Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

femr2 said:
The *top section* transitioned from rotation about the North face to continued rotation and vertical descent once the top section reached a tilt angle of ~1 degree.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Vertical falling excludes rotation.
 
Basque,

femr2 said:
Perhaps you should read the thread tfk started to look at my video trace data.
Click to expand...


Don't bother.

The only lesson of that colossal waste of time is that it took about 300 posts to figure out that femr changes the definition of terms at the drop of a hat.

Utterly pointless.


Tom
 
tfk,

You are a funny man.

You have been provided links and data to numerous *tilt -vs- time* graphs numerous times.

You have repeatedly refused to even read the links provided.

Regardless of what any of thoe graphs contain, you'll, of course, go on a hissy fit making inept complaints about it not matching your request, or having the wrong font colour, or whatever.

It's hilarious.

Get a grip man.

Rather than hanging from mine and MT's coat-tail, go and generate some data.

You are claiming (and always will) claim some kind of error in the data presented.

Cool. Prove it.

Have a nice day :)
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Basque,


Don't bother.

The only lesson of that colossal waste of time is that it took about 300 posts to figure out that femr changes the definition of terms at the drop of a hat.

Utterly pointless.

Tom
Click to expand...

Thank you for saving me the time. The reason the MT/femr2 tag team did not provide you with this graph was because I pointed out that their graph claimed a tilt of 2 degrees at 3 seconds after antenna downward movement not 8. MT's response "it must have been a typo."
They were hiding until femr2 claimed the wrong start of antenna motion.
 
BasqueArch said:
Thank you for saving me the time.
Click to expand...
Hilarious, on so many levels.

You have to open one, memorize the pixel location on the antenna, open the subsequent one and see the difference if any.
Click to expand...
Read the thread BasqueArch, you really need to, or better still, read through all the trheads on sub-pixel tracing methods over at the911forum.
 
I read the posts of self proclaimed debunkers. I cannot believe what I see.

How many murdered human beings? How sure are you? We are not playing ego games here.

I read the responses and I cannot believe you view the murder of so many human beings as some kind of a joke.

Thes are the best intellectual responses that you have???????

Before going on a killing spree, maybe you should check your facts better.


I hope to God you produce some better responses than this.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
I would hope it's fair to assume you'll state you tentatively accept the validity until either you have inspected the video frame by frame offline, or generated your own from the original source videos.


1:53 shows rapid fire increase in south side half of east face.
2:00 is post initiation.

Screenprint ? Image with an arrow pointing at what you mean is usually more useful than lots of words in this context.
Click to expand...

It may also be an artifact of my YT settings, I have a slow connection. If you say it's synced I'm prepared to accept it as it's only an observation on my part. I'm probably wrong.

The smoke is billowing and there are two distinct "puffs" at the time I mentioned on the left hand side on the building. It's hard to tell if they are just "billows", a natural part of the fire, or expulsions do to failures inside. The size and speed suggest something more than just the build up of gases, they look somewhat forced. Given their timing I'm willing to bet they are a result of the initial floor assembly failures that initiated the collapse.

It's important to note they are "faster" than the billows coming from the fire, but much slower than what would be expected if they were caused by explosives. The sheer volume suggests the sudden compression of a large volume of air.
 
Major_Tom said:
I read the posts of self proclaimed debunkers. I cannot believe what I see.

How many murdered human beings? How sure are you? We are not playing ego games here.

I read the responses and I cannot believe you view the murder of so many human beings as some kind of a joke.

Thes are the best intellectual responses that you have???????

Before going on a killing spree, maybe you should check your facts better.


I hope to God you produce some better responses than this.
Click to expand...

Your delightful histrionics aside, the body of work that supports the commonly-held narrative of that day and the experts who support that work is all we need in answer to you. The general consensus is that you don't know what you are talking about. That makes this little gem of a diatribe even more ironic.
 
Major_Tom and femr2, have you noticed that in the Etinne_Sauret video, that the cameras angle is changed after the shake, likely caused by the camera operator bumping in to it. It is angled slightly higher up after the shake, compared with what it is before the shake. Among other things more of the WTC 1 antenna come in to view. Likewise it can be seen on the yellow tile on the foreground building, in the upper left part of the picture. Have you run any traces that is started after the shake, just to check that you get the same results as the traces that include the camera shake? I am here concerned with the claimed invisible movements, not the movements that is clearly visible.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom - Indignant non-sequiturs about murder and killing spree are posted in a thread along with a complete lack of desire by you two to communicate these IMPORTANT ANALYSES to the relevant authorites.

:i:
 
Major Tom.
I read the posts of self proclaimed debunkers. I cannot believe what I see.

How many murdered human beings? How sure are you? We are not playing ego games here.

I read the responses and I cannot believe you view the murder of so many human beings as some kind of a joke.

Thes are the best intellectual responses that you have???????

Before going on a killing spree, maybe you should check your facts better.

I hope to God you produce some better responses than this.
Click to expand...

Your indignant concern for the innocent victims of 9/11 and the subsequent US self-defense wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is well intentioned but misplaced.

The numerous murderous attacks by radical fundamentalist religious groups against innocent US , UK, Spain, Thailand, France, Germany, Italy, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kurds, Somalia, Iraq and Afghan citizens from before their attack on the WTC in 1993 until today have not stopped, and a greater danger still exists if they should gain WMD. Their next major attack might include my family and yours.

Your part in this is not large, but when added to the others who you persuade to believe like you do, contributes to the weakening resolve of US and other countries’ democratic citizens to justly defend themselves against the real barbarians at our gates.

You mean well but you are wrong when you accuse the victims and exculpate the guilty.
Your good intentions are not enough, you have to be right, and you are not.

In 2010, Ahmadinejad reiterated the 9/11 conspiracy, and wrote:
"Establishing an independent and impartial committee of investigation, which would determine the roots and causes of the regrettable event of 9/11, is the demand of all the peoples of the region and the world. [...] Any opposition to this legal and human demand means that 9/11 was premeditated in order to achieve the goals of occupation and of confrontation with the nations
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad
 
Last edited:
Norseman said:
femr2, have you noticed that in the Etinne_Sauret video, that the cameras angle is changed after the shake
Click to expand...
Indeed...
685335724.png


Static point movement (camera shake) is specifically treated in all of my datasets.

There are many graph similar to this available, looking at various aspects of the Sauret footage movement. MT has included quite a few in the OP links, along with threads on the subjecta over at the911forum.

If you want more detail, no problem.
 
Major_Tom said:
I read the posts of self proclaimed debunkers. I cannot believe what I see.
Click to expand...
I agree that some of the responses are simply ridiculous, however...

How many murdered human beings? How sure are you?
Click to expand...
I don't think the discussion needs any socio-political type banter.

Laborious and frustrating though it can be, I suggest sticking to the technical details. There are some who are lost causes, but once confirmed as such there is no need to waste much time reinventing the wheel for their benefit.
 
Major_Tom said:
Before going on a killing spree, maybe you should check your facts better.
Click to expand...

As if we didn't know your motivation before. You have finally come clean.
Bravo! Seek help for Bush derangement syndrome. Or just go to the politics sub forum! :cool:
 
femr2 said:
I don't think the discussion needs any socio-political type banter.
Click to expand...
Always a good policy

Laborious and frustrating though it can be, I suggest sticking to the technical details. There are some who are lost causes, but once confirmed as such there is no need to waste much time reinventing the wheel for their benefit.
Click to expand...


You forget sometimes, as most truthers do, just how much in the minority you are. The JREF represents the reaction you would get from any respected engineering or scientific organization on Earth. I can only guess at your motivation for sticking to obscure internet forums instead of bringing your Earth-shattering evidence and scientific prowess to somebody who can DO something about it, but that is none of my business.

I don't know how many people telling you that you don't know what you are talking about it would take you to start saying, "hmmmm maybe they're on to something", but I'm beginning to suspect that may be the reason you aren't on the university lecture circuit or publishing in respected scientific journals right now; you actually have a number, but aren't willing to let it get to that.
 
twinstead said:
I can only guess at your motivation for sticking to obscure internet forums instead of bringing your Earth-shattering evidence and scientific prowess
Click to expand...
That's the bizarre thing...none of what I'm discussing in this thread is *earth shattering*, nor does it require significant *scientific prowess*.

Determining initial tilt is pretty darn simple really, though the techniques employed do have a slight learning-curve I suppose.

These are basic observational details, and the kind of thing that should have been done years ago, and certainly not requiring a few essentially anonymous researchers on a back-water forum to have to repeatedly explain to folk who repeatedly boast about how superior they are.

I don't know how many people telling you that you don't know what you are talking about it would take you to start saying, "hmmmm maybe they're on to something", but I'm beginning to suspect that may be the reason you aren't on the university lecture circuit or publishing in respected scientific journals right now
Click to expand...
To be honest, it's things like you've just said that are part of the issue here. The details being presented are not complicated or difficult to replicate yourself. I think it's simply that you *trust* the (frankly increasingly bizarre) viewpoint of folk like tfk that tends to indicate that a) you personally don't understand how simple it really is, and b) prefer to therefore side yourself with the *opposing* viewpoint without critically asessing exactly what is on the table.

To be in the position of providing/explaining sub-pixel position change trace data and techniques which allow simple and accurate specification of various metrics in a way that can easily be replicated and confirmed by anyone willing to perform what is (in my view) a pretty simple process...and yet receiving complaints, accusations of deliberate distortion and clearly incorrect *counter claims* from folk either unwilling to replicate the data or using techniques such as *memorising the position of a dot, opening the next file and seeing what has changed*...is mind boggling. There's just no excuse in my opinion.

I personally put all the resources and data I generate online so I think it's pretty clear there's no *distortion*, *lying*, (list of inappropriate terms of your choice here). Nonsense hand-waving from others is just that, nonsense.

Initial tilt determination...It's not rocket science, and it's not earth shattering either.



It's about 1 degree.
 
and major tom and femr keep up the self abusive............again I ask...when are you going to release your peer reviewed paper on this work and who do you imagine will care less?

Even if ,as you imagine, you prove that NIST did not get their modeling 100% right....no one of any importance cares, because they know that modeling is never 100% accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom