Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Christopher7]

If you don't believe that the Fe-O-S eutectic has anything to do with your theory of demolition then why the hell are you quoting it!

We are getting off on a tangent that Chris has said nothing about so I will not respond again about the dogs.

McGee had 6 dogs and he says that they did not detect any sulfur. The other 200+ dogs were looking for human remains and there is no word on their ability to detect explosives.

There is no other known explanation for the melted beam and there is no scientific data to back up the sulfur from drywall is BS. Drywall would not be used for fireproofing if it were possible for the sulfur in the gypsum molecule to be released in a fire.

ETA: The melted beam was from WTC 7 and no one was killed in WTC 7 so the dogs would not have been looking in the WTC 7 debris pile.

 

[Toke]

I am familiar with 3*6m glass panes wiggling when moved around by vacuum cups.
What is the problem with a glass front flexing during collapse?

 

[Sunstealer]

We are getting off on a tangent that Chris has said nothing about so I will not respond again about the dogs.

McGee had 6 dogs and he says that they did not detect any sulfur. The other 200+ dogs were looking for human remains and there is no word on their ability to detect explosives.

There is no other known explanation for the melted beam and there is no scientific data to back up the sulfur from drywall is BS. Drywall would not be used for fireproofing if it were possible for the sulfur in the gypsum molecule to be released in a fire.

Dodge noted.

Funny that when your inadequacies are uncovered you simply move on. It's no wonder that people don't take you seriously - you simply can't get your story straight. :lol:

 

[NoahFence]

I have to disagree with you there. Upon what evidence was *what you already knew* based upon ? I would hazard a guess that is was the theorised probable behaviour sugessted by NIST. Proof/evidence ? Hmm.

What I already knew was that WTC 7 collapsed due to damage from fires and/or impact from WTC 1's collapse. Am I missing anything?

The behaviours I'm highlighting are as near to *proof* of the segment of the sequence which they span as I have seen.

And when your 'behaviors' are complete, what do we have? WTC 7 collapsing. Again, we got this. This video of yours shows nothing we don't already know.

 

[femr2]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]
A good point. I won't explore it at this stage - too much activity and noise on the thread.

There's an amount of individual interpretation of course. I've studied the behaviour for a usefully lengthy amount of time and am in no doubt, but have not formalised that interpretation.

I'd have to say that it would be one hell of a coincidence if such a circular region of distortion as is seen on the facade as the penthouse descends was not actually due to such

Perhaps that's a discussion most usefully conducted in another venue.

 

[femr2]

This video of yours shows nothing we don't already know.

A naive viewpoint imo.

How about the timing of upward failure propogation ?
How about the timing of subsequent East penthouse descent ?
How about implications for other regions of the building ?
etc...

 

[NoahFence]

A naive viewpoint imo.

How about the timing of upward failure propogation ?
How about the timing of subsequent East penthouse descent ?
How about implications for other regions of the building ?
etc...

And the question remains:

So what?

Does this information prove or disprove anything? Anything at all? Or is it just MOTS?
(more of the same)

WTC 7 Collapsed. The sun was shining when it did. Wowweee!

I think you are just fishing for more hits on your video's, personally. Somehow it makes you way cooler than me. Dats kewl.

(it should be noted though, that I did notice you didn't correct anybody when they commented on your video as if it were some proof of explosives)

 

[Bell]

A naive viewpoint imo.

How about the timing of upward failure propogation ?
How about the timing of subsequent East penthouse descent ?
How about implications for other regions of the building ?
etc...

Femr, do you have any real evidence that WTC7 was demolished, instead of giving us your personal interpretations of quotes and footage?

 

[Sherman Bay]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A9SCYN9X
2:23 - 1280x720 - H264 - 298.45 MB

Thank you for the exact link to the "high-quality" video. I have downloaded all 300MB (that's MBytes, not Mbits) and looked at it briefly in a video player and imported it to a video editor. I'm not sure what you intend to prove by this, but here is my analysis:

It is a 298.45MB AVI clip, 2 minutes, 20 seconds and 20 frames long. Some additional specs:

Encoding: H.264AVC
Frame Rate: 29.97
Video bit Rate: 17.24Mb/sec
Width: 1280pixels
Height: 720pixels
Audio: MPEG 3
Audio Bit rate: 48kb/sec
Audio sampling rate: 24Khz, stereo

AVI is capable of storing a high-quality, uncompressed image, but it cannot recreate anything that was removed before making the AVI file, and processing with a poor choice of parameters will negate many of the AVI file advantages.

It appears to be several copies of a 30 second segment of a news show with Dan Rather narrating. There are two clips, both cropped from TV 4:3, side-by-side. There appears to be a slight difference between the two sides in color tint, but otherwise they appear to be the same clip and synchronized.

Some portions appear to be enlarged from other parts. Enlarging tends to magnify errors, not eliminate them.

In all parts, the quality is far below standard TV broadcast quality, exhibiting considerable video (color) noise, bit rate compromises and compression errors. My guess is that there is one "original" that was recorded on VHS tape, but has either been degraded since, or the recorder wasn't working up to par at first. Perhaps the heads were dirty either for record or playback, or both. Perhaps the tape was/is substandard or damaged. It's also possible the degradation came later after the clip was duplicated side-by-side (I'd have to analyze it more carefully to determine that, which I will be glad to do if you pay me my usual consulting fee for such technical work, up front). Regardless, the quality is not as good as some present-day YouTube clips I myself have posted.

The enlargements, in particular, show copius examples of JPG-type artifacts. No, I can't call these GIF artifacts, as I suspect GIF was not used as an intermediate file. JPG-type artifacts (blockiness, shifting of sharpness, color shifts, edges of objects duplicated and blurred) can be caused by video processing at low data rates, and it looks like this is what happened here.

Examining the enlargement clips frame by frame suggests that many of these artifacts were added AFTER the original broadcast video was created, somewhere along the data stream from a bad VCR, thru a bad video computer edit, to a bad output. Each step added something that wasn't in the original.

To sum up, the only thing this video is good for (and I haven't even approached the matter of provenance and possible deliberate alteration) is to make gross observations; i.e., did the building fall down, up, or sideways? Most anything else derived from this video is open to interpretation and needs corroboration.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I apologize if anyone read my previous post before I edited it; I had made a mistake in the video bit rate analysis, confusing Kb with Mb, and thought the low bitrate of the file might have been the largest source of video errors.

This appears to not be the case, but doesn't change anything else in my analysis.

If the 17Mb rate is accurate, this is, not extremely low, but extremely high (17Kb would have been low). It is higher than the video server at our TV station can handle (15Mb is tops, 8 is more typical). However, this won't make a poor video into a good one. It just explains why the file is so gosh-darn big for only 2 minutes of bad video. Basically, someone wasted a huge amount of storage space for no advantage.

 

[triforcharity]

McGee's dogs were trained to detect conventional explosives and military thermate containing barium nitrate. They were not trained to detect thermite or thermate made without barium nitrate or the nano-thermite found in the dust.

Nice quotemine job.

Did you read the rest of that post?

 

[triforcharity]

We are getting off on a tangent that Chris has said nothing about so I will not respond again about the dogs.

Then don't bring it up there champ.

McGee had 6 dogs and he says that they did not detect any sulfur. The other 200+ dogs were looking for human remains and there is no word on their ability to detect explosives.

You do realize that most of the dogs that NYPD/PANYNJ used, were in fact trained by McGee, right?

There is no other known explanation for the melted beam and there is no scientific data to back up the sulfur from drywall is BS. Drywall would not be used for fireproofing if it were possible for the sulfur in the gypsum molecule to be released in a fire.

Why wouldn't it? Drywall is common useage for fire stops in apartments.

ETA: The melted beam was from WTC 7 and no one was killed in WTC 7 so the dogs would not have been looking in the WTC 7 debris pile.

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

 

[femr2]

And so it begins again...

AVI is capable of storing a high-quality, uncompressed image

The video data is not uncompressed.

but it cannot recreate anything that was removed before making the AVI file

You don't say

and processing with a poor choice of parameters will negate many of the AVI file advantages

The shielded inference is noted. We can go through all processing steps in detail if you like. You'll find my video handling procedures to be *well chosen* (You should have a look at the many discussions I have had with others on this forum about video processing. This is not a new branch discussion for me, and we can drill into detail until the eyeballs of the others here explode if you really really want to)

It appears to be several copies of a 30 second segment of a news show with Dan Rather narrating.

Generally referred to as the Dan Rather WTC 7 clip.

It is one copy of the clip with a series of differing processes applied.

There are several copies of it available, all of which have poor colour definition. The one used was by far the highest quality copy available at the time (August 2009). The poor colour definition originates way back in the recording on the day, and replays of the clip including new broadcaster overlays (such as the one in the large image I provided you with, and in the video instance you have downloaded) used the clip in an already *washed out* state.

There is one available copy of it with increased colour definition (though still poor) which was in a UK television programme called The Conspiracy Files, but which has inordinate amounts of additional video noise not present in the more bleached versions. It is probable that version has been badly processed to try and increase contrast.

There are two clips, both cropped from TV 4:3, side-by-side.

No. As I told you the image contains the two frames of an interlaced image, with the left image being from the top field. Source NTSC 30*1000/1001fps interlaced DVD Mpeg2.

There appears to be a slight difference between the two sides in color tint, but otherwise they appear to be the same clip and synchronized.

Again, no. Each image is from a distinct point in time.LHS top field. RHS bottom field.

Some portions appear to be enlarged from other parts. Enlarging tends to magnify errors, not eliminate them.

