Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The same blasts that don't show up on any recording devices?


You forget that they were silent explosives, called Hush a Boom!


Banana Formula
Running out of ideas, Boris and Natasha stumble upon a new sound-suppressed explosive named "Hush-a-Boom",

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 15-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Why do people still insist explosions were not heard, when clearly they were, and there is evidence of them?









And lots more....

www.youtube.com...

Talk about a complete denial of the facts.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


We're discussing an alleged seismic event that was "bigger than the collapse of WTC7" that supposedly occurred a few seconds before the collapse. Let us know when you find some evidence of that.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I wasn't replying to your conversation but thanx anyway.

Why do you insist on hearing explosives when it's so obvious explosives, or not, the collapse of WTC7 could not have been a natural collapse from fire?

One simple reason, the outer walls would be UNDER the rubble.

The ONLY way you can get the outer walls to fall after the center of the building is controlled implosion demolition, period. You can only make excuses and deny real science.

Saying it wasn't a controlled demolition because you can't hear explosives is stupid.

C'mon you know these exist.



Just silly excuses to deny the truth.

edit on 12/16/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Saying that because you heard something explode, means there were demolition charges is stupid. Your point?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 



Specifically, you speak as if the timestamp data was adjusted by NIST to the nearest single second. You're probably wrong about that (I'd give you about a 2% chance of being correct or 1/60, as you will see).


It's so sad I haved to address such a major lack of understanding caused by not thoroughly reading official reports, which do cost me so much precious time.

Had you taken sufficient time to read the whole report, like any good researcher is teached in his first minutes at college and university, you would have found Chapter 3 and its subchapters.

The following line in 3.1.1 should have given you already the pointer to the by NIST found accuracy for the 115 Cianca photo's in possession of NIST :

''In this example, the EXIF times were found to be off by 102 s.''

They implement with that an accuracy of 1 sec or less, just as you could have read further on in 3.5 :

''To assist in the timing process, relative times for the five major events of September 11, 2001first aircraft impact, second aircraft impact, collapse of WTC 2, collapse of WTC 1, and collapse of WTC 7were determined with 1 s accuracies. These times are summarized in Table 3-1.Note that the building collapse times are defined to be when the entire building was first observed to start to collapse. In the case of WTC 7, a penthouse on the roof sank into the building before the main collapse started.''

Your triumphant but mistaken conclusion is hereby proved to be the result of some form of eagerness, based on an enormous urge to 'score' against an opponent who does indeed handle the material in a proper manner, by reading it all, and using it in his own material, as you could have seen when you would have read the various text-pointers at the bottom of my WTC 7 seismic chart. I have included all accuracies used by NIST in that graph.
As usual, you do not accurately enough study the material offered by any online adversary (I use that word, since the tone of your posts indicate to us non-believers, that you see us all as such, and not as opponents in a fair discussion).

''Sets of photographs containing EXIF times and video clips that either contained meta data or were continuous over relatively long periods were particularly useful for this purpose, because a single time assignment would allow the entire series to be timed."

The whole set of 115 Cianca photo's was such an EXIF-set, thus it could be determined with the highest accuracy within the NIST timing methods.
It is even very likely that it was much more accurate than that max 1 sec accuracy, since NIST also had numerous videos broadcasted by the main media of that same event, which were timestamped with atomic clock accuracy, which is ultimately more accurate than material which does not include such accuracy.

''It is not only important to assign relative times for photographs and videos, but also to provide an indication for how accurately they are known. For this reason, timing uncertainties were estimated for each time determination and included in the databases. The timing process was initially difficult. However, Task staff timing skills improved with practice while more visual material became available, and the number of timed assets increased. Ultimately, 3,357 of the 7,118 catalogued photographs and 2,789 of the 6,982 video clips in the databases were timed with assigned relative uncertainties of 3 s or better.''

The Cianca photo of the sinking of the east penthouse had one of the best accuracies determined.

Read also 3.6 ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY, and the first Reference by Dr Kim, his January 31, 2005 review of his own seismic report written in the week of 9/11.

Try to find that report........NIST removed all traces of it.

Try also to find these 'includes' :
''It is not only important to assign relative times for photographs and videos, but also to provide an indication for how accurately they are known. For this reason, timing uncertainties were estimated for each time determination and included in the databases.''

Good luck for both tries. If you are better than me and can find them online, do tell me. I give bonus points for those of you who can extract those two from the NIST reports in print......Or by bluntly asking them.......



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
By the way, when are you and the other believers going to address all the other real evidence I expressed in my post with that list of them.?

I'll make a nice simple collection of screenshots for the basic proof from all of them, so you can't pretend anymore that you do not understand that evidence.
F.ex. the two graphs of David Chandler, one for fall speed of a natural collapsing building, with the telling 'kink' in it, when the first debris meets the still standing portion of the building and thus slows down, and the graph for the WTC's, which shows a constant slope.

You have not addressed yet, any one of the evidences I listed there.
It's very much telling us non-believers, how weak your arguments in fact have become.
Avoidance is THE big pointer to a lost cause.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Saying that because you heard something explode, means there were demolition charges is stupid. Your point?


Then why can't you all make your mind up? Either explosions were heard but were not explosives, or there were no explosions heard thus the comment "hushabooms"? I guess the plan must be to claim there were no explosions heard, and if challenged with evidence to the contrary switch to, 'oh that was just other stuff exploding'?

But whatever, whom should one believe? Firefighters who were there, or you? Maybe a little deductive logic? Building completely collapses into it's own footprint and people heard explosions, so logically those explosions were anything but explosives right?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
By the way, when are you and the other believers going to address all the other real evidence I expressed in my post with that list of them.?


When you post REAL evidence!



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hush-a-booms refers to the fact that at the moment detonation charges should be heard and recorded (that would be just prior to collapse) there were none. The fact that people heard explosions on other moments, of unknown loudness, has no relevance. Unless of course when you are desperatly looking for evidence for your theory. Then such details are inconvenient and ignored.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

My mind has never changed. I have always stated that hearing an explosion, does not mean there were explosives. Especially when it comes to a large fire in an office building.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 





Ultimately, 3,357 of the 7,118 catalogued photographs and 2,789 of the 6,982 video clips in the databases were timed with assigned relative uncertainties of 3 s or better.


So less than half of the photographs were timed to within 3s. No statement is made concerning the Cianca photos. We've already seen that the cianca set was adjusted based not on the fall of the WTC7 penhouse, but to some event around 9:24am.

from my post:



In the image on p. 20 of the pdf, we see that their baseline image for the cianca photos had a camera timestamp of 9:25:42, which was adjusted by 102 seconds to an "actual time" of exactly 9:24:00


In other words, the Cianca image set was NOT TIME-ADJUSTED TO THE SINKING PENTHOUSE, but to some event around 9:24 am. I say around 9:24 am because the Cianca set was likely adjusted to the nearest minute, given that the adjusted time of a photo was to an EXACT MINUTE AND ZERO SECONDS.

The evidence is right there in the pdf that you so insistently rely upon for your timing/seismic theory.
as you can see, from the given information, the Cianca photos were time adjusted to an event at 9:24 am.

Your theory relies entirely on a very accurate timing of events to even stand a chance of being right, but you haven't provided evidence that this is the case!

Do you have a place to download the cianca photo set?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I have no need for more evidence. Explosive noises or not, it doesn't change physics.

I was just trying to point out the irrationality of the argument.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Straw man arguments are almost always irrational.

Aah yes the physics. Is gravity an internal or external force in a building collapse?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by LaBTop
 





Ultimately, 3,357 of the 7,118 catalogued photographs and 2,789 of the 6,982 video clips in the databases were timed with assigned relative uncertainties of 3 s or better.


So less than half of the photographs were timed to within 3s. No statement is made concerning the Cianca photos. We've already seen that the cianca set was adjusted based not on the fall of the WTC7 penhouse, but to some event around 9:24am.

( LT : No, not at all, it was adjusted to a totally different event, they also mentioned in this report, but as usual you failed to find or read and understand that. Go find the words 'nose of the plane'. And the photo's that were non-digital, the analogue ones, fell in that above 3 s - group.
All other material was DIGITAL, with attached EXIF files, and were within a +/- 1 sec or less, fault margin. Your lack of reading skill is quite astonishing....
The Cianca photo"s had all EXIF files and fell in the less than 1 secs fault margin group. Your comprehension skills have to be honed immensely, to be able to understand these kinds of reports)


from my post:



In the image on p. 20 of the pdf, we see that their baseline image for the cianca photos had a camera timestamp of 9:25:42, which was adjusted by 102 seconds to an "actual time" of exactly 9:24:00


In other words, the Cianca image set was NOT TIME-ADJUSTED TO THE SINKING PENTHOUSE, but to some event around 9:24 am. I say around 9:24 am because the Cianca set was likely adjusted to the nearest minute, given that the adjusted time of a photo was to an EXACT MINUTE AND ZERO SECONDS.

(LT : Again, not at all. Read my first remark above again. They choose to use photo nr 70, since that one delivered an actual time of a rounded figure of :00 seconds, so any one of their readers with no education could see that 60 seconds plus 42 seconds relates to a correction of in total 102 seconds. )

The evidence is right there in the pdf that you so insistently rely upon for your timing/seismic theory.
as you can see, from the given information, the Cianca photos were time adjusted to an event at 9:24 am.

(LT : you really have no clue at all how to read these reports, please stay out of these kinds of discussions, you are totally out of your league. Just a friendly advice to keep some of your self esteem.)


Your theory relies entirely on a very accurate timing of events to even stand a chance of being right, but you haven't provided evidence that this is the case!

(LT : That's your misguided interpretation, which I just proved totally wrong above, and going to enforce a tad bit more below.)

Do you have a place to download the cianca photo set?

(LT : use your own ATS Tools, My Uploads, a huge space of your own. But do what I asked for, attach the fault margins per photo, as NIST promissed to make available, but never did. You will not find it.)


The above is such a bunch of total misunderstanding, even I feel embarressed you even posted that.



For the last time, I will help you out.
After that, I expect you to not ever dare to engage me at that tone of yours again.

Let's see if you understand the shortest explanation :

Photo record nr 70 of a set of 115 photo"s had an :
EXIF time....................... = 9 hr 25 min 42 secs AM, which is equivalent to an :
ACTUAL time...................= 9 hr 24 min 00 secs AM.
------------------------------------------------
Thus all photos are corrected for :.........102 secs, backwards in time to arrive at the real times for the whole set of 115 photo's. Which were thus automatically corrected for 102 secs each. All 115 of them.

They even printed it in text for people like you who are not used at all to read this kind of material and understand at one glance what the offered data implicate.

All photo's were corrected for the same amount of 102 secs, and as you can see at one glance, also the 5 that are shown in that center-window's shown row, that could be moved with the small slider to its right.

Questions : That timed photo nr 70 with an EXIF time of 9:25:42 AM you keep mentioning. Do you still believe that NIST used that one as some sort of reference for the whole set?
Tell me honestly if you read the full report text.

If you did, then you obviously totally misunderstood it.
If not, then you missed the thorough time correcting explanation by NIST in the whole text of that last Chapter 3, that begins at page 19 and ends at its last page 24.
edit on 19/12/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

3.1.1. Photograph Tools.
The Access database PhotoTiming was written for the purpose of determining the actual times for a set of photographs given the relative EXIF time for each and a single accurate time reference. For a set of photographs sharing a common clock from the same digital camera, an accurate time for a single photograph was sufficient to set the relative times for the entire set.
Figure 3 1 shows a PhotoTiming data sheet for a selected set of photographs. A file generated by CatDV containing the EXIF data for each photograph, if available, was read into PhotoTiming. The equivalent EXIF and known relative times were entered into the appropriate fields at the upper right of the data sheet. Selection of the Calculate Photo Times button filled the Actual Time column with the appropriate values for each EXIF time. In this example, the EXIF times were found to be off by 102 s.




When you still do not understand NIST their time correcting modus operandi, and especially for that immense important Cianca photo of the sinking of the east penthouse, that is part of the above set of 115 digital photo's shot on 9/11 by Nicholas Cianca, then you'd better stay out of this discussion, it's really out of your league then.

In fact you demonstrated to have a fixed idea about how 9/11 must have unrolled, and nothing can change your mind, even when several rock solid evidences are laid in front of you, as I did in my Evidence List post.
You are then twisting the above NIST evidence for an atomic clock-corrected time stamp of the by me used specific Cianca photo in such an unlogic manner, that even your group-members are too embarressed and don't point you at your mistakes in a silent PM, so you can correct your post in time.
Or do they have no clue either, since we may expect that an honest debater will address mistakes from both sides of a debate. I did, and always will do. See my correction in the first year after 9/11 already, that there were no free fall times for WTC 1 and 2, more like 22 and 24 seconds. Many non-believers did not like that, but still use that terminology which is totally wrong.

That time stamp attached by NIST for that photo of the first sign of sinking of that east penthouse is never retracted by them, they know if they dare to do that, the whole scientific community will make meatloaf of their reports.
Their only sorry excuse they try to still use, is just not giving access to the whole photographic database that this NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation Report is based on. Thus nobody except NIST themselves have access to each and every specific fault margin per photo.

But in this case, they themselves PRINTED just above that screenshot of the Cianca photo correction method, their own words :
'' In this example, the EXIF times were found to be off by 102 s. ''
Any self respecting academic knows that it means an accuracy of + or -1 sec.
And they admit that for all EXIF-timed material the fault margin is determined by themselves to be 1 sec or less.

If they had meant it your twisted way, they would have used the expression :
''In this example, the EXIF times were found to be off by 102 s (+/- 30 s).''

Thus, the Cianca photo I used as reference for all the real time events in New York regarding the collapse of WTC 7 is within a fault margin of +/- 1 second, as printed by me on the WTC 7 collapse seismic chart I presented, in the bottom part of it.
EDIT :
In fact it has a far smaller fault margin, since it is easy as cake to reference it to all the other atomic clocked main network videos shot of the same event. That means it can be related to video material that has fault margins of far less than one micro second, more in the region of nano seconds. However, it"s quite difficult to find a mean starting point of penthouse roof-collapse in the cianca photo and in the videos, so let"s keep it to micro seconds.
Certainly much better than a 1 second fault margin.
edit on 19/12/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Straw man arguments are almost always irrational.

Aah yes the physics. Is gravity an internal or external force in a building collapse?


Have you seen my posted, pure gravity collapse chart made by David Chandler in this thread.?
Why are you then asking mysterious questions again to ANOK instead of addressing the 'kink' in such pure gravitational collapse charts? Caused by the resistance of still standing portions of a building that resist free fall times of the collapsing portion on its way down. (it's a kind of phishing for answers we do not appreciate here, just address the meat of the matter : Since gravity is an etc.)

Which kink can"t be found in the WTC collapse charts, when a fixed point on its way down is taken also, in David's case a point on the roof rim of Tower 1, and which he plotted against time in his WTC 1 North Tower collapse sequence chart. Which gave a constant descending line on his chart, without that so telling 'kink' in a natural collapse, the ones without aid by explosives.
That constant descending line indicates no resistance at all for the collapsing top porrtion of WTC 1, the North Tower with that antenna on top.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
''Dr", I'll save you the time to find that specific event NIST tied all actual time stamps of photo and video material in their database to (and not your erronous invention of such event at 9:25:42 AM which was a time you found in the right top part of the 115 Cianca photo's and their time stamp listing as already several times posted above here) :


3.3 REFERENCE TIME
Recognizing that the majority of timing information available from the visual material itself was of high relative accuracy, but of unknown and variable absolute accuracy, a timing scheme was adopted in which all of the times for items in the databases were placed on a common relative time scale tied to a single welldefined event. Due to the large number of different views available, the moment when the nose of the second aircraft struck the south face of WTC 2 was chosen to be this time. This event was defined to

NIST NCSTAR 15A, WTC Investigation 21

have occurred at 9:02:54 a.m. based on times for major events included in the earlier Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report (McAllister 2002) describing the events of September 11, 2001.


That"s the 9:02:54 a.m. single event that all EXIF file time stamps and analogue time stamps were related to, as defined by NIST.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   


When you still do not understand NIST their time correcting modus operandi,

 


Labtop, it's clearly you who does not understand the modus operandi in play here.

The image I posted says it all. The numbers on the time adjustment software controls make it clear: the reference event for the exif adjustment of the cianca images was captured in image 70 of the set. Image 70 had an exif data timestamp of 9:25:42, but whatever was captured in that photo was judged to have transpired at actual time 9:24:00 and so all of the timestamp adjustments to the Cianca photos were adjusted based on this, not based on the sinking of the penthouse.

It's obvious that the times and dates shown on the upper right of the image are not simply a display of a photo's exif data and corrected time, but are inputs used to adjust the times. hence, the little icons that indicate that the month of year and AM/PM are selectable by mouseclick. the 9:24:00 time was entered manually by the software operator.

Your interpretation of these NIST papers is spurious. It is clear from your writing that English is not your first language. Perhaps you are letting your own wishful thinking, and attachment to your theory fill in the blanks wherever you don't understand something.

You can spare me the long winded insults, they will not deter me.

I would like to remind you that we are still awaiting your 'secret' evidence of quiet thermobarics, which you claim to have access to.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I withdraw my comments on the exif data. I was in error. NIST has consistently timed the penthouse sinking the same as the timestamp on the cianca photo.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join