Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

By the way: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212331

Missed this in amongst the unnecessary bickering that has been going on.

<tips hat>

 

[GlennB]

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.

Ah, now I see the problem. Your interpretation of the phrase "straight answer" is whatever you choose it to be and may vary from moment to moment.

Any chance of a "straight answer" of the kind that the rest of the world would also recognise as straight?

 

[Oz1976]

You need to learn how to read then...

Then why are all of your videos on youtube listed as "demolition" instead of collapse or even "event"? Just because your "work" *debunks* some truther stuff (and according to you some NIST stuff), that does not answer what your goal/agenda is especially with so blatantly TM titles on said videos.

 

[femr2]

Then why are all of your videos on youtube listed as "demolition"

Roughly one third of my YT videos contain the word "Demolition" within the title.

The reason for such has been stated on numerous occasions.

That you are so inept that, despite the answer to your question being provided on numerous occasions, you are incapable of doing anything other than invent your own nut-job theory as to the reasoning for such inclusion is not my problem, it is yours.

I'll give you a hint...go find out. To perform a search, choose some words, keywords if you will, then utilise some mechanism enabling said *search*

 

[Oystein]

IMO, Oystein's request is a reasonable one. He and others have admitted that you have provided useful criticism of the NIST report.

This is entirely false. I have neither "admitted" anything along those lines (the word falsely implied that I previously denied it), nor do I find that criticism "useful" for any purpose that I can conceive of.

Stop misrepresenting everything, please.

I admit I can't speak to the technical issues in that thread, but I find the discourse interesting.

I, too, would like to know how your conclusions do or do not affect NIST's. If as you say the conclusions debunk CD theories, then how do they support a gravity driven collapse due to fire? These would seem reasonable questions. Whether or not the discussion belongs in the original thread, I imagine, is up to the mods, but I found that thread informative.

Mods thought differently.

 

[ozeco41]

Missed this in amongst the unnecessary bickering that has been going on.

<tips hat>

My support added - a bit late....

 

[femr2]

there is no other side

Nonsense. The *truther*/*debunker* camps have been waging witless sharp pointy word exchanges at each other for nigh-on a decade.

With this one post you have proved you are an inside job supporter.

ROFL. You have simply proved you have a rather inept understanding of the word prove, I'm afraid.

Why does 911 truth ignore the internal failure?

Go and ask them.

WTC 7 complete collapse over 16 seconds, over 100 percent longer than "free-fall". Oops not 20, not 40, over 100%.

Descent of separated elements should be treated separately.

Motion of the building began several minutes prior to NW corner release.

Your point ?

I note your rejection of the NIST 40% longer than freefall verbage, which is fine, however, it obviously relates to the facade rather than the combined length of time between separate element descent timings.

A more accurate estimation is around 20% longer than freefall.

Your study is of [the] facade

One part of my studies, sure. Your point ?

technobabble claptrap to fool those who fail to check your methods

You keep repeating this ridiculous opinion in various guises, but provide zero substance to support your pet hate.

So what have you checked, and what error did you find ?

Who do you think has been fooled, and with what ?

Quotes please, your personal opinion on these questions will be laughed at and binned without quoted support

There are infinite points to study, why pick one?

I have traced many points, on all of WTC1, 2 & 7.

Why *pick* fault with me, which you do falsely as I have indeed traced many points, when you fail to also criticise NIST for doing very similar studies ?

You can criticise me as much as you like, though you personally do so with zero substance, but bear in mind that the data quality is without doubt higher than similar traces from NIST, and so your *criticism* also applies to NIST.

 

[Carll68]

This is absurd.

If you, FEMR, want or wish to discuss the technical merits and validity of your rudimentary research, than A CONSPIRACY THEORY subforum is clearly not the proper place to do this.

If you wish to discuss the Science and Math of your study, then this should be moved to Science and Math.

If you wish to discuss a conpiracy theory uncovered in your research, then this is the proper venue...but this is not what you are doing. You are claiming "Demo" versus "Not Demo".

If this was a topic, then the thread should read as such, and the posts would involve evidence (none) supporting demo, and evidence supporting natural collapse, and the debate would ensue. Are you doing this? Are you prepapred to make a stand and tell us the goal and conclussion of your findings?

Does it support CD? Does it support Natural collpase? If so, on either, how, and why?

If you are unsure what your findings support, or feel it supports both CD and non CD, then, you would be better served having this thread moved to the proper forum to have those questions answered. There is no conspiracy involved in shoddy research yielding non stated conclussions.

So, either take a stand, state your conclussions, or discuss the technical side over in the proper forum.

What are we discussing here? We are not discussing a conspiracy, a CD, a natural collapse, or an argument for or against either side. We are discussing your methods for smoothing out noise and starting points for calculations of time and desecent. So, the 70 year old engineers and other who think this is the proper venue for discussion of technical aspects of studies are, in fact, wrong. We are not and have not been discussing any conspiracy in this thread for quit some time.WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING TECHINCAL ISSUES WITH NO MENTION OF CONSPIRACY.

If you disagree FEMR..then just state the conspiracy and don't waffle.

Q) Does your finding(s) support a CD?

A) YES: Belongs here
NO: Belongs here
BOTH/NOT SURE: Belongs where this can be discussed properly and substance added...which is NOT a Conspiracy Theory subforum.

 

[femr2]

Are you doing this?

Absolutely.

You appear unable to read.

I have repeatedly highlighted throughout this thread what elements of the on-going studies refute pre-existing *truther* theories which rely upon *instantaneous removal of structural support for WTC 7* followed by immediate collapse.

I have also repeatedly highlighted serious issues with the pre-existing NIST studies, as previously listed.

Suggest you read the thread again. Your laziness is not my problem. Suggest you also read this thread.

That you require details to be presented in a way that you are able to easily digest is also not my problem. Answers to all of your questions are already contained within this thread.

You have contributed nothing to this thread other than repeated personal attacks. If you do not wish to participate in a useful capacity, ignore the thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Oystein]

...
I have repeatedly highlighted throughout this thread what elements of the on-going studies refute pre-existing *truther* theories which rely upon *instantaneous removal of structural support for WTC 7* followed by immediate collapse.

I have also repeatedly highlighted serious issues with the pre-existing NIST studies, as previously listed.
...

In my opinion, the NIST report, where it touches issues that you analyse, refutes the same truther theories in exactly the same way. The NIST data already shows that supports were not removed instantaneously. This is not a conclusion from your analysis that changes any conclusion at all drawn from the NIST analysis.

Where you find fault with the NIST repoort, it is entirely unclear to me how the points of dissent argue for a mode of failure that is not "fires following plane/debris impacts" and instead argue for intentional modes of collapse initiation.

 

[Carll68]

YOUR issues with the NIST studies based on YOUR WORK, however erroneous it may be, does not constitute a conspiracy. If you wish to fine tune the findings of your report, do so in the proper venue. You are debating pixels and smoothing and noise and starting points....not what your study shows as it relates to a CONSPIRACY THEORY.

This is CONSPIRACY THEORY subforum champ.

If you feel YOUR WORK points to a CONSPIRACY, succinctly tell us so we can debate this topic.

DOES YOUR WORK SHOW A CONSPIRACY RELATED TO 9/11, AND, IF SO, HOW?
Believe me...we are frothing at the mouth to debate this with you.

HOW DOES YOUR WORK PROVE A CONSPIRACY ON 9/11....?

If you are unsure what YOUR WORK reveals, or feel it reveals elements of both, then this thread should moved to a proper venue where your questions can be sorted out. iF YOU HAVE DETAILED SCIENCE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NIST METHODS VERSUS YOUR METHODS, THERE FINDING VERSUS YOUR FINDINGS...THIS IS NOT THE SUBFORUM.

Stop back when you have a conclussion, and can tie that conclussion to a Conspiray related to 9/11.

 

[NoahFence]

YOUR issues with the NIST studies based on YOUR WORK, however erroneous it may be, does not constitute a conspiracy. If you wish to fine tune the findings of your report, do so in the proper venue. You are debating pixels and smoothing and noise and starting points....not what your study shows as it relates to a CONSPIRACY THEORY.

This is CONSPIRACY THEORY subforum champ.

If you feel YOUR WORK points to a CONSPIRACY, succinctly tell us so we can debate this topic.

DOES YOUR WORK SHOW A CONSPIRACY RELATED TO 9/11, AND, IF SO, HOW?
Believe me...we are frothing at the mouth to debate this with you.

HOW DOES YOUR WORK PROVE A CONSPIRACY ON 9/11....?

If you are unsure what YOUR WORK reveals, or feel it reveals elements of both, then this thread should moved to a proper venue where your questions can be sorted out. iF YOU HAVE DETAILED SCIENCE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NIST METHODS VERSUS YOUR METHODS, THERE FINDING VERSUS YOUR FINDINGS...THIS IS NOT THE SUBFORUM.

Stop back when you have a conclussion, and can tie that conclussion to a Conspiray related to 9/11.

I believe what we're looking for is a statement that says
"I believe this is a controlled demoltion because of (fill in observation)"

Which is one reason why I was interested in seeing femr2's data presented on a known controlled demo - to compare.

Seems like a pretty benign request.

 

[twinstead]

I believe what we're looking for is a statement that says
"I believe this is a controlled demoltion because of (fill in observation)"

Which is one reason why I was interested in seeing femr2's data presented on a known controlled demo - to compare.

Seems like a pretty benign request.

Yea, but so is "so give us a flippin' conclusion already", but he doesn't want to honor that one either

 

[GlennB]

And when asked for a straightforward clarification of his position he refers back to ambiguous and obscurely-worded replies or invites people to scan a thread of over 2000 posts.

How hard could it be to say (for example) "I believe my research shows that building 7 was assisted in its collapse by considered human intervention in the form of <insert mechanism here> because <insert critical observation(s) here>" ??

I suspect mere attention freakery on femr2's part, and FSM knows he's getting plenty.

 

[Carll68]

Absolutely.

You appear unable to read.

.

I asked are you doing this. In context, 'THIS' refers to showing what evidence in your study supports the notion of a CD. OR (NOT AND) what evidence in your study supports the notion of a natural collapse. IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR STATED GOALS AND CONCLUSSIONS AS IT RELATES TO A 9/11 CONSPIRACY.

You stated 'absolutley' you are doing this..then refer me to a post where you ramble on about nothing and never tell us what your studies conclussions are, and what you based those conclussions on....

 

[Carll68]

And when asked for a straightforward clarification of his position he refers back to ambiguous and obscurely-worded replies or invites people to scan a thread of over 2000 posts.

How hard could it be to say (for example) "I believe my research shows that building 7 was assisted in its collapse by considered human intervention in the form of <insert mechanism here> because <insert critical observation(s) here>" ??

I suspect mere attention freakery on femr2's part, and FSM knows he's getting plenty.

Thumbs Up

 

[Carll68]

Absolutely.

I have also repeatedly highlighted serious issues with the pre-existing NIST studies, as previously listed.

Unless those NIST issues you have can be tied to a CONSPIRACY THEORY CONCERNING 9/11...then, again, this is clearly a thread in the wrong fabric......

If those issues can be tied to a COSPIRACY THEORY CONCERNING 9/11...please share how and why....

Save the blustering for YouTube, and get back to us when you are willing to share how your work supports or denies a 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORY.....

 

[Major_Tom]

In my opinion, the NIST report, where it touches issues that you analyse, refutes the same truther theories in exactly the same way. The NIST data already shows that supports were not removed instantaneously. This is not a conclusion from your analysis that changes any conclusion at all drawn from the NIST analysis.

Where you find fault with the NIST repoort, it is entirely unclear to me how the points of dissent argue for a mode of failure that is not "fires following plane/debris impacts" and instead argue for intentional modes of collapse initiation.

The question is: Does the NIST correctly identify the "how and why" of the collapse of each building as they claim?

The answer is no for WTC1 and 2 and seems to be no for WTC7.

Your forum keeps repeating that they do correctly identify the "how and why" "well enough".

This is not true but it is a central false concept in this forum. It is silly to keep repeating these untrue statements while criticizing femr for not being sufficiently conspiratorial in this thread.

He is challenging a common false belief within the forum and if the thread is removed, it seems to be in order to have those false beliefs unchallenged.
....................

It seems odd to repeat these false statements over and over. Why not just correct your beliefs instead?

 

[Carll68]

The question is: Does the NIST correctly identify the "how and why" of the collapse of each building as they claim?

THE QUESTION...or YOUR QUESTION?

YOUR QUESTION.

Discussing the technical aspects of a technical study in a 9/11 conspiracy theory forum is asinine. Further, not tying the results of the said study to a conspiracy and then wondering (and whining about) why it got moved from a conspiracy theory subforum is pathetic.

You never stated:

"The NIST study was wrong here, here and here, and , as a result of this, the building was imploded because of this, this and this."

All you have done, and femr as well, is attack the reports, insinuate shoddy QA, and never tie anything to a conspiracy....

Still wondering why they are moved?

 

[NoahFence]

The question is: Does the NIST correctly identify the "how and why" of the collapse of each building as they claim

100%, absoloutely, positively, YES.

To YOU and FEMR's exacting specifications? Apparently not.

Your forum keeps repeating that they do correctly identify the "how and why" "well enough".

This is not true

It absolutely is true. It's even been backed up in a real world scenario. See: Mandarin Oriental fire. Your side continually uses that as an example of why WTC 7 should have remained standing. The truth of the matter is that the builders and engineers responsible for that building used information collected from the NIST report to assist in mitigating fire damage. Apparently NIST did do a "good enough" job. Sorry you two irrelevant people aren't happy. Get a new hobby.