• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split from: Building 7's structure compartamentalised (Attn: apacherose105)

posting 2 pictures and saying the first one was used in the second one to make it look more damaged is not an analysis, it is barely even an argument.

Please provide evidence with analysis, or retract your claim, or else just remain here with ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY OR RESPECT.

TAM:)
 
damn, brutality.

you know you're right. the corner of the building just fell off. must have been al qaeda. DAMN foiled again.

:)
 
making light is ok, usually, but you are making some pretty serious and nasty insinuations, and you have NOT BACKED THEM UP.

Would you like someone to accuse you of murder or worse, and not back it up.

You are accusing, at the very least, NIST of doctoring a photo provided to them by the NYPD purposely to mislead.

TAM:)
 
Wow,a CT has no evidence to back up an accusation of faking evidence.
What a surprise.
 
yah but this guy is worse than usual...usually they at least attempt some degree of analysis or debate, this guys arguement is...

"NIST doctored the photo of WTC because I said so."

TAM:)
 
perhaps it's a misjudgement in the timestamping.

maybe the additional damage was done by explosions like the one heard in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPXKpbdfLd4

I'm trying to find the source for the original picture. You could help me out, or you could call me names. If you people don't clear this up, outrageous conspiracy theorists like myself will continue to say that the pic was doctored to make the damage look worse.

GO!
 
T.A.M. said:
yah but this guy is worse than usual...usually they at least attempt some degree of analysis or debate, this guys arguement is...

"NIST doctored the photo of WTC because I said so."

TAM:)
Click to expand...
I did the usual dumb JREF thing and went looking on my own. Google seems to show every bit of evidence for this involves someone posting it at a forum and other forum posters thanking them for this potential smoking gun.
 
I didn't call you names. You didn't come here looking for help, you made an allegation against the members of NIST, accusing them of purposely doctoring a photo involved in the investigation of the collapse of WTC.

You have provided no proof.

TAM:)
 
apache:

I think you realize you have no proof, just "a hunch" and you now have backed yourself into a corner...so if I am wrong, provide your proof or analysis, or please retract your accusation against NIST.

TAM:)
 
I apologise, the initial picture I posted was the wrong one, indeed it is 'faked' (the construction lines do not exist on the real one).

The PDF I linked above is ok, it's conclusions are a little quickly drawn but there does seem to be some upward floor bending. apacherose105, I haven't seen you comment on it but please read it if possible, it resolves these contradictions.

edit:
Drudgewire said:
When I was searching for this I found the LC thread where it's discussed and was like "e^n? I know that dude."
Click to expand...
:cool:

I hope my points were valid.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
apache:

I think you realize you have no proof, just "a hunch" and you now have backed yourself into a corner...so if I am wrong, provide your proof or analysis, or please retract your accusation against NIST.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
One of the greatest strengths of the scientific process is the elimination of hypothesis that do match the data. Nothing wrong with coming up with one of those hypotheses; there is something wrong with holding on to it after the time when it should have been discarded.
 
apacherose105 said:
Which was is fake and which one is real?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_20434471d16dd36c38.jpg[/qimg]

the above image was used in this one below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_20434471d171ac3b2b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Actually, you have that backwards. The bottom image was used to make the left side of the top image. It was skewed to make it look level. You can tell by the distorted rooftop of the building in front of it at the lower right. This is the kind of thing people here talking about when they ask you to show your work. Was the skewing done properly? The two images were taken from completely different angles and will thus show different things. Just because skewing one image makes it look similar to the other, doesn't mean they are showing the exact same thing. I'm sure some of the more skilled image analysts on this forum can tell you what is right/wrong with this.
Furthermore, as was said before, without timestamps you are unable to determine whether or not the building suffered any extra damage between photos.
 
Last edited:
apacherose105 said:
Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Who are you to tell me I can't?
Click to expand...

How can you know when someone is BSing about structural engineering when you don't know anything about engineering?

How is that only one or two of those (out of tens of thousands) who know the most about structural engineering (the engineers themselves) regard your claims as "BS"?

Would you not agree that an actual engineers ability to detect engineering BS is far superior to your own?
 
WildCat said:
Ah, the famous fake explosion video! You do know that "truthers" added the explosion to it, don't you?
Click to expand...

I could believe this if I saw some proof....

cmon, i'm trying to play by the proper rules of showing sources and references to data that's backed up and timestamped and blah blah. Do you have proof?
 
apacherose105 said:
I could believe this if I saw some proof....
Click to expand...
He called it "the famous fake explosion video." We do have a search feature here.
redface.gif
 
apacherose105 said:
I could believe this if I saw some proof....
Click to expand...
Don't you think someone in the video would remark about the huge honking explosion they just heard? And funny, you never hear what the footage was from. Wouldn't want anyone to find the original, now would you? :rolleyes: And besides, no way a handycam is going to pick up an explosion that clearly. Sounds like it's from a special effects cd.

cmon, i'm trying to play by the proper rules of showing sources and references to data that's backed up and timestamped at blah blah.
Click to expand...
Exactly, now you're catching on! Could you please tell us where exactly that footage is from? Because it would be nice to see the original, wouldn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom