300 DVDs from WTC7 collapse has Infowars on their feet again

[Panoply_Prefect]

The headline has it "Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion?"

Apparently something called "The international center for 911 studies" (http://www.ic911studies.org/) has managed to get some 300 DVDs of video an footage from the WTC7 collapse via FOIA (albeit Infowars has it "from lawsuit"):
http://www.infowars.com/did-nist-edit-wtc-7-footage-to-hide-evidence-of-implosion/

The angle from Infowars is predictable, but it'll still be interesting to see the material.

[femr2]

There are some initial releases here...

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#g/u

The full set will be released via BitTorrent.

[Disbelief]

This brings up the question: If the government was behind 9/11, why would they release ANY incriminating evidence just because of an FOIA request?

[djlunacee]

This brings up the question: If the government was behind 9/11, why would they release ANY incriminating evidence just because of an FOIA request?

WeThey wouldn't, under the guise of national security.

[MG1962]

Okay help me out. I think I am missing something. Why should the NIST be investigating the Battle of Thermopylae :confused:

[16.5]

There are some initial releases here...

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#g/u

The full set will be released via BitTorrent.

"explosion heard at 11 second mark."

Facepalm. There was no explosion there at all.

[Panoply_Prefect]

"explosion heard at 11 second mark."

Facepalm. There was no explosion there at all.

The benchmark Infowars uses in that article as evidence of explosion seem to be a windgust. And a rather weak one as well.

[BigAl]

I suspect we've seen this data already and discussed in this thread and others.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175052

[Miragememories]

I suspect we've seen this data already and discussed in this thread and others.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175052
You can only hope.

MM

[jaydeehess]

This brings up the question: If the government was behind 9/11, why would they release ANY incriminating evidence just because of an FOIA request?

Because they hafta of course. Its like asking an undercover cop if he's a cop. He's gotta tell ya da truth!

[jaydeehess]

You can only hope.

MM

You have some insight as to there being some video in the bunch that has not been discussed here?

[femr2]

You have some insight as to there being some video in the bunch that has not been discussed here?

The full set consists of ~7000Gb.

The previous release was ~26Gb.

[jaydeehess]

The full set consists of ~7000Gb.

The previous release was ~26Gb.

Lovely, better quality, less compression or actually previously unseen video?

Would MM or you please point to one that you believe has not been discussed here yet so we do not start re-hashing old stuff again?

I watched the one that is supposed to have the sound of explosions at 10-11 seconds in. I did not hear any such thing. Around that time one begins to start hearing the rumble of WTC7's collapse though.
The people screaming is the loudest thing on the tape furgawdssake.

[BigAl]

The full set consists of ~7000Gb.

The previous release was ~26Gb.

Even if all the DVDs are full, your math is impossibly high.

[jaydeehess]

"explosion heard at 11 second mark."

Facepalm. There was no explosion there at all.

Ahhh, I see there are at least two videos claiming a WTC 7 explosion at around 11 seconds in the clip.
In the one that specifically states "11 second" it may be a wind gust but this is just before the east penthouse collapses in. The NIST report would have the 30+ floors between initial failure and the penthouse having collapsed AND THEN the east penthouse falling inward. The sound being heard then is the rumble of that internal collapse reaching the mic.
Its hardly the sharp bang of a cutting charge.

[jaydeehess]

Even if all the DVDs are full, your math is impossibly high.

Indeed, 300 DVD's at 17G each is 5100G.
Good catch.

7000G is over 400 DVDs at 17G each.

The more common double layer single side disc is less than 10G each

[femr2]

Even if all the DVDs are full, your math is impossibly high.
Eh ? No *math* involved. Over 300 DVD's and a bunch of external drives. They've recieved over 3Tb so far, with much more to come. As far as I'm aware the full set will reach 7Tb.

Think it's safe to say more than 26Gb.

[Lennart Hyland]

There are some initial releases here...

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#g/u

The full set will be released via BitTorrent.

hmm I couldnt see or hear any explosion at all in those clips...

[jaydeehess]

Eh ? No *math* involved. Over 300 DVD's and a bunch of external drives. They've recieved over 3Tb so far, with much more to come. As far as I'm aware the full set will reach 7Tb.

Think it's safe to say more than 26Gb.

Do any of the above links give out that info (300DVDs and a bunch of external drives)?

So 3TB so far and you are guessing at 7TB once all is said and done. Gotcha.

Now back to my question. point to one that has not been discussed

[femr2]

Lovely, better quality, less compression or actually previously unseen video?
I doubt there will be an awful lot of *new* footage, but most definitely a whole bunch of MUCH better quality versions.

please point to one that you believe has not been discussed here yet so we do not start re-hashing old stuff again?
Will have to wait until the Torrents are up.

I'm waiting for the full length NIST Cam#3 original first. That'll be handy. And unseen. Then there's bound to be the WTC7 videos with bits missing doing the rounds. Hopefully the full versions are in the pot somewhere. If not I'm sure they'll be requested, so they should eventually turn up.

Do any of the above links give out that info (300DVDs and a bunch of external drives)?
Dunno. This one does though...
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist

[T.A.M.]

1. If nothing on these videos helps them, they will call them faked or edited
2. If something (I cant think of what) on these tapes helps them, they will declare them 100% proof, which will then beg the question,

WHY WOULD THE PERPS ALLOW TAPES WITH INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON THEM, out?

Round and Round we go...AGAIN

TAM

[ozeco41]

...Its hardly the sharp bang of a cutting charge.
Maybe there should be a Government program to take all pro-demolition truthers to some quarry site and let off a few steel cutting charges of different sizes. :)

Once heard never forgotten.

..then truth never makes any difference to truthers.... :rolleyes:

[Reactor drone]

I suspect the vast majority of this data will be hours of footage looking at burning buildings followed by the previously released edited highlights showing the collapses.

More is always better for the truth movement though, more videos gives more chance of finding something that you can misinterpret as an explosion, more debate means more chances of someone saying something that you can misinterpret or quote mine. In the end they still just end up with a pile of "anomalies" with no coherent theory to tie them together.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Okay help me out. I think I am missing something. Why should the NIST be investigating the Battle of Thermopylae :confused:
:D

[SRW]

Maybe there should be a Government program to take all pro-demolition truthers to some quarry site and let off a few steel cutting charges of different sizes. :)

Once heard never forgotten.

..then truth never makes any difference to truthers.... :rolleyes:

No no no, then it was thermite, which is not explosive, or wait it's nano thermite which is explosive, just not as much thats the ticket yeah boys it's quite explosives, but don't you hear the cutter charges on the building those are explosions, and everyone heard them it's just they were using directional microphones which dampen the sounds. Everyone heard the explosions which did not happen cause they used thermite...

Sorry I'll never again talk to a truther on YouTube might as well argue the facts of the Battle of Thermopylae with a Greek.

[Oystein]

In this video, we see the famous molten flow from one corner of the south tower:

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

Flow emenates first at the 2:22 mark, and continues with interruptions until at least 3:25.
Collapse commences at 3:45.

Throughout the video, that near corner of the south tower shows the most obvious fires, and when the tower collapses, it tilts toward that size.

Seems like conditions in that corner were indeed particularly hellish.

[ozeco41]

No no no, then it was thermite, which is not explosive, or wait it's nano thermite which is explosive, just not as much thats the ticket yeah boys it's quite explosives, but don't you hear the cutter charges on the building those are explosions, and everyone heard them it's just they were using directional microphones which dampen the sounds. Everyone heard the explosions which did not happen cause they used thermite...

Sorry I'll never again talk to a truther on YouTube might as well argue the facts of the Battle of Thermopylae with a Greek.

Never put either of the words "logic" or "consistency" in the same sentence as "truther". ;)

[BigAl]

Eh ? No *math* involved. Over 300 DVD's and a bunch of external drives. They've recieved over 3Tb so far, with much more to come. As far as I'm aware the full set will reach 7Tb.

Think it's safe to say more than 26Gb.

Here's NIST's description of the imaginary and how they handled it.

Additional imagery shot by individuals was identified by searches on the world-wide web, by referrals from other sources, and by public appeals during public Investigation progress updates. Ultimately, over 300 hours of video and 10,000 photographs were collected by NIST. ...

Ultimately, the database grew to include 7,118 photographs and 6,932 video clips representing over 75 hours of video. In additional to material from numerous organizations, videos from approximately 40 individuals and photographs from over 140 individuals were included.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05173.pdf

[Zep]

Any chance we will (or will not) be hearing the hush-a-boom thermite (or thermate) that instantly cut through many feet of reinforced concrete without any sound whatsoever?

Or is it all just another a pile of crap...

[kookbreaker]

Okay help me out. I think I am missing something. Why should the NIST be investigating the Battle of Thermopylae :confused:

The end of the battle was an inside job, afterall.

[RedIbis]

Here's NIST's description of the imaginary and how they handled it.

Actually, that might be the one thing they handled well.

[T.A.M.]

SO has anyone downloaded and watched any of these videos? Any series of explosions prior to collapse. Any series of fire flashes prior to the collapse? Any thing at all of note?

TAM:D

[RedIbis]

SO has anyone downloaded and watched any of these videos? Any series of explosions prior to collapse. Any series of fire flashes prior to the collapse? Any thing at all of note?

TAM:D

Yes. It's being discussed here. (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist?page=1).

[WildCat]

Yes. It's being discussed here. (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist?page=1).
LOL!

Quite the "explosion" there Red! :p

[T.A.M.]

Yes. It's being discussed here. (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist?page=1).

omg...is that the best they could find? a multistorey fire with enormous amounts of structure damage, and what...a puff of smoke, a window breaks...and nothing.

And this represents what???what???what???

*********** ridiculous.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

even better, actually made me chuckle at the stupidity, is the analysis of "explosions" during the collapse...

Well DUH!!!!!!!

OMG

TAM

[Grizzly Bear]

LOL!

Quite the "explosion" there Red! :p

Don't forget to raise the volume on your computer speakers. Other wise you might not hear the hush-a-booms going off:

The explosions are clear enough at normal volumes, but turning your speaker volume up a bit can help provide a full appreciation of the sound.

[alienentity]

JAYa9I8GV94

New video with comparison to real CD. No contest. WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition.
Duh..

[bill smith]

1. If nothing on these videos helps them, they will call them faked or edited
2. If something (I cant think of what) on these tapes helps them, they will declare them 100% proof, which will then beg the question,

WHY WOULD THE PERPS ALLOW TAPES WITH INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON THEM, out?

Round and Round we go...AGAIN

TAM

Keep your fingers crossed TAM. Maybe there will be some little thing in there to help the OCT.

[RedIbis]

1. If nothing on these videos helps them, they will call them faked or edited


What if one is edited? Then what? Should we just say it's not edited even though it's clearly edited?

[bill smith]

The headline has it "Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion?"

Apparently something called "The international center for 911 studies" (http://www.ic911studies.org/) has managed to get some 300 DVDs of video an footage from the WTC7 collapse via FOIA (albeit Infowars has it "from lawsuit"):
http://www.infowars.com/did-nist-edit-wtc-7-footage-to-hide-evidence-of-implosion/

The angle from Infowars is predictable, but it'll still be interesting to see the material.

It surely will.

[beachnut]

There are some initial releases here...

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#g/u

The full set will be released via BitTorrent.
Nut case conspiracy theorist making up lies. Give idiots some videos and they make up moronic delusions of CD. What a bunch of dolts, posting thanks for exposing the truth. 8 years of idiotic failure for a few nuts on the Internet. How can people be so stupid? They have no idea what an explosion sounds like.

There are a fringe few who lack knowledge and the skills to understand 911, maintaining the idiotic CD delusion after 8 years of perfecting failure.

[grandmastershek]

What if one is edited? Then what? Should we just say it's not edited even though it's clearly edited?

By "clearly edited" do you mean "the explosions I wish were there can't be heard!"?

[RedIbis]

By "clearly edited" do you mean "the explosions I wish were there can't be heard!"?

No. I mean footage released by NIST that's clearly edited. Should we say it's not edited because TAM thinks only a twoofie would call it edited.

[BigAl]

No. I mean footage released by NIST that's clearly edited. Should we say it's not edited because TAM thinks only a twoofie would call it edited.

So you believe that dramatic imagery was omitted and none of the hundreds of people that contributed the imagery noticed and none of the people that did the editing objected or have since blown the whistle?

All that material still exists in the hands of the creators and in 9 years none of it has been made public.

What's the next class of people you are going to insult?


NIST worked with numerous organizations such as the commercial photo agencies, local and network television, local newspapers, the New York City Police Department, the Fire Department of the City of New York, and various archives assembled to document the events of September 11th. Additional imagery shot by individuals

In additional to material from numerous organizations, videos from approximately 40 individuals and photographs from over 140 individuals were included.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05173.pdf

[jaydeehess]

No. I mean footage released by NIST that's clearly edited. Should we say it's not edited because TAM thinks only a twoofie would call it edited.

What constitutes "clearly edited" , RedI?

In consumer digital recordings, hell it happens witn Pro-digital tapes, it is not unusual for video to mometarily freeze while audio keeps going. Would that be 'editing' if you saw it?

One big problem with consumer digital tape occured when the consumer purchased one brand of tape then , when needing more tape, purchased a different brand. The coatings on different brands can interfere with each other and gum up the record heads. Another is the consumer not bothering to buy a tape head cleaner, or worse te, re-using the cleaner. The result is stuttering video recordings.

Furthermore you say "one" recording. What would "one" recording have?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Anyone know where the original material, not the Youtube versions, can be downloaded?

[RedIbis]

What constitutes "clearly edited" , RedI?
That the editing is obvious.

In consumer digital recordings, hell it happens witn Pro-digital tapes, it is not unusual for video to mometarily freeze while audio keeps going. Would that be 'editing' if you saw it?
I'd have to see it.

One big problem with consumer digital tape occured when the consumer purchased one brand of tape then , when needing more tape, purchased a different brand. The coatings on different brands can interfere with each other and gum up the record heads. Another is the consumer not bothering to buy a tape head cleaner, or worse te, re-using the cleaner. The result is stuttering video recordings.
It's either clearly edited or it's not. If there's a consensus among viewers that the tape has been edited, this isn't going to require an extended debate.

Furthermore you say "one" recording. What would "one" recording have?
I don't understand what you're asking. TAM said that if the tapes didn't show what Twoofies wanted, they'd call it edited. I asked, what happens if the tape is clearly edited, should non-twoofies say it's not edited, even though it obviously is? You can take a stab at that one any time now.

[jaydeehess]

That the editing is obvious.

I'd have to see it.

I have seen it. I see it happen about once every couple of months actually.
I forgot one other cause, moisture. Taking a camera that is cold out into a warmer area. For instance one that is stored overnight in a car then taken out of its case and exposed to warmer air. Moisture , dew, develops on the heads and interferes with recording.

In other words you have no idea what "clearly edited" or an "obvious " edit would look like or how to determine if it is actually edited.



It's either clearly edited or it's not. If there's a consensus among viewers that the tape has been edited, this isn't going to require an extended debate.

B.S., in order to determine if a tape really was edited and that the interruption was not caused by equipment failure or even just the operator accidentally hitting 'pause' it would have to be reviewed by video experts. It may even require examining the ACTUAL original recording medium.

I don't understand what you're asking. TAM said that if the tapes didn't show what Twoofies wanted, they'd call it edited. I asked, what happens if the tape is clearly edited, should non-twoofies say it's not edited, even though it obviously is? You can take a stab at that one any time now.

A consensus among a group of non-experts is worthless. Besides, did I see you address TAM's point or did you just deflect away from it by supposing a condition in which something in a tape is actually determined to be edited by experts?

Circular arguement there RedI, you still have not explained how you will determine beyond doubt that the recording was edited. Without that you gots nuttin!

But what the hell, let's play the game and assume that you do have ONE video that can be shown to have been deliberatly edited from its original content. Are we speaking about missing video? audio? Let's take the later first. If a portion of the audio track was altered what would that prove? Nothing whatsoever since any other video with audio should contain any suspicious sounds generated by explosives. Actual suspicious sounds being edited away would require editing every single recording at that time period.

As for video editing, I cannot envision what might be visible on ONE recording that would be edited out that would not also be part of either another video or witnessed by other persons.

This entire sequence of events occured in one of the most populous regions of one of the most populous cities in the USA. It occured in a city that contains major news agencies of both the USA itself and several foreign countries. The odds that anything we do not already know about will show up in any video or that some such event was edited out and not part of another video or witness statement are ,,,,remote, to be polite about it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

NIST editted footage?! WTF? :boggled:

Since when does NIST edit their videos? I've known that Truthers love to edit their videos to spread their paranoia around, but NIST doing it? Naw, that's a big lie right there Mr. Dylan Avery wannabe (Redibis)!

[carlitos]

7 Terabytes of detail
0 concept of big picture

Makes sense to me.

[Oystein]

In other words you have no idea what "clearly edited" or an "obvious " edit would look like or how to determine if it is actually edited.
...

To be fair, you can't expect someone to answer that all-encompassing question.

Some hints that a video was "clearly edited" might be

- In one frame only, the sky is purple
- Every 25th frame contains a Marlborough ad
- Elvis appears in it, although the video was shot recently
- The debris piles fall up and assemble into highrise buildings
- There is a gap between the 30th and 31st floor of WTC7, through which you can see the Garden of Eden
- A WW1 double-decker shoots down flight 175 before it hits WTC2.
- It shows ninja turtles hanging from a window
- The FSM reveals itself in it, dressed in mayonnaise.
- WTC7 collapses in 6.5 seconds
- A series of INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs is heard at the moment the collapse of WTC7 starts


etc.

