Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[NoahFence]

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.

No features or data you or femr have produced point toward anything other than what we already know. It's as if a cop pulled me over for doing 100mph, and you and femr have shown that it was actually 101.22 mph.

What difference does it make?

 

[beachnut]

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.

No features or data you or femr have produced point toward anything other than what we already know. It's as if a cop pulled me over for doing 100mph, and you and femr have shown that it was actually 101.22 mph.

What difference does it make?

You have a point, when I am doing 114 mph and the Officer tickets me for 84mph, do I want the exact data? No. For WTC 7 gravity collapse study of the data to the extreme without goal or conclusion made, is nonsense. When Major Tom can't tie this work to his CD claims, it is more nonsense.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yeah, who cares about all that early movement that femr measured?

Seems beside the point when describing the how of the collapse, huh?
I am starting to agree with you guys. Femr, why are you describing the how of the collapse accurately?

Don't you know that the NIST already discovered the "how"......Well, kind of....I mean...enough for the stated purposes of the NIST report which is......to discover the how and why of the collapse....................but........they did it well enough for their purposes which was.....


Hell, femr.......everybody knows what happened anyway......because the NIST proved it............well. they proved it enough.....um......

 

[pgimeno]

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

Beg to differ. A building that is demolished also collapses.

You already have my answer.

Are you implying that the only relevant part that they should have put all effort on was the fall of the façade and forget about everything else? That that was the only relevant part of the collapse and that the interior collapse was just irrelevant and could be ignored? That the fall of the east penthouse did not have any relevance?

Do you understand the significance of this diagram ?

No. I haven't cared to try to understand it. Got better things to do.

As an aside, this is veering significantly off-topic.

It's a kind of discussion that arises naturally each time you launch one of your smearing attacks, and its objective is to clarify the scope and reach of NIST's objectives, about which you often make false and misleading statements in this very thread.

Instead, I'd suggest you to open a thread about your qualitative evaluation of NIST's analysis and your criticism to them, and restrict yourself strictly to dealing your data and theirs in this one.

 

[femr2]

Are you implying that the only relevant part that they should have put all effort on was the fall of the façade and forget about everything else?

Not at all. Only an idiot would suggest such implication.

That that was the only relevant part of the collapse and that the interior collapse was just irrelevant and could be ignored?

See above.

That the fall of the east penthouse did not have any relevance?

See above.

No. I haven't cared to try to understand it.

That's pretty obvious.

It's a kind of discussion that arises naturally each time you launch one of your smearing attacks

Smearing attacks ? Don't be a drama queen. Criticism of NIST technical failings not something you are comfortable with ? Oh well.

you often make false and misleading statements in this very thread.

Quote please, or retract. Note I'll have to laugh if you post your own misleading misinterpretation, so make sure you have actually read the words.

restrict yourself strictly to dealing your data and theirs in this one.

Fine by me (Criticism of theirs will of course be a part of that discussion)

I'm sure everyone else will be glad that to get back on topic.

 

[alienentity]

One could easily argue that this thread has been largely OT as it is supposed to be dealing with Femr2's data, not NIST's per se.

We need a new thread to discuss the NIST data and to compare it with Femr2's (and anybody else' I guess)

And really none of this belongs in a conspiracy sub-forum, as there is no conspiracy being proposed vis-a-vis the fire-induced collapse of WTC 7, and the NIST engineering analysis.
Nor does Femr2's data imply a controlled demolition. This whole discussion should rightly be on an engineering forum IMO. I've stated this before several times and see no evidence that would change my opinion.

 

[femr2]

One could easily argue that this thread has been largely OT as it is supposed to be dealing with Femr2's data, not NIST's per se.

One would be wrong to suggest so, as femr2's data analysis directly relates to the corresponding NIST data and the latters findings/failings.

If NIST hadn't done such a sloppy job in the first place...

I think the initial concerns about the accuracy of my data have been dealt with, during which a number of issues with the NIST data have been highlighted, and discussion can move forward.

There is an awful lot of data extracted from video to get through yet...basically clarification of whether the video record tallies with each NIST suggested real world behaviour and each NIST modelled behaviour.

It may take some time...

Oh...

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop.

Seems others also disagree with you. Surely not

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Please stop pretending to understand math. I am embarrassed for you.

I think you're being overly critical.

Apart from a few memorable gaffes, femr2's math has been just as good as Harold Camping's.

