Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[tsig]

JREF revolves around 2 lies: Bazant and the NIST. Bazant is not much of a problem anymore except for the few Bazantistas like Pgimeno and Beachnut.

But the NIST and their report that is "good enough". That is the only lie left and that is why the JREF forum tends to protect it at all costs.

I could show with 8 features that the WTC1 collapse initiation scenario could not be true, yet the thread was removed from this forum because it lacked relation to a conspiracy?

Same can be done with WTC2. Thread removed because it lacked "conspiracy".

Femr shows movement a few minutes before the NIST measures it. He shows an absurd number of holes with the NIST model yet it will be removed also?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And when it is removed the same lies will be repeated that the NIST initiation scenarios are "good enough".

It is just a lie you tell yourselves. It is obvious that contradictions to your lie are being removed from your forum, though posters will pretend it is not happening.

Yes the JREF is in on it!

 

[NoahFence]

As I've said in the past, if you provide video from a static camera, along with accurate building measurements, I'll sort a graph if there is a suitable latch-point (like the NW corner of WTC7)

Couldn't you just grab one from Youtube? Data analysis is your strong suit. Mine's sarcasm. I honestly wouldn't know a quality video from a crappy one.

 

[femr2]

Couldn't you just grab one from Youtube?

No. The building measurements are not optional. If you want me to do the trace for you, go and find the building measurements for a selected video of your choice.

Data analysis is your strong suit. Mine's sarcasm.

That you have little to add to a technical discussion is very clear.

I honestly wouldn't know a quality video from a crappy one.

I can find the videos. You need to get your hands dirty locating the building measurements. Try "West Palm Beach".

 

[tsig]

Ooh, let me see...

• NIST WTC 1 initiation sequence is wrong. Implications galore.
• NIST WTC2 impact orientation and trajectory is wrong, leading to the impact damage assessment being wrong, leading to all subsequent study being based on incorrect damage assessment. Pretty darn serious that one.
• NIST WTC7 early motion behaviour wrong. No vertical kink, but primarily N-S twisting, leading to incorrect T0, incorrect *phase 2* metrics, incorrect published freefall metrics, etc. Much, much closer to global freefall that NIST state. ~20% slower than freefall, not 40%.
• NIST tracing process severely flawed as highlighted with the rather long list of issues I have presented.

etc...

On the other side of the fence, the trace data and early motion studies prove many *truther* theories which rely upon instant changes in rate of motion to be false, along with data to back up arguments against the oft bandied suggestion that 2.25s of freefall proves...whatever.

You see, there are issues on both sides


ROFL. See list above. See repeated assertion of same and additional throughout this thread.

ROFL is not a theory.

 

[tsig]

Could you tell us more about this?

It is just a lie you tell yourselves. It is obvious that contradictions to your lie are being removed from your forum, though posters will pretend it is not happening.

Are you saying that we are liars?

 

[Gamolon]

You need to get your hands dirty locating the building measurements. Try "West Palm Beach".

Would you be referring to the tower on 1515 South Flagler Drive that was demolished?

I found the roof to be 97.5m high.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=17805

 

[Carll68]

Something is burning my eyes.......

Since this is the CONSPIRACY THEORY forum, and the 911 CONSPIRACY THEORY subforum...can you please clarify how you are even remotely proving that WTC7 was a C.D. with your rudimentary graphs, SPECIFICALLY?

Pretty please?

.....Or do you not think WTC7 was a CD, in which case, this is in the wrong subforum.

what has your *data* told you, and why?

 

[NoahFence]

No. The building measurements are not optional. If you want me to do the trace for you, go and find the building measurements for a selected video of your choice.


That you have little to add to a technical discussion is very clear.


I can find the videos. You need to get your hands dirty locating the building measurements. Try "West Palm Beach".

What do you mean by "not optional"?!? I concede the point that you're better at technical measurements than I. Therefore, it would stand to reason that you're more suited to finding something akin to WTC 7 with which to compare the two.

I only deal with common sense issues, such as the fact that it was physically impossible to perform a controlled demolition at the WTC site. *ON 9/11*

 

[femr2]

What do you mean by "not optional"?!?

I mean that without the building measurements, there is no way to translate from movement in pixels to real-world velocity and acceleration.

Gamolon has searched out the building height, so, assuming I can safely use that scaling metric, and assuming I can determine the actual base-point on the building with available footage of that event, then I can generate velocity and acceleration profiles no problem. When I have time.

it would stand to reason that you're more suited to finding something akin to WTC 7 with which to compare the two

Are you okay with the building referenced by Gamolon above ? It's obviously not *the same* as WTC7, and I don't really see that you'll get any useful information in terms of comparison, but hey...you can do with the data whatever you please.

 

[beachnut]

Ooh, let me see...
...

• NIST WTC7 early motion behaviour wrong. No vertical kink, but primarily N-S twisting, leading to incorrect T0, incorrect *phase 2* metrics, incorrect published freefall metrics, etc. Much, much closer to global freefall that NIST state. ~20% slower than freefall, not 40%.
• NIST tracing process severely flawed as highlighted with the rather long list of issues I have presented.

etc...

On the other side of the fence, the trace data and early motion studies prove many *truther* theories which rely upon instant changes in rate of motion to be false, along with data to back up arguments against the oft bandied suggestion that 2.25s of freefall proves...whatever.

You see, there are issues on both sides

ROFL. See list above. See repeated assertion of same and additional throughout this thread.

911 truth is nonsenses, lies, and delusion; there is no other side. With this one post you have proved you are an inside job supporter. Thinking 911 truth has a side, is the sign of woo.

Why does 911 truth ignore the internal failure? WTC 7 complete collapse over 16 seconds, over 100 percent longer than "free-fall". Oops not 20, not 40, over 100%. Time the entire collapse, count the internal failure. Your study is of facade, where the interior is compromised, falling long before the exterior. Make your analysis worthless, and your methods, technobabble claptrap to fool those who fail to check your methods, and motives.

NIST is finished, when will you be finished with over 60 videos titled, "Demolition ...". When will you change your titles? You have erased other failed claims, why not blame 19 terrorists who murdered all the people on 911?

911 truth thinks 911 was an inside job, the evidence says you too too, with your massive pile of videos titled, "Demolition" and your, "fictional official theory" statement (did you erase that statement too). 911 truth is the personification of bad science, failed math, and nonsense, like your myopic study of a point falling on WTC 7. There are infinite points to study, why pick one? 911 truth can't comprehend fire destroying a building, they attack NIST, fail, rinse, and repeat; is this your method too?

Publish your work, show NIST failed, collect a Pulitzer exposing the inside job. Wait! Your myopic study when combined with all available data proved WTC 7 fell in a gravity collapse due to fire; caused by terrorists. Forget the Pulitzer.

 

[LashL]

It is, as is all discussion within the entire realm, associated with the question: Demolition, or not ?

The *conspiracy* as you put it, is demolition, or not.

Thanks for that, but I'm still not clear on how your 'video data analysis' relates to a 9/11 conspiracy theory. What do you mean by "demolition, or not"? Are you suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy or aren't you?

It's really a pretty straightforward question, so please answer it.

If you are suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy theory, then I see no problem with this thread staying in the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum, but if you are not suggesting that, then I think it might be better suited elsewhere.

Could you please just state frankly and clearly what conspiracy theory your 'video data analysis" is posted in support of? There is no need to evade and wander all about; just state it clearly so that we can determine the most appropriate location for this thread.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

...
Could you please just state frankly and clearly what conspiracy theory your 'video data analysis" is posted in support of? There is no need to evade and wander all about; just state it clearly so that we can determine the most appropriate location for this thread.

I wish there was a facebook-style "Like" button for posts here on the JREF Forum.

 

[Oz1976]

Thanks for that, but I'm still not clear on how your 'video data analysis' relates to a 9/11 conspiracy theory. What do you mean by "demolition, or not"? Are you suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy or aren't you?

It's really a pretty straightforward question, so please answer it.

If you are suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy theory, then I see no problem with this thread staying in the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum, but if you are not suggesting that, then I think it might be better suited elsewhere.

Could you please just state frankly and clearly what conspiracy theory your 'video data analysis" is posted in support of? There is no need to evade and wander all about; just state it clearly so that we can determine the most appropriate location for this thread.

He will not answer you. He hasn't answered that question posed to him by multiple people on here. You, myself, Oystein, Beach, Myriad and others have asked him, he won't answer.

It's quite clear to me that since he can't prove controlled demolition (it's clear he believes in it as his videos are titled so), he's simply trying to go after NIST in any way shape or form. He, like Major_Tom are trying to backdoor controlled demolition masked as "Scientific"...but they can't do it. Neither one can publish a thing and they know it. Neither one has stated their purposes directly (though we know, it's past assumption, we know it), and probably never will here.

 

[femr2]

Thanks for that, but I'm still not clear on how your 'video data analysis' relates to a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I can't see why not.

And are you acting in a moderating capacity ? If so, then why is this discussion being performed within this thread itself ?

If moderating action discussion is now being performed within the thread, why have the recent posts by MT been side-lined to AAH ? They are no more off-topic than reams of the crap folk throw into here without any action being taken.

What do you mean by "demolition, or not"?

How much clearer could I be ? Whether the descent of WTC1, 2 & 7 was a result of anything other than impact damage/fire, or not.

Are you suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy or aren't you?

I have already answered this question.

Again, certain elements *debunk* truther theories (and so would be seen to lean away from a "controlled demolition" conspiracy), and some elements *debunk* Official/NIST theories (and so would be seen to lean toward a "controlled demolition" conspiracy)

Quite a significant portion sits firmly in the *debunk* category, though folk seem rather too stupid to actually realise that.

It's really a pretty straightforward question, so please answer it.

But of course. See above.

If you are suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy theory, then I see no problem with this thread staying in the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum, but if you are not suggesting that, then I think it might be better suited elsewhere.

You are suggesting that any thread which DEBUNKS any theory, whether it be a *truther* theory, or an *official* theory does not belong here ?

Wow. You are saying no more threads here which debunk *anything at all* ? Crikey. What are you going to actually do around here ?

Could you please just state frankly and clearly what conspiracy theory your 'video data analysis" is posted in support of?

As I've said, the *conspiracy theory* is *demolition, or not*.

There is no need to evade and wander all about; just state it clearly so that we can determine the most appropriate location for this thread.

We ? Do you mean you ? I think moving it would set a rather ludicrous precedent...

No thread which debunks ANYTHING is welcome in the 9/11 Conspiracy Sub-Forum.

That would be funny. I'd have to invest lots of time ensuring that precedent was upheld across the board.

 

[Major_Tom]

Lashl, I am capable of answering but you keep removing my posts.

The question has already been answered many times.

I spent about a year answering this same question over and over. Would you really like me to do it yet again?

Lashl, after having my threads removed for the same reason. I would consider it an honor to explain the significance of real measurements in study of physical systems. Would you like me to? How about the significance of having the NIST collapse initiation models disproved for all three buildings? Would you like an explanation?

 

[femr2]

He will not answer you.

Incorrect.

He hasn't answered that question posed to him by multiple people on here.

Incorrect.

You, myself, Oystein, Beach, Myriad and others have asked him, he won't answer.

Incorrect.

It's quite clear to me that since he can't prove controlled demolition (it's clear he believes in it as his videos are titled so), he's simply trying to go after NIST in any way shape or form. He, like Major_Tom are trying to backdoor controlled demolition masked as "Scientific"...but they can't do it. Neither one can publish a thing and they know it. Neither one has stated their purposes directly (though we know, it's past assumption, we know it), and probably never will here.

ROFL. You *believe* a whole heap of crap, sir

Now, if you are capable of getting back on-topic, it would be appreciated.

 

[GlennB]

Are you suggesting that your 'video data analysis' supports a "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory or an "inside job" conspiracy or aren't you?

I have already answered this question.

I've read hundreds of your posts and you have always appeared to studiously avoid a straight answer to Lashl's question. I stress appeared as it's perfectly possible I missed the straight answer along the way.

So, in order to finally clear this up, could you link us to a post where you give a clear and unequivocal answer?

 

[femr2]

Lashl, I am capable of answering but you keep removing my posts.

The question has already been answered many times.

I spent about a year answering this same question over and over. Would you really like me to do it yet again?

It certainly seems that yours posts are being actively removed from this thead.

It highlights one of the major problems with this place imo...

People are uniquely focussed upon *personality*.

Far to much discussion *addressing the arguer*.

People here have decided that I am a *twoofer*, and so if I am not foaming at the mouth proclaiming that little green men vaporised downtown NY with space beams then I am not welcome here.

Many threads in the sub-forum do not discuss theories in the slightest, but instead focus on discussion of *theorists*. Bizarre...and I would have thought also directly in breach of the MA.

I suggest you have your say, bearing in mind LashL now appears to be conducting moderating discussion within the thread itself. It would be quite transparent if your response was shuffled off to AAH.

 

[femr2]

I've read hundreds of your posts and you have always appeared to studiously avoid a straight answer to Lashl's question. I stress appeared as it's perfectly possible I missed the straight answer along the way.

You need to learn how to read then...

I have already answered this question.

Again, certain elements *debunk* truther theories (and so would be seen to lean away from a "controlled demolition" conspiracy), and some elements *debunk* Official/NIST theories (and so would be seen to lean toward a "controlled demolition" conspiracy)

Quite a significant portion sits firmly in the *debunk* category, though folk seem rather too stupid to actually realise that.

 

[Major_Tom]

It would be quite transparent if your response was shuffled off to AAH.

Most of my post are.