IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Photography Buffs, Please Help Out Here, or "What's Wrong with this Picture?"

paulmichael
post Feb 24 2014, 07:41 AM
Post #21





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



Tamborine man:

Thank you very much for your participation in the thread that I started.

I very much enjoyed and appreciated your contribution.

You are very eloquent. I like your style.

I'd like to focus on the following excerpt from your reply:

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 24 2014, 05:33 AM) *
Subsequently though, things started to heat up. The time came for you to let all know that
now NP's (yours truly) was to be considered nothing but either shills, disinfos, infiltrators,
blathering idiots, sunstein stooges, saboteurs of the so-called 'truth movement', or what not!

Let's think logically.

The only people who can make any kind of attempt to sabotage the so-called "Truth Movement" are those who are staunch adherents to the official government line or those whose stance is one step away from the official government line, in other words, those who would like to drill into your psyche that there were fireballs at the WTC shooting forth a splay of debris that included bits and pieces of aircraft parts even if this means resorting to representations of drones, aircraft swaps and the like.

Let's all put on our thinking caps. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LIKE IT IF YOU'D BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE AIRCRAFT ON SITE ON 9/11 ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. So, if there is any controversy out there, this is how the government would prefer it to be.

P.M.

This post has been edited by paulmichael: Feb 24 2014, 07:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2014, 11:28 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



TM

Obviously you haven't been following the "discussion" in the other thread.

QUOTE
But then you decided to take the high ground, and in the process letting me know that your
viewpoint should unquestionable and uncritically be taken as superior to my own. I thought,
Fair enough, OK, everybody to their own, i suppose.


Utter bollocks TM. You know for a fact that I debate fairly and only point to evidence that's acceptable to truthseekers.

And this is rich coming from somebody that compared me to that shill "Snowcrash" for daring to question NPT.

QUOTE
Subsequently though, things started to heat up. The time came for you to let all know that
now NP's (yours truly) was to be considered nothing but either shills, disinfos, infiltrators,
blathering idiots, sunstein stooges, saboteurs of the so-called 'truth movement', or what not!


For a man of God, that's a whole heap of lies in one paragraph TM. Please quote me where I've used these words of NPT advocates. Not individuals like Jeff Hill.

And, for the record, do you know why I started the thread I linked to? It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to use a play on words to link the work of Pilotsfor911truth and CIT to NPT and out of respect for people like yourself at this forum who I know are straight up.

I started off with a blank slate and the more I dug the more I realized that NPT is a dead end.

What's funny is that you make false accusations against me, while disturbed individual "Paul 'woman hater' Michael" indirectly accuses me (and others) and makes insinuations about me (and others) as being a shill, and you skip on over it.

Got it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 24 2014, 03:03 PM
Post #23





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 22 2014, 07:50 AM) *
Very roughly speaking given the shot angle and assuming the photographer was at the street level, he would be at least 300m from the NE corner of the tower, somewhere around the Broadway/Fulton St.


The more I examine the photo in question and the sharp, upwards angle used to capture the WTC South Tower, the more I come to the conclusion that the photographer of this, what was a pre-9/11 stock photo, was not on Church Street.

But he certainly was not on Broadway (too far east) nor on Fulton (too far north).

Nor was this guy at street level.

That photo had to have been snapped by a photographer on the roof of WTC 4... fat chance of this happening on 9/11.

See map at: WTC Building Arrangement and Site Plan

Moving on...

I previously wrote:
QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 24 2014, 06:41 AM) *
The only people who can make any kind of attempt to sabotage the so-called "Truth Movement" are those who are staunch adherents to the official government line or those whose stance is one step away from the official government line, in other words, those who would like to drill into your psyche that there were fireballs at the WTC shooting forth a splay of debris that included bits and pieces of aircraft parts even if this means resorting to representations of drones, aircraft swaps and the like.

Let's all put on our thinking caps. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LIKE IT IF YOU'D BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE AIRCRAFT ON SITE ON 9/11 ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. So, if there is any controversy out there, this is how the government would prefer it to be.

P.M.


The government has another motive to prefer things this way. If what cut the aircraft-shaped holes in the WTC was done by some new technology, then perhaps they want to keep this under wraps as something top secret.

From where would such new technology originate? Well, most likely from a superpower. Who are the top two superpowers: the U.S. and Russia, that's who. (Israel is yet another possibility, I will admit).

If you have read quite a few of my prior posts, I've been raising a red flag that Russia definitely should not be ruled out as possible suspect for having played a major role in 9/11.

If it comes out pretty definitively that something like a directed energy weapon was used on 9/11, then people may start to suspect that the origin of this weapon was Russia where it is rumored that Vladimir Putin is now the richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of $70,000,000,000. Hmmmm, nice accomplishment for a guy who previously was a career KGB agent, and now, voila, he has investment acumen that outshines Warren Buffet.

See: The Five Dancing Israelis Of 9/11;
Vladimir Putin, Wealthiest Man In World?
Joseph Solari, A Now-deceased Bronx Goodfella (9/11 Connection??)

P.M.

This post has been edited by paulmichael: Feb 24 2014, 03:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 24 2014, 10:00 PM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 24 2014, 05:33 AM) *
Lets go back to the beginning, back to the first TV clips 9/11.

You and i saw a fast plane glide effortlessly through a steel facade and disappear, followed by
big explosions.
Given the circumstances, you saw this as a perfectly natural and likely occurance taken place,
whereas i saw the same as completely unnatural and unlikely. My mind couldn't reconcile what
i saw with anything approaching a real live event.
Again i couldn't see how a big plane flying around 800 km/h. can disappear into a 64x64 meter
space, be blown to smithereens, and in no time (or within the blink of an eyelid) transformed
into instant confetti. Rather than 'instant', i prefer, at least in this case, some resemblance of
a 'sequence of event' kind of thing to have seen to be happening!
This is the only difference that separates us. You chose horse #10, and i chose horse #7. No
big deal really.


You know what TM?
I was like you. I said to myself, no way on earth could that plane penetrate the tower like that!
For a time I was even a no-planer.

But then I started to do some heavy duty research. When I say heavy, I mean it.
No one helped me out. I dug and dug and dug.

And when I found several pieces of evidence that showed irrefutable proof that a plane struck WTC2, I had no choice left but to figure out how the plane could have penetrated the tower.

This required more research, but it wasn't difficult to figure it out in the end.

What looked initially like a complete impossibility, turned out to be very possible.










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FirstUsedBooks
post Feb 24 2014, 10:39 PM
Post #25





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 30-July 11
Member No.: 6,103



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 06:00 PM) *
You know what TM?
I was like you. I said to myself, no way on earth could that plane penetrate the tower like that!
For a time I was even a no-planer.

But then I started to do some heavy duty research. When I say heavy, I mean it.
No one helped me out. I dug and dug and dug.

And when I found several pieces of evidence that showed irrefutable proof that a plane struck WTC2, I had no choice left but to figure out how the plane could have penetrated the tower.

This required more research, but it wasn't difficult to figure it out in the end.

What looked initially like a complete impossibility, turned out to be very possible.

I see it not as a plane slicing through steel, but rather a massive object pushing some prefab sections of rather thin (believe it was 1/4" at this height) steel out of its way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 24 2014, 10:48 PM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 24 2014, 09:39 PM) *
I see it not as a plane slicing through steel, but rather a massive object pushing some prefab sections of rather thin (believe it was 1/4" at this height) steel out of its way.


Exactly!
But no one tapped me on the shoulder and said this is how it occurred.
I had to figure it out on my own.

It was the pushing (not slicing) and also a bit of help probably by various floors not being finished (cement etc.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 25 2014, 06:31 AM
Post #27





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 22 2014, 02:28 PM) *
TM

Obviously you haven't been following the "discussion" in the other thread.


I have to a certain degree, but what does that matter, OSS?

I was obviously only replying to your use of "Mental masturbation" - as i quoted!

