Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

3) Does a tight core-perimeter coupled model with a transient greater than g whipping action match the NIST description or model of collapse?

The data should certainly serve to help clarify actual behaviour. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen folk suggest that the North facade descended as it did because *by then WTC7 was a hollow shell*. Such a notion is clearly nonsense.

It may also enable limits to be applied to how far the core descended before pulling upon the perimeter...there's obviously limits for it to still be attached.

Since they themselves measured the greater than g hump, why do they seem to have no clue what it implies for collapse initiation mechanics?

Perhaps they did not trust their measurement, or perhaps they didn't even bother to derive the velocity function and find out ?

cannot ignore horizontal components of early motion

Indeed. Over 100s in advance of release.

 

[alienentity]

Yes, and then they used camera 3 data while totally ignoring horizontal movement.

Not smart.

They also use an FEA that totally ignores this integral connection and flexing between core and perimeter. Not smart.

Femr has shown that the NIST incorrectly stretched "stage 1" by not considering the early horozontal motion.

Stage 2 is telling us that a tight whip relation between core and perimeter is a good possiblity, and the discovery of flexure in the perimeter, shown in a gif earlier, is further proof.

Reinterpretation and correction of the data shows us a probable collapse initiation mechanism. VIsual evidence confirms the mechanism.


So how can the NIST sell you such a crappy model that totally ignores it or the real geometry of the building?


[qimg]http://i38.tinypic.com/30lcq54.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i37.tinypic.com/2ynjp0i.png[/qimg]


Where is a whip mechanism? Where the characteristic greater than g hump? We need tightness in the west architecture for a greater than g hump.

So whip it! Whip it good! Go for it! Move ahead!

And whip it!

OK, you're just being rude now. You've created a strawman 'whip mechanism' and now of course NIST didn't find it.....


'They also use an FEA that totally ignores this integral connection and flexing between core and perimeter. Not smart.'

Another bare assertion? Or do you have citations for this?

And using terms such as 'crappy' is as bad as Femr2's 'sloppy' which indicates you're more interested in slinging mud than discussing technical details.

 

[alienentity]

For crying out loud....

Does it in any way shape or form change what happened that day? Does it prove or disprove anything aside from NIST possibly being incorrect in some measurements?

Not to mention Major_Tom ignored the relevant quote from NCSTAR 1-9 which shows that NIST did in fact take these points into account.......

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For crying out loud....

Does it in any way shape or form change what happened that day? Does it prove or disprove anything aside from NIST possibly being incorrect in some measurements?

No, but Major_Tom may think it does.

Major_Tom wants early movement to have a certain property.

femr2 denies that early movement has that property, and he's right about that, but femr2 has gone on to propose his own model(s) that happen to have the very property that femr2 has denied and Major_Tom wants.

So far as I can tell, neither Major_Tom nor femr2 yet realize that femr2's models have the property Major_Tom wants.

That's part of why I'm being coy about the specific property. Another reason is that I still cling to some some hope that femr2 will provide quantitative details of his models instead of complaining about the approximations/assumptions/guesses we've had to make because femr2 has been unable or unwilling to provide those details. If I had those details, I could explain this very simply and conclusively

ETA: I should also mention that NIST's nonlinear model does not have the property that Major_Tom wants, but femr2 has falsely claimed that NIST's model does have that property, probably because femr2 had not realized that NIST's primary model was nonlinear.

 

[Major_Tom]

It may also enable limits to be applied to how far the core descended before pulling upon the perimeter...there's obviously limits for it to still be attached.

Yes. Some good work already done. good ideas but without your characteristic carefulness.

Perhaps they did not trust their measurement, or perhaps they didn't even bother to derive the velocity function and find out ?

It looks like we will have to to their work for them with this building also by following up on the obvious, just like for WTC1.


Reality check: There is a period of greater than g acceleration and nobody seems to care or think it strange.

Geniuses. Not a lot of physics comprehension going on here. When the same thing was discovered on the 9/11 forum a few years ago, nobody dismissed greater than g acceleration as "normal".

It raised eyebrows for each active poster. Who on earth declared this type of motion "normal"?

I posted the Frank Greening notes on the Yarimer studies of demolitions to show that anything close to a g acceleration is way off the charts for normal.

This greater than g transient surge is way, way, way off the charts for "normal". It is like posters have no sense of reality, so by what standard can they call this "normal"?

 

[femr2]

I'm being coy about the specific property.

Why ? Spit it out. No need to play games.

I still cling to some some hope that femr2 will provide quantitative details of his models

Good. What exactly do you require ?

While I'm here, I calculated R² values for the two curves discussed above (Poly(10) Velocity and NIST Velocity)...

NIST Velocity: R² = 0.967
Poly(10) Velocity: R² = 0.998

(And the winner is ? )

Will you be responding to my questions from earlier on ?

If I had those details, I could explain this very simply and conclusively

Explain what ?

 

[Major_Tom]

WDC: "So far as I can tell, neither Major_Tom nor femr2 yet realize that femr2's models have the property Major_Tom wants.

That's part of why I'm being coy about the specific property."

You have a lot of catching up to do. Who are you fooling? You cannot see the relation between core and perimeter?

 

[femr2]

And using terms such as 'crappy' is as bad as Femr2's 'sloppy' which indicates you're more interested in slinging mud than discussing technical details.

Need I remind you of the list of technical details from which an assertion of sloppiness is justified ? I'm, as I am sure you know well, more than happy to discuss the technical details.


All,

Noise is increasing again

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So far as I know, femr2 has not stated the numerical coefficients for his polynomials,

It is considerably more difficult to calculate the residual sum of squares for your models, because you have not revealed the numerical values of your models' parameters. Keeping those numbers to yourself is okay so long as your only purpose is to discuss vague trends, but you should not make any claims concerning the accuracy of your models without stating or publishing the numbers necessary to evaluate your claims properly.

It would not have been necessary for me to reverse engineer your graphs had you provided the numerical details necessary to evaluate them.

Had you described your methods as well as NIST described theirs, I wouldn't have to make assumptions.

Which is why I had to reverse-engineer your Poly(10) model.

Or you could provide the necessary numbers,

Yet you have kept the Poly(10) numbers to yourself, and they're for degree 10. At this point, you've spent more time defending your decision to keep those numbers to yourself than it would have taken to tell us what they are.

If you're unhappy with my reverse-engineered parameters, then the fault is yours for not revealing your numbers. You can repair that problem by revealing your numbers

I still cling to some some hope that femr2 will provide quantitative details of his models

Good. What exactly do you require ?

Sorry to have been so unclear.

I need the 11 coefficients of your Poly(10) model (or the 51 coefficients of your Poly(50) model, or the relevant parameters for whatever other model you would prefer I use instead of Poly(10)).

When I assumed your Poly(10) model was a model for the acceleration, and would require double integration to convert it into a model for the vertical displacement, you chastised me for making that assumption. If your Poly(10) model is a model for something other than acceleration, please tell us what you think it's supposed to model.

If you were chastising me for no reason, then you should tell me the numerical values of the two integration constants you used to convert your model for acceleration into a model for displacement. If you haven't constructed a model for vertical displacement, then you should tell me the interval of time you would like me to use when estimating those integration constants by the method of least squares.

 

[NoahFence]

.....still trying to get an answer

What is this supposed to show us that we don't already know?

 

[Major_Tom]

I gave you an answer.

 

[femr2]

Sorry to have been so unclear.

I didn't say you were unclear. I simply asked for your exact requirements for clarity.

I need the 11 coefficients of your Poly(10) model

161995.792 | -50786.77046 | 5434.711807 | -162.2158 | -7.5523 | 0.2763 | 0.0168 | 0.0002 | -0.0001 | 0

35157.87754 | 12047.25658 | 1314.237584 | 0.0000 | 4.0928 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0011 | 0.0000 | 0

0.999994204 | 0.258774633 | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0

5244946.945 | 304 | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0

3512242.572 | 20.35715047 | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0

Coefficients (first row) are in increasing exponent order b, m₁, m₂...

Other values are as-per standard Excel Linest function.

R² = 0.999994204

Raw data pre-smoothed with 9 sample symmetric difference - max - min.

If your Poly(10) model is a model for something other than acceleration, please tell us what you think it's supposed to model.

Displacement.

Still no answers for my prior questions, most of which don't require you to have the coefficient data.

Oh, and... 11.8785s -> 17.1171s

 

[DGM]

I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of this over-analysis is.....

Easy, "there's GOT to be something here".

But, femr2 is not wrong (as far as I can figure) with his data. And he is right that a lot of people have attacked his work as wrong for no reason (technical) only that he is a "truther".

If his objective is pure accuracy (as he says), I see no problem with what he has done to date. Personally I have no problem "hearing him out".

 

[NoahFence]

I gave you an answer.

No, you didn't.

Like with WTC 1 information, it shows that many of you are living in a dream world, but it does so mathematically.

That's not an answer. It may seem like one in your world, but I can assure you, it's not.


So I'll ask AGAIN

What is this over analyzing supposed to show us beyond what we already know?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I need the 11 coefficients of your Poly(10) model

Which I've just tried to extract such via the XlXtrFun pfitdata function.

Think there's a bug in there, as it only populates the first three coefficients (even though it should only max-out at order 16)

I'll see what I can do.

Okay, thanks. I'll wait.

If your Poly(10) model is a model for something other than acceleration, please tell us what you think it's supposed to model.

Displacement.

I'm happy to hear that: less work for me, less opportunity to make a mistake, and less opportunity for anyone to think I've made a mistake.

Still no answers for my prior questions, most of which don't require you to have the coefficient data.

Most of your questions will be answered by the analyses I'll perform after I have your coefficients. To answer your questions femr2-style (Incorrect/Nonsense/LOL) would just add to the noise, and long answers you wouldn't like and may not yet be in a position to understand would add even more noise.

Oh, and... 11.8785s -> 17.1839s

Thanks.

That would appear to confirm my guess that you had tuned your polynomial models using an interval that starts nearer to 12 seconds than to 11.

That explains why NIST's model is more accurate than yours (by the objective sum of squares criterion) over the interval between 11 and 13 seconds, and that explanation answers quite a few of your recent questions. I'll expand on that explanation that after I have your coefficients.

 

[femr2]

Okay, thanks. I'll wait.

Sorted. See edit above.

long answers you wouldn't like and may not yet be in a position to understand would add even more noise

No need to be like that. Not impressive. Long answers are fine.

That would appear to confirm my guess that you had tuned your polynomial models using an interval that starts nearer to 12 seconds than to 11.

Terminology. My T₀, yes.

That explains why NIST's model is more accurate than yours (by the objective sum of squares criterion) over the interval between 11 and 13 seconds, and that explanation answers quite a few of your recent questions. I'll expand on that explanation that after I have your coefficients.

I'll wait. You already know I disagree in terms of the accuracy you mention. Like-for-like...0.23s sample interval for central difference...

 

[Major_Tom]

No, you didn't.



That's not an answer. It may seem like one in your world, but I can assure you, it's not.


So I'll ask AGAIN

What is this over analyzing supposed to show us beyond what we already know?

Short so as to not interrupt them:

I'll use the example of WTC1. Do you see this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7158863&postcount=909

That shows you R Mackey has no clue what happened to WTC1 because he never looked at it.

When R Mackey was making statements like that the only person I had seen intelligent enough to disagree with him was Ozeco. This means R Mackey effectively represents this forum.

Basically nobody posting here had a clue what happened to WTC1 because you never looked at the building.

You imagined you had some knowledge of the building but the post proves basically nobody here looked at the building at all.

Like I mentioned, there is much evidence easy to document that the posters here never had a tad of a clue what they were talking about when discussing WTC1.

I called it "mathematical proof many of you are living in a dream".
>>>>>>>

In this thread measurements of WTC7 are being made. My guess is that the result will show almost nobody here ever looked at the building seriously, though many imagine they are "experts".

But we will have to wait and see.

 

[NoahFence]

In turn.aning basically nobody posting here had a clue what happened to WTC1 because you never looked at the building.

I'm guessing it collapsed. Lemme check.

In this thread measurements of WTC7 are being made. My guess is that the result will show almost nobody here ever looked at the building seriously, though many imagine they are "experts".

You're still not answering the question - WHY?

Is it simple curiosity? Are you two trying to prove it was explosives? What?

Personally, the minutiae means very little to me. I know what happened. Airplanes flew pretty quick into the buildings. The fires in all 3 buildings were searing hot, and not fought at all. It doesn't matter to me if the building was in free fall for 2.5 seconds or 2.5 hours. It fell.

 

[Major_Tom]

I'm guessing it collapsed. Lemme check.

Yes. Your analysis was on that level. That was about the only thing R Mackey got right.

The moral of the story is that real measurements can be useful. Maybe you don't know why until you make them.

I understand that many JREF posters do not see any benefit in real data as is demonstrated by the R Mackey post. It is just a difference in style. I am kind of boring in that way.

 

[alienentity]

Keep putting up those strawmen, MT, they just blow over again...