Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[alienentity]

With a few notes...1) The data is derived from position/time data which obviously contains some noise...2) The graph relates only to thw NW corner, not the entire facade...

Over 35ft/s^2.


~1.5s for g and over-g. ~1s for over-g

Thank you. What's the best youtube link I should point people to for this info? (assuming there is one)

 

[alienentity]

It seems fairly obvious to me that, since the motion of the facade, and hence the parapet wall, was not uniform, then the spot where one performs measurements will influence the acceleration results.

Since Femr2 is measuring from the NW corner, and NIST did not measure from that point, there's no reason to expect the results to be the same. They can both be different and correct.

It seems a tad hypocritical of Femr2 to plot the motion of the NW corner and then complain that NIST's 'assertion is based upon a single point and not applicable to the entire facade behaviour.'
Femr2 seems to do exactly the same thing: pick a spot, measure and plot the results. Big deal, I say.

As for the other objection 'their method suffers from a low quality method and is inaccurate', David Chandler measured the NW corner as well and got 2.5s of freefall from it.
It would be interesting to see how Femr2 and Chandler feel about each other's measurements. They are also at odds with one another.

But I forgot the purpose of measuring things is so that you can criticize NIST. Forget about the rest eh?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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...

As often happens, I don't understand what femr2 is trying to say.

Within the three bullet items he quoted, consisting of 7 sentences, I see:

• 2 occurrences of the word "approximately"
• 1 occurrence of the word "negligible"
• 1 occurrence of the word "somewhat"
• 5 numerical values for time in which the final digit is uncertain (as implied by the standard convention for significant digits)

By my count, the density of qualifying caveats to bullets is approximately 3.0, and the density of qualifying caveats to sentences is roughly 1.3.

 

[beachnut]

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.

And your paper is published where? Your failed claim is proof you have no clue what models are. I suggest you earn an engineering degree if you can't figure out why you are wrong. See you in 5 years. Good luck.

You can see the errors in three papers, but you can't help femr2.1 fix his errors? You guys need some more engineers to help you with your claims.

Maybe Gage's 1500 plus experts can put a paper together. No, I guess they just signed up for a new investigation since they failed to comprehend the many completed investigation and studies on the books. I am not sure if you can find anyone to help you guys with your work to attack NIST, when you need to attack your failed claims by finding some evidence. What is femr2's claim/goal/conclusion?

 

[femr2]

It seems fairly obvious to me that, since the motion of the facade, and hence the parapet wall, was not uniform, then the spot where one performs measurements will influence the acceleration results.

Absolutely.

Since Femr2 is measuring from the NW corner, and NIST did not measure from that point, there's no reason to expect the results to be the same.

Absolutely.

They can both be different and correct.

I have traced numerous points. NIST is inaccurate, very sloppy to the extent that they are not correct. To state *the north face descended at gravitational acceleration (for 2.25s)* is nonsense, and has caused all manner of subsequent issues.

It seems a tad hypocritical of Femr2 to plot the motion of the NW corner and then complain that NIST's 'assertion is based upon a single point and not applicable to the entire facade behaviour.'

Not at all. I'm stating explicitly that it's the NW corner, and stating explicitly it doesn't apply to the entire facade. NIST (badly) traced a wandering point somewhere or other, then explicitly state that the north face experianced freefall (for 2.25s). Just your *bias* showing.

Femr2 seems to do exactly the same thing: pick a spot, measure and plot the results.

Incorrect. I'm not talking about *the north face* for a start. Am stating explicitly the scope second. etc. Also bear in mind the rather pathetic misinterpretation NIST made of the initial second of movement, which they deemed (incorrectly) to be vertical, when it was primarily North-South.

Big deal, I say.

Big enough for you to say...

Can I ask you to give your opinion as to what the maximum acceleration was, based on the graph you posted?
And also what your best estimate of its duration was.

I want to refer various truthers to your work, as I think it is a valid alternative interpretation of the collapse of WTC 7.

As for the other objection 'their method suffers from a low quality method and is inaccurate', David Chandler measured the NW corner as well and got 2.5s of freefall from it.

Indeed, showing that by performing inaccurate and sloppy work that NIST have also ended up supporting your mate Chandler. One end result is that folk such as cmatrix now fully believe that the *north face* experienced over 2s of freefall. It did not.

It would be interesting to see how Femr2 and Chandler feel about each other's measurements. They are also at odds with one another.

Chandler is fully aware of my views of his data. It's not good. I have a copy of the video he used, the application he used to trace, and his actual data file for that application...

Was not impressed at all. Low quality copy of the Dan Rather video and one sample per six frames being just the start of the problems.

But I forgot the purpose of measuring things is so that you can criticize NIST. Forget about the rest eh?

Incorrect. The purpose is to obtain accurate data, not incorrect, sloppy and low resolution crap.

x

 

[femr2]

As often happens, I don't understand what femr2 is trying to say.

It's usually because you don't read the context of the discussion, which is the ~2.25s period of gravitational acceleration stated by NIST.

NIST are not stating approximately gravitational acceleration. They are stating gravitational acceleration.

Their approximate in that context is the length of time which gravitational acceleration continues for.

Sloppy. Nonsense.

 

[alienentity]

Whatever dude. Do you have a youtube video with these data points that I can point people to?

I'm happy to show your work, it is a valid analysis IMO and should be explored by anyone who is looking into the subject of the speed of WTC 7's collapse.

 

[femr2]

Whatever dude.

You mean *okay femr2, I was being rude and silly*. Fine.

Do you have a youtube video with these data points that I can point people to?

No. Links to the data are a few posts ago. May make a YT video on the subject, but pretty unlikely.

I'm happy to show your work, it is a valid analysis IMO and should be explored by anyone who is looking into the subject of the speed of WTC 7's collapse.

Fine. I suggest pointing folk to the excel based data downloads and associated position/time, velocity/time and acceleration/time graphs.

 

[alienentity]

Femr2 I'm not interested in getting into another of these endless nitpicks upon old nitpicks.

That's your cup of gruel, not mine. Too bad you don't have your data up on youtube, since most of the truther drones aren't going to access it any other way. Just think of the gems of wisdom they're missing!

 

[000063]

It's usually because you don't read the context of the discussion, which is the ~2.25s period of gravitational acceleration stated by NIST.

Back up. You've been directly contradicted. You claimed that the segment you quoted was absolutely free of qualifiers, yet several are clearly visible.

Address this point, please.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Back up. You've been directly contradicted. You claimed that the segment you quoted was absolutely free of qualifiers, yet several are clearly visible.

Address this point, please.

I don't think you understand.

It's perfectly okay for femr2 to leave out the caveats necessary to justify a statement such as

Sure, but not in their poorly executed building motion statements...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/203204960.png[/qimg]

On the other hand, when someone else, such as NIST, fails to place an explicit caveat in front of every phrase, it's

Sloppy. Nonsense.

Does that help?

 

[femr2]

Back up. You've been directly contradicted. You claimed that the segment you quoted was absolutely free of qualifiers, yet several are clearly visible.

Address this point, please.

LOL. Grow up son. I know these WYSIWYG tools are as fun as a box of kippers, but come come now

Read the context. Read the post.

You're one of those pedantic (insert starred word of your choice) who like to create *claims*. Boring.

The part of my post you chopped provides the contextual answer you your whine (which makes you wonder why you chopped it orf. Can't read ? Won't read ? )...

NIST are not stating approximately gravitational acceleration. They are stating gravitational acceleration.

Their approximate in that context is the length of time which gravitational acceleration continues for.

Sloppy. Nonsense.

...which is the context of the discussion. The period of gravitational acceleration (freefall) stated by NIST.

 

[femr2]

It's perfectly okay for femr2 to leave out the caveats necessary to justify a statement such as

On the other hand, when someone else, such as NIST, fails to place an explicit caveat in front of every phrase, it's

There's a big difference between an on-going discussion and finalised documentation. Should I have gotten the highlighter pen out and emphasised the context ? Perhaps, though the context (given the last page-worth of discussion has been about the freefall preiod) really should not have to be explained by me. I used an image so there was no suggestion of quote mining, etc...

Regardless...

NIST are not stating approximately gravitational acceleration. They are stating gravitational acceleration.

Their approximate in that context is the length of time which gravitational acceleration continues for.

Sloppy. Nonsense.

 

[000063]

LOL. Grow up son. I know these WYSIWYG tools are as fun as a box of kippers, but come come now

Please stop being patronizing. I highlighted the portions in question because of a tendency of some people to mysteriously not see inconvenient points. That's not some sort of passive-aggressive dig at you in particular; I just wanted to make sure you saw it. And it worked!

You're one of those pedantic (insert starred word of your choice) who like to create *claims*. Boring.

Rule 12.

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...

Highlighted version of http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/203204960.png

So! If there were no "approximately"s or "roughly"s in the building motion statements you quoted, why are there two "approximately"s in the building motion statements you quoted? Did you misspeak, perchance? Or accidentally misread the text in question? I can understand how you might be in a bit of a hurry; there's a lot of content to wade through, and serif fonts aren't best for reading on a screen.

The part of my post you chopped provides the contextual answer you your whine (which makes you wonder why you chopped it orf. Can't read ? Won't read ? )...

Still being patronizing.

It's usually because you don't read the context of the discussion, which is the ~2.25s period of gravitational acceleration stated by NIST.

NIST are not stating approximately gravitational acceleration. They are stating gravitational acceleration.

Their approximate in that context is the length of time which gravitational acceleration continues for.

Sloppy. Nonsense.

Got it. You're moving the goalposts.

The "approximately"s in the quoted segment directly precede measurements of distance, not time.

...which is the context of the discussion. The period of gravitational acceleration (freefall) stated by NIST.

Yet the quoted portion seems to only give rough times and distances traveled, and even the "stages" are based on a Scatter Plot(Fig 3-15), which is essentially a mathematical guess. Taking them to task for alleged inaccuracy seems like dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[Justin39640]

There's a big difference between an on-going discussion and finalised documentation. Should I have gotten the highlighter pen out and emphasised the context ? Perhaps, though the context (given the last page-worth of discussion has been about the freefall preiod) really should not have to be explained by me. I used an image so there was no suggestion of quote mining, etc...

Regardless...

NIST are not stating approximately gravitational acceleration. They are stating gravitational acceleration.

Their approximate in that context is the length of time which gravitational acceleration continues for.

Sloppy. Nonsense.

So what's the endgame? Is it to prove that the NIST did a crappy job (altogether) and you want a new investigation to find all the hundreds of tonnes of thermXte they missed? Or are you truly looking to help them correct their "errors" cause you're a nice guy?

 

[femr2]

Please stop being patronizing.

I call it as I see it.

I highlighted the portions in question because of a tendency of some people to mysteriously not see inconvenient points.

Yet you chopped off the portions of my post which specifically clarify the context of intent

I just wanted to make sure you saw it. And it worked!

LOL.

So!

Giggle. Love it when folk bring out the *passive aggressive* nonsense, then follow it with that kind of thing.

If there were no "approximately"s or "roughly"s in the building motion statements you quoted, why are there two "approximately"s in the building motion statements you quoted?

Perhaps the preceeding statement should have been...
*Sure, but not in their poorly executed building motion acceleration statements...*

Note that I'm opening the phrase with *sure*, as-in, sure, NIST use such vague-isms regularly.

Got it. You're moving the goalposts.

Not at all. The *goalposts* as you put it are exactly what has been being discussed for the last couple of days, over the last page or so...NIST concluding ~2.25s of freefall of the north face. Given that, I assumed the *goalposts* were clear. Clearly that's too much to expect from folk such as yourself.

Taking them to task for alleged inaccuracy seems like dancing on the head of a pin.

That's the problem By making such statements NIST basically supported the assertions of David Chandler. As a consequence many folk now have firm belief in the notion of *instantaneous failure of all columns over a distance of 8 floors* BECAUSE OF such inaccuracy.

I have spent the time to produce rather more detailed data which shows such claims to be incorrect.

By *arguing* with me on the point you are basically defending such positions. Not a great idea.

 

[femr2]

Is it to prove that the NIST did a crappy job

Nope, though for the elements in question I think it's clear that they did a urine poor job of 'em.

are you truly looking to help them correct their "errors" cause you're a nice guy?

Nope, their data is crap (and not available in numerical form anyway). I wanted better data, so I went to the bother of extracting it from the video record.

I think the concept of *sub pixel feature tracing* has now been discussed on *da interwebz* enough such that, if there was ever any need to perform similar traces the techniques used would not be so shoddy, nor the conclusions so vague and inaccurate.

Remember why this recent discussion began. If you have not bothered to read back through the thread to find out, I suggest you do so.

 

[NoahFence]

So what's the endgame? Is it to prove that the NIST did a crappy job (altogether) and you want a new investigation to find all the hundreds of tonnes of thermXte they missed? Or are you truly looking to help them correct their "errors" cause you're a nice guy?

You don't actually think he'll answer that do you?

 

[femr2]

You don't actually think he'll answer that do you?

Do you guys ever read the post(s) preceeding the one you are making ?

 

[Justin39640]

Do you guys ever read the post(s) preceeding the one you are making ?

I've skimmed through a bunch. All I see is discussion of data points. There's a lot of pages and a bunch of links to threads that discuss... MORE DATA POINTS! I just want to know, simply, what do you intend to do with this? Does it prove an inside job? I know you have it on your website. Even Chandler wrote to the NIST to get on their radar. You seem uninterested in that. You go through all the trouble yet wont write an email?

Please, for all of us that didn't see the one or two posts with the actual reason in the dozens and dozens of pages of graphs, charts, flying circles, etc, why?