What ? Some parts ? The images are segments of a frame which has all been enlarged, sure, with a particularly good upscaling method, and yes, will make pre-existing *errors* bigger, of course, being an enlargement.

In all parts, the quality is far below standard TV broadcast quality

Yet it is broadcast TV video information. Source was DVD if I recall (so there is one chain of custody element that could be questioned). However, NIST Cumulus video data of the same clip is pretty much identical. (CNN Dub2 04 is far worse) The video (mine) was made August 2009, so it's possible there's a slightly better quality version kicking around these days.

It's also possible the degradation came later after the clip was duplicated side-by-side (I'd have to analyze it more carefully to determine that, which I will be glad to do if you pay me my usual consulting fee for such technical work, up front).

See above for repeated detail on the *side by side* details. Sorry, but *lol* at the fee nonsense. Field split and subsequent processing was performed by yours truly, and no, no *noise* introduced. All processing steps known.

Regardless, the quality is not as good as some present-day YouTube clips I myself have posted.

If you have a better quality copy of the same clip, by all means point me at it. I'll re-do the processing (for freeness ) and you can have a look at the same facade behaviour again.

To sum up, the only thing this video is good for (and I haven't even approached the matter of provenance and possible deliberate alteration) is to make gross observations; i.e., did the building fall down, up, or sideways? Most anything else derived from this video is open to interpretation and needs corroboration.

You would be surprised what can be done with such video data, in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing.

Here's some data if you like...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/dan_rather_basic_trace_data/1-1-0-29
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/wtc7_dan_rather_extra_static_points/1-1-0-30
And for the other view (NIST Cam#3)...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/trace_data_nist_camera_3_raw/1-1-0-28

Have a nice day.

 

[femr2]

If the 17Mb rate is accurate, this is, not extremely low, but extremely high

It is indeed.

However, this won't make a poor video into a good one.

It is not intended to.

Basically, someone wasted a huge amount of storage space for no advantage.

Incorrect. The lowest possible h264 format compression was applied to absolutely MINIMISE inclusion of compression artefact my me. ALL other processing from my base source file is performed in HuffYUV lossless format.

 

[ozeco41]

There's an amount of individual interpretation of course. I've studied the behaviour for a usefully lengthy amount of time and am in no doubt, but have not formalised that interpretation.

I'd have to say that it would be one hell of a coincidence if such a circular region of distortion as is seen on the facade as the penthouse descends was not actually due to such

Understood. I didn't want to make a probability based argument in my previous post. If you share my twisted sense of humour this discussion brings to mind the story about alligators, arses and swamps.

Perhaps that's a discussion most usefully conducted in another venue.

Sure.

 

[DGM]

I am familiar with 3*6m glass panes wiggling when moved around by vacuum cups.
What is the problem with a glass front flexing during collapse?

Nothing.

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]
A good point. I won't explore it at this stage - too much activity and noise on the thread.

Circle gets the square.

 

[ozeco41]

What is the state of play?
The facade of WTC7 was subject to flexure as the collapse started.
Sunlight reflecting seems to have made detection of the flexure easier.
Flexure is expected in a collapsing building.
The flexure could indicate that forces were applied to the facade near column 79
That finding supports NIST
AND it is additional evidence to what we had access to previously.

Counter claims include:
Criticism of the video processing but AFAICS non of those making the criticism take it to the implied conclusion that the flexure revealed by the alleged video artefacts did not in fact occur and therefore the façade did not flex.

Criticism that the additional evidence does not change the already formed conclusion that there was no demolition. Analogous to saying "we already know that the accused committed the murder. We will not admit the new evidence that he was seen at the scene of the crime."

 

[DGM]

Femr, do you have any real evidence that WTC7 was demolished, instead of giving us your personal interpretations of quotes and footage?

Do you have any real reason to believe he still think it was?


femr2: If this is a hobby where you you enjoy looking a video (all is good) then state this. If you just want to mess with "debunkers" for kicks............I'm not buying.

 

[femr2]

Do you have any real reason to believe he still think it was?


femr2: If this is a hobby where you you enjoy looking a video (all is good) then state this. If you just want to mess with "debunkers" for kicks............I'm not buying.

As I've said, the last thing I shall do in any of these arenas (by definition) is to add a full-stop to opinion of the *big picture*.

However, I think it's fairly clear that someone providing visual cue evidence (imo) of WTC 7 facade behaviour supporting the NIST hypothesis, and unique early motion trace data with the suggestion that it nullifies MIHOP theories which rely upon *boom* followed by immediate collapse...is certainly not here for *kicks*, nor promotion of *woo*, nor deceit, nor...

I do what I do to clarify, or confirm, or refute details of interest. Simple as that really. If folk want to make silly accusations ad infinitum, or demands I've already given my answer to (whether they like the answer or not), meh.