28-09-2013, 10:57 AM
for those to lazy to search... read this comment: (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-pub-t82-1170.html)
"
Le dissection...
A whole bunch of other folk seem to understand. Tony must be stupid. It's hardly rocket science.
Boils down to:
1) Record position of feature as accurately as possible for each frame of video.
2) Plot graph.
Mind boggling stuff![[Image: icon_lol.gif]](http://the911forum.freeforums.org/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Tony's data (which he nicked from Chandler) includes "jolts".
The Chandler data uses a sample rate so low that a 4G "jolt" could be missed.
OWE data includes "jolts".
Achimspok data includes "jolts".
My data includes "jolts".
Everyone who has actually bothered to extract per-frame accurate positional data has found "jolts".
And, again, TONY's DATA includes "jolts". They are just smaller then he thinks they should be.
and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet.
HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Tony repeatedly makes this absurdly stupid and inept statement, borne from his utter inability to perceive anything in more than one dimension.
Yeah, right Tony...the upper section didn't "tilt", there's absolutely nothing in between one storey floor and the one above, ...
And the wonderful thing about his nuttiness here is that when you challenge him about it he digs an enourmous hole for himself.
What he says when you explain it (again) is that (assuming a tilted upper section drop) it's not possible for the impacts furthest from the NW corner to be detected at the NW corner as they are too far away.
Tony has been told over and over again that his "missing jolt" theory must take account of the fact that "jolts" occurring many floors away from the NW corner, and away from the North face, must propogate through a deforming non-rigid structure, which will dampen, absorb, ...
He denies this.
Yet like an absolute numpty makes that the very factor he uses to deny the possibility of "jolts" occurring before the NW corner has descended 1 storey.
HA HA HA HA HA![[Image: icon_rolleyes.gif]](http://the911forum.freeforums.org/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Sub-pixel tracing techniques have been validated time and time again. There is some noise present, of course, but Tony doesn't seem to realise that the noise level is itself sub-pixel. No noise is being "added". it's simply that measurements are so accurate that noise from various sources becomes VISIBLE. Smoothing and averaging techniques are used to cut through the noise in data presented, so he has no leg to stand on.
He accepts what he thinks supports his position, such as sub-pixel tracing to determine pre-release "tilt" of the upper section. But rejects data generated using exactly the same techniques which kicks his theories into touch, such as over 9s of pre-release motion, or "jolts", or proof of "non-smooth motion history", or proof of "non-constant acceleration", or...
Lying, cheating, manipulative scumbag.
I've been logging all of the traffic from his IP for years now. Naughty Tony !![[Image: icon_twisted.gif]](http://the911forum.freeforums.org/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
"
"
femr2 is an anonymous individual whose work on the WTC collapses is nonsensical. He is the only person who has ever claimed to have found a jolt in the North Tower's fall and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet. It is obviously noise due to his trying to enhance the resolution. I do not accept his work and if you can't do the calculations yourself, we can see what is actually going on with you.
He just can't help himself, can he. What an idiot. Even though he's already been told, repeatedly, he still chooses to write this kind of crap, and digs himself a mahoosive hole in the process.Le dissection...
femr2 is an anonymous individual
It doesn't say "femr2" on my birth certificate, sure. But everything I've presented can be replicated in full, with full step-by-step instructions. Tony is quite capable of checking any data presented. He simply CHOOSES not to.whose work on the WTC collapses is nonsensical
Read "inconvenient for Tony's purposes".A whole bunch of other folk seem to understand. Tony must be stupid. It's hardly rocket science.
Boils down to:
1) Record position of feature as accurately as possible for each frame of video.
2) Plot graph.
Mind boggling stuff
He is the only person who has ever claimed to have found a jolt in the North Tower's fall
Liar.Tony's data (which he nicked from Chandler) includes "jolts".
The Chandler data uses a sample rate so low that a 4G "jolt" could be missed.
OWE data includes "jolts".
Achimspok data includes "jolts".
My data includes "jolts".
Everyone who has actually bothered to extract per-frame accurate positional data has found "jolts".
And, again, TONY's DATA includes "jolts". They are just smaller then he thinks they should be.
and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet.
HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Tony repeatedly makes this absurdly stupid and inept statement, borne from his utter inability to perceive anything in more than one dimension.
Yeah, right Tony...the upper section didn't "tilt", there's absolutely nothing in between one storey floor and the one above, ...
And the wonderful thing about his nuttiness here is that when you challenge him about it he digs an enourmous hole for himself.
What he says when you explain it (again) is that (assuming a tilted upper section drop) it's not possible for the impacts furthest from the NW corner to be detected at the NW corner as they are too far away.
Tony has been told over and over again that his "missing jolt" theory must take account of the fact that "jolts" occurring many floors away from the NW corner, and away from the North face, must propogate through a deforming non-rigid structure, which will dampen, absorb, ...
He denies this.
Yet like an absolute numpty makes that the very factor he uses to deny the possibility of "jolts" occurring before the NW corner has descended 1 storey.
HA HA HA HA HA
It is obviously noise due to his trying to enhance the resolution.
Oh, obviously Sub-pixel tracing techniques have been validated time and time again. There is some noise present, of course, but Tony doesn't seem to realise that the noise level is itself sub-pixel. No noise is being "added". it's simply that measurements are so accurate that noise from various sources becomes VISIBLE. Smoothing and averaging techniques are used to cut through the noise in data presented, so he has no leg to stand on.
I do not accept his work
Liar.He accepts what he thinks supports his position, such as sub-pixel tracing to determine pre-release "tilt" of the upper section. But rejects data generated using exactly the same techniques which kicks his theories into touch, such as over 9s of pre-release motion, or "jolts", or proof of "non-smooth motion history", or proof of "non-constant acceleration", or...
Lying, cheating, manipulative scumbag.
and if you can't do the calculations yourself
Tony is quite capable of "doing the calculations" himself. Again, he simply chooses not to.we can see what is actually going on with you.
Paranoid nut-job.I've been logging all of the traffic from his IP for years now. Naughty Tony !
"