Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

As I appear to be dealing with the intellect of a 9 year old, I'll lower to that level myself... You would know all about denial and lack of evidence.

Let me put it in another way; If you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary, then you have no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wrote one sentence, and still managed to break rule number one... I'm genuinely impressed by your stubborn will to not read anything properly.

but I'll play along... So in your opinion of those charts... tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, "EVIDENCE" is the name-of-the-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the charts, there is nothing on those charts that even remotely suggest what 911 Truther have claimed. In other words, if the evidence is not there, then, the evidence is not there. It seems that 911 Truther websites have this thing about not doing their homework properly.

First of all, nice edit. But still irrelevant.

The best, most accurate current research has discrepancies that do not tally with the official story.

You wrote one sentence, and still managed to break rule number one... I'm genuinely impressed by your stubborn will to not read anything properly.

but I'll play along... So in your opinion of those charts... tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, nice edit. But still irrelevant.

Where is your evidence? No evidence, no case. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.

Popular mechanics refuted that data.

Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

As of right now, the evidence has a question the official story doesn't answer. The. Best. Current. Evidence.

So with that in mind...

skyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

"Looking at the charts, there is nothing there to suggest explosions."

So in your opinion of those charts... tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.

Popular mechanics refuted that data.

It all came down to timing. There was a 2-3 second lapse in accuracy, which at no time recorded explosions. Even a re-examination of the seismic data found no evidence of explosions, which was also evident in the videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all came down to timing. There was a 2-3 second lapse in accuracy, which at no time recorded explosions. Even a re-examination of the seismic data found no evidence of explosions, which was also evident in the videos.

The.

Current.

Best.

Most Accurate.

Research.

Again, you have blindly, single and closed mindedly parroted non-sequiturs about explosions.

I.

AM.

NOT.

DISCUSSING.

EXPLOSIONS.

Right.

So again, until you learn to read and discuss like an adult.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.

Popular mechanics refuted that data.

Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

As of right now, the evidence has a question the official story doesn't answer. The. Best. Current. Evidence.

So with that in mind...

How do you explain the anomalies presented by the best qualified expert thus far to interpret the data?

ANOMALIES, not EXPLOSIONS. ANOMALIES, not BOMBS. ANOMALIES, not EXPLOSIVES. ANOMOLIES, not NUCLEAR WEAPONS. ANOMALIES, not NINJA GEESE.

Do not mention explosions.

AND again. As you proffered your 'interpretation' of seismic data a few questions back, I'll ask again.

"So in your opinion of those charts... tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The.

Current.

Best.

Most Accurate.

Research.

Again, you have blindly, single and closed mindedly parroted non-sequiturs about explosions.

You are missing the point. I am referring only to those sounds that 911 Truthers have said were caused by explosives and I have posted references of explosion-like sounds that had nothing to do with explosives.

ANOMALIES, not EXPLOSIONS. ANOMALIES, not BOMBS. ANOMALIES, not EXPLOSIVES. ANOMOLIES, not NUCLEAR WEAPONS. ANOMALIES, not NINJA GEESE.

The anomalies other than the strikes by the aircraft and the collapse of the WTC buildings could have been the result of a number of things.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.

Popular mechanics refuted that data.

Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

<snip>

So in your opinion of those charts... tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

I may have missed it Spinebreaker, but did you provide your 'seismography qualifications and experience' that enables you to determine that Popular Mechanics was refuted? Or does that requirement only go one way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point. I am referring only to those sounds that 911 Truthers have said were caused by explosives and I have posted references of explosion-like sounds that had nothing to do with explosives.

So stop arguing and debating with people discussing something different. It's ridiculous.

The anomalies other than the strikes by the aircraft and the collapse of the WTC buildings could have been the result of a number of things.

Hooray! Right, so perhaps we should have a think and do some research INTO those anomalies, because the official explanation has no reason for them, so one needs to be found for a full and fair analysis.

