Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[tsig]

While police and lawyers should be correct when using technical terms, they are not mostly because tthey are not trained in such things. It grates on m e to no end that this is the case in those situations. Its wrong and should not be used.



Having actually corrected friends on this specific point I know very well the actual result. For a while my nickname was, "Deitrich" from the "Barney Miller" sitcom.

I too bite my tongue when I want to correct my wife. Then again she and I usually are not debating technical issues.
OTOH when a person comes here to debate technical issues and in the first few sentences uses the term "free fall speed" or worse "near free fall speed" or even "faster than free fall" and actually believes that they are being accurate and trying to convince us of their credibility it is quite right to point out that their terminology is incorrect.
On the flip side of that coin, if we are doing this to them it is encumbent upon us to be technically accurate as well. To act otherwise is hypocrisy.

Neither are truthers.

 

[Jackanory]

Wow...what a bizarre reply....

I'll try to keep in mind that accuracy is not important to you depending on the topic. Got it.

Thankfully not everyone on this site shares your opinion.

Again......misrepresenting what I actually said! Accuracy is not important when discussing? ........................What did I actually say? I'll give you a clue...........when talking woo and none occurances!

Not only does the majority of this site agree that discussing the in's and out's of 'woo and none occurances' is not important but I suspect that the rest of the rational world agrees too!

But hey........if you wish to continue debating fake occurances and woo with the correct terminology then go right ahead. lol. Akin to kids in the playground squabling over Pinnoccio being real or not, then transcending into proving/disproving it by analysing how his clothes fit and the type of wood he is made of. lol.

Now that is 'bizarre'. lol. Yet from your logic it requires the correct behaviour and terminology.lol.

Tell me...........do you know what femr2's theory is? Bizarre!

 

[Jackanory]

"bizarre" is hardly the word. The idea that being less than honest with people we disagree with is acceptable is not for me. Nor many others I suspect.

Again...........please quote me for saying that!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"... the dogs did not detect it"?? WTF??

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I apologize to femr2 for my previous post. When examining the individual frames, I took an unjustifiable shortcut. This is somewhat technical...

As Myriad is probably aware, the problem he's about to point out is in the GIF file itself, not in our browsers.

Displays perfectly on my browser, and having asked others, on theirs too. It's a system specific issue.

It displays fine in my browser also.

As femr2 may not be aware, the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) uses lossless compression, so everyone who examines femr2's GIF images frame by frame will see exactly the same problems.

Incorrect. Again, fine on my browser and the browsers of many others.

I wasn't talking about how it displays in your browser. I was talking about the individual frames.

What I wrote about the Graphics Interchange Format is correct. Everyone who separates your animation into its component frames will see the same frames.

In your animation, all but the first of those frames are difference (delta) images. Reconstructing the displayed image from those difference images takes some processing, and I screwed up on that step. Myriad may have made the same mistake.

When I repeated the process while paying more careful attention to ImageMagick's documentation, the reconstructed images came out fine.

 

[triforcharity]

The dogs were looking for people and then body parts, not explosives. They would not have been sniffing the steel beams, girders and columns.

[FONT=&quot]"Our dogs, and the dogs we train for incendiary work are specifically trained to react to certain chemicals found in explosives/incendiaries. In the case of thermite/thermate that chemical is Barium Nitrate. Sulfur is also one of the compounds we train for that are found in thermate and explosives either as an initial component or as a by product of detonation."
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1241099880000#c1478786432859045273

The nano-thermite did not contain barium nitrate or sulfur. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was corroded by a eutectic containing sulfur but the dogs did not detect it.
[/FONT]

You do know that most of the dogs trained by Capt. McGee, were in fact trained for LP and explosives, right?

I can prove it too.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...TAtMjFlYi00YWQwLTk0NDgtYTFhMjhkMTU2ZGNh&hl=en

Page 4.

Now, where do you think the dogs were searching? In the sewers? Of course not. They were searching the piles. Where were the columns, girders, and beams located?

In the piles. They would have been all over the piles, walking on the beams, etc. doing their job. Do you think that they would have just magically missed it?

Feel free to ignore this, like you did your last fail.

 

[NoahFence]

Shockwave seems a reasonable description

No, it doesn't.

Reflections are a reasonable description, because that's what it is. It's not a "disturbance".... it's a reflection. Of that I'm 100% sure.

