Uhuh. Well thanks, I have no such misguided anything. I present the slam dunk evidence and the viewers see you doing everything you can to discredit it, with your bizarre evolving crappy excuses. We went from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" then to some batshit about "materially altered video" - ending with the profoundly daft "cgi overlay". Game over, the penthouse drops through the building. Proven.
all your claims are based on altered video clips. to state it accurately the penthouse disappears, nothing can be seen dropping through the building. another case of you want everyone to imagine what you imagine instead of whats actually there.
PROVE IT! We went from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" then to some batshit about "materially altered video" - ending with the profoundly daft "cgi overlay". Each claim offering jack to back it up! And the building clearly shows a wave descending in perfect sync. Game over, we're done. Well the penthouse and section directly under it aren't "nothing". Why so worried about it? You seem to be desperate to cover this up. Surely the evidence is more important than the conclusion. No imagination is necessary, we can see what's there and it buries the ridiculous "demolition" schtick. Viewers keeping track with this thread will understand the nature of how science works. It is a matter of taking the evidence and formulating the opinion accordingly. It is not fixating on batshit and doing everything possible to maintain such fixation. First view: Enhanced: Newer GIF:
Oh so it shows a wave, not the penthouse. Im sure you realize that a penthouse is not a wave. There is your proof! penthouse != wave wave = wave penthouse = penthouse
Hilarious. All this failed effort to disprove the penthouse clearly collapsing through the building. I'm trying to recall where this was claimed before, oh wait! Now, as far as I can tell, the only thing wrong with this computer anlysis, was the deformation of the upper section. But otherwise not far off what we are seeing. Game over, no "scam exposed" in any "glory". NIST were one of two studies that extensively mapped the fires within the building, neither of them support this ludicrous "demolition" schtick. Covered here and ignored half a dozen times: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-all-its-glory.458597/page-30#post-1074262279 So the "ebil-gubment" "altered" this clip for some reason, yet here you are suggesting it doesn't mean anything, whilst spending ages trying to cover it up. Hmmm, seems like it most certainly DOES mean something!
show your evidence that video clips have been altered …’better yet , show us evidence that cgi was used in any of the crashes …
I just noticed BETA FAILED AGAIN to cite the original clip again from NBC. Instead he puts up NIST's black-eye-embarrassment created and intended to demonstrate the actual demolition (models ALWAYS are intended to precisely mimic what is seen in the real world) and their black eye embarrassment does not remotely look/act like the actual event (defeating the whole purpose of creating a model in the first place)! The only reason I can think of, well 2 reasons, first HE FAILED to provide an original NBC clip and this is a nice move the goal posts distraction, Second, maybe because he has no clue what so ever what a massive failure and embarrassment that is to NIST and the engineering community.
Noise again. it's game over folks, the penthouse clearly collapsed through the building, just like the NIST fire modeling analysis.
Anyone would think he's trying to bury this slam dunk evidence. P.s. if it isn't slam dunk, why do you figure he's trying to say they faked the reported video with "cgi-batshittery"?
I dont have to prove it didnt, its your claim, THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO PROVE: 1) That is in fact a penthouse. FAILED 2) That it in fact fell through all those floors. FAILED 3) That your clip is NOT cgi FAILED 4) That the model looks identical to real event FAILED None of us can see anything that looks like a penthouse falling inside the building. So that is supposed to be prove? The NIST embarrassment with cgi'd video clips and call game over? I dont know if I should laugh till I puke or cry! Beta in science...if the model does not look the same its not. You see the NIST version that you posted wrinkled up like a piece of paper on the way down, so badly they stopped it before it fell over sideways. The real even had very little deformation. Bob gave you plenty of material in the OP proving thats all nonsense Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 The Expanding Lie - Tangled Webs NIST and WTC7 - NIST and WTC7 maladmiNISTration - WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained - A technical article called MaladmiNISTration - http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/822-maladministration.html A letter from Dr. William F. Pepper which includes a detailed technical discussion - http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf Quick way to lose all credibility is when such things are in our faces obvious as they are in that post. Ive seen some ludicrous claims out here but I have to admit I never imagined that Id ever see a post of the NIST model of all things that has been peer reviewed proven fraud. wow!
Noise and spam, thanks for providing it, but it's all irrelevant. The actual NBC footage shows the penthouse collapsing through the building, it's proven. The amount of time you are spending on this shows how serious you know this is. I'm sure somewhere along the line you forgot that it was actually YOUR claim, what with you providing all the other daft excuses for it.(We went from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" then to some batshit about "materially altered video" - ending with the profoundly daft "cgi overlay".) YOU claim the video is "CGI" - "cgi overlay, very poorly done I might add." PROVE IT!
Validate the authenticity, prove its the original from NBC. Otherwise its garbage that some debunker put out here as a disinformation joke. I cant believe this has degenerated into such nonsense. YOU HAVE TO PROVE: 1) That is in fact a penthouse. FAILED 2) That it in fact fell through all those floors. FAILED 3) That your clip is NOT cgi FAILED 4) That the model looks identical to real event FAILED None of us can see anything that looks like a penthouse falling inside the building. You cant cite it; Clearly the clip you posted is NOT authentic Clearly the only demonstration you have that its the penthouse is NISTS long debunked peer reviewed as fraud model. I dont know why you continue you have long lost the initiative.
[QUOTE="Kokomojojo, post: 1074263921, member: 28583"]Validate the authenticity, prove its the original from NBC.Otherwise its garbage that some debunker put out here as a disinformation joke.I cant believe this has degenerated into such nonsense.YOU HAVE TO PROVE:1) That is in fact a penthouse. FAILED2) That it in fact fell through all those floors. FAILED3) That your clip is NOT cgi FAILED4) That the model looks identical to real event FAILEDNone of us can see anything that looks like a penthouse falling inside the building.You cant cite it;Clearly the clip you posted is NOT authentic Clearly the only demonstration you have that its the penthouse is NISTS long debunked peer reviewed as fraud model.I dont know why you continue you have long lost the initiative.[/QUOTE] Deja-vu noise. Please stop using "us" and "we". You're on your own and your desperation to cover up the slam dunk evidence is obvious. Recap:
outline the penthouse on the way down in a couple stills, WE really want to believe you but all WE see is fantasy, sorry. 3 will do nicely, then give me the frame numbers so WE can review your claim. Seems you are the only one that claims to see it!
You aren't a "we". Your desperation is really showing now. You've been given two copies of the NBC footage and an animated gif showing quite clearly the penthouse dropping through the building. Game over and you know it. And yet your posts show increasing desperation in trying to cover up this slam dunk evidence.
Im the spokesman for WE! My posts show increasing interest in your validating your claims are authentic and so far you have demonstrated a total failure to do so. so far virtually every claim you made has been proven wrong and posting your opinions is not evidence lol Part: 1) fail 2) fail 3) fail 4) fail 5) fail 6) fail After all those failures Id think youd cash it in.
Noise. Luckily we don't need any reply from this poster to be able to dismantle this "demolition" schtick. Still no reply to the following: Game over, the collapse wave drops right to the bottom from the penthouse. CORE PROPOGATION VISIBLE
Beta, there is no such thing as a collapse wave. Beta it was not a rop down demolition like wtc 1 and 2 Beta no core can be seen from the outside of the building in anything you posted.
Desperation is very high here. Accurate spelling The viewers can all see the same thing. They all know the ridiculous claim of CGI is actual evasion. The video is real, as is the penthouse collapsing through the building with a clearly visible wave. Newer GIF: Game over. There's no NIST scam going on, just awful, awful physics from "911-truthers"! Look at the list at the top of this page. It just doesn't make ANY sense. Why pre-rig a building for demolition when there is no guarantee conditions will occur to provide an alternative! Then again, what world of utter nonsense do hushabooms exist that can survive many hours of unabated fire? No wonder we're seeing so much obfuscation here.
Yes they can see you FAILED to address so much as one counterpoint. Hell you cant even validate your video! Keep up the good work!
Hilarious. kokomojojo: all your claims are based on altered video clips. Me: PROVE IT! We went from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" then to some batshit about "materially altered video" - ending with the profoundly daft "cgi overlay". Each claim offering jack to back it up!
Too bad. Yep, different pics different problems. Awe one minor issue with that, if you want to enter them into evidence then the burden of proof is all on you. Doesnt that suk? Oh its easy for me to prove my point. https://s12.gifyu.com/images/Suotc.gif See that it says gify not NBC. The authentic version, says NBC in the link. youtu.be/Bx2Kx2AkXEg Oh look that one says youtube! Not NBC. There I just proved your clips are not authentic, hope yer happy now.
Noise. kokomojojo: all your claims are based on altered video clips. Me: PROVE IT! We went from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" then to some batshit about "materially altered video" - ending with the profoundly daft "cgi overlay". Each claim offering jack to back it up!
Nothing to see here folks. Same crap as the last 100 posts. Maybe others out here have xray vision but I dont. Clearly beta sees things no one else can see, He cant even give us a link to the original video to prove up what he claims is factual evidence that he relies upon. If any human on this planet can see the core or the penthouse as it moves down the building by all means post it here so I can see it too! Another cockamainie debunker theory being posted as facts. Pathetic waste of everyones time. Especially mine.