I may have missed it Spinebreaker, but did you provide your 'seismography qualifications and experience' that enables you to determine that Popular Mechanics was refuted? Or does that requirement only go one way?

I am a bar manager, event organiser and musician. You need a 2 piece blues band gimme a call, you need to know how late you can sell alcohol, again I'm your guy. Skyeagle's area is planes. I'm sure, if you needed to know average speed, or runway length or landing procedures, He'd be your guy.

Neither of us is capable of analysing Seismographic data at this level of expertise. So we rely on experts. I personally believe that Andre Roussou's 2012 research urinates on popular mechanics research from a great, GREAT height. (English phrase, means "awful lot better than").

However, because know very little about geophysics and seismic disturbances, I don't post things like this:

The disturbance recorded by the seismic monitors were the recordings during the collapse of the WTC buildings and were not recordings of explosions.

or this:

I have posted the data which proved my point already. There was no question in that data that no explosions was detected by seismic monitors.

Or this :

Not wrong at all, but right on the money. At no time did the seismic monitors detect bomb explosions. As proof, please point out in the charts, where explosions were recorded! In other words, point out the explosion indicators for all to see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray! Right, so perhaps we should have a think and do some research INTO those anomalies, because the official explanation has no reason for them, so one needs to be found for a full and fair analysis.

Actually, all it takes is comparing the timing from a number of data sources that ties the anomalies to the two aircraft strikes and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

I am a bar manager, event organiser and musician. You need a 2 piece blues band gimme a call, you need to know how late you can sell alcohol, again I'm your guy. Skyeagle's area is planes. I'm sure, if you needed to know average speed, or runway length or landing procedures, He'd be your guy.

Neither of us is capable of analysing Seismographic data at this level of expertise.

Good, now point out for us, the position on the charts that depicts the collapse of the WTC buildings and aircraft strikes. Afterward, confirm to us all that the data does not depict explosions. Can you do that for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.

Popular mechanics refuted that data.

Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

Still waiting on the link to the paper of that researcher who refuted Popular Mechanics.

Roussou, I belive it was?

Is it that obscure or hard to find? Or did your finally realize that Journal for 911 Truth is NOT a reputable scientific publisher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spinebreaker

Have not read Roussou's work, but the work of Ross & Furlong contradict the official story, and corroborates the story of Rodriguez. The seismic evidence contradicts the official story.

Using Spinebreakers own analysis of what is classified as meaningful, what are Ross and Furlongs's qualification on analyzing Seismic data?

I'll give you a while to think about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, all it takes is comparing the timing from a number of data sources that ties the anomalies to the two aircraft strikes and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

No. No it doesn't. How many buttons do you push to land a plane? Is it just one massive button with "land" written on it? Again. If you are going to analyse complex data of this sort, go away and get a PHD in geophysics.

Good, now point out for us, the position on the charts that depicts the collapse of the WTC buildings and aircraft strikes. Afterward, confirm to us all that the data does not depict explosions. Can you do that for us?

No. I don't have a PHD in Geophysics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting on the link to the paper of that researcher who refuted Popular Mechanics.

Roussou, I belive it was?

Is it that obscure or hard to find? Or did your finally realize that Journal for 911 Truth is NOT a reputable scientific publisher?

For the record. Why does 'where' a scientific journal is published matter? Of COURSE that publisher will be interested in this material, does that make his PHD worth less somehow? Does it make his years as doctor of Geology and Geophysics worthless? What about the 50 papers he's had previously published on a subject at which he is an expert? To be honest I think any group that uses Popular Mechanics to back anything has forfeited any right to criticise any publisher ever.

http://www.thedailycrux.com/Post/41897/controversial-post-new-university-study-turns-up-some-shocking-evidence-about-9-11

Follow the link if you like, have a read, ignore whatever you don't like.

Apparently though, you can dedicate 6-7 years of your life educating yourself in a subject. another 6-7 or so having scientific papers published and generally being considered an expert in your field, but god help you if your work is published in a form the establishment don't agree with.

Might as well just do bog-basic research for 15 minutes and get a job with Popular Mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No. No it doesn't. How many buttons do you push to land a plane? Is it just one massive button with "land" written on it? Again. If you are going to analyse complex data of this sort, go away and get a PHD in geophysics.

You didn't understand a word I meant when I said, "timing." What do buttons have to do with landing an airplane and the data timing I am speaking of? For the record and for all to see, are you implying that "data timing" is not important when comparing the impact data on the seismic charts? Remember, your response is for the record that can be used against you at a later time.

No. I don't have a PHD in Geophysics.

Then, confirm for us all, the importance of data timing for which I am referring, and remember, your response will be added to the record book.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record. Why does 'where' a scientific journal is published matter?

Of course it matter where it was published. Any other non-reputable "journal" does not hold the same standards in peer review by a section of the expert's peers who can confirm or deny the validity of the "expert's" claims.

OF COURSE that publisher will be interested in this material, does that make his PHD worth less somehow?

OF COURSE Journal for 9/11 Studies is interested in his research. They are a 9/11 truther site. Considering they post NONE of the peer reviewed and published papers of "experts" that confirm the validity of the NIST reports and the Official Story, it does make sense they they would show interest in Rousseau's paper.

Does it make his years as doctor of Geology and Geophysics worthless? What about the 50 papers he's had previously published on a subject at which he is an expert? To be honest I think any group that uses Popular Mechanics to back anything has forfeited any right to criticise any publisher ever.

At what point did I say his other research is invalid? We are talking about his 9/11 research. Stick to the subject at hand.

That is not the link to his paper. Care to provide me what I asked for days ago?

Although, you can dedicate 6-7 years of your life educating yourself in a subject. another 6-7 or so having scientific papers published and generally being considered an expert in your field, but god help you if your work is published in a form the establishment don't agree with.

Might as well just do bog-basic research for 15 minutes and get a job with Popular Mechanics.

You fail to realize the importance of peer review and publishing by a reputable scientific journal. I am the least bit surprised, since you are struggling to provide me with his paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wheels on this Buss Keep going round& Round ! THere will be no proof from the Cheap seats on this subject ! We all can prove that ! Keep Reading there replies !

THe Towers were brought down by Two Aircraft Hitting them and the resultant Fires and structural colapses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Spinebreakers own analysis of what is classified as meaningful, what are Ross and Furlongs's qualification on analyzing Seismic data?

I'll give you a while to think about that.

I haven't been able to find much about these two guys. Ross appears to be a very experienced mechanical engineer, so his research holds some weight. Furlong appears, recently, to have distanced himself from this particular paper. Good question Raptor. It would be superb if we had a member of the forum with some decent geo-physics credentials so we could have our own independent opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't understand a word I meant when I said, "timing." What do buttons have to do with landing an airplane and the data timing I am speaking of? For the record and for all to see, are you implying that "data timing" is not important when comparing the impact data on the seismic charts?

For the record, I do not believe myself, or yourself are qualified to interpret complex seismic data like this at all. Anything I, or you say about the data is worthless and not worth writing, or reading. If ONLY we had access to the work of people more qualified than we are in the subjects. Experts perhaps.

Then, confirm for us all, the importance of data timing for which I am referring, and remember, your response will be added to the record book.

Man you have a nerve. 4 times now since I joined this board a few weeks ago, I've seen you go back, and edit your responses after the fact, to alter your statements. Your record book magically changes to remove errors and fallacies people point out. No wonder you're such a backer of the official line. You're as false and corrupt as any government out there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it matter where it was published. Any other non-reputable "journal" does not hold the same standards in peer review by a section of the expert's peers who can confirm or deny the validity of the "expert's" claims.

And your knowledge of the scientific publishing world comes from? Just curious.

OF COURSE Journal for 9/11 Studies is interested in his research. They are a 9/11 truther site. Considering they post NONE of the peer reviewed and published papers of "experts" that confirm the validity of the NIST reports and the Official Story, it does make sense they they would show interest in Rousseau's paper.

