ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th August 2010, 08:09 AM   #241
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Noticed some discussion of the NIST 5.4s interval.

Here is that interval using the Dan Rather dataset...



Make of it what you will.

I think they were a little early (as they treated flexing behaviour in the Cam#3 footage as vertical movement).

I'd suggest (using specific frame numbers to calculate) they were 0.467s too early, making the 5.4s metric more like 4.93s.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2010, 10:00 AM   #242
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Noticed some discussion of the NIST 5.4s interval.

Here is that interval using the Dan Rather dataset...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/842535832.gif

Make of it what you will.

I think they were a little early (as they treated flexing behaviour in the Cam#3 footage as vertical movement).

I'd suggest (using specific frame numbers to calculate) they were 0.467s too early, making the 5.4s metric more like 4.93s.
Yet another set of pretty data Femr2. 5.4s down to 4.93s woooooooooooooo.

Post #1 asked a very specific question. Post #31 too. You have danced ever since. Pick a spot out of any one of the videos you use. Just one spot and do as Tom has asked. Stop dancing with your 'BS' baffles brains sketch and your fancy garbage in/out data and pretty graphs. Pick a spot, show Tom, and lets see if your pixels and interlaced jargen differ. Lets see if your fence sitting works. Same camera, same distance, same light, same angles, same cameraman, same time etc etc etc. Put up or STFU.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2010, 11:05 AM   #243
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2010, 11:12 AM   #244
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?
Maybe you could tell us how micro-measuring a video can prove anything.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2010, 11:43 AM   #245
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?
What I want is a straight forward response to the questions raised by Tom in the OP and reiterated throughout this thread. femr2 is versed in the dance. femr2 has used the same dance time and time again.

The methodology and tactic used here by femr2 is the same used elsewhere. The very same technology, terminology, trickery and 'BS' was used by femr2 to attempt to convince the kids at uboob that an anomaly of a 'POD' was attached to the aircraft that struck WTC. femr2 attempted to use the same camera jargen, pixel jargen, interlaced, interpolated jargin top convince the kids that this anomaly was infact a bomb. femr2 used his 'tech knowledge' of all things camera and pixel in much the same manner. femr2 used all manner of 'BS' to attempt to convince the kids. Was it an anomaly? NO. Did it really require such terminology, pixel explanation, interlacing jargin etc etc NO! Did it require hundreds of post, many threads, countless graphs, videos and stills? NO!!!!

Turns out that the 'POD' was infact the fairings that housed the undercarriage and wheels. In femr2's world it was a bomb.

So I make absolutely no appology to you or anyone else for the manner in which I respond to such a charlatan.

femr2 is pulling your chains. It does not require hundred of tech posts to tell me that. If Tom wishes to humour himself then that is Tom's perogative.
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for rule 12.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

Last edited by Tricky; 31st August 2010 at 07:09 PM.
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2010, 12:56 PM   #246
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,962
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
It is pretty obvious from this thread that there is an anti-intellectual element within this forum that is allowed to harass at will.

Femr is introducing a tracking tool to measure actual building movement of any of the 3 towers with surprising accuracy.

If we want to see the correct order of events during collapse initiation, or look for any detectable deformations leading up to each collapse, why wouldn't suchn a tool be welcome?

Instead, femr is forced to endure an absurd amount of abuse from people who clearly know much less about this tracking tool than he does.

This sickening level of abuse is allowed here.

It seems encouraged through a pack, group mentality.

Do you really need femr to explain why accurate measurements of early deformation and collapse initiation are important to the subject of CD or natural collapse?
All for no reality based goal, the goal seems to be to back in CD. It is called failure Tom, you have to have a goal tied to reality in the real world, so this work is nonsense and a waste of time. BTW, tracking algorithms that are much better exist but you can't have them unless you buy them. This is total nonsense since there is no real goal, and in reality it only pertains to 911 because you and ferm2 have delusions about CD and can't figure out 911.

When the work is done and published it will show a gravity collapse, either with better fidelity, or worse, some smoothed out version that looks good and could be used to show the point of interest in some cartoon as an subject with added background. This stuff works great for making up movies and not using blue screen. Super stuff. But the world of tracking is orders of magnitude past this basement hobby application to prove woo.

In the real world steps can be sourced and referenced, not just made up and pushed as being correct. Ask him to source and reference his work, the points/claims/steps/methods/results/etc, it will not happen.

When will you guys publish anything like Heiwa did with his letter?

Last edited by beachnut; 30th August 2010 at 01:00 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2010, 01:03 PM   #247
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
femr2 is pulling your chains. It does not require hundred of tech posts to tell me that. If Tom wishes to humour himself then that is Tom's perogative. I on the other hand believe that precious time is being wasted by debating with such fools. Ridicule and pity is best suited.
Oh boy. I just found the 'pod' video and the 'impact charges' video, along with several others on youtube. In some, he actually refers to "Flight 175" in quotes, as if it doesn't exist.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2010, 04:03 PM   #248
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
Post #1 asked a very specific question. Post #31 too. You have danced ever since. Pick a spot out of any one of the videos you use. Just one spot and do as Tom has asked. Stop dancing with your 'BS' baffles brains sketch and your fancy garbage in/out data and pretty graphs. Pick a spot, show Tom, and lets see if your pixels and interlaced jargen differ. Lets see if your fence sitting works. Same camera, same distance, same light, same angles, same cameraman, same time etc etc etc. Put up or STFU.
I have already provided Tom with data for three additional *spots*...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/wtc_7_ext...nts_2/1-1-0-31

I guess you didn't understand the question Abby.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2010, 04:30 PM   #249
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 31st August 2010 at 04:31 PM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2010, 06:49 PM   #250
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Maybe you could tell us how micro-measuring a video can prove anything.
Rather depends upon what is being observed.

For example, a simple trace of WTC7 can show detailed information about the release point, rate of descent, ...



It is then how the data is interpreted that is important.

Tracing of multiple features of WTC 1 *proves* that the upper section rotated ~1 degree before vertical drop ensued, that the upper block immediately deformed, and that it is highly likely that the core led other features, such as south wall failure. WTC1 trace data has also been used to show a number of *mini jolts* during the early descent.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2010, 08:20 PM   #251
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
Therefore, God Bush did it.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2010, 04:17 AM   #252
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Good news. The NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage is about to become available (hopefully in 7 minute form). FOIA release.

When I get hold of it I'll be dumping the current Cam#3 dataset and redoing it.

The new version will have the shortest and most traceable chain of custody yet, with NIST being the only body in between the original CBS raw footage.

May compare the datasets simply out of curiosity about quality difference.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 07:57 AM   #253
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
{deleted}

Last edited by femr2; 2nd September 2010 at 09:52 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 09:04 AM   #254
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Tom,

So, where were we. Assume your 5 day MIA was fun

Static point variance...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/874369222.png

I've applied some processing to the data.

1) Aligned separate traces by either +0.1 or -0.1 pixels relative to t9/16
2) Normal 2 point moving average for jitter treatment.
3) Average of all four traces taken as root.
4) Variance as subtraction of each trace from root.
5) 7 point moving average on variance data (just to simplify the display).

I imagine the step you'll object to most is the first, though I am sure you can see why I have included it if you look at each static trace of the same graph without applying offsets.

As mentioned above, the NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage should be with me shortly, though even that looks like they have messed with the contrast and brightness to a ridiculous amount. (I imagine they did so to simplify their home-grown tracing procedures.) As NIST have now released their lightened version of the original CBS footage, there can be no reason for not releasing the original CBS data directly, and so if it's not in the 7Tb dataset, it will be requested fairly promptly. Best result there is that I get hold of the original 7 minute version with original colour.
femr2
Did you not follow the same methodology and techniques when you wrongly determined that the manufactured undercarriage fairing was in fact an anomalous 'POD' bomb? I seem to recall you used much the same jargon and methods to quite vehemently state that it was most definitely a bomb strapped to the underside of a commercial aircraft. It wasnt!!!!!

I am curious to ask if you have ever retracted your technical findings once you realised you were wrong? It certainly doesn’t appear that any of your findings have ever been retracted once proved wrong.

Wouldn’t you agree, femr2, that it is prudent for those seeking the truth to admit when they were wrong and that to continue in the same vein could be viewed as deception?

To discuss flawed methodology and techniques would be a waste of time in my opinion. Particularly when being discussed by those who have a proven track record of being wrong. Wouldnt you agree femr2?

Have you managed to use your methodology and techniques to establish that pre placed charges/explosive devices were detonated in any buildings on 911? If so, why havnt you done something about it? If not, why not?

I know the answers femr2 but those you are trying to reach may not be aware of them.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

Last edited by Jackanory; 2nd September 2010 at 09:06 AM.
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 09:33 AM   #255
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
femr2
Did you not follow the same methodology and techniques ...
No Abby, as you well know. You also know that your assertion is false.

You clearly have nothing to add to this thread, other than to *address the arguer, not the argument* (which you have been recently warned about) - Rule 12.

If you have any specific questions about the techniques in use, firstly, read the thread, then by all means ask questions.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 09:39 AM   #256
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
femr2, do you believe that United flight 175 struck the World Trade Center? Just curious. Having viewed your videos recently, I couldn't tell. If so, why did you put "Flight 175" in scare quotes sometimes?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 09:51 AM   #257
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Just curious.
No matter how many times you are requested to stay on topic, you are incapable of doing so. Again, you mistake me for a no-planer. What relevance does it have to this thread ? Scare quotes ? LOL. Go and find something more interesting to spend your time on Carlitos. I'm not interested in what you are curious about, and if you wish to discuss something off thread topic, there are plenty of other places you can discuss them with me.

Yet again, stay on topic please.

Last edited by femr2; 2nd September 2010 at 09:54 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 09:52 AM   #258
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Tom,

So, where were we. Assume your 5 day MIA was fun

Static point variance...



I've applied some processing to the data.

1) Aligned separate traces by either +0.1 or -0.1 pixels relative to t9/16
2) Normal 2 point moving average for jitter treatment.
3) Average of all four traces taken as root.
4) Variance as subtraction of each trace from root.
5) 7 point moving average on variance data (just to simplify the display).

I imagine the step you'll object to most is the first, though I am sure you can see why I have included it if you look at each static trace of the same graph without applying offsets.

As mentioned above, the NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage should be with me shortly, though even that looks like they have messed with the contrast and brightness to a ridiculous amount. (I imagine they did so to simplify their home-grown tracing procedures.) As NIST have now released their lightened version of the original CBS footage, there can be no reason for not releasing the original CBS data directly, and so if it's not in the 7Tb dataset, it will be requested fairly promptly. Best result there is that I get hold of the original 7 minute version with original colour.

Last edited by femr2; 2nd September 2010 at 09:59 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:23 AM   #259
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
No Abby, as you well know. You also know that your assertion is false.

You clearly have nothing to add to this thread, other than to *address the arguer, not the argument* (which you have been recently warned about) - Rule 12.

If you have any specific questions about the techniques in use, firstly, read the thread, then by all means ask questions.
The questions were not Rule 12 violations. They were about your methodology.

You're just trying to dodge the questions. I think they're perfectly valid and appropriate, as you've used your technical methods to try to prove some pretty outlandish things in the past.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:24 AM   #260
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
As mentioned above, the NIST copy of the Cam#3 footage should be with me shortly, though even that looks like they have messed with the contrast and brightness to a ridiculous amount. (I imagine they did so to simplify their home-grown tracing procedures.) As NIST have now released their lightened version of the original CBS footage, there can be no reason for not releasing the original CBS data directly, and so if it's not in the 7Tb dataset, it will be requested fairly promptly. Best result there is that I get hold of the original 7 minute version with original colour.
Why can't you guys just get it from CBS directly? What's the point of using NIST as an intermediary?
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:28 AM   #261
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
you've used your technical methods to try to prove some pretty outlandish things in the past.
Incorrect. The application of tracing methods has been applied to elements of WTC 1 initiation, and *crush front* rate of progression, as has been made clear on this thread. What *outlandish things* are you suggesting tracing methods have been used to prove...?
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:33 AM   #262
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Incorrect. The application of tracing methods has been applied to elements of WTC 1 initiation, and *crush front* rate of progression, as has been made clear on this thread. What *outlandish things* are you suggesting tracing methods have been used to prove...?
Who said anything about tracing methods, besides you? We're talking about the misapplication of your 'precise' methodologies to support outlandish claims in the past. About your use of technical jargon to make such claims seem more 'sciencey'.

Sure, that's a bit OT to the thread, but it ain't no Rule 12 violation.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:41 AM   #263
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
Same for my question. I'm just trying to assess the judgement of the analyst looking at the data. Why can't truthers answer direct, simple questions?

Here's my answer regarding United flight 175 impacting WTC2 - "yes."

femr2's answer is ... ___________?

It's not a gotcha question, it's a legit inquiry. I notice that some of the videos that seemed to claim "flight 175" don't work from the femr2's youtube links #1 video. Kudos for the video that states it was "not a missile," by the way. Here is the one I refer to:

carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:55 AM   #264
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
About your use of technical jargon to make such claims seem more 'sciencey'.
Like "ejecta anomalies" for instance...
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:04 AM   #265
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
And there is an entire thread here that looks at the source of the question, namely the FlightExplorer information that places UAL175 50km NE of WTC 2 as 35000ft, and N175F at the location of the impact. My viewpoint is made clear on that subject, on that thread. Both are Flight 175. I assume you now see why suggesting that I think "Flight 175" did not exist is a false accusation.

Comment on the appropriate thread. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with sub-pixel tracing methods, the topic of this thread. Rule 12. (Way too much time on your hands )

Last edited by femr2; 2nd September 2010 at 11:05 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:08 AM   #266
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
I don't think Rule 12 means what you think it means. This is about the arguments and the methodologies used.

There is no Rule 12 violation in discussing those topics.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:31 AM   #267
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
And there is an entire thread here that looks at the source of the question, namely the FlightExplorer information that places UAL175 50km NE of WTC 2 as 35000ft, and N175F at the location of the impact. My viewpoint is made clear on that subject, on that thread. Both are Flight 175. I assume you now see why suggesting that I think "Flight 175" did not exist is a false accusation.

Comment on the appropriate thread. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with sub-pixel tracing methods, the topic of this thread. Rule 12. (Way too much time on your hands )
Thanks, but "yes" would have been a lot shorter. Too much time on your hands?

I wonder what conclusion your youtube subscribers gleaned from a video asking "Which 'Flight 175' Crashed into WTC 2?" There were several "no plane" comments @ youtube. And your responses are interesting.
Originally Posted by femr2@youtube
No-planers are indeed no-brainers, but that's not what is being suggested.

What is being suggested is that the aircraft which DID impact WTC2 was NOT UAL175. Another flight 175 (N175F) was shown on radar data.

femr2 11 months ago
Quote:
UAL175 is positioned miles NE of WTC2 at 31000 feet AFTER it is supposed to have crashed into WTC2.

femr2 1 year ago
Or what they gleaned from analysis of "ejecta anomalies" from what you called "impact charges:"
Originally Posted by femr2 @ youtube
Originally Posted by dreadnaught
To call the highlighted area an impact charge you would have to explain how it was detonated at the exact time the plane hit. I am not an explosives expert but I would bet that most experts would describe the highlighted plume as a point where the energy of the crash and explosion blew out a window.
dreadnaught...Timing is a very minor issue. Many methods are fully possible with timing accuracy in milliseconds.

I see no point elaborating on that, as it's rather trivial, however, the video description will be updated to include details which explain WHY it is not an effect of the physical aircraft impact soon.

femr2 1 year ago
So the ejecta from WTC was not a result of a jumbo jet hitting it at high speed? This is delusional, and veering into Ace Baker territory.

As alienentity noted, you use video analysis and slick production to make vague accusations about 9/11. You find "anomalies" and present them as fact based on your analysis. You have no expertise in any area which qualifies your analysis to be taken at face value. You won't list any qualifications here. And you use technical jargon which at times you don't understand to make your work seem impressive. It's not. This is directly related to this thread.

Also related to tfk's point within this specific thread, please note your claim of "milliseconds" above. You do not appear to understand the concept or application of error analysis when processing data.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 12:05 PM   #268
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Too much time on your hands?
Far from enough I'm afraid.

Quote:
You find "anomalies" and present them as fact based on your analysis.
Nope. I certainly highlight what I deem to be anomolies, and ask questions about them. Sometimes there are answers, sometime not. The near-central white plume ejecta from the impact video you have gone to lengths to dig into is possibly focussed ejecta through the central core corridor. The other highlighted area is still unexplained.

Quote:
You have no expertise in any area which qualifies your analysis to be taken at face value.
You have no knowledge of my qualifications...

Quote:
You won't list any qualifications here.
Correct.

Quote:
And you use technical jargon which at times you don't understand to make your work seem impressive.
Incorrect. I may use terminology you personally don't understand, or interpret incorrectly. That's not my problem.

Quote:
This is directly related to this thread.
No it's not. It's *attack the arguer* and ignore the *argument*. Look at the lengths you're going to...scanning through YouTube to quote mine for things you think make your *point*. Too funny. I'm a bit thicker skinned than that I'm afraid. It boils down to a simple and deliberate attempt to derail the thread.

Quote:
Also related to tfk's point within this specific thread,
Oh. My. Many. Gods. Something actually about this thread...?

Quote:
please note your claim of "milliseconds" above.
I assume you mean the NIST 5.4s graph. Note I state *using specific frame numbers*. The calc is fully qualified.

Quote:
You do not appear to understand the concept or application of error analysis when processing data.
Incorrect. As also indicated, make of it what you will.

Now, if you've finished wasting your time trawling YouTube (which you might note I haven't been to in months) get specific about the technical procedures pertinent to this thread, or be quiet Thanks mate.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 12:08 PM   #269
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
IThis is about the arguments and the methodologies used.
Then I shall assume further comments will address sub-pixel tracing methods, their accuracy and direct arguments from such.

Great
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 12:50 PM   #270
Carll68
Critical Thinker
 
Carll68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Then I shall assume further comments will address sub-pixel tracing methods, their accuracy and direct arguments from such.

Great
This entire thread is laughable --why even bother with this frauds feeble uneducated attempts at video tracing?

For Pete's sake, this stooge is using a program that isnt even an acceptable program to utilize for his intended and stated purpose. Look it up.

he is using a inferior program with bad data and no understanding of the results he spews.

Frankly, HE HASN'T A CLUE AS TO WHAT HE IS DOING.

POINT. BLANK. END.
Carll68 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 01:13 PM   #271
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,112
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Incorrect. I may use terminology you personally don't understand, or interpret incorrectly. That's not my problem.
I understand (most of) your jargon just fine. My concern was, and is, that your pseudo-sciencey jargon, charts and graphs and pretty video production impresses truthers, who then use it to validate their erroneous theories. Like "no plane" (flight 175) or "bombs in the WTC tower" (ejecta anomalies). This is visible in the comments section for your videos, whatever the context of their presentation elsewhere may be. I only picked a random 2 or 3 that had something to do with flight 175, and no, I certainly won't be trolling for more. The preceding is true whether you consider yourself part of the "truth" movement or not.

Similarly, your youtube channel subscribers and friends include lots of truther fantasists, including luminaries like "alexjones4president" and "WarCrime911." You can play naive all you like, but the fact remains that your vague and misleading insinuations are used to validate truther fantasies which have no grounding in fact. Like "bombs" or "fake planes" or "the government did 9/11." I suspect that this is why you refuse to state an alternative hypothesis which better explains the events of 9/11/2001; you don't have one, preferring to "just ask questions" just play with video.

Heck, look at the comments on your own website to see this. Missiles? Pods?

I won't comment further on this thread, per your request. If there is a purpose for your analysis other than questioning the common narrative of 9/11/2001, I'd be curious* to hear it.




*yes I know that you don't care what I'm curious about
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 01:42 PM   #272
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Carll68 View Post
using a program that isnt even an acceptable program to utilize for his intended and stated purpose.
SynthEyes is one of a small number of available *match mover* applications. There are not any applications designed to perform the task I'm using it for, however, the 2D tracking engine is of superb quality and accuracy. There are a couple of rather more expensive options out there, but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to invest the $10,000 required for a BOUJOU or 3DEqualiser seat, for what is basically an extremely similar underlying tracking engine.

Accuracy has been shown to be at least on-par with the flawed NIST moire method, which claims inch accurate metrics.

If you are aware of an application that you can show exceeds the 2D tracking engine capabilities of SynthEyes, then by all means say so.

If not, then your comments are entirely without merit (as per usual).

Quote:
Look it up.
What a good idea.

Originally Posted by carlitos
I won't comment further on this thread, per your request.
Noted. Thank you.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 05:45 PM   #273
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
No Abby, as you well know. You also know that your assertion is false.

You clearly have nothing to add to this thread, other than to *address the arguer, not the argument* (which you have been recently warned about) - Rule 12.

If you have any specific questions about the techniques in use, firstly, read the thread, then by all means ask questions.
I got the expected response.

I asked specific questions relevant to the methodology and techniques used and how those same methods and techniques have been wrongly used by you to reach incorrect conclusions in all other areas of 911. A plethora of false and misleading information that leads directly to false conclusions or misleading assumptions as shown in works on youtube and posted here by alienentity. Did you submit those works to youtube? Have you accepted that the methods used have concluded in you being incorrect? Was the 'POD' a bomb?

In my opinion it is deception to continue in the same vein knowing that those very methods and techniques have already lead to failed conclusions. This is not the accepted norm amongst those seeking advancement in their field of expertise. Are you making progress?

Over to you Tom.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 06:04 PM   #274
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
I asked specific questions relevant to the methodology and techniques used
Incorrect. Nothing to do with tracing techniques.

Quote:
and how those same methods and techniques have been wrongly used by you to reach incorrect conclusions in all other areas of 911.
Again, incorrect. Provide example of incorrect conclusions derived from the methods and techniques being discussed in this thread (sub-pixel video feature movement tracing).

Quote:
Was the 'POD' a bomb?
LOL. You have been banging on about pods for years Abby. Years. No. No pod Abb's, as I've highlighted to you many times a very long time ago...here's one of my renders to prove that (rather than flimsy hand waving from others) from march 2009...


Quote:
In my opinion...
Your opinion is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. No offense intended. I like chocolate, and tea

Quote:
Over to you Tom.
I'll assume you've *had your say* now Abby. Not one technical point raised whatsoever.

Now, if everyone has gotten all their personal frustrations out of their systems, I can get back to the tracing methods thing...the thread topic...
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 06:17 PM   #275
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post


Your opinion is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Now, if everyone has gotten all their personal frustrations out of their systems, .


What were you saying about Rule 12? You just made personal attacks....that would be hypocrisy Just sayin
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 08:01 PM   #276
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,962
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
What were you saying about Rule 12? You just made personal attacks....that would be hypocrisy Just sayin
He has no reality based goal, or purpose for his work; and if he could he would censor the those who can comment on his work; on-line, he has to block dissenting points of view. I thought reference and sources for his steps would be great; but they are not going to happen. If this was his forum, or his video, we would be blocked; he hates JREF and has said so.

No sources, no reference, no goal, no purpose. The CD delusion runs deep in 911 truth; past reason. This work might be interesting but serves no purpose; there are proprietary and other classes of this work already done. Without modeling the errors due to lens, atmosphere, and many other errors, this work is a waste. I worked with engineers, professors, PhDs and scientist who did this type of work right; we are 10 pages away from just setting up the introduction.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 08:10 PM   #277
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
there are proprietary and other classes of this work already done.
By all means link to them then beachnut...
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 08:33 PM   #278
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Without modeling the errors due to lens, atmosphere, and many other errors, this work is a waste.
Incorrect. The main usage of trace data thus far has been determination of the relative start points of multiple building features. Quantifying the suggested errors is irrelevant in that context. Also, given the scale of other noise sources, such as video artefacts and quality, the effect of the suggested factors are of lower magnitude and are not separable.

Bound to be some hand waving, so...

Lens distortion will present itself over large movement distances, atmospheric distortion (such as smoke) is minimised due to the use of region based tracing methods, and...well, that's all you've listed. I've been looking at other sources of noise, such as tracing algorithm noise, camera shake, ... There will be more time to look at other possible sources of noise if the substanceless noise in the thread is eliminated.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 12:26 AM   #279
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,962
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
By all means link to them then beachnut...
You are not aware of other work? That is all I will say about that; I thought you were an expert on this stuff (not really, it is like you make it up as you go); I see you are unaware of other work. Good for you, you must think you are a pioneer in the field. No wonder you don't source or reference anything.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Incorrect. The main usage of trace data thus far has been determination of the relative start points of multiple building features. Quantifying the suggested errors is irrelevant in that context. Also, given the scale of other noise sources, such as video artefacts and quality, the effect of the suggested factors are of lower magnitude and are not separable.

Bound to be some hand waving, so...

Lens distortion will present itself over large movement distances, atmospheric distortion (such as smoke) is minimised due to the use of region based tracing methods, and...well, that's all you've listed. I've been looking at other sources of noise, such as tracing algorithm noise, camera shake, ... There will be more time to look at other possible sources of noise if the substanceless noise in the thread is eliminated.
Source and references please. Wait; did you say hand waving? You are making up these claims and you don't understand the errors.

Your claims are not sourced, no references, and seem to be backed by only your opinion. But then you did say hand waving. Good for you.

substance-less noise, yep, you hand wave away the errors and fail to quantify them. No goal, no purpose, no tie to 911, no sources, no reference, no backing up claims with the same - Substance-less work (no wonder you have to block u-tube users from making comments) Will there be/is there a you-tube video?

Last edited by beachnut; 3rd September 2010 at 12:32 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 05:26 AM   #280
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You are not aware of other work? That is all I will say about that
You complain about sources, yet you are refusing to do so ? Interesting.

Quote:
No wonder you don't source or reference anything.
I've pointed you at the most relevant source beachnut...NIST. By all means post references to others.

Quote:
Source and references please.
For what ? For saying that lens distortion will only present itself over large movement distances (utterly obvious), and atmospheric distortion (such as smoke) is minimised due to the use of region based tracing methods (less obvious but correct nonetheless) ?

You have to be kidding. Either you have no ability to understand what I've said, or you simply request sources *for a laugh*. Don't lose your peer-reviewed paper on the correct procedure for breathing now. Just in case you've lost it...

1) Breathe in.
2) Breathe out.
3) Repeat from (1).
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.