You get miy drift: You'd have to see a video to determine if it was edited or not. There are too many ways that a video could be edited.

[RedIbis]

I have seen it. I see it happen about once every couple of months actually.
I forgot one other cause, moisture. Taking a camera that is cold out into a warmer area. For instance one that is stored overnight in a car then taken out of its case and exposed to warmer air. Moisture , dew, develops on the heads and interferes with recording.

In other words you have no idea what "clearly edited" or an "obvious " edit would look like or how to determine if it is actually edited.





B.S., in order to determine if a tape really was edited and that the interruption was not caused by equipment failure or even just the operator accidentally hitting 'pause' it would have to be reviewed by video experts. It may even require examining the ACTUAL original recording medium.



A consensus among a group of non-experts is worthless. Besides, did I see you address TAM's point or did you just deflect away from it by supposing a condition in which something in a tape is actually determined to be edited by experts?

Circular arguement there RedI, you still have not explained how you will determine beyond doubt that the recording was edited. Without that you gots nuttin!

But what the hell, let's play the game and assume that you do have ONE video that can be shown to have been deliberatly edited from its original content. Are we speaking about missing video? audio? Let's take the later first. If a portion of the audio track was altered what would that prove? Nothing whatsoever since any other video with audio should contain any suspicious sounds generated by explosives. Actual suspicious sounds being edited away would require editing every single recording at that time period.

As for video editing, I cannot envision what might be visible on ONE recording that would be edited out that would not also be part of either another video or witnessed by other persons.

This entire sequence of events occured in one of the most populous regions of one of the most populous cities in the USA. It occured in a city that contains major news agencies of both the USA itself and several foreign countries. The odds that anything we do not already know about will show up in any video or that some such event was edited out and not part of another video or witness statement are ,,,,remote, to be polite about it.

I hate to interrupt a long winded rant, but I didn't suggest that any editing was nefarious or intentional, only that it might clearly exist.

[Oystein]

I hate to interrupt a long winded rant, but I didn't suggest that any editing was nefarious or intentional, only that it might clearly exist.

If it exists, that would not mean, the editing was done by NIST. NIST had collected all the videos from a plethora of sources. Any editing might have happened before NIST got hold of it.

[jaydeehess]

I hate to interrupt a long winded rant, but I didn't suggest that any editing was nefarious or intentional, only that it might clearly exist.

You did not interrupt it. I completed it and you quoted it in its entirety. Whether or not you are capable of reading a couple of hundred characters without zoning out is a matter for your ADHD treatment.

On the other hand you indeed are implying INTENTIONAL editing. Unintentional editing is what I have been talking about, moisture on the heads, accidentally hitting pause, mixing tape manufacturers, none of which would support any contention made by the group of persons who do not believe the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11.01

Since I only mentioned the word 'suspicious' in the third last paragraph and will have to assume that you did manage to read at least that far I will repeat the final paragraph.
This entire sequence of events occured in one of the most populous regions of one of the most populous cities in the USA. It occured in a city that contains major news agencies of both the USA itself and several foreign countries. The odds that anything we do not already know about will show up in any video or that some such event was edited out and not part of another video or witness statement are ,,,,remote, to be polite about it.

[BigAl]

I hate to interrupt a long winded rant, but I didn't suggest that any editing was nefarious or intentional, only that it might clearly exist.

That's how it read on my screen.

[RedIbis]

If it exists, that would not mean, the editing was done by NIST. NIST had collected all the videos from a plethora of sources. Any editing might have happened before NIST got hold of it.

That's indeed possible, and unless someone can quote otherwise, I didn't suggest that this was intentional or nefarious.

[BigAl]

That's indeed possible, and unless someone can quote otherwise, I didn't suggest that this was intentional or nefarious.

or factual.

[fitzgibbon]

It's either clearly edited or it's not. If there's a consensus among viewers that the tape has been edited, this isn't going to require an extended debate.

Red,

I'll make it painfully obvious so that even you won't dissemble should the time come.

Who's your 'truther' expert who'll recognise the difference between and edit and what jay was referring to which is known in the industry as a digital drop-out? Ace Baker? jay and I and other experienced television professionals would know the difference in a heartbeat and identify it as such.

But we don't have a reason to misidentify a digital drop-out (or even an analogue one for that matter); I can't make the same statement with any certainty about 'truthers'.

[jaydeehess]

That's indeed possible, and unless someone can quote otherwise, I didn't suggest that this was intentional or nefarious.

Well then try learning about the concept of editing. Equipment malfunction is not "editing"
Operator mistakes during shooting is not "editing"

Editing IS the post production changing of the original footage. It IS always intentional (though not always well done).

"editing is the operator controlled intentional altering of original footage.

However, if you are including unintentional altering of the recording of the event being recorded can you tell what possible conclusions could be drawn from them? After all you were typing in response to TAM's contention;
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
1. If nothing on these videos helps them, they will call them faked or edited
What if one is edited? Then what? Should we just say it's not edited even though it's clearly edited?

Its quite obvious that TAM was refering to persons not accepting the common narritive of the events of 911 calling 'fake' or 'edited' in order to place nefarious ('faked' can really only be nefarious or prank) motives on such actions.

Fact is that faced with the truth about video drop out you are now backtracking.

[jaydeehess]

(or even an analogue one for that matter).

Which, for the education of RedIbis, would likely have the video tear horizontally(loss of horizontal sync bad record tracking), or roll vertically ( loss of vertical sync or badly degraded vertical sync pulse), perhaps have the color drop out to B&W(low video level) or even go very grainy or snowy (low video level , or bad tape), all the while having the audio track remain fairly good.

[T.A.M.]

What if one is edited? Then what? Should we just say it's not edited even though it's clearly edited?

If you have proof that one of the videos is edited, then I think you have every right to ask why it was edited.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

No. I mean footage released by NIST that's clearly edited. Should we say it's not edited because TAM thinks only a twoofie would call it edited.

1. I did not use the word "Twoofie".
2. I did not say that only a twoofie would edit it? I said that if nothing comes out of the tapes that they like, they will simply dismiss the whole lot as edited.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

yes, and lets be clear. If there is proof that a video, amongst them, has been edited, then this proves little. You are entitled to ask why, of course, but without proof you are making evidenceless based accusations to suggest (A) that NIST did the editing, (B) that the editing was for the purpose of "cover up".

TAM:)

[fitzgibbon]

(or even an analogue one for that matter)

Which, for the education of RedIbis, would likely have the video tear horizontally(loss of horizontal sync bad record tracking), or roll vertically ( loss of vertical sync or badly degraded vertical sync pulse), perhaps have the color drop out to B&W(low video level) or even go very grainy or snowy (low video level , or bad tape), all the while having the audio track remain fairly good.

That said, I'd wager that given the sheer volume of analogue footage shot that day, there's going to be a sudden plethora of 'truthers' reporting heretofore-unseen comets and meteorites in the hi-rez video.

Should be good for plenty o' gits and shiggles. :D

[Oystein]

There are some initial releases here...

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#g/u

The full set will be released via BitTorrent.

The canal owner, IC911STUDIES, has blocked me from making comments.

Seems like open debate and dissenting views are baaaaaad in truthers' eyes.

What are they afraid of? :D

[T.A.M.]

they are afraid of you interrupting their ongoing snake oil stream with a splash of rationality.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

No. I mean footage released by NIST that's clearly edited. Should we say it's not edited because TAM thinks only a twoofie would call it edited.

A twoofie already has (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fNLz8zWwaM)
IranContraScumDid911 (http://www.youtube.com/user/IranContraScumDid911)
3 days ago

I wish they had not altered the face of WTC 7. I have several videos where they clealy are hiding somethin. If you zoom in you ca see the video is pixelated. A poor coverup.

[RedIbis]

I didn't mean to get the techies all in an uproar. I was using editing in the general sense, that is not continuous, clearly cut. Why that is or if it was a glitch or intentional, I do not, nor have I claimed to know.

[fitzgibbon]

I didn't mean to get the techies all in an uproar. I was using editing in the general sense, that is not continuous, clearly cut. Why that is or if it was a glitch or intentional, I do not, nor have I claimed to know.

Sorry if the "techies" seem to be in "an uproar" as you so quaintly put it. Speaking as a quasi-"techie", perhaps you might understand that from the perspective of television professionals trying to talk sense to erstwhile television-watchers-turned-self-professed-television-know-it-alls based on the flimsiest of misunderstandings, it gets a little crazy-making dealing with 'truthers' and their antics.

For your consideration, I present jammonius and his 75 pages-and-counting wonderwank of jet plane=bus and jet plane="shadow thingy". And don't get me started on the inanity that was Ace Baker.

If there was a sharp retort to your editing comment it is merely because 'truthers' have made a tiresome little cottage industry out of lack of comprehension.

[T.A.M.]

willful ignorance is definitely LAME.

TAM:D

[RedIbis]

Sorry if the "techies" seem to be in "an uproar" as you so quaintly put it. Speaking as a quasi-"techie", perhaps you might understand that from the perspective of television professionals trying to talk sense to erstwhile television-watchers-turned-self-professed-television-know-it-alls based on the flimsiest of misunderstandings, it gets a little crazy-making dealing with 'truthers' and their antics.

For your consideration, I present jammonius and his 75 pages-and-counting wonderwank of jet plane=bus and jet plane="shadow thingy". And don't get me started on the inanity that was Ace Baker.

If there was a sharp retort to your editing comment it is merely because 'truthers' have made a tiresome little cottage industry out of lack of comprehension.

I'm not responsible for what anyone else posts, "truther" or otherwise.

[Thunder]

This brings up the question: If the government was behind 9/11, why would they release ANY incriminating evidence just because of an FOIA request?

cause they want to get caught.

:p

[fitzgibbon]

But anyone have to be a fool not to recognise the opening refrain of the same ol' songs

[Oystein]

And here is another truther who accused my of lying and blocked me from further commenting his or her videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do0LsY4MDWg

Could somebody inform Bernadotte01 that indeed aluminium powder is nit hard to ignite. It can be done with a normal cigarette lighter. It is not the burning of the gas, but the ignition spark that ignites the metal powder (indeed, most ignition sparks of cigarette lighters are burning iron).

ETA: A source:
http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/PowderandPaste/TR2_2006.pdf
"anything producing a spark can set off an explosion of aluminum powder suspended in air" (p. 4)

[jaydeehess]

I didn't mean to get the techies all in an uproar. I was using editing in the general sense, that is not continuous, clearly cut. Why that is or if it was a glitch or intentional, I do not, nor have I claimed to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
1. If nothing on these videos helps them, they will call them faked or edited

If we are to take your latest post at face value then you completely missed TAM's point. You went off on a tangent that has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand then, is that it?

[Miragememories]

Anyone know where the original material, not the Youtube versions, can be downloaded?

Yes.

MM

[Miragememories]

If it exists, that would not mean, the editing was done by NIST. NIST had collected all the videos from a plethora of sources. Any editing might have happened before NIST got hold of it.
From what I've been able to discern, the NIST are too smart to actually edit original
content.

Their preferred method of subterfuge is omission.

If they have video, audio/video, or photographic material that undermines
their position, they simply exclude it from their reports.

MM

[Disbelief]

From what I've been able to discern, the NIST are too smart to actually edit original
content.

Their preferred method of subterfuge is omission.

If they have video, audio/video, or photographic material that undermines
their position, they simply exclude it from their reports.

MM

How can you possibly know this? Can you answer why the government that did this would release anything because of an FOIA request?

Once again, cling to the belief that there is something out there that you intrepid investigators will find.

[Miragememories]

Which, for the education of RedIbis, would likely have the video tear horizontally(loss of horizontal sync bad record tracking), or roll vertically ( loss of vertical sync or badly degraded vertical sync pulse), perhaps have the color drop out to B&W(low video level) or even go very grainy or snowy (low video level , or bad tape), all the while having the audio track remain fairly good.
Gee you left out burst amplitude Mr. Expert.

MM

[Miragememories]

"From what I've been able to discern, the NIST are too smart to actually edit original content.

Their preferred method of subterfuge is omission.

If they have video, audio/video, or photographic material that undermines
their position, they simply exclude it from their reports."
"How can you possibly know this? Can you answer why the government that did this would release anything because of an FOIA request?

Once again, cling to the belief that there is something out there that you intrepid investigators will find."

The NIST released what they did because they were threatened with a law suit.

As an example, why did the NIST release this under FOIA but not explain it in their report?

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/9936/1680fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg
WTC2 (left) WTC1 (right)

Note the major hotspot lower in WTC1 at 9:19 a.m.

MM

[RedIbis]

The NIST released what they did because they were threatened with a law suit.

As an example, why did the NIST release this under FOIA but not explain it in their report?

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/9936/1680fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg
WTC2 (left) WTC1 (right)

Note the major hotspot lower in WTC1 at 9:19 a.m.

MM

Jet fuel.

[Disbelief]

The NIST released what they did because they were threatened with a law suit.

So. If the government had done this, why would there be ANY incriminating material left? In your mind they murder 3,000 people and they are afraid of a lawsuit. Laughable.


As an example, why did the NIST release this under FOIA but not explain it in their report?

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/9936/1680fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg
WTC2 (left) WTC1 (right)

Note the major hotspot lower in WTC1 at 9:19 a.m.

MM

It's called a fire and supports the case that there were multiple fires. The jet fuel fireball ignited material farther down.

Why not go back to the other thread and support your definite claim?

[alienentity]

Is it just my browser or are comments all deleted on this video?

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

[Miragememories]

So. If the government had done this, why would there be ANY incriminating material left? In your mind they murder 3,000 people and they are afraid of a lawsuit. Laughable.

It's called a fire and supports the case that there were multiple fires. The jet fuel fireball ignited material farther down.

Why not go back to the other thread and support your definite claim?

Lame. Very lame.

The all inclusive government dodge.

Only those who finalize the reports have to be involved.

Show me a list of historical whistleblowers if you think otherwise. If the boss thinks it is right, who has the balls to object.

Oh, the jet fuel, what remained of it, did a 90 degree turn on some lower floor, and magically ignited itself and [drum roll],
from 9:19 a.m. to 10:28 a.m., the major fire it created managed to hide itself from all visual recording devices.

No smoke, nada.

Cute trick.

MM

[Miragememories]

Is it just my browser or are comments all deleted on this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
Who gives a ...

Why are you derailing this thread with your unrelated YouTube video
response worries alienentity?

MM

[Grizzly Bear]

Is it just my browser or are comments all deleted on this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
Nope
http://a.imageshack.us/img547/1231/commentsw.png

[Miragememories]

Nope
http://a.imageshack.us/img547/1231/commentsw.png

Gee.

It must be a conspiracy.

MM

[Disbelief]

Lame. Very lame.

The all inclusive government dodge.

Only those who finalize the reports have to be involved.

Yes, because those who did all the work never go back and read it.


Show me a list of historical whistleblowers if you think otherwise. If the boss thinks it is right, who has the balls to object.

Show me a list of 9/11 whistleblowers. I mean real ones, bringing real evidence. After 9 years, you have none.


Oh, the jet fuel, what remained of it, did a 90 degree turn on some lower floor, and magically ignited itself and [drum roll],
from 9:19 a.m. to 10:28 a.m., the major fire it created managed to hide itself from all visual recording devices.

No smoke, nada.

Cute trick.

MM

Here's something to try. Get a spray bottle filled with water. Have it on a diffused spray and let loose. Notice the pattern? Does it go all over? Now, this will give you an idea of the atomization of some of the jet fuel. Do you think there would be no sparks capable of igniting any of this fuel?

Could you see through all the windows on every floor? There were reports of fires on other floors, so here's the proof. If there are no broken windows, why would you see smoke? It would travel up and out another opening.

[jaydeehess]

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/9936/1680fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg
WTC2 (left) WTC1 (right)

Note the major hotspot lower in WTC1 at 9:19 a.m.

MM

Major hotspot?
according to the scale at left the large flare at the top is about the boiling point of water and the one lower down on WTC 1 is , being generous, about 75 degrees C.

Now please show us the FLIR from the preceeding 30 seconds(the time shown is 9:19:36) and the following 30 seconds.

Do these flares dissapate? are they fleeting images in a few frames? Do they move around?

you might as well show stills of the collapse and say "look material is being blasted upwards !!11!1!!"

[jaydeehess]

Major hotspot?
according to the scale at left the large flare at the top is about the boiling point of water and the one lower down on WTC 1 is , being generous, about 75 degrees C.

Now please show us the FLIR from the preceeding 30 seconds(the time shown is 9:19:36) and the following 30 seconds.



bump for MM

- The flare low down is much cooler than the smoke plume.

-once again, what does the FLIR record show just before and after this still shot?

- is this the only FLIR recorded flare prior to collapse?

[Miragememories]

"The NIST released what they did because they were threatened with a law suit.

As an example, why did the NIST release this under FOIA but not explain it in their report?

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/9936/1680fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg
WTC2 (left) WTC1 (right)

Note the major hotspot lower in WTC1 at 9:19 a.m."
"Major hotspot?
according to the scale at left the large flare at the top is about the boiling point of water and the one lower down on WTC 1 is , being generous, about 75 degrees C.

Now please show us the FLIR from the preceeding 30 seconds(the time shown is 9:19:36) and the following 30 seconds.

Do these flares dissapate? are they fleeting images in a few frames? Do they move around?

you might as well show stills of the collapse and say "look material is being blasted upwards !!11!1!!"

bump for MM

- The flare low down is much cooler than the smoke plume.

-once again, what does the FLIR record show just before and after this still shot?

- is this the only FLIR recorded flare prior to collapse?"
Yes major hotspot and not a flare.

Regarding the scale, clearly you do not understand it.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/910/hotspotcomp1.png

The images above show the hotspot approximately 55 seconds before and
4 seconds after the FLIR image shown in the wideshot posted earlier.

The image below, shows an overlay on an actual photo image of the WTC Twin Towers.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7796/wtcflirsuper3ar1.jpg
Major thermal hotspot halfway up WTC1 ~1 hr 9 min. before its collapse.

The video link is here;
http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

It is clearly a sustained event and not a flare lasting a few frames.

MM

[T.A.M.]

You've solved it damn you. All that desposing of evidence, all the cover up and foiled by you rotten kids and that dog of yours.

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

Yes major hotspot and not a flare.

Regarding the scale, clearly you do not understand it.

Well what I see of the legend at the left is that black is 15C or less and white(there is no white in the image) is 120C
By this scale I see that 'major hotspot" as somewhere about 75C. I do not know what it is but I know what it isn't. It isn't thermite.
Hot water line break filling that area with steam?

ETA:I have no sound with the link below. Is the scale explained better?
If the bright red is representative of something much hotter then perhaps there was a fire lower down. Now how could that occur?! Hmm, jet fuel and elevator shafts perhaps.
OR
Thermite burn cleverly disguished to look much cooler?
The effects of a DEW?
A thermonuclear device?

What is it MM?



The images above show the hotspot approximately 55 seconds before and
4 seconds after the FLIR image shown in the wideshot posted earlier.
,,,, and I only had to ask a couple of times.
The image below, shows an overlay on an actual photo image of the WTC Twin Towers.


Major thermal hotspot halfway up WTC1 ~1 hr 9 min. before its collapse.

What makes 75C a "major hotspot"?

The video link is here;
http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

Thank you, perhaps this link belonged in your first post?

It is clearly a sustained event and not a flare lasting a few frames.

MM

That answers my question then. So its not as likely to be a error, an transient artifact, a reflection of part of the smoke plume. Still could be, just less likely.

[Garb]

Yes major hotspot and not a flare.

Regarding the scale, clearly you do not understand it.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/910/hotspotcomp1.png

The images above show the hotspot approximately 55 seconds before and
4 seconds after the FLIR image shown in the wideshot posted earlier.

The image below, shows an overlay on an actual photo image of the WTC Twin Towers.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7796/wtcflirsuper3ar1.jpg
Major thermal hotspot halfway up WTC1 ~1 hr 9 min. before its collapse.

The video link is here;
http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

It is clearly a sustained event and not a flare lasting a few frames.

MM

And what is the most likely cause of said flare?

Pretty sure that ends the issue right then and there.

[jaydeehess]

Let's put it this way MM.

The larger hot areas belong to the smoke from the fires at impact floors. We know there were fires there. The size and heat of these fires far and away outstrips that of this lowr down 'major hotspot' and yet somehow are we to believe that this is evidence of something with enough heat (I mean its not an explosive as it barely moves over a full minute right?) to cause major damage to the structure AND the fires at the impact floors is not?
Please continue explaining this MM

[Miragememories]

Let's put it this way MM.

The larger hot areas belong to the smoke from the fires at impact floors. We know there were fires there. The size and heat of these fires far and away outstrips that of this lowr down 'major hotspot' and yet somehow are we to believe that this is evidence of something with enough heat (I mean its not an explosive as it barely moves over a full minute right?) to cause major damage to the structure AND the fires at the impact floors is not?
Please continue explaining this MM
I think comparing the color gradient of the hotspot with that in the known impact zones should give even
a layperson an idea of the kind of heat involved.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7796/wtcflirsuper3ar1.jpg

It appears to cover the same spectrum as the impact fire zones, but obviously has not developed as much in coverage.

MM

[bill smith]

Let's put it this way MM.

The larger hot areas belong to the smoke from the fires at impact floors. We know there were fires there. The size and heat of these fires far and away outstrips that of this lowr down 'major hotspot' and yet somehow are we to believe that this is evidence of something with enough heat (I mean its not an explosive as it barely moves over a full minute right?) to cause major damage to the structure AND the fires at the impact floors is not?
Please continue explaining this MM

Can you imagine NIST releasing a thermal image that showed massive temperatures way over anything that they could explain...FOIA or no FOIA ?

No, the only way we will get anything out of the videos they release is if they overlook something. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have overlooked a few things. There are more ways to skin a cat than one.

[Miragememories]

Can you imagine NIST releasing a thermal image that showed massive temperatures way over anything that they could explain...FOIA or no FOIA ?

No, the only way we will get anything out of the videos they release is if they overlook something. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have overlooked a few things. There are more ways to skin a cat than one.

And I believe in this case they overlooked something.

It is interesting how OCTers get on our case about lack of evidence but
show them some and the silence is deafening.

Hypocrisy is their theme.

MM

[bill smith]

And I believe in this case they overlooked something.

It is interesting how OCTers get on our case about lack of evidence but
show them some and the silence is deafening.

Hypocrisy is their theme.

MM

I wonder if that could be applied to WTC7 in any way ? 'Silence is deafening'

[Garb]

And I believe in this case they overlooked something.

It is interesting how OCTers get on our case about lack of evidence but
show them some and the silence is deafening.

Hypocrisy is their theme.

MM

I'm sorry, what exactly does this thermal image show that gives credence to the "controlled demolition" theory?

[Miragememories]

"I'm sorry, what exactly does this thermal image show that gives credence to the "controlled demolition" theory?"
Well Garb, it reveals a serious anomaly.

Based on the NIST FOIA released thermacam images from the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones, we can determine that this hotspot reveals an area of unnatural heat activity lower in WTC1 (the North Tower).

The spectrum of the thermal image covers the same range as that seen for the impact zone fires.

A major difference, is that that area of WTC1 was not impacted by anything that we know of, and when viewed without the thermacam, surprisingly shows no indication of an active fire.

If you have been actively following the controlled demolition discussions as your post suggests, you must be aware that evidence of nano-thermite has been found in all WTC post collapse dust samples.

The thermacam image quite possibly reveals the activation of nano-thermite in that location.

This also begs the question; do they have thermacam video coverage up to the collapses of both towers?

The NIST decided that for public safety reasons, they had to withhold over 3,000 files from the FOIA request.

Public safety?

MM

[Garb]

Well Garb, it reveals a serious anomaly.

Based on the NIST FOIA released thermacam images from the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones, we can determine that this hotspot reveals an area of unnatural heat activity lower in WTC1 (the North Tower).

Which could have been caused by jet fuel cascading down the elevator shafts.

The spectrum of the thermal image covers the same range as that seen for the impact zone fires.

A major difference, is that that area of WTC1 was not impacted by anything that we know of, and when viewed without the thermacam, surprisingly shows no indication of an active fire.

True.

If you have been actively following the controlled demolition discussions as your post suggests, you must be aware that evidence of nano-thermite has been found in all WTC post collapse dust samples.

Depends on what you mean by "evidence" of nano-thermite.

The thermacam image quite possibly reveals the activation of nano-thermite in that location.[/quote]

Which would mean that at that point the building would most likely collapse, no? Strange how the building showed no weakness at that point before or shortly after the start of the collapse.

This also begs the question; do they have thermacam video coverage up to the collapses of both towers?

The NIST decided that for public safety reasons, they had to withhold over 3,000 files from the FOIA request.

Public safety?

MM

"1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."

I'm not sure what these "files" you are missing have to do with the two bullets above.

[Miragememories]

"Well Garb, it reveals a serious anomaly.

Based on the NIST FOIA released thermacam images from the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones, we can determine that this hotspot reveals an area of unnatural heat activity lower in WTC1 (the North Tower)."
"Which could have been caused by jet fuel cascading down the elevator shafts."
And they made a 90 degree turn how?

And they were ignited how?

And the fires were never observed why?

"If you have been actively following the controlled demolition discussions as your post suggests, you must be aware that evidence of nano-thermite has been found in all WTC post collapse dust samples."
"Depends on what you mean by "evidence" of nano-thermite."

"The thermacam image quite possibly reveals the activation of nano-thermite in that location."

"Which would mean that at that point the building would most likely collapse, no?
Strange how the building showed no weakness at that point before or shortly after the start of the collapse.""
Why? It may have been part of the plan but it was not necessarily 'the' plan.

"This also begs the question; do they have thermacam video coverage up to the collapses of both towers?

The NIST decided that for public safety reasons, they had to withhold over 3,000 files from the FOIA request.

Public safety?"
"I'm not sure what these "files" you are missing have to do with the two bullets above."

I have no idea either since you merely dumped that data without explanation as to context?

What possible reason could the NIST justify withholding over 3,000 visual files?

MM

[Garb]

And they made a 90 degree turn how?

And they were ignited how?

And the fires were never observed why?

Ask NIST.

Why? It may have been part of the plan but it was not necessarily 'the' plan.

It "may have been part of the plan" doesn't explain the fact that despite your belief that nano-thermite ignited there, no weakness was found at that point.

I have no idea either since you merely dumped that data without explanation as to context?

What possible reason could the NIST justify withholding over 3,000 visual files?

MM

I "dumped" the exact statement from NIST. There is nothing else to get from the source to add "context" to it.

And once again, ask NIST if you are so inclined. Asking those questions about it here doesn't give you much else but speculation and JAQing off in a circle.


I think the most strange thing out of all of this is the idea that NIST would release an incriminating image (according to you) but withold the other incriminating evidence. What makes this one so special?

[Miragememories]

Ask NIST.

I think the most strange thing out of all of this is the idea that NIST would release an incriminating image (according to you) but withold the other incriminating evidence. What makes this one so special?
Not an image, a ~1 minute video of moving images.

The NIST provided an extensive catalog of their data sources, re: video, photo, audio, text, interviews etc.

They make no reference to FLIR material anywhere in their reports, and yet they obviously had such material.

When dealing with such huge volumes of material, it is not too surprising that some of it would fall through the cracks and end up in public domain.

It took years of FOIA requests and finally a threatened lawsuit before the NIST released what little they did.

And now you laughingly suggest I ask the NIST.

How incredibly naive.

MM

[Garb]

Not an image, a ~1 minute video of moving images.

The NIST provided an extensive catalog of their data sources, re: video, photo, audio, text, interviews etc.

They make no reference to FLIR material anywhere in their reports, and yet they obviously had such material.

When dealing with such huge volumes of material, it is not too surprising that some of it would fall through the cracks and end up in public domain.

It took years of FOIA requests and finally a threatened lawsuit before the NIST released what little they did.

And now you laughingly suggest I ask the NIST.

How incredibly naive.

MM

Yes, because going to NIST for the EXACT information you want is much worse than speculating NANO THERMITE on an internet forum 9 years after the crime in question. Because neither you nor I have the sufficient information to discuss the exact cause of that hot spot (though the evidence hardly points to thermite in any capacity).

Excellent use of priorities.

[WildCat]

Gee.

It must be a conspiracy.

MM
Nah, just truthers hiding from actual truth again. Deleting the comments is the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you".

[Reactor drone]

Not an image, a ~1 minute video of moving images.

The NIST provided an extensive catalog of their data sources, re: video, photo, audio, text, interviews etc.

They make no reference to FLIR material anywhere in their reports, and yet they obviously had such material.

When dealing with such huge volumes of material, it is not too surprising that some of it would fall through the cracks and end up in public domain.

It took years of FOIA requests and finally a threatened lawsuit before the NIST released what little they did.

And now you laughingly suggest I ask the NIST.

How incredibly naive.

MM

Yes they don't mention it at all.......apart from all the times they mention it and show imagery from it in NCSTAR 1-5A.

You people really should read those reports. I know 10,000 pages sounds daunting but there's lots of pictures and charts and it's nicely broken down into sections so you only have to look at the bits you're interested in and they even have tables of contents to help you find stuff.

:)

[Miragememories]

Yes they don't mention it at all.......apart from all the times they mention it and show imagery from it in NCSTAR 1-5A.

You people really should read those reports. I know 10,000 pages sounds daunting but there's lots of pictures and charts and it's nicely broken down into sections so you only have to look at the bits you're interested in and they even have tables of contents to help you find stuff.

:)
Proof?

I am very familiar with the 10,000 page report.

In particular NCSTAR 1-5A.

There is nothing under FLIR.

MM

[beachnut]

Proof?

I am very familiar with the 10,000 page report.

In particular NCSTAR 1-5A.

There is nothing under FLIR.

MM
Posts like this, explain why 911 truth has failed for 9 years. They just make up junk, never check, don't read, just talk and spew lies, lies about lies, and other failed delusions.

9 years and this is the best 911 truth has.







...
...
I am very familiar with the 10,000 page report.
...MM very familiar? It shows.

[Reactor drone]

Proof?

I am very familiar with the 10,000 page report.

In particular NCSTAR 1-5A.

There is nothing under FLIR.

MM

Check out chapter 8, try searching "infrared".

[Miragememories]

Check out chapter 8, try searching "infrared".

Thanks for the help.

The NIST studiously avoided the use of FLIR terminology and only used one color frame from the video I identified.

"It is immediately clear that large areas of the infrared image are saturated, indicating the presence of strong heating."

The NIST pointedly avoided using the color display of the hotspot I've been referring to (choosing to show it in b&w only and thus lessening its impact on the viewer), and had the mendacity to dismiss it as a reflection of the WTC2 fires.

"... there appears to be a heated area on the east face many floors below the fire floors. There are no other indications of a fire burning in this area, and it is believed that this apparent heating results from a reflection of the fires burning in WTC 2."

Odd how there was no comparable reflection for the much bigger WTC1 fire?

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7796/wtcflirsuper3ar1.jpg

MM

[beachnut]

Thanks for the help.

The NIST studiously avoided the use of FLIR terminology and only used one color frame from the video I identified.
...MM
They tricked you and used infrared. lol, over 40 times not counting the times it was in photos! lol, what a great Sunday, or Saudi Tuesday! wowzer

And that was only the first 8 chapters! cool, moments like this remind you why 911 truth failed, and failed again. 9 years; going for 10?

[Reactor drone]

Thanks for the help.

The NIST studiously avoided the use of FLIR terminology and only used one color frame from the video I identified.



The NIST pointedly avoided using the color display of the hotspot I've been referring to (choosing to show it in b&w only and thus lessening its impact on the viewer), and had the mendacity to dismiss it as a reflection of the WTC2 fires.



Odd how there was no comparable reflection for the much bigger WTC1 fire?

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7796/wtcflirsuper3ar1.jpg

MM

Your image is clearly misaligning the infra red image over the visual image, the dark stripe half way across WTC2 is the gap between the buildings. The stills and the video clearly show the spot to be entirely on the eastern face of WTC1 and in the right position to be a reflection of the WTC2 fires.

The camera in question takes still images and these are the greyscale shots in the Nist report. The operator hooked up the camera to a video recorder to record the screen output and that is the video that has been released.

NIST managed to match times and locations to get their visual and infra red comparisons. Your effort is shockingly poor by comparison, you haven't scaled the images correctly and have made no effort to get the time (and hence fire locations) the same.

Overall,very poor effort-must try harder.

:)

ETA- the greyscale image in figure 8-23 of NCSTAR 1-5A is much clearer than the video and shows the hotspot refrecting off the glass with cool dark areas where the columns are.

[Miragememories]

"The camera in question takes still images and these are the greyscale shots in the Nist report. The operator hooked up the camera to a video recorder to record the screen output and that is the video that has been released.

NIST managed to match times and locations to get their visual and infra red comparisons. Your effort is shockingly poor by comparison, you haven't scaled the images correctly and have made no effort to get the time (and hence fire locations) the same."

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

The footage in this video link is not showing infrared footage of still images.

You can clearly see the full motion smoke activity.

The NIST also had the color version of the image they chose to use in less dramatic b&w.

The NIST used color where it suited their propaganda needs, the dramatic infrared image of the upper section of WTC1.

Overall, your effort is insincere and certainly lame.

MM

[T.A.M.]

The picture shows an "anomoly". Very good. So you said it was evidence...of what, what is it evidence of?

See, truthers definition of evidence is anything that they have not had spoon fed to them, and confirmed by DRG.

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

And they made a 90 degree turn how?

The fuel ignites material MM all it has to do is exit the elevator shaft and in order to do that all that is required is to have a sufficient low power explosion blow the doors off. This is really a no brainer.

And they were ignited how?

Could be that rather significant area in flames in the location of the original jet fuel spill.
Another no brainer.

And the fires were never observed why?

Now there's a decent question and I'll turn it around on you. IF THIS is evidence of a thermite burn and given that a thermite burn produces a lot more of a light show than do even plain office fires , why did no one observe the thermite burn?






Why? It may have been part of the plan but it was not necessarily 'the' plan.


:confused: That makes no sense in regard to the question asked.
The question concerned why there is no visible weakening at this level nor does the collapse occur at this level any sooner than expected in the commonly accepted narritive of its collapse. How could a thermite burn at this level initiate the collapse at the fire floors OR how could a thermite burn at this level contribute to a global collapse in the fashion observed to have occured?

[jaydeehess]

The NIST released what they did because they were threatened with a law suit.

As an example, why did the NIST release this under FOIA but not explain it in their report?.
The NIST studiously avoided the use of FLIR terminology and only used one color frame from the video I identified.



The NIST pointedly avoided using the color display of the hotspot I've been referring to (choosing to show it in b&w only and thus lessening its impact on the viewer), and had the mendacity to dismiss it as a reflection of the WTC2 fires.



Odd how there was no comparable reflection for the much bigger WTC1 fire?

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7796/wtcflirsuper3ar1.jpg

MM

Ok let me get this straight.
NIST avoided any study of this FLIR video but actually had something to say about it.

Are those the mutually exclusive points you'd like to make here?

So NIST did state they believed the 'anomaly' to be a reflection of WTC 2 in the windows of WTC 1 and you cannot for the life of you understand why the WTC 1 fire is not reflected towards the camera by the windows of WTC2.
Really?

I can think of a couple of reasons
-the geometrics don't allow it most likely because WTC 1 is closer to the camera than WTC 2
-the fires in WTC 2 are much lower down and any IR from WTC 1 is being absorbed by the smoke of those lower fires.

[jaydeehess]

Can you imagine NIST releasing a thermal image that showed massive temperatures way over anything that they could explain...FOIA or no FOIA ?

No, the only way we will get anything out of the videos they release is if they overlook something. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have overlooked a few things. There are more ways to skin a cat than one.

1. If nothing on these videos helps them, they will call them faked or edited
2. If something (I cant think of what) on these tapes helps them, they will declare them 100% proof, which will then beg the question,

WHY WOULD THE PERPS ALLOW TAPES WITH INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON THEM, out?

Round and Round we go...AGAIN

TAM

,,, and the prize for best precognition goes to T.A.M.(not that T.A.M. didn;t already know)

[jaydeehess]

The NIST used color where it suited their propaganda needs, the dramatic infrared image of the upper section of WTC1.

Overall, your effort is insincere and certainly lame.

MM

You and your compatriots are using this video only as far as it suits YOUR propaganda and are ignoring anything else concerning it.

Overall your effort is insincere and certainly lame.

[Reactor drone]

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

The footage in this video link is not showing infrared footage of still images.

You can clearly see the full motion smoke activity.

The NIST also had the color version of the image they chose to use in less dramatic b&w.

The NIST used color where it suited their propaganda needs, the dramatic infrared image of the upper section of WTC1.

Overall, your effort is insincere and certainly lame.

MM

Think of the camera in question as being like a digital point and shoot camera. The normal operation of the camera gives you still images but the camera has a display on the back that presents a live video picture to the operator so that you can see what you're taking a photo of. The video is that live display picture routed to a video recorder.

The black and white stills are the normal camera output and the recorder was hooked up later to allow the video to be saved. Since the imagery in NCSTAR 1-5A is in chronological order it makes sense that the first images are the black and white stills and the last image is a frame from the video.

ETA-Just to show how badly MM was trying to distort the position of the hotspot heres a quick comparison between his image and a few frames from the FLIR stitched together.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/flirimagestitch.jpg

[Miragememories]

"The camera in question takes still images and these are the greyscale shots in the Nist report. The operator hooked up the camera to a video recorder to record the screen output and that is the video that has been released.

NIST managed to match times and locations to get their visual and infra red comparisons. Your effort is shockingly poor by comparison, you haven't scaled the images correctly and have made no effort to get the time (and hence fire locations) the same."
"http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

The footage in this video link is not showing infrared footage of still images.

You can clearly see the full motion smoke activity.

The NIST also had the color version of the image they chose to use in less dramatic b&w.

The NIST used color where it suited their propaganda needs, the dramatic infrared image of the upper section of WTC1."
"Think of the camera in question as being like a digital point and shoot camera. The normal operation of the camera gives you still images but the camera has a display on the back that presents a live video picture to the operator so that you can see what you're taking a photo of. The video is that live display picture routed to a video recorder.

The black and white stills are the normal camera output and the recorder was hooked up later to allow the video to be saved. Since the imagery in NCSTAR 1-5A is in chronological order it makes sense that the first images are the black and white stills and the last image is a frame from the video.

ETA-Just to show how badly MM was trying to distort the position of the hotspot heres a quick comparison between his image and a few frames from the FLIR stitched together."
It presented a 'live' synthetic color version which was recorded for approximately one minute.

The infrared synthesized (false) color scale effectively reveals the relative heat levels much more dramatically than the b&w image.

The NIST had these infrared color images for the WTC1 impact zone, the WTC2 impact zone and an area in WTC1 which was well below its impact zone. The NIST acknowledges that; ".. the infrared images provide unique insights into the heat distribution inside the towers."

As I said, "the NIST used color where it suited their propaganda needs, as in the dramatic infrared image of the upper section of WTC1.".

The NIST acknowledge that the b&w infrared images were over saturated because the infared camera was scaled for a lower, non-fire, inside temperature range. White was at the high end, and thus the b&w images showed solid white when the camera was re-directed at the burning towers.

The synthetic (false color) color output recorded on the video recorder did provide a more useful display.

"The camera was using a false-color scale to display intensity, where blue represents the lowest intensities and red the highest.."

We know they also had a color image for the WTC2 impact zone as well as the WTC1 hotspot lower in that tower.

I'm not arguing that the NIST had a color image of the hotspot at the time of the b&w one they selected (the operator was not recording a video output at that time).

But they did around the time of the dramatic WTC1 color impact zone shot they used, yet they purposely avoided publishing it. The only image of that hotspot they used was in undramatic b&w.

Knowing that the original non-NIST employed cameraman had obviously witnessed the video, the NIST could not ignore the hotspot without some comment. So they dismiss it as best they can by making one solitary sentence about its existence.

"In Figure 8–23 there appears to be a heated area on the east face many floors below the fire floors. There are no other indications of a fire burning in this area, and it is believed that this apparent heating results from a reflection of the fires burning in WTC 2."

I do not claim that the video composite I created is precise. Its primary purpose is to show the rough vertical location of the hotspot with respect to the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones

It does accurately represent the heat generated in the hotspot when its infrared synthesized color display is compared to the infrared synthesized color displays recorded at the same time from the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones.

MM

[Sam.I.Am]

FLIR is a type of device normally found on aircraft (FL stands for forward looking). The device takes infrared images. They didn't mention NFTI (another infrared imaging device) either. I'm not sure why one would expect the name of the device used to take an image to be important enough to mention unless there were calibration issues making the infrared ranges shown to be incorrect.

[Reactor drone]

It presented a 'live' synthetic color version which was recorded for approximately one minute.

The infrared synthesized (false) color scale effectively reveals the relative heat levels much more dramatically than the b&w image.

The NIST had these infrared color images for the WTC1 impact zone, the WTC2 impact zone and an area in WTC1 which was well below its impact zone. The NIST acknowledges that; ".. the infrared images provide unique insights into the heat distribution inside the towers."

As I said, "the NIST used color where it suited their propaganda needs, as in the dramatic infrared image of the upper section of WTC1.".

The NIST acknowledge that the b&w infrared images were over saturated because the infared camera was scaled for a lower, non-fire, inside temperature range. White was at the high end, and thus the b&w images showed solid white when the camera was re-directed at the burning towers.

The synthetic (false color) color output recorded on the video recorder did provide a more useful display.



No, the black and white and the colour both had the same intensity setting. The oversaturated areas in the black and white are also oversaturated in the colour image. Furthermore the resolution of the colour is much worse than the black and white so for determining heat intensity the black and white is much mor useful.



We know they also had a color image for the WTC2 impact zone as well as the WTC1 hotspot lower in that tower.

I'm not arguing that the NIST had a color image of the hotspot at the time of the b&w one they selected (the operator was not recording a video output at that time).

But they did around the time of the dramatic WTC1 color impact zone shot they used, yet they purposely avoided publishing it. The only image of that hotspot they used was in undramatic b&w.

Knowing that the original non-NIST employed cameraman had obviously witnessed the video, the NIST could not ignore the hotspot without some comment. So they dismiss it as best they can by making one solitary sentence about its existence.



MM

You seem to be simultaneously complaining that NIST didn't use the colour images enough and that when they did use it they shouldn't have :boggled:

And for completeness here's the black and white of the hot spot/relection.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/NCSTAR1-5Afig8-23.jpg

[tsig]

FLIR is a type of device normally found on aircraft (FL stands for forward looking). The device takes infrared images. They didn't mention NFTI (another infrared imaging device) either. I'm not sure why one would expect the name of the device used to take an image to be important enough to mention unless there were calibration issues making the infrared ranges shown to be incorrect.

Flir is also the name of a company that makes infrared cameras.


http://www.flir.com/thermography/americas/us/content/?id=17900

[Miragememories]

And for completeness here's the black and white of the hot spot/relection.


" it is believed that this apparent heating results from a reflection of the fires burning in WTC 2."

I suggest you gain a better understanding between the mean of "belief" and "fact".

MM

[jaydeehess]

Ok let me get this straight.
NIST avoided any study of this FLIR video but actually had something to say about it.

Are those the mutually exclusive points you'd like to make here?

How about it MM?

So NIST did state they believed the 'anomaly' to be a reflection of WTC 2 in the windows of WTC 1 and you cannot for the life of you understand why the WTC 1 fire is not reflected towards the camera by the windows of WTC2.
Really?

I can think of a couple of reasons
-the geometrics don't allow it most likely because WTC 1 is closer to the camera than WTC 2
-the fires in WTC 2 are much lower down and any IR from WTC 1 is being absorbed by the smoke of those lower fires.

How about it MM?

[Staropeace]

You guys are the best......this is my forum....the newfoundland downhome kitchen....most of the folks there are wonderful....I dont usually give this link...but I trust you guys....you can read even if you do not pay to post......most of these folks I know....but sometimes I have to bite my tongue off...lol...........I am Estelle Pretty btw...nice to meetcha.

http://www.downhomekitchen.com/threads.php?forum_id=1

[R.Mackey]

FLIR is a type of device normally found on aircraft (FL stands for forward looking). The device takes infrared images. They didn't mention NFTI (another infrared imaging device) either. I'm not sure why one would expect the name of the device used to take an image to be important enough to mention unless there were calibration issues making the infrared ranges shown to be incorrect.

The type of infrared detector used is extremely important, particularly when they're being used to look at things well outside their normal usage. Normal IR cameras pointed at fires, or looking at things through windows, or through a deep slice of atmosphere, will give you uncalibrated garbage. The images used by NIST are only valuable in a qualitative sense due to these factors.

The "hot spot" at the lower elevation could very easily be a specular reflection from the other Tower, or possibly from the sun. The "waffling" pattern looks very plausibly like the windows and aluminum cladding providing a differential reflected albedo.

I wrote a few things about another IR camera application in the WTC, in specific the AVIRIS overflight data of the Pile fire, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4452063#post4452063). I can answer further questions about them, if any intelligent ones arise. But in brief, they aren't magic.

[triforcharity]

" it is believed that this apparent heating results from a reflection of the fires burning in WTC 2."

I suggest you gain a better understanding between the mean of "belief" and "fact".

MM

Because they cannot positively explain exactly what it is. Could it have been fire? Possibly. Could it have been the reflection from the other tower? Possibly. Could it have been from thermite? No.

I have seen this type of thing occur in other FLIR systems that I have used. It's not unusual.

[jaydeehess]

The type of infrared detector used is extremely important, particularly when they're being used to look at things well outside their normal usage. Normal IR cameras pointed at fires, or looking at things through windows, or through a deep slice of atmosphere, will give you uncalibrated garbage. The images used by NIST are only valuable in a qualitative sense due to these factors.

I had thought about that myself but being not all that versed with the tech I did not want to say anything until someone else did. The legend at the left has as its high max, 120 deg C. This suggests to me that this is more of a police type IR where they are looking for such things as humans or engine hoods, none of which get all that warm. If I am correct then the meter pegs , so to speak, at 120 C which would not IIRC even boil seawater. This means that the so called 'hotspot' could be nigh on anything including, as I suggested before, the result of a hot water pipe rupture in the building. Such a low temp steam in the room would also give you that pattern where the columns are since this would not supply enough heat to sufficiently warm the outside of the columns.
What floor is this on? If its a skylobby crowded with people it could be the body heat of all these people.
,, and of course it can also be a reflection of the IR given off by the fire in the other building

[Miragememories]

"The type of infrared detector used is extremely important, particularly when they're being used to look at things well outside their normal usage. Normal IR cameras pointed at fires, or looking at things through windows, or through a deep slice of atmosphere, will give you uncalibrated garbage. The images used by NIST are only valuable in a qualitative sense due to these factors."

Regurgitation.

"Since flame temperatures are much higher, the camera output was easily saturated by the heat coming from the fires. There are additional factors, such as the unknown surface properties of the tower materials and the camera resolution, that preclude quantitative measurements from the images.

Nonetheless, the infrared images provide unique insights into the heat distribution inside the towers."
bolding is mine

"The "hot spot" at the lower elevation could very easily be a specular reflection from the other Tower, or possibly from the sun. The "waffling" pattern looks very plausibly like the windows and aluminum cladding providing a differential reflected albedo.

I wrote a few things about another IR camera application in the WTC, in specific the AVIRIS overflight data of the Pile fire, in this post. I can answer further questions about them, if any intelligent ones arise. But in brief, they aren't magic."

What a crock.

A specular (mirror) reflection of what?

In the image below, no reflection appears on WTC1 until the conflagration cloud protrudes well away from WTC2, and even then,
we do not see any offset reflection well below that suggested source.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4112/wtc1reflection1.th.png

The sun is even more ridiculous. Even the NIST didn't dare go there. The sun was also directed at WTC2 and created no anomalies. The infrared video appears to be quite clean in details showing no strange digital artifacts.

There is no more "waffling pattern" exhibited in any of the infrared footage for the impact zones which would be expected if the aluminum cladding was a factor.

A flood of technical verbiage does not an argument make.

As I said, what a crock!

MM

[jaydeehess]

Regurgitation.
Unlike the perfect gems of new and original wisdom you spew out right MM?

What a crock.

A specular (mirror) reflection of what?
IR frequencies, you do know what he meant by 'specular reflection" right MM?

In the image below, no reflection appears on WTC1 until the conflagration cloud protrudes well away from WTC2, and even then,
we do not see any offset reflection well below that suggested source.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4112/wtc1reflection1.th.png
Now why do you think that is MM? hint-geometry of reflections might have something to do with it and with the IR images as well but keep in mind that since the cameras are in different locations the geometry is also different.

The sun is even more ridiculous. Even the NIST didn't dare go there. The sun was also directed at WTC2 and created no anomalies. The infrared video appears to be quite clean in details showing no strange digital artifacts.

There is no more "waffling pattern" exhibited in any of the infrared footage for the impact zones which would be expected if the aluminum cladding was a factor.

A flood of technical verbiage does not an argument make.

As I said, what a crock!

MM

Wow, more proof of no background in science from MM.
Why would a reflection at IR frequencies require that a similar reflection occur at visible light frequecies? You do also know that the geometry of the system is going to have a big effect on where reflection are and are not seen, right?

[Miragememories]

"A specular (mirror) reflection of what?"
"IR frequencies, you do know what he meant by 'specular reflection" right MM?"
The mirror-like reflection of light, or in this case, infrared light reflection alluded to by the resident rocket scientist.

Given the fact that both WTC1 and WTC2 were generating a massive IR signature from the impact area building faces, it is quite remarkable that only a single so-called 'specular reflection' was supposedly recorded.

"The sun is even more ridiculous. Even the NIST didn't dare go there. The sun was also directed at WTC2 and created no anomalies. The infrared video appears to be quite clean in details showing no strange digital artifacts.

There is no more "waffling pattern" exhibited in any of the infrared footage for the impact zones which would be expected if the aluminum cladding was a factor.

Mr. Rocket Scientist's flood of technical verbiage does not an argument make."
"Wow, more proof of no background in science from MM."

Let me know when you recover from 'foot in mouth' disease.

"Why would a reflection at IR frequencies require that a similar reflection occur at visible light frequecies?"

Are you suggesting that the sun's radiated light only contains wavelengths in the visible spectrum?

Or are you suggesting that radiated infrared light takes has a radically different directional characteristic?

"You do also know that the geometry of the system is going to have a big effect on where reflection are and are not seen, right?"

I know that there is no proof to support the lame suggestion that the smaller hotspot observed low in WTC1 was a reflection from the much larger hotspot in WTC2.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1861/1160fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg

With all their expertise and resources, the best the NIST could do was dismiss it as a 'believed reflection' after admitting that it was indicative of "apparent heating".

Because there was no smoke or broken windows in that location, and because the NIST out-of-hand rejected any possibility of deliberately created sources of heat (ie. thermite-based demolition), they decided the hotspot was an illusion.

MM

[jaydeehess]

The mirror-like reflection of light, or in this case, infrared light reflection alluded to by the resident rocket scientist.

Get a lesson in optics and come back later.





Originally Posted by jaydeehess
"Wow, more proof of no background in science from MM."
Let me know when you recover from 'foot in mouth' disease.

Given the fact that both WTC1 and WTC2 were generating a massive IR signature from the impact area building faces, it is quite remarkable that only a single so-called 'specular reflection' was supposedly recorded.

Oops you did it again.

Are you suggesting that the sun's radiated light only contains wavelengths in the visible spectrum?

'Course not. Are you suggesting that all wavelengths are reflected equally by other materials?

Or are you suggesting that radiated infrared light takes has a radically different directional characteristic?

Indeed not but you just said that the visible light reflection of the explosion did not appear in the other building until it had exited quite far out. THAT is because of the geometry of the situation which includes the position of the camera lens. The FLIR images were taken with the camera obviously in adifferent loaction and thus different optics than in the visible imapge of the explosion and THUS the reflections will be differently arranged.

I have now mentioned this several times and you do not seem to 'get it'.
Forum decorum prevents me from asking you a certain question.


With all their expertise and resources, the best the NIST could do was dismiss it as a 'believed reflection' after admitting that it was indicative of "apparent heating".

Because there was no smoke or broken windows in that location, and because the NIST out-of-hand rejected any possibility of deliberately created sources of heat (ie. thermite-based demolition), they decided the hotspot was an illusion.

MM

NO, you, with absolutly no explanation as to how a thermite burn in this location could produce the collapse seen and with no evidence that thermite was present in the towers, and with complete disregard to any and all other possible explanations for this Flir image 'anomolie', have decoded that it is evidence of a thermite burn.

NIST supplied their best guess, I have supplied a few others. The heat signature is above the max that this FLIR can register, which is only 20 degrees more than the boiling point of pure water at sea level, and yet you contend that this is evidence of a thermite burn at over 1000 degrees.

I also asked you before that IF this was a thermite burn, why did no one report it. You asked why no one would have reported a fire at that level. Perhaps you care to answer why no one would report a bright white light, the loud sputtering sound, or a distinctive smell of a thermite burn.

[Miragememories]

Get a lesson in optics and come back later.
Oops you did it again.
'Course not. Are you suggesting that all wavelengths are reflected equally by other materials?
Indeed not but you just said that the visible light reflection of the explosion did not appear in the other building until it had exited quite far out. THAT is because of the geometry of the situation which includes the position of the camera lens. The FLIR images were taken with the camera obviously in adifferent loaction and thus different optics than in the visible imapge of the explosion and THUS the reflections will be differently arranged.
I have now mentioned this several times and you do not seem to 'get it'.
Forum decorum prevents me from asking you a certain question.
I know that there is no proof to support the lame suggestion that the smaller hotspot observed low in WTC1 was a reflection from the much larger hotspot in WTC2.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1861/1160fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg
With all their expertise and resources, the best the NIST could do was dismiss it as a 'believed reflection' after admitting that it was indicative of "apparent heating".
Because there was no smoke or broken windows in that location, and because the NIST out-of-hand rejected any possibility of deliberately created sources of heat (ie. thermite-based demolition), they decided the hotspot was an illusion.
MM[/QUOTE]

Your reply is such a mess I have no idea how or whether to bother replying to it.

Careful you don't hurt yourself making such rapid kneejerk responses.

Maybe even give some thought to what you think you are attacking?

MM

[Reactor drone]

Are you suggesting that the sun's radiated light only contains wavelengths in the visible spectrum?

Or are you suggesting that radiated infrared light takes has a radically different directional characteristic?

I know that there is no proof to support the lame suggestion that the smaller hotspot observed low in WTC1 was a reflection from the much larger hotspot in WTC2.

Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear :)

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1861/1160fwtc2wtc1r1.jpg

With all their expertise and resources, the best the NIST could do was dismiss it as a 'believed reflection' after admitting that it was indicative of "apparent heating".

Because there was no smoke or broken windows in that location, and because the NIST out-of-hand rejected any possibility of deliberately created sources of heat (ie. thermite-based demolition), they decided the hotspot was an illusion.

MM

Do you think visible light and Infrared refect off glass (or transmit through glass) to the same degree?

If the hotspot is caused by thermite how do you explain the angle of the hotspot (crossing multiple floors) and the generally lower temperature than the smoke plumes cause by the fires in the upper floors, as indicated by the darker colour/shade?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/NCSTAR1-5Afig8-23cropped.jpg

[R.Mackey]

In case anyone wondered, I'm looking at the lower hot spot (at about 7 o'clock in the image in post #138) and noticing that it has a very strange texture to it. That pattern doesn't look anything like the others. Hence, off the top of my head, it looks like a reflected image.

It doesn't need to be. The aircraft impacts started fires on lots of floors, some well below the impact. It could be some other type of interference. But the idea that this one little thing proves some kind of stupendous conspiracy using fantasy grades of thermite that do whatever crazy people want them to do... Even for Truthers, that's desperate.

[T.A.M.]

You guys are the best......this is my forum....the newfoundland downhome kitchen....most of the folks there are wonderful....I dont usually give this link...but I trust you guys....you can read even if you do not pay to post......most of these folks I know....but sometimes I have to bite my tongue off...lol...........I am Estelle Pretty btw...nice to meetcha.

http://www.downhomekitchen.com/threads.php?forum_id=1

We need more people from eastern Canada on this forum. Hope you stick around, investigate the rest of the forums here at JREF.

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

Let me know when you recover from 'foot in mouth' disease.



Let us know when you see the proctologist. You seem to be suffering from a case of Cranial Rectal inversion.



Because there was no smoke or broken windows in that location, and because the NIST out-of-hand rejected any possibility of deliberately created sources of heat (ie. thermite-based demolition), they decided the hotspot was an illusion.

MM

Why would there be thermite there? Would it help to further the collapse? Also, the signature would be completly white, and would also show a huge area of uellows, blues and reds. Why is it that we don't see that?

And Yes, Mackey is right. Your knowledge on IR systems is limited absent.

[triforcharity]

In case anyone wondered, I'm looking at the lower hot spot (at about 7 o'clock in the image in post #138) and noticing that it has a very strange texture to it. That pattern doesn't look anything like the others. Hence, off the top of my head, it looks like a reflected image.

It doesn't need to be. The aircraft impacts started fires on lots of floors, some well below the impact. It could be some other type of interference. But the idea that this one little thing proves some kind of stupendous conspiracy using fantasy grades of thermite that do whatever crazy people want them to do... Even for Truthers, that's desperate.

I see what you mean. I didn't see the waffle pattern before. I would say, reflection. It is too defined to be something inside the building. It doesn't spread like the spot above, and has a very definitive spot right in the middle. To me, it looks almost like the sun.

[Miragememories]

I see what you mean. I didn't see the waffle pattern before. I would say, reflection. It is too defined to be something inside the building. It doesn't spread like the spot above, and has a very definitive spot right in the middle. To me, it looks almost like the sun.
Two things.

Unlike the impact zones, the hotspot is behind the intact WTC facade.

Assuming the use of thermite on inner core columns, the radiated IR would be effected when it reached the combination of steel perimeter columns and glass windows.

The waffle pattern seems to fit that condition.

MM

[BigAl]

Two things.

Unlike the impact zones, the hotspot is behind the intact WTC facade.

Assuming the use of thermite on inner core columns, the radiated IR would be effected when it reached the combination of steel perimeter columns and glass windows.

The waffle pattern seems to fit that condition.

MM

And a gas-and-paper-fueled fire wouldn't?

[triforcharity]

Two things.

Unlike the impact zones, the hotspot is behind the intact WTC facade.

Assuming the use of thermite on inner core columns, the radiated IR would be effected when it reached the combination of steel perimeter columns and glass windows.

The waffle pattern seems to fit that condition.

MM

Well, except for the fact that it would have shown on both sides of the building, and would have been MUCH more brilliant. COmparable to that of the impact fires. It would have been widespread over the entire floor, on both sides.

Try again?

[R.Mackey]

This is still going on?

Why would anyone trigger super-nano-magica-thermite in that location anyway? Those several floors had nothing to do with the collapse. Nor would lighting it off in just one corner contribute anything of value.

Anything they don't understand -- doesn't matter what it is, where, or when -- they'll think is "proof" of whatever it is they believe. Even though they can't describe in any detail just what it is they do believe. :boggled:

[jaydeehess]

Your reply is such a mess I have no idea how or whether to bother replying to it.

Careful you don't hurt yourself making such rapid kneejerk responses.

Maybe even give some thought to what you think you are attacking?

MM
hmm, Hardly suprising that you won't reply to these questions when I pose them as you also won't address them when others post similarily but in different words.



'Course not. Are you suggesting that all wavelengths are reflected equally by other materials?
Do you think visible light and Infrared refect off glass (or transmit through glass) to the same degree



Indeed not but you just said that the visible light reflection of the explosion did not appear in the other building until it had exited quite far out. THAT is because of the geometry of the situation which includes the position of the camera lens. The FLIR images were taken with the camera obviously in adifferent loaction and thus different optics than in the visible imapge of the explosion and THUS the reflections will be differently arranged.

If the hotspot is caused by thermite how do you explain the angle of the hotspot (crossing multiple floors) and the generally lower temperature than the smoke plumes cause by the fires in the upper floors, as indicated by the darker colour/shade?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/NCSTAR1-5Afig8-23cropped.jpg




you, with absolutly no explanation as to how a thermite burn in this location could produce the collapse seen and with no evidence that thermite was present in the towers, and with complete disregard to any and all other possible explanations for this Flir image 'anomolie', have decoded that it is evidence of a thermite burn.I also asked you before that IF this was a thermite burn, why did no one report it. You asked why no one would have reported a fire at that level. Perhaps you care to answer why no one would report a bright white light, the loud sputtering sound, or a distinctive smell of a thermite burn.

Anything they don't understand -- doesn't matter what it is, where, or when -- they'll think is "proof" of whatever it is they believe. Even though they can't describe in any detail just what it is they do believe. :boggled:


This is still going on?

Why would anyone trigger super-nano-magica-thermite in that location anyway? Those several floors had nothing to do with the collapse. Nor would lighting it off in just one corner contribute anything of value.


Why would there be thermite there? Would it help to further the collapse? Also, the signature would be completly white, and would also show a huge area of uellows, blues and reds. Why is it that we don't see that?

And Yes, Mackey is right. Your knowledge on IR systems is limited absent.

[Miragememories]

"And a gas-and-paper-fueled fire wouldn't?"
The video recording was made about an hour before WTC1 collapsed.

Had the hotspot been caused by burning papers and/or some imagined gas source in the workspace areas,
it seems unlikely that it would have remained detectable only by IR photography.

A core hotspot would not necessarily spread beyond that area.

MM

[BigAl]

The video recording was made about an hour before WTC1 collapsed.

Had the hotspot been caused by burning papers and/or some imagined gas source in the workspace areas,
it seems unlikely that it would have remained detectable only by IR photography.

A core hotspot would not necessarily spread beyond that area.

MM
Source? (Your ....?)

[Miragememories]

"Unlike the impact zones, the hotspot is behind the intact WTC1 facade.

Assuming the use of thermite on inner core columns, the radiated IR would be effected when it reached the combination of steel perimeter columns and glass windows.

The waffle pattern seems to fit that condition."
"Well, except for the fact that it would have shown on both sides of the building, and would have been MUCH more brilliant. COmparable to that of the impact fires. It would have been widespread over the entire floor, on both sides."

Why?

If at that time, the hotspot was confined to the interior core, it would radiate detectable IR but would not necessarily be;

"MUCH more brilliant. COmparable to that of the impact fires. It would have been widespread over the entire floor, on both sides."

You are making too many unnecessary assumptions to support your argument.

MM

[Miragememories]

Source? (Your ....?)
Try using more words Al.

I have no idea what you are attempting to ask?

MM

[triforcharity]

Why?

If at that time, the hotspot was confined to the interior core, it would radiate detectable IR but would not necessarily be;

"MUCH more brilliant. COmparable to that of the impact fires. It would have been widespread over the entire floor, on both sides."

You are making too many unnecessary assumptions to support your argument.

MM

If it was in the core area, than it would have been seen over the entire floor on both sides. Heat does not discriminate like that.

If the heat signature was in the core, and the drywall was undamaged, you wouldn't have seen anything.

So, was the core damaged, or undamaged. Your call.

[triforcharity]

Try using more words Al.

I have no idea what you are attempting to ask?

MM

He is asking for you to cite your source. He is implying that you pulled that nuggett out of your underwear.

[Disbelief]

Why?

You are making too many unnecessary assumptions to support your argument.

MM

Says the guy who said this:


And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Of course, you never backed it up.

[BigAl]

Why?

If at that time, the hotspot was confined to the interior core, it would radiate detectable IR but would not necessarily be;

"MUCH more brilliant. COmparable to that of the impact fires. It would have been widespread over the entire floor, on both sides."

You are making too many unnecessary assumptions to support your argument.

MM


You are making too many unnecessary assumptions to support your argument.

[Miragememories]

"Why would anyone trigger nano-thermite in that location anyway?"

Part of pre-weakening at key locations prior to the intended complete collapse of WTC1.

"Those several floors had nothing to do with the collapse. Nor would lighting it off in just one corner contribute anything of value."

It is not clear that the hotspot is in a corner location.

Others, including yourself, have been quite forthcoming in suggesting all kinds of IR source directions.

Regardless, evidence has been previously shown of possible thermite activity in a corner of WTC2 which corresponded with its key point of collapse.

There is little too gain in my speculating about the hotspot other than it reveals an area of significant unexplained internal heat generation which the NIST casually dismissed because it wasn't visible to the naked eye, and because it didn't fit with their chosen collapse theory.

"Anything they don't understand -- doesn't matter what it is, where, or when -- they'll think is "proof" of whatever it is they believe. Even though they can't describe in any detail just what it is they do believe."

Well Ryan, you obviously don't understand it either given the speculative nature of your responses.

If it were possible to explain each and every unexplained anomaly, 9/11 Truth would have moved beyond the quest for a complete investigation into the events of 9/11 and would now be anticipating prosecution of those truly responsible.

MM

[triforcharity]

Part of pre-weakening at key locations prior to the intended complete collapse of WTC1.



It is not clear that the hotspot is in a corner location.

Others, including yourself, have been quite forthcoming in suggesting all kinds of IR source directions.

Regardless, evidence has been previously shown of possible thermite activity in a corner of WTC2 which corresponded with its key point of collapse.

There is little too gain in my speculating about the hotspot other than it reveals an area of significant unexplained internal heat generation which the NIST casually dismissed because it wasn't visible to the naked eye, and because it didn't fit with their chosen collapse theory.



Well Ryan, you obviously don't understand it either given the speculative nature of your responses.

If it were possible to explain each and every unexplained anomaly, 9/11 Truth would have moved beyond the quest for a complete investigation into the events of 9/11 and would now be anticipating prosecution of those truly responsible.

MM

But yet, the collapse did not initiate there. It started much higher.

Secondly, if it was in the core area, it would have shown up differently on the IR signal. Like, I dunno, the middle of the building?

Your knowledge of IR signatures is about the same as my knowledge of nuclear fission. Zilch.

[Miragememories]

"Your reply is such a mess I have no idea how or whether to bother replying to it.

Careful you don't hurt yourself making such rapid kneejerk responses.

Maybe even give some thought to what you think you are attacking?"
"hmm, Hardly suprising that you won't reply to these questions when I pose them as you also won't address them when others post similarily but in different words."

There is little to gain in replying to poorly written mishmashes whose author can't be bothered to proofread and make legible.

"'Course not. Are you suggesting that all wavelengths are reflected equally by other materials?"
"Do you think visible light and Infrared refect off glass (or transmit through glass) to the same degree"

Of course not. I'm make no such suggestion.

"Indeed not but you just said that the visible light reflection of the explosion did not appear in the other building until it had exited quite far out. THAT is because of the geometry of the situation which includes the position of the camera lens. The FLIR images were taken with the camera obviously in adifferent loaction and thus different optics than in the visible imapge of the explosion and THUS the reflections will be differently arranged"

My response was to a statement made by Ryan Mackey;"The "hot spot" at the lower elevation could very easily be a specular reflection from the other Tower".

Specular reflection has a direct translation as "mirror reflection".

I provided a visual example of a visible light heat source from WTC2 reflecting off of WTC1 to give some idea of vertical directivity.

"you, with absolutly no explanation as to how a thermite burn in this location could produce the collapse seen and with no evidence that thermite was present in the towers, and with complete disregard to any and all other possible explanations for this Flir image 'anomolie', have decoded that it is evidence of a thermite burn."

You take great liberties with my words.

I said possible thermite burn.

"A major difference, is that that area of WTC1 was not impacted by anything that we know of, and when viewed without the thermacam, surprisingly shows no indication of an active fire.

If you have been actively following the controlled demolition discussions as your post suggests, you must be aware that evidence of nano-thermite has been found in all WTC post collapse dust samples.

The thermacam image quite possibly reveals the activation of nano-thermite in that location."

"I also asked you before that IF this was a thermite burn, why did no one report it. You asked why no one would have reported a fire at that level. Perhaps you care to answer why no one would report a bright white light, the loud sputtering sound, or a distinctive smell of a thermite burn."
You make too many assumptions in your question and therefore demand too many assumptions from any reply.

MM

[alienentity]

This is still going on?

..

Anything they don't understand -- doesn't matter what it is, where, or when -- they'll think is "proof" of whatever it is they believe. Even though they can't describe in any detail just what it is they do believe. :boggled:

CD of the gaps.:cool:

[Miragememories]

CD of the gaps.:cool:
How profound.

MM

[Reactor drone]

My response was to a statement made by Ryan Mackey;"The "hot spot" at the lower elevation could very easily be a specular reflection from the other Tower".

Specular reflection has a direct translation as "mirror reflection".

I provided a visual example of a visible light heat source from WTC2 reflecting off of WTC1 to give some idea of vertical directivity.


You take great liberties with my words.

I said possible thermite burn.

You make too many assumptions in your question and therefore demand too many assumptions from any reply.

MM

If your heat source is in the core you have some pretty bendy light there :)

For a quick angle check I set up an old pigeon hole box and a mirror, tape lines were added to indicate horizontal and everything was checked for squareness and vertical alignment. Using an 18mm lens I took a few shots. I can't quite get the same perspective as shooting a couple of 1000ft high buildings but you get the idea :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/Mirrorsandangles2.jpg

Alignment of the vertical and horizontal lines in the hotspot most closely matches the reflected floor and column lines from WTC2 and doesn't at all match the WTC1 floor of column alignment.

[Miragememories]

If your heat source is in the core you have some pretty bendy light there :)

For a quick angle check I set up an old pigeon hole box and a mirror, tape lines were added to indicate horizontal and everything was checked for squareness and vertical alignment. Using an 18mm lens I took a few shots. I can't quite get the same perspective as shooting a couple of 1000ft high buildings but you get the idea :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/Mirrorsandangles2.jpg

Alignment of the vertical and horizontal lines in the hotspot most closely matches the reflected floor and column lines from WTC2 and doesn't at all match the WTC1 floor of column alignment.
You will never make it as an illustrator.

I appreciate your effort but your presentation is far from user friendly.

It depends on the viewer accepting what you propose as reality.

A reality which is comprehensible only to you the creator.

I could take any number of images and add vectors and notes and state proof positive that this supports a given argument.

And why the 18mm lens?

You simply do not have sufficiently accurate data to ratify your illustration.

MM

[BigAl]

And why the 18mm lens?

MM

Perspective. If you ever tried to photograph the towers (I have.) you'd understand.

[triforcharity]

You will never make it as an illustrator.

I appreciate your effort but your presentation is far from user friendly.

It depends on the viewer accepting what you propose as reality.

A reality which is comprehensible only to you the creator.

I could take any number of images and add vectors and notes and state proof positive that this supports a given argument.

And why the 18mm lens?

You simply do not have sufficiently accurate data to ratify your illustration.

MM

Have you tried to explain how the "thermite" that was in the CORE, only shows up in one CORNER of the building, over a few floors, and NONE in the same place on each floor?

[Miragememories]

Perspective. If you ever tried to photograph the towers (I have.) you'd understand.
I know that 18mm is an extremely wide angle lens and subject to a great deal of distortion.

MM

[Miragememories]

Have you tried to explain how the "thermite" that was in the CORE, only shows up in one CORNER of the building, over a few floors, and NONE in the same place on each floor?
Show me more than 1 minute of IF video and I might be able to provide you with the speculative answer you appear to be seeking.

MM

[BigAl]

I know that 18mm is an extremely wide angle lens and subject to a great deal of distortion.

MM

If they are fish-eye. Flat-field lenses down to 10mm are common.

What else don't you know?

[Garb]

Show me more than 1 minute of IF video and I might be able to provide you with the speculative answer you appear to be seeking.

MM

You can't give him anything? Just "its a 'hotspot' so it could be thermite"?

[Miragememories]

If they are fish-eye. Flat-field lenses down to 10mm are common.

What else don't you know?
Actually they are not, except in macro photography.

MM

[Reactor drone]

You will never make it as an illustrator.

I appreciate your effort but your presentation is far from user friendly.

It depends on the viewer accepting what you propose as reality.

It is a simple set up, easy for anyone with a mirror to replicate, in case you think I've fudged the angles.

A reality which is comprehensible only to you the creator.

I could take any number of images and add vectors and notes and state proof positive that this supports a given argument.

Much like your grossly inaccurate portrayal of the location of the hotspot, my illustration at least has the benefit of being a reasonable analogue for the relative locations and angles found between the towers.

And why the 18mm lens?

To simulate perspective.

You simply do not have sufficiently accurate data to ratify your illustration.

It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate, It was done merely to help me see what angles a refection would present. Where you might see a fuzzy blob I see two distinct bands with lines running through it which look like columns. I'm satisfied that those angles are from a reflection, whether you are satified is irrelevant.

MM

My responses above are highlighted

Your core hotspot idea has the problems that, not only is the hotspot barely located on the southeast corner of the core, but the viewing angle would prevent the core from being seen because the floors are in the way.


Just for you, I've blacked out part of the mirror to indicate the gap between the buildings :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/Mirrorsandangles3.jpg

[thecritta]

So where are these torrents from the NIST foia lawsuit that was launched
has anyone seen these torrents yet? 911 blogger nor prison planet hasnt
provided any links to them yet, maybe they are not up yet, i have 160gb
of download to waste.

[femr2]

where are these torrents

http://911datasets.org/index.php/Release_14_-_NIST_Cumulus_Video_Database

[Miragememories]

"Your core hotspot idea has the problems that, not only is the hotspot barely located on the southeast corner of the core, but the viewing angle would prevent the core from being seen because the floors are in the way."

Using these images from NIST NCSTAR 1-5A;

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2822/nistncstar15apicture2a.jpg

and then overlaying both of them to match the FOIA video
http://www.youtube.com/us...STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4125/nistirvisoverlayvidref0.jpg

The hotspot appears very close to the Technical services floor.

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7246/wtclayoutwikicropsc1.jpg

MM

[Reactor drone]

Using these images from NIST NCSTAR 1-5A;

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2822/nistncstar15apicture2a.jpg

and then overlaying both of them to match the FOIA video
http://www.youtube.com/us...STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4125/nistirvisoverlayvidref0.jpg

The hotspot appears very close to the Technical services floor.

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7246/wtclayoutwikicropsc1.jpg

MM

Wow, another poor effort there. You haven't even attempted to match the IR and the visual images there. You're either deliberately trying to misrepresent the location or you're incompetant, either way you should probably stop.

Here's a slightly more accurate overlay for you,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/hotspotoverlay.jpg

and as an indication of why you can't see the core,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/hotspotcorelocations.jpg

and that's even assuming you were on a level where you could see straight into the building, looking upwards the concrete floors would impede your view much more.

Not to mention the fact that it's a reflection :p

[triforcharity]

Using these images from NIST NCSTAR 1-5A;

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2822/nistncstar15apicture2a.jpg

and then overlaying both of them to match the FOIA video
http://www.youtube.com/us...STUDIES#p/u/1/xQEd8PgY8vo

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4125/nistirvisoverlayvidref0.jpg

The hotspot appears very close to the Technical services floor.

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7246/wtclayoutwikicropsc1.jpg

MM

You fail at that overlay. You're off by about 8 floors. You're wrong, again.

[fitzgibbon]

The lower highlight in the IR image is meaningless. It's clearly a sun reflection off the exterior of the building. The two images were taken far enough apart as to need rotational adjustment and sizing (as is pointed out in MM's image) and I'm betting that the left side of frame in the non-IR image has been pivoted back because that image was taken closer to centre of the WTC than the IR shot was hence excluding the sun reflection that's giving the 'truthers' wood.

[Miragememories]

Not to mention the fact that it's a reflection .
My overlay uses the video as reference and the WTC1 north face impact zone as the registration point.

The IR image and the photo were then aligned with the registration point.

I did a number of tests and agree that there is a significant possible margin of error as to the lower hotspot's true location.

Given the absence of other speculative IR reflections in the video, and given that the setting was abundantly supplied with external IR radiation which supposedly created the one in question, I cannot believe that lower hotspot was a mere IR reflection.

It is also interesting that the NIST chose not to use the color version of the hotspot.

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9500/nistflircompare1.jpg

I also find it very odd that in the NIST NCSTAR 1-5a, for some unexplained reason, the NIST ignore the 09:19:35 a.m. time-stamp for Figure 8-24 and claim that it was actually recorded at 09:16:45 a.m.?

MM

[jaydeehess]

Let's try a little math on the angle of view in the vertical plane.

For instance put the 'hotspot at 400 feet up and the camera at 1000 feet from the base of the tower.
The floors are 12 feet apart vertically.
In order to see any part of the core in that 12 foot section of core, it could be no further from the windows than 30 feet.

Now I have not looked up the specs on the distance from window to core, nor am I stating that the hotspot is at 400 feet and the camera at 1000. Its merely an example. The trig is really quite easy(grade 10 or 11, IIRC) but the other thing that is striking is that the 'hotspot seems to envelope more than one floor. Well in order to actually be a heat signature from inside the building it would have to originate at or very close to, the windows. If it is a multifloor section of core being subjected to a thermite burn then we would see the intervening concrete floors masking some of the heat(which concrete could do very well).

Therefore, this is not a heat signature originating in, and confined to, the core area. So what's left?
-A multifloor office fire in this corner that although it is close enough to the window to produce this heat sig, it has not broken the windows which results in the vertical striations seen in the heat sig.(no hot smoke enveloping perimeter columns) Does this eliminate a thermite burn at the core? No, but it in no way supports the contention either. The major problem with this is that how does a multifloor fire not manage to break the windows or be reported by anyone?

- A release of hot gas into the rooms(ie. steam). We do not know the temp of this heat sig, all we know is that its close to as high as the FLIR records, which seems to be just above the boiling point of water. Again though, no reports of a steam release in the building.

-A reflection of another heat source.
This requires no explanation as to why no one reported it since it would not be visible to anyone. It requires no explanation as to why the visible spectrum is not also seen since that is a function of the location of the camera, location of the heat source, and the location of the reflector , AND the intensity of the visible light (the IR intensity was obviously quite high whereas the visible light from the fires is not as high) AND the spectral reflecting properties of the glass. (Walk by a store window and look at your reflection, what colours get reflected better? ,which ones get muted?)

[Miragememories]

Let's try a little math on the angle of view in the vertical plane.

Let us just cut the crap and and address the post?

You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math.

MM

[fitzgibbon]

Let us just cut the crap and and address the post?

You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math.

MM

You don't have the math but bs you have aplenty. Try sourcing the unrotated, unsized daylight image so we can get a better idea of just how far towards the centre of the WTC that photographer was versus the IR photographer.

[Reactor drone]

Let us just cut the crap and and address the post?

You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math.

MM

Actually the maths is really easy, you don't even need trigonometry for it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/triangles.jpg

Given that the hotspot of below the mechnical floors that places it around the 600' mark and the camera would have to be a minimum of 1750' away to see the barest hint of the core peeking out between floor slabs (and that's not taking into account the reduced angle due to the spandrels and suspended ceilings).

Ps-your overlay method seems needlessly complicated, that may be why you're getting so many errors when you do it.


ETA- the first infrared shot in the NIST report was shot over the post office on Church and Vesey approx 800ft from WTC1, subsequent shots look to be shot over WTC5 and slightly closer.

[Miragememories]

You don't have the math but bs you have aplenty. Try sourcing the unrotated, unsized daylight image so we can get a better idea of just how far towards the centre of the WTC that photographer was versus the IR photographer.
The daylight image that was used was a video still and not from the IR camera.

It makes no sense to use it as the reference source.

Well maybe it does to you.

MM

[fitzgibbon]

The daylight image that was used was a video still and not from the IR camera.

It makes no sense to use it as the reference source.

Well maybe it does to you.

MM

No feces, Sherlock. Perhaps if you had a clue how much it was altered relative to the original visual, you'd have a clue why there isn't a reflection of the sun when there's one in the IR that you've been trying to pawn off as a hidden fire in the daylight shot.

But I guess that's too much like work

[Reactor drone]

Let us just cut the crap and and address the post?

You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math.

MM

Ok then , putting the maths behind us, lets address your post.

My overlay uses the video as reference and the WTC1 north face impact zone as the registration point.

The IR image and the photo were then aligned with the registration point.

I did a number of tests and agree that there is a significant possible margin of error as to the lower hotspot's true location.

So, you did a number of tests and got a variety of locations. You then decided to say that the one near the mechanical floors was the one you thought it was. That doesn't really give me great confidence in your methods.


Given the absence of other speculative IR reflections in the video, and given that the setting was abundantly supplied with external IR radiation which supposedly created the one in question, I cannot believe that lower hotspot was a mere IR reflection.

You are of course entitled to your beliefs.



It is also interesting that the NIST chose not to use the color version of the hotspot.

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9500/nistflircompare1.jpg


Yes, it's interesting that they showed the clear greyscale image rather than the blurry colour one. It's also interesting that since they are illustrating a timeline that they use shots which are appropriate to the timeline they are illustrating.



I also find it very odd that in the NIST NCSTAR 1-5a, for some unexplained reason, the NIST ignore the 09:19:35 a.m. time-stamp for Figure 8-24 and claim that it was actually recorded at 09:16:45 a.m.?

MM

Did you also find it interesting that figure 8-7 shows a different time to the timestamp on that video frame? Makes me think they might have been correcting camera clocks to get an accurate common timeframe.

[thecritta]

http://911datasets.org/index.php/Release_14_-_NIST_Cumulus_Video_Database

Yes the page says that there are people seeding a torrent but it doesnt
give no link to the torrent anybody got the link?

[jaydeehess]

Let us just cut the crap and and address the post?

You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math.

MM

I reiterate, the math is easy. IF YOU have the numbers, that is to say if you have an estimate of what the lowest floor at the 'hotspot' is and of the distance from the base of the tower spit it out. I'll do the math for you if you wish, just give me some numbers that you believe are valid.

The fact remains;
- if this were a thermite burn at the core the angle would have required that the concrete floor block/mask some of the IR from reaching the FLIR.
-therefore if this is a heat signature from a source inside the towers then it has to be near the windows BECAUSE we see no blocking of the IR by the floors.

[Miragememories]

"You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math."
"Ok then.."

Glad you accept that reality.

"My overlay uses the video as reference and the WTC1 north face impact zone as the registration point.

The IR image and the photo were then aligned with the registration point.

I did a number of tests and agree that there is a significant possible margin of error as to the lower hotspot's true location.""So, you did a number of tests and got a variety of locations. You then decided to say that the one near the mechanical floors was the one you thought it was. That doesn't really give me great confidence in your methods."

Yes I did a number of tests from different points on the video's timeline and using different images as reference.

I settled on the earlier video timeline point because it gave me the best registration with the WTC1 impact zone.

When using the same methodology, I fail to see how my choosing one timeline point vs. another,
should have any bearing on the validity of my method?

I have already acknowledged in a previous post; "I did a number of tests and agree that there is a significant possible margin of error as to the lower hotspot's true location."

"Given the absence of other speculative IR reflections in the video, and given that the setting was abundantly supplied with external IR radiation which supposedly created the one in question, I cannot believe that lower hotspot was a mere IR reflection."
"You are of course entitled to your beliefs."

It is reality.

"Not to mention the fact that it's a reflection"

You argue in support of the NIST guess that it was reflected IR.

Well I have more than a few problems with that line of reasoning.

The infrared camera is recording IR signatures that stand out from the IR background threshold. Since 52% of sunlight energy is IR, it is obvious that the Towers bathed in sunlight, will be reflecting a great deal of IR. A properly set up infrared camera will set this reflected IR light as a background level allowing higher level IR signatures to present themselves.

You are suggesting that the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones are generating their own IR emissions but that the WTC1 hotspot is not.

That the hotspot is somehow mysteriously generated by a higher-than-background level IR reflection from the sun (already preset as part of a background threshold), or that it is reflected IR from WTC2 impact zone?

That is an amazing amount of IR light being supposedly focused from WTC2 and reflected back from that lower WTC1 location.

So intense that its reflected IR signature, though obviously not as spacious, contains the same IR spectrum as can be observed in the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones.

So, yes I am entitled to my beliefs.

It is your belief that needs defending.

"It is also interesting that the NIST chose not to use the color version of the hotspot.

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9500/nistflircompare1.jpg""Yes, it's interesting that they showed the clear greyscale image rather than the blurry colour one."

Well if anything, that greyscale image of the hotspot shows the IR emission coming from behind the perimeter grillwork.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7727/hotspotperimeter1.png

"It's also interesting that since they are illustrating a timeline that they use shots which are appropriate to the timeline they are illustrating."

Are they?

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3593/figure824sc1.jpg

Figure 8-24 above is the only color IR image the NIST chose to use.

Since the NIST are usually incredibly anal with their details explanations, maybe you can explain their failure to account for the obvious time contradiction in Figure 8-24?

If the thermacam's timestamp of 09:19:35 a.m. is approximately 3 minutes ahead of the NIST declared time of 09:16:45 a.m., why does the NIST not account for this discrepancy? They are quick to point out their uncertainty factor of +/- 15 sec. But a gross error of 150 seconds they ignore?

"Did you also find it interesting that figure 8-7 shows a different time to the timestamp on that video frame? Makes me think they might have been correcting camera clocks to get an accurate common timeframe."


http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5584/nistfig87ncstar15a.jpg

That is more easily explained. There is no contradiction.

Unlike the single image in Figure 8-24, the NIST caption for Figure 8-7 clearly acknowledges that the two images were shot with different cameras and at different times. The cropped time and date stamp on the extracted video still image is clearly intended as a cross-reference to the infra-red image on the right. The bottom cropping was likely added to avoid fully displaying 2 different timestamps.

MM

[femr2]

Yes, the page says that there are people seeding a torrent but it doesnt give no (a) link to the torrent. Anybody got the link?
As it clearly says, the torrent link will be posted soon.
You'll have to be patient I'm afraid.

[Reactor drone]

When using the same methodology, I fail to see how my choosing one timeline point vs. another,
should have any bearing on the validity of my method?

I have already acknowledged in a previous post; "I did a number of tests and agree that there is a significant possible margin of error as to the lower hotspot's true location."

So, you don't see a problem with a method that gives a wide range of answers? I can see how a truther would favour a method that gives a broad spectrum of solutions since it does allow you to chose the one that best fits your preconceived ideas but it's not good from the point of view of achieving objective data.





You argue in support of the NIST guess that it was reflected IR.

Well I have more than a few problems with that line of reasoning.

The infrared camera is recording IR signatures that stand out from the IR background threshold. Since 52% of sunlight energy is IR, it is obvious that the Towers bathed in sunlight, will be reflecting a great deal of IR. A properly set up infrared camera will set this reflected IR light as a background level allowing higher level IR signatures to present themselves.

You are suggesting that the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones are generating their own IR emissions but that the WTC1 hotspot is not.

That the hotspot is somehow mysteriously generated by a higher-than-background level IR reflection from the sun (already preset as part of a background threshold), or that it is reflected IR from WTC2 impact zone?

That is an amazing amount of IR light being supposedly focused from WTC2 and reflected back from that lower WTC1 location.

So intense that its reflected IR signature, though obviously not as spacious, contains the same IR spectrum as can be observed in the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones.

So, yes I am entitled to my beliefs.

It is your belief that needs defending.

Fortunately my beliefs are easy to defend (just not easily explainable to a truther, but then nothing rational is :D )



Well if anything, that greyscale image of the hotspot shows the IR emission coming from behind the perimeter grillwork.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7727/hotspotperimeter1.png

Just the small problem of the grillwork not lining up with the rest of the columns on WTC1 (but somehow being the right alignment for a reflection of WTC2s exterior columns)


Are they?

Yes




Since the NIST are usually incredibly anal with their details explanations, maybe you can explain their failure to account for the obvious time contradiction in Figure 8-24?

If the thermacam's timestamp of 09:19:35 a.m. is approximately 3 minutes ahead of the NIST declared time of 09:16:45 a.m., why does the NIST not account for this discrepancy? They are quick to point out their uncertainty factor of +/- 15 sec. But a gross error of 150 seconds they ignore?

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5584/nistfig87ncstar15a.jpg

That is more easily explained. There is no contradiction.

Unlike the single image in Figure 8-24, the NIST caption for Figure 8-7 clearly acknowledges that the two images were shot with different cameras and at different times. The cropped time and date stamp on the extracted video still image is clearly intended as a cross-reference to the infra-red image on the right. The bottom cropping was likely added to avoid fully displaying 2 different timestamps.

MM

They are incredibly anal, that's probably why the whole of chapter 3 in NCSTAR 1-5A goes into detail about how they established absolute timings for all the video and imagery.

I do like the display of cognitive dissidence here though, one camera's time being different to the NIST timestamp is "interesting" but another one with a similar discrepancy is "more easily explained".

happy reading :)

[jaydeehess]

Let's try a little math on the angle of view in the vertical plane.




Let us just cut the crap and and address the post?

You don't have the numbers so forget about the bs math.

MM

Actually the maths is really easy, you don't even need trigonometry for it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/september%2011/triangles.jpg

Given that the hotspot of below the mechnical floors that places it around the 600' mark and the camera would have to be a minimum of 1750' away to see the barest hint of the core peeking out between floor slabs (and that's not taking into account the reduced angle due to the spandrels and suspended ceilings).


ETA- the first infrared shot in the NIST report was shot over the post office on Church and Vesey approx 800ft from WTC1, subsequent shots look to be shot over WTC5 and slightly closer.

Glad you accept that reality.

What I take away from your responses concerning the math is that it's too hard for you. At what grade level did you drop math?


You argue in support of the NIST guess that it was reflected IR.

Well I have more than a few problems with that line of reasoning.

The infrared camera is recording IR signatures that stand out from the IR background threshold. Since 52% of sunlight energy is IR, it is obvious that the Towers bathed in sunlight, will be reflecting a great deal of IR. A properly set up infrared camera will set this reflected IR light as a background level allowing higher level IR signatures to present themselves.

Ummm, yeah so its a reflection of the Sun then is it?
Radiation from the sun is either absorbed by the atmosphere or scattered by it. Blues are less absorbed, reds more so.
IR is also absorbed by all materials such as the building itself. Of course it generates its own IR as a result of heating by absorbing the IR from the sun ( that's why we don't freeze to death, the air is heated by the Sun) and any heat produced within the building. However a reflection is a different beast than scattered light. After all the light reflecting off your face is also being scattered but when you look in a mirror its not a hazy blob you see in it.

The FLIR is recording on a scale with anything below a threshold registering as black and it has an upper limit which again, according to the scale in the picture is about 120deg C at which the clour representation is white but a FLIR like this is not calibrated exactly either. It does not need to be if its a police style FLIR. All it needs to do in its normal function is to find people standing out against a cooler Earth.
You are suggesting that the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones are generating their own IR emissions but that the WTC1 hotspot is not.


If you shine a flashlight into a mirror is the mirror generating its own visible light at the spot where you see the flashlight?.

So intense that its reflected IR signature, though obviously not as spacious, contains the same IR spectrum as can be observed in the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones.

Same IR spectrum? Yes, again with the flashlight, does it change colour significantly when reflected? The FLIR is registering a range of IR. The shorter wavelengths are from hotter objects. The windows would partially transmit, partially absorb, and partially reflect the IR hitting them. Different wavelengths would experience different levels of each.

So, yes I am entitled to my beliefs.
Yep, and we are entitled to illustrate where you are simply wrong.

It is your belief that needs defending.


RD and others are doing quite a good job of doing so whereas your belief amounts to blind belief. This is illustrated quite well by the following exchange;
I did a number of tests and agree that there is a significant possible margin of error as to the lower hotspot's true location.
So, you did a number of tests and got a variety of locations. You then decided to say that the one near the mechanical floors was the one you thought it was. That doesn't really give me great confidence in your methods.

You chose the mechanical floor purely because that's the one you wanted it to be not because you have any evidence that its the best fit in reality.

Both RD and I have pointed out the ease by which one can establish the view of the core. RD's use of similar triangles (yes, that is the easier route) requires no more than grade 10 algebra.
The viewing angle demonstrates that any heat generated at the core would be blocked from direct view. This makes your entire line of reasoning a moot point. In order for this to be evidence of a thermite burn it MUST heat almost the entire volume of the rooms alongside the windows involved, over the floors involved.

[Miragememories]

"You argue in support of the NIST guess that it was reflected IR.

Well I have more than a few problems with that line of reasoning.

The infrared camera is recording IR signatures that stand out from the IR background threshold. Since 52% of sunlight energy is IR, it is obvious that the Towers bathed in sunlight, will be reflecting a great deal of IR. A properly set up infrared camera will set this reflected IR light as a background level allowing higher level IR signatures to present themselves.

You are suggesting that the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones are generating their own IR emissions but that the WTC1 hotspot is not.

That the hotspot is somehow mysteriously generated by a higher-than-background level IR reflection from the sun (already preset as part of a background threshold), or that it is reflected IR from WTC2 impact zone?

That is an amazing amount of IR light being supposedly focused from WTC2 and reflected back from that lower WTC1 location.

So intense that its reflected IR signature, though obviously not as spacious, contains the same IR spectrum as can be observed in the WTC1 and WTC2 impact zones.

So, yes I am entitled to my beliefs.

It is your belief that needs defending.""Fortunately my beliefs are easy to defend (just not easily explainable to a truther, but then nothing rational is"


Of course "easy beliefs" are easy to defend. And less of a mental strain as well.

Clearly your lack of a thoughtful response amounts to no response.

"Since the NIST are usually incredibly anal with their details explanations, maybe you can explain their failure to account for the obvious time contradiction in Figure 8-24?

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3593/figure824sc1.jpg

If the thermacam's timestamp of 09:19:35 a.m. is approximately 3 minutes ahead of the NIST declared time of 09:16:45 a.m., why does the NIST not account for this discrepancy? They are quick to point out their uncertainty factor of +/- 15 sec. But a gross error of 150 seconds they ignore?

"Did you also find it interesting that figure 8-7 shows a different time to the timestamp on that video frame? Makes me think they might have been correcting camera clocks to get an accurate common timeframe."

That is more easily explained. There is no contradiction.

Unlike the single image in Figure 8-24, the NIST caption for Figure 8-7 clearly acknowledges that the two images were shot with different cameras and at different times. The cropped time and date stamp on the extracted video still image is clearly intended as a cross-reference to the infra-red image on the right. The bottom cropping was likely added to avoid fully displaying 2 different timestamps.""They are incredibly anal, that's probably why the whole of chapter 3 in NCSTAR 1-5A goes into detail about how they established absolute timings for all the video and imagery.

I do like the display of cognitive dissidence here though, one camera's time being different to the NIST timestamp is "interesting" but another one with a similar discrepancy is "more easily explained".

happy reading"

There is nothing in chapter 3 in NCSTAR 1-5A which explains the NIST false
time claim in Figure 8-24.

Any cognitive dissidence is your own and obviously your intention.

There is no "similar discrepancy".

At least now I know how you will respond when proven to be wrong.

MM

[beachnut]

Of course "easy beliefs" are easy to defend. And less of a mental strain as well.

Clearly your lack of a thoughtful response amounts to no response.



There is nothing in chapter 3 in NCSTAR 1-5A which explains the NIST false
time claim in Figure 8-24.

Any cognitive dissidence is your own and obviously your intention.

There is no "similar discrepancy".

At least now I know how you will respond when proven to be wrong.

MM When will you publish your findings? Wow!~

[triforcharity]

I just want to know what MM is getting at. Time being off means........???????

INSIDE JOBBITY JOB!!!1!!!

[Reactor drone]

Of course "easy beliefs" are easy to defend. And less of a mental strain as well.

Clearly your lack of a thoughtful response amounts to no response.


Yes, I imagine it does cause mental strain to try and maintain your beliefs. It might be time for you to make a new picture showing the hotspot in the wrong location just to reinforce your preconceived ideas :p


There is nothing in chapter 3 in NCSTAR 1-5A which explains the NIST false
time claim in Figure 8-24.

Any cognitive dissidence is your own and obviously your intention.

There is no "similar discrepancy".

At least now I know how you will respond when proven to be wrong.

MM

Really, no similar discrepancy? You don't think a camera clock showing 8.55.0x with a NIST timestamp of 8.53.43 is at all similar to a different camera clock showing 9.19.35 with a NIST timestamp of 9.16.45 (with a given uncertainty).

I suppose you think it's also not similar to figure 3-1 showing Nicolas Cianca's camera clock showing 17.26.13 and a NIST "actual time" figure of 5.24.31pm.

If you can't work out how the NIST times (in red on a white background) were derived after reading chapter 3 you may have a reading comprehension problem.

[BigAl]

It's here...


http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/still-editing-jk-international-center-911-studies-nist-cumulus-video-database-available-download

[femr2]

It's here...


http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/still-editing-jk-international-center-911-studies-nist-cumulus-video-database-available-download

That link is defunct (was an edit).

Here...

NIST Cumulus Database Release. (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/international-center-911-studies-nist-cumulus-video-database-released)

[jaydeehess]

So the gist of the recent posts to this thread is that a heat signature well below the fire floor in ONE tower is indicative of a thermite burn at that level despite the fact that:
the heat signature covers several floors in a continuous fashion except for a lattice work shadow that does not represent the blocking of IR supposedly from this burn, that could be expected given the extreme upward angle of the camera putting the floor concrete in the way yet does resemble the window openings; the fact that this FLIR recording cannot in any way establish a temperature anywhere close to that which would be produced by a thermite burn; and the fact that it can easily be explained as a reflection of the fire in the adjacent tower.

Does that pretty much cover it?

[Miragememories]

So the gist of the recent posts to this thread is that a heat signature well below the fire floor in ONE tower is indicative of a thermite burn at that level despite the fact that:
the heat signature covers several floors in a continuous fashion except for a lattice work shadow that does not represent the blocking of IR supposedly from this burn, that could be expected given the extreme upward angle of the camera putting the floor concrete in the way yet does resemble the window openings; the fact that this FLIR recording cannot in any way establish a temperature anywhere close to that which would be produced by a thermite burn; and the fact that it can easily be explained as a reflection of the fire in the adjacent tower.

Does that pretty much cover it?
No but I'm bored your bs responses for the moment.

You may continue believing what you will.

MM

[jaydeehess]

No but I'm bored your bs responses for the moment.

You may continue believing what you will.

MM

I am satisfied that RD and I showed you irrefutable math that demonstrates that this could not be a thermite burn at the core. The FACT that you utterly refuse to address these optics, or the optics of reflections, clearly outlines your fundementalist and blind belief in a grand conspiracy.

I would not be suprised in the least were you to also believe in a virgin birth occuring approx. 2040 years ago, or that the Earth itself is no more than 10,000 years old.
(....that man has never gone to the Moon, that Paul MacCartney is dead and has been replaced by a Canadian Policeman, that there is such a thing as perpetual motion, FEMA death camps, reptilian ET's among us ,,,,,,,)

,, but as my mother used to say, "it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round"

[Miragememories]

but as my mother used to say

Yawn.

MM

[T.A.M.]

Yawn.

MM

What a reply...so witty...so original.

TAM;)

[Miragememories]

What a reply...so witty...so original.

TAM;)
Hey it's been a long day and I have a headache.

Turn on the Comedy Network if your looking for more laffs.

MM

[BigAl]

Bittorrent has delivered the complete set to my laptop. Here is a list of the titles. If anyone sees anything interesting we'll see how to transfer the files to you.

I'd love to see any footage shot by Lucia Davis and used in a British 911 documentary. This is where the fake explosion heard by the firemen at the payphone came from.

A&E Investigative Reports
ABC Primetime Thursday NYPD helicopter
ABCatlanta
ABCNewsGMAspecialReport
ABCNISTDubs
Abe Conby
Abramson&Sabio
Andrea Star Reese
Anthony Sevilla
Assembled clips of impacts and collapses
BBC Horizon -The Fall of the World Trade Center
BradSchwartz
Broadcast clips - Falling of WTC1
Bryan Stuart's 9-11 Tape
CBS Naudet
CBS-Net NIST Dub #1
CBS-Net NIST Dub #2
CBS-Net NIST Dub #3
CBS-Net NIST Dub #4
CBS-Net NIST Dub #5
CBS-Net NIST Dub #6
CBS-Net NIST Dub #7
CBS_Broadcast_8-45A
Cindy Weil
Clifton Cloud
CNN Aircheck Eric Levin
CNN Breaking News 10 to 1130am
CNN Breaking News 100 to 230pm
CNN Breaking News 1130am to 1pm
CNN Breaking News 230 to 4 pm
CNN Breaking News 400 to 530pm
CNN Broadcast
CNN NIST Dub #17 - RoofCam
CNN NIST Dub #18 - Kiederling
CNN NIST Dub #2 - WTC7
CNN NIST Dub #24 - Robert Bery
CNN NIST Dub #4 - Clip Tape 1
CNN NIST Dub #5 - Clip Tape 2
CNN NIST Dub #6 - After tower collapses
CNN Presents
Collapse - How the Towers Fell - DiscovCh
Craig Braden
David Vogler
Ed Peterman
Etienne Sauret - WTC The First 24 Hours
Evan Fairbanks
FDNY WTC Footage Archives Tape #1-Part 1
Firelinevideo.com
FNC (FOX) Broadcast
FNC Atlanta 10 to noon
FNC Atlanta noon to 2
FOX and CBS clips - Selected events
FOX News (9-11 Remembered)
Freelance of WTC7 collapse
HBO_In Memoriam-New York City 9-11-01
History Channel Rise and Fall
History Channel The day the towers fell
History Channel_First Response
Infraspection Inst. T-IR Syst1
Jay Zimmerman
Jim Huibregtse
Josh Levine from Davis
Kareem El-Heneidi
Kevin Segalla
KTVT-LA FOX 9-11-01 10-11AM
Luigi Cazzaniga
Mark Molesworth
Mark Trottenberg
Matthew Shapoff (9-11)
MSNBC Investigates Out of the Rubble
NBC Atlanta 10 to noon
NBC Atlanta noon to 2
NBC Restricted - 2 Tapes
NBC Short Collapse of WTC 2
NBC_Broadcast_8-45A
NBC_News Dub from Jim Remberg
New York Firefighters brotherhood Discovery Channel
NOVA PBS - Why Towers Fell
NY1-6 raw field tapes
NY1-onair plus 5 raw b-roll clips
NYPD Aviation 9-11
NYPD OMAP B
Onno deJong
Pavel Hlavel
PBS - The Center of the World
PBS Twin Towers A History
PBS_Heroes of Ground Zero
Report from Ground Zero ABC
Richard Peskin
Sam Riegel
Scott Myers
Sekani Compilation of Clips from 2nd Impact and Collapses
SkidmoreOwingsMerrill
SorensenWTC
Special-Important
Stevens - 2 Tapes
Tim Main and Mike Ballou
TLC _WTC_Anatomy_of_the_Collapse
Unknown Source - Short Clips of WTC 7 Burning
Vince Dementri CBS WTC7
WABC Broadcast
WABC NIST Dub #1
WABC_Helicopter Shots of WTC7 South Facade 1_30pm
WCBS NIST Dub #1_Damas home video
WCBS NIST Dub #2
WCBS NIST DUB #2 Added clips
WCBS NIST Dub #3 - Behrle, Miller, StatCamN
WCBS NIST Dub #4 - WCBS Helicopter
WNBC NIST Dub #1
WNBC NIST Dub #10 - WT Comp Reel #1
WNBC NIST Dub #2
WNBC NIST Dub #3
WNBC NIST Dub #4
WNBC NIST Dub #5
WNBC NIST Dub #6 - WNBC Helicopter
WNBC NIST Dub #7 - StJohn, Heath, Spell, RM
WNBC NIST Dub #8 - Sumner Glimcher
WNBC NIST Dub#9, Foster, Andaloro, NBC StatCamNJ
WNYW NIST Dub #1
WNYW NIST Dub #2
WNYW NIST Dub #3
WNYW NIST Dub #4
WNYW NIST Dub #5 - Helicopter
WNYW_Broadcast
WPIX NIST DUB #1
WPIX NIST DUB #2
WPIX NIST Dub #3 - FDR Drive
WPIX NIST Dub #4 - Helicopter
WPIX NIST Dub #5
WTC 7 - 2 parts
WTC Clips - FOX 10-00 News, ABC News Excl 4-30pm, News 8-30pm
WTC7 CON ED
WTC_A Modern Marvel 1973-2001

[jaydeehess]

Yawn.

MM

So you deign to address my bit of sarcasm at the end of my post but (still) cannot be bothered to address the simple mathematics of the situation that was put to you several times and referenced in the first lines of my previous post.

Simple question MM. Do you understand the concept that RD mentioned, that of 'similar triangles'? Yes, or no?

[jaydeehess]

Ooooh they used the term "NIST Dub" obviously means 'altered video'

[Feldspar]

The truthers are up in arms over this youtube video: watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o. Sorry, can't post url. My thought is that these firemen were in the north tower lobby when the south tower collapsed. Does anyone have any thoughts or information about this video or these firefighters?

[DGM]

The truthers are up in arms over this youtube video: watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o. Sorry, can't post url. My thought is that these firemen were in the north tower lobby when the south tower collapsed. Does anyone have any thoughts or information about this video or these firefighters?
IO1ps1mzU8o
I stopped watching these a long time ago.

[MikeW]

Bittorrent has delivered the complete set to my laptop. Here is a list of the titles. If anyone sees anything interesting we'll see how to transfer the files to you.
Currently it's looking like it will take me around 6 months to download everything (not an exaggeration, that's actually what it says) so I think I'll be giving up.

From the list, though, SkidmoreOwingsMerrill may be interesting. Dr Barnett of FEMA told me once that videos of the collapses like that one showed very clearly (as far as he concerned) that explosives had nothing to do with them -- does that section have anything new, as far as you can see?

[bill smith]

Bittorrent has delivered the complete set to my laptop. Here is a list of the titles. If anyone sees anything interesting we'll see how to transfer the files to you.

I'd love to see any footage shot by Lucia Davis and used in a British 911 documentary. This is where the fake explosion heard by the firemen at the payphone came from.

What about the only one described as 'unknown source' ?

Unknown Source - Short Clips of WTC 7 Burning

[BigAl]

Currently it's looking like it will take me around 6 months to download everything (not an exaggeration, that's actually what it says) so I think I'll be giving up.

From the list, though, SkidmoreOwingsMerrill may be interesting. Dr Barnett of FEMA told me once that videos of the collapses like that one showed very clearly (as far as he concerned) that explosives had nothing to do with them -- does that section have anything new, as far as you can see?

It's about 90 seconds of video of the WTC2 fire floors with a sound track that would certainly record detonations. 30MB.

I'll PM the server path to you. The net connection has a quota limit. For now I don't want to make it public.

[Miragememories]

So you deign to address my bit of sarcasm at the end of my post but (still) cannot be bothered to address the simple mathematics of the situation that was put to you several times and referenced in the first lines of my previous post.

Simple question MM. Do you understand the concept that RD mentioned, that of 'similar triangles'? Yes, or no?
Your math isn't worth jack if you can't substantiate the data you plug into it.

Which you can't.

MM

[BigAl]

What about the only one described as 'unknown source' ?

Unknown Source - Short Clips of WTC 7 Burning

Here's one just for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVVCr8rBSBk

This folder is some odds and ends. There are much more spectacular WTC7-on-fire segments when I come across them again.

[Josarhus]

The truthers are up in arms over this youtube video: watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o. Sorry, can't post url. My thought is that these firemen were in the north tower lobby when the south tower collapsed. Does anyone have any thoughts or information about this video or these firefighters?


Some background information on this video:

IO1ps1mzU8o

The three fire fighters are from Ladder Company 24, and are for certain Jimmy Grillo (the one in the middle) and probably James Duffy and Tyrone Johnson.

I am not sure about the last two, but given testimonies from Ladder 24 fire fighters it is my conclusion, but perhaps someone can help getting their names straight?!

The interesting thing is not so much who they are, but the fact that they were NOT in the lobby of any of the towers, but in the Marriott lobby. Reading their testimonies it becomes very clear that what they are describing in the video as explosions are the collapse of the South Tower unto the Marriott Hotel and then secondly the collapse of the North Tower.

They waited in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel, when the South Tower collapsed and were on their way out of the rubble of the Marriott Hotel, when the North Tower collapsed.

[triforcharity]

Some background information on this video:

IO1ps1mzU8o

The three fire fighters are from Ladder Company 24, and are for certain Jimmy Grillo (the one in the middle) and probably James Duffy and Tyrone Johnson.

I am not sure about the last two, but given testimonies from Ladder 24 fire fighters it is my conclusion, but perhaps someone can help getting their names straight?!

The interesting thing is not so much who they are, but the fact that they were NOT in the lobby of any of the towers, but in the Marriott lobby. Reading their testimonies it becomes very clear that what they are describing in the video as explosions are the collapse of the South Tower unto the Marriott Hotel and then secondly the collapse of the North Tower.

They waited in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel, when the South Tower collapsed and were on their way out of the rubble of the Marriott Hotel, when the North Tower collapsed.

Jos,

This may help.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

I would cross reference it, but I have other things to tend to.

[jaydeehess]

Your math isn't worth jack if you can't substantiate the data you plug into it.

Which you can't.

MM

WE do know the distance between windows and core, right? We do know the height between floor and ceiling, right? I specifically asked you for the floor number and for a distance from camera to tower outer wall. I only ask you so that you cannot then claim that numbers I supply are all wrong.


Fact is that throughout any valid range for both of those unknowns the result will still be that the concrete floor is going to obstruct a view of the supposed thermite burn at the core.

At least try MM, are you afraid of what the math will show you? Do you really wish to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and shout"I can't hear you"?

[bill smith]

Here's one just for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVVCr8rBSBk

This folder is some odds and ends. There are much more spectacular WTC7-on-fire segments when I come across them again.

It's just a shame that the source can't be verified other than having come from NIST.

[Josarhus]

Jos,

This may help.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

I would cross reference it, but I have other things to tend to.

I already did, and that is why I am some what sure about the names of the other two. It would just be nice if some one could confirm this.

But the main point is still, that none of them were in the lobby of any of the towers, as the truthers claim. They were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel.

[BigAl]

It's just a shame that the source can't be verified other than having come from NIST.

New Yorkers know it's WTC7.

It's on fire.

What more do you want?

We have countless similar video of WTC7 on fire from other sources.

[bill smith]

New Yorkers know it's WTC7.

It's on fire.

What more do you want?

We have countless similar video of WTC7 on fire from other sources.

Sure, and we are generally happy that those videos nicely support our case of insignificant fires.

But NIST has had a long time to potentially play with these new videos that they withheld for almost a decade. So some people might not be surprised to see forgeries show up in these 'short clips of WTC7 burning' from 'Unknown Sources'

[bill smith]

I already did, and that is why I am some what sure about the names of the other two. It would just be nice if some one could confirm this.

But the main point is still, that none of them were in the lobby of any of the towers, as the truthers claim. They were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel.

But they are clearly referring to bombs whether that be the Marriot or the Towers. The Marriot was one of the WTC Silverstein-leased buildings wasn't it ?

[bill smith]

If the NIST video releases should have too much detail that actually supports the government case and yet NIST kept those clips under wraps for almost a decade that in itself will be very interesting.

[beachnut]

...
But NIST has had a long time to potentially play with these new videos that they withheld for almost a decade. So some people might not be surprised to see forgeries show up in these 'short clips of WTC7 burning' from 'Unknown Sources'
Got proof to support your moronic lies, your delusional lies? No

Why do you make up lies about 911?

[RedIbis]

Here's some of the latest video to come out of this new release.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-06/new-video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-towers-collapsed

[Grizzly Bear]

Here's some of the latest video to come out of this new release.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-06/new-video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-towers-collapsed

Maybe these huge explosions made by explosive demolition were caught by audio recordings taken as the collapses happened...
South tower collapse audio from WTC 1 lobby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3umJCmD7vos&feature=player_embedded

WTC 1 collapse from a few block away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UlJVibz7Dg&feature=player_embedded

Can you kindly point out where in the audio these huge explosive detonations took place?

I'm guessing if those firefighters were close enough to noise caused by debris hitting the ground would have indeed lead them to an experience akin to a loud explosion, but then I suppose the idea that chaotic events causing mass confusion is unfathomable....

[Sabretooth]

It's just a shame that the source can't be verified other than having come from NIST.

Well, if Trutherville could manage to submit something other than a poorly edited utube video, maybe we could use that, too?

[Sabretooth]

Sure, and we are generally happy that those videos nicely support our case of insignificant fires.


This just in!...fires engulfing an entire floor are insignificant!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_424124caf636b9f3a6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21272)

[bill smith]

This just in!...fires engulfing an entire floor are insignificant!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_424124caf636b9f3a6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21272)

Which face of WTC7 is that ?

[cooperman]

This just in!...fires engulfing an entire floor are insignificant!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_424124caf636b9f3a6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21272)

To demonstrate fires engulfing an entire floor, you have posted a photograph showing that the entire floor wasn't engulfed.

[T.A.M.]

To demonstrate fires engulfing an entire floor, you have posted a photograph showing that the entire floor wasn't engulfed.

Sort of like the truthers here providing a 2004 photo of a corner of the exterior of the building with no active flames through the windows as proof that there was no fire near column 79.

TAM:D

[Sabretooth]

To demonstrate fires engulfing an entire floor, you have posted a photograph showing that the entire floor wasn't engulfed.

you're freakin kidding me, right?

The fire has traversed the entire floor, as evidenced by the broken windows. Are really gonna play stupid to push your nonsense?

EDIT: and if you really wanna nitpick, are you gonna tell me visible flames half the length of the floor, as well as visible flames on multiple floors, aren't significant?

[srsjuiceman]

I'm guessing if those firefighters were close enough to noise caused by debris hitting the ground would have indeed lead them to an experience akin to a loud explosion, but then I suppose the idea that chaotic events causing mass confusion is unfathomable....

Yes, loud crashes and rumblings that sound like a freight train coming through your bedroom. Very confusing and chaotic. There is not much I remember specifically, but I can assure anyone that there was nothing so loud that my ears bled or I suffered any kind of loss of hearing.

[Miragememories]

Yes, loud crashes and rumblings that sound like a freight train coming through your bedroom. Very confusing and chaotic. There is not much I remember specifically, but I can assure anyone that there was nothing so loud that my ears bled or I suffered any kind of loss of hearing.
That is good news.

Research has shown that those more serious symptoms are not always present and are dependent on the specific circumstances.

MM

[HyJinX]

you're freakin kidding me, right?

The fire has traversed the entire floor, as evidenced by the broken windows. Are really gonna play stupid to push your nonsense?

EDIT: and if you really wanna nitpick, are you gonna tell me visible flames half the length of the floor, as well as visible flames on multiple floors, aren't significant?

Unfortunately, the nut jobs are not attached to reality and have seen too many movies. If the building's fire didn't look like the one from Towering Inferno, it couldn't possibly been enough to bring it down. Sad really.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SPDtf_nc_CI/TETMvkqkRcI/AAAAAAAADO0/VA5V2LzFbdM/s1600/The+Towering+Inferno+%281974%29.jpg

[cooperman]

That is good news.

Research has shown that those more serious symptoms are not always present and are dependent on the specific circumstances.

MM

Something doesn't smell quite right about our new poster. He has taken the time to put his New York location in the info beneath his username and he is yet another member here who happens to have been there on 9/11.

Take it with a pinch of salt. Although, i am sure you already are.

[srsjuiceman]

That is good news.

Research has shown that those more serious symptoms are not always present and are dependent on the specific circumstances.

MM

Thanks. I'm glad I'm in relatively good health too. I should have said temporary loss of hearing, but you get the point. I just think it it were an actual bomb or charges it would have been more concussive. There wasn't a large bang to start things off, it just started and all hell broke loose.

I can say 'hell' can't I?

[Miragememories]

Something doesn't smell quite right about our new poster. He has taken the time to put his New York location in the info beneath his username and he is yet another member here who happens to have been there on 9/11.

Take it with a pinch of salt. Although, i am sure you already are.
Yes.

Anonymity allows members to play God if they wish to.

MM

[srsjuiceman]

Something doesn't smell quite right about our new poster. He has taken the time to put his New York location in the info beneath his username and he is yet another member here who happens to have been there on 9/11.

Take it with a pinch of salt. Although, i am sure you already are.

Hey, take it easy. I also put carpenter in as my occupation as well. I live in Orange County, about 30 minutes from NYC. I have a 10924 zip code and my local city center is an ugly building that looks as though it was built by a kid with legos. I have an 845 area code. I'm sorry if you feel I am being disingenuous, but I doubt anything I could say will make that right.

[Miragememories]

Thanks. I'm glad I'm in relatively good health too. I should have said temporary loss of hearing, but you get the point. I just think it it were an actual bomb or charges it would have been more concussive. There wasn't a large bang to start things off, it just started and all hell broke loose.

I can say 'hell' can't I?
In JREF you can pretty well say whatever you like. Particularly if it favors the Official Conspiracy Theory.

You are welcome to your opinions.

I only hope you keep an open mind.

The majority here have little use for people with open minds though.

MM

[beachnut]

Something doesn't smell quite right about our new poster. He has taken the time to put his New York location in the info beneath his username and he is yet another member here who happens to have been there on 9/11.

Take it with a pinch of salt. Although, i am sure you already are.
Parnoid much? Have you been studying the many socks here at JREF, and are you picking up their techniques? There are JREF who were in NYC on 911, saw the planes and saw the fire in WTC 7. When will you return to correct your lies about One Meridian Plaza? That smell, is it your trail of rotten lies on 911?


Hey, take it easy. I also put carpenter in as my occupation as well. I live in Orange County, about 30 minutes from NYC. I have a 10924 zip code and my local city center is an ugly building that looks as though it was built by a kid with legos. I have an 845 area code. I'm sorry if you feel I am being disingenuous, but I doubt anything I could say will make that right.
He has been spewing nonsense on 911 and is acting like a sock so he can report us for being mean.

You are not the first JREF to experience 911 events in person; welcome

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

[BigAl]

That is good news.

Research has shown that those more serious symptoms are not always present and are dependent on the specific circumstances.

MM

Any noises coming from the frame of a steel building on fire is very, very bad news.

Steel structures make noises as they fail. Firemen are trained to watch out for them for their own protection.

FDNY cites "creaking" as part of the information they had that indicated that WTC7 was doomed.

Here are other examples.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell,
his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."
http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande



"Who cannot (sic) forget that eerie creaking sound that emanated throughout the city right before the North Tower fell?" –Marc Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League Source

[cooperman]

Hey, take it easy. I also put carpenter in as my occupation as well. I live in Orange County, about 30 minutes from NYC. I have a 10924 zip code and my local city center is an ugly building that looks as though it was built by a kid with legos. I have an 845 area code. I'm sorry if you feel I am being disingenuous, but I doubt anything I could say will make that right.

Don't worry, I am not accusing you of anything. Everything you say may well be true.

It is just that this site seems to have more than it's fair share of engineers and people who were there on 911.

[beachnut]

Don't worry, I am not accusing you of anything. Everything you say may well be true.

It is just that this site seems to have more than it's fair share of engineers and people who were there on 911.
Who? Names please. List. Prove your point with math, and examples.

Good luck. Your paranoia is showing.

[BigAl]

Don't worry, I am not accusing you of anything. Everything you say may well be true.

It is just that this site seems to have more than it's fair share of engineers and people who were there on 911.

A few million people have a direct connection to the events of 9/11 as eyewitness and were probably within hearing distance of man-made detonation.

I'm one of those people. Anything I say about WTC and GZ can be confirmed by other eyewitnesses or the public record.

[srsjuiceman]

Don't worry, I am not accusing you of anything. Everything you say may well be true.

It is just that this site seems to have more than it's fair share of engineers and people who were there on 911.

I understand. My engineering experience is limited to framing a house! Unless you count building sandcastles. So many people where I live were down there that day. Not there specifically, I mean the city itself. Living in a suburb like I do you have a lot of people who commute down there. If you weren't there, then you knew someone who was there. My boss lives off Rte 17 just outside Mahwah, NJ and he has pictures from the top of his hill where you can see the smoke all billowing up. He said he stood there for hours just watching the smoke. Crazy day.

[T.A.M.]

That is good news.

Research has shown that those more serious symptoms are not always present and are dependent on the specific circumstances.

MM

Yes, the explosives used in the WTC collapses were "Barotraumaproof".

Oh, wait, I think one you tried to convince me that the Barotrauma did occur, but only in those who were killed by the collapse.

TAM:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Don't worry, I am not accusing you of anything. Everything you say may well be true.

It is just that this site seems to have more than it's fair share of engineers and people who were there on 911.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason for that might be,

(a) This subforum is part of the larger JREF forum, which has a large section devoted to various sciences etc...

(b) This is a place that people often find when looking for counter arguments against 9/11 CTs, so people who were there, who have been hassled, or annoyed by someone claiming it was an "inside" job might find the place and post.

(c) some posters who were there may be friends, family, or acquaintances of other posters here, who were asked or invited to share their stories, views, etc...

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

Don't worry, I am not accusing you of anything. Everything you say may well be true.

It is just that this site seems to have more than it's fair share of engineers and people who were there on 911.

Maybe he was invited by a current member? Or maybe he just got a copy of Loose Change and google it for the debunking, and ended up here......

Wow, such stupidity. "How did you find us!?!?"

Derpa.

[srsjuiceman]

Actually a friend who is also an atheist recommended watching some of James Randi's stuff on YouTube. I had no idea who he was, but really enjoyed him. I just kind of found my way here after that.

[cooperman]

Maybe he was invited by a current member? Or maybe he just got a copy of Loose Change and google it for the debunking, and ended up here......

Wow, such stupidity. "How did you find us!?!?"

Derpa.

Funny, I was asked similar questions when I joined. In fact, i was told that going from lurking to posting a lot was very suspicious.

[beachnut]

Funny, I was asked similar questions when I joined. In fact, i was told that going from lurking to posting a lot was very suspicious. You started spreading woo about 911, not very skeptical to bring up lies from 911 truth and act as if they are based on reality.
No names, you will not stand behind your statement.

Did you come to be a skeptic, or spread lies about 911?