Vetting Shills and Trolls: Classic Examples

How to register at Cluesforum / General administrative topics / and things that every member must read

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Emile Cole on Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:10 pm

Hello HonestlyNow....

HonestlyNow wrote:I'll tell you what I've concluded. I've concluded that the images and moving images (videos) are all for the sake of telling a story...."


Agreed about the story telling aspect.

HonestlyNow wrote:....and not actual evidence of an event.


Even an altered piece of evidence is still evidence. In other words.... if one were to make a video of someone dropping a billiard ball from a height of 15 feet through air at sea level and then add a soundtrack of John Denver singing Rocky Mountain High along perhaps with an animation of Mickey Mouse dancing on the billiard ball as it descended it wouldn't negate in any way the evidentiary value of the observed rate of descent at which the billiard ball was seen to fall when it comes to difinitively concluding what condition existed beneath it as it did. So, even though the video would clearly be a fake in the sense that Mickey Mouse was not really dancing to Rocky Mountain High on the billiard ball as it descended, it's still rock solid evidence in the sense that the observed rate of acceleration of the obviously genuine billiard ball seen being dropped from a height of 15 feet through air at sea level in the video (with or without Mickey Mouse dancing to Rocky Mountain High) fully corresponds to the empirically expected behaviour of a free falling object under the exceptionless condition required for that rate of descent to be observed.

HonestlyNow wrote:If the moving images (videos) are simply story-telling props, what actually happened is unknown to me.


Again, I agree with the obvious story telling aspect of the whole thing, but disagree that the mechanism of the observed emprically verifiable behaviour of the "props", particularly WTC7, is "not actual evidence of an event" or that what actually happened is "unknown" or can't be known.... it's very well known.

HonestlyNow wrote:How do you know that WTC7 free fell?


I know that WTC7 free fell because....

....independent researchers (perhaps most notably David Chandler) have observed and repeatedly empirically verified that a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit occurred during its destruction.

....the NIST (albeit reluctantly) confirmed that a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single unit occurred during its destruction.

....nowhere in the meantime (almost 15 years) has any empirically verifiable refutation of or objection to the aforementioned long standing scientific consensus that to date continues to exist between the NIST and independent researchers has been offered by any reputable academic institution, government agency, reputable independent academic or other independent researcher that would tend to dissolve or even weaken it (open to correction of course if anyone would care to post a link).

So to sum up.... in view of the above outlined well known ongoing broad scientific consensus that continues to exist that empirically concludes that the upper part of the building verifiably underwent a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration as a single unit, and pending the emergence of some more plausible empirically verifiable observation the analysis and conclusion of which would tend to supercede the currently accepted conclusion, or the emergence of some sort of evidence showing manipulation of the video either digitally or by speeding it up or slowing it down to imitate the period in question....

....I know (in the empirically verifiable sense of the word) it free fell.
Emile Cole
Banned
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:36 pm

Emile,
Let me say it more directly.

I'm saying that the images are not of the event itself. They are made out of pixels and certain persons' imaginations (i.e., they are fake).

So, what are these "investigations" based upon? How does anyone, outside of those who were there at the demolition site that day, know how free the fall was?
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby CluedIn on Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:57 pm

Emile said:

So to sum up.... in view of the above outlined well known ongoing broad scientific consensus that continues to exist that empirically concludes that the upper part of the building verifiably underwent a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration as a single unit, and pending the emergence of some more plausible empirically verifiable observation the analysis and conclusion of which would tend to supercede the currently accepted conclusion, or the emergence of some sort of evidence showing manipulation of the video either digitally or by speeding it up or slowing it down to imitate the period in question....


When somebody claims that something is absolute based on "well-known broad scientific consensus" I think of global warming and all of the b.s. scientific consensus that makes their evidence empirically sound. You seem to be basing your conclusions of a free fall building collapse on the TV view you saw. Unless you were there to watch with your own eyes, I don't know why you would think that the TV version of the collapse was 100% real when we know what we do now.

Also, you stating that an altered piece of evidence is still evidence, well, I'm not even sure what to say to that. That's like saying a lie isn't a lie if there is a little bit of truth in it.
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:47 pm

Emile Cole wrote:.... in view of the above outlined well known ongoing broad scientific consensus ... I know (in the empirically verifiable sense of the word) it free fell.

I wonder if you joined the forum just to deliver this verbose and deceptive defense of the authenticity of the TV-broadcast collapse animations.

Obviously the WTC was demolished. But why waste your time (and make a fool of yourself) discussing the physics of piss-poor animations?
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Emile Cole on Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:10 pm

HonestlyNow wrote:Emile,
Let me say it more directly.

I'm saying that the images are not of the event itself. They are made out of pixels and certain persons' imaginations (i.e., they are fake).


Understood. Hello CluedIn....

CluedIn wrote:Emile said:

When somebody claims that something is absolute based on "well-known broad scientific consensus"....