Yes, obviously. That works the other way round too.

At what point did I say his other research is invalid? We are talking about his 9/11 research. Stick to the subject at hand.

This is the subject at hand. Surely his research has a static level of 'quality' this is his field after all.

That is not the link to his paper. Care to provide me what I asked for days ago?

There's a link to the paper in that link, I thought you might wanna read a few of Roussou's credentials.

You're not gonna like the website; TBH, neither do I, but I think his research is well done. http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20120120134709791.

He comes to the 'explosive demolition' conclusion, which I, personally, don't believe, but the basic anomalous data needs thorough investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I do not believe myself, or yourself are qualified to interpret complex seismic data like this at all.

There is a bit more to the story in regards to myself and what is depicted in that data, which is why I added "timing data" to the mix in the charts.

Man you have a nerve. 4 times now since I joined this board a few weeks ago, I've seen you go back, and edit your responses after the fact, to alter your statements.

Nothing new, but the facts and evidence remained the same and sometimes I like to add to my post. Question is: where's your evidence that refutes the evidence that I have presented?

You see, it is like this, I tend to drive home the fact that 911Truthers don't bother to do their homework properly and have failed to produce such evidence and instead, they run to those conspiracry websites which are notorious for their brand of disinformation and misinformation and their lack of awareness when it comes to accepting false and misleading information and hoaxed videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Spinebreakers own analysis of what is classified as meaningful, what are Ross and Furlongs's qualification on analyzing Seismic data?

I'll give you a while to think about that.

I've thought about it Raptor, and you and I have discussed it here, as I'm sure you remember.

Ross & Furlong's qualifications are far superior to yours and mine, far superior to Puppet Mechanics, and far superior to anybody that sat on the Zelikow Commission. Further, I suspect their honesty and integrity are far superior anybody on that Commission, in the NIST organization, or any individual that served in the Bush Administration.

How hard can it be to analyze recorded seismic data and time intervals?

Spinebreaker is learning the hard way how much deception is practiced by Sky, as he observes posting practices that I was never even aware of. I'm not surprised that his observations are true, but I am too much of a computer klutz to have even been aware of those practices. But I have known for a few years now that Sky will post a deceptive and untrue video at the drop of a hat.

Having defended the OCT for a few years myself, I know the feeling of trying to put the square peg into the round hole. It is that frustration that causes OCT advocates to post untrue videos and advocate all manner of inaccurate and misleading statements.

Your trying to discredit the work of people on this seismic evidence is an example of that frustration. Deny the evidence first, and ridicule those presenting it, are the stock-in-trade for those advocating the OCT. Avoid the big picture at all costs, deny the evidence and ridicule those presenting it. Sad story.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new, but the facts and evidence remained the same and sometimes I like to add to my post. Question is: where's your evidence that refutes the evidence that I have presented?

Our opinions on the data is worthless, we are not qualified. As for "Sometimes I like to add to my post". SURELY you mean, "Sometimes I like to go back and change things I've written to make me sound like I knew what I was talking about all along, because I'm dishonest"

You see, it is like this, I tend to drive home the fact that 911Truthers don't bother to do their homework properly and have failed to produce such evidence and instead, they run to those conspiracry websites which are notorious for their brand of disinformation and misinformation and their lack of awareness when it comes to accepting false and misleading information and hoaxed videos.

You have done nothing of the sort. What you do is bury your head in the sand and ONLY tolerate evidence that fits your decisions and opinions. You claim Conspiracy Website are notorious for disinformation, and on that point I would partly agree. But you keep running to Popular Mechanics, which is JUST as notoriously full of bad research, gimmick science and amateur, lowest common denominator drivel.

You are guilty of EVRYTHING you accuse 'truthers' of. Your arguments are counter-intuitive, and frequently nonsensical, you're opinion of evidence is biased and blinkered. There's a saying, "You always become the thing you hate." Every one of your posts makes you sound more like Alex Jones.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.