Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[beachnut]

...

Two Flt 175s, is fantasy-land nuts. Where did you get the hollow shell stuff from? What is a hollow shell? Is this your ploy to evade exposing you believe 911 was an inside job, keep making up junk and never explain your Fictional Official Theory claim?

So the interior pulled the exterior down faster than g, or was it like the ruler falling? That is your work's conclusion?

What a lot of nonsense for a simple, you can't answer the question how your work fits with your inside job claim. What is your goal? Did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse? Do you support WTC 7 was a gravity collapse?

Why can't Major Tom explain how your work fits with his claim of CD? Did you drop your inside job claim of CD for a fire caused gravity collapse?

There is no Official "Theory" is your new claim after saying it was Fictional. How does this flip flop stuff work? You made the statement, were you wrong then and now support 19 terrorists did 911? What is the purpose of this work if it fails to support your theory of 911? How does your work refute other 911 CTs? You don't seem prepared to discuss your 911 claims or how your work in the 911 conspiracy theory section fit with 911 CT claims.
You made the Fictional Official Theory claim, why have you dropped it?

 

[Reactor drone]

Shed light ? Crikey. Are you perhaps referring to the descent of the East penthouse, or perhaps motion I have been highlighting for a few months far beforehand... ?

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/666377698.jpg[/qimg]

Do you really think folk such as MT and myself do not know the event timeline in substantial detail ?


If you have one, sure. The more the merry. What do you have ?

Have you got that graph with more than a half pixel range on the vertical axis? You would expect some shaking of the building as the east penthouse falls and that small scale doesn't allow the maximum extent of the movement to be seen.

 

[femr2]

Have you got that graph with more than a half pixel range on the vertical axis?

This image does cover penthouse descent...

...but here's a view which includes the lateral movement DURING descent of the facade...


I suggest being careful to not misinterpret the motion. It's from the Cam#3 viewpoint, and so includes perspective distortion (Which is why it's left in pixel units).

I'll need to dig out a similar vertical graph (bit pointless as it drops off the bottom even at the level shown), though again, the original image does include the penthouse descent. Vertical trace drops off the graph 8.5s after East Penthouse descent begins.

West edge trace by NIST, with my raw data overlaid...

You would expect some shaking of the building as the east penthouse falls and that small scale doesn't allow the maximum extent of the movement to be seen.

The full vertical movement extent is shown.

A closer look with raw data...

 

[BasqueArch]

Yes, you think you are doing serious work, femr2 thinks it is serious, but you can't set goals or produce conclusions. You have failed to answer how your claim of CD relates to femr2's work. Can you discuss how your claim of CD dovetails with femr2's analysis?

I love you, brother. Seriously, I couldn't have invented a poster like you if I tried.

You are better than anything I could have dreamed up.

Are those serious questions?

Major Tom, Doberman beachnut's got you by the ... thighs. Goals, conclusions, integrated explanation, mathematical analysis and universal model . He's indefatigable and you can't shake him. Suffer, too bad.

 

[beachnut]

... Enough beachnut. Go and do something less boring instead.

One physical Flt 175, one aircraft, like your study here you seem to avoid connecting your work to 911 conspiracy theories. Why? This is the 911 CT forum, why not discuss your work in context of 911 CTs? This is the 911 CT forum, try to discuss your work relative to the super topic.

I know my writing is poor, why can't you answer questions? Since you have no intention of publishing your work, the only thing left to discuss your work, is to find how it fits in 911 CTs. Tell me your work is more than an attack on NIST, try to tie your work to 911 CTs; I am interested, it is why 911 CT forum exists, to find out how and why.

You stated, Fictional Official Theory (did you erase it). How does your work support your statement? You said it, (Fictional Official Theory), now how does this effort support your claim. Are you now saying 911 was the sole result of 19 terrorists? Are you retracting your statement which implies you believe 911 was an inside job, and how does your work relate to these types of claims?

Do you support the Fact 19 terrorists were responsible for 911, or do you have another theory? Fictional Official Theory; did you call it a Theory because you don't believe the fact 19 terrorists did 911, and thus moved on to calling it a Fictional Official Theory, which you stated.

My request again is for you to explain your stand on 911, your thesis and how your work fits with it. Simple stuff.

Simple, easy questions which get you off topic and most upset about. What do you stand for on 911, and how does your work support your stand?

Do you believe WTC 7 collapsed due to damage and fires, in a gravity collapse, and how does your work (this thread topic) dovetail to support your conclusion?

Do you agree the actions of 19 terrorists cause all the damage on 911, and how does your work support or not support your conclusion, etc?

Very simple questions which you will ignore and go tangential, set up a smoke screen, and fail to set goals, or make conclusions;

Was 911 an inside job (a 911 CT forum subject), and how does your work support or refute that kind of claim?

I am interested in how your work fits with 911 CTs. You seem interested in not discussing your work and how it relates to 911 CTs, and your implied inside job stand on 911.

 

[femr2]

Continnued MA Infractions and selective moderating...

One physical Flt 175, one aircraft, like your study here you seem to avoid connecting your work to 911 conspiracy theories.