The only problem with that is I haven't claimed anything was absolute based on any well known broad scientific consensus. I said that pending the emergence of some more plausible empirically verifiable observation the analysis and conclusion of which would tend to supercede the currently accepted conclusion, or the emergence of some sort of evidence showing manipulation of the video either digitally or by speeding it up or slowing it down to imitate the period in question I know (in the empirically verifiable sense of the word) it free fell. Nothing absolute there and I clearly indicated I'm open to a more plausible explanation if it should arise or persuasive evidence clearly showing manipulation of the recorded rate of descent.

CluedIn wrote:....I don't know why you would think that the TV version of the collapse was 100% real when we know what we do now.


I didn't indicate anywhere that I thought the TV version of the collapse was 100% real. I said even an altered piece of evidence can still be evidence. I said that if one were to make a video of someone dropping a billiard ball from a height of 15 feet through air at sea level and then add a soundtrack of John Denver singing Rocky Mountain High along perhaps with an animation of Mickey Mouse dancing on the billiard ball as it descended it wouldn't negate in any way the evidentiary value of the observed rate of descent at which the billiard ball was seen to fall when it comes to difinitively concluding what condition existed beneath it as it did. So, even though the video would clearly be a fake in the sense that Mickey Mouse was not really dancing to Rocky Mountain High on the billiard ball as it descended, it's still rock solid evidence in the sense that the observed rate of acceleration of the obviously genuine billiard ball seen being dropped from a height of 15 feet through air at sea level in the video (with or without Mickey Mouse dancing to Rocky Mountain High) fully corresponds to the empirically expected behaviour of a free falling object under the exceptionless condition required for that rate of descent to be observed.

Hello Flabbergasted....

Flabbergasted wrote:I wonder if you joined the forum just to deliver this verbose and deceptive defense of the authenticity of the TV-broadcast collapse animations.


No, that's not my motivation.

Flabbergasted wrote:Obviously the WTC was demolished. But why waste your time (and make a fool of yourself) discussing the physics of piss-poor animations?


I agree the World Trade was demolished, it just seems I've arrived at the same conclusion via a different route. Let me be sure I understand.... The general consensus here is that the videos these gifs were taken from are entirely fake videos?

Image

Image
Emile Cole
Banned
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby brianv on Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:19 pm

Image

Me Lie, is it your view that the contents of this hand-made cartoon depict reality?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Emile Cole on Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:35 pm

Hello brianv....

brianv wrote:Image

Me Lie, is it your view that the contents of this hand-made cartoon depict reality?[img]


No need for name calling. Anyway I'm not sure really, that's why I'm asking about it.... Can you (or anyone else) give some indication of what it is in the video that tips you off that the rate of descent of the building has been altered?
Last edited by Emile Cole on Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Emile Cole
Banned
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:41 pm

Can you give some indication of what it is in the video tips you off that the rate of descent of the building has been altered?

It's a fabricated scene. The question makes no sense.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby brianv on Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:44 pm

Emile Cole wrote:Hello brianv....

brianv wrote:Me Lie, is it your view that the contents of this hand-made cartoon depict reality?Image


No need for name calling. Anyway I'm not sure really, that's why I'm asking about it.... Can you give some indication of what it is in the video that tips you off that the rate of descent of the building has been altered?


Just an observation.

A: It's not a video, it's not a building, it's a cartoon.
B: I couldn't give a rat's arse about the rate of descent ie the movement of the layers.
C: The fact that it was made from a couple of still photographs in Photoshop tips me off.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby SmokingGunII on Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:31 pm

Oh dear.... :rolleyes:

Derailing room, please.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am

Clues Forum Banned

Unread postby Emile Cole on Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:20 am

Thanks guys.... that'll do.

One learns to recognize the "formula" after a while. I wasn't rude at any point. All I was interested in really was a simple explanation that supports your theories and speculations about the observed rate of descent of WTC7.... and you couldn't give it.

My simple question politely addressed to Simon was "What about the free fall, if anything, have you concluded?"

So first, SacredCowSlayer chimes in to say that all the research indicates fakery throughout and directs me to a thread about a mysterious shadow.... instead of simply responding to the question I asked about free fall.

Next, instead of simply explaining his take on the free fall issue I asked about, Simon instead directs me to read some thread about his "Smoke Screen" theory.... that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Then we have HonestlyNow just blurting out without elaboration that it's all fake, that's the way it is.... and strangely asks how I know it was in free fall before I'd even indicated what my position was on the issue.

Critical Mass then jumps up to say something to the effect that since a High School science teacher discovered the free fall and not the NIST various conclusions can be drawn and proceeds to outline them.... as if somehow it makes any difference who observed it first.

Now, CluedIn adds that I've made a claim of some kind that something (presumably free fall) is "absolute" based on "well-known broad scientific consensus" when clearly I never said anything of the sort, then goes on to wonder why I would think that the TV version of the ollapse was 100% real even though I'd already clearly indicated I wasn't convinced that the TV version of the ollapse was 100% real.... completely made up nonsense.

