Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Bull Medicine · (This post was last modified: 07-25-2011 07:42 AM by Bull Medicine.)

(07-22-2011 05:10 PM)rsol Wrote: if you wish to just bitch and troll please consider youtube as your place of conversation. plenty of like minds there.

(07-07-2011 06:38 PM)rsol Wrote: someone else can take this on. i think ive said all that can be said on this non-topic.

(07-08-2011 01:38 PM)rsol Wrote: rinse and repeat rinse and repeat....

(07-14-2011 03:16 PM)rsol Wrote: is it me or are you just talking to yourself?

(07-15-2011 02:59 PM)rsol Wrote: i would point out that in a thread, its nice to have someone retort before continuing to babble away. Its almost like someone wants to keep this thread running when there is little or no interest in it.

As you can see, it is you that is guilty of bitching and trolling in this thread. Have a nice day.

(07-22-2011 04:59 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(07-16-2011 01:57 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: It's 2011, don't hide behind that pathetic "off topic!" nonsense
Look, bozo, communication involves mutuality and exchange. NOT deflection and confrontation.

You replied to my questions with questions. So tell me, why shouldn't I reply to YOUR questions with FURTHER questions? Do you see where this leads?

Quote:you state the official account of events is true in your opinion
I certainly don't.

My complaint is with slack-jawed fools bad-mouthing engineering reports they simply don't understand to maintain a mythical conspiracy theory.

Quote:So i ask you, in light of this, to answer the questions posed.
Hypocrite much?

Quote:It's a conspiracy site, last time I checked
So where is the (other than Arab) conspiracy here, if the physical facts check out for the impacting 767s possessing all the energy required to bring down all three structures?

Quote:and if you want to frequent it declaring the official account true and NIST a "masterwork" then answer the questions. It's ON topic.
I don't need YOUR permission, mate.
And it isn't "on-topic" at all. Which is:
"100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11".
Which would be OK except for there being ZERO PROOF within it.
Would you care to supply some?

The questions were posed for you, in order to help you gain a better perspective of the topic rather than your presently myopic view bound wholly to the confines of engineering. Some can not see the wood for the trees.

rsol · 07-24-2011, 01:29 PM

bull you really do show you are a junior member. or to put it another way a little dick.

@stonecutter, no doubt you have used a camera, me too. and i will tell you that most of the problems are not due to the footage but of the COMPRESSION of video afterwards.

can you tell me the sort of software used to make these composites? being a bit of a bug for camera tracking and compositing i consider i know a few things. can you name the software house that made the software? can you tell me the award winning production company that produced such perfect works?

You see its all very well claiming it and saying categorically that YOU are positive but I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing and believe me, I've looked. I DO think 911 was an inside job but not from faking planes. Can you tell me what supercomputer renderfarm was used? you would have needed it. what technology was used in the newsrooms? how many people in the newsrooms (local and national) knew what was happening?

why the fake planes? You have just stated that USA government is SO stupid as to risk discovery from masses of possible loose ends. are you telling me these guys are so dumb as to think that everyone in newyork would not have a camera and that no one would be in the flightpath. are you saying that for all the witnesses, ALL of them never saw a plane and were all just duped? do you consider the holographic projection hypothesis used in order for such insanity to prevail? im just asking how nuts do you think you can go? Faraday cages around cameras? "mini-nukes" or directed energy devices? my problem with this hypothesis is that its based on ever more outlandish and fantastic ideas in order to even stay afloat. cognitive dissonance.

Please note i never mentioned put options, i never mentioned dancing Israelis, i never mentioned shares in AA. you know why? because its irrelevant to the claim made in this thread. 100%? if you are 100% about anything you are not a scientist.

p4r4 · 07-24-2011, 02:02 PM

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: bull you really do show you are a junior member. or to put it another way a little dick.

@stonecutter, no doubt you have used a camera, me too. and i will tell you that most of the problems are not due to the footage but of the COMPRESSION of video afterwards.

can you tell me the sort of software used to make these composites? being a bit of a bug for camera tracking and compositing i consider i know a few things. can you name the software house that made the software? can you tell me the award winning production company that produced such perfect works?

You see its all very well claiming it and saying categorically that YOU are positive but I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing and believe me, I've looked. I DO think 911 was an inside job but not from faking planes. Can you tell me what supercomputer renderfarm was used? you would have needed it. what technology was used in the newsrooms? how many people in the newsrooms (local and national) knew what was happening?

why the fake planes? You have just stated that USA government is SO stupid as to risk discovery from masses of possible loose ends. are you telling me these guys are so dumb as to think that everyone in newyork would not have a camera and that no one would be in the flightpath. are you saying that for all the witnesses, ALL of them never saw a plane and were all just duped? do you consider the holographic projection hypothesis used in order for such insanity to prevail? im just asking how nuts do you think you can go? Faraday cages around cameras? "mini-nukes" or directed energy devices? my problem with this hypothesis is that its based on ever more outlandish and fantastic ideas in order to even stay afloat. cognitive dissonance.

Please note i never mentioned put options, i never mentioned dancing Israelis, i never mentioned shares in AA. you know why? because its irrelevant to the claim made in this thread. 100%? if you are 100% about anything you are not a scientist.

A lot of your questions are answered here: playlist

.

rsol · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2011 11:34 PM by rsol.)

oh yeah simon shack. now there's a guys who knows about perspective!!! perhaps you should ask him if the moon landings were faked Smile

p4r4 · 07-25-2011, 05:29 AM

(07-24-2011 11:30 PM)rsol Wrote:
oh yeah simon shack. now there's a guys who knows about perspective!!! perhaps you should ask him if the moon landings were faked

i asked him just that, he has proof of them not being fake.

Bull Medicine · (This post was last modified: 07-25-2011 07:37 AM by Bull Medicine.)

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: bull you really do show you are a junior member. or to put it another way a little dick.

reported for abuse. Your conduct is against the site rules as stated.

Hans Olo · 07-25-2011, 07:59 PM

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: bull you really do show you are a junior member. or to put it another way a little dick.

Slander that is brought on that elegantly should be allowed. And not be taken seriously.

~~stonecutter~~ · 07-26-2011, 05:30 AM

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: @stonecutter, no doubt you have used a camera, me too. and i will tell you that most of the problems are not due to the footage but of the COMPRESSION of video afterwards.

Compression can be a factor. However, it's a factor to the ENTIRE frame and all layers, not isolated to the planes, in this current subject. Tell me, how can compression ONLY affect the planes? Can you site any other example of a plane that resembles those from the media sources on 9/11?

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: can you tell me the sort of software used to make these composites? being a bit of a bug for camera tracking and compositing i consider i know a few things. can you name the software house that made the software? can you tell me the award winning production company that produced such perfect works?

No. And your questions are completely irrelevant. I don't know what was used to doctor the Zapruder film either. Does that mean Oswald shot Kennedy? Or the moon landing footage (which, apparently you believe to be authentic - You deny Stan-the-man Kubrick of his genius? Have you missed the "front screen projection" documentation?).
Why does it matter? You ask the wrong questions. I'm thinking deliberately so. Who cares what the name of the software is? Your research skills are highly rudimentary. Why don't you ask proper questions? Do you believe ANY of the 9/11 videos have been edited?

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: believe me, I've looked.

Then, tell me, oh wise one, how is the helicopter landing gear shot (gear in foreground and in focus, skyline in background also in focus) possible? Explain please...

(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: why the fake planes? You have just stated that USA government is SO stupid as to risk discovery from masses of possible loose ends. are you telling me these guys are so dumb as to think that everyone in newyork would not have a camera and that no one would be in the flightpath. are you saying that for all the witnesses, ALL of them never saw a plane and were all just duped? do you consider the holographic projection hypothesis used in order for such insanity to prevail? im just asking how nuts do you think you can go? Faraday cages around cameras? "mini-nukes" or directed energy devices? my problem with this hypothesis is that its based on ever more outlandish and fantastic ideas in order to even stay afloat. cognitive dissonance.

You're throwing out cognitive dissonance at ME? My viewpoint has changed, and clearly is not dissonance. Your viewpoint, and questions, clearly illustrate that it's YOU that suffers from it.
Hologram? I never mentioned that. As for witnesses, I've not heard any corroborating REAL witness testimony concerning seeing planes. I've heard many that saw explosions without planes, however. So your assertion bears no weight.

At which site do we have proof of actual planes? NONE. The onus is on you to prove they're real planes. The footage we have is most certainly composite. Show me a REAL amateur shot of the planes in NY. Oh, you can't? Why is that?

yeti · 07-26-2011, 05:42 AM

(07-26-2011 05:30 AM)stonecutter Wrote: As for witnesses, I've not heard any corroborating REAL witness testimony concerning seeing planes. ...
At which site do we have proof of actual planes? NONE. The onus is on you to prove they're real planes.

Your statements above clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no credibility. Do you enjoy being a shill for the establishment?

~~stonecutter~~ · 07-26-2011, 06:03 AM

(07-26-2011 05:42 AM)yeti Wrote: Your statements above clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no credibility. Do you enjoy being a shill for the establishment?

That was thoroughly boring.

Let's see...
me: 20 posts in 5 years.
YOU: 3300 posts in 5 years.

Yeah, I'm the gov't shill. I love to spend all my time on this board posting my opinions. I would love to be a sys admin on this site so that I could throw out inane dribble at my whim of my mood.

Get bent, dumbass. You've nothing to contribute, clearly. Typically knee-jerk reactionary dolt. Public education failure, no doubt.