When the entire planet except you thinks "shockwave" we think explosion.

 

[NoahFence]

Who said it was ? I said I thought it was a reasonable word to use (in the spirit of a propogating wave), but given the complaints, as I said yesterday, I changed the video title. No big deal.

Except it's still wrong. Look at the video I posted. It's LIGHT from the SUN.
Shining on the windows as the building collapses.

It's not a shockwave.
It's not the core failure.
It's the sun.

 

[Jackanory]

I still have no idea what femr2's theory is. Does he have a theory?

Seems that he has an opinion on just about anything woo ish. Never admits that he is wrong. Doesn't retract what he has profferred. Thinks it important to debate irrelevant crap.

Still waiting for him to give us a GIF of a true CD and compare that to anything on 911. But hey............911 was a one off for many things

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif[/qimg]

Heh. Reminds me of that one lady who would apply "Photoshop" filters to pictures of famous people in order to expose the hidden reptilian within.

 

[newton3376]

Again......misrepresenting what I actually said! Accuracy is not important when discussing? ........................What did I actually say? I'll give you a clue...........when talking woo and none occurances!

YOU are the one who claimed is wasn't important to be accurate...not me.

In real life I'm an Engineer...so yeah accuracy is important especially when discussing technical topics. It makes no difference if I am talking to a truther or a debunker.......accuracy is important. It makes no difference if I am debating 9/11 or if I am doing something for my job....accuracy is important.

Your personal opinion of what is "important" enough to be accurate and what isn't doesn't interest me at all.

Not only does the majority of this site agree that discussing the in's and out's of 'woo and none occurances' is not important but I suspect that the rest of the rational world agrees too!

1. Don't speak for the "majority" of this site.

2. Perhaps you missed the fact that you are in the 9/11 sub forum of a skeptical website geared towards debate/discussion. So writing that

discussing the in's and out's of 'woo and none occurances' is not important

is ridiculous. It's apparently important enough to have it's own sub forum and important enough for all of us to spend time typing away and debating it. If it isn't important to you on some level than why waste your time here? Go make a sandwich or something.....

But hey........if you wish to continue debating fake occurances and woo with the correct terminology then go right ahead. lol. Akin to kids in the playground squabling over Pinnoccio being real or not, then transcending into proving/disproving it by analysing how his clothes fit and the type of wood he is made of. lol.

You might actually have the worst analogies ever.

Now that is 'bizarre'. lol. Yet from your logic it requires the correct behaviour and terminology.lol.

Some of the things you type make such little sense it's difficult to reply to.....

Tell me...........do you know what femr2's theory is? Bizarre!

I've read and participated in the back and forth debates with femr2 before. I have issues with things like resolution and noise when analyzing a video or still photograph....so I don't think we can say the analysis that NIST did was invalid or incompetent.

Could NIST have done a better job? Well of course...but hindsight is always clearer and it's much easier to attack someone elses position and find errors than it is to come up with an alternative position.

Does femr2 find errors? All I have seen are either very minor issues or issues that don't change the overall conclusion. That overall conclusion being that the buildings fell due to a progressive failure of various structural elements that eventually led to global failure.

And the main cause of that was from the fires in all three buildings.

As far as what femr2 actually believes....I have no idea and I have taken issue with him before over that.

Now......if you don't care about accuracy and don't think 9/11 is important enough a topic to be accurate about when discussing the woo of the truth movement.....then why do you continue posting here?

There are other things you could be doing besides making up analogies about Pinnoccio.

 

[Jackanory]

YOU are the one who claimed is wasn't important to be accurate...not me.

In real life I'm an Engineer...so yeah accuracy is important especially when discussing technical topics. It makes no difference if I am talking to a truther or a debunker.......accuracy is important. It makes no difference if I am debating 9/11 or if I am doing something for my job....accuracy is important.

Your personal opinion of what is "important" enough to be accurate and what isn't doesn't interest me at all.



1. Don't speak for the "majority" of this site.

2. Perhaps you missed the fact that you are in the 9/11 sub forum of a skeptical website geared towards debate/discussion. So writing that is ridiculous. It's apparently important enough to have it's own sub forum and important enough for all of us to spend time typing away and debating it. If it isn't important to you on some level than why waste your time here? Go make a sandwich or something.....



You might actually have the worst analogies ever.



Some of the things you type make such little sense it's difficult to reply to.....



