The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2121  Postby uke2se » Nov 15, 2010 12:06 am

Kat Dorman wrote:
uke2se wrote:I haven't seen any babies getting thrown out with the bath water, though.

I'll give you one recent example. You may not have been exposed to the reception surrounding femr2's video measurements, particularly the tempest in a teapot over the validity and usefulness of the measurements. This is a non-issue, technically speaking. Those measurements are ****ing gold, if you'll pardon my french. Fully 95% of the technical criticism (and nearly 100% of tfk's) is completely off base.

You can take my word for it or not. But you ought to be able to see it for yourself if you go take a peek at the thread (if you can stand to), and work it through for yourself. Maybe I have a bit of an advantage since I've coded several different applications to do essentially the same thing, and am less susceptible to being bogged down in bullshit, which is the major content of the thread (excluding femr2's lengthy and repetitive explanations, which are generally correct but not always so precise linguistically). femr2 uses an off-the-shelf commercial package and, frankly, his results are better than mine. I'm pretty sure I can acquire some targets that SynthEyes can't, but mostly my option not to use SynthEyes is just old-school resistance. It's very good with most targets and a hundred times easier than my process.

Despite the differences we get the same results, where we have compared, to within a rat's ass. He knows what he's doing. The entire freightload of JREFers I've seen, with a few rare exceptions (three I can think of), are utterly clueless. That's like, dozens of regulars. It's a spectacle. All because he's a truther, for chrissakes! If Mackey did it, people would be smothering his posterior with kisses. For real.

Instead of acknowledging his grace in face of constant insulting remarks from people who wouldn't know a good displacement measurement if it bit them on the ass, he's perceived as evasive. He does have a roundabout manner which you can either live with or ignore, and he does lean towards some artificial assistance, but he's not responsible for the merry-go-round happening there.


No, I wasn't a part of that thread at all, mainly because his stuff goes way over my head. I won't criticize something just because I don't understand it. Femr2 has struck me as somewhat reasonable, and not at all unintelligent, but if his conclusion is demolition, I still think he's wrong. I'm ready to change my mind if he takes his research off line and into a proper academic journal and garners the acceptance of his ideas from other engineers and physicists.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2122  Postby econ41 » Nov 15, 2010 12:07 am

uke2se wrote:....That there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on is indisputable. My point is just that it's a fairly natural development given the crap that gets brought up there.

Yes it is natural. Just look at this thread. A "descendant by adoption" of predecessors on RDNet BUT the "truthers" are setting the agenda here. The only discussion is about bits of incomplete "truther" claims lacking any support or rational fit to context.

Why?

Easy! there is no real discussion still to be had. The "big questions" answered long ago. "no demolition" at WTC; "it was that plane" at Pentagon and "it wasn't shot down" at Shanksville. So we see interminable discussion of "was there thermXte on ground zero?" BUT do we ever get discussion of my multiple times stated rejoiner "I don't care if there was a ten tonne cache of thermXte on site - it wasn't used" No way!

Why "No Way"?

Because to answer it requires a plausible pro-demolition hypothesis and there aint no such animule. Alternatively we get YouTube videos with no claim or clarification as to what reason the member has for posting the links. Still no real discussion.

And mutual abuse tends to flourish in that environment.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2123  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 15, 2010 12:13 am

econ41 wrote:
Kat Dorman wrote:...he's perceived as evasive....

It is a deliberate strategy of not admitting where he is going (OR where he could go to give benefit of doubt)

Oh yeah, I know what you're talking about. But there are some things you might want to consider.

I challenged him on it then declared cease fire till he gets near claiming demolition.

You might be waiting a long time. He does believe there was assistance, though I've watched him go from embracing some pretty extreme things a couple of years ago to a very minimalistic scenario. A scenario which he does not believe he has proof for, this I'm pretty sure of - he's admitted his remaining position is not backed by anything solid. He is still in the looking phase, or should I say has reverted to the looking phase, to see what there is to see. From what I gather, which is in an environment where he has no need to hide or play games, I'm pretty sure he doesn't think there's a way to discriminate between clever CD and fully natural using displacement. If he does, that's a surprise to me; I'd have to give him a little what-for on being a holdout on the big secret, or for being wrong. I really think he knows better.

Along the way, there has been some apparent dissonance with NIST's narrative. I know he thinks he's got something to trumpet with that. If there's any endgame, that's it. I don't think the trail of breadcrumbs leads to demolition, econ41, or it would've already been bounced off of me!
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2124  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 15, 2010 12:19 am

uke2se wrote:No, I wasn't a part of that thread at all, mainly because his stuff goes way over my head. I won't criticize something just because I don't understand it. Femr2 has struck me as somewhat reasonable, and not at all unintelligent, but if his conclusion is demolition, I still think he's wrong. I'm ready to change my mind if he takes his research off line and into a proper academic journal and garners the acceptance of his ideas from other engineers and physicists.

Makes sense. I wish others would adopt the same approach. But they don't, and they won't, so I'm inclined to think femr2 is crazy - not because of suspecting CD but because he's willfully placed himself in the firing line. That's insane.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2125  Postby Miragememories » Nov 15, 2010 12:55 am

Kat Dorman wrote:
Miragememories wrote:I do not know if anyone here is familiar with the works of Dr. Frank Greening, but he was at one time a favored-son at JREF.

His theory on the collapse of the Twin Towers was treated with almost Biblical reverence until his open mind found problems with the NIST findings.

He dared to question common belief and today he is banned from JREF.

I know Dr. Greening and admire his work a great deal. I was there when he made his first appearance and had the advantage of knowing who Apollo20 was from the beginning. Not that it would've mattered in my reception of his arguments, it's the message not the messenger. I dare say exactly the opposite was true of his experience there. No cred until identity known, then lost again for parting with the company line on certain issues. In fact, he only regained a measure of credibility 'posthumously' after banning, when his words were no longer echoing off the halls.

To be fair, he was banned because of a run-in with Medusa, one of the Gorgons.

I think it's a measure of interest that he's been reviled by both sides. Try posting something by him on 911 blogger. Thankfully for him, I believe he's moved on and reclaimed his time outside of this messy arena. The subject itself, however, has suffered for his inattention.

You might be interested to know that he has been quite active at another 9/11 Truth forum where his handle is Dr. G;

sample link;

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11682.html#p11682

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2126  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 15, 2010 12:59 am

Thanks for the plug, Miragememories.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2127  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 15, 2010 1:00 am

Dr. G hasn't been around in a while, not even there. He's got some other work that's taking all his time now.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2128  Postby econ41 » Nov 15, 2010 3:32 am

Kat Dorman wrote:
econ wrote:I challenged him on it then declared cease fire till he gets near claiming demolition.

You might be waiting a long time. He does believe there was assistance, though I've watched him go from embracing some pretty extreme things a couple of years ago to a very minimalistic scenario. A scenario which he does not believe he has proof for, this I'm pretty sure of - he's admitted his remaining position is not backed by anything solid. He is still in the looking phase, or should I say has reverted to the looking phase, to see what there is to see. From what I gather, which is in an environment where he has no need to hide or play games, I'm pretty sure he doesn't think there's a way to discriminate between clever CD and fully natural using displacement. If he does, that's a surprise to me; I'd have to give him a little what-for on being a holdout on the big secret, or for being wrong. I really think he knows better....
Thems your words but exactly my position. I think his approach to thinking is serial step by step whereas I am strongly visual (in then Neuro linguistic sense if you know the metaphor) so I tend to put the global framework around anything I analyse then start digging for necessary detail. For anyone who thinks about these aspects of process that much should be obvious about me from my recent references to "thermXte". If you cannot fit "it" in the wrong - make that in a bigger picture then it doesn't fit period. It also happens to be efficient and therefore a lazy approach by some standards.

Kat Dorman wrote:...Along the way, there has been some apparent dissonance with NIST's narrative. I know he thinks he's got something to trumpet with that....
Could be on both. But he seems clearly driven by his hobby interest in measurement techniques which he applies to certain situations. I have no such interest but I am interested in the WTC demolition question. His measurement techniques obviously have an easier target in the objective "Prove NIST wrong" than in "Prove or disprove demolition". But whether NIST is right or wrong is not necessarily of any relevance to the demolition question. Hence my comment in my recent post which MM objected to. NIST only has to show a plausible collapse mechanism for WTC7 - at least until or if someone puts up a realistic explanation invoking demolition. The hypothesis on the table is "No demolition" for lots of independent reasons - ie at the very least the logistic, security and technical "impossibility" (with all the disclaimers around the use of that word for brevity of writing). Having a plausible technical explanation on the table is just a bit of support for the hypothesis. Having two or more different ones would not detract from the hypothesis.

There is no need for a stronger hypothesis until and if someone posts a credible "pro-demolition" explanation. and there is nothing within cooee of doing that no matter how much bluster is emitted about ThermXte, DEW, or Santa's Custard.

(I will have to try to locate my "Santa's Custard" posts. :naughty2: ).