QUOTE
Utter bollocks TM. You know for a fact that I debate fairly and only point to evidence that's acceptable to truthseekers.


Had you not used that term, i would not have replied to your post.

QUOTE
And this is rich coming from somebody that compared me to that shill "Snowcrash" for daring to question NPT.


I have never compared you to "snowcrash", OSS. The difference between you two would be like 'day' and 'night'.

If i 'seemingly' have (can't remember), it would of course have been with a blink in the eye and the tongue firmly

planted in cheek, probably as a 'mild' provacation! I'm surprised you can think i could sink THAT low!!

QUOTE
For a man of God, that's a whole heap of lies in one paragraph TM. Please quote me where I've used these words of NPT advocates. Not individuals like Jeff Hill.


Are you telling me that NP's have never been called or been 'accused' of these terms, OSS? And that you DON'T

entertain the same sentiments? Come on - honestly?

We are all 'men' of God, OSS. You included. You, as everyone else, got Thought and Will. You got free Will. You

got a conscience. You got consciousness. You got self-awareness. You got memories, skills, talents, abilities and

and a "Heart". Do you really seriously "think" that all these 'concepts' derive from a tiny little physical particle

coming from a "big bang", and that we can find said particle containing these concepts somewhere in the physical

brain? Heaven forbid such naivety and foolishness!

QUOTE
And, for the record, do you know why I started the thread I linked to? It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to use a play on words to link the work of Pilotsfor911truth and CIT to NPT and out of respect for people like yourself at this forum who I know are straight up.


Well you didn't "exempt me" from being 'prone' to "mental masturbation", did you!

QUOTE
I started off with a blank slate and the more I dug the more I realized that NPT is a dead end.


I also started with a blank slate ......and have not yet ever come across anything that even roughly

could convince me of the presence of planes. It could possibly happen one day i suppose , who
knows, but i'm not about to hold my breath.

QUOTE
What's funny is that you make false accusations against me, while disturbed individual "Paul 'woman hater' Michael" indirectly accuses me (and others) and makes insinuations about me (and others) as being a shill, and you skip on over it.


Of course have i not made "false accusations" against you dear OSS. What rubbish.

Your 'beef' with PM has nothing to do with me, so please leave me out. But i certainly could imagine

that a "retort" would be found in there - somewhere ....yes?

QUOTE
Got it.


No. Not quite yet, i'm afraid.

Me challenging you to a duel, and me possessing the 'singing' sword, should have alerted you to the

fact that my post not necessary should have been taken with "deadly seriousness". But you just cannot

help yourself, can you OSS? Of course i'm not "really" after you, so lighten up man. Have a Kit-Kat!

Cheers

PS!
Hi Paul Michael,
Thank you for your very kind words earlier. That was much appreciated!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 25 2014, 08:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 25 2014, 07:48 AM
Post #28





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 23 2014, 01:00 AM) *
You know what TM?
I was like you. I said to myself, no way on earth could that plane penetrate the tower like that!
For a time I was even a no-planer.

But then I started to do some heavy duty research. When I say heavy, I mean it.
No one helped me out. I dug and dug and dug.

And when I found several pieces of evidence that showed irrefutable proof that a plane struck WTC2, I had no choice left but to figure out how the plane could have penetrated the tower.

This required more research, but it wasn't difficult to figure it out in the end.

What looked initially like a complete impossibility, turned out to be very possible.


Hi NP1Mike,

I got no problem seeing it from your point of view, or OSS's and others, but i have to be true to
myself first of all. Personally, i truly don't really 'see' what you guys are seeing.
Sorry about that.

'I' found f.ex. a piece of fuselage with 'windows' on top of one of the buildings. It was obviously
planted there.

'I' found a tire embedded in a perimeter wall section outside St.Nicolas church. It was obviously
planted there.

The indeterminable piece (incomprehensibly called the 'engine' by many) coming out of the tower
with great speed, following the 'nose-out' configuration, could never have been caused by the
subsequent explosion that appears. The velocity of the piece is far too great for that. And with that
speed, if genuine, it should actually and in fact have come out well before the 'nose-out'.