Off topic. This thread topic is not femr2's opinion on 9/11, nor UAL175, nor anything to do with conspracy theories about 9/11. It is about my video data and analysis, which is focussed upon critique of NIST to a certain extent.

Why?

See above.

This is the 911 CT forum

So ? Valid criticism of NIST not welcome here ?

why not discuss your work in context of 911 CTs?

Not interested.

This is the 911 CT forum, try to discuss your work relative to the super topic.

No.

I know my writing is poor

Try harder. Try actually discussing the thread topic instead of your personal obsession with conspiracy theories and inside jobs.

why can't you answer questions?

On topic answers are provided all the time.

Since you have no intention of publishing your work, the only thing left to discuss your work, is to find how it fits in 911 CTs.

Speak English.
Incorrect. It is your obsession with conspiracy theories, not mine. Not interested. Ask someone else.

Tell me your work is more than an attack on NIST

Okay, my work is more than an attack on NIST

try to tie your work to 911 CTs

No.

I am interested, it is why 911 CT forum exists, to find out how and why.

Speak English. That makes no sense.

You stated, Fictional Official Theory

Off topic nonsense again beachnut. Provide me with the document which states the official theory or accept that there is no official theory. Do not ask me about this again. You have my answer. Many times.

Are you retracting your statement which implies you believe 911 was an inside job

Bizarre. You've made up a statement in your head, and are now suggesting that I retract it ? Wow. What statement ?

Do you support the Fact 19 terrorists were responsible for 911, or do you have another theory? Fictional Official Theory; did you call it a Theory because you don't believe the fact 19 terrorists did 911, and thus moved on to calling it a Fictional Official Theory, which you stated.

Off topic nonsense.

My request again is for you to explain your stand on 911

Off topic. Stop asking.

Simple, easy questions which get you off topic and most upset about.

Not upset, simply tedious to have your constant spam in this thread. You have plenty other threads you can urinate upon (and do...off topic spam). You have asked the same questions over and over again (in multiple threads...trolling). You will not be getting different answers. Stop asking. Ask again and each and every one will be reported (in detail) for being off topic, spam, addressing the arguer and deliberate derail. If you make any further assertion of me stating *inside job*, *conspiracy* or suchlike without supporting quotes from this forum, again, they'll be reported for the appropriate infractions.

Hate giving the mods stuff to do but enough is enough.

Bored of you disrupting this thread beachnut. You do it deliberately, as can be seen by the BasqueArch statement above *Doberman beachnut's got you by the ... thighs. ...He's indefatigable and you can't shake him. Suffer, too bad.*. Full stop.

Have a nice day.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Off topic. This thread topic is not femr2's opinion on 9/11, nor UAL175, nor anything to do with conspracy theories about 9/11. It is about my video data and analysis, which is focussed upon critique of NIST to a certain extent.

Great, so we can move this useless pixel nonsense to the appropriate sub-forum then.

 

[femr2]

Great, so we can move this useless pixel nonsense to the appropriate sub-forum then.

NIST performed quite a lot of what you call *useless pixel nonsense*, though did not do a great job of it. Part of the focus of this thrread is to highlight such and clarify implications of such.

As summed up well recently, again...

You don't.

But remember one of the attempts to stop your discussions is the many times repeated claim that unless the topic is "conspiracy" it doesn't belong in this sub forum.

A more ridiculous bit of attempted censorship I have not seen. The idea that technical discussions do not belong here is silly enough and totally at odds with the historic practice of this sub forum. No one familiar with the discussions in this forum could seriously suggest that technical stuff has even been discouraged let alone barred.

Likewise look at the amount of thread discussions we would have to curtail if this "conspiracy only" was to become the rule and technical stuff without conspiracy becomes verboten....

...the old saying "cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

...or even tfk...

There are plenty of other places that we can express our dissatisfaction with each of our perceptions of the other side's politics, agendas, etc.

If you are not interested in the thread content, simply ignore it.

 

[pgimeno]

It is about my video data and analysis, which is focussed upon critique of NIST to a certain extent.

That may be your objective, but not the topic of this thread, which is the data itself, not the objective you pursued with it. These off-topic attacks attract off-topic replies and basically constitute flamebaiting^WP.

 

[femr2]

That may be your objective, but not the topic of this thread, which is the data itself, not the objective you pursued with it. These off-topic attacks attract off-topic replies and basically constitute flamebaiting^WP.

Discussion of femr's video data analysis

My video data analysis, which of course includes the *analysis* bit, which, of course, includes critique of NIST.

If you are not interested in my analysis of video data (in whatever direction I choose to take such video data analysis) then don't participate. There are no limitations in scope applied (other than the obvious request to refrain from the normal political and agenda based nonsense, which you folk seem to find so very difficult to refrain from). tfk pointed out one aspect he found interesting within my analysis of video data. There are many others.

If you are not interested in the thread content, simply ignore it. Don't spam it with attempts to define or limit my scope of my own analysis of video data.

 

[tsig]

Discussion of femr's video data analysis

My video data analysis, which of course includes the *analysis* bit, which, of course, includes critique of NIST.

If you are not interested in my analysis of video data (in whatever direction I choose to take such video data analysis) then don't participate. There are no limitations in scope applied (other than the obvious request to refrain from the normal political and agenda based nonsense, which you folk seem to find so very difficult to refrain from). tfk pointed out one aspect he found interesting within my analysis of video data. There are many others.

If you are not interested in the thread content, simply ignore it. Don't spam it with attempts to define or limit my scope of my own analysis of video data.

Is the scope of your analysis ever going to include a conclusion?

 

[alienentity]

Discussion of femr's video data analysis

My video data analysis, which of course includes the *analysis* bit, which, of course, includes critique of NIST.

If you are not interested in my analysis of video data (in whatever direction I choose to take such video data analysis) then don't participate. There are no limitations in scope applied (other than the obvious request to refrain from the normal political and agenda based nonsense, which you folk seem to find so very difficult to refrain from). tfk pointed out one aspect he found interesting within my analysis of video data. There are many others.

If you are not interested in the thread content, simply ignore it. Don't spam it with attempts to define or limit my scope of my own analysis of video data.

No. Read the OP - the thread is about your methods, not your nonexistent conclusions nor your tiresome NIST-bashing. You are constantly OT, and yes, you are constantly inviting more OT.

Start a new thread on the topic of NIST if you wish. But stop doing it here please.

 

[femr2]

No. Read the OP - the thread is about your methods, not your nonexistent conclusions nor your tiresome NIST-bashing.

Incorrect. tfk simply highlighted one aspect..."The really interesting part (to me)"...that doesn't preclude any other aspects. Get over it.

You are constantly OT, and yes, you are constantly inviting more OT.

Incorrect.

Start a new thread on the topic of NIST if you wish. But stop doing it here please.

How absurd. No.

I'll continue to post discussion of my video data analysis, and of course my video data analysis itself... in the thread titled "Discussion of femr's video data analysis".

You have made your viewpoint clear. I guess you have no interest in the thread content. Fine. Ignore it. Have a nice day.

 

[femr2]

Is the scope of your analysis ever going to include a conclusion?

I've made numerous conclusions and assertions already. I'm sure further and additional conclusions and assertions will follow in the future.

 

[beachnut]

I've made numerous conclusions and assertions already. I'm sure further and additional conclusions and assertions will follow in the future.

How have your conclusions and assertions reshaped your fuzzy inside job theory?

 

[alienentity]

Incorrect. tfk simply highlighted one aspect..."The really interesting part (to me)"...that doesn't preclude any other aspects. Get over it.

Incorrect

Incorrect.

Yes, you are incorrect.

I'll continue to post discussion of my video data analysis, and of course my video data analysis itself... in the thread titled "Discussion of femr's video data analysis".

You will continue to spam the thread and post OT. Yes, we know that already.
You have no interest in the OP!

Have a nice day

 

[Major_Tom]

There was a thread a few months ago called WTC 7 and the NIST Freefall Failure.

If the regular posters here made an effort to understand the information in the OP of that thread, ideas like early horizontal motion (think kink!) and the mistaken T(0) placement that femr presented wouldn't have seemed like new information. It was explained before on your own forum months ago. Femr is only doing his own fact-checking in his usual careful manner and sharing the information with yourselves. I think that is quite kind of him.

It takes that long just to break down the JREF barrier to learning while regular posters look for the most absurd reasons to ignore femr just as they spent their time in the other thread insulting achimspok.

It is easier and faster to learn the material instead. Much faster and more interesting than looking for absurd excuses to not verify or fact-check while insulting and trying to stop people that do.

 

[alienentity]

Readers, for a demonstration of how Femr2 is continuing to ignore the requests that he stop posting OT, simply read the OP by TFK, along with the first page of posts.

It is a discussion of Femr2's methods of measurement, with absolutely zero mention of comparing to those of NIST. The thread title is, after all 'Discussion of femr's video data analysis', not 'Discussion of NIST's video data analysis'

I submit that Femr2's apparent vendetta against NIST is clouding his judgement and I would encourage you to remind him of the subject of the thread if he continues to spam OT.

 

[alienentity]

There was a thread a few months ago called WTC 7 and NIST Freefall Failure.

If the regular posters here made an effort to understand the information in the OP, ideas like early horizontal motion (think kink!) and the mistaken T(0) placement that femr presented wouldn't have seemed like new information.


It takes that long just to break down the JREF barrier to learning, while regular posters look for the most absurd reasons to ignore femr just as they spent their time in the other thread insulting achimspok.

It is easier and faster to just learn the material instead.

Your link is malformed.

It should be: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197442

 

[Major_Tom]

I submit that Femr2's apparent vendetta against NIST is clouding his judgement and I would encourage you to remind him of the subject of the thread if he continues to spam OT.

Your blindness towards all things NIST clouds your own judgement, as the written record of your posts demonstrates clearly.

It seems you will do anything not to verify claims by the NIST. It is so obvious that you do not want to examine the NIST data further.