Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

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.

The NIST data is not available, and as you are aware their trace data suffers from a multitude of issues related to their methods.

This is not a conclusion from your analysis that changes any conclusion at all drawn from the NIST analysis.

So you now also have a problem with presenting data which SUPPORTS NIST findings ? Wow.

Independant confirmation of elements of the NIST report is also not welcome within this forum in your opinion ? Wow.

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.

Amongst other issues, the application of feature tracing techniques has revealed serious issues with the NIST initiation sequence for WTC1. NIST did not successfully determine the initiation mechanism.

 

[femr2]

Believe me...we are frothing at the mouth to debate this with you.

You are certainly frothing at the mouth.

If you are not getting enough *woo* in your diet, go and debate at LooseChange or AboveTopSecret.

If you are unhappy with elements of this study confirming details within the NIST reports, or *debunking* numerous *truther* theories, then I suggest you start spamming every thread on this sub-forum which debunks anything at all. Have fun.

You are consistently off-topic and will now be placed on ignore.

 

[femr2]

When I was very willing to discuss the same questions on WTC1, using data from femr and others, my thread was removed.

Indeed. The threads removed utilised trace data in numerous ways, highlighting serious issues with the official reports. It is simply a sign of ineptitude that many members here cannot fathom that critique of the official reports is the correct way to question the events of the day.

I shall be requesting that all of the recent off-topic spam is removed. This thread would be so much shorter without the constant whining and endless inept criticism of the methods employed.

 

[Carll68]

You are certainly frothing at the mouth.

If you are not getting enough *woo* in your diet, go and debate at LooseChange or AboveTopSecret.

If you are unhappy with elements of this study confirming details within the NIST reports, or *debunking* numerous *truther* theories, then I suggest you start spamming every thread on this sub-forum which debunks anything at all. Have fun.

You are consistently off-topic and will now be placed on ignore.

Oh Noes...ignore? What will ever will I do? Not enough woo in my diet? From the person who has spent years assembling meaningless graphs and thought there was a 'pod' on the planes?

LOL!

Really? You bring enough woo for anyone for a lifetime..wrapped up in psuedo techno babble.

Your comments are off topic champ...

THIS IS A 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORY FORUM.

You have yet, and never will, tie your 'work' to a conspiracy theory.

If you wish to heap praise upon NIST, by all means, do so...it is well warranted...but do so in the proper forum, not here. Afterall, you just said, there are elements of your study (loose word usage) that confirm NIST's findings on 7 and thus 'debunk' truthers insane insipid theories. Your words.

So, we are all done here then? You can't convey a CT relating to 9/11 as a conclussion of your work?

Great!

Now lets move this thread to MATH AND SCIENCE to study, you know....THE MATH AND SCIENCE of your work....

 

[femr2]

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.

The NIST initiation sequence is wrong. It is not yet clear how the actual initiation sequence resulted in the resultant ROOSD process, but timings indicate that ROOSD must have started quite a bit before *visible* signs of initiation.

It is silly to keep repeating these untrue statements while criticizing femr for not being sufficiently conspiratorial in this thread.

There seems to be a *new era* evolving...

Not enough WOO = baaad.
Criticism of NIST = baaad.
SUPPORT of NIST = baaad.
Specific confirmation of elements of the NIST report = baad.

No debunking allowed at JREF
No criticism of official theory allowed at JREF

Crikey

 

[femr2]

100%, absoloutely, positively, YES.

What is the initiation sequence for WTC 1 ?

 

[femr2]

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.

As I said earlier, no worries. I'll sort out the data for the Palm Beach event as soon as I have time.

 

[NoahFence]

What is the initiation sequence for WTC 1 ?

As I said, not good enough for YOU.

 

[Major_Tom]

Noahfence, do you even know what the NIST claims as a collapse initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2?

Does "sagging long span trusses" ring a bell? From my reading of past posts, few posters if any know what the stated mechanism is. Perhaps you would like to learn it before defending it?

 

[Carll68]

The NIST initiation sequence is wrong. It is not yet clear how the actual initiation sequence resulted in the resultant ROOSD process, but timings indicate that ROOSD must have started quite a bit before *visible* signs of initiation.


There seems to be a *new era* evolving...

Not enough WOO = baaad.
Criticism of NIST = baaad.
SUPPORT of NIST = baaad.
Specific confirmation of elements of the NIST report = baad.

No debunking allowed at JREF
No criticism of official theory allowed at JREF

Crikey

Not enough WOO? Who said this? Please be specific. What are the measurments you used to quantify 'enough' versus 'not enough'?

You are off- off topic! This forum is for discussion of WOO...9/11 WOO specifically...do you plan to present your theory here, and tie it to your work, or not?

Support of NIST? Good. But should be discussed in and of itself, not relating to a CT, in the appropriate forum!

Criticism of NIST? Good. But should be discussed in and of itself, not relating to a CT, in the apprpriate forum!

Specific confirmation of elements of the NIST report? Good. But should be discussed in and of itself, not relating to a CT, in the appropriate forum!


This is a subforum of Conspiracy Theories for 9/11 based Theories. Don't you get it?

Want to discuss the merits of your work? Of NIST's? GREAT! Just not here, unless you are tying it to a CT. ARE YOU GOING TO TIE YOUR WORK TO A CT..EVER?

IF NOT, WHY IS IT HERE? If not, you're discussing the technical aspects of your study, and it should not be in a CT subforum. This isnt censorship....its simply putting all the pieces in the proper place.

 

[NoahFence]

Noahfence, do you even know what the NIST claims as a collapse initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2?

Does "sagging long span trusses" ring a bell? From my reading of past posts, few posters if any know what the stated mechanism is. Perhaps you would like to learn it before defending it?

Sure I do.

Fire.

That's yet to be contradicted in anything that would resemble a satisfactory manner.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In what was then another thread, Oystein wrote:

Please do not debate the technical quality and physical, mathematical or engineering appropriateness of femr2's methods here! Let us stick to accepting his take on the data as given, and concentrate strictly on the consequences of femr2's data analysis!

femr2 expressed his desire that all of that non-technical discussion be conducted within this pseudo-technical thread:

I suggest this thread is merged with the existing femr2 video data analysis thread.

femr2 got his wish. The moderators merged the threads. Non-technical speculation concerning potential consequences can no longer be regarded as off-topic for this thread.

Indeed. The threads removed utilised trace data in numerous ways, highlighting serious issues with the official reports. It is simply a sign of ineptitude that many members here cannot fathom that critique of the official reports is the correct way to question the events of the day.

Is femr2's inability to distinguish between "moved" and "removed" a sign of ineptitude?

I shall be requesting that all of the recent off-topic spam is removed.

Following femr2's request that the threads be merged, the "recent off-topic spam" to which he referred is now very much on topic.

This thread would be so much shorter without the constant whining and endless inept criticism of the methods employed.

How would femr2 know which criticisms of his methods are inept?

 

[femr2]

Non-technical speculation concerning potential consequences can no longer be regarded as off-topic for this thread.

If you guys want to speculate about potential consequences of my video data analysis, go ahead. Guess you have nothing better to do with your time.

If you want to continnually spam the thread with calls for it to be censored-by-movement, or demand a higher level of conspiratorial discourse, or object to debunking of pre-existing theories from any camp...my opinion stands.

Is femr2's inability to distinguish between "moved" and "removed" a sign of ineptitude?

ROFL. Talk about grasping at straws. Removed, as-in removed from this sub-forum. Get a grip Will.

the "recent off-topic spam" to which he referred is now very much on topic.

Nonsense. The recent witless banter is the oft-repeated hand-waving that the inept regularly bring to this thread asking *where is the woo !!??!! eleventy*. It's pathetic.

How would femr2 know which criticisms of his methods are inept?

LOL. This thread is choc-a-bloc with my responses to criticism of my methods. Almost none of the criticism has been at all valid.

I'll sort out that summary of our recent discussion in good time. Be patient eh

 

[twinstead]

LOL. This thread is choc-a-bloc with my responses to criticism of my methods. Almost none of the criticism has been at all valid.

I'll sort out that summary of our recent discussion in good time. Be patient eh

Sorry, but you are not the sole arbiter of whether criticisms of your methods are valid or not. Regardless, though, the common consensus now seems to be that your methods are irrelevant; it's time to show exactly what your conclusions are and how they relate to 9-11 conspiracy theories.

It's time to grow a point. This thread has run its course.

 

[Major_Tom]

Sure I do.

Fire.

That's yet to be contradicted in anything that would resemble a satisfactory manner.

Yes. That is as deep as you were able to go. I could already see that from past posts.

Most of the posters defending the NIST collapse initiation scenarios do not know what those scenarios are. Most of the posters couldn't pass a simple multiple choice test on what the scenarios are within the reports.


Yet the scenarios are considered "good enough". That seems to be as far as the collective intellect can expand in this forum. This is where many posters seem to keep bumping into the proverbial wall.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes. That is as deep as you were able need to go. I could already see that from past posts.


FTFY kiddo.

 

[femr2]

As I said earlier, no worries. I'll sort out the data for the Palm Beach event as soon as I have time.

As agreed...

 

[DGM]

As agreed...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/898155405.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/44753876.jpg[/qimg]

And?

I did notice one thing. Gravity works.


.

 

[femr2]

And?

And what ?

NoahFence requested a trace from a known demolition.

There's a displacement graph comparison.

Please ensure you at least TRY and read recent posts

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If you guys want to speculate about potential consequences of my video data analysis, go ahead. Guess you have nothing better to do with your time.

As I have said on several occasions, but have apparently not said often enough for femr2 to catch on, my personal opinion is that femr2's video data analysis is inconsequential.

If you want to continnually spam the thread with calls for it to be censored-by-movement, or demand a higher level of conspiratorial discourse, or object to debunking of pre-existing theories from any camp...my opinion stands.

I don't recall doing any of those things. I think femr2's just making stuff up.

LOL. This thread is choc-a-bloc with my responses to criticism of my methods. Almost none of the criticism has been at all valid.

A few weeks ago, the person who expressed that opinion finally stopped ignoring repeated requests to provide numerical coefficients that would allow others to duplicate his graphs, but told us he didn't know how to extract some of those numbers from the software he was using. He then gave us incorrect numbers. After I informed him of his error, he wrote three separate posts insisting that his numbers were correct before editing the third of those posts to change his numbers.

Anyone can make a mistake, but some learn to accept valid criticism.