Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[DGM]

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

I did. You might also note I stated my observation.

femr2: What do you hope to accomplish with your work considering your very limited data base of CD as apposed to "natural" collapses? If you want to somehow make some kind of a case, would you not need this information?

 

[femr2]

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.

ROFL. My personal opinion is that your personal opinion is inconsequential. You don't seem capable of understanding that *You guys* refers to more than one person, you know

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

If you want to take each statement personally, that is your personal choice. My statement still refers to *you guys*. Your complaints are becoming incredibly thin. Very funny.

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

ROFL. Ignored ? Nope. Not provided as quickly as you demanded, sure. Whilst you were waiting, you made some rather funny assumptions. Interesting to watch.

but told us he didn't know how to extract some of those numbers from the software he was using.

The only reference in that post is me stating that the software used has a 16 parameter limitation. Getting confuzzled ?

He then gave us incorrect numbers.

Indeed. Excel truncated the precision via a cut and paste. Didn't spot it till an hour or two later, then provided the full precision numbers with an apology. No big deal. That's your argument ? LMAO.

High-brow smear you've achieved there Will. Dear me

 

[femr2]

What do you hope to accomplish with your work considering your very limited data base of CD as apposed to "natural" collapses?

The application of sub-pixel accurate tracing techniques has already provided a wealth of information about motion of WTC 1 and WTC 7.

Did you miss them all ?

Suggest you re-read this thread from the beginning, and also the threads started by MT which were removed from this sub-forum.

You will also find a wealth of information gleaned from the application of tracing techniques over at the911forum.

 

[Major_Tom]

DMG, you did not notice all the use of the same tracking methods applied to WTC1?

It showed that the WTC1 collapse initiation scenario proposed by the NIST could not have happened.

It was in that thread that was removed from this forum. The one in which we posted for close to 1 year before you concluded it had nothing valuable.

Are you sure you actually read the contents and understood them?

 

[DGM]

The application of sub-pixel accurate tracing techniques has already provided a wealth of information about motion of WTC 1 and WTC 7.

Did you miss them all ?

Suggest you re-read this thread from the beginning, and also the threads started by MT which were removed from this sub-forum.

You will also find a wealth of information gleaned from the application of tracing techniques over at the911forum.

A "wealth of information"? I have read the threads (along with 911forum). Where has any of this "wealth" gone to? The best you can claim is your more sure that "NIST has to be wrong but you have no idea how.

 

[femr2]

Your thread was moved to science after it was shown you only wanted to discuss your hand-picked observations, without explaining how you arrived at that exclusive list.

Is that true ?

If so...

a) Who decided that MT had not explained his observation selection criteria ?

b) Who decided that a decision to discuss a selection of observations warranted a thread being removed from this sub-forum ?

You also have not shown how there was any "conspiracy".

Again it appears that there is a fundamental shift ocurring within JREF...

a) No threads which debunk existing theories are allowed in this sub-forum.

b) No threads which criticise NIST or show NIST conclusions to be incorrect are allowed in this sub-forum.

c) No threads which confirm NIST findings or show NIST conclusions to be correct are allowed in this sub-forum.

Cor.

Anyone disagree with these observations ?

If not, I suggest someone reinstates the threads in question.

The thread is still around, you are not.

Clearly untrue, bearing in mind who you are responding to.

 

[NoahFence]

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

As I said before, sarcasm is my strong suit....

Anyway, thanks for providing that femr. As a layperson, I must say that it looks very much like WTC 7's. What should I be looking at as interpretation goes? Do the two look different enough to you to suggest the initiation and collapse of the two buildings are from a different source? IE - explosives vs. fire?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

ROFL. My personal opinion is that your personal opinion is inconsequential.

So we agree.

You don't seem capable of understanding that *You guys* refers to more than one person, you know

If you want to take each statement personally, that is your personal choice. My statement still refers to *you guys*. Your complaints are becoming incredibly thin. Very funny.

Thank you for clarifying. Had you not done so, someone might have thought that what you wrote in your response to me could have had something to do with me.

High-brow smear you've achieved there Will. Dear me

When did boringly factual statements become smears?

 

[Oz1976]

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*

So, instead of a direct answer, as has been asked by numerous people on here, you again resort to childish condescention...there's a word for people like you. People who call others out for something, yet do the same themselves. It's hypocrite. You're ignored as is your idiotic "work" that proves nothing, and will prove nothing. You're trying to backdoor in CD as is Major_Tom. Not happening, it's not there. You may return to your vendetta against NIST. Sorry they didn't have the answers you were looking for in 2007.

 

[000063]

Is there a point to only discussing a subset when you are attempting to find the reason for the whole? I can see your point but, he has not been able to explain why these are the "observations" that are "significant"(instead of others).

Yes, it's called "removing context", which is the First Commandment for any sort of Conspiracy Theorist.

 

[femr2]

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*

So, instead of a direct answer, as has been asked by numerous people on here, you again resort to childish condescention.

Too funny. See the highlighted word above.

My YT title names contain *key words* which are useful when folk try to *search* for something on the *internet*.

Here's a YT video *title* you may be familiar with...
"9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible"

Do you note the use of key words within it ?

I never knew RKOwens was a twoofer !!?!11!eleventy

 

[beachnut]

Too funny. See the highlighted word above.

My YT title names contain *key words* which are useful when folk try to *search* for something on the *internet*.

Here's a YT video *title* you may be familiar with...
"9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible"

Do you note the use of key words within it ?

I never knew RKOwens was a twoofer !!?!11!eleventy

... add reading comp...
Your videos are titled "Demolition", most likely due to your "fictional official theory" stand in your paranoid conspracy theory. You think 911 truth has a side, they have delusions based on ignorance, not much of a side. Will you start a thread, "911 truth has a side", you could present the evidence to support their side, but you can't.
When will you publish?
What is you final conclusion, after this extensive analysis?

 

[twinstead]

So Major_Tom of some relatively obscure internet forum doesn't think the NIST Report is "good enough".

Cry me a river.

 

[femr2]

Speaking for myself I hold to the opinion that '...the NIST theory is "good enough"... FOR ME'

Assuming for a moment that you accept that the NIST WTC1 initiation sequence is wrong, then what is your assertion that the NIST theory is good enough actually based upon ?

The actual initiation sequence seems to require the release of multiple OOS floor sections, along with the demise of the entire core support over a very small tilt angle.

The amount of time+fire required to weaken the core to such an extent without the additional load applied by failure of the perimeter is not predicted by NIST.

One need only look at the facade behaviour of WTC2 during initiation to realise the notion of sagging floor pan pulling in the perimeter to the point of perimeter buckle to be false. Spring-back would be the keyword there.

So are you saying that even if the NIST initiation sequence is wrong, and NIST do not predict enough heat for the core to weaken enough, and the NIST IB mechanism is shown to be false...you'd still be saying that the NIST theory is good enough ?

What is that based upon ?

* Yes, I know, they may not if you as an alleged truther made the statement the need to disagree with the truther would probably override the actual issue in question....but that is a different subject which I have posted about several times - keywords 'the sky is blue' -

I may have to start that thread

 

[twinstead]

Assuming for a moment that you accept that the NIST WTC1 initiation sequence is wrong, then what is your assertion that the NIST theory is good enough actually based upon ?

The actual initiation sequence seems to require the release of multiple OOS floor sections, along with the demise of the entire core support over a very small tilt angle.

The amount of time+fire required to weaken the core to such an extent without the additional load applied by failure of the perimeter is not predicted by NIST.

One need only look at the facade behaviour of WTC2 during initiation to realise the notion of sagging floor pan pulling in the perimeter to the point of perimeter buckle to be false. Spring-back would be the keyword there.

So are you saying that even if the NIST initiation sequence is wrong, and NIST do not predict enough heat for the core to weaken enough, and the NIST IB mechanism is shown to be false...you'd still be saying that the NIST theory is good enough ?

What is that based upon ?

The only thing that would make the NIST not good enough is if there was another theory that was better. Do you have one?

 

[DGM]

Your work and femr2's work as posted here and as limited by you and femr2 respectively does no more that suggest possible alternate mechanisms which resulted in the collapse. If you were to change the global position to add some form of 'MIHOP' to 'impact damage plus fire damage' then the game would change - but you do not have 'MIHOP' in the scope of your current discussion so forget it at this stage.

So all that you are discussing is details within that global position - impact damage plus fire damage. Until and unless you change that global position you have no basis for your false claims such as:
That claim is a lie by inference. The "That" of "That is not true" refers to the clause '...the NIST theory is "good enough"...' you cannot say it is "not true" unless you specify "for who?"

Assuming for a moment that you accept that................

You badly missed his point...........

 

[Major_Tom]

The NIST's stated goal is to describe the "how and why" of the collapses of each building.

Why do you not judge the reorts on how well they do what they claim to do.

They clearly state their goals in the introduction of each report.


This is not my personal criteria. Their goals are clearly stated within the reports.

 

[DGM]

The NIST's stated goal is to describe the "how and why" of the collapses of each building.

Why do you not judge the reorts on how well they do what they claim to do.

They clearly state their goals in the introduction of each report.


This is not my personal criteria. Their goals are clearly stated within the reports.

The how was damage and fire. the why is "gravity works".

Yes, they do not explain every nuance in the detail that you expect.

This does not change the the how and why. If you can do better, go for it. Keep in mind, if you post it in this sub-forum you really need it to include a conspiracy.

If you want to just discuss the intricate details "science" would be where to go.

 

[NoahFence]

When your parents taught you to ride a bike, did they have to describe the proper tire pressure, nail your center of gravity down to the 1/16th inch, have to detail the friction between the tire and pavement, and how it changes when you go on dirt or ride in the rain?

Or was "keep your balance" good enough?

You're complaining that NIST didn't provide answers for only the most obscure and irrelevant pieces of data YOU can conjure up. They apparently did it good enough that other architects and engineers use their data to construct actual buildings that stand today. Their data was good enough that nobody has yet to produce a paper that refutes any of their findings. Nothing was changed. Their data was good enough for people like you, femr, christoper7 and the like to cherry-pick their 'correct' statements.

 

[Major_Tom]

The how was damage and fire. the why is "gravity works".

Yes, they do not explain every nuance in the detail that you expect.

This does not change the the how and why. If you can do better, go for it. Keep in mind, if you post it in this sub-forum you really need it to include a conspiracy.

If you want to just discuss the intricate details "science" would be where to go.

The most difficult barrier to communication on this subject is that so many regular posters are defending the NIST mechanisms while being ignorant of them.

If you took the time to learn what you are defending and comparing the NIST claims with observables, you would probably find why we have been telling you for a long time.

Ignorance of the theory you defend is the only thing keeping this balloon afloat.