What was the initial relevance?
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
The relevance is that half of objective #1 was to determine how the building descended. Obviously, tracking the movement of features on the building is a rather good way of recording a hefty chunk of how the building descended.
Invaluable information...if extracted accurately...if it actually relates to a single point rather than a wandering position...if translation to real-world measurements is performed correctly...if enough data is extracted to perform useful derived metrics...if, basically, the data is not compromised by a series of procedural errors.
To discover "how and why" WTC7 collapsed is their stated goal.
Bad drop data cannot help you in determining the "how". Good drop data will, but bad data certainly will not.
The more mistakes made, the further away from determining how.
Bad drop data cannot help you in determining the "how". Good drop data will, but bad data certainly will not.
The more mistakes made, the further away from determining how.
Last edited:
Indeed. The import of all those "procedural errors" could be that NIST's offical recommendation for exactly how fast to run away from a collapsing building might be off by as much as 3.76422270912%.
Respectfully,
Myriad
From the point of view of basic object tracking through space and time, the "how" may be a correct tracking of the motion, nothing more.
Simply put, from a physics point of view, how is the most complete collection of measurements and visual evidence of building movement.
That is a record of how the building fell, no?
Simply put, from a physics point of view, how is the most complete collection of measurements and visual evidence of building movement.
That is a record of how the building fell, no?
Or maybe by not capturing the motion accurately their interpretation of early motion mechanism is not as accurate as it could be either.
Perhaps analysis of very early motion...
...would have provided them with either information to confirm or reject their suggested theories.
Absolutely! If you don't accurately record the physics of "how", it becomes very difficult to answer "why".
A correct recording of "how" can lead to "why". The "how" of the WTC7 (or WTC1, 2) is a correct description of events. After describing the events correctly the question of "why" can be addressed.
In the case of WTC1 there is pretty clear evidence that both the NIST and yourselves jumped over a correct description of "how". You attempted to answer "why" while misrepresenting "how". This leads to a pretty absurd process of chasing ones own tail.
A correct recording of "how" can lead to "why". The "how" of the WTC7 (or WTC1, 2) is a correct description of events. After describing the events correctly the question of "why" can be addressed.
In the case of WTC1 there is pretty clear evidence that both the NIST and yourselves jumped over a correct description of "how". You attempted to answer "why" while misrepresenting "how". This leads to a pretty absurd process of chasing ones own tail.
Last edited:
Wrong. How the building collapsed.
The descent of the façade was merely a secondary effect. You keep forgetting that.
On light of that reminder, can you reevaluate my question and tell me about the relevance?
Invaluable for their purpose? Nah. Pretty accessory information.
NoahFence
Banned
FEMR - Do you EVER intend on replying to an entire post? I'll give you a THIRD opportunity to answer:
By the wording stated, absolutely, and therefore pre-decisional. Not a good start to a scientific study which includes analysis to determine whether there was any nefarious activity. Tsk, tsk
You already have my answer.
Really ? So what, other than observation and interpretation of such observation applied to everything else they chose to investigate, is their purpose actually based upon ?
Is it their virtual model ?
Well, it's useful to understand that their descent simulation was based upon a model which was never going to do anything except collapse...
Do you understand the significance of this diagram ?
As an aside, this is veering significantly off-topic. I suggest if you wish to pursue this line of discussion that you start a new thread. (I'm likely to ignore (much to NoahFence's CAPITALISED dismay, lol) discussion not on-topic).
Why, fire. How gravity. Your CD delusion and the Satan like evil guys are fantasy. A building burning all day collapsed, you need to bash NIST, no one needs NIST to understand 911, you need NIST to hide your lack of evidence. What was femr2 goal? How will his effort support his Fictional Official Theory claim? The only tail chasing here is this analysis of the smoothed acceleration which was not smooth, and your inability to tie this analysis to your fantasy the gravity collapse was an illusion.
NIST is published, you are not, never will be.
You are much more honest than many in that you do not hide your lack of interest in any kind of proof.
You do not even pretend to be interested in verification, careful observation or particulars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Can we all agree that the NIST fails to properly document the "how" of the collapse? How the building really moved, including the earliest motion?
Or perhaps you will admit that they do not describe the "how" as well as femr but their "how" is good enough for their purposes?
The NIST describes the "how" of the WTC7 collapse well enough though they have missed a number of details.
Does this sound correct?
Last edited:
So apparently...
The NIST describes the "how" of the WTC7 collapse well enough for their purposes though they have missed a number of details .
(Their stated purpose being to describe the "how and why" of the collapse.) Whoa, I am confused........
Is this the current argument? I admit to being a bit confused by the logic. Can somebody clarify?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
O how about this.....
The purpose of the NIST report on WTC7 is to discover the "how and why" of the WTC7 collapse well enough. Is this your argument?
The NIST describes the "how" of the WTC7 collapse well enough for their purposes though they have missed a number of details .
(Their stated purpose being to describe the "how and why" of the collapse.) Whoa, I am confused........
Is this the current argument? I admit to being a bit confused by the logic. Can somebody clarify?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
O how about this.....
The purpose of the NIST report on WTC7 is to discover the "how and why" of the WTC7 collapse well enough. Is this your argument?
Last edited:
I have proof the buildings was on fire; you have no evidence and think some evil like Satan group in the government did 911 and you have a delusion it was CD. I am an engineer, I don't have to pretend like you do and play internet engineer and make up nonsense, like you do.
How does femr's video data analysis support your claims of CD by evil doers, the ones like Satan?
How do you think femr's video data analysis supports his Fictional Official Theory stand?
NoahFence
Banned
So I guess that'd be a no. What a shock.
NoahFence
Banned
By the wording stated, absolutely, and therefore pre-decisional. Not a good start to a scientific study which includes analysis to determine whether there was any nefarious activity. Tsk, tsk
You already have my answer.
Really ? So what, other than observation and interpretation of such observation applied to everything else they chose to investigate, is their purpose actually based upon ?
Is it their virtual model ?
Well, it's useful to understand that their descent simulation was based upon a model which was never going to do anything except collapse...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/43690010.jpg[/qimg]
Do you understand the significance of this diagram ?
As an aside, this is veering significantly off-topic. I suggest if you wish to pursue this line of discussion that you start a new thread. (I'm likely to ignore (much to NoahFence's CAPITALISED dismay, lol)discussion not on-topic).Anything that would require me to have a point.
NOTE:Strikeand Italic text added by NoahFence
Fixed it for you.
I'm not starting a new thread so that you can ignore it there, too. It would be a waste of time. Why not just answer the question and be done with it? For all your plotting and graphing, you're not bringing anything NEW to the discussion. You have no conclusion aside from "NIST = Bad". Your superiority complex is getting the best of you and making you look like a petulant child. Albeit one with a pretty good technical vocabulary.
Last edited by a moderator:
NoahFence
Banned
The proof is already there. Just because you and femr ignore it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
In your estimation, does 'careful observation' include people who were close enough to it to toss a rock and hit the building? Mine does. I define 'careful observation' as a guy that can hear the building creaking. To me, that observation should be quite enough.
Exactly. How is plenty good enough for their purposes. And mine. And I imagine the vast majority.
I guess I'd better avoid all Mr Satan jokes in the future. Unless the evildoers spraypaint their names ouside of one of the buildings in a readable location, I have no idea who in which govt would do something like this.
There are many governments on earth. I study movement and features, not governments. What does "the" government mean? Perhaps you should travel more, Beachnut. (I know you are a pilot, I mean in you ideas. Expand your inner horizons.)
Last edited:
You are the person who has a delusion on 911, here it is.
When will your fantasy revelation become real? Explain this relative to this thread. Have you dropped you fantasy of CD?
How does femr's video data analysis support your claims of CD.
How do you think femr's video data analysis supports his Fictional Official Theory stand?
Last edited:
Yes. Look at initiation. I have been saying that for hundreds of posts.
The Satan thing was a little joke guys. And whoever did this is clearly morally impoverished, I am sure we will all agree.
You think it is Osama. Morally impoverished, I'm sure you would agree.
I say, look at the real features and data. We all agree this is a pretty nasty thing to do. We all agree it is very important for people to understand what really happened. I think we just go about research and verification in a very different way.
That could be the only underlying difference between us, who knows? I prefer using the best data and the most detailed lists of observables. It is just a "me" thing.
The Satan thing was a little joke guys. And whoever did this is clearly morally impoverished, I am sure we will all agree.
You think it is Osama. Morally impoverished, I'm sure you would agree.
I say, look at the real features and data. We all agree this is a pretty nasty thing to do. We all agree it is very important for people to understand what really happened. I think we just go about research and verification in a very different way.
That could be the only underlying difference between us, who knows? I prefer using the best data and the most detailed lists of observables. It is just a "me" thing.
Last edited: