Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Major_Tom]

Maybe not. Just seems pretty silly to fuss about a free-fall interval without asking whether real CDs experience anything free-fall during initiation.

And doing so for years.

Just sayin'.

Not to discredit your measurements which are the best I have seen yet. I am taking notes as you post.


But under all the argument of free-fall intervals must be. "Has anyone witnessed anything like a free-fall interval during a building demolition? If yes, an example? If no, isn't it amazing that WTC7 was the first to experience it, demo or no?"

 

[femr2]

If yes, an example? If no, isn't it amazing that WTC7 was the first to experience it, demo or no?"

A fair point...and exceed it.

 

[beachnut]

A fair point...and exceed it.

What would it mean? Do you mean the entire collapse exceeded free-fall acceleration? The entire system? Do you have the EOMs for this? Wait, you are only studying one point, not the system. never mind

 

[DGM]

Maybe not. Just seems pretty silly to fuss about a free-fall interval without asking whether real CDs experience anything free-fall during initiation.

I think you (accidentally) happened upon why there is so much "noise" in this thread. Considering this is the "9/11 conspiracy" sub-forum you would think that it has something to do with conspiracy. This is not true for this thread. This thread is science, not theory.

femr2 suggests no conspiracy theory.


Get it?

 

[Major_Tom]

The thread is a tutorial on measurement. Pretty important if you want to understand the motion of a building rather than believing incorrect information pushed by all sides of the "debate".

Don't skeptics verify claims? This is how you do it. Requires effort, not just faith.

I don't know why people would be dismissive of the verification process.

"Has anyone witnessed anything like a free-fall interval during a building demolition? If yes, an example? If no, isn't it amazing that WTC7 was the first to experience it, demo or no?"

This is more of a suggestion to cmatrix that there are much larger problems with a free-fall interval than its duration. Has anyone measured this range of accelerations in any building collapse before including demolitions?

If not, then duration of free-fall is a secondary issue to the fact that anything close to it even exists for WTC7, no?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please consider the irony. While people talk about free-fall, nobody seems to notice that real demolitions experience nothing like free-fall accelerations. Isn't it kind of important, actual acceleration ranges of real demolitions?

If real demolitions experience 5 to 6 m/s^s acceleration rates, then .........

I won't derail the thread further.

 

[beachnut]

The thread is a tutorial on measurement. Pretty important if you want to understand the motion of a building rather than believing incorrect information pushed by all sides of the "debate".

Don't skeptics verify claims? This is how you do it. Requires effort, not just faith.

There is no debate, the collapse was a gravity collapse caused by fire. To deny a gravity collapse you require evidence, not opinions, not made up methods to do measurements of a single point of a building collapsing.

 

[ozeco41]

...I'll respond to the rest of the post latter when I have more time. I have 6 trees I need to fell and cut up. Hey, maybe I'll video tape them and see if they reach "free-fall".

Even better - think about the geometry of the cuts and the falls and see if you can get a bit of 'over G'. Leaves and air resistance could be a problem.....

...now if it was a bare trunk

 

[femr2]

now if it was a bare trunk

A white dot up top would be pretty handy (as would a series of them down the trunk), but anyway.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

ultimately, this thread is about nerd humor

Ultimately this is an argument about standards....

The problem is, except where they're coded into law or otherwise enforced by authority (...), standards are mere opinions....

There is a possible solution, though. I think the U.S. Government should institute an official organization devoted entirely to establishing standards for things. Then, citizens with concerns like femr2's could submit them to that organization for a ruling.

In the long run, I think its bureaucratic focus on standards might grow into an institutional mission encompassing technology in general.

FWIW, I think the explanation for that is in post 564. It seems to imply that it's a polynomial fit for even degrees from 0 to 50, and I would say he chose degree 50 just because "higher is better".

But as always, he actually never explained, so don't trust my guesses.

Are you suggesting that femr2 is shocked, shocked to find that NIST's linear regression (with 2 parameters) is not an exact match for the curve that femr2 came up with using 51 parameters?

 

[Major_Tom]

WD Clinger, is there some building on earth of which you know that has collapsed with an initial acceleration at or near g? Or is WTC 7 the first ever?

Then why do you act so superior to others as if you know something others do not?



Do known demolitions attain such accelerations? Have you ever bothered to check? Obviously not. How could you not have noticed that these accelerations are outside the range of known demolitions for years? Because it is much easier to think you know than it is to verify or even think.

Without ever checking, from where does your false confidence spring? You seem to believe that you believe. Even though measured demolitions do not come close to g accelerations, little facts like that don't seem to penetrate the fog.

 

[beachnut]

WD Clinger, is there some building on earth of which you know that has collapsed with an initial acceleration at or near g? Or is WTC 7 the first ever?

Then why do you act so superior to others as if you know something others do not?

Do known demolitions attain such accelerations? Have you ever bothered to check? Obviously not. How could you not have noticed that these accelerations are outside the range of known demolitions for years? Because it is much easier to think you know than it is to verify or even think.

Without ever checking, from where does your false confidence spring? From ignorance? I cannot see another source if you cannot produce any other example of a building accelerating like WTC 7.

WTC7 did not collapse with an acceleration near g. Better try again. The entire collapse took more than 15 seconds, not near free-fall from the same height. WTC 7 is not the first building destroyed by fire.

WTC 7 was a gravity collapse, your CD delusion died on 911. What do you think about femr's methods? You think they are great, does he support your delusion of CD, and how does this work dovetail with your claims, as related to this thread?

(as below, the entire collapse is ignored so 911 truth can make up failed claims)

 

[Major_Tom]

G measurements have nothing to do with the east penthouse.



No need to average the east penthouse with the drop of the rest of the building. Think about it, genius.

 

[beachnut]

G measurements have nothing to do with the east penthouse.



No need to average the east penthouse with the drop of the rest of the building. Think about it, genius.

You talking to me? You talking to me...

You finally got something right. I am thinking, about it. (oops. you want to ignore the entire collapse where the interior failed, and you only want to study the facade falling after interior support was gone for seconds before the facade fell, not supported by the major structural support. Go ahead be all you can be, deny gravity collapse for your delusions of CD)

How does femr's work dovetail with your claims?

 

[pgimeno]

Are there cases of real demolitions which experience anything close to the accelerations seen in WTC 7?

I don't see any study of demolitions of facades of an empty building as was the WTC7 case. Don't see how these are related. Apples to oranges. Are there any real cases of birds which can fly as fast as a modern jet? Apples to oranges too.

Try comparing to this for a more sensible comparison (though not yet there):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3ddf3RM

Many years of talking, but isn't that the place to begin asking questions about the WTC 7 acceleration rates?

No.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

nerd humor and confirmation bias

Then why do you act so superior to others as if you know something others do not?

Lots of people know what NIST abbreviates. It's not a secret.

It wasn't clear whether femr2 and ozeco41 understood Myriad's joke any more than you did.

I didn't want Myriad to think his joke had fallen flat. I actually laughed out loud, and I laughed again when I read ozeco41's heavy-handed response. Perhaps he understood the joke but didn't think it was funny; many of Monty Python's skits use that device.

Do known demolitions attain such accelerations? Have you ever bothered to check? Obviously not. How could you not have noticed that these accelerations are outside the range of known demolitions for years? Because it is much easier to think you know than it is to verify or even think.

Without ever checking, from where does your false confidence spring? You seem to believe that you believe. Even though measured demolitions do not come close to g accelerations, little facts like that don't seem to penetrate the fog.

If your highlighted statements are indeed facts, then the collapse of WTC7 was not a demolition.

You are asking me to give in to confirmation bias. Because I do not see any evidence that WTC7's collapse was the result of a deliberate demolition, I may seek to interpret any new facts or alleged facts as evidence for my opinion. Your highlighted statements are alleged facts whose truth, as a matter of logic, would imply my opinion and would also refute the widespread Truther narratives that portray WTC7's collapse as some kind of demolition.

Confirmation bias therefore tempts me to agree with your highlighted statements, even though they are bare assertions by a source that's known to be unreliable. It is my intellectual duty to resist that confirmation bias.

femr2 and ozeco41 have also appealed to my confirmation bias by arguing that femr2's data and graphs support NIST's conclusions. I'm sorry, folks, but confirmation bias isn't a good reason to support poorly documented analyses that appear to use highly questionable numerical methods.

Because I have professional knowledge of numerical methods, I have a special duty not to endorse questionable methods and analyses, even if those analyses would support someone's confirmation bias.

 

[femr2]

that appear to use highly questionable numerical methods.

Methods have been repeated many times, yet you are not actually specifying what your problem is.

You have the data. Why not apply methods you don't personally think are questionable, and see how it goes eh ?

Here's another NW corner acceleration profile, this time using Savitzky-Golan Smoothing...

Does it significantly change any of the assertions I have made about the alternate view of the same data resulting from curve fitting ? ...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/628055186.png


Does the specific numerical method change the assertion that the NIST 2.25s period of freefall is inaccurate ?

Does it change the assertion that *freefall* occurred for almost zero time ?

Does it change the assertion of an over-g period ?

Does it change assertion about the general trend/shape of the profile ?

What assertions I have made about the data does numerical method really change W. D. Clinger ?

 

[femr2]

It wasn't clear whether femr2 and ozeco41 understood Myriad's joke any more than you did.

The intent is clear. However, you are forgetting that a good slice of motivation is clear understanding of actual behaviour and (to a lesser extent personally) availablility of data with which to attempt to address the rigid stances of individuals such as cmatrix.

I have no doubt (and have already stated) that an official organization devoted entirely to establishing standards for things is exceedingly unlikely to have any interest in the additional detail, and even less likely to actually react to such and release their own version of improved data. I doubt they'd even acknowledge such contact.

Did the north face descend with gravitational acceleration for 2.25s ? No.

Did the descent of the first 18 floors take 40% longer than freefall ? No.

I can say *No* to those questions (regardless of any argument about interpretation of NIST statements), as I have data with which I can confirm such.

Are those questions my primary focus ? No.

I'm more interested in the motion over 100s earlier, but as folk here are repeatedly adamant about supporting the lower quality data and very inaccurate assertions from NIST, the *discussion* ensues.

 

[000063]

I have no doubt (and have already stated) that an official organization devoted entirely to establishing standards for things is exceedingly unlikely to have any interest in the additional detail, and even less likely to actually react to such and release their own version of improved data. I doubt they'd even acknowledge such contact.

Weren't you complaining earlier that they accepted Chandler's pointing out of their flaws? If they were willing to do so once, who's to say they wouldn't accept corrections again?

 

[femr2]

Weren't you complaining earlier that they accepted Chandler's pointing out of their flaws? If they were willing to do so once, who's to say they wouldn't accept corrections again?

Chandler was within the (massive ) three week public review period. You seriously think NIST would consider releasing amendments to NCSTAR1-9 in 2011 ?

Is there a huge problem with the approximations NIST made ? Not to some, NIST being one I imagine. To others (cmatrix) it's quite a stake in the ground.

It's not rocket science. All this talk of peer review (etc) is pretty funny really.

 

[beachnut]

Chandler was within the (massive ) three week public review period. You seriously think NIST would consider releasing amendments to NCSTAR1-9 in 2011 ?

Is there a huge problem with the approximations NIST made ? Not to some, NIST being one I imagine. To others (cmatrix) it's quite a stake in the ground.

It's not rocket science. All this talk of peer review (etc) is pretty funny really.

That is true, you work is on this is not rocket science.
Where is your paper? It is funny, you have nothing to review. Chandler has the CD delusion, you have the Official Theory is Fictional syndrome.

When will your work be explained in one location? Why did you change your web page? Have you changed your Official Theory is Fictional story yet? I recommend you organize your work into a single logical form, instead of showing filtered to death final acceleration curves and calling it data. You have nothing to publish or ready for peer review. Don't repeat it, you will not be publishing or organizing your work.