|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th December 2015, 11:59 AM | #521 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
7th December 2015, 12:17 PM | #522 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
The answers to that question are as far away from evidentiary as one can get, they are in the realm of pure fiction.
- Make Silverstein rich ( with the attendant multiple problems that engenders , as on example: the wisdom of bringing in a private individual to the single worst case of treasonous act in USA history.) - Destroy paperwork and hardware pertaining to the vast evil plot that was afoot ( with all the attendant multiple problems that engenders , for instance the extremely uncontrolled and unreliable nature of such a method of destroying smaller objects) -To cause greater fear in the public. ( by taking down a building that no one died in, that few people outside NYC knew existed, and which truthers proclaim, few people even knew about its demise) |
7th December 2015, 12:35 PM | #523 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Because their reason for focussing on WTC 7 is that they lost the battle trying to claim CD at WTC1 and WTC2.
They had established reliance on reversed burden of proof and had trained their opponents to adopt burden of disproof. WTC 7 made it harder to disprove because all the evidence is hidden. It was a tactic denying their own failure from the outset - merely an excuse to keep debating in ever more remote circles of irrelevancy - debunkers still obligingly debating thermXte and micro-spheres. So they have ratcheted debunker interest in irrelevant science into a sustaining tactic of going nowhere debate with the illusion of being somehow relevant to their claims - CD at WTC. AND the most obvious underlying factor - shared by most - they cannot think - cannot reason events which involve a complex of multiple factors. Look at their perrenial "single issue" focus and complete disregard of self contradiction when they give opposing answers to different aspects. Single issue brains - two or three issues at most. And little reasoning skill. And that is probably why most of them become truthers - a life time of not understanding anything that is a bit complicated - and a defensive habit of resorting to "blame the man" whenever something is too complicated for limited reasoning skills. In that scenario 9/11 is merely another complicated event which came on the scene and they couldn't understand so they "blame the man". Which is probably the two main reasons that these discuss will keep circling - going nowhere. They will never accept technicality reasoning because they lack the reasoning skills; AND The technical issue is not their main problem - their motive is "blame the man" for anything they cannot understand.....and those two are self reinforcing. And none of those are intended as global assertions - just observable behaviour for many - probably most active truthers. Tho current behaviours are more associated with needling trolling - the "Genuine Truthers" having left the scene other than the few who are dug deep in denial of their obsession. "the man" to cober for thier own intelectual reasoning fauresy are obseesed withthier politicalblasme |
7th December 2015, 02:06 PM | #524 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
7th December 2015, 02:13 PM | #525 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
You can process the video with every filter and permutation under the sun pgimeno, but you cannot make HQ image quality from LQ image quality unless you start manipulating its data (CGI).
The camera people on that day, were not shooting HD video and the NIST received only analog-sourced video copies, several generations away from the original archival footage. No matter how hard you try and spin this, whether you use the NIST’s, Mr. Chandler’s, or femr’s plots, they do not, and cannot, produce a curve free from error. The mere fact of the long distance between the subject (WTC7) and the camera lens means that convection currents will introduce a certain amount of random distortion. When you are extracting plot points from a moving image only a few inches in height captured from an object dropping through a height of roughly 2,000 inches, it is absurd to belief you won’t get some non-linear deviation in your plot. We are not measuring a cut diamond. The most useful reading obtainable comes from the plotted average, which clearly shows, the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration. |
7th December 2015, 02:15 PM | #526 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Don't try to stop them, the entertainment value of all this is incalculable. In the blue corner, we have Tony, who honestly believes that the rate of acceleration depends on the initiation mechanism, and that the precisely 1g acceleration (well, actually a bit over 1g if you read the actual numbers on Chandler's graph) is as conclusive a proof of demolition as the precisely about two-thirds of a g that WTC1 collapsed at, and therefore has to angrily deny any evidence that it was anything different. In the red corner, Criteria has just wandered in off the street and hasn't got a clue what's going on, but he can see Tony's arguing so he's damned well going to make something up to support him, knowing that however idiotic it is Tony will hide his embarrassment and pretend it's scientifically solid. And in the polka-dot corner, I'm sure notconvinced is working away with a dictionary and a dart board to rustle up another unanswerable argument, mainly because nobody will be able to tell what the question is. Who needs The X Factor, when there's so much anti-talent on display right here?
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
7th December 2015, 02:43 PM | #527 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.
But do you believe that some hundreds of explosive charges (minimum - looking at actual CD technique on this scale puts it into the thousands despite TS's assertions), detonating over a period of a second or so, would have escaped attention? This is where actual science gets in your way. You cannot have quick destruction without "loud bangs". Bottom line: proving a period of g acceleration does not prove CD. You need to demonstrate CD, and you've failed tragically. While you're here - care to explain how a paint-thin layer of thermitic material might damage WTC structural steel? |
7th December 2015, 03:03 PM | #528 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 03:20 PM | #529 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
7th December 2015, 03:22 PM | #530 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
7th December 2015, 03:24 PM | #531 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 04:24 PM | #532 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
|
7th December 2015, 04:30 PM | #533 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 04:47 PM | #534 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 04:56 PM | #535 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Even LQ video preserves enough information as to yield positions in fractions of a pixel. It's true that HQ video preserves more (as happened with the other view of WTC7). It's not about the image quality, it's about the feature position information as the feature moves between frames. There's no single pixel tracked. A whole block's movement is tracked. That's what makes it superior to pixel-precision tracking, and why despite the low quality of the video it yields good positional data.
I heard that the program that Chandler used incorporated in a later version, which he didn't use, sub-pixel feature tracking (the technique femr2 used with a different program) Rough description of the technique here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89#post6224789 Note that femr2's method was received with a lot of opposition. It took a while for him to convince many including me. Some members including the OP of that thread seemed to forget later that the technique tracks features rather than specific points, and that therefore there is no single point that can hide behind an interlace field. So keep that in mind before attempting any misguided criticism. Agreed. All things considered, error included, the movement still shows over-g acceleration pretty conclusively. I remained skeptical for a long while about the data being conclusive on that respect (several people confused that with me being skeptical about the fact that the data showed over-g but that's a different story). In the end, no one questioned the raw data, but many questioned the smoothing methods, so I used the raw data, rather than the processed data, to derive an acceleration, and that showed over-g, which was what proved it conclusively for me. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post10158943 Do you understand NIST's moiré technique explained in an appendix of their WTC7 report? Do you understand how it derived sub-pixel positional data from a feature of WTC7? I describe the technique here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...61#post8291361 It would work equally well with a lower quality video. Just with more error, but it would still yield sub-pixel positional data. Now extrapolate that same idea of tracking to general shapes rather than near-vertical lines, and you'll get a rough understanding on how SynthEyes (the program that femr2 used) works. By "most useful" I guess you mean "least quality". Bad choice. It doesn't help your case to ignore the higher quality data. It makes you look like you want to be deliberately blind to facts that don't support you. |
7th December 2015, 06:21 PM | #536 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
So anyway. How much will a 53ft beam expand at 600C ?
|
7th December 2015, 06:24 PM | #537 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 06:29 PM | #538 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 06:31 PM | #539 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 06:33 PM | #540 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 06:35 PM | #541 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 06:40 PM | #542 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
7th December 2015, 06:43 PM | #543 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 06:44 PM | #544 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 06:48 PM | #545 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
7th December 2015, 06:51 PM | #546 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 06:56 PM | #547 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 07:00 PM | #548 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Note how gerrycan now ignores context and view it in isolation. A one trick pony.
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 07:05 PM | #549 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 07:08 PM | #550 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 07:17 PM | #551 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th December 2015, 07:38 PM | #552 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
The point that I was trying to make before "crazy chainsaw" decided on the context of my question, was this. If this calculation was indeed a very complex one, then there would have been a lot of interest in the value. This was after all the point of the building that NIST were looking to for a collapse initiation. How could it then go unnoticed in the report when the totally wrong figure is used?
If on the other hand it was an easy calculation, is it less excusable for the totally wrong figure in the report to go unnoticed? Remember, this is a part of the building that they would have looked at very closely. It does look very like NIST have taken the wrong seat plate width and divided it by 2 to arrive at their initial 5.5" expansion figure, later revised to 6.25" still with no calculations. Given that a 53ft beam can expand by neither of these distances at 600C, surely you can't find it acceptable that NIST underestimated a seat width and overstated expansion due to heat - both of which made their hypothesis look more plausible? After all, they just added 10% or so onto a very precise original claim of 5.5" expansion. With no calculations to back up either figure. |
7th December 2015, 07:56 PM | #553 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
Criteria, the symmetric nature of the fall shows that 8 stories of the entire core was removed nearly simultaneously, and this could not have been a result of an east to west progressive collapse.
The core was pulled starting a fraction of a second earlier in the center of the core to ensure an inward pull on the exterior throughout the building to keep the debris confined. It was a classic implosion and had the east penthouse not been taken down earlier it would have been very clear that the core was first removed in the center. I am not sure if you are aware that there was no need for the exterior to have charges placed on its columns. The falling core would pull the exterior columns inward and cause them to buckle and at 8 stories of slenderness, while also being pulled inward, the resistance from the exterior columns would be essentially zero. Danny Jowenko explains there was no need for charges on the exterior in his interview at about 3: 10 in Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I and again at about 3:40 in Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM The reason 8 stories needed to be removed was due to the 610 foot vertical height of the building to ensure there would be enough momentum in a traditional bottom up style demolition. The problem occurred because this decreased resistance of the exterior to near zero and allowed free fall, which caught people's attention. The North Tower shows the towers were taken down the same way but from the top down by removing a few stories of the core to start the collapse and a few stories at a time at least multiple times again until there was enough debris to self-propagate (probably something like 20 stories or so). In this case, the exterior columns would still provide some resistance when they buckled since they would not be as slender. That is why the acceleration there is only about 2/3rds of gravity. This is still significant and a good analogy is to explain that it is the same acceleration needed for a car to do a 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds. Your standard family car cannot come anywhere near that, with most not being any more capable than about 16 or 17 seconds with the pedal all the way to the floor. |
7th December 2015, 08:06 PM | #554 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th December 2015, 08:11 PM | #555 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
You probably have to be an engineer to get it wrong...
...or more likely to be so focused on the details that you miss the point. 'When up to your arse in alligators is is easy to forget the objective was "drain the swamp" ' AKA "lose the plot" or "lose the context" - or Gerrycan's current tactic - deliberately ignore the context to support the T Szamboti WTC7 Col 79 "argument" which is based on ignoring the context. |
7th December 2015, 08:18 PM | #556 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Do you genuinely support that arse about and quote mined reasoning or are you simply trying to support T Szamboti's nonsense?
Put the issue in context - top down - and all factors NOT starting with a predetermined outcome and working upwards from partial details - ignoring inconvenient truth's and including only those details which support the false conclusion. |
7th December 2015, 08:22 PM | #557 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
|
|
7th December 2015, 08:23 PM | #558 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
|
|
7th December 2015, 08:28 PM | #559 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The big question; is Hulsey a funding hound, playing 911 truth for the funding? lol
Or is Halsey another failed dolt in 911 truth, going to make up BS to support the fantasy and insanity of CD by silent explosives, or no product, no damage thermite. Which is it? 14 years of failed claims continue - is Hulsey a research funding hound, doing an end run for funds by tricking 911 truth... Follow the money, or is it woo The big questions? Where do we get silent explosives which don't cook off in fires? Where do we get super duper nano nano thermite which leaves no damage to the steel? Any takers for the logical questions based on the fantasy CD delusions? |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
7th December 2015, 08:35 PM | #560 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|