Kat Dorman wrote:If there's any endgame, that's it. I don't think the trail of breadcrumbs leads to demolition, econ41, or it would've already been bounced off of me!
:thumbup:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2129  Postby econ41 » Nov 15, 2010 3:35 am

Kat Dorman wrote:...Makes sense. I wish others would adopt the same approach. But they don't, and they won't, so I'm inclined to think femr2 is crazy - not because of suspecting CD but because he's willfully placed himself in the firing line. That's insane.
...and playing "tag team" with Major_Tom invites the conclusion that he is there for the same reasons and MT is not as coy about his eye being on CD. So tarred with the brush of chosen association.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2131  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 15, 2010 4:01 am

Although Major_Tom has also done some excellent work.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2132  Postby the_5th_ape » Nov 15, 2010 7:26 am

Geraldo Rivera changes mind on AE911Truth

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_gE4wZEh0g[/youtube]
Thanking God for sparing you in a natural disaster is like
sending a thank-you note to a serial killer for stabbing the family next door

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Best Answer
User avatar
the_5th_ape
 
Posts: 3530
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2133  Postby econ41 » Nov 15, 2010 8:16 am

the_5th_ape wrote:Geraldo Rivera changes mind on AE911Truth

{youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_gE4wZEh0g[/youtube]

Thanks the_5th_ape;
Don't they just get sillier. :scratch:

.... I had already seen it - it has been under relatively low key "Ho Hum!" discussion on JREF

:nono:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2134  Postby econ41 » Nov 15, 2010 8:19 am

Kat Dorman wrote:Although Major_Tom has also done some excellent work.

Agreed.

His "ROOSD" modelling explanation for the global collapse parallels my explanation first published late 2007. I re-wrote it in the first part of this thread. It could be of interest. My target audience was lay persons whilst MT usually writes for the technically proficient. It is here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p135852



EDIT: PS 1) There are about 20 minor typos;
2) There are few bits of loose or unclear logic. Not enough to spoil the validity or "shape" of the claims; AND
3) As far as I can recall no truther was ever bold enough to challenge it. So it must be fairly convincing. :naughty2:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2135  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 17, 2010 11:03 pm

Here is really good criticism against ROOSD (the only natural collapse explanation which might of had any worth):
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective

I don't agree with your theories econ41. For instance, you seem to think that everything from above fell on the floors (in a way where the hits for each subsequent would only make a tiny minijolt) and that is why there is no deceleration found in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. The Verinage demolitions do their part in proving you wrong. All the 'Verinage' graphs show measurable deceleration:
Image

The 9/11 WTC1 collapse looks like this animation below. Debunkers note error in that Chandler and Szamboti only have one conclusion, albeit a very educated conclusion, that there was controlled demolition. However, every single video analysis of this part of the WTC1 collapse offers exact data points, and the data points are directly translated into accurate graphs like this one. Whatever other errors debunkers have claimed on Chandler or Szamboti's part do not make this graph any less factual. And it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration.
Image

A very reasonable video explanation to Chandler and Szamboti's conclusions:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8[/youtube]

ps. yeah that's Szamboti in the Geraldo video.

pss. econ41, it seems like you keep denying the existence of any and all controlled demolition evidence because you are specifically campaigning against this "conspiracy theory"... I'm not entirely certain that your motivation for being a gung-ho debunker over the years isn't political. Just the fact that you started talking about politics, which I for one have no reason to mention:
If there is a genuinely held concern about conspiracy that warrants further investigation it will need political motivation to bring it about. Few if any politicians would want to have any part in it. And linking it to the ridiculous technical claims such as demolition at WTC will give the politicians the easy way out to do nothing.

Every sensible person looking at WTC 9/11 can either see for themselves that there was no demolition OR realise that genuine professionals say "no demolition". The lies of most of the leading truthers are readily discernible. Probably the simplest examples being the "opening broadsides" of their powerpoint presentations which simply ooze misleading propaganda trickery.

So a crazy political strategy tying genuine concerns about conspiracy to a dead set loser in demolition.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2136  Postby Xaihe » Nov 17, 2010 11:48 pm

Patriots4Truth wrote: And it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration.
Image

1) What about the margin of error? That straight line is an approximation and cannot be used to conclude no measurable deceleration.
2) I can't be sure, but it looks like the red dots go down faster than the spire and the rooftop.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 877
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2137  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 18, 2010 12:03 am

Patriots4Truth, a few questions. Do you believe that because a particular verinage shows deceleration that WTC1 must also, if it's also natural? Would architectural or situational differences matter? If the leading destruction were in the interior as something like ROOSD specifies, how would that affect any expectation of deceleration at the roofline?
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2138  Postby uke2se » Nov 18, 2010 12:37 am

Saying that it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration isn't entirely factual. It would be more factual to say that Chandler, Szamboti et all were unable to measure any deceleration, but the reason for that was their incompetent use of physical theorems and their preconceived bias.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2139  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 18, 2010 1:26 am

Kat Dorman wrote:Patriots4Truth, a few questions. Do you believe that because a particular verinage shows deceleration that WTC1 must also, if it's also natural? Would architectural or situational differences matter? If the leading destruction were in the interior as something like ROOSD specifies, how would that affect any expectation of deceleration at the roofline?


not a particular verinage... all of them show deceleration.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2140  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 18, 2010 1:27 am

uke2se wrote:Saying that it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration isn't entirely factual. It would be more factual to say that Chandler, Szamboti et all were unable to measure any deceleration, but the reason for that was their incompetent use of physical theorems and their preconceived bias.


video evidence is factual. making up theories is theoretical
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests