in Hamilton, Ontario. Not trying to take anything away from him...just wanted to point out that it didn't mean "Engineer of the year for the solar system" or somesuch.

Now, this is interesting...

Friday March 23, 7:00 p.m.
The Skydragon Centre
27 King William Street , Hamilton Ontario Canada

What:

Hamilton 9/11 Symposium

Join founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies and long-time peace activist Graeme MacQueen and Professor Emeritus of structural engineering Bob Korol for a discussion of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. The speakers will screen a film and present both primary and secondary research on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The evening will present a rigorous and scholarly analysis of one of the most important events in recent history. Bring your questions and your open mind!

More Info

http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/a8c91423-7582-466b-930c-02bc69ff8677

I think I will attend this event and see what Mr. Korol has to say. Hamilton is not very far from where I live. Perhaps Dr. Greening will also be interested in attending as Mr. Korol is from his alma mater as well.


EDIT TO ADD: DOH! I just realized that this event was YESTERDAY - I guess I won't be attending after all.

Edit to add: And it appears that Dr. Greening was there, too.

 

[jaydeehess]

Standard nit pick and babble.
I have stated, and a reasonable person would agree, that "the building" means the entire building, but you know that.
You cannot deny that the north face fell at near freefall and the entire event is consistant with a professional building implosion.

Well Chris the 'entire building' took much longer than 6 or even 7 seconds to collapse.

What took 6 to 7 seconds to collapse was the portion of the building that was no longer benefitting from the support of the core column. Seems to me the number bandied about is 6.5 seconds for the north wall to collapse. That is about 10% longer than free fall. Given that there was no internal support for the building that number seems resonable.

Yes, I can deny that the time it took for the north face to fall and the entire event are consistent with a professional building implosion other than to say that yes, demolitions make a loud noise and the building does fall down.

The points you have made so far are slim as far as serving to make that hypothesis very good. Your main arguements can easily be attributed to other causes tha explosives and the arguement about cut columns DOES INDEED require that you totally ignore or manage to explain how these charges were fastened to the columns and have no one noticing.
Remember, the video you instructed us to watch states that it would take hundreds of charges. They had to be installed by someone at sometime and kept hidden until use(installing them in a badly damaged building on fire on Sept 11/01 is a non-starter)


White balance and compression are terms that have to do with photography and electronic storage of photographs respectively.

Whenever a news agency takes a video it retains the copyright on that material no matter whether or not they broadcast it. You may IIRC, show no more than 10 seconds of video without prior permission. Any other use of it, especially commercial use, without the express permission of that agency, in writing, is a contravention of that copyright.

 

[Mobyseven]

"poor white balancing" ?

"file compression" ?

Sounds like BS to me, please explain.

On digital cameras white balancing is important to obtain natural colours. Without getting into details of why it is necessary, you do it by focusing your camera on a pure white object (a sheet of paper will generally do just fine) and adjusting the white balance on your camera until the white paper looks white in the photographs/video footage as well. Most digital cameras now have automatic white balancing, but they don't always work well (hence I usually check and adjust myself before doing anything important).

I specified digital cameras because previously this was a feature of the film used - for example, tungsten film which is used most commonly for indoor photography where incandescant bulbs (with a tungsten filament) are used for lighting. Using regular film for this produces an orange-yellow cast where objects should be white. If you are interested I have some example photographs sitting around that I could scan in and show you. I took them when I was dating a graphic design student and was teaching her some basic photography. I took one photo using 400ASA daylight film in her room (which was lit with fluorescent lights), using a Canon EOS 500 if I remember correctly (and there is a chance that I don't), and then I took another photo from the same position with the same lighting, but using a fluorescent light filter to colour adjust.

I take that back. I can't find the photgraphs, which means that she probably has them, which means I'm not going to go get them.

But, I was doing tests on a video camera a few nights ago and I have the footage from that (which includes cycling through the colour temperatures to white balance for a fluorescant light). If you are interested I can probably post that (for anyone who is interested)...would I have to post at YouTube first and then put in one of those YouTube links people post here to do that?

As for file compression...well, there isn't too much I can say on that. Unless you're working with a camera that captures RAW image files, the second you take your photo you are already working with a compressed image (usually a JPEG - some cameras capture TIF files, which are much better quality and not compressed as much but also take up a hell of a lot more memory). And file compression will often change colours in a photograph (not dramatically, usually), or at the very least make them unclear. Resaving JPEG files, or converting between different file formats will exaggerate this effect.

So no, it is not BS as all. Anything you are still unclear about?

 

[jaydeehess]

To illustrate the damage what compression does to a video file our graphics guy showed the same "station ident" in two formats.
The first was uncompressed video.
The second was an .avi file that had been edited and then re-rendered as yet another .avi file. So this was only two compressions (from raw to .avi then from .avi to .avi after editing)

The second was crap! In a station ident there are of course lettering and the edges of the letters were missing in some parts and black specks were in solid color areas, the background was waves on a beach and it now looked like waves on a toxic waste dump since the sparkle off the wave tops was now washed out.

The lesson, only edit using original uncompressed files and save your work uncompressed. You can export an .avi or mpeg file later when it is needed.

We also go to great lengths to have all cameras on a multi camera shoot , look the same. That includes white balance, color balance(color phase and saturation) and pedestal level(black balance). I am constantly reminding camera people to use the same white board to white balance each camera and to, furgodssake, not use snow or ice (ie. at a hockey game) to do a white balance.

 

[Christopher7]

Fourth time: when CNN shoots and broadcasts news video, who owns the rights to it: you, or them?

Them

Interesting that your concern is for copyright and not the public right to know the facts about 9/11.

You have not responded to my statement that there is no justification for the government to collect these videos and photographs and keep them from the public for 5 years.

We have all seen the collapse of the Towers many times on TV.
The FEMA and NIST reports contain a few of the photographs .
If it's OK to show some of the videos and photographs, why not all of them?

 

[Gravy]

Them

Excellent. Why did it take me asking four times to get you to admit that these recordings aren't public property?

Interesting that your concern is for copyright and not the public right to know the facts about 9/11.

No one has interfered with your right to know any facts.

You have not responded to my statement that there is no justification for the government to collect these videos and photographs and keep them from the public for 5 years.

That's because I was waiting for your response to my ownership issue. NIST was granted the rights to use the images by their owners. You can purchase copies.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Mobyseven]

Christopher 7: Are you happy with my explanation of white balancing and compression?

 

[Mobyseven]

We also go to great lengths to have all cameras on a multi camera shoot , look the same. That includes white balance, color balance(color phase and saturation) and pedestal level(black balance). I am constantly reminding camera people to use the same white board to white balance each camera and to, furgodssake, not use snow or ice (ie. at a hockey game) to do a white balance.

Where do you work?

I can imagine the importance of all cameras being balanced correctly with eachother...if only I had the chance to do a multi camera shoot. Guess I'll have to stick with my one-camera setup for the moment.

Having said that, I'm getting better results with this new camera than you generally see in this price range (AUS$1800 - Panasonic NV-GS500). Of course, it's rrp is $2199, but I got it through the shop I used to work for, so...

 

[Christopher7]

Well Chris the 'entire building' took much longer than 6 or even 7 seconds to collapse.

You are playing word games.
WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds. Most people understand what that means.
If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem.

The points you have made so far are slim as far as serving to make that hypothesis very good. Your main arguements can easily be attributed to other causes

Your ability to come up with alternate reasons for everything does not change or lessen the evidence i have presented.

tha explosives and the arguement about cut columns DOES INDEED require that you totally ignore or manage to explain how these charges were fastened to the columns and have no one noticing.

It is not necessary for me to explain every aspect of the CD.
You ask for something i could not possibly know and use that as an excuse to ignore the evidence presented.

Remember, the video you instructed us to watch states that it would take hundreds of charges. They had to be installed by someone at sometime and kept hidden until use(installing them in a badly damaged building on fire on Sept 11/01 is a non-starter)

Right. You can't believe that anyone could do this, so it didn't happen.
Of course, you are an expert, up to date on the state of the art tools and techniques.

White balance and compression are terms that have to do with photography and electronic storage of photographs respectively.

Whenever a news agency takes a video it retains the copyright on that material no matter whether or not they broadcast it. You may IIRC, show no more than 10 seconds of video without prior permission. Any other use of it, especially commercial use, without the express permission of that agency, in writing, is a contravention of that copyright.

Thank you

 

[Gravy]

You are playing word games.
WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds.

Of course it did. Except for the portion the size of several apartment buildings on my block that didn't.

 

[Christopher7]

No one has interfered with your right to know any facts.

The government has interfered with everyone's right to know the facts by collecting and withholding these videos and photographs form the public for 5 years.
Since the physical evidence was quickly destroyed, the videos, photographs and witness statements are only evidence we have.

Making me go thru the Freedom of Information Act to see them is interfering with my right to know the truth about 9/11.

NIST was granted the rights to use the images by their owners. You can purchase copies.

You missed an important fact in my earlier post.
The money is for the search and duplication, not royalties.