At the same time, we shouldn't understate the differences between them. Camping's calculations are alleged to support a conclusion that would be of great public interest and wide-ranging consequence.

If I were convinced of Camping's conclusion, I would be using a more expensive grade of tequila in my margaritas. So far as I can tell, femr2's calculations have no such consequences.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, who cares about all that early movement that femr measured?

Seems beside the point when describing the how of the collapse, huh?
I am starting to agree with you guys. Femr, why are you describing the how of the collapse accurately?

Don't you know that the NIST already discovered the "how"......Well, kind of....I mean...enough for the stated purposes of the NIST report which is......to discover the how and why of the collapse....................but........they did it well enough for their purposes which was.....


Hell, femr.......everybody knows what happened anyway......because the NIST proved it............well. they proved it enough.....um......

You.....shouldn't.....leave these things...............................all over the...........um............forum.

 

[pgimeno]

Are you implying that the only relevant part that they should have put all effort on was the fall of the façade and forget about everything else?

Not at all. Only an idiot would suggest such implication.

Please explain in that case how it's not implied by your answer to my question:

What was the initial relevance?

The relevance is that half of objective #1 was to determine how the building descended. [...]
Invaluable information... [...]

which I asked you to reevaluate after I noted that the collapse the NIST studied started way before the descent of the façade. They studied carefully the start of the collapse and what was going on under the hood.

Smearing attacks ? Don't be a drama queen. Criticism of NIST technical failings not something you are comfortable with ? Oh well.

I have not objected to some of your criticisms, where they don't conflict with keeping in mind the scarce relevance of the fall of the façade in the collapse for their purposes.

But you often go further than that and make statements that go beyond a simple statement of the problems with NIST's methods.

Compare, say:

"NIST's data has problems A, B and C".

with:

"NIST's data is shoddy and useless because it has problems A, B and C" ^[1]
not to mention:

"NIST is sloppy and their data is shoddy because it has problems A, B and C"

And in doing so, you make certain mistakes that are attributable to an excessive wish to smear them, and that I keep pointing out.

Quote please, or retract. Note I'll have to laugh if you post your own misleading misinterpretation, so make sure you have actually read the words.

A very recent example, related to descent vs. collapse:

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

Another one, the one that triggered this last interchange:

The NIST data suffers from the following (non-exhaustive) series of technical issues, each of which reduce the quality, validity and relevance of the data in various measures...

(I highlighted the misleading word in a previous post, I didn't want to highlight it here to allow it to be better understood in its context).

Fine by me (Criticism of theirs will of course be a part of that discussion)

That's fine by me as well, but see above for what is criticism of theirs [their data] vs. criticism of them.



^[1] Such a statement would be fine in certain contexts, like expressing frustration for the applicability of such data to one's purpose. That's not the case here.

 

[femr2]

Please explain in that case how it's not implied by your answer

Are you implying that the only relevant part that they should have put all effort on was the fall of the façade and forget about everything else?

Not at all. Only an idiot would suggest such implication.

Please explain how you get from my answer to a repeated suggestion that I imply they should forget about everything else

I noted that the collapse the NIST studied started way before the descent of the façade.

Why do you think I highlight early motion ?

They studied carefully the start of the collapse and what was going on under the hood.

And also what happened afterwards. Your point ?

I have not objected to some of your criticisms, where they don't conflict with keeping in mind the scarce relevance of the fall of the façade in the collapse for their purposes.

I'm not limited by their purposes, nor your personal choice of the contextual use of the word relevant. Their facade descent data is sloppy and their methods shoddy, as I have repeatedly highlighted with appropriate supporting information (more of which can be provided if you choose to quibble any item).

"NIST is sloppy and their data is shoddy because it has problems A, B and C"

Absolutely.

And in doing so, you make certain mistakes that are attributable to an excessive wish to smear them, and that I keep pointing out.

Nope. Shoddy and sloppy is shoddy and sloppy. It is irrelevant that they were not concerned about doing a shoddy and sloppy job because they didn't think it relevant. They did a shoddy and sloppy job of it. If it was so unimportant to them they should not have done it at all.

Arguing this point highlights an excessive wish to support their shoddy and sloppy actions in the production of the specified data.

(I highlighted the misleading word in a previous post, I didn't want to highlight it here to allow it to be better understood in its context).

You were trying to apply a different contextual interpretation of *relevance* which I apply to the data itself, and you choose to apply to their purpose. Two different contexts. Each additional layer of error in the data reduces its relevance, its meaning...what it actually is, means or relates to.

That's fine by me as well, but see above for what is criticism of theirs [their data] vs. criticism of them.

They generated the data. They get the criticism. It's not the data's fault. It's just data.

 

[pgimeno]

Please explain how you get from my answer to a repeated suggestion that I imply they should forget about everything else

Their focus was quite clearly the failure of the 79th column, which initiated the collapse, and how that derived into an internal progressive collapse, the descent of the façade being just a secondary effect. However, as you put it, you make it seem as if their stated objective covered mainly the descent of the façade, even changing their wording to match your preconception:

The relevance is that half of objective #1 was to determine how the building descended.

(the other half being why, which is not under discussion). Which is utterly wrong. Half of objective #1 is to determine how the building collapsed, and the main part of the collapse started with the buckling of column 79. The descent of the façade is still a minor part of it, as it doesn't really bring any significant insight on what caused the internal collapse and how it developed, except in the last stages when the supports for the façade themselves failed, something that they deducted from their model and their data served to confirm, as does yours.

Therefore, how the building descended is just a very minor part of objective #1, while you stated that the descent itself was the whole half of that objective. It follows that your claim implies that the rest of the collapse was not part of their objective. ∎

Arguing this point highlights an excessive wish to support their shoddy and sloppy actions in the production of the specified data.

Wrong. I haven't supported the actions they performed to produce the data beyond stating that their methods match (or even exceed) the interest that that event had for them, therefore you can't conclude that I have an "excessive" wish to support these actions. Or maybe you can bring a quote proving otherwise?

You were trying to apply a different contextual interpretation of *relevance* which I apply to the data itself, and you choose to apply to their purpose.

No, I didn't. I asked. *You* did: your answer invited me to think that the context was the relevance of that data to the conclusions of their report.

They generated the data. They get the criticism. It's not the data's fault. It's just data.

Which proves my point that you're not merely discussing their data, but also taking the chance to attack them.

 

[femr2]

Their focus was...

As I said, only an idiot would suggest that by saying "Absolutely not" to the question "Are you implying that the only relevant part that they should have put all effort on was the fall of the façade and forget about everything else?" that I am implying that they should "forget about everything else". As I've said it a few times now, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in...that italicised word refers to you.

Half of objective #1 is to determine how the building collapsed

You seem to make some rather strange personal distinction between the words collapse and descent. And when discussing directional motion...

The descent of the façade is still a minor part of it, as it doesn't really bring any significant insight on what caused the internal collapse and how it developed

I have been presenting early motion data highlighting motion over 100s in advance of release.

something that they deducted from their model

You need to understand the significance of the diagram I posted recently before you bring in the model. I don't think this thread is the right place for you to discuss your revelations on that front. Perhaps I'll start one in the fulness of time.

Therefore, how the building descended is just a very minor part of objective #1, while you stated that the descent itself was the whole half of that objective. It follows that your claim implies that the rest of the collapse was not part of their objective.

Nope. You merely highlight that you personally treat the words collapse and descend differently. Potato, tomato. (And when applied to directional motion, well... )

I haven't supported the actions they performed to produce the data beyond stating that their methods match (or even exceed) the interest that that event had for them

Interest level is no excuse for invalid and erronious method. As I said...It is irrelevant that they were not concerned about doing a shoddy and sloppy job because they didn't think it relevant. They did a shoddy and sloppy job of it. If it was so unimportant to them they should not have done it at all.

therefore you can't conclude that I have an "excessive" wish to support these actions. Or maybe you can bring a quote proving otherwise?

Any statement within which you are attempting to justify the use of inappropriate, incorrect, inaccurate, sloppy, crap method will do there. Do you really want me to list them all (from the start of this thread) ?

Which proves my point that you're not merely discussing their data, but also taking the chance to attack them.

You say attack, I say critique.

You seem to want to gloss over the multitude of appalling (imo) sloppy and shoddy methods, simply by making the ridiculous assertion that because they didn't care about the results and they weren't important to them (mind reader that you must therefore be) that it's okay. It simply isn't okay. There are many other areas of the report which suffer from similar schoolboy errors, which are also not okay. I'm sure I've made you aware of a few. I'll continue to do so. As I've said repeatedly there's quite a bit I'm not happy about in the reports, thus doing some leg-work myself

 

[alienentity]

I suggest everyone (especially the ever-denying Femr2) reread page one of this thread, and the title of the thread, which is 'Discussion of femr's video data analysis'.

The thread, according to the OP, should focus on Femr2's methods. Nowhere does TFK suggest that it should be about NIST's methods. Try to find such a statement in the OP. He mentions ' velocity & acceleration that results from the simple act of increasing the sampling rate.'

'There are plenty of other places that we can express our dissatisfaction with each of our perceptions of the other side's politics, agendas, etc.

Here, let's stick to engineering, please.'

Obviously this thread has degenerated into a typical MT/Femr2 NIST-bashfest ala the911forums. But that's a complete derail of the thread, isn't it?

Either this thread should be closed/abandoned until there is new relevant info or we should all stick to focusing on Femr2's methods. Any further discussion about NIST should take place on another thread designed for that purpose. Perhaps it should take place outside the conspiracy forums, as again there is zero conspiracy being discussed in these technical arguments.

 

[alienentity]

Addendum: if Femr2 wishes to introduce a 9/11 conspiracy theory into his measurements of North wall acceleration, he should do it very soon. Thus far he has avoided any such implication, further giving support to my contention that this discussion does not belong on the 9/11 conspiracy forums at all.

 

[femr2]

I suggest everyone (especially the ever-denying Femr2) reread page one of this thread, and the title of the thread, which is 'Discussion of femr's video data analysis'.

Yes, my video data analysis, which is focussed upon all manner of things. Hmmm, let me see, what else will come in here at some point...

Video data analysis of the flight175 impact trajectory and orientation.

Video data analysis of WTC1 initial tilt.

Video data analysis of WTC progression behaviour (ROOSD)

etc...

The thread, according to the OP, should focus on Femr2's methods. Nowhere does TFK suggest that it should be about NIST's methods. Try to find such a statement in the OP. He mentions ' velocity & acceleration that results from the simple act of increasing the sampling rate.'

ROFL. Would you like to point out any thread on this forum which sticks rigidly the the OP ? I guess you are happy with my methods. Super

 

[Major_Tom]

Hard to believe how I have to tell you how important real measurements are to this whole forum and the whole debate.

For WTC1, real measurements made by femr and others have popped the JREF bubble. The NIST bubble, too.

I understand the JREF preference for fake data, since wrt WTC1 people here wouldn't have much to say or defend without it..

But if you want to demonstrate a little sincerity in your own historical review, you will need the best measurements possible (the true how of building movement).

If you make this effort to boot the only thread which generates real, quality measurements from this forum while leaving gossip threads alone, you reveal your true intentions of promoting a your own subjective myth and calling it real.

I am here to debate using the most real data possible. Are you?

 

[beachnut]

... I am here to debate using real data. Are you?

Go ahead explain how this data/femr's video data analysis supports your claim the gravity collapse is an illusion. Can you explain, debate this point, your CD claims? No? Yes? Maybe? 10 years of failure? No conclusion, not ability to debate your claim as it relates to femr's no goal video data analysis?

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, my video data analysis, which is focussed upon all manner of things. Hmmm, let me see, what else will come in here at some point...

Video data analysis of the flight175 impact trajectory and orientation.

Video data analysis of WTC1 initial tilt.

Video data analysis of WTC progression behaviour (ROOSD)

etc...

I'll look forward to reading your analysis on those above points as soon as the current talking points are wrapped up with your conclusions.

...Conclusions that do not include the acronym NIST.

 

[Major_Tom]

Go ahead explain how this data/femr's video data analysis supports your claim the gravity collapse is an illusion. Can you explain, debate this point, your CD claims? No? Yes? Maybe? 10 years of failure? No conclusion, not ability to debate your claim as it relates to femr's no goal video data analysis?

I did the WTC twin towers collapse dynamics and ROOSD, remember?

You misquote me as not "believing" in gravity driven processes for maybe 40 different posts.

You would have to have fallen right off the turnip truck to be accusing me of that in May, 2011. You misquote me constantly, You attack me constantly without addressing any argument. I have never seen you receive even a warning for living in constant breach of forum rules.

I receive warnings and infractions for responding to your endless smearing.

I do not mind at all if you wish to display yourself like that. You make my case for me. Thanks and keep up the shining example for all to see clearly. You trash and expose the debunker mindset more than I could possibly hope to do.

Sincerely, I don't mind.