What is wrong with you all ?..
Probably the main thing that is wrong is that few, if any, of "us" are looking at the video with the frame of reference you are accustomed to. Let me see if I can explain without the antipathetic pre-judgements which seem to be occurring.
This is the question and comment fired at you femr2
...What, in your opinion, is the significance of your so-called "shockwaves"?
and that .gif - for the life of me I don't see a thing. Its VERY poor quality.
Clearly ( maybe not the appropriate word in this context
) NoahFence is not looking at the .gif with the same expectations as you femr2. As I read your statements I see that you discern movement in the façade which starts low and before the penthouse starts to drop, it moves up the façade then down with the dropping Penthouse.
I cannot see that movement with the confidence that you show. Apparently neither does NoahFence. But you have the experience at interpreting this type of evidence. It is not our forté. So what we have "on the table" is your assertion that these movements are discernible AND reliable evidence AND useful to assist reaching some conclusion.. We, in turn, need to form an opinion one way or the other as to the accuracy and value/usefulness of this evidence.
And "I cannot see it" does not cut the mustard as legitimate rebuttal in the domain of specialist expertise. Again NoahFence describes the .gif as "...Its[sic] VERY poor quality" No doubt it is if judged as a pretty picture but you have processed it for a very different purpose - movement analysis so "prettiness" is not the criterion. So it may be a very good .gif for analytical purposes which is what you claim.
So the next paragraph is a claim:
You really should be applauding the video. (And me)...
...which may be true but we have not accepted the evidence nor understood its value, if any, at this stage.
Then follows your explanation of what you claim the .gif shows and a reason for the colour range:
...What it shows is (via careful control of video colour range information) actual visual proof within the video record of propogating[sic] disturbance within the building, starting low down beneath the East penthouse and travelling upwards. When this propogation reaches the East penthouse, it begins its descent, causing a similar but larger disturbance of the facade as it traverses down inside the building.
You can SEE the propogation...
Well you can and we cannot at this stage BUT the fact we cannot does not change the basis of your claim based on your expertise. i.e. the claim is made and we cannot verify it at this stage.
Nor can we deny it.
So you continue:
It is (the only) visual proof of actual internal building behaviour which supports the notion of the propogation of failures following the initiating mechanism suggested by NIST. It does not prove which column, nor the reason the propogation initiated, but it does strongly suggest that particular propogation mechanism to be correct after initiating...
what you do not state explicitly at this point is that your analysis supports the NIST explanation.
So in the broader context we have an explanation from NIST which many of us find plausible of a collapse mechanism with Column 79 playing the principle role. The visual evidence to support this "Column 79 led" mechanism is limited. Your evidence, if we accept it, says or seems to support that the Column 79 hypothesis or something very similar was the actual mechanism.
Putting it bluntly and with my apology for using the tribal labels, but we have an alleged truther putting forward evidence to support the main debunker explanation. Remaining objective I acknowledge that the tribal attribution does not affect the validity or otherwise of the claim in the slightest.
But, if true it is a step forward. Let's turn to what NoahFence states in counter claim:
So it shows the building collapsing. Big deal. It's one of many, many views of exactly the same thing. I'm still lost on the significance of 'shockwave'....
Sorry NoahFence but that is a strawman. It does not merely "show the building collapsing". The collapse is not in contention between the "two sides". If femr2's claim is valid it goes further than merely showing the building collapsing. It shows supporting evidence that NIST was right OR that something similar to the NIST explanation was probably right. And that is a step forward in understanding if we can verify femr2's claim to our satisfaction.
So NoahFence's closing points need comment because they are to some extent off track:
So now you're telling me what I see? The quality is horrific. It's grainy and discolored. You call it 'processed' - I call it junk. But it really is irrelevant. Because it seems we actually agree that both the animated .gif and the poorly named 'shockwave' video both show the collapse of the building, and neither can even come close to showing explosives. So at the end of the day, I'm still at a loss to what the significance is of the poorly named 'shockwave'. They show what you'd expect in a building collapse....
"The quality is horrific. It's grainy and discolored. You call it 'processed' - I call it junk." The reason for the visual quality has been stated and you do not address that reason - you comment is purely personal assertion.
"Because it seems we actually agree that both the animated .gif and the poorly named 'shockwave' video both show the collapse of the building,..." Yes but femr2 goes further and your interpretation weakens his claim to a strawman. The "collapse of building" is not in contention. What femr2 uses the visual material for is to show some details of the mechanism of collapse.
"...and neither can even come close to showing explosives." Red Herring Explosives are not under discussion.
" I'm still at a loss to what the significance is of the poorly named 'shockwave'..." you should now be aware that is is evidence which appears to support the NIST explanation or something quite similar as the WTC7 collapse mechanism.
"They show what you'd expect in a building collapse...." Well that was ambiguous wasn't it? So it adds nothing either way.
Then some of femr2's comments may now be more understandable:
...Expected behaviour ? Of course not. Who expected such behaviour ? Interesting ? Sure.
Without this
evidence that behaviour is conjecture in most senses.
I find it mind-bogglingly bizarre for you folk to be making the comments you are. Shockingly poor show....Why am I not surprised
...well the bit of needle probably doesn't help whichever "side" it comes from.
But the key point remains "Without this
evidence that behaviour is conjecture in most senses." And stated more pointedly the NIST explanation has a level of plausibility as it stands. This analysis by femr2 seems to add to plausibility to that NIST explanation or something very similar.
...Well done femr2 !
Premature femr2 - If I've done my job good enough we should now understand what you are claiming but we ain't persuaded yet.