This is just a small sample, but enough i hope for you to get an idea of the way i think!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 25 2014, 07:50 AM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 24 2014, 08:03 AM) *
That photo had to have been snapped by a photographer on the roof of WTC 4

No way. nonono.gif


The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof using fine WTC model. From the comparison is immediately clear that the photographer must have been considerably more east/north from the WTC towers than at the WTC4 roof.

Again - see WTC model for download here.

The perspective angle difference 10 is pretty enough to mean well over hundred of meters POV position difference both in eastward and northward directions (from the WTC4 NE corner POV) and falsification of another your guessjob conjecture this time that the picture was taken from the WTC4 roof - which only shows us what's the degree of your credibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 25 2014, 07:55 AM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 23 2014, 01:39 AM) *
I see it not as a plane slicing through steel, but rather a massive object pushing some prefab sections of rather thin (believe it was 1/4" at this height) steel out of its way.


Hi FUB,

You're forgetting the spandrels and the concrete floors, which would have
caused a huge resistance to the wings and stabilizer.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 11:04 AM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 06:50 AM) *
No way. nonono.gif


The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof using fine WTC model. From the comparison is immediately clear that the photographer must have been considerably more east/north from the WTC towers than at the WTC4 roof.

Again - see WTC model for download here.

The perspective angle difference 10 is pretty enough to mean well over hundred of meters POV position difference both in eastward and northward directions (from the WTC4 NE corner POV) and falsification of another your guessjob conjecture this time that the picture was taken from the WTC4 roof - which only shows us what's the degree of your credibility.


First of all, it is difficult to tell if the red line, which goes across the east face (Church St. side) of the South tower in the OP photo in question and which is part of the angle [alleged] to be 112 degrees, actually runs parallel to a tower floor.

Secondly, it is even more difficult, even impossible, by the way the corresponding line on the GE simulation was drawn over what is likewise a high floor but which is not enlarged like the OP photo in question, to tell if *that* line making up the 92 degree angle actually runs parallel to a tower floor.

I don't know if your red lines are drawn properly. I don't have a protractor to check the accuracy of the measurements of your angles, and I am not inclined to buy one. You say the GE model is a fine one, but how am I supposed to know how accurate it is? Is it as accurate as the UL report that confirmed that the towers were brought down by fire, even though by their own experiment on a two story recreation of the towers those floors did not fail when subjected to even higher temperatures that were alleged at the towers on 9/11?

What I will say is that my eyeballing of your own presentation here has me even more convinced of my assertions as to the position of the photographer and far less convinced of your assertions.

Try again.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 25 2014, 12:26 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



TM

I honestly can't be arsed.

Reread your post to me, then your own. My comments still stand.

Here's your own "chilled out" post to me where you put me in the same ballpark as all of the shills I've been fighting for years, just for having questioned NPT.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804800

Read also in the same link where you say that there were "four planes" seen that day but go on to defend NPT!

And you accused me directly of having said this

"The time came for you to let all know that now NP's (yours truly) was to be considered nothing but either shills, disinfos, infiltrators, blathering idiots, sunstein stooges, saboteurs of the so-called 'truth movement', or what not!"

Again, bollocks. How can I accuse you of any of those when I say that you're straight up??

NPT as it's being discussed here is mental masturbation. Just look at the "debate" on it these past few days.

NP1Mike provided an extensive list of witnesses to an aircraft. Response? Some tired cryptic yarn that basically says that they were all stooges.

I provide multiple images and videos. Response? Hollywood special effects. Even though most images and videos have named authors.

I question the validity of the prospect that the MSM had to be in on it, along with the "fake" witnesses and "fake" authors/images/videos. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that TV communications were affected to explain the "fade to black" argument (and the real question should be wtf caused that). Response? Sweet FA.

I provide an alternative explanation for the "nose out", which involves a penetrative warhead that matches what can be seen. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide an alternative as to how the building could have been penetrated, an example of a modified aircraft (747) that looked exactly the same on the exterior but could carry double the weight and fly at the same speed. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide a visual example of how an object travelling at 700fps, travelling its own distance in a sixth of a second can appear to "disappear". Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that debris of some sort can be seen falling from the impact side of the south tower and that debris was caught both in audio and video in real time just after the impact. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that the south tower swayed at the time of impact. Response? The video is fake or "special explosives" were used to make ot appear that there was an impact!

That's the wonder of the NPT theory. Every argument can be made by simply using the word "fake". No need for research. Just play on words. That's what I mean by "mental masturbation".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 01:04 PM
Post #33





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 06:50 AM) *
No way. nonono.gif

The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof using fine WTC model. From the comparison is immediately clear that the photographer must have been considerably more east/north from the WTC towers than at the WTC4 roof.

Again - see WTC model for download here.

The perspective angle difference 10 is pretty enough to mean well over hundred of meters POV position difference both in eastward and northward directions (from the WTC4 NE corner POV) and falsification of another your guessjob conjecture this time that the picture was taken from the WTC4 roof - which only shows us what's the degree of your credibility.


Afterthought:

It's amazing that someone would emphatically attempt to wreck my credibility when his own analysis is very, very defective because it is very, very incomplete.

tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis, as presented in his reply # 29 above, if done properly and accurately, would only establish a left/right (south/north) relative displacement for the photographer, if such a displacement did, in fact, exist.

To establish a fore/aft (west/east) displacement to Broadway, then tumetuestumefaisdubien would have had to draw VERTICAL lines down the representations of the South Tower and continue those lines along the ground at street level. This was not done. The photographer was NOT established as being on Broadway by tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis.

tumetuestumefaisdubien, in attempting to damage my credibility, has destroyed his own credibility.

Too bad.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 01:32 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



Another afterthought:

The are three axes in three dimensionality.

tumetuestumefaisdubien's approach to an analysis would have done more to indicate the vertical elevation of the photographer than anything else.

However, the lines would have had to be drawn at the VERY SAME FLOORS of the two tower depictions, and angles would have to be measured accurately there, for anything valid to come out of that analysis.

I have worked quite a few years in the vicinity of the WTC. I've looked up to the towers from near and afar.

The photo in question was taken ON CHURCH ST.

P.M.

This post has been edited by paulmichael: Feb 25 2014, 01:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FirstUsedBooks
post Feb 25 2014, 02:05 PM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 30-July 11
Member No.: 6,103



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 25 2014, 03:55 AM) *
Hi FUB,

You're forgetting the spandrels and the concrete floors, which would have
caused a huge resistance to the wings and stabilizer.

Cheers

No, I'm not. Neither the spandrels nor the floors presented much in the way of lateral resistance. The floors were 4" of lighweight aggregate concrete, very friable, supported on thin steel trusses. Of course as the plane advanced into the building the floors and columnar box steel panels and the spandrels and copper piping and desks and filing cabinets and everything else would have had a profoud effect on the plane, shredding the aluminum, but we're talking about point of entry, a mass of about 115 tons exerting a kinetic energy of about 4.6 billion ft lbs force (6.25M Kilojoules).

Imo the biggest fail for the NPT has already been mentioned in this thread (iirc), which is the sway of the buildings reported by numerous survivors. Silhouette-carving cutter charges, even if of a more explosive compound than thermate, are not going to account for that sway, and nor will an explosive charge at a subground level on the interior columns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 25 2014, 02:09 PM
Post #36





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Thanks for your response TM. Yes, I am beginning to get an idea of the way you think.

Of course one has to be true to oneself first!
It goes without saying.

To be taken seriously however, one must do more than simply say "It was obviously planted there."
(fuselage/tire).
Anyone can make a blanket dismissal like that.

The onus is on _you, to _prove it was planted!

re: the speed of the nose-out piece.
Can you please give me the speed of the piece?

You also say something that sounds very strange to me.
You are saying that the "subsequent explosion" could never cause the piece to emerge at the speed it exhibits.

