Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

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!

Ye gads...

We're at post #900, and you want to know why the NIST 2.25s period of freefall is on the table at the moment (the context of the current discussion)...

Working back from here (#900), try...

#897
#896
#885
#872
#850
#846
#843
#835
(prior to that in the cmatrix thread)

 

[NoahFence]

You've yet to answer that.

 

[000063]

I call it as I see it.

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


LOL.


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

In fairness, I probably should've stuck a "[/sincerity]" tag in there.

I wasn't being sardonic. I was giving you a plausible explanation.

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.

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.

Still doin' it!

If they only have an approximate timeframe, how does it follow that the acceleration calculations are so precise, instead of just another estimate?

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.

That's their problem, not NISTs. Chandler and Co regularly remove statements from context, willfully misinterpret the facts, then stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la" when anyone tries to correct them.

There's no good reason for NIST to publish what they consider incorrect results just to avoid giving some nutjobs some ammo. That's kind of the opposite of scientific integrity.

 

[femr2]

That's their problem, not NISTs.

Incorrect. Chandler suggested to NIST that there was a period of freefall. NIST turn around, do an additional *study*... and AGREE with him.

Chandler and Co regularly remove statements from context, willfully misinterpret the facts, then stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la" when anyone tries to correct them.

Chandler claims >2s of freefall, tells NIST.
NIST agree and claim >2s of freefall.

They are both wrong.

There's no good reason for NIST to publish what they consider incorrect results just to avoid giving some nutjobs some ammo. That's kind of the opposite of scientific integrity.

The *north face* of WTC7 did NOT descend at *gravitational acceleration* for *2.25s*.

That they have made the statements they have is shoddy, sloppy and plain wrong. Has caused lots of other problems.

 

[NoahFence]

...and yet their findings are not in doubt.

fire meet building, building go down.

 

[ozeco41]

...There's no good reason for NIST to publish what they consider incorrect results just to avoid giving some nutjobs some ammo. That's kind of the opposite of scientific integrity.

Agreed. However it is very much a matter of context - a lesson which could also be learned from recent posts in the thread.

It looked near certain that NIST re-examined its write up of the start of collapse to accommodate truther style concerns about 'free fall'. They did a quick re-assessment, found what looked like free fall and added to their report an explanation. Then Chandler made his over the top claims about forcing NIST to 'admit' etc etc.... despite the reality that none of us engineers and physicists were in the least concerned about a bit of free fall within the overall context.

Now femr2 does what looks like an even more accurate measurement - I would be quite confident that he has the measurement right. It shows that the acceleration profile does not have the same period of free fall that NIST identified. it also shows that there was a brief period of over G acceleration. Again not a big issue to engineers and physicists.

But there are several ironies. First it means that NIST may not have had to agree with Chandler - for whatever value that is in the marketplace of PR with truthers - and all the discussion that has flowed from those NIST 'admissions' on forums such as this may have been avoided if we had femr2's measurements back then. However explaining 'over G' may have needed even more discussion.

But given that the truth movement in general cannot accommodate free fall at G what chance they can live with some little bit of over G??? Hence my tongue in cheek comment to femr2 a couple of days back.

So I find those and a few other aspects of this matter amusing. Then I'm confident that I understand the context within which femr2 is operating. And having someone actually say something which adds support to confirm NIST's overall finding as to collapse mechanism WHILST disagreeing with NIST over one of the measurements certainly has the potential for folk to lose track of context.

Then to complicate matters of irony heaped on irony the 'fact' that femr2 is labelled a truther only adds more spice to the mix doesn't it?

 

[femr2]

...and yet their findings are not in doubt.

That one certainly is, as are many others. Here's a really funny example...

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

Oh the irony.

 

[ozeco41]

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

Oh the irony.

True. In a 9/11 conspiracy sub forum where most of the discussion is about the technical explanations of five events and where "Why did the WTC7 collapse" is probably the most discussed issue in recent months......

...and we see an attempt to explain why WTC7 collapsed dismissed as "a tiny bit of nothingness"

I've hinted at it several times but I do find a sense of humour, a sense of irony, a sense of the absurd very helpful when trying to puzzle out where some people are coming from.

 

[femr2]

They did a quick re-assessment, found what looked like free fall and added to their report an explanation. Then Chandler made his over the top claims about forcing NIST to 'admit' etc etc.... despite the reality that none of us engineers and physicists were in the least concerned about a bit of free fall within the overall context.

It's prudent to highlight that any claim of *freefall* prior to that *admission* was met with endless *snark* about the (also wrong) 40% longer than freefall blurb, with many *debunkers* stating point-blank that at no point was freefall reached. That went on for years. Then NIST bolted in their additional *study* and those same folk flipped a switch and said freefall was meaningless and expected anyway At no point did any of them bother to check and simply parrotted *what NIST said*. What NIST says *ain't always right*. I don't mind being attacked for pointing out their problems. Some are pretty serious, some not so much.

Now femr2 does what looks like an even more accurate measurement - I would be quite confident that he has the measurement right.

<tips hat> I'm sure it's as accurate as it's possible to extract from the available video record. Certainly the base position/time data is very unlikely to be bettered without additional video resource surfacing, and even if subsequent noise treatments could be improved it would not significantly change the trend/shape of the derived velocity and acceleration profiles.

It shows that the acceleration profile does not have the same period of free fall that NIST identified. it also shows that there was a brief period of over G acceleration.

Indeed, or more precisely, two very short periods of *freefall* (if not effectively zero), with the time in-between over-g and the rest under-g...for the NW corner. Behaviour follows similar trend across the roofline, but the proportions and limits do vary.

all the discussion that has flowed from those NIST 'admissions' on forums such as this.

This discussion restarted due to me highlighting the information to cmatrix, to negate his rigid stance on simultaneous 8 floor *removal*, and given the reaction from the *debunkers*, I find the level of irony impressive.

But given that the truth movement in general cannot accommodate free fall at G what chance they can live with some little bit of over G??? Hence my tongue in cheek comment to femr2 a couple of days back.

Nothing can change unless there is open dialogue. How can anyone expect cmatrix to let go of his *simultaneous failure* viewpoint if all the *debunkers* keep the faith and are not prepared to turn around and say:
a) NIST was wrong/sloppy/inaccurate (all three would be best in this case).
b) There was no sustained period of freefall, nor any rate changes indicating instantaneous structural change.
c) Here's the data to show what ocurred...
...etc...
WTC7 motion was detectable ~100s in advance of release. It would be interesting to discuss the implications of that, but until the likes of cmatrix are helped to fully understand the implications of a more accurate acceleration profile, there's no point going there with him.

So I find those and a few other aspects of this matter amusing. Then I'm confident that I understand the context within which femr2 is operating. And having someone actually confirm NIST's overall finding as to collapse mechanism WHILST disagreeing with NIST over one of the measurements certainly has the potential for folk to lose track of context.

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far from the details I've posted, but there is certainly visual indication that failure low in the building aligned near the East penthouse propogated upwards just prior to its descent. Whether that affirms the finer details...open book.

Then to complicate matters of irony heaped on irony the 'fact' that femr2 is labelled a truther only adds more spice to the mix doesn't it?

As you know, I hate labels. I am me.

 

[ozeco41]

...I'm not sure I'd go quite that far from the details I've posted....

Changed my wording to say more like what I meant. Thanks for pointing it out.

... Whether that affirms the finer details...open book.

That was as I understood it - see my previous comment and editing of post to remove the ambiguity in the original.

 

[femr2]

That was as I understood it - see my previous comment and editing of post

Noted. Shall be attempting to plot the progression soon(ish). Seems to traverse a slight diagonal, so in that sense actual would not agree with suggested. Will see what falls out.

 

[beachnut]

...
...and we see an attempt to explain why WTC7 collapsed dismissed as "a tiny bit of nothingness"
...

Why? Fire. A fact known on 911, no evidence to the contrary will be found by 911 truth. No video analysis will support the "Official Theory being Fiction" claim. There was no thermite, no CD.

WTC 7 being used by 911 truth as their "loaded gun" (Jones new term for stupid) on 911 is insanity, inspired by ignorance.

Would be cool if there was a summary how this video analysis fits with the claims of 911 truth with respect to the inside job, CD, thermite, and such, without attacking NIST.

WTC 7 burned and collapsed, it is what buildings do when they are on fire; they are destroyed. No Demolitions, only gravity collapses. This analysis in particular has no goal, no conclusion, no purpose. Who cares, "you" can't figure out what or how it was done because it is spread out all over the INTERNET, with no coherent source, no single place which connects the pieces together, save in the mind of the author?

True?, this analysis has no bearing on 911, and is goal free nonsense. True, this is a 911 sub-forum, this analysis has no connection to 911 until you search the internet and find the author thinks gravity collapses are Demolitions, the Official Theory is Fiction, holds failed truther papers up as technical papers, and makes false statements about NIST.

Darn, the paper study data analysis is a good 911 truth conspiracy theory topic. Never mind...

 

[femr2]

insanity, inspired by ignorance.

Suggest you read the post by Stellafane again

Would be cool if there was a summary how this video analysis fits with the claims of 911 truth with respect to the inside job, CD, thermite, and such, without attacking NIST.

What a strange and interesting statement beachnut.

 

[pgimeno]

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.

Did they need better data?

What conclusions would be different?

 

[alienentity]

Nothing can change unless there is open dialogue. How can anyone expect cmatrix to let go of his *simultaneous failure* viewpoint if all the *debunkers* keep the faith and are not prepared to turn around and say:
a) NIST was wrong/sloppy/inaccurate (all three would be best in this case).
b) There was no sustained period of freefall, nor any rate changes indicating instantaneous structural change.

You list your options, but they're not the only ones on the table. As we've noted previously NIST did NOT use the NW corner to plot their data, so partially (or even mostly) for this reason the velocity curves are different.

We already know that the wall did not fall completely uniformly, not that this is especially important in determining whether or not it fell due to CD - I agree with many others that it is not.

Some have contended that NIST's measurements are not valid since they wall deformed, but nobody has shown to what extent it did, and how that would affect the NIST measurements - ie nobody has quantified it in an accurate way.

So it's rather premature, IMO, to treat the NIST measurements with the degree of contempt that Femr2 does. But that's his thing, not mine. If he really were truly confident of his prowess he really ought to publish his own findings properly and perhaps try to suggest how they're relevant.

So far his reactions are surprisingly crude, compared to the sophistication of his measurements. Perhaps it is because his manner is both dismissive and obscure that the impact of his work is so poor. So, yes, I am partly blaming him for his lack of communication skills, even while I actually support a lot of the work he's done.

I think the main problem with this whole line of inquiry (WTC 7 and the speed of collapse) is that if one doesn't focus on attacking NIST and making grandiose claims, nobody will pay much attention to you. It's a bit of a catch-22, dontcha think?

Back to the original NIST measurements of approx. 5.4s for the 18 stories to fall out of sight - I've done several measurements on multiple videos which essentially find the same thing, give or take a few frames.

So I side with NIST on the original '40% longer than freefall would have produced' opinion, for that reason alone. I don't agree with Femr2 that NIST are inaccurate or incompetent or whatever other pejorative adjectives were used. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that either myself or Femr2 are the last word on the subject, we're just a couple of anonymous internet posters with opinions.

To rise above that level of background noise, Femr2 is going to have to step up and publish in a recognized journal at some point. I'm just sayin'.

 

[ozeco41]

...and we see an attempt to explain why WTC7 collapsed dismissed as "a tiny bit of nothingness"

Why? Fire. A fact known on 911, no evidence to the contrary will be found by 911 truth. No video analysis will support the "Official Theory being Fiction" claim. There was no thermite, no CD....

beachnut I appreciate your technical posts which give an experts valid information about many matters related to your expert area - matters associated with the flight of large aircraft. I recognise and respect your expertise in that area.

I do not appreciate when you take a post of mine and use it to launch one of your rants with the standard beachnut 'general purpose rant mix' of outright untruths, lies by inference, strawmen and plain false logic.

The topic under discussion here is the mechanism of collapse of WTC7. So the answer to your rhetorical question "Why?" is simple. This is the 9/11 forum. The collapses at WTC on 9/11 are matters of interest. That interest for many of us goes to how the three buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapsed. You must be aware of that interest. It is central to the discussions between those of us who like me say "No demolition" and those who hold contrary views. I am well aware that fire damage caused the collapse I do not need your patronising reminder that it was fire.

I am often placed in the position of offering counter argument to 'truthers' who claim 'demolition'. The work that femr2 has done on the WTC7 collapse provides valuable evidence for those arguments. If femr2's work pointed in the other direction I would still appreciate it because I want my arguments to be founded on solid evidence.

I have no problem with those who have repeatedly stated that 'fire damage' alone is a sufficient reason for them. Provided they stay within their own limits and don't try to tell those like me who are interested in why that there is nothing worthy of examination in the mechanism details. Clearly they do not need to engage in detailed argument with 'truthers'. That they do not want to know details is their choice. However some people, me included, want to understand the mechanisms and, for those of us who occasionally engage in discussion with truthers the extra evidence is valuable.

That should not be a problem to those who are in your camp and rely on ridicule rather than reason. Simply ignore the threads where reasoned examination of evidence is the theme.

WTC 7 being used by 911 truth as their "loaded gun" (Jones new term for stupid) on 911 is insanity, inspired by ignorance...

emotively worded crap irrelevant to the present discussion.

...Would be cool if there was a summary how this video analysis fits with the claims of 911 truth with respect to the inside job, CD, thermite, and such, without attacking NIST....

Not the topic under discussion. You are the one who has introduced 'claims of 911 truth with respect to the inside job, CD, thermite, and such' - they are not in discussion. As for 'attacking NIST' robust discussion of facts should be the basis of debate on this forum - do you suggest there should be no discussion? That discussion should not be robust?

...WTC 7 burned and collapsed, it is what buildings do when they are on fire; they are destroyed. No Demolitions, only gravity collapses....

Patronising irrelevancies. It is not what is under discussion so don't keep erecting it as your personal strawman.

The rest doesn't even qualify for a comment.

 

[ozeco41]

...So it's rather premature, IMO, to treat the NIST measurements with the degree of contempt that Femr2 does. But that's his thing, not mine. If he really were truly confident of his prowess he really ought to publish his own findings properly and perhaps try to suggest how they're relevant....

Without entering the debate as to whether femr2 hands out more than he receives.....
....which could trigger WW4

I would not use the blunt denigratory wording that femr2 chooses.

More important I would not make claims that can easily be read as being more global than they really are.

Without picking a specific example claims that 'NIST is wrong' and references to quality of NIST work equivalent to urine do make it easy for counter attacks. When the claim 'NIST is wrong' only applies to a small subset of the topic. And the reference to excretory products as a quality standard is bound to irritate some.

...To rise above that level of background noise, Femr2 is going to have to step up and publish in a recognized journal at some point. I'm just sayin'.

The question of journal publishing is complex. If femr2 does not wish to do so why should he? He is capable of deciding for himself whether the matter is such as to warrant journal publication for his purposes. I have in mind that the whole question of journal publication tends to be a 'red herring' on these threads. At least a proportion of those who use 'publish or perish' as a weapon in debate are hiding behind the fact that they are not competent to rebut femr2's claims.

 

[Oystein]

I recommend that everyone read femr2's and ozeco's most recent posts in full, and carefully. Great exchange, thanks guys! That's definitely not tl;dr

 

[femr2]

Did they need better data?

To support the suggestion by Chandler, no. To present an acceleration profile, yes. To avoid making the same flawed *period of freefall* statement based upon a liner fit, yes.

What conclusions would be different?

a) There was no period of gravitational acceleration...a statement causing all manner of subsequent claims.
b) The behaviour of one area does not apply to the entire facade, as NIST says it does. They would need to perform multiple traces to state *north face* behaviour.
c) Their *40% longer than freefall* statement is based upon that bad data, and includes an errant T₀. As an example, NW corner descent is ~17% longer than freefall over the observable period.

etc.

 

[NoahFence]

It doesn't matter what the freefall speeds, times, etc are. It doesn't matter if they concentrate on one location of the building. The fact of the matter doesn't change one iota. Fire took down that building.