Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[carlitos]

that's a funny bone to pick.

Thanks. I ran out of puns for this one myself. I think that the subtlety was lost.

Another classic no-claimer position. You post a quote as a deniable way of posting an opinion, so that, when it's challenged, you can quickly disclaim responsibility for the statement. It's a classic piece of cowardly passive aggression, and it fools nobody.

Yup.

 

[femr2]

So not cool with the whole none of your business then, hmmm?

As I said, I'm not too bothered.

Instead, speculate about "some personal embarrassment" now that is what I expected!

A guess. You can correct that guess if you like.

You are a truther, afterall.

Is that so ?

You see, it has to be "some personal embarrassment"

Doesn't have to be at all.

it could not be personal connection to the events of 9/11

Then it would have been much simpler to just say so, wouldn't it.

not to a truther, certainly not to a person like femr2, sitting behind his computer consprira-spanking.

A personal attack which you base upon what exactly ?

femr2, I'm still going to go with it ain't none of your business, and wait with eagerness your next snarky, whiny post.

I imagine you said it above...some personal connection to the events. I'd enquire further but I imagine you'd react similarly negatively. If you didn't want to discuss it, I think it would have been better for you to have not brought yourself into the question.

I'll go with *some personal connection to the events*. You good with that ?

ps: You might want to look up the definition of "paranoid," because it ain't as apt an insult as you think it is, you "clever" bird.

It's not intended as an insult. It's an observation.

 

[DGM]

If that is so, why bother ? What is the motivation ?

You mention my tracing data in passing. There's very good reason for performing the traces, and an awful lot of information has been gleaned from such, not least the early motion for both WTC1 and WTC7. The reaction from most *debunkers* to the presentation of that information has been frankly hilarious. Not a clue about the purpose, usefulness or meaning of the results. Funny s***

The motivation can be explained best as a hobby. I've learned quite a bit about the day and a vast array of other subjects. The giggles are just a side perk.

I have no problem with your spending time analyzing videos, I just wish you would actually do something with the information. Your work is more "look see" and no "this actually means". "Debunker" responses that you consider "humorous" stem from the fact you never go the next step and actually prove what it all means.

 

[TruthersLie]

Thanks for the welcome! I'm nobody's sock, but one can never be too careful, apparently. If you really believe that people who joined the forum a few years ago for other reasons should be purged, or otherwise prohibited from posting in 9/11 threads, I'll be happy to kick that proposal around with you over in FM.

Do you disagree with my contention that it's the implicit shifting of blame for the 3000 murders, which makes general-purpose debunkers more likely to argue against 911 conspiracy than, say, hollow earth?

Not at all.

I'm just noticing that as of right now we have three accounts which were signed up for over 3 years ago and extremely rarely used who are now openly posting.

That sounds a lot like many of our serial socks who were all signed up for in the same time period and when one twoof gets nailed, they just switch socks.

If you aren't a sock, then welcome.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'll go with *some personal connection to the events*. You good with that ?

It's not intended as an insult. It's an observation.

Righto! Note to self, femr2's accusations of being "paranoid" are just "observations."

I need to take notes with you, because what sounds like an insult, or whining, or an attack based on your assumptions are merely innocent misunderstandings on my behalf.

Gotcha! You are like riddle wrapped in a snarky package there, champ.

Now, actually I'd be better with "it's not any of my damn business" but that horse has already left the barn, now hasn't it?

Have a great day truthering!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure. Forever ? Same thing over and over again ? Futile ?

When the same mistakes get posted over and over again, they need to be pointed out over and over again, lest they go unremarked and fool someone into thinking they're intelligent comment.

Spurious claims about my intent and motivation from simply making a point of motivation.

"...your employer provides you with an internet connection to do your job, not spread your message..."

...goes to a little more than motivation; it's a direct challenge to the right of other people to have a say in the debate at all. And, let me remind you, when I responded only to the part about motivation, this part was important enough for you to ask me to comment on it as well. So don't pretend it wasn't an important part of the quote from your point of view.

Quite simply, if you're claiming you've done nothing but "simply making a point of motivation," you're lying, even if only to yourself.

Dave

 

[femr2]

The motivation can be explained best as a hobby. I've learned quite a bit about the day and a vast array of other subjects. The giggles are just a side perk.

Fair enough.

I have no problem with your spending time analyzing videos, I just wish you would actually do something with the information. Your work is more "look see" and no "this actually means". "Debunker" responses that you consider "humorous" stem from the fact you never go the next step and actually prove what it all means.

As I've said, I think the initial conclusions from presentation of early motion trace data are blindingly obvious, but if it really needs spelling out...

If the building was in motion before release(*) then whatever caused the descent ocurred prior to that early motion.

(*) Release being the start of sustained vertical descent, T₀.

That alone effectively negates almost all *theories* on the table which rely upon the mechanism of *boom* followed immediately by descent.


What I find repeatedly hum funny is the number of times folk roun'ere, in discussions about that data, that I presented, have made silly accusations of me talking about explosive controlled demolition, namely that very *boom*->drop that the data shows movement in advance of...

 

[femr2]

When the same mistakes get posted over and over again, they need to be pointed out over and over again, lest they go unremarked and fool someone into thinking they're intelligent comment.

So, forever then ?

...goes to a little more than motivation; it's a direct challenge to the right of other people to have a say in the debate at all. And, let me remind you, when I responded only to the part about motivation, this part was important enough for you to ask me to comment on it as well. So don't pretend it wasn't an important part of the quote from your point of view.

The purpose in restating it was the part you've chopped off again, namely...

*What motivates you to dedicate your life to debunking the same nonsense repeatedly...*

...which is the very thing I am discussing with you. Going over the same thing again, and again, and again.

You don't have to like or be interested in any of the trace data stuff I present, but it's all *new*. Once I get to the end of my personal interest, it's hit the beach a bit longer time

Quite simply, if you're claiming you've done nothing but "simply making a point of motivation," you're lying, even if only to yourself.

Dave

I have no need to lie, Dave.

 

[carlitos]

That alone effectively negates almost all *theories* on the table which rely upon the mechanism of *boom* followed immediately by descent.

The lack of *boom* does that in and of itself. No video tracing needed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, forever then ?

As long as stupidity is taking the ring on one side, someone needs to oppose it. What's your alternative? At what point do we give in and let lies and misunderstandings go unchallenged?

I have no need to lie, Dave.

Invalid appeal to motive.

Dave

 

[DGM]

Fair enough.


As I've said, I think the initial conclusions from presentation of early motion trace data are blindingly obvious, but if it really needs spelling out...

If the building was in motion before release(*) then whatever caused the descent ocurred prior to that early motion.

(*) Release being the start of sustained vertical descent, T₀.

I bolded where you fall short. See what I saying, the work is incomplete. Work up a theory and do the work to support (or dismiss) it. That's how it works.

That alone effectively negates almost all *theories* on the table which rely upon the mechanism of *boom* followed immediately by descent.

Ah no. You fail to show that what you observed is not connected to (as an effect of or artifact) the previous theories.

 

[femr2]

The lack of *boom* does that in and of itself. No video tracing needed.

No-one has bothered (including me) to do the leg-work required to *prove* that microphone (x) at position would pick up boom (z) at location (a).....etc (am sure you saw the thread recently)

The *lack of a *boom** does not therefore *prove* anything at all.

However, the trace data can be verified and replicated by anyone who chooses to.

It is *proof* of early motion.

 

[carlitos]

nist.gov Never mind - it's an appeal to perfection fallacy.

ETA - I've seen seeded quotations and seeded parentheses before, but seeded * for emphasis is a first for me. Kudos.

 

[oody]

If you aren't a sock, then welcome.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And yes I have noticed what you're talking about with the new-ish contributors.

It was just that question which finally drew me out of my lurk: I regularly encounter a number of people who are into all sorts of vibrational-energy woo, and I've learned not to bother arguing with them, as it's much like religion. The occasional hollow-earth, fluoride, or chemtrail comment that pops out? I've learned to roll my eyes a little and move on. But when it comes to 911 I'll say something. It's simply too far across the spectrum from quaint beliefs toward blood libel.

 

[Sabretooth]

No-one has bothered (including me) to do the leg-work required to *prove* that microphone (x) at position would pick up boom (z) at location (a).....etc (am sure you saw the thread recently)

The *lack of a *boom** does not therefore *prove* anything at all.

However, the trace data can be verified and replicated by anyone who chooses to.

It is *proof* of early motion.

We're not talking a single point of reference for a microphone to pick up a *boom*...

How many different video and sound recording devices were fixed on the WTC area on 9/11? And how many picked up any *boom* that would presage and signify the initiation of collapse?

Oh, right...none of them did. Pity for your "movement".

 

[beachnut]

If that is so, why bother ? What is the motivation ?

You mention my tracing data in passing. There's very good reason for performing the traces, and an awful lot of information has been gleaned from such, not least the early motion for both WTC1 and WTC7. The reaction from most *debunkers* to the presentation of that information has been frankly hilarious. Not a clue about the purpose, usefulness or meaning of the results. Funny s***

You are comedy, trying to back in CD after 9 years. You study details which have nothing to do with 19 terrorists killing Americans. You study stuff which means nothing, and you have no goal, no objective, no thesis, no nothing, which ends up nowhere. Your data has discontinuity in it and you never close the loop to correct your errors, explain your errors, or correct your lies, your implied lies.

You make up fake ways to study stuff that goes nowhere. Never did correct your errors in 175 speeds after showing what appears to be data problems due to lens zooming. You have no clue what error models are, and as you take data readings out well past their resolution limits, you fail to post the error budgets associated with the system.

You study the collapse, a system which means nothing, and you refuse to set goals, or explain what you are trying to prove.

If your studies were not nonsense, they would be published in a journal. Got a date for that, any goals set? Have you fixed your data? No, you will blame others for your failed data and ignore your errors. You can't go back and fixed what you made up in the first place using your own made up analysis system.

Good luck.

On this sound stuff, do you have the "Handbook for Sound Engineers"? What school did you study sound engineering at? Are you making up this stuff as you go like your other studies? Did 19 terrorists do 911 with 4 planes, and hit 75 percent of their targets? Why is 911 truth sitting today at zero percent evidence to support 100 percent of their delusions?

 

[femr2]

We're not talking a single point of reference for a microphone to pick up a *boom*...

You may not be, but I am.

How many different video and sound recording devices were fixed on the WTC area on 9/11?

Quite a few.

And how many picked up any *boom* that would presage and signify the initiation of collapse?

Well, there's the problem. Which of them would be expected to ?

How big a boom would camera (x) NOT pick up ?
How small a boom at location (x) in a tower would actually be required to result in initiation of descent ?

As I've said on numerous occasions on the audio topic, I imagine quite a few mics should have picked up even relatively small booms, but until someone does the leg-work to crunch the numbers, saying no boom on recording (x) is just guesswork, aka hand-waving.

Oh, right...none of them did.

Is that so ? Have you performed analysis of the audio tracks on all of the available footage ? If not, then, again, until it is done stating *none of them did* is *unproven*.

Pity for your "movement".

What movement would that be ?

 

[DGM]

How small a boom at location (x) in a tower would actually be required to result in initiation of descent ?

My guess is none.

You need to show explosives (or boom) were needed and exactly how much. Anything short of that is pointless.

 

[Sabretooth]

You may not be, but I am.


Quite a few.


Well, there's the problem. Which of them would be expected to ?

How big a boom would camera (x) NOT pick up ?
How small a boom at location (x) in a tower would actually be required to result in initiation of descent ?

As I've said on numerous occasions on the audio topic, I imagine quite a few mics should have picked up even relatively small booms, but until someone does the leg-work to crunch the numbers, saying no boom on recording (x) is just guesswork, aka hand-waving.


Is that so ? Have you performed analysis of the audio tracks on all of the available footage ? If not, then, again, until it is done stating *none of them did* is *unproven*.


What movement would that be ?

Having seen your work here, you are trying waaaaaay too hard to avoid the obvious that automatically refutes the nonsense you just wrote.

You know damn well that any significant blast noise would be picked up by a Radio Shack microphone miles away from the source. Which would suggest that there are potentially dozens, if not a hundred, different recording points within a 2 or 3 mile radius of GZ. Yet, none of them pick up the faintest inclination of a *boom* immediately prior to any of the building collapses.

Quit trying to bury your head in the sand.

 

[tsig]

Again, your lack of clarity is your problem.

What early motion?

What should be obvious?

What clearly isn't?

What [is] funny?

Have you ever taken an English class? Have you ever seen one of these?

Short staccato sentences. Add punch. To fiction.