Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Stellafane]

What's this molecule of elephand dung of which you speak ?

This:

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

My response to that is...who cares? I certainly don't. Why should I? In fact you're many layers away from making me care.

Here's another analogy (for which by now you may have noticed I have a particular fondness). Suppose I come home and find my house has burned to the ground. The neighbor across the street's security camera shows that the fire apparently started in my front porch light. The fire chief does an investigation and says the fire was due to faulty wiring in the porch light. The insurance investigator looks into it and concludes the same. Even my electrician comes forward and reveals that his helper admits he wired the porch light incorrectly.

Then you step up and claim "It was arson!" OK, I say, you've got my attention. Can you prove it? "Well, I've done an investigation," you reply, "and by my calculations the copy of Webster's Dictionary on the shelf in your library didn't burn in 2 minutes and 17 seconds, it burned in 1 minute and 53 seconds. Explain that!!!!"

I get the same feeling when I see 9/11 CT's based on stuff like "the notion of core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building." Before I give a moment's thought to such things, you're going to have to get me past a lot of other stuff -- all the video evidence, common sense, science, eyewitness reports, all the expert analysis by engineers, firemen, and demolition experts, the confessions, etc. etc. etc. When you can do that -- when you can explain why the exceedingly consistent story told by the entire corpus of evidence isn't really exactly what it looks like, and why all those hundreds (maybe thousands) of people are, despite their expertise and training, incredibly wrong or flat out lying; when you can present not just some isolated factoid but rather a cohesive and cogent explanation for the whole thing, then we can talk about "core failure" or anything alse you consider relevant. Until then, all you've got is what I described above: a single pixel argument, and not a very interesting pixel at that.

 

[femr2]

My response to that is...who cares? I certainly don't. Why should I? In fact you're many layers away from making me care.

Seems you care enough to break your usual non-posting stance. Bless.

Here's another analogy (for which by now you may have noticed I have a particular fondness).

Yawn. Snip. You really don't see how silly you are being, do you ?

I get the same feeling when I see 9/11 CT's based on stuff like "the notion of core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building."

ROFL. AGAIN, tell me, what is the failure mode proposed by NIST ?

then we can talk about "core failure" or anything alse you consider relevant. Until then, all you've got is what I described above: a single pixel argument, and not a very interesting pixel at that.

What is it that you think core failure is ?

 

[beachnut]

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



See above.


It should.


Feel free to contact them.


It is important.


Correct.


Nope.


Correct.


Incorrect.


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


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


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

The implication is you hand-wave errors away, and don't have a paper. There is no paper, and I understand that, if it was not for the team I worked with on cockpit design concepts, like the PhD team leader, I would never be published. No wonder you can't tell NIST and Publish, it is hard work to do it.
How does this help cmatrix and support your claim the Official Theory is Fictional with no paper to clearly explain your claims?

 

[femr2]

you hand-wave errors away

Incorrect. A number of treatments are applied during the process of deriving the acceleration profile graphs from the position/time data which reduce data noise significantly.

As I've said, it is impossible to remove noise completely, and selective methods are unlikely to improve data quality directly for that reason...they are selective.

Wide band symmetric differencing in conjunction with piecewise high-order poly fitting has produced good results.

and don't have a paper

Don't need one. It's not rocket science. Grab the raw data, if you're not happy with my smoothing methods, use whatever methods you please to transform position/time into acceleration/time with whatever noise-treatment you please.

If you do a decent job of it, you'll get acceleration profile very similar to...

While I'm here, here's what we get from NIST...

I think it would be quite fun to overlay my data with theirs. What say you ?

 

[beachnut]

Incorrect. A number of treatments are applied during the process of deriving the acceleration profile graphs from the position/time data which reduce data noise significantly.

As I've said, it is impossible to remove noise completely, and selective methods are unlikely to improve data quality directly for that reason...they are selective.

Wide band symmetric differencing in conjunction with piecewise high-order poly fitting has produced good results.


Don't need one. It's not rocket science. Grab the raw data, if you're not happy with my smoothing methods, use whatever methods you please to transform position/time into acceleration/time with whatever noise-treatment you please.

If you do a decent job of it, you'll get acceleration profile very similar to...


While I'm here, here's what we get from NIST...


I think it would be quite fun to overlay my data with theirs. What say you ?

No, you did not model errors. You made up stuff to smooth data that is not suited to be treated as you did. And since you have no paper, no real work, you have nothing.

Without a completed paper, completed work, your claims are BS.
As I said, no paper, and you have not shown anything, but you can make a gif that moves.

NIST was right, fire did it. What is your conclusion? You conclude the Official Theory is Fictional.

How does this help cmatrix and your claim the government theory is fictional? And, what is your conclusion, the big picture?

You have no paper, and have no conclusion past attacking NIST for no reason, no goal.

If you had a paper, or work arranged in one complete collection, including original source material with procedure and instructions, you could be peered review. What is your degree in, who are your peers. Which PhD is working with you on this effort? Which pixel are you tracking, where is it on the video used? Where is this information? How will your peers review your work? How is your Demolition delusion going? The Fictional Official Theory?


http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/408829093.gif
Is this dimensionless stuff or what? pixels per second per second, or what? is that time, or meters? Is this a guess the dimensions, or what?

 

[femr2]

you did not model errors

Even replicated the same *model* used by NIST

You made up stuff to smooth data

Symmetric differencing and curve fitting are *made up* by me now ? Cool.

that is not suited to be treated as you did

Utter nonsense beachnut. If you're going to say such things you are going to have to get your hands dirty and get number crunching, rather than just waving them around.

Without a completed paper, completed work, your claims are BS.

Utter nonsense beachnut. The only difference gathering the details together would make is...gather the details together. The *claims* as you put it..are fully valid. There's nothing outlandish about the metrics derived from the data, so your inept whining and *denial* are impotent.

Which pixel are you tracking, where is it on the video used?

You are too lazy beachnut. Read the thread I pointed you to. You'll find what you're after. Enjoy.
Though, come to think about it, you seem to have at least as much trouble reading as you do writing, so here'y'are...

(And sort out the endless repitition in your posts please. Makes you sound even more bonkers.)

Is this dimensionless stuff or what?

Nope. acceleration(ft/s^2)/time(s). Stated on several occasions recently within this very thread

 

[000063]

Wait, let me try;

Femr, what is your conclusion, the big picture?

 

[beachnut]

... Utter nonsense beachnut. ...
Utter nonsense beachnut. ...
You are too lazy beachnut. ...
(And sort out the endless repitition in your posts please. Makes you sound even more bonkers.)...

Nope. acceleration(ft/s^2)/time(s). Stated on several occasions recently within this very thread

Your work is nonsense and not going to be published. Where is the video you used? Where is the processed video you used? How can any use your work when it does not exist in usable form?


How does your fragmented study of a pixel support your claim the Official Theory is Fictional?
What is your overall conclusion based on your non-paper study of a pixel in a video which does not support the resolution you come up with by smoothing data based on the video itself?
Why have you failed to put your paper/study in a usable form?
You have major errors in your work.

You make claims, you are the one who needs to stop being lazy and put together a paper so your peers can review it. What kind of engineer are you?

I thought you had a paper, so your work could be seen in one piece; it is all over the internet.
No overall conclusion yet? Still think the Official Theory is Fictional? Are the gravity collapses of 911 still Demolitions for you?

 

[femr2]

Where is the video you used.

http://xenomorph.s3.amazonaws.com/WTC7_Dan_Rather_DVD.mpg, posted many times. As I said, go and read the thread I pointed you to

Where is the processed video you used?

Just unfold the interlaced mpeg and you're about there. Full details in appropriate thread.

You have major errors in your work.

Hand-wave. Be specific

You make claims

...and provide the source video, detail of the tracing method, raw data, processed data, derived graphs and interpretation of such. Everything required to not only validate the particularly reasonable conclusions drawn but for anyone at all to replicate the entire thing bottom-up. If that's not enough for you, meh. Not my problem

I thought you had a paper

No you didn't x

 

[TheRedWorm]

Femr, what is your conclusion, the big picture?

A very good question.

 

[Sunstealer]

Femr2 - I don't usually comment on the kind of thread that involves yourself and your analysis, because it's not my area of expertise, nor am I particularly interested in it, although I've picked up some rudimentary knowledge. However, if you are convinced your findings are correct or of significance, then why don't you contact the relevant authorities with your analysis? Irrespective of your conclusions or why you are doing this, surely it would be beneficial to engineers trying to understand building collapses, so that they may reduce them in the future. Arguing minutiae on internet forums seems a waste of time.

What have you got to lose?

Why not submit a request or whatever it is to NIST/relevant authority showing what you have found? What's the worst that could happen?

 

[femr2]

However, if you are convinced your findings are correct or of significance, then why don't you contact the relevant authorities with your analysis?

I have no doubt at all that NIST would have no interest in doing anything to correct and improve their WTC7 descent acceleration data. They were not interested in doing so in the first place, and so did a urine poor job of it. My data is simply more accurate, with a higher sample rate, more detailed acceleration profile and more correctly handled data (taking factors such as perspective correction and static point extraction into account).

Irrespective of your conclusions or why you are doing this, surely it would be beneficial to engineers

My conclusions in this context are simply that the oft bandied around 2.25s of freefall stated by NIST did not occur. Their T0 was wrong, their sample rate and method poor, and their treatment and interpretation of the data very sloppy. The data is available to anyone who wants it, as are details of how to replicate the entire datasets from the bottom up. Anyone interested has more than enough information available in the threads I have highlighted.

Indeed the reason this data is being discussed at the moment is that I pointed the acceleration profile graphs at cmatrix to provide him with information which should negate his rigid stance on how he interprets the 2.25s period of freefall (which he has the opinion *simultaneous failure of...*). My more accurate acceleration data clearly shows that there was not 2.25s freefall period, and more importantly that there was no abrupt rate change but instead a quite rapid ramp up to over-g followed by a slower ramp down to significantly below g.

What have you got to lose?

LOL. I'm in the position where a bunch of idiots start throwing their toys out of their cots when I present information which would tend to support the notion of core failure within WTC7 below the East penthouse propogating up through the building (see a few posts ago by Stellaphane for hilarious example). I have very little interest compiling details together for folk too lazy to simply read the pre-existing details. Not only that, but most have shown repeatedly that they do not have the capability to replicate it themselves, or do anything apart from whine and complain (beachnut as an example there complaining that I have not performed lens distortion correction, stating it makes the data entirely worthless, but repeatedly ignoring that NIST did not perform lens distortion correction, NOR perspective correction, NOR static point extracion, NOR did they interpret the first second of data correctly, NOR...you get my point I am sure )

If anyone is genuinely interested and willing to follow direction they can *get there* in a trice.

You've already said you're not interested, so meh

 

[000063]

I seem to recall a few dozen "approximately"s and "roughly"s in the NIST report.

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Femr2,

Why don't you get your work published in a respectable journal? I mean, obviously you have spent a ton of time putting together this analysis, why not?

Why no put it all on paper, and submit it to a relevant journal?

I am not being condecending, I'm just puzzled as to why you would do all this work, and do nothing with it.

 

[femr2]

I seem to recall a few dozen "approximately"s and "roughly"s in the NIST report.

Sure, but not in their poorly executed building motion statements...

 

[dafydd]

Femr, what is your conclusion, the big picture?

That is taking optimism too far.

 

[dafydd]

Hey Femr2,

Why don't you get your work published in a respectable journal? I mean, obviously you have spent a ton of time putting together this analysis, why not?

Why no put it all on paper, and submit it to a relevant journal?

I am not being condecending, I'm just puzzled as to why you would do all this work, and do nothing with it.

The 'phrase respectable' journal is the key to the answer.

 

[Major_Tom]

Hey Femr2,

Why don't you get your work published in a respectable journal? I mean, obviously you have spent a ton of time putting together this analysis, why not?

Why no put it all on paper, and submit it to a relevant journal?

I am not being condecending, I'm just puzzled as to why you would do all this work, and do nothing with it.

Three Bazant papers (BV, BL and BLGB) underwent that process. All three were wrong. All three passed peer review.

They are your most up-to-date collapse progression papers for the WTC towers. The professionals have not been able to debunk them to this day, so there they remain.

They are wrong. Professional journals may be a good way to plant propaganda but are not good for much else concerning 9-11-01.

 

[Oystein]

Three Bazant papers (BV, BL and BLGB) underwent that process. All three were wrong. All three passed peer review.

They are your most up-to-date collapse progression papers for the WTC towers. The professionals have not been able to debunk them to this day, so there they remain.

They are wrong. Professional journals may be a good way to plant propaganda but are not good for much else concerning 9-11-01.

You and your Movement had 9 freaking years to write a paper picking apart Bazant 1 and place it in a journal.
Why can't I find that paper? Is it in the making? By whom? If not, why not?

 

[000063]

Three Bazant papers (BV, BL and BLGB) underwent that process. All three were wrong. All three passed peer review.

They are your most up-to-date collapse progression papers for the WTC towers. The professionals have not been able to debunk them to this day, so there they remain.

They are wrong. Professional journals may be a good way to plant propaganda but are not good for much else concerning 9-11-01.

So because they support the OS, and/or made mistakes, they're wrong by definition?