Who ever said that the explosion caused the piece to emerge at its speed?

It is the first time I have ever heard of this.

Have you ever considered that you have this completely backwards?

Not an explosion causing the piece to emerge, but rather a piece breaking through and causing an explosion?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 02:33 PM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 06:50 AM) *
The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof



Readers;

You know, anyone can type up any fiction that he can conjure up in his imagination at the swift rate of 60 to 100 words per minute and post it in a flash in a forum like this.

Then the backbreaking, time-consuming onus will be on you to refute it, and, of course, if your refutation has flaws in it, then people will jump down YOUR throat..

The same holds true of sophistic analyses.

tumetuestumefaisdubien uses the words "underlying image" in his analysis in his reply # 29.

The angular perspectives of the two depictions of the South Tower are, admittedly, significantly off

tumetuestumefaisdubien states that the GE simulation was done from the perspective of a point at the NE corner of the roof of WTC4.

This is an absolutely wrong approach to things.

It would have been much better to NOT start with a point of origin on the roof of WTC 4.

The proper way to do things would have been to manipulate the three dimensional image of the WTC until it could be precisely overlayed on the original post's photo in question.

THEN YOU WOULD ASK OF THE GE PROGRAM WHAT IT DETERMINED TO BE THE POINT OF PERSPECTIVE FOR THAT RESULT. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The whole approach by doing up angles is grossly inferior and downright wrong as done above!

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 25 2014, 05:13 PM
Post #38





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 06:04 AM) *
It's amazing that someone would emphatically attempt to wreck my credibility when his own analysis is very, very defective because it is very, very incomplete.

No it isn't. The angle comparison is sufficient for establishing relative (to the WTC4 NE corner POV) distance of the photographer from the tower.

QUOTE
tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis, as presented in his reply # 29 above, if done properly and accurately, would only establish a left/right (south/north) relative displacement for the photographer, if such a displacement did, in fact, exist.

Again, the relative difference of the two perspective angles is enough to establish that the photographer was considerably more NE from the tower corner (yes that was the point from where I determined using the perspective angle difference that the photographer must have been over 100m further from the tower in both eastern and northern direction than is the NE corner of the WTC4) than if he would be anywhere at the WTC4 roof.

QUOTE
To establish a fore/aft (west/east) displacement to Broadway, then tumetuestumefaisdubien would have had to draw VERTICAL lines down the representations of the South Tower and continue those lines along the ground at street level.

No, I don't need to do anything like that. The relative perspective angle comparison at the rectangular building is absolutely enough.

QUOTE
This was not done. The photographer was NOT established as being on Broadway by tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis.

Only what I was establishing using the picture was that the photographer definitely wasn't at the WTC4 roof as you've claimed. That he must therefore have been somewhere around Broadway/Fulton street crossing is just implicite here.

QUOTE
tumetuestumefaisdubien, in attempting to damage my credibility, has destroyed his own credibility.

If you believe something, it doesn't mean it is true. Damage your credibility you can only yourself if you will continue with implausible claims. -If you don't have protractor (I have it and used it) and you are "not inclined to buy one" doesn't it look quite funny to try dabble into perspective proofs?
And just a note to your I hope last selfridiculing reply to my post: Method of science is about falsification not confirmation - so if you claim the photographer was at the WTC4 roof I naturally have looked how it would look from there, compared view from NEmost possible point on the WTC4 roof to the photograph you question here and I've immediately found the perspective angles resulting from the WTC4 roof POV absolutely clearly imply that the photographer must have been in any case considerably more NE than anywhere at the WTC4 roof. You can rabbit on over several other posts, but it will change nothing on this very simple fact.
You can of course try falsify it - which means download the model (which clearly is sufficiently exact for the purpose), draw the lines parallel to the floors using quite very sufficient texture hints in the pictures, use the protractor, find the angles... but I really doubt you would get to significantly different results than I did.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Feb 25 2014, 05:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 25 2014, 06:18 PM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 25 2014, 07:05 AM) *
No, I'm not. Neither the spandrels nor the floors presented much in the way of lateral resistance. The floors were 4" of lighweight aggregate concrete, very friable, supported on thin steel trusses. Of course as the plane advanced into the building the floors and columnar box steel panels and the spandrels and copper piping and desks and filing cabinets and everything else would have had a profoud effect on the plane, shredding the aluminum, but we're talking about point of entry, a mass of about 115 tons exerting a kinetic energy of about 4.6 billion ft lbs force (6.25M Kilojoules).

I confirm that came to very similar number.
In nutshell it was 100+ ton of airplane and its contents exerting the force on <40 ton of the outer 0.25" steel wall panels (connected to the rest of the structure by mere 84 bolts) at and around the aircraft impact crossection of <40 m2.
That the outer wall and the concrete floors behind in less than 1/4 second completely shreded the aluminium plane and its contents as a giant sieve? Yes, but it cannot rested undammaged when we consider that the momentum of the plane was more than twice high than the inertia of the impacted wall panels just bolted to the rest of the structure. The floors behind moreover were exerting statical inward force on the outer wall, hanging on it inside, so in fact facilitating the outer wall panel dislocation and the aircraft penetration into the building.
In the past I was also considering the NPT theories, but only until the point I overcame my laziness, made my own calculations and came to results which leave me with little doubt that the B767s would be able to penetrate the WTC outer walls (40% area of which anyway were just windows) .
Only what bothers me until now is the speed of the alleged "UA175" over 500kts - confirmed by the 3D simulation based on the videos (which I years ago asked Achimspok to create for P4T and which btw shows all the examined videos show same airpath - so if fakes they would need to come from one single source) and multiple radar records. Such speed looks to me quite impossible for a civilian B767 to be achieved near sea level, because it would imply parasite drag equivalent to drag at over 1 Mach speed at cruising altitude. That's why I don't wonder some people even among aviation professionals have hard time to believe a B767 was even there. But surely it wouldn't be for the reason that the plane somehow wouldn't be able to get throught the WTC outer wall. I don't doubt it would be - without much problem at such speeds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 06:34 PM
Post #40





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 04:13 PM) *
No it isn't. The angle comparison is sufficient for establishing relative (to the WTC4 NE corner POV) distance of the photographer from the tower.


Again, the relative difference of the two perspective angles is enough to establish that the photographer was considerably more NE from the tower corner (yes that was the point from where I determined using the perspective angle difference that the photographer must have been over 100m further from the tower in both eastern and northern direction than is the NE corner of the WTC4) than if he would be anywhere at the WTC4 roof.


No, I don't need to do anything like that. The relative perspective angle comparison at the rectangular building is absolutely enough.


Only what I was establishing using the picture was that the photographer definitely wasn't at the WTC4 roof as you've claimed. That he must therefore have been somewhere around Broadway/Fulton street crossing is just implicite here.


If you believe something, it doesn't mean it is true. Damage your credibility you can only yourself if you will continue with implausible claims. -If you don't have protractor (I have it and used it) and you are "not inclined to buy one" doesn't it look quite funny to try dabble into perspective proofs?
And just a note to your I hope last selfridiculing reply to my post: Method of science is about falsification not confirmation - so if you claim the photographer was at the WTC4 roof I naturally have looked how it would look from there, compared view from NEmost possible point on the WTC4 roof to the photograph you question here and I've immediately found the perspective angles resulting from the WTC4 roof POV absolutely clearly imply that the photographer must have been in any case considerably more NE than anywhere at the WTC4 roof. You can rabbit on over several other posts, but it will change nothing on this very simple fact.
You can of course try falsify it - which means download the model (which clearly is sufficiently exact for the purpose), draw the lines parallel to the floors using quite very sufficient texture hints in the pictures, use the protractor, find the angles... but I really doubt you would get to significantly different results than I did.


Please read all of my follow-up replies.

To repeat: the whole approach by doing up angles is grossly inferior and downright wrong as done above!

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th October 2019 - 11:44 PM