Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[tfk]

If a person reads through the thread from the beginning, It is interesting to see how many wrong claims TFK has made. Remember, on page 1 he had serious doubts that sub-pixel tracking was even possible.

Phenomenal the number of mistakes he made without acknowledging them.

Asking questoions is fine, but why all the insults without admitting any past mistakes?

Has he ever produced his own error analysis he promised a while ago? Nothing.

What happened, MT?

Did femr start crying on your woo-woo forum that he was getting his ears boxed. That he needed some help. And could someone come over & please, please, pretty please make the mean old engineer stop it...!!

LMAO.

What a bunch of babies.

 

[tfk]

Appear to ?

You may enjoy your condescending waffle Tom, but it's more than tedious.

My answers are clear and were not in any doubt.

Your inept attempts to apply fictional inference to your posts will be ignored as appropriate.

You can't even make a clear, simple statement of your beliefs ...

... when you're getting castrated for acting cowardly & not making clear, simple statements of your beliefs.

It doesn't get any more ironic, and pathetic, than this.

Avoid the issues.
Say nothing.
Admit nothing.
Take no stand.


Are you afraid to make one simple statement of your beliefs?

One statement, femr.

C'mon, you can say it.

"The north wall of WTC7 did NOT fall anything like free fall."

C'mon, kid. It ain't that hard.

 

[femr2]

All this firkin' nonsense, all this time…

All because this

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content

wants to dick around with the definition of a word.

Nope. It's your OCD and inability to learn from your mistakes kicking in.

Well,

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content

if the definition of "Frame" is so friggin' "flexible", then all of your crappola about 25 frames per second & 30 frames per second was just plain wrong.

Most importantly, all of this could have gone away with a simple statement at the beginning, to the effect that:

"The word 'frame' is confusing because the same word is used to refer to two different things: a full-frame (i.e., two interlaced fields 525 NTSC scan lines, 625 PAL scan lines), and also a half-frame (essentially a field, 262.5 NTSC scan lines or 312.5 PAS scan lines) when transmitting to interlaced systems.

Ahem...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6251260&postcount=98
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6261124&postcount=135
(MANY more instances. Guess you *missed* them eh)

Again, this exemplifies PERFECTLY your deceitful approach to "communication".

There is no deceit in my communication.

 

[alienentity]

tfk you should really watch the epithets. Don't let Femr2 drive you there.

 

[tfk]

ftfy

I don't think so, ae.

As usual, with femr, you never know. Because he refuses to say anything.

I asked him if he disagreed that my blue line represents an object truly falling in free fall. (Which it does.)

He said "no".

Now, with any straightforward, honest person, one could assume that they agree that the blue line does represent an object truly in free fall.

But, with femr, you can never tell. It's a game he plays.

He'll say, "I didn't say that."

So, you have to ask just right.

That's when he pretends to get annoyed & runs away.

Cowards are like that...

tom


PS. I already tried to get him to answer directly. He refused. Let's have you try it out.

Ask him if he agrees that the blue line on my graph does represent an object in free fall. Let's see what he says.

PPS. Thanks for your comment. I did leave out a "not" in one of my sentences. And I see how it lead to your conclusion... Corrected now.

 

[tfk]

tfk you should really watch the epithets. Don't let Femr2 drive you there.

Yeah, you're right.

thanks.

 

[femr2]

"The north wall of WTC7 did NOT fall anything like free fall."

For a period of time (which NIST estimate to be around 2.25s, I suggest a fair bit less) certain points upon the Northerly facade descended between near-to or exceeding g. Outside of that period, acceleration was lower, and not constant for any observable period of time.

A profile of the acceleration curve for the NW corner is...

Different points upon the facade experienced differing acceleration behaviours from that shown above for the NW corner.

Note for those with OCD: Vertical scaling may not be 100% accurate, but the shape of the curve would not be significantly affected if it was to change

 

[Childlike Empress]

If a person reads through the thread from the beginning, It is interesting to see how many wrong claims TFK has made. Remember, on page 1 he had serious doubts that sub-pixel tracking was even possible.

Phenomenal the number of mistakes he made without acknowledging them.

Asking questoions is fine, but why all the insults without admitting any past mistakes?

Has he ever produced his own error analysis he promised a while ago? Nothing.

Yeah, breathtaking. femr2's patience is admirable.

 

[femr2]

I asked him if he disagreed that my blue line represents an object truly falling in free fall. (Which it does.)

No you didn't...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6448303&postcount=527

Are you saying that the blue line that I overlaid on your graph is NOT the acceleration curve for something that goes into real "free fall"?

...

He said "no".

I did indeed.

It's a game he plays.

Incorrect. It is either a game you are playing, or, well, personal issues you may have.

He'll say, "I didn't say that."

Incorrect.

That's when he pretends to get annoyed & runs away.

None of this annoys me Tom. I find it rather tedious, but meh. If your intent is to annoy, I'm afraid it doesn't work.

 

[tfk]

For a period of time (which NIST estimate to be around 2.25s, I suggest a fair bit less) certain points upon the Northerly facade descended between near-to or exceeding g. Outside of that period, acceleration was lower, and not constant for any observable period of time.

A profile of the acceleration curve for the NW corner is...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/508127617.png

Different points upon the facade experienced differing acceleration behaviours from that shown above for the NW corner.

Note for those with OCD: Vertical scaling may not be 100% accurate, but the shape of the curve would not be significantly affected if it was to change

Didn't ask you what NIST said.
I didn't ask if they descended near to, at or above "g".
I didn't ask what was happening "outside that interval".
I didn't ask about other points on the fascade.

I asked you "does the profile of your curve (in red) resemble the profile of the free fall curve (in blue) over any interval?"

Here, lemme help...

The red line is a plot of your acceleration data.

The blue line DOES represent a plot of an object that suddenly (at around 12.2 seconds on this graph) goes into real free fall.

If the red curve looks substantially like the blue curve over any interval, then the red curve also "looks like" a free fall acceleration. Over that interval, of course.

If the red curve does not look substantially like the blue curve over any interval, then the red curve does NOT represent an object that is in free fall.

This shouldn't be too hard, femr.

Yes? No?

Free fall? No Free Fall?

Question: Do these curves look alike?

Or you can tap dance, prevaricate, shift goal posts, etc., for everyone's amusement...

 

[femr2]

I asked you "what does your data show?"

No you didn't. You said...

One statement, femr.

C'mon, you can say it.

"The north wall of WTC7 did NOT fall anything like free fall."

C'mon, kid. It ain't that hard.

...which I am sure breaks a rule or two around here for a start.

I responded as posted.

Do enjoy your weekend

 

[pgimeno]

You have zero interest in speaking plainly. In defining your terms. In agreeing upon & sharing your definitions.

And that's really one of the biggest sources of problems in this interchange, which could otherwise have been far more constructive.

femr2, you seem to be talking to yourself, or to people who can read what you have in mind when you write. That is annoying because it makes your posts raise the need for many clarifications which should be really unnecessary.

 

[femr2]

You're engaging in lots of retrospective post editing Tom

(I'll just make sure you're quoted more fully in future eh )

 

[femr2]

femr2, you seem to be talking to yourself, or to people who can read what you have in mind when you write. That is annoying because it makes your posts raise the need for many clarifications which should be really unnecessary.

Such as ?

 

[pgimeno]

Such as ?

Such as the fact that the graphs you post often lack axes labeling and/or titles, and you often post them without an explanation.

 

[femr2]

Such as the fact that the graphs you post often lack axes labeling and/or titles, and you often post them without an explanation.

Sometimes, yes. Most are labelled. Rarely without explanation.

However, could you highlight where graph labelling/axes/titling had any effect upon the recent *discussion* ?

 

[tfk]

You're engaging in lots of retrospective post editing Tom

(I'll just make sure you're quoted more fully in future eh )

Yeah, that's right.

I got rid of several uses of the word "coward". And a few cases of "moron", "dickhead" and "lying", IIRC.

Folks can probably guess where I substituted less accurate, but more MA-compliant, euphemisms.

 

[Dog Town]

I did ask him to what end he was he doing all of this.
No answer.

I think we all know, what he want's his final "gotcha" moment to be.
Will he ever cut to the chase? Doubtful.

 

[femr2]

I did ask him to what end he was he doing all of this.
No answer.

Incorrect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6443206&postcount=484

A very clear picture of motion.

As in 'in motion' or not 'in motion'.

You perhaps don't like the answer, but you certainly got one.

Or, in the words of NIST...

Of primary interest in this analysis was any information that could shed light on the collapse sequence of WTC 7.

 

[alienentity]

[qimg]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6232/femrwtc7freefall2.png[/qimg]

The red line is a plot of your acceleration data.

The blue line DOES represent a plot of an object that suddenly (at around 12.2 seconds on this graph) goes into real free fall.

If the red curve looks substantially like the blue curve over any interval, then the red curve also "looks like" a free fall acceleration. Over that interval, of course.

If the red curve does not look substantially like the blue curve over any interval, then the red curve does NOT represent an object that is in free fall.

This shouldn't be too hard, femr.

Yes? No?

Free fall? No Free Fall?

Question: Do these curves look alike?

Or you can tap dance, prevaricate, shift goal posts, etc., for everyone's amusement...

Great graph Tom. I'm gonna link to it when discussing issue with average Truthers when they scream 'freefall' like squawking parrots.

'Freefall = CD! Freefall = CD! Squawk! Inside Job! Larry Silverstein! Squawk!' (parrot shown here with a set of Richard Gage Playblocs for Truthers® - these are gonna be a big hit for Xmas 2006!)