• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

ozeco41 said:
Why do all parties - truther or debunker - discuss perimeter column "pull-in" as if it resulted from a single cause?

We see it in these recent posts doing the geometry for core collapse. Same thing for the alternate and NIST preferred view of floor joist sagging.

In either case those pushing that explanation consider only the single factor. Why the simplistic approach?

The perimeter bits which bow inwards are columns intended to be axially loaded AND carrying quite large loads.

If an axially loaded column is pulled out of line its load carrying capacity is drastically reduced.

So why not recognise two factors - floor sag OR core movement which causes the initial bend of the column THEN axial overload takes over and causes that inwards bend to continue to the full (whatever) 55"?

...so add "(non)axial force overload" into the considerations and I will leave the "core led" v"floor catenary sag led" sides of the discussion to decide which was the initiating factor.
Click to expand...

WTC1
According to NIST no columns were severed on the south truss support side, so no pull-in forces from suspended columns there. South perimeter columns still bowed. Cause of bowing: tensile pull-in truss sag.
WTC2
According to NIST 4 of the 8 southernmost columns were severed on the east truss support side, so pull-in forces from suspended columns there would be expected. Cause of east perimeter bowing: tensile pull-in from suspended columns and tensile pull-in truss sag. Northeastern perimeter columns bowed, even though its supporting complementary 4 intact core columns remained undamaged by the impact.

Conclusions: Pull-in forces from the sagging trusses were alone sufficient in WTC1 and contributed in WTC2, to bow the perimeter columns.
Severed suspended perimeter-side core columns were not necessary to bow the perimeter columns.
 
NoahFence said:
The rest of your post is your typical long-winded way of getting out of making a conclusion.
Click to expand...

That is your biggest personal problem, NoahFence.

You freely state that sarcasm is your strong point (though to be honest, you're not actually too hot at that) and repeatedly state that answers are not being provided.

The problem is that you do not seem capable of actually understanding or recognising answers provided to you.

Look at the post you are responding to, and to which you respond "The rest of your post is your typical long-winded way of getting out of making a conclusion."...

If you want AN observation...there is no apparent very early motion for the Palm Beach trace.

Early motion of WTC7 is one of those behaviours which have been confirmed via *femr2's video data analysis* which *debunks* theories which rely upon a *boom* followed immediately by collapse of the building.

What additional conclusion would you want ? How much clearer could I be ?

You want me to write some nonsense about how a position/time graph PROVES x, y, z, a & b ? Where x, y, z, a & b are not details that can be directly inferred from the data ?

What the trace can highlight is that the Palm Beach controlled demolition did not exhibit the very early motion of WTC7.

If you have paid ANY attention to details within this thread, or are simply able to use your noodle running at idle, then you can infer from these details. If you choose to make unjustifiable conclusions based on these limited details, that's your choice.

If you want me to make conclusions not justifiable simply from the data...jog on son.
 
I think the above might need to be spelled out more. Forum management discussions that should take place in the appropriate forum and not here include (but are not limited to) any and all of the following:

- Suggestions or arguments for why and where the thread should be moved, and responses to same.

- Objections to previous threads or posts having been moved, and responses to same. This includes such objections phrased as vague allusions to "censorship" or other nefarious practices.

- Claims and arguments about whose posts are or are not on topic for this thread. (If you believe a post is off-topic, report it in the usual way, and do not respond to it.)
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad
 
What the trace can highlight is that the Palm Beach controlled demolition did not exhibit the very early motion of WTC7.
Click to expand...

OK...breathe.

If it DID NOT look like WTC7, then are we to assume that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition?

(The above was probably my 10th attempt at a reasonable question, well within the boundries of the topic of discussion, and will no doubt be probably the 10th one ignored)

If you have paid ANY attention to details within this thread, or are simply able to use your noodle running at idle, then you can infer from these details. If you choose to make unjustifiable conclusions based on these limited details, that's your choice.
Click to expand...

There you are wrong. I can't interpret your data to any logical conclusion. I can't tell just by looking at it, if we're looking at a controlled demo or a collapse by aircraft impacts and fire.
That's all we're asking from you and MT.

But you REFUSE to "go there".

So have at it. Wallow in your superiority, look down at us unwashed masses from your perch on high, and pat yourself on the back. You're far more intelligent than I. Congrats.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
If it DID NOT look like WTC7, then are we to assume that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition?
Click to expand...
Again you are demonstrating that either you do not read my posts, or do not understand the words therein.

You can assume whatever you please.

As you said yourself, the displacement/time graphs for WTC and the Palm Beach building look very similar.

There are subtle differences, namely that the Palm Beach trace did not contain obvious early motion, unlike the WTC 7 traces.