To everyone else who isn't a forum nazi, and contributors to the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD:
Is it not suspect that the 45/46 videos all come from media sources or sources closely connected? Where are the ACTUAL amateur videos?

Hans Olo · 07-26-2011, 06:59 AM

He got banned for that? Dude...

Bull Medicine · (This post was last modified: 07-26-2011 04:04 PM by Bull Medicine.)

(07-25-2011 07:59 PM)Hans Olo Wrote:
(07-24-2011 01:29 PM)rsol Wrote: bull you really do show you are a junior member. or to put it another way a little dick.

Slander that is brought on that elegantly should be allowed. And not be taken seriously.

It's hardly elegant. It's obvious the guy has an ego overload. I don't take it so seriously. I am sticking to the rules here, what are they for otherwise?

On forums - imho - the old "i've been here longer, so shut it" card is cheap and just belies an over self indulgent ego. No matter.

I should have known probably seeing as he actually calls himself arsehole. hoho

(07-26-2011 06:59 AM)Hans Olo Wrote: He got banned for that? Dude...

Rules are rules. I would like to see them enforced evenly.

rsol · (This post was last modified: 07-26-2011 06:43 PM by rsol.)

if you had been here longer you would know what it means.

as with many things in life. being there first, looking at it longer, yealds a better diagnosis.

As you seem imune to logic i have to resort to your level of conduct. The reason i dont get banned for saying that is, its in isolation and usually a retort for something equally childish. and personally. Im funnier...

Quote:"No. And your questions are completely irrelevant. I don't know what was used to doctor the Zapruder film either. Does that mean Oswald shot Kennedy? Or the moon landing footage (which, apparently you believe to be authentic - You deny Stan-the-man Kubrick of his genius? Have you missed the "front screen projection" documentation?). "

yes if you couldnt tell that was fake without it being explained to you, what the hell are you even doing here except as an echo chamber for a rather old pulse of tripe.

One thing you obviously DONT know. Big brother just aint that big...

Quote:"Then, tell me, oh wise one, how is the helicopter landing gear shot (gear in foreground and in focus, skyline in background also in focus) possible? Explain please..."

it wasnt. you are incorrect.

Quote:Compression can be a factor. However, it's a factor to the ENTIRE frame and all layers, not isolated to the planes, in this current subject. Tell me, how can compression ONLY affect the planes? Can you site any other example of a plane that resembles those from the media sources on 9/11?

compression tries its best to keep a coherent image on the screen without vector based compression the entire film is compressed in the concept of a series of still images. case and point. aliased lines on the side of the building are a nightmare as its a "moving" still image and of course anything infront of it can suffer whilst moving

exhibit a,

Please note how there are virtually NO lines vertically on that building. where are they? compressed away so it uses up less space. hey that piece of plane thats virtually the same colour as the building just "disappeared" fake fake fake!!! its been edited!"!!

yes it has, they all have. by a computer that doesn't care what it sees. plus RE-COMPRESSED and stuck onto youtube... are we following so far? as you have obviously decided to poke the bear with a stick(ie yeti) I suppose you need to make another account to answer... golden rule apart from following the guidelines is dont piss off the guy serving the drinks...

Bull Medicine · (This post was last modified: 07-27-2011 07:02 AM by Bull Medicine.)

stonecutter had some interesting points and although you seemingly reply to them and me as a singular entity it is nonetheless laughingly obvious that you are unaware of the scope of the subject and in this you are right, you are indeed "funny".

Quote:if you had been here longer you would know what it means.

Oh, right.

Quote:as with many things in life. being there first, looking at it longer, yealds a better diagnosis.

Ahhh ok. But doesn't help with spelling, eh professor? Rolleyes

Quote:As you seem imune to logic i have to resort to your level of conduct. The reason i dont get banned for saying that is, its in isolation and usually a retort for something equally childish. and personally. Im funnier...

You're an overly self important and self aggrandizing bore, that much is blatantly clear anyway.

Anyway, here's what you are up against, oh wise one. Have a great day.

Quote:Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

Dr. Wood received her

B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

Experimental Stress Analysis,

Engineering Mechanics,

Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

Strength of Materials Testing

Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?
Where did the building go?
Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.
From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.

One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis, as well as materials characterization and other types of interference. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.

http://www.drjudywood.com/

rsol · (This post was last modified: 07-27-2011 09:03 AM by rsol.)

Quote:You're an overly self important and self aggrandizing bore, that much is blatantly clear anyway.

you see? not even remotely funny. you even resort to picking on spelling errors.....

your imagination is very limited and in your frustration you lash out at greater minds.

Its not self agrandissement. I'm a relativist, im only talking about me in relation to you...

As i have stated OVER AND OVER. you are talking about collapse and collapse theory, put options, vicsims ect ect. read the title of the thread. this is talking about no-planes hitting those buildings. what are you here to discuss?

focus.