Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[femr2]

femr2, I have no complaint about your use of AVI to store data

The point being you have very little knowledge about the technical details of that video storage container, therefore your posturing becoming moot, and the many highlights about your lack of knowledge about the elements you are talking about becoming clearer.

so there's no point in harping on that any more.

If you wish to cast aside your initial posturing about knowledge level, that's fine. I wont rub it in.

However:Actually, yes, it did, and you did.

No it did not add noise that was not already there, as I have explained to you and you have seemingly not understood. As I said, I can go through each and every processing step in horrendously boring detail if that is what you choose to do.

It appears that your "color enhancement" accentuated the color noise.

Of course it did, but it did not add to it. Any colour range processing will, as I said, exaggerate the pre-existing video noise.

You have enhanced the artifacts

Absolutely (pre-existing).

then you are pointing to what you see as evidence of...I'm not sure what

Then perhaps you need to take heed, not of I, but of the others here who are taking the time to absorb the visual cue information and agreeing with my opinion. Until you *see* the behvaiour, you really are in no position to say what is being discussed.

but this is fictitious data.

Absolute nonsense. You can attempt to claw back your *expertise* tag, but I'm afraid it just will not wash.

You have made false data more noticeable

Again, absolute nonsense. Perhaps it would be prudent for you to spend time making sure you are aware of the behaviour being highlighted before you make such inept suggestion.

then used it to prove your point.

Too ironic. The point being visual cue information which would tend to support the notion of low-down failure within WTC7 propogating upwards to the East penthouse, followed by descent of said down through the building.

I fail to see why you want to separate them.

And therefore showing you are not at all well versed in video information processing at all.

As far as the "points in time," this may or may not be true.

It absolutely is, and further shows your ineptitude.

It depends on how the original was recorded.

Interlaced video data is inherently defined. Excuse the clarity, but...you don't know jack.

If it was recorded as progressive, then the two fields are from exactly the same time.

Dear me. Any progressive frame is NOT interlaced, by definition. Stop digging the hole deeper.

If it was recorded as interlaced

Absolutely irrelevant. The source media is interlaced.

the fields MAY be from as much as 1/60 of a second different in time, or maybe not, depending on how the camera handled the interlace task.

Too funny.

Either way, I don't see why it makes any difference.

That is abundantly clear. Do not make assumptions about relative levels of video processing knowledge.

YOU have separated full frames into their component fields 1 & 2.

Absolutely.

Then you put them side by side and created a new file, right?

Right.

You are correct, and I stand corrected.

No worries.

Indeed.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Since femr2 has such low regard for my knowledge and abilities, the ones that others pay good money for and hold in much higher regard, there seems to be no point in my continuing to contribute to this thread. In fact, I have an appointment in a few hours to do another video shoot with my meager and inadequate knowledge, although it will be a gospel show, not a building falling down. Let's hope I can muddle through it.

Have a nice one.

 

[femr2]

Since femr2 has such low regard for my knowledge and abilities

In context my low regard is irrelevant, it's your demonstrated lack of knowledge that is the problem.

the ones that others pay good money for and hold in much higher regard

I do not think your artistic abilities (which people may pay for) have anything to do with your clear limitations when it comes to low-level technical understanding.

there seems to be no point in my continuing to contribute to this thread. In fact, I have an appointment in a few hours to do another video shoot with my meager and inadequate knowledge, although it will be a gospel show, not a building falling down. Let's hope I can muddle through it.

Have a nice one.

You too. Bye

 

[beachnut]

Personally, I had a really hard time trying to see what femr was trying to point out in the animated GIF, for quite a while. I finally did see it today, so I knocked together an edited version of his sequence to roughly approximate what to look for, for those (like me) who have a hard time reading tealeaves. Just to help make sure we're at least on the same page FWIW. And I have 15 posts now, so I can.

He is pointing out he thinks the official story is fiction, and he labels gravity collapses as "Demolitions". It is that simple. He is making it up as he goes, and rarely explains where the fiction is in the official story. A closet CD truther, who thinks there are sides to 911. Not sure how fantasy of 911 truth becomes a side.
He sees problems because he does not have the knowledge to understand. http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/2-2-1
http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/12-11-1 He looks up facts and spreads false information, and loves to pick at NIST. Trivialize 315 tons of TNT in heat energy from jet fuel in each tower; what is that?