I've read and participated in the back and forth debates with femr2 before. I have issues with things like resolution and noise when analyzing a video or still photograph....so I don't think we can say the analysis that NIST did was invalid or incompetent.

Could NIST have done a better job? Well of course...but hindsight is always clearer and it's much easier to attack someone elses position and find errors than it is to come up with an alternative position.

Does femr2 find errors? All I have seen are either very minor issues or issues that don't change the overall conclusion. That overall conclusion being that the buildings fell due to a progressive failure of various structural elements that eventually led to global failure.

And the main cause of that was from the fires in all three buildings.

As far as what femr2 actually believes....I have no idea and I have taken issue with him before over that.

Now......if you don't care about accuracy and don't think 9/11 is important enough a topic to be accurate about when discussing the woo of the truth movement.....then why do you continue posting here?

There are other things you could be doing besides making up analogies about Pinnoccio.

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.

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:-

" Does femr2 find errors? All I have seen are either very minor issues or issues that don't change the overall conclusion. That overall conclusion being that the buildings fell due to a progressive failure of various structural elements that eventually led to global failure".

"There are other things you could be doing besides making up analogies about Pinnoccio". .............lol. 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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I still have no idea what femr2's theory is. Does he have a theory?

Yes. It's that he's smarter than anyone else.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Tell me...........do you know what femr2's theory is? Bizarre!

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

What did I actually say? I'll give you a clue...........when talking woo and none occurances!

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

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

But hey........if you wish to continue debating fake occurances and woo with the correct terminology then go right ahead.

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

 

[femr2]

I wasn't talking about how it displays in your browser. I was talking about the individual frames.
...
In your animation, all but the first of those frames are difference (delta) images.

Yes, keeps the file size manageable. Even small video clips in animated GIF format would be very impractical otherwise.

When I repeated the process while paying more careful attention to ImageMagick's documentation, the reconstructed images came out fine.

Okay.

 

[femr2]

No, it doesn't.

We can beg to differ, but seeing as I changed the video title yesterday, making the point known on multiple occasions, it's rather a moot point.

Reflections are a reasonable description, because that's what it is.

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.

It's not a "disturbance".... it's a reflection.

See above.

Of that I'm 100% sure.

You were 100% sure that you could see right through the building. I suggest you include an amount of doubt in what you are saying.

When the entire planet except you thinks "shockwave" we think explosion.

You now know that belief to be inaccurate.

 

[femr2]

Except it's still wrong. Look at the video I posted. It's LIGHT from the SUN.
Shining on the windows as the building collapses.

It's not a shockwave.
It's not the core failure.
It's the sun.

Not worth responding to, but I guess I have. Must be takin' the mick

 

[Jackanory]

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

You first! Ya know how it works. A fake occurance of what specifically? The engineer will discuss it with you, despite him not knowing what it is you are actually getting at. I wont. If ya want to discuss your pods and squibs then go ahead. Or would you prefer not to travel back in time to your earlier woo. Did ya manage to establish that you were discussing the undercarriage and that it was in the original design? What was that propogation thingy again? What does it point too again? Ah yes.........you wont say! lol.

Are you suggesting that you don't or havn't engaged in discussions of fake/irrelevant occurances? lol. shhhhhhhhhhh.........we'll probably forget that. lol.

 

[carlitos]

B
The video is quite easy to see - and once I knew where to look I could see the effect in the gif.
The Aussie expression (edited for Nanny Filter constraints) "It is as obvious as the genitals of a male canine."

Thanks. I'm convinced. [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

Good for you, I guess. Since the gif is just a bunch of jiggly nonsense (as noted by others), I went and looked at the youtube. I watched it 4 or 5 times, and I see an over-saturated, fake color version of the Salomon Brothers building falling down. Penthouse collapses into the building, it sort of twists, and then collapses. Whatever "wave propagation" that femr2 wants me to see, I simply cannot see.

femr2, If you have only heard from 2 people that your gifs are a mess, add me to the list. Every gif you or Major_Tom ever post does not appear like you think it does on Firefox or Safari (Mac) or Safari (PC). You'd be better just linking the youtubes. (Unless you don't want people here reading the comments, that is. Then they'd see what you're actually accomplishing with your "work")

 

[Sherman Bay]

A chunk of the video...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/hjm.gif[/qimg]

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!"