Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Oystein]

Naughty.


The validity of my *claims* stand until someone refutes them. Get busy. Stop hand waving. It's not rocket science.


Argument from incredulity. What findings do you disagree with, why, and what is your *correct* version ?

And, what on earth do you think *the engineering community* has to do with validating sub-pixel video featurre tracing techniques ? It's not an engineering sherlock


Prove them wrong.

pgimeno was more doubting the relevance than the validity of your studies and their results.

And I think we can leave it at that: You have said you will not tell us your motivation (which I think would go a long way to establish degree of relevance - are you going for a change in the Big Picture? Or is this just a hobby of yours, to do ultra-fine tracks of random things?), and no significant consequence seems to be looming in the foreseeable future.

I greatly appreciate your work and its validity to the extent that I can use some of it and shove in truthers faces. Then again, I won't keep up with all that detail, as I, too, fail to see the relevance.

 

[femr2]

Just thought I'd return the favor.

You're welcome.

Thanks. With reference to your earlier comment, I made the point of annotating your post as it was obvious that you were going to move on from question 1 to a number of others focussed upon motivation and *the big picture*, for which I have repeatedly made my viewpoint clear. I'm not into repeating myself over and over again on such topics. My purpose has been stated within this forum many times. It must be that time of year or something...

I'm not satisfied with the technical details in reports such as those released by NIST, and have identified numerous issues, some quite major, some less so. The purpose is correct understanding of the events, of course. One example would be the woeful NIST WTC1 initiation sequence, which I have applied quite a bit of time to and am in no doubt that their sequence is pretty nonsensical given the visual evidence available. Failure was core led, not south perimeter led imo). Another would be the UAL175 impact trajectory and orientation used by NIST which are badly wrong, resulting in the impact damage assessment being based upon incorrect trajectory of the aircraft. Another would be the primary mechanism of destruction, which has required MT and myself to apply time formulating the ROOSD details. Another would be the perimeter peeling behaviour which MT is focussing upon. etc. Lots of problems you may think are irrelevant. They are not.

I have no interest in repeating motivational or big picture details again, so folk, stop asking, again. Such details are irrelevant and highlight that many folk are simply trying to put opinion into one box or another to suit their primitive forms of *argument*, none of which related to technical discussions in hand.

 

[femr2]

You have said you will not tell us your motivation

No, I've repeatedly stated it and repeatedly indicated I have no desire to do so again, and again, and again. See above. I'm not repeating it again.

I greatly appreciate your work and its validity to the extent that I can use some of it and shove in truthers faces.

Fine, though there is the need to be able to criticise NIST in the same breath, as without that nothing will change. For instance it is not possible to use my improved WTC7 acceleration profile data without also making it clear that the associated NIST data and statements are less than helpful (to say it mildly). To convince those *truthers* you must force them to relinquish the NIST statements the particular viewpoints are held against.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The NIST statement...

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This freefall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

...is misleading if read literally, and the values stated are inaccurate.

Before going on, let's note some obvious facts:

1. In the blue statement above, NIST did not mention the northwest corner.
2. When a formerly rigid object is breaking up to such an extent that not all parts of the object are moving with the same velocity, it is clearly impossible for every part of the object to have undergone exactly the same acceleration.

Intelligent readers will keep such facts in mind when interpreting NIST's prose.

The simplest of observations direct from the wording above:

a) They performed a primitive trace of a horizontal position on the roofline but then state behaviour applying to *the north face*. Wrong.

See fact 2 above.

b) They apply *gravitational acceleration* for the duration of their stated time period (2.25s) when it is obvious that such a behaviour could never actually occur. Wrong. I have presented graphical data showing such a position to be wrong.

See facts 1 and 2 above.

A more accurate representation of the WTC7 acceleration profile (for the NW corner) is...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/628055186.png[/qimg]

Note the amount of time that the red line is ON the black line. That is the amount of time the NW corner descended AT freefall.

No, the red line represents the smoothed result of one particular choice of smoothing algorithms that could have been applied to the noisy data that femr2 has chosen to summarize in that red line. In previous versions of that graph, femr2 has himself shown alternative red lines.