And then Flabbergasted joins in to ridicule my posts as verbose and deceptive, telling me that obviously the WTC was demolished and asking why I would waste my time and make a fool of myself discussing the physics of piss-poor animations.... instead of simply responding to the question I asked.

Then it's brianv with a vacuous insulting one liner.... nice touch.

And here comes HonestlyNow to blurt out again, in reponse to my attempt to refine the question "Can you give some indication of what it is in the video tips you off that the rate of descent of the building has been altered?" that it's a fabricated scene and the question makes no sense.

Now brianv is back to declare....

"A: It's not a video, it's not a building, it's a cartoon.
B: I couldn't give a rat's arse about the rate of descent ie the movement of the layers.
C: The fact that it was made from a couple of still photographs in Photoshop tips me off."

....without providing any additional information that would tend to support any of it, for example the notion that "a couple of still photographs" could somehow reproduce the region of turbulance of the smoke/dust filled air that's seen following the building down as it descends or the subtle rotation about a vertical axis of the upper part of the building as it descended.

For no apparent reason SmokingGunII decides to suggest sending the topic to the Derailing Room. No relevant comment, no reason given, nothing.

Hah! And that's all it takes for Simon to reappear with "Sure, Smokey - that's where it will go. However, I'll take this opportunity to dust off and re-view a few hilarious images allegedly depicting the WTC7 demise..." followed by a mild scolding, a short history of false flag methodology, the history of his research, and finally the most likely scenario that must have played out that day with some quip about why all this is so hard for people to understand being the only mystery that still baffles him. I'm then treated to, let me make sure I've got them all....

....the "Chewing Gum" WTC7"
....the "Sun Never Lies" WTC7
....the "Two Versions" WTC7
....the "Fearless Fireman" WTC7
....the "Chalk White" WTC7
....the "Smoke Exiting" WTC7
....the "Smoke Returning" WTC7

....and we even have the "Independence Day" movie clip. I guess that really covers just about everything. Everything, that is, except what I initially asked about.... "What about the free fall, if anything, have you concluded? Can you give some indication of what it is in the video that tips you off that the rate of descent of the building has been altered?"

So.... Do I want to discuss the free falling Empire State building with you Simon? No. I don't think there's anything I'd care to discuss with you or your "team", but thanks for asking.

Emile Cole



*****************************************************************************
ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE (Critical Mass):

Sigh.

It's not difficult Emile... it really isn't. The alleged "video" is not real so we cannot conclude anything about any alleged 'freefall collapses'.

Even so I managed to make two conclusions based upon this alleged 'freefall' collapse now being part of the "official story/conspiracy legend".

Yet you only mentioned the one... in part.

I wish you well in your journey through this rather silly world we find ourselves in.

Goodbye.



PS

I also note that your recollection of events appears clouded... SacredCowSlayer, for instance, answered your initial query perfectly well.
Emile Cole
Banned
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:58 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby simonshack on Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:11 pm

*

It looks like our Emile Cole has spent quite some time and effort trying to make sense out of the phony WTC7 collapse 'videos'.

Whereas I first thought he just was one of the dìme-a-dozen trolls employed to infiltrate this forum and drop a few turds to make us 'look bad', I now think Emile has perhaps invested himself too much in this - and is now floating in his own delusional, 'intellectual' quagmire.

Image
Image
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic ... &highlight


As it appears, he has probably lost his marbles trying to wrap his head around the 9/11 cartoons ! :lol:

It goes to show just how effectively fake imagery can keep inquiring people arguing among themselves - for years / decades on end - even though they all agree about the absurdity of the physics depicted in said imagery !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby brianv on Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:01 am

Emile if you're listening, if this is real footage, where is the pre and post "collapse" footage from the same camera? Ever seen it? Who took the footage? Name of cameraman? Find out! Ask for a copy of the full original footage from him. And, or are we also to believe that he (the cameraman) arrived, set up his unflinching 3 second camera shot at the exact moment the building collapses then fucks off for a cup of tea?

And I might add, you didn't answer the questions asked of you regarding the veracity of the footage. Well eventually you did... <_<
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby antipodean on Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:54 am

Emile, don't feel too deflated. You're not on your own. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson are also battling to protect their brand.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby Critical Mass on Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:58 am

simonshack wrote:Whereas I first thought he just was one of the dìme-a-dozen trolls employed to infiltrate this forum and drop a few turds to make us 'look bad', I now think Emile has perhaps invested himself too much in this - and is now floating in his own delusional, 'intellectual' quagmire.

Ahh I think you're entirely correct Simon. A Google 'image search makes it apparent that he's been obsessed by WTC7 for years.

Why he didn't mention that in his introductory post one can only imagine.

Either way he's spent years on this thing &, unfortunately, failed to even consider the simplest solution to the "impossible physics conundrum".

It's easy to see how this would shock someone who had prided themselves on having already "figured it out".
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to HOW TO REGISTER at CLUESFORUM - and other tips

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest