DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'm looking forward to someone explaining how it matters.
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
That alone gives me a little confidence in their work.Larger picture? Better watch it; femr2 only looks at trees, not forests.
Here's the larger picture, as shown on Major_Tom's website:
Here's the larger picture, as shown on Major_Tom's website:
LOL - All that minutia and you haven't answered the "big picture" question, eh?
There are many reasons to suspect the NIST data for early downward movement from camera #3. They have been discussed in other threads in this forum in more depth at the 9/11 forum.
This is why it is a bit strange to support the early movement data over that of femr, who uses camera 5 data instead.
There are excellent reasons for preferring camera 5 data for early motion and they are pretty easy to see.
If you are looking up at the building, choose a point near the middle of the roof-line and think it moves only vertically, your earliest motion is going to be off.
You cannot just pretend the building has no early horizontal motion near the middle of the building.
I do not see anyone defending the NIST early acceleration numbers account for any of this.
And there are other problems, too, like the point they chose to measure, shown here
Lens data? You guys are using data from unknown lenses, you have to have the model (lol, you don't like models, or understand them). You can't draw line on a video without data on the lens distortion. But I am only a humble engineer who knows your CD claims are nonsense, like your work you will never, and femr2 will never publish. But you sure can't stop talking about NIST. Is this a NIST vendetta? This video analysis is nonsense, can you help femr2 salvage it?
Where is your model for lens errors? There are many more problems with your cute gif, but let us take this one at a time. How does your claims of CD dovetail with femr2's work, like the stuff in this thread?
It is. Not of the north façade but it is downward motion of the building.
How do you manage to get so many things wrong?
Thanks for that insight, Beachnut.
You know that thing many people call a "kink" in WTC7 as it begins to fall?
It is not a "kink", but a specific type of bending in 3 dimensions.
As people discover how that bending moves, they, like you , will realize why the NIST camera 3 data for early motion is not an accurate measurement of vertical acceleration.
As with ROOSD, you will probably be one of the last people to see this.
Guys, big hint: FIgure out what 3 dimensional movment the "kink" represents and you will understand there never was a "kink".
There was a bend in the wall, leaving the roof-line relatively straight, not a "kink".
This is why femr is wise not to rely on camera 3 data during early movement unlike yourselves.
You know that thing many people call a "kink" in WTC7 as it begins to fall?
It is not a "kink", but a specific type of bending in 3 dimensions.
As people discover how that bending moves, they, like you , will realize why the NIST camera 3 data for early motion is not an accurate measurement of vertical acceleration.
As with ROOSD, you will probably be one of the last people to see this.
Guys, big hint: FIgure out what 3 dimensional movment the "kink" represents and you will understand there never was a "kink".
There was a bend in the wall, leaving the roof-line relatively straight, not a "kink".
This is why femr is wise not to rely on camera 3 data during early movement unlike yourselves.
Pgimeno:
Think kink.
Think kink.
Your "kink" is mostly horizontal motion. C'mon, think kink!
You failed to understand models, so you will be the last to see your efforts have failed to support your CD claims. You failed to make progress, and will never publish your work, and now you will make up excuses why you can't publish your work and show NIST is bad, etc. You have failed work, you make up new names for what is already explained, and fail to provide evidence for your paranoid claims of CD.
This is comedy gold, are we into the details yet?
You have failed to explain how femr2 work, or your work, applies to your statement of your illusion the gravity collapses were illusions? Failed for years, and you will fail to explain.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Bare assertion. You do not know where they measured the acceleration from.
Bare assertion #2. Yes, we know you believe this, but you haven't quantified it with meaningful data. You just keep repeating the assertion. And when you say 'relatively straight' - to what degree was it not straight?
Where is your data?
Strawman. The early motion is seen from other camera viewpoints.
And that's the least of your problems in terms of denying any vertical motion. I'll get to that later once you guys have produced some data. Until then.....
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Bingo. Femr2 and MT are literally denying that there is any downward component to this deformation. Of course this is physically impossible, so they're wrong.
But since they haven't been able to even provide data in support of their denials we can't rebut it yet....
The funniest part is that this is just the start. It gets worse for them as you begin to examine the geometry of the deformations. They haven't figured it out yet.
Beachnut: "This is comedy gold, are we into the details yet? "
We are already past the part where we realized the regular JREF posters were clueless about WTC1 gross observables for years, basically studyng an imaginary building.
We are now at the part where regular posters ignore these mistakes ever occured, even though we have over a years worth of posts on 2 threads that prove otherwise.
So yes, wrt WTC1 we are now at the "bury your head in the sand" stage.
But why not post that quote in one of the other threads in which R Mackey continues to ignore blatant contradictions in his own "models"?
Hassle me about it over there, not in this thread.
We are already past the part where we realized the regular JREF posters were clueless about WTC1 gross observables for years, basically studyng an imaginary building.
We are now at the part where regular posters ignore these mistakes ever occured, even though we have over a years worth of posts on 2 threads that prove otherwise.
So yes, wrt WTC1 we are now at the "bury your head in the sand" stage.
But why not post that quote in one of the other threads in which R Mackey continues to ignore blatant contradictions in his own "models"?
Hassle me about it over there, not in this thread.
On the north side, possibly.
Your animated gif shows that on the south side, things are different.
So femr2's work does not support your paranoid CD theory?
You can't learn how to use the quote function, indicative of your inability to understand models and make rational conclusions on 911. How does this work dovetail with your claim of CD by Satan?
Last edited:
That is such a inept thing to say. You obviously miss the point. The claim is that there is significant horizontal component, so you should be wary of camera 3 data during the earliest motion.
That is the whole freaking point.
Hint: Consider using Dan Rather video instead. How can people read so poorly?
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
MT, try to slowly squeeze a tetra pak with two fingers on the middle by one of its sides, trying to keep the other side straight. You'll see the top lean; two of the corners (the ones in contact with the straight side) will describe a curve that might climb a small little but mostly goes sideways at the start as they pivot over the center, while the other two will describe a descending curve.
That proves that the release happens when the horizontal motion starts, thus invalidating the T0 argument against NIST.
It might be arguable, however, whether that was just luck, or the result of observations, but their 40% more than free fall estimation still holds.
The NIST is measuring at the top of the north wall. That is the whole point.
If you think kink, we can begin to understand why NIST camera 3 data cannot be expected to capture the early downward acceleration accurately, which is the whole point.
There is a mix of horizontal and vertical motion along the roofline near the "kink", so it is best to look for another viewpoint that captures the true downward acceleration.
This is why Femr uses the Dan Rather data. You do not mix downward and horizontal movement the same way from that angle.
With a "kink", the viewing angle is very important. We have to be more careful, like femr.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Depends where on the wall they were measuring. You don't know where that was. There was no single 'downward acceleration', that is a fiction you ought to stop believing in, and stop trying to argue for it.
The building was behaving in a complex way as it collapsed. The motions were not uniform across its dimensions......
The NIST FEM does not indicate anything to the contrary.
There are many other points on the N wall away from the kink. There is no such thing as the 'true downward acceleration' - you will never find it.
You are not familiar with which points they chose to measure?
They explain the whole thing. They explain which points they chose to measure. It is no secret.
Their choice is clearly affected by the famous "kink". Wrt the camera 3 data, I agree with you. You cannot find the true downward component of the early motion using it.
This is why, once again, femr looked at other viewpoints and chose the best one.