For femr2 to argue that NIST's prose summary of the complex reality and noisy data is "wrong", he needs to display the interval of uncertainty surrounding his red line.

In light of fact 2, femr2 would also need to explain how the acceleration he estimates for any one point of the structure can contradict NIST's summary of the acceleration for the entire structure.

No, Stellaphane was suggesting that presenting information which would tend to support the notion of "core failure beneath the East penthouse of WTC7 propogating upwards and followed by descent of such through the building" was a tiny bit of nothingness. Given that such behaviour is the fundamental root of the NIST most probable cause of failure, the statement by Stellaphane is ludicrous.

I assume this refers to femr2's assumption that shiny parts of the reflection correspond to the location of a disturbance. The laws of optics tell us that cameras at different locations would have seen shiny reflections at different points on the building. It is therefore absurd for femr2 to argue that the points of shininess seen by one particular camera correspond to the locations of disturbance.

When femr2 argues that movement of the reflection must have been caused by a disturbance, he is on solid ground. When he assumes that the location of the reflection provides information about the location of the disturbance, he is on quicksand.

You have absolutely no idea of my qualifications,

If inferences from observed data cannot give us any idea of femr2's qualifications, then inferences from observed data cannot give us any idea of what happened on 11 September 2001.

and as Ozeco41 has suggested the repeated call for *peer review* is a red-herring borne from the inability of others to refute what I'm saying (which for these details supports the collapse hypothesis for God's sake). If you disagree with any technical details or assertions, prove them wrong.

Why bother?

In general, femr2 has refused to explain the importance of his findings, and has hinted that he is pursuing his research for his own personal reasons. That's fine, but it gives us no reason to care whether his analysis is correct, and no motivation to replicate his findings or to prove them wrong.

As explained above, it isn't hard to find apparent problems with femr2's criticism of NIST's failure to include sufficient caveats to satisfy femr2's personal standards for the precision with which people other than femr2 ought to write. If femr2 disagrees with that assessment, he can prove it wrong.

 

[pgimeno]

then you're just proving wrong just a tiny bit of the NIST findings

Sure, but given the effect of those statements, making better data available is important IMO.

The effect on what? On their conclusions, definitely not, by my reading of chapters 4 and 5 of NCSTAR 1A. The effort they put in the whole speed of fall matter is to me even too overkill given the relevance of that point.

If the conclusions that can be drawn from your refined observations turn out to have a relevance that could render some of the NIST's recommendations invalid, showing a need for some of them to be substituted, that would be a major breakthrough in the story of WTC7, but as long as you don't make NIST nor the community know via the standard methods, you are relegating your studies to insignificance.

Or, as Stellafane put it, "just a tiny bit of nothingness".

No, Stellaphane was suggesting [...]

Sorry, replace "as Stellafane put it" with "paraphrasing Stellafane".

You will excuse me if I don't take that for granted given that you are not a qualified engineer nor willing to publish your claims for peer review.

You have absolutely no idea of my qualifications,

You have said you are not a structural engineer, therefore I think I have a better idea than you claim: a qualified engineer in the context of discussing structures is a structural engineer. Therefore you are not a qualified engineer for discussing the consequences of your findings (irrespective of the accuracy of the findings themselves) over the behavior of the building.

and as Ozeco41 has suggested the repeated call for *peer review* is a red-herring borne from the inability of others to refute what I'm saying

My inability to refute it does not make it true. Science has its method for a reason, and approaching truth is best done via these ways. I don't have to prove them wrong to cast doubts over it. I'm pointing out how irrelevant they are in the context of NIST's conclusions. That alone makes the whole thing of discussing the accuracy of NIST's assessment with respect to the speed of fall utterly irrelevant, which is something you haven't addressed at all.

Nonsense. Simply that folk such as cmatrix continue to use the 2.25s NIST conclusion [...]

And cmatrix's discussion continues to be just as utterly irrelevant as yours.

Argument from incredulity I'm afraid. What argument do you disagree with ? Be specific. Be detailed. Put data on the table. Stop hand-waving.

The relevance of your findings. Yes, it's an argument from incredulity based on your lack of authority in the structural engineering field and your previous failures on said field, exposed in this thread among others. And a good reason for incredulity in my view.

In what way does showing [stuff] make you suggest the intention is to *cast doubt on the whole work and conclusions* ? Be specific. Be detailed. Stop hand waving.

I have already been as detailed as needed. My exact words were "I think that what alienentity notes is the effect, if not the purpose, of his claims", and "Most notably, his claims of sloppiness on NIST's side align with MT's smearing campaign against both NIST and Bažant". That answers your question.

[Edited to add the underlined bits]

Naughty.

My intention was honest. If I knew you were replying I would not have edited, and instead I probably would have followed up with the corrections.

The validity of my *claims* stand until someone refutes them.

That's not how the burden of proof works. The NIST guys have provided extensive proof in a paper reviewed by qualified engineers, that you are challenging with statements that have not undergone an equivalent review nor come from equivalently qualified people. This is not the story of the naked emperor, because it's not the case that everyone sees the emperor naked and is just afraid to say. This is more like Nobel prize Dario Fo expressing his opinion in the movie Zero about things that a Nobel prize in literature has no expertise at.

That, of course, would be rendered invalid if their they prove their merit by publishing those findings in a peer-reviewed journal and their claims can sustain a closer scrutiny by the engineering community.

And, what on earth do you think *the engineering community* has to do with validating sub-pixel video featurre tracing techniques ? It's not an engineering sherlock

Sorry, I meant findings and conclusions. It's the conclusions that are not supported by any engineering expertise. I am not challenging your data.

 

[femr2]

Intelligent readers will keep such facts in mind when interpreting NIST's prose.

Ye gads man. AGAIN, the reason the *period of freefall* discussion has arisen again is that I was asked to *debate* cmatrix on his firm belief that BECAUSE OF NIST *admitting* 2.25s of freefall PROVES simultaneous instant failure of the structure over an 8 storey vertical distance.

And you guys are attacking me for providing more accurate and in-depth data to show why that was NOT the case

A point I have repeated MANY times recently.

See fact 2 above.

It's still wrong.

See facts 1 and 2 above.

It's still a stupid thing for them to say, and has been used by many to form a rigid stance. See above.

No, the red line represents the smoothed result of one particular choice of smoothing algorithms that could have been applied to the noisy data that femr2 has chosen to summarize in that red line. In previous versions of that graph, femr2 has himself shown alternative red lines.

All following the same basic trend. All showing the same base detail...no 2.25s period of gravitational acceleration...no instantaneous change in acceleration...

As I said representative of the acceleration profile. MUCH more representative of actual behaviour than the sloppy linear regression performed by NIST.

For femr2 to argue that NIST's prose summary of the complex reality and noisy data is "wrong", he needs to display the interval of uncertainty surrounding his red line.

Nonsense. You are, by direct implication, suggesting that the north face experienced exactly gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25s. Nonsense.

In light of fact 2, femr2 would also need to explain how the acceleration he estimates for any one point of the structure can contradict NIST's summary of the acceleration for the entire structure.

ROFL. I have acceleration profile data for each of the following line segments presented in smearogram form...


Do you want a graph for each ? At least a thousand

It is therefore absurd for femr2 to argue that the points of shininess seen by one particular camera correspond to the locations of disturbance.

Same detail has been presented for two totally different viewpoint, Dan Rather and NIST Cam#3

When femr2 argues that movement of the reflection must have been caused by a disturbance, he is on solid ground. When he assumes that the location of the reflection provides information about the location of the disturbance, he is on quicksand.

The behaviour ties in directly to the proposed NIST mechanism, and you reject it ?

 

[pgimeno]

1. In the blue statement above, NIST did not mention the northwest corner.
2. When a formerly rigid object is breaking up to such an extent that not all parts of the object are moving with the same velocity, it is clearly impossible for every part of the object to have undergone exactly the same acceleration.

Intelligent readers will keep such facts in mind when interpreting NIST's prose.

That's what I had in mind when I said that by my reading they didn't get that wrong. Thanks for addressing it. I think their statement is based on some assumptions of the kind of point 2 above, visual clues, and assumptions on structural behavior, and I think it's accurate enough for the purposes of their discussion. That unknowledgeable people misinterpret their statements proves that just reading them is not enough, but some knowledge or advice in the field is often necessary. It's the same reason why MT is failing again and again (and again, and again, and again...) in his interpretations of BV, BL and BLGB.

Nonsense. You are, by direct implication, suggesting that the north face experienced exactly gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25s. Nonsense.

Who has used the word exactly to qualify "gravitational" or "free fall"?

I don't remember having seen anyone but you use it.

 

[Oystein]

No, I've repeatedly stated it and repeatedly indicated I have no desire to do so again, and again, and again. See above. I'm not repeating it again.

I had just acknowledged that, no need to repeat it

Fine, though there is the need to be able to criticise NIST in the same breath, as without that nothing will change.

Well, yes, sure, but ... to change what?

For instance it is not possible to use my improved WTC7 acceleration profile data without also making it clear that the associated NIST data and statements are less than helpful (to say it mildly). To convince those *truthers* you must force them to relinquish the NIST statements the particular viewpoints are held against.

The argument would be the same: So NIST did not cover every possible detail and go into every possible depth of accuracy, but why should they? It is not relevant!

Whether or not NIST has anything to say about acceleration profiles of certain points, has them right or, it doesn't matter: free fall, or a g-curve that goes over and under g, does not invalidate NIST's theory, and does not prove CD. Nothing in the nature of free-fall can be explained by CD, let alomne CD only, and nothing in the nature of CD or natural collapse requires presence or absence of free fall.

You see, that quirk that Chandler found is irrelevant, unless he proves its relevance! And the same is true for whatever NIST takes on that quirk, or what improvements you can add. Free fall and CD have no common logical base.

Truthers could probably pick any part of the NIST report, or of the data that NIST use, and etch some observation out, or improve on resolution etc., and they could then yell "AHAAA WE FOUND THE LOADED GUN! We shall now force NIST to admit that imn window 7 on the 14th floor there was a period where fires reached 840°C, and that can only happen in a CD!". They would be right about NIST missing (and not explaining) an observation, but it would very likely be just irrelevant as it would not disprove the fire theory or prove CD.

 

[femr2]

If the conclusions that can be drawn from your refined observations turn out to have a relevance that could render some of the NIST's recommendations invalid, showing a need for some of them to be substituted, that would be a major breakthrough

Who said anything about major breakthrough ?

as long as you don't make NIST nor the community know via the standard methods, you are relegating your studies to insignificance.

If it's insignificant, don't waste your time writing lengthy posts about it.

You have said you are not a structural engineer

Where ?

therefore I think I have a better idea than you claim

You can think whetever you please.

Therefore you are not a...

You still have absolutely no idea of my qualifications, which are utterly beside the point. Refute my statements, or prove them wrong. Hand waving is a waste of my time, and yours.

My inability to refute it does not make it true.

What is there to be false ? It's really not rocket science

I don't have to prove them wrong to cast doubts over it.

You have to delve into which element of the technical process you have doubt upon.

I'm pointing out how irrelevant they are in the context of NIST's conclusions.

NISTs conclusions in this context are that the north face experienced freefall for ~2.25s. Nonsense. Wrong.

If you are incapable of refraining from *scope creep*, do not enter into focussed dialogue about specific elements.

That alone makes the whole thing of discussing the accuracy of NIST's assessment with respect to the speed of fall utterly irrelevant, which is something you haven't addressed at all.

I have explicitly stated the scope within which the relevancy of the measurements in the current discussion are relevant.

And cmatrix's discussion continues to be just as utterly irrelevant as yours.

ROFL. You reveal the purpose of your presence in one foul swoop.

it's an argument from incredulity based on your lack of authority in the structural engineering field and your previous failures on said field, exposed in this thread among others. And a good reason for incredulity in my view.

Yet you just admitted you are not capable of refuting my assertions. Funny stuff.

The NIST guys have provided extensive proof in a paper reviewed by qualified engineers, that you are challenging with statements that have not undergone an equivalent review

Where was the NIST report peer reviewed. Links please.

Feel free to review, oh, you're not capable by your own admission. Never mind

The hilarious end of that is that the detail I'm presenting is really very simple. Simple. I'll say it again, simple. lol.

I am not challenging your data.

Then what is your problem ? The data speaks for itself. That you have some utterly out of context need and desire to extrapolate the details into some *grand big picture* is laughable. That is FAR from the point. Get a grip.

 

[femr2]

That unknowledgeable people misinterpret their statements proves that just reading them is not enough

And yet when someone presents better information to help such people overcome their misinterpretations, you attack them. Good plan Should keep you *debating* until hell freezes over eh Motivation. Mmmmm. Nice.

It's the same reason why MT is failing again and again (and again, and again, and again...) in his interpretations of BV, BL and BLGB.

Bazant et al have been misinterpreted by so many supposedly knowledgeable folk it's hilarious. The base *debunker* camp embarrass themselves regularly in that arena. A positive side-effect of MT's imput has been that such folk are now rather more cautious about throwing Bazant et al on the table as an explanation of ANY real-world behaviour.

Who has used the word exactly to qualify "gravitational" or "free fall"?

NIST, by poor wording, which has been seized upon by many.

 

[femr2]

Well, yes, sure, but ... to change what?

As I've said lord knows how many times recently...the opinions of individuals such as cmatrix. Why are you here ? Do you WANT to inform cmatrix of the problem with his viewpoint in the context of the NIST asserted 2.25s period of gravitational acceleration, or not ? It seems not.

Whether or not NIST has anything to say about acceleration profiles of certain points, has them right or, it doesn't matter

To whom ? You ? Why ? Because of your onbsession with *the big picture* ? How are you going to change viewpoints without being honest about failings of EVERYONE ?

free fall, or a g-curve that goes over and under g, does not invalidate NIST's theory, and does not prove CD.

Did I say it did ? You want to be aiming that at, for example, cmatrix, You will then want to use my data, as without it, you have NO DATA.

 

[Oystein]

As I've said lord knows how many times recently...the opinions of individuals such as cmatrix. Why are you here ? Do you WANT to inform cmatrix of the problem with his viewpoint in the context of the NIST asserted 2.25s period of gravitational acceleration, or not ? It seems not.
...

You don't need to swap the 2.25s for more accurate values. You need to point that either way it's irrelevant, unless he can reasonably argue the relevance! I say you will not convince the likes of cmatrix. His delusion does not hinge on the accuracy of your or NIST's data. Instead, you are pouring water on his mills, because he is convinced that NIST is a fraud, and you are giving him data that he is free to misconstrue as supporting him.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Ye gads man. AGAIN, the reason the *period of freefall* discussion has arisen again is that I was asked to *debate* cmatrix on his firm belief that BECAUSE OF NIST *admitting* 2.25s of freefall PROVES simultaneous instant failure of the structure over an 8 storey vertical distance.

And you guys are attacking me for providing more accurate and in-depth data to show why that was NOT the case

So far as I know, cmatrix has not posted in this thread. At any rate, he hasn't posted anything to this thread for months. If you think you're having a debate with cmatrix in this thread, then you literally do not know what you're doing.

All following the same basic trend. All showing the same base detail...no 2.25s period of gravitational acceleration...no instantaneous change in acceleration...

As you of all people should know, your data aren't good enough to rule out all "instantaneous" changes in acceleration. On the other hand, the data are entirely consistent with approximately 2.25s of acceleration at approximately 1g. It is also obvious that different parts of that object have been subjected to slightly different accelerations; otherwise all parts of that formerly stationary object would be moving at exactly the same velocity, which is clearly not the case.

As I said representative of the acceleration profile. MUCH more representative of actual behaviour than the sloppy linear regression performed by NIST.

In my opinion, NIST's linear regression was as precise as their data could justify. Your data might justify a more precise linear regression or a higher-order regression than was performed by NIST, but you have refused to explain why a more precise or higher-order regression is needed.

On the one hand, you ask us to respect your refusal to explain why your analysis matters, and on the other hand you ask us to respect the importance of your analysis.

Nonsense. You are, by direct implication, suggesting that the north face experienced exactly gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25s. Nonsense.

I have suggested no such thing. In fact, I have clearly stated that it is impossible for all parts of the north face to have experienced exactly the same acceleration, which immediately implies that it is impossible for all parts of the north face to have "experienced exactly gravitational acceleration".

Your blatant misrepresentations of what I have written do not surprise me, as I have seen you misrepresent many other posters in exactly much the same way.

The behaviour ties in directly to the proposed NIST mechanism, and you reject it ?

I would welcome a competent analysis that supports NIST's proposed mechanism. I would welcome a competent analysis that contradicts NIST's proposed mechanism.

So far as I can tell, your analysis falls into neither of those categories.

Early in this thread, when I thought you were a Truther, I defended your subpixel analysis against others' arguments from incredulity. Now that you have convinced me that you do not want to be judged as a Truther, I judge your work by the higher standards I would apply to a sane technical analysis.

 

[femr2]

You don't need to swap the 2.25s for more accurate values.

I most certainly do. It is, as you rightly say, inaccurate. I'd estimate the correct value to be <0.1s

You need to point that either way it's irrelevant, unless he can reasonably argue the relevance!

He has indicated why he thinks it relevant, which is CAUSED by sloppy statements by NIST, Chandler, ...

I say you will not convince the likes of cmatrix.

Perhaps, but, for this simple point, unless you try your presence here is utterly pointless, and reduced to *twoofer baiting* WITH the admission that you cannot refute the simplest of assertions you are not comfortable with. Way to go with the *critical thinking skills*. Wooo

His delusion does not hinge on the accuracy of your or NIST's data.

Ahem...

However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.

That statement absolutely hinges on the accuracy (and interpretation) of NISTs data.

you are giving him data that he is free to misconstrue as supporting him.

How would he do that ?

 

[DGM]

You don't need to swap the 2.25s for more accurate values. You need to point that either way it's irrelevant, unless he can reasonably argue the relevance! I say you will not convince the likes of cmatrix. His delusion does not hinge on the accuracy of your or NIST's data. Instead, you are pouring water on his mills, because he is convinced that NIST is a fraud, and you are giving him data that he is free to misconstrue as supporting him.

^ This

Conspiracy theorists will only take different independent (accuracy aside) information as a sign of cover-up or incompetence. They will then have fuel to make the giant leap to "if they can't get this right, the whole report MUST be wrong". It's an "appeal to perfection" (one they will never see the irony of).

 

[femr2]

So far as I know, cmatrix has not posted in this thread.

The mods moved the discussion over here. Beachhnut and co took it upon themselves to start attacking the validity of the data. AGAIN, the initial cue was...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7092904&postcount=136
...and...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7103995&postcount=22

At any rate, he hasn't posted anything to this thread for months. If you think you're having a debate with cmatrix in this thread, then you literally do not know what you're doing.

ROFL. I'm simply defending against the inept, inane and plain stupid attacks upon myself for the topic being under discussion. See above links

As you of all people should know, your data aren't good enough to rule out all "instantaneous" changes in acceleration.

Good enough to rule out the suggestion of 8 storeys worth of instant structural resistance nullification, a point I am sure you will agree, that being the point.

You have the raw data. Do with it what you will.

On the other hand, the data are entirely consistent with approximately 2.25s of acceleration at approximately 1g.

Blatant blind support of NIST. Ridiculous.

In my opinion, NIST's linear regression was as precise as their data could justify.

Yes, poor.

Your data might justify a more precise linear regression or a higher-order regression than was performed by NIST, but you have refused to explain why a more precise or higher-order regression is needed.

Incorrect.

On the one hand, you ask us to respect your refusal to explain why your analysis matters, and on the other hand you ask us to respect the importance of your analysis.

Incorrect.

I have clearly stated that it is impossible for all parts of the north face to have experienced exactly the same acceleration, which immediately implies that it is impossible for all parts of the north face to have "experienced exactly gravitational acceleration".

Then do not bolster the *correctness* of NIST stating..."the north face descended at gravitational acceleration (for 2.25s)".

 

[ozeco41]

@femr2
Everyman and his dog seems to be bending over backwards to disagree with you femr2. The disagreements seem to go to every aspect of your posting here EXCEPT the central fact under discussion. That fact is the NIST asserted 2.25s period of gravitational acceleration which was used as evidence by cmatrix. You have given what seems to be a more accurate measure of that central point of the discussion.

You have several times reminded members that the reason for the current discussion arose out of a claim by cmatrix. You have been attempting to respond to that claim by cmatrix.

But lots of people are disputing what seems to be everything but that central issue of fact. The focus is on denying your right to debate the issue. It seems to cover lots of personal matters short of demanding that you produce your birth certificate - that could be next.

In the course of all these attempts to forestall debate we have seen some crazy claims. One common one being that we know WTC7 fell as a result of fires so there is no need for further explanation. And specifically there is no need for further explanation by you. At least one member recently saying that such discussions should not be in this 9/11 forum. Get that claim clear - there should be no technical discussions of 9/11 matters which go to any more detail than "fire caused the collapse". What a different sub forum this would be if that had been the rule "Come here to discuss 9/11 matters but no discussion of the Pentagon other than to say 'the plane did it'. No discussion of Shanksville which goes into more detail than 'The plane was not shot down'. And no discussion of WTC collapse mechanisms beyond 'impact and fire damage caused the buildings to collapse'."

So we have multiple examples of people losing sight of the objective of this discussion. "When you are up to your arse in alligators it's easy to forget the objective was to drain the swamp."

More recently pgimeno attempts to limit you by defining a precise line:

...You have said you are not a structural engineer, therefore I think I have a better idea than you claim: a qualified engineer in the context of discussing structures is a structural engineer. Therefore you are not a qualified engineer for discussing the consequences of your findings (irrespective of the accuracy of the findings themselves) over the behavior of the building....

How often have I said 'the facts of a claim stand alone independent of the qualification of who states the claim'? Many other have made the same statement. Yes once again we see you being singled out to be barred from commenting on facts on the pretence that those facts should be locked up for discussion by 'engineers only'.

So translating that one into my favourite metaphor means that you femr2 are not allowed to tell me that the sky is blue because you have not shown proof that you are a meteorologist.

Or, if I put the analogy more accurately on target, you may be allowed to observe that the sky is blue but don't dare claim it is unlikely to rain because that steps into the province of the meteorologists.

There are many more off topic diversions and criticisms. But I won't address them at this stage. For now I think I will sit back on the sideline and watch.

 

[femr2]

Everyman and his dog seems to be bending over backwards to disagree with you

You're not kidding I'd rather not waste my time responding, but I'm not prepared to let the nonsense stand without *holding my corner*, and given the actual detail and scope of the information I'm presenting it's just bizarre. Very informative about personalities and skillsets, but...bizarre.

<tips hat>

You have been attempting to respond to that claim by cmatrix.

Indeed. I doubt it will do any good, but that is far from the point. Unless dialogue can be performed in a way that can be productive, it's pointless. Many here, well, motivation is clear, and it's not about clearing up issues, progress, clarity...

It seems to cover lots of personal matters short of demanding that you produce your birth certificate - that could be next.

I quite like the image of a video processing technique and data extraction method being written-up and sent off to an engineering journal in paper form, submitted by femr2 of da intrawebz

the sky is blue

Cloudless, yes ? (I will not mention the atmosphere)

For now I think I will sit back on the sideline and watch.

Cheers

 

[Oystein]

I most certainly do. It is, as you rightly say, inaccurate. I'd estimate the correct value to be <0.1s

Was the 2.25 relevant? Did cmatrix have a valid argument for the relevance of precisely 2.25s, rather than 2.24 or 2.26s?
Is the <0.1s any more or less relevant, and what is YOUR argument for that?

He has indicated why he thinks it relevant, which is CAUSED by sloppy statements by NIST, Chandler, ...

Yes, he THINKS, but he is wrong, and it this wrongness that needs to be pointed out, not the irrelevant last digits

Perhaps, but, for this simple point, unless you try your presence here is utterly pointless, and reduced to *twoofer baiting* WITH the admission that you cannot refute the simplest of assertions you are not comfortable with. Way to go with the *critical thinking skills*. Wooo

The refutation lies not in improving on the resolution of g-value and time, the refutation lies in pointing out that free-fall, or anything very near, or above free-fall, is NOT refuting NISTs conclusions and NOT evidence for cmatrix' delusions. Chandler's and NIST's data was already good enough to debunk his ridiculous claim of "simultanious loss of support". Your improvement on trailing digits has not changed that argument one iota!

Ahem...

However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.

That statement absolutely hinges on the accuracy (and interpretation) of NISTs data.

I think this is now a figment of your imagination, and maybe a case of you totally failing to get the truther way of thinking:

No truther will now say "oh whoops so it wasn't precisely g, and it wasn't precisely 2.25s". They would of course be pushiung the excapt same claims if we are talking about a period of 2, 1.5 or even 1 second, and they would not change their stance one bit if only the acceleration was within 5% of g, or even above it - which it was! Don't you remember how truthers have for YEARS pushed the "near-freefall-speed" of all towers when it was already pointed out that of course it was like 30% less than g, as some steel parts fell faster than the collapse progressed? They NEVER care for accuracy! As long as you can say "free fall (approximately)", they yell "I WIN!", without ever establishing that this acceleration came about suddenly (Chandler's data shows the opposite, and truthers thought of him as a hero), and why, without that sudden onset, freefall is not relevant at all. Chandler has already said it: Real explosives CDs do NOT exhibit freefall!
So the argument is moot, with any level of accuracy!

How would he do that ?

Argument from Lack of Imagination. You show that freefall DID happen, even faster than gm which sounds even more wooish, and he will simply claim, without proof, that it's relevant!
You see, so far he has only claimed, without proof, that 2.25s of 1.00g is relevant. Nothing can stop him from claiming that your acceleration
profile, with its uber-g extravaganza, is relevant.
The only way to pull that tooth is to establish that there is no proof for relevance.

 

[pgimeno]

Who said anything about major breakthrough ?

I just did, in the part you quote from me that I don't really care to copy back here. I don't understand (nor care) why is it important at all who said anything about a breakthrough. I was just stating that if your conclusions proved right, then it could be a breakthrough; and I add now that if not, then they are utterly irrelevant.

If it's insignificant, don't waste your time writing lengthy posts about it.

I've stated why I think that insignificance should be aired.

You have said you are not a structural engineer

Where ?

Somewhere in this forum or in the911forum. I don't remember, I'd have to look it up and I don't really care about it. Plus it's pretty obvious that either you're the most incompetent structural engineer, or you're not a structural engineer.

But let's see if you can answer a simple direct question, for the record: are you a structural engineer?

My inability to refute it does not make it true.

What is there to be false ? It's really not rocket science

I'm talking/thinking all the time about this particular claim, which is the only reason why your studies might have any significance at all:

The motion studies have revealed a great deal of information about the behaviour of the buildings both in advance of and during descent. Some details support/affirm/confirm elements within reports such as those from NIST, some refute/reject/debunk elements within reports such as those from NIST.

In particular, as it applies to WTC7, if at all. It would be good if you can tell me what conclusions you draw from the WTC7 speed of fall that challenge any NIST's conclusions other than that of the speed of fall itself. Because if that's all you can do with the motion data you've gathered, then it's even more irrelevant than I thought. Which also addresses your next point:

You have to delve into which element of the technical process you have doubt upon.

NISTs conclusions in this context are that the north face experienced freefall for ~2.25s. Nonsense. Wrong.

Not nonsense, not wrong. They didn't care to make a more exhaustive analysis because that was far beyond their scope (as was the one they did do, in my opinion). And they got their analysis right, despite your failure to understand what they were saying.

The NIST guys have provided extensive proof in a paper reviewed by qualified engineers, that you are challenging with statements that have not undergone an equivalent review

Where was the NIST report peer reviewed. Links please.

Did I say peer reviewed?

It was open for public comment after the draft was published. One of the results of such public comment was the revision of the free fall data as per Chandler's comment. Chandler was not the only one who submitted comments, and there are probable more people who reviewed it and were satisfied enough as to not submit any comments.

Then what is your problem ? The data speaks for itself.

No it doesn't. What pre-global collapse details does the data indicate?

Who has used the word exactly to qualify "gravitational" or "free fall"?

NIST, by poor wording, which has been seized upon by many.

NIST doesn't say "exactly gravitational" nor "exactly free fall" (or please quote the use of such wording). See above for what I believe is how they come to their assessment.


And, to open yet another can of worms, your data still lacks an error estimation. In your graph, the acceleration of the northwest corner is within 32.5±7.5 ft/s² for about 2.25 seconds.