 

[Christopher7]

Hi Triforcharity,

I'll keep this bomb-sniffing dogs info in my back pocket if I need it. But more importantly, do expert firefighters know if buildings sometimes collapse at freefall in fires for at least part of the time? I think the answer is yes but it would be good to hear your comments on it.
Thanks all,
Chris

Keep in mind that the dogs were trained to detect barium nitrate and sulfur so they would not detect the nano-thermite or regular thermite made with aluminum and iron oxide.

 

[beachnut]

Keep in mind that the dogs were trained to detect barium nitrate and sulfur so they would not detect the nano-thermite or regular thermite made with aluminum and iron oxide.

Keep in mind zero thermite product, fused iron, was found at the WTC complex. Keep in mind, no thermite was used on 911. When we keep these facts in mind, what fantasy are you trying to mislead people with. Why are you at a skeptic forum armed with hearsay, and delusions?

Keep in mind Jones made up thermite after 911 based on the same logic and knowledge he used to blame the earthquake that hit Haiti on the USA; it is called insanity.

 

[Christopher7]

But the problem is, once that water runs out, then what you get is a whole lot of calcium sulfate powder. And burning that can lead to sulfur dioxide, which is a known corrosive agent for steel.

The sulfur is locked in a chemical bond in the gypsum molecule.

It is idiotic to assume that the sulfur that caused the steel beam to melt came from drywall when drywall is used for fireproofing.

Post a credible scientific source for that ridiculous claim or stop making it.

 

[carlitos]

Today's General 9/11 discussion update. From meetup:

9/11 Blueprint for Truth; The architecture of Destruction
is happening tomorrow

When: Where:
Monday, April 11, 2011
7:00 PM
The Center for Visual & Performing Arts
1040 Ridge Road
Check it out →

Who's going:
7 9/11 Truth Advocates

I think I'll pass.

 

[DGM]

He is pointing out he thinks the official story is fiction, and he labels gravity collapses as "Demolitions". It is that simple. He is making it up as he goes, and rarely explains where the fiction is in the official story. A closet CD truther, who thinks there are sides to 911. Not sure how fantasy of 911 truth becomes a side.
He sees problems because he does not have the knowledge to understand. http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/2-2-1
http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/12-11-1 He looks up facts and spreads false information, and loves to pick at NIST. Trivialize 315 tons of TNT in heat energy from jet fuel in each tower; what is that?

To be fair, in this particular case he is showing evidence that NIST was correct. Links to previous claims aside, he has not made any conspiracy claims (related to this latest "study") so I would like to see people cut him some slack (ultimately cutting down the noise) and see were he wants to go with this.

I see no fundamental problems with his technique (in this case). Yes, there is "noise" but it doesn't matter for what he's showing.

Let's face it. If he was not a "known truther" everyone would be looking at this differently. Let's take it for what it is, So far, NIST was not wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

...Let's face it. If he was not a "known truther" everyone would be looking at this differently....

Good Morning ^AU! The thread is an interesting study in "Variations on the Theme of Applied Confirmation Bias".

..Let's take it for what it is, So far, NIST was not wrong.

It could go further and add detailed proof that NIST was right. And it is free.

 

[Christopher7]

Keep in mind zero thermite product, fused iron, was found at the WTC complex.

Incorrect. The iron spheres that RJ Lee Group and the international team of highly qualified scientists found in the WTC dust, are the same as the ones created by igniting the red/gray chips.

Keep in mind Jones made up thermite after 911 based on the same logic and knowledge he used to blame the earthquake that hit Haiti on the USA; it is called insanity.

In the end all you have is defamation, double talk, diversion and denial.

Whenever credible scientists and engineers point out the flaws in the official explanation you just call them liars. It's so easy even a child can do it.

 

[Sunstealer]

Keep in mind that the dogs were trained to detect barium nitrate and sulfur so they would not detect the nano-thermite or regular thermite made with aluminum and iron oxide.

OK so if the thermite didn't have any Sulphur in then it could not possibly have caused a eutectic Fe-O-S then could it?

I want you to state how you think this Fe-O-S eutectic came from if not thermite.

The sulfur is locked in a chemical bond in the gypsum molecule.

It is idiotic to assume that the sulfur that caused the steel beam to melt came from drywall when drywall is used for fireproofing.

Post a credible scientific source for that ridiculous claim or stop making it.

Christ on a bike this has been discussed to death on this forum. You were told this 2 years ago in the 10 story hole in WTC 7 thread.

The release of SO2 from CaSO4.H2O occurs at temperatures below 940°C in a reducing CO atmosphere.

Here are the names of the papers that prove that

T.D. Wheelock et al. “Reductive Decomposition of Gypsum by Carbon Monoxide.” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 52(3), 215, (1960).

R. Kuusik et al. “Thermal Decomposition of Calcium Sulfate in Carbon Monoxide.” Journal of Thermal Analysis 30, 187, (1985).

Why do you refuse to learn? You could be 2/3rds of the way through a degree in chemistry by now. Although I think that would be pointless for you because you are incapable of taking in information and learning from people hundreds of times more experienced than you.

Do you actually know what happens to drywall above 100°C? Hint: What happens to a well known liquid that you encounter every day at 100°C?

CaSO4.H2O

I'd like to see if you can work it out or find a source that tells you. If I could place a bet I'd put my mortgage on you not being able to. It's a sure fire bet.

Also steel beams didn't melt - not in the way you think melting occurs. You make yourself look very foolish by continuing to remain wilfully ignorant.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There's a huge difference between gypsum boards from a building in perfect working, and pulverized gypsum from a collapsed building.

Not to him there isn't

 

[Sunstealer]

IWhenever credible scientists and engineers point out the flaws in the official explanation you just call them liars. It's so easy even a child can do it.

You'll have to find some credible engineers and scientists in the truth movement first.

 

[Edx]

Whenever credible scientists and engineers point out the flaws in the official explanation you just call them liars. It's so easy even a child can do it.

lol what credible scientists have done that?

 

[newton3376]

To be fair, in this particular case he is showing evidence that NIST was correct. Links to previous claims aside, he has not made any conspiracy claims (related to this latest "study") so I would like to see people cut him some slack (ultimately cutting down the noise) and see were he wants to go with this.

I see no fundamental problems with his technique (in this case). Yes, there is "noise" but it doesn't matter for what he's showing.

Let's face it. If he was not a "known truther" everyone would be looking at this differently. Let's take it for what it is, So far, NIST was not wrong.

I think DGM makes some excellent points here that we should all consider.....

Thanks for a well reasoned post DGM.

 

[femr2]

(You can call each of the images resulting from each field a frame at a later date if you like, but probably best if I dig you out the several week-long horrifically boring discussion on that point separately)

Whilst I remember...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182833

 

[femr2]

he has not made any conspiracy claims (related to this latest "study")

Probably worth repeating that I uploaded the video in question August 2009. It's not something recent. It only came up here as beachnut posted a link to the video as part of his ongoing, er, smear campaign (as is his wont).

I see no fundamental problems with his technique (in this case). Yes, there is "noise" but it doesn't matter for what he's showing.

I've not gone into the low-level details here, so the technique has not really been detailed, but I agree that doesn't matter for what is being shown.

 

[triforcharity]

The sulfur is locked in a chemical bond in the gypsum molecule.

It is idiotic to assume that the sulfur that caused the steel beam to melt came from drywall when drywall is used for fireproofing.

Post a credible scientific source for that ridiculous claim or stop making it.

And what is the fire resistance rating given to 1/2" drywall?

Do you know that answer C7?

 

[triforcharity]

Keep in mind that the dogs were trained to detect barium nitrate and sulfur so they would not detect the nano-thermite or regular thermite made with aluminum and iron oxide.

hey Chris,

Did you read the rest of that post that you linked to?

It doesn't agree with you at all.