Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[DGM]

Name one example on the planet earth of a building reaching that range.

As also pointed out by Frank Greening, it is. way, way outside the range of even known demolitions.

You make up some physics story and your fellow posters just nod.

And you call that "science".

Are you now claiming there were extra-terrestrial forces involved?

 

[Oystein]

...
Not at all. Quite a bit of this discussion about it, absolutely.

Noted. I disagree.

That does not change my confidence level in the validity of the presented trends.

Quite amazing.

It's a chaotic real-world event. It's unlikely the *wiggles* conform to a studied and known behaviour, but if you come up with anything by all means grab the raw data and give it a whirl.

That's a guess.
My guess would be that resonant swinging is a well known behaviour. My other guess is that we will never know for sure, and that the accuracy of the data is still insufficient to clinch a case anyway.

By all means grab the data, eliminate as much noise as possible and let me know the process. That would be great.

My current preferred method is the Savitzky-Golay filter.

I don't see why S-G is good or insightful in this context.

I've provided that too

I gave you credit for it.

 

[Major_Tom]

For starters, we don't have a lot of footage of 47 story buildings collapsing, so lack of data is a problem. But you're making a modified 'no precedent' argument, which doesn't actually prove anything.

Sometimes things happen that have not happened before.....that's what a precedent is, y'know.

2) Frank Greening is not a structural engineer nor a demolition expert. So why you would reference him puzzles me. It comes across as an attempted argument from authority.

3) You haven't made a point-by-point rebuttal of my outline, nor have you made any engineering argument.

4) That's just another bare assertion, you've been doing that a lot....

Feel free to make an engineering argument.

Dr Yarimer studies demolitions, as does Dr Lapa. There are many examples of demolitions, a great place to study these types of qualities, no?

Have you looked into it? Nowhere close to g acceleration in known demolitions.

How can you be so clueless about that very important fact for 10 years?

If you do not know that, think about how empty your posts are. You are just making stuff up. Frank Greening researches. He describes what can be expected during a real demolition here

That was available 3 years ago but you were probably too busy to check facts.

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

Femr, why is this relevant? Because it shows how important good data can be. It is the best BS detector there is.

 

[carlitos]

Dr Yarimer studies demolitions, as does Dr Lapa. There are many examples of demolitions, a great place to study these types of qualities, no?

Well, no.

Have you looked into it? Nowhere close to g acceleration in known demolitions.

May I enquire why you are mentioning demolitions at all, in a discussion of WTC7, a building which was not demolished? You are currently arguing that a period of free-fall acceleration is NOT an characteristic of building demolition. So why mention demolition?

ETA - Basically any rotating object falling without support will have parts that are accelerating faster than g. I don't see why this is a big deal for anyone.

 

[Oystein]

Dr Yarimer studies demolitions, as does Dr Lapa. There are many examples of demolitions, a great place to study these types of qualities, no?

Have you looked into it? Nowhere close to g acceleration in known demolitions.

How can you be so clueless about that very important fact for 10 years?

If you do not know that, think about how empty your posts are. You are just making stuff up. Frank Greening researches. He describes what can be expected during a real demolition here

That was available 3 years ago, but you were probably to busy to check facts.

So what do you conclude from these two facts:
- CDs exhibit no freefall
- WTC7 exhibited some freefall

Which hypothesis would that support better, CD, or non-CD?
If non-CD, and also not the NIST hypothesis, is there a third possibility?

 

[Major_Tom]

Are you now claiming there were extra-terrestrial forces involved?

I am showing that many of you are talking from you rear ends when you claim that this acceleration profile is "expected" and there is no purpose to superior data.

Like you are in some parallel universe. Do you fact-check at all while spinning yarn?

 

[beachnut]

Polynomal expansion around a point of interest has been perfomed successfully for centuries.

....(acceleration being curvature)

Examples. Please, thank you.

Name one example on the planet earth of a building reaching that range.

As also pointed out by Frank Greening, it is. way, way outside the range of even known demolitions.

You make up some physics story and your fellow posters just nod.

And you call that "science".

I can show you a model.

I can find many examples, but you will have to pay my engineering fee.


However, there has not been a study of the errors. There is no greater than g proved. You have to study the body the point is attached to and come-up with the speed and acceleration of the body before making up nonsense to support your CD claims. Looks like you will need differential equations and some coordinate systems to solve this meaningless study.

 

[alienentity]

Oh, MT, here's an example of an ordinary object falling faster than G. It happened on this planet too...



ETA Beachnut beat me to it!

 

[Major_Tom]

Examples. Please, thank you.

Examples of polynomal expansion around a point? Are you serious?

Hey, this is 2011, not the 17th century. Is that a serious question?

 

[Major_Tom]

AE wake up. We are talking about a building. Buildings are demoed all the time. They provide a perfect way to check whether near g accelerations are normal.

Try looking at this large resource. Try reading the Dr G link. Try learning before teaching.

I cannot be your tutor today. I am a little busy.

 

[DGM]

I am showing that many of you are talking from you rear ends when you claim that this acceleration profile is "expected" and there is no purpose to superior data.

Like you are in some parallel universe. Do you fact-check at all while spinning yarn?

Maybe you can shed some light as to the importance of these "details". How do they effect the over-all conclusion of what is generally excepted today (or is this a "I don't know, that's why we need an independent investigation moment")?

 

[Major_Tom]

Maybe you can shed some light as to the importance of these "details". How do they effect the over-all conclusion of what is generally excepted today (or is this a "I don't know, that's why we need an independent investigation moment")?

What is generally accepted for WTC1 is fake data and fake significant tilt caused by a fake south wall failure.

That is where you seem to stand with WTC1` and further proof of why real data is far superior to fake data.

Details discussed in the WTC1 features list thread for a long time.


So while you watch femr generating data, remember that you have ignored all his WTC1 data to date while forming your history and analysis on fake data.

If you were to switch to real data everything you thought you knew about WTC1 collapse initiation would go "poof".

This is why real data is so important.

 

[alienentity]

AE wake up. We are talking about a building. Buildings are demoed all the time. They provide a perfect way to check whether near g accelerations are normal.

Try looking at this large resource. Try reading the Dr G link. Try learning before teaching.

Wake up? Oh dear, how many times have I heard that from a truther, just b4 they unleash a torrent of stupid...... You ought to find another phrase, something more original perhaps..

We're talking about physics, and mechanics. Or, at least, I have been. You've been avoiding any such discussion.

I cannot be your tutor today. I am a little busy.

Dodge noted

ps don't ask a question if you don't want an answer, and don't engage if you don't want to engage. Got it?

 

[carlitos]

AE wake up. We are talking about a building. Buildings are demoed all the time. They provide a perfect way to check whether near g accelerations are normal.

Try looking at this large resource. Try reading the Dr G link. Try learning before teaching.

I cannot be your tutor today. I am a little busy.

The Salomon Brothers building fell due to fire damage. The twin World Trade Center towers fell to aircraft impacts and fire damage. Other buildings, like the Deutsche Bank building, the Verizon building, and the Marriott hotel were damaged by pieces of the other buildings. None of them were "demoed" on 9/11/2001. Why, in a topic about "femr2's video data analysis" do you keep bringing up demolition? It's a complete non-sequitur.

ETA - Yeah, the "wake up" cliché is really tired. (No pun intended)

 

[DGM]

What is generally accepted for WTC1 is fake data and fake significant tilt caused by a fake south wall failure.

That is where you seem to stand with WTC1` and further proof of why real data is far superior to fake data.

Details discussed in the WTC1 features list thread for a long time.


So while you watch femr generating data, remember that you have ignored all his WTC1 data to date while forming your history and analysis on fake data.

If you were to switch to real data everything you thought you knew about WTC1 collapse initiation would go "poof".

This is why real data is so important.

This is where you're wrong. I have no problem with additional (and perhaps more accurate) data. Where you slip-up is not being able to show how it effects the over-all conclusions drawn. You're so concerned about "showing NIST up", you neglected the relevance..

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, Femr measurements also show the posters here and the NIST to be living in a dream wrt WTC1 early motion.

You basically faked data to support south wall failure. JREF posters still tend to believe in that fake data and base their whole understanding of WTC1 collapse initiation upon it.

This is why real data is so important.

I didn't fake anything. I know why the buildings collapsed, even without knowing how fast the 17th window from the left on the south face of WTC 2's 85th floor went.

Imagine that.

 

[DGM]

I didn't fake anything. I know why the buildings collapsed, even without knowing how fast the 17th window from the left on the south face of WTC 2's 85th floor went.

Imagine that.

I suspect he will never understand the concept of "over-analyzing".

 

[femr2]

just b4 they unleash a torrent of stupid......

Those in glass houses AlienEntity.

I'd rather not waste my time going back through it, but you haven't actually acknowledged your, what's the phrase...torrent of stupid... from yesterday yet. Perhaps now would be a good time to conclude that, er, discussion.

The discussion began here, with the purpose of me highlighting to you that there is no data between the NIST T₀ and T=~0.86s, supporting my assertion that they started their region B trace at that later time. 0.86s is still too early in my opinion, as the rooftop structures are still obscuring the roofline, which indicates that NIST may have either used a manual tracking process, or started the trace with the rooftop structures rather than the facade roofline.

Have you managed to accept the lack of positional data between T=0 and T=0.86s ?

 

[alienentity]

Those in glass houses AlienEntity.

I'd rather not waste my time going back through it, but you haven't actually acknowledged your, what's the phrase...torrent of stupid... from yesterday yet. Perhaps now would be a good time to conclude that, er, discussion.

Oh, you mean when you extracted datapoints from NIST 12-76, graphed them in a different way and then pretended they were different information?

Yeah, we concluded that discussion. You used the same data, you generated no new data. I got it.

And I didn't use the phrase 'wake up' either. It's too much a cliché...

 

[alienentity]

btw Femr2, since you (and MT) are so very interested in the >G period, do you have an error band in m/s2?

It's relevant to the interpretation of the your datapoints (which are different from NIST's datapoints )