As I have said repeatedly, the early motion is not expected in any *theory* which suggests *boom* followed by immediate collapse.

If you want to make assumptions not justified directly by the data observations, that is entirely up to you.

If you expect me to make unjustified conclusions based on data and observations drawn from such, jog on.

(The above was probably my 10th attempt at a reasonable question, well within the boundries of the topic of discussion, and will no doubt be probably the 10th one ignored)
Click to expand...
You have been answered probably more than 10 times. You simply do not like the answer. Tough.

Asking again will be regarded as spam.

I can't interpret your data to any logical conclusion.
Click to expand...
I've given you a simplistic and useful interpretation of the data. Perhaps I'll derive the velocity and acceleration profiles for you, and you can have a stab at interpreting the any differences to those of WTC 7.

I can't tell just by looking at it, if we're looking at a controlled demo or a collapse by aircraft impacts and fire.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that you should ?
 
Again you are demonstrating that either you do not read my posts
Click to expand...

Fine. You're right. I don't read your posts.

SO

Having said that, please point me to the post where you even hint that there's a difference, demonstrated by your observations.
 
I can't tell just by looking at it, if we're looking at a controlled demo or a collapse by aircraft impacts and fire.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that you should ?
Click to expand...

The location of this thread.


Edit....
If it were just me that is having a problem translating technobabble into an actual point, maybe you could say I'm simply not getting it. But people far more patient than me, far smarter than me AND you also can't find where you're drawing anything close to a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
The location of this thread.


Edit....
If it were just me that is having a problem translating technobabble into an actual point, maybe you could say I'm simply not getting it. But people far more patient than me, far smarter than me AND you also can't find where you're drawing anything close to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

This is true. I have followed this discussion since the thread started and I have yet to see a single post where femr2 or MT presents a conclusion - let alone one that hints at any sort of conspiracy.

It seems to me that this whole thing is either a desperate grab for attention - in which case, well done, but the schtick has gotten old - or a sincere investigation that didn't produce the results that femr or MT expected so they don't want to discuss the results, but can't back down due to having boasted about their investigation for so long.

I don't think there's any chance that any of us are ever going to see the conclusions from these "investigations", but we should definitely keep asking for them, if only to point out how laughable this whole thing is.
 
femr2 said:

...

Early motion of WTC7 is one of those behaviours which have been confirmed via *femr2's video data analysis* which *debunks* theories which rely upon a *boom* followed immediately by collapse of the building.
Click to expand...

Utter bilge.

The concept of "boom followed immediately by collapse of the building" was completely & conclusively debunked long, LONG before you ever showed up on the scene.

It was provisionally debunked on about Sept. 12, 2001 by anyone listening carefully to the publicly broadcast videos of the event.

It was debunked conclusively by Brent Blanchard & the folks at Protec when they examined their seismic recording of that day.

It was conclusively debunked by NIST's engineers listening to the recordings, and calculating the sound pressure levels that would have been required of any explosives powerful enough to sever a column.

If there is no "boom", then you don't have to bother going on to "... followed immediately ..." by anything.

None of your curves are the slightest bit necessary to debunk this.

Figures that the first time that you attempt a conclusion, the claim falls flat.

:rolleyes:
 
tfk said:
Utter bilge.

The concept of "boom followed immediately by collapse of the building" was completely & conclusively debunked long, LONG before you ever showed up on the scene.

It was provisionally debunked on about Sept. 12, 2001 by anyone listening carefully to the publicly broadcast videos of the event.

It was debunked conclusively by Brent Blanchard & the folks at Protec when they examined their seismic recording of that day.

It was conclusively debunked by NIST's engineers listening to the recordings, and calculating the sound pressure levels that would have been required of any explosives powerful enough to sever a column.

If there is no "boom", then you don't have to bother going on to "... followed immediately ..." by anything.

None of your curves are the slightest bit necessary to debunk this.

Figures that the first time that you attempt a conclusion, the claim falls flat.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
A bit of an interesting paradox you pose there tfk.

Presumably your reasoning - unstated - is that femr2 cannot debunk something which has already been debunked. So you claim a rule that "debunking" is a once done cannot be repeated phenomenon.

If we accept that and apply it to the examples you give us then:

It could not have been "...debunked by NIST's engineers listening to the recordings etc" because, as per your claim, it had already been "...debunked conclusively by Brent Blanchard ...etc"

Then again the Blanchard claim is placed in doubt because "...It was provisionally debunked on about Sept. 12, 2001 by anyone listening carefully to the publicly broadcast videos of the event."

What that means naturally rests on the current status of that key word "provisionally".

If it is no longer "provisional" then Blanchard also was too late by your rule that "first in with a debunking wins against all who make later claims". He was beaten by lots of media viewers/listeners on 9/11.

And if it is still 'provisional' it seems to imply that "anyone listening carefully to the publicly broadcast videos of the event." can still not be assured that they were right.

Seems like a bit of a tangled web you weave.

So why cannot NIST's debunking stand on parity with Blanchard?

And if it has parity why cannot femr2's independent work also stand? :)
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Seems like a bit of a tangled web you weave.
Click to expand...
A strange choice of post for tfk to make after such a long absence.

In addition, my assertion is based upon trace data from several minutes prior to release. Data which has not been presented before.

NIST had some data from such early points in time, but due to deficiencies in their method (moire method, no static point extraction, West edge rather than point feature) they (incorrectly) attributed the motion to camera movement.



And Happy Birthday !
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
A bit of an interesting paradox you pose there tfk.

Presumably your reasoning - unstated - is that femr2 cannot debunk something which has already been debunked. So you claim a rule that "debunking" is a once done cannot be repeated phenomenon.

If we accept that and apply it to the examples you give us then:

It could not have been "...debunked by NIST's engineers listening to the recordings etc" because, as per your claim, it had already been "...debunked conclusively by Brent Blanchard ...etc"

Then again the Blanchard claim is placed in doubt because "...It was provisionally debunked on about Sept. 12, 2001 by anyone listening carefully to the publicly broadcast videos of the event."

What that means naturally rests on the current status of that key word "provisionally".

If it is no longer "provisional" then Blanchard also was too late by your rule that "first in with a debunking wins against all who make later claims". He was beaten by lots of media viewers/listeners on 9/11.

And if it is still 'provisional' it seems to imply that "anyone listening carefully to the publicly broadcast videos of the event." can still not be assured that they were right.

Seems like a bit of a tangled web you weave.

So why cannot NIST's debunking stand on parity with Blanchard?

And if it has parity why cannot femr2's independent work also stand? :)
Click to expand...

Are you O.K. Ozeco? You can't be serious, can you? Why would you take that valuable time to type a reply and miss the point TFK was making, and miss it so badly?

I befuddled by your actions.

A tangled web? He was stating fact, not weaving a web. FEMR is taking credit for 'debunking' the 'boom for collapse' theory. TAKING CREDIT. As in IT WAS HIM WHO DEBUNKED IT, as in IT WAS PREVIOUSLLY NOT DEBUNKED.
TFK was correctly pointing out that it was NOT FEMR who 'debunked' this theory. By the time FEMR started working on his technobabble with no goals or conclussions, this was no longer even a valid theory.
It was debunked many times over...first by sound, next By NIST, on and on.

I take credit for debunking the claim that the earth is flat with my pixie stick rendering. <<<< By your logic, this is a valid statement..and whoever points out this was debunked numerous times and by whom and what method in the past is wrong.....

Please put more effort into reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:
What point is tfk making so badly?
There is no point. It's the same rethorical nonsense like the resulting failure from positional noise on calculated velocities or accelerations. We don't use just two points like NIST did.
We used 59 samples per second. Think about the resulting conclusion IF you once understood what the up and down at high frequency might be.
It's the same rethorical nonsense like dicussing a failure due to an increased sampling rate IF the development of the resulting data do not show a frequency above the original sampling rate.
femr2 didn't take "credit", he just excluded one way of *boom* CD that indeed wasn't discussed since ? Sep 12 2001 ? Even the entire thermite discussion do not refer to a *boom*. Nevertheless, there are several people reporting all kinds of booms. And these reports came after Sep 12 2001.
The seismic data are no argument at all. Even 1993 bombing resulted in no measurable seismic vibration. Hence, even a *boom* as loud as NIST expected probably wouldn't cause any seismic data.
So what is that rethorical nonsense all about? Is it about to discuss or to discredit femr's data?
 
The Demolition of 1515 Flagler Dr...

44753876.jpg

898155405.png


A quick look at derived acceleration suggests very near to freefall, if indeed it is not actually reached...

657018636.jpg


May need to look at some other demolitions. Seems the assertion that near freefall doesn't occur could be wrong...
 
Major_Tom said:
I agree. He was making the point badly. So badly.
Click to expand...

LOL...good one Tom.

Of course, I meant Ozeco was missing the point TFK made, and missing it badly...but your posted reply made me laugh..for a completely different reason than your others posts make me laugh, however.
 
Clarification please

femr2 said:
The Demolition of 1515 Flagler Dr...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/44753876.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/898155405.png[/qimg]

A quick look at derived acceleration suggests very near to freefall, if indeed it is not actually reached...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/9/2/657018636.jpg[/qimg]

May need to look at some other demolitions. Seems the assertion that near freefall doesn't occur could be wrong...
Click to expand...

Define 'near'......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom