Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

That's exactly what I've been wondering.

Why ? There's no direct intention to generate more precision than required, and no suggestion that there ever was.

There has been the ridiculous suggestions that the data is of poor quality, which are simply not true.

I've even had the like of tfk suggest that the data results in uncertainty on velocity of +/- 60ft/s... which is a problem with his methods, and nothing to do with data quality.

I'm perfectly OK with the data quality.

I'll always ensure it's as good as possible of course. Any other intention would be ridiculous.

The healthy part about producing a thesis with supporting data is that one can publish and move on. If you refuse to do any of those things you can never move on - that is a shame.

What on earth are you talking about ?

This thread was started by tfk to question the methods and accuracy of the data.

But now you're taking his bait and turning that around on me asking why I want to make the data of such high quality ?

Pretty funny that if you ask me.

Hopefully now that the endless discussion about methods and accuracy are done with...I can get on with actual analysis of the data.

 

[alienentity]

What on earth are you talking about ?

....

Hopefully now that the endless discussion about methods and accuracy are done with...I can get on with actual analysis of the data.

What part of 'The healthy part about producing a thesis with supporting data is that one can publish and move on. If you refuse to do any of those things you can never move on - that is a shame' do you not understand?

What is your thesis? Where is your thesis? By all means get on with it - nobody is preventing you from doing this. In fact we're imploring you to actually offer a coherent thesis at some point, and not just produce another seemingly endless stream of graphs.

 

[femr2]

By all means get on with it

No worries. As I've said a few times, the new cam#3 data will be available fairly soon, and I'll be making observations from that for WTC 7. Will also be looking at another view to determine correlation between vertical and southward movement.

Whether you'd call that a thesis or not, I have no idea, but that's what I'll be doing.

 

[newton3376]

Did you actually read any of the thread ?

Doesn't look like you read the thread description (which states who started the thread) or even the OP (which states the purpose).

The thread was started by tfk to discuss the validity of my trace data and methods, and their accuracy.

Yes...I should have typed tfk instead of femr2....I forgot that it was tfk that started this thread in the moment I typed that. Way to focus on minute details as if it's a "gotcha" of the overall topic.... again.....

The data has been used in part to show that claims by both are incorrect. Presence of low magnitude *jolts* and much improved acceleration profile to confirm no sustained period at freefall.

Yeah but I was just listing them as examples.....I wasn't talking about them specifically as it pertains to this thread...

How ironic that you would make such a statement when the previous graph alone shows the techniques I use are capable of surpassing the accuracy of those used by NIST by a sizeable factor.

Why is it even necessary to surpass NIST's accuracy? Their accuracy was good enough to make conclusions about the collapse.....

I don't use 32 decimal places if 1 is good enough to prove my point....seems like you are "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel"....

No, it stands as an example of how little Tom understood the topic of the discussion he started. How he was desperate to show that the data was invalid in some way, any way. Ultimately it is the similarity to methods used by NIST that has resulted in his withdrawal, details of which he should have known before *picking up his pen*.

If you actually read the thread from the beginning, it makes for a most humerous insight into how his understanding of this arena has evolved over the last couple of months.

As I have read the exchanges between you and Tom....I haven't felt that you could hold a candle to the guy....which is expected considering his education and experience. It's not your fault.

What you don't seem to realise is that it is the methods performed by NIST that have been used to validate my data.

Your data doesn't interest me unless it proves NIST did something horribly wrong or inaccurate enough to come to the wrong conclusions. If you feel it does you are welcome to write a paper and try to get it published in a peer reviewed journal. That would go a long way to showing how your analysis is superior......be sure to include things like math and physics in the paper.

Tom lead me by the hand ? That's hilarious.

It's not hilarious....it's actually very frustrating.

I suggest you read the thread from the beginning, in fact please do.

There are several threads I plan on reading again from the beginning all the way through...and this is actually on the list since I find it interesting.

 

[femr2]

There are several threads I plan on reading again from the beginning all the way through...and this is actually on the list since I find it interesting.

Great. I'll refrain from further response to your viewpoint until after that.

 

[beachnut]

I assume by *spires* you mean the substantial portions of the central core of WTC 1.


I can certainly trace features of the core remnants, though the movement of the tallest sections is going to be pretty irrelevant given the scale of the rest...


When I'm done with WTC 7, I'll do further tracing of WTC 1, and include the core remnant.

Until then, it's your theory, go with it...

Please explain how this is related to the idiotic 911 conspiracy theories.

The core? The core can't stand by itself. Why study the core when it can't stand? How does that relate to 911 conspiracy theories made up by morons?

Your study has nothing to do with 911 CTs. Plus it is not science, it is hobby so you can attack NIST; again not a topic of 911 CTs.

 

[femr2]

New Cam#3 data is being initially posted here...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=423

 

[femr2]

 

[femr2]

(Draft)

 

[Miragememories]

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/835427944.png[/qimg]
(Draft)

Nice work femr2

MM

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Nice work from a guy who has proven he doesn't know the difference between a field and a frame....

 

[DGM]

New Cam#3 data is being initially posted here...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=423

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/212241494.png[/qimg]

OK, I'll bite. So the building started shifting almost two minutes before global collapse?

 

[femr2]

So the building started shifting almost two minutes before global collapse?

At least.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, some of this early movement was observed and measured by firemen with a transit hours before the collapse.

Chief Hayden: Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

femr2, could you please give an estimate as to the number of years you will require to demonstrate a point to your analysis? What is the deliverable, and when is your estimate for completion? Do you have a working hypothesis for which this video analysis provides proof or disproof?

 

[DGM]

At least.

I would think that would be expected. Fire had been working on the building for hours after all.

 

[femr2]

I would think that would be expected.

Expected ? What would you suggest as being the cause of the several minute period of ascillation ?

How would you suggest the NIST initiation conclusion correlates with that ?

 

[jaydeehess]

Expected ? What would you suggest as being the cause of the several minute period of ascillation ?

How would you suggest the NIST initiation conclusion correlates with that ?

The effect of fire weakening of columns, beams and girders on the fire floors.

Keep in mind YOU are asking for speculation.

A large floor area sags and pulls on columns causing the structure to shift slightly. This occurs 25% up the height of the building and you have that floor moving first. This sets up a standing wave in the structure. You measure movement of a top corner and yes it is osscillating.


Too bad there are no other high rise structures that did not collapse while on fire to compare their motions to those of WTC 7. Ones in which a significant portion of the floor at one level sgged and perhaps collapsed. Such motions would of course be greatly affected by construction type but if in any type one finds periods of osscillation then one can definitively place cause on the effects of heat on the steel.

To not have these comparisons and then jump to the insinuation that another, unseen, condition (explosives or incindiary devices perhaps) caused the osscillation is simply illogical.


There is also the senario that NIST posits in that a collapse at the 11th floor caused further collapses AFTER col 79 failed. However when the girder came off its column seats what occured next and how long did it take? NIST shows a rapid progression to col 79 failure but it could have instead lead first to further floor failures along the 10th and 11th floors first. This causes a few minutes of relatively larger osscillations and then col 79 fails.

Several hundred posts and a year gone by and very little to show for it other than to confirm NIST's calculations it seems.
No new knowledge, nothing to hang a new mechanisim of collapse on, at least nothing particularily significant.

Now I certainly learned a few details I did not know before but that's besides the point.

 

[tfk]

Expected ? What would you suggest as being the cause of the several minute period of ascillation ?

Your lack of understanding of "ascillations" in structures.

How would you suggest the NIST initiation conclusion correlates with that ?

LoL.

It doesn't.

The failure is not NIST's.

Nice "science-y" sounding gibberish question, tho...

 

[femr2]

What would you suggest as being the cause of the several minute period of ascillation ?

Your lack of understanding of "ascillations" in structures.

Wow. You're saying that the cause of the oscillation is what you perceive to be my level of understanding, 9 years later. Far out, man.

It's really funny that you make issue out of a typo an'all. Shock ! Horrors ! LOL.

How would you suggest the NIST initiation conclusion correlates with that ?

LoL.

It doesn't.

Are you talking about the suggestion from jaydeehess ?

The failure is not NIST's.

Whose is it then ?

 

[femr2]

The effect of fire weakening of columns, beams and girders on the fire floors.

Keep in mind YOU are asking for speculation.

A large floor area sags and pulls on columns causing the structure to shift slightly. This occurs 25% up the height of the building and you have that floor moving first. This sets up a standing wave in the structure. You measure movement of a top corner and yes it is osscillating.

I suggest you take more care when speculating, to refrain from using stuff like *This occurs*. *If* and *may* are handy in that context, as you do later in your post.

So you think yet more floor sagging (of an entirely different floor structure to that in WTC1/2) *is* the base cause ?

Too bad there are no other high rise structures that did not collapse while on fire to compare their motions to those of WTC 7. Ones in which a significant portion of the floor at one level sgged and perhaps collapsed.

Again sagging floors. Is that speculation, or are you referring to NIST based suggestion of WTC 7 sagging floor structures ?

Such motions would of course be greatly affected by construction type

Indeed.

but if in any type one finds periods of osscillation then one can definitively place cause on the effects of heat on the steel.

Definitively ? No. Possibly, perhaps.

To not have these comparisons and then jump to the insinuation that another, unseen, condition (explosives or incindiary devices perhaps) caused the osscillation is simply illogical.

Who is that comment directed at ?

There is also the senario that NIST posits in that a collapse at the 11th floor caused further collapses AFTER col 79 failed. However when the girder came off its column seats what occured next and how long did it take? NIST shows a rapid progression to col 79 failure but it could have instead lead first to further floor failures along the 10th and 11th floors first. This causes a few minutes of relatively larger osscillations and then col 79 fails.

If that was so, it would make the NIST simulation grossly inaccurate, yes ?

Several hundred posts and a year gone by and very little to show for it other than to confirm NIST's calculations it seems.

Far from it. Much useful information has resulted.

No new knowledge, nothing to hang a new mechanisim of collapse on, at least nothing particularily significant.

You just suggested an entirely different one...

Now I certainly learned a few details I did not know before but that's besides the point.

Why ?