Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Newtons Bit]

femr2: does your new and improved data support a different conclusion that what NIST found?

 

[DGM]

femr2: does your new and improved data support a different conclusion that what NIST found?

Oh sure.......spoil it by getting right to the point.


Damn engineers......

 

[femr2]

femr2: does your new and improved data support a different conclusion that what NIST found?

The two conclusions a) 40% longer than freefall, and b) 2.25s of freefall...of course

The point within the context of this thread is to highlight that the cmatrix statement...

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.

...is not correct, and he needs to re-think his position on that point.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The two conclusions a) 40% longer than freefall, and b) 2.25s of freefall...of course

The point within the context of this thread is to highlight that the cmatrix statement...

...is not correct, and he needs to re-think his position on that point.

Those are factoids, not conclusions. Conclusions are things like, "it was explosives" or "it was a progressive collapse".

Get it?

 

[beachnut]

... Whatever amount of deflection you may choose to include in your rambling word vomits will not change that.

Does this mean you don't have the money or the skill to identify and model the errors? You study of 0.001 percent of the WTC 7 collapse, and how does it support your claim the "official story" is fiction? You should start a thread on why the "official story" is fictional, it will be more interesting than a very limited study of a point, a part of the WTC 7 falling. Infinite points to study while falling, what makes the point you picked unique? How would you study all the parts of WTC 7 falling? Why are you obsessed with NIST? Are you blaming NIST for 911 truth dolts making up lies about 911? That is funny.

I was just saying how some stochastic estimation and control could improve your study. It helps in the real world. But rambling word vomits with real engineering stuff is ...

I have no excuse for my poor writing, but I did manage to mow the lawn, power clean the yard furniture, look at my apple/pear futures, and chase my grandson for hours; not a big priority to understand your "official story" is false tilting at windmills quest. Maybe cmatrix is interested. Chandler and 911 truth don't understand 911, why are they misleading themselves and obsessed with NIST?

cmatrix, obsessed with NIST and not physics.

 

[femr2]

identify and model the errors?

Read the thread I mentioned for almost endless discussion of noise sources, implications and treatment.

what makes the point you picked unique?

What on earth makes you think it's unique ?

stochastic estimation and control could improve your study.

There is inherent noise in the data. Given the nature of the data, many filters are not appropriate. Discussion of various smoothing methods applied are present in the appropriate thread. Go read it again.

As I've told you many-a-time the tracing methods are pretty darn good. Here is a trace for a static region...

...highlighting the base noise level resulting from the many different sources. As you can see variance for this particular trace is well within +/- 0.05 pixels, which given that the NW corner displacement traces occur over a good 100pixel range places measurement noise pretty low in level of importance. Other data skewing factors such as perspective correction are far more important.

Again...

The "NIST 2.25s period of freefall" is highly inaccurate and misleading...aka wrong. Beliefs based upon such NIST provided values need to be readdressed, cmatrix.

 

[beachnut]

Read the thread I mentioned for almost endless discussion of noise sources, implications and treatment.


What on earth makes you think it's unique ?


There is inherent noise in the data. Given the nature of the data, many filters are not appropriate. Discussion of various smoothing methods applied are present in the appropriate thread. Go read it again.

As I've told you many-a-time the tracing methods are pretty darn good. Here is a trace for a static region...
...
...highlighting the base noise level resulting from the many different sources. As you can see variance for this particular trace is well within +/- 0.05 pixels, which given that the NW corner displacement traces occur over a good 100pixel range places measurement noise pretty low in level of importance. Other data skewing factors such as perspective correction are far more important.

Again...

The "NIST 2.25s period of freefall" is highly inaccurate and misleading...aka wrong. Beliefs based upon such NIST provided values need to be readdressed, cmatrix.

So? Prove it, publish it. I find your titles of the videos showing a gravity collapse, titled, ... "Demolition" ... misleading titles. I find your labeling failed papers as "technical paper" on 911, misleading. More so than NIST.

You have told NIST of the big error? What did they say? Not going to get this peer reviewed, or what? (Or what, seems most likely) Did you write to NIST?

many different sources

Got a list? No lens data? Can Nikon help? Who made the lens, the camera, got any data on the equipment? Publish your stuff, take your methods you can't source and publish them, make them the standard. There must be a lot of people who can peer review your work, Major Tom, ergo, and more, or maybe not. You blew off using methods from stochastic estimation and control, which means you are not serous about this or able to do much more than lip service for the "noise". What did NIST say about your work?

Come up with a conclusion for your work? How does this support your statement, your belief the "official theory" is fiction?

when you blatantly dismiss clear fact in order to maintain the fictional Official Theory. femr2

Is this your clear fact, the pixel stuff? The small study of a small section of WTC 7 collapsing means what for your claim, the fictional Official Theory? Have you changes your stand on the "Official Theory", and formed a conclusion to go with your never to be published stuff.

Did NIST mislead cmatrix? It appears cmatrix shares your claim of the fictional "Official Theory". NIST can;t mislead cmatrix, he is a great physicist who will expose something.

The "NIST 2.25s period of freefall" is highly inaccurate and misleading...aka wrong.

So, you have no conclusion on the subject, and it means nothing to help support your claim of fiction for the Official theory. How does this help cure cmatrix false claims, or are his claims valid?

 

[femr2]

So? Prove it

My raw data and derived graphs have been available for quite a while now. Looks like you are trying to defend the NIST 2.25s claim. It's wrong, as I've shown many-a time.

You have told NIST of the big error?

Nope, though I'm sure they are aware of it by now.

Got a list?

Yep. Read the appropriate thread again beachnut.

No lens data?

Nope, not necessary. Negligible effect upon resulting derived data. As I've already told you, other noise sources are of larger magnitude.

take your methods you can't source

The methods have been documented in detail.

You blew off using methods from stochastic estimation and control, which means you are not serous about this or able to do much more than lip service for the "noise".

Incorrect. Various noise treatments have been tested, and given the nature of the data there is no way to know whether certain noise is simply noise or actual data. Therefore simpler smoothing methods are applied (as the sample rate is high enough) and residual noise left untreated but *known*. As long as it is understood and stated that there is noise, there's no problem. Total noise removal is impossible.

How does this support your statement, your belief the "official theory" is fiction?

Again, as I am sure you know, there is no such thing as the "official theory".

 

[Stellafane]

Single Pixel Arguments

It's been a while since I've posted much of anything in this forum, but it appears that 9/11 CT'ers are still putting forth what I refer to as "single pixel" arguments. What I mean by that is this: Let's suppose two people have different theories about what's being shown on a particular TV at the moment. Andy believes it's a show about the Moon landing, and Betty thinks it's a show about frogs.

Andy points a powerful telescope at the TV screen from 10 feet away, cranks it up to maximum power, and then snaps a picture. The result is a photo of a single pixel. "That proves me right!" Andy exclaims. "This pixel is the same color as the the lunar surface. Therefore the show must be about the Moon. Prove me wrong!!"

Betty, on the other hand, simply walks into the room and notices the TV is showing a couple of frogs mating on a floating lily pad, with croaking and other nighttime noises in the background. She checks the channel guide, which lists the current show as "The World of Frogs." On the internet she finds a video of the filmmaker explaining how he shot the documentary. She gets a biologist to look at the show, who announces "Yep, those are frogs all right." And just to humor Andy, she calls in an astronomer, who carefully scrutinizes the TV and states, "Nope -- that's definitely not the Moon."

Andy's reply to all this is "This pixel is from the lunar surface -- prove me wrong!"

Now since Betty is a patient type, she attempts to explain to Andy that single pixels do not a compelling argument make. And for his Moon landing theory to be correct, he's going to have to explain why the whole picture on the TV screen looks like frogs, and why there's frogs croaking in the background -- indeed, why there's any background noise, since there's no sound on the Moon, and why there's liquid water in the picture when there's none on the lunar surface. Further, she challenges Andy to explain why the biologist got it so wrong, and why the astronomer was so mistaken, and how the TV directory got it wrong, and why the filmmaker himself lied about making the film.

But Andy keeps doggedly clinging to his little pixel, defiantly chanting "Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!"

This is what I'm reminded of when I see yet another 9/11 CT'er argument that focuses on some irrelevant piece of minutia that in their minds at least can be interpreted in a way that supports whatever passes for their "theory" and thus attains incredibly magnified significance. It's as if they believe that if they find one single thing -- anything at all, however trivial -- whose explanation can be considered at least remotely ambiguous, then the whole "official story" comes crashing down. What they never seem to grasp (or maybe some do, at which point they cease being truthers and go on to more worthwhile pursuits) is that data points -- as with pixels -- are only meaningful when looked at collectively, as interconnected pieces of a much larger picture. Otherwise, it's like trying to describe a new species of elephant by looking at a single molecule of its feces.

In a way, it reminds me of the reverse of that famous saying by Newton, about being a child on a beach who picks up a pretty pebble and stares at it while the whole ocean of truth lies undiscovered before him. To me, 9/11 CT'ers remind me of a child who picks up a discarded plastic bottle and pronounces it a relic from ancient Atlantis -- totally oblivious to the whole universe of reality staring them right in the face.

 

[femr2]

What they never seem to grasp (or maybe some do, at which point they cease being truthers and go on to more worthwhile pursuits) is that data points -- as with pixels -- are only meaningful when looked at collectively, as interconnected pieces of a much larger picture.

I don't use these very often...



I do not think there has ever been any individual who has presented any empirical data which supports the notion of core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building...better than I

Single pixel arguments ? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[Stellafane]

I don't use these very often...



I do not think there has ever been any individual who has presented any empirical data which supports the notion of core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building...better than I

Single pixel arguments ? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Protest too much? I've hardly posted here in like two years -- I hardly protest at all!

In any case, I'm afraid that talking about "core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building" is precisely the kind of focusing on minutia that was the whole point of my post -- so much so, in fact, it's almost hard to believe you didn't do it intentionally for some reason. Why should anyone give two seconds of thought to such a tiny bit of nothingness unless you can somehow connect it to and explain away the vast Himalayan amount of evidence that all points in the same direction, namely that 9/11 happened exactly the way most people think it did? Until you can do that, all you've got is that single molecule of elephant dung I was talking about.

 

[beachnut]

My raw data and derived graphs have been available for quite a while now. Looks like you are trying to defend the NIST 2.25s claim. It's wrong, as I've shown many-a time.

Publish it. No, you will not. More over would it help cmatrix understand 911? Does it help or hurt your claim the Official Theory is fictional?

Nope, though I'm sure they are aware of it by now.

Why have you failed to notify NIST? Is it important, or not?

Yep. Read the appropriate thread again beachnut.

Does this mean your work, all of it is not in a single form, like a paper? After all this time? Got a single source for all this work? Is it in your technical paper section at your web site where failed papers on 911 are posted?

Nope, not necessary. Negligible effect upon resulting derived data. As I've already told you, other noise sources are of larger magnitude.

Oh, the lens data is not necessary? That is a mistake a big error to say that. The lens data is important and can ruin the data, and makes your tracing a failure.

The methods have been documented in detail.

Okay, what is the address for the complete paper and all the references for your work. cmatrix might be able to use this to support his attack on NIST.

Incorrect. Various noise treatments have been tested, and given the nature of the data there is no way to know whether certain noise is simply noise or actual data. Therefore simpler smoothing methods are applied (as the sample rate is high enough) and residual noise left untreated but *known*. As long as it is understood and stated that there is noise, there's no problem. Total noise removal is impossible.

I guess adding some engineering to your work is not needed, you have no clue how stochastic estimation and control can help, instead you are making pretty pictures, which means you are not serous and you don't seem to have a web address where your paper is presented in one single integrated piece of work. How is someone like cmatrix suppose to gain knowledge from work like yours if it does not exist in a single paper format, with reference and more?

Where is your noise study, and list of "noises" exist? Web address?

Why are gravity collapses of WTC buildings labeled by you, "Demolition", and are those labeled such to mislead people and support your claim the "Official Theory is fictional"? Does this behavior by you mislead people like cmatrix?

Does your paper exist? Where is it in one continuous form? You could put it in the technical paper section at your web site? When will that be?

Again, as I am sure you know, there is no such thing as the "official theory".

when you blatantly dismiss clear fact in order to maintain the fictional Official Theory. femr2

When will you publish your clear fact? Do you support the Official Theory? The facts are 19 terrorists did 911, and the WTC complex suffered gravity collapses after impacts and fires. What does cmatrix say?

Where is cmatrix, where is your conclusion for your 2.25 second NIST stuff? Any conclusion?

Those are factoids, not conclusions. Conclusions are things like, "it was explosives" or "it was a progressive collapse".

Get it?

The conclusion is?

dismiss clear fact in order to maintain the fictional Official Theory. femr2

Does cmatrix have some work close to being published? I have to find some time to see if cmatrix has a conclusion.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't use these very often...



I do not think there has ever been any individual who has presented any empirical data which supports the notion of core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building...better than I

Single pixel arguments ? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I dunno. Maybe I'm simply not a scientist, so I don't get to use phrases such as "empirical data" as much as I'd like.
I prefer to refer to that collapse as "duh".

I look at it and say there's no way that penthouse collapses without the failure beneath it...propogating upward....


Which proves ziltch in the way of controlled demolition

 

[dafydd]

I dunno. Maybe I'm simply not a scientist, so I don't get to use phrases such as "empirical data" as much as I'd like.
I prefer to refer to that collapse as "duh".

I look at it and say there's no way that penthouse collapses without the failure beneath it...propogating upward....


Which proves ziltch in the way of controlled demolition

Aw,come on! Just look at all the coloured lines that femr draws. Who could fail to be impressed? No full theory,but plenty of squiggly lines drawn on photos.

 

[dafydd]

Publish it. No, you will not. More over would it help cmatrix understand 911? Does it help or hurt your claim the Official Theory is fictional?

Why have you failed to notify NIST? Is it important, or not?


Does this mean your work, all of it is not in a single form, like a paper? After all this time? Got a single source for all this work? Is it in your technical paper section at your web site where failed papers on 911 are posted?

Oh, the lens data is not necessary? That is a mistake a big error to say that. The lens data is important and can ruin the data, and makes your tracing a failure.

Okay, what is the address for the complete paper and all the references for your work. cmatrix might be able to use this to support his attack on NIST.


I guess adding some engineering to your work is not needed, you have no clue how stochastic estimation and control can help, instead you are making pretty pictures, which means you are not serous and you don't seem to have a web address where your paper is presented in one single integrated piece of work. How is someone like cmatrix suppose to gain knowledge from work like yours if it does not exist in a single paper format, with reference and more?

Where is your noise study, and list of "noises" exist? Web address?

Why are gravity collapses of WTC buildings labeled by you, "Demolition", and are those labeled such to mislead people and support your claim the "Official Theory is fictional"? Does this behavior by you mislead people like cmatrix?

Does your paper exist? Where is it in one continuous form? You could put it in the technical paper section at your web site? When will that be?

When will you publish your clear fact? Do you support the Official Theory? The facts are 19 terrorists did 911, and the WTC complex suffered gravity collapses after impacts and fires. What does cmatrix say?

Where is cmatrix, where is your conclusion for your 2.25 second NIST stuff? Any conclusion?




The conclusion is?





Does cmatrix have some work close to being published? I have to find some time to see if cmatrix has a conclusion.

He doesn't even have a premise.

 

[NoahFence]

Aw,come on! Just look at all the coloured lines that femr draws. Who could fail to be impressed? No full theory,but plenty of squiggly lines drawn on photos.

I'm a big fan of window reflections being referred to as 'shockwaves' personally.

 

[dafydd]

I'm a big fan of window reflections being referred to as 'shockwaves' personally.

Be fair,there were shockwaves going along big windows in The Matrix.

 

[NoahFence]

Good point.

 

[femr2]

Protest too much? I've hardly posted here in like two years -- I hardly protest at all!

The phrase does not refer to your regularity of posting, but to the content of your post.

In any case, I'm afraid that talking about "core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building" is precisely the kind of focusing on minutia that was the whole point of my post

What a bizarre thing for you to say. Tell me, what was the conclusion of the several thousand page NIST report into the demise of WTC7 ? Focussing on minutia ? Interesting.

so much so, in fact, it's almost hard to believe you didn't do it intentionally for some reason.

Of course I *did it* intentionally, with good reason. Another bizarre statement.

Why should anyone give two seconds of thought to such a tiny bit of nothingness

Tell me, what is the failure mode proposed by NIST ?

all you've got is that single molecule of elephant dung I was talking about.

Talk about it some more What's this molecule of elephand dung of which you speak ?

 

[femr2]

Publish it.

The data is already available beachnut. Has been for ages...
dan_rather_basic_trace_data
dan_rather_extra_static_points
trace_data_nist_camera_3_raw

No, you will not.

See above.

More over would it help cmatrix understand

It should.

Why have you failed to notify NIST?

Feel free to contact them.

Is it important, or not?

It is important.

Does this mean your work, all of it is not in a single form, like a paper?

Correct.

Got a single source for all this work?

Nope.

the lens data is not necessary?

Correct.

That is a mistake a big error to say that.

Incorrect.

The lens data is important and can ruin the data, and makes your tracing a failure.

Depends. It's trivial for the Dan Rather viewpoint. If you disagree, prove it (I've already tested for it btw) You'll note that NIST performed NO lens distortion correction, NO perspective correction, and NO static point treatment. I've performed the latter two, which outweight lens distortion significantly. NIST also misinterpreted the direction of initial motion which further skewed their data. My data is much more betterer

How is someone like cmatrix suppose to gain knowledge from work like yours

Easy. Get the data, view the graphs, listen to and understand the implications.

Web address?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182833
There's another couple of threads. Also numerous threads at the911forum.