Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
They should call for a new independent investigation of 9/11!1!!!!!!!11!! [/truther]
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
They should call for a new independent investigation of 9/11!1!!!!!!!11!! [/truther]
Utter nonsense.
The raw data smoothing method presented in recent dialogue is....wait for it...*engineering*.
*Engineering* is not a smoothing method.
Try again.
Then ask it in a general thread
Reminds me of a fairly recent post...
If you have no interest, NoahFence, in the thread content, ignore it.
If you have a smoothing method resulting in superior results than the S-G method, post away.
Otherwise, young fella-me-lad, shhh
NoahFence
Banned
If I thought for a 1/2 a second you'd take the diaper off and actually answer the general question I and many, many others have asked of you, I'd start a new thread, or link to the question in this thread.
As it is, you have not shown ANY desire to do anything but complain about NIST. The only time you answer a direct question is in the event that you can manipulate it or quote mine it to suit your needs.
As it is, you have not shown ANY desire to do anything but complain about NIST. The only time you answer a direct question is in the event that you can manipulate it or quote mine it to suit your needs.
NoahFence
Banned
How did NIST err, and how should their conclusion change?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
You have to face the bitter truth: Conclusions are OFF TOPIC in a thread named "...data analysis". Understand?
(I sure don't)
You missed it a long time ago. I would model the errors and use kalman filters to achieve better data by removing errors, having a better idea of what the real position was. In the case of WTC 7 you are hung up on a trivial part of the investigation, as a team leader you would be replaced for wasting time and going nuts on a trivial point. Your failure to set goals and make conclusions would be grounds for termination s you spent too much time on worthless analysis, not making any progress, unable to answer simple questions. You would be fired. The best you have is complaining about NIST on trivial points, and have not done more than label 60 plus videos of over 200, Demolition to support your overall claim of an inside job, as you put it, "fictional official theory". You smooth using a method not suited for the data, you failed to support your method. You have no idea what to use, you are making what should look like an erratic acceleration, nice and smooth like music stretched out in time. This is not a CD where you need to recreate music from a digital source. You have nothing to show but an attack on NIST. Publish your attack on NIST and see who supports it, I don't need NIST to tell me buildings fail in fire, you need NIST to complain about it and make no conclusions and set no implicit goals. Based on your posts, you implied goal is to attack NIST. How is that going? Who cares? When will you publish your results? How does you list of NIST stuff fit with 911 CTs? Does MT know what dovetail means? When will your analysis be done?
The best part of your analysis is your inability to explain why you filtered the data. I love it, you wave your hands, and have to ask if there is a better way to hide the fact you did not support your method in the first place. You are doing what a kid does when they first find filters, making the waveform look neat, stepping up the order, using the TLAR method of looking all science like. With your 60 plus videos titled "Demolition", how does this target fixation on WTC 7 fit with your overall inside job theory on 911? Are 19 terrorists the ones who did it, or do you have some Satan like figure you share with Major Tom? Do you think a building on fire should stand after the fire, or can it fail? Are you going to study the Deutsche Bank Building coming down? A study of the acceleration? Maybe 911 truth can add a new "Building What" to their delusional pursuits.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
LMAO. Here is a list of the assumptions you have made merely in the last couple of posts...
Assumption.
Assumption.
Assumption.
Assumption.
Assumption.
Assumption.
Assumption.
Assumption.
Utter nonsense in this context.
Nope. Revealed with numerous different datasets. Numerous different video segments. Numerous different trace locations. Numerous different smoothing methods (and no smoothing at all).
So, yet another assumption from you Dave. Tsk, tsk...
Which I have. You are assuming I don't
Nonsense. Suggest you re-read this thread from the first page. Highly relevant to the current discussion AGAIN.
In this specific circumstance using no smoothing is utter nonsense. Shame.
How many assumptions ?
femr2's opinions are gossamer , insubstantial, jejune, pointless drift, disparate and unprofessional. Precociousness is not enough.
This is solid , mature, professional and integrated with the tout ensemble; a summary of what matters and why.
In the real world of engineering professionals where things get done and one's decisions have direct consequences, femr2's opinions are incompetent and inconsequential. He cannot understand or profitably contribute to this realm, not having been trained in it.
Last edited:
Stumbling block #1. How would you do this ?
Without the ability to overcome stumbling block #1, you're not going to get anywhere within the realm of Kalman filtering. With quantifiable information on the noise, great, without that, not much cop.
Given the multitude of contibuting factors resulting in the noise present, how would you go about *modeling the noise* ?
If you cannot do so, suggestion of application of Kalman filtering becomes pointless.
The data resolution is already well sub-pixel.
There is no underlying MODEL for the motion to follow. It is the consequence of the interraction of a multitude of chaotic actions upon the building, with the addition of a small amount of measurement noise.
You appear to be assuming that the underlying *actual* motion necessarily follows a non-chaotic behaviour. It does not. Any *noise model* could not reliably differentiate between real position error and noise. In my opinion, the extraction of static point data is about as good as is possible with the available source data...the videos. Those constraints cannot be removed.
Incorrect.
Nonsense. By all means state WHY you think so though...
I have highlighted usage of numerous methods with numerous datasets with numerous footages...all revealing similar underlying trend. S-G being the most detailed of such, for rather obvious reasons.
Nonsense. The S-G curve is far from smooth. I don't see you complaining about the NIST acceleration curve (which they don't use of course, resorting to use of a linear fit)...
...one of those looks a teensy bit more smooth than t'other, would you agree ?
As you know, the focus is on trend, and maxima of course. As you can see, the NIST maxima is a little low (though also over-g of course).
You seem to. 16450 posts and climbing. Dedicated that, or something
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
femr2 is being willfully obtuse. NIST's model is not linear. NIST stated its nonlinear models for position and velocity quite explicitly. femr2's inability to derive NIST's acceleration curve by differentiating those models is not NIST's fault, but femr2's.
NIST also used a linear fit as a sanity check on its nonlinear model. femr2 continues to harp on NIST's linear fit, presumably because he hopes to convince the inattentive that NIST's models were linear.
The general trend, which femr2 now says is all that matters, is the same for NIST's model as for femr2's graphs. femr2 has never been able or willing to explain how or why the small differences between NIST's model and his graphs could be significant.
Although femr2 cannot explain why his work matters, he is dedicated to proclaiming its importance.You seem to. 16450 posts and climbing. Dedicated that, or something
Between that and femr2's denials of clearly established facts, we end up with a long and vacuous thread.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
I have to ask: what 9/11 conspiracy theory is this thread addressing?
femr2, since this thread appears to be about your 'video data analysis', can you advise whether your 'video data analysis' addresses a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and if so, which one or ones?
femr2, since this thread appears to be about your 'video data analysis', can you advise whether your 'video data analysis' addresses a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and if so, which one or ones?
Last edited:
ROFL. The derived NIST curve is in the graph within the post you just replied to
ROFL. Again, the derived NIST curve is in the damn graph within the post you just replied to
They did not USE such, instead presenting a linear fit, as I said.
Nope. Graph above contains both. Not the same trend.
Nonsense. I've repeated numerous metric which are affected, such as the *period of freefall* and the *40% above freefall* statements. Repeatedly. Do you have a selective memory ? Shall I refresh it for you ? I think your prior comments on smoothing method might be worth a recap eh
Where ?
Nonsense. Where is this denial of which you speak (aka make up) ?
Why ?
Which conspiracy do these address ...?
- What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?
- Engineers named Mike who think Truthers are nuts
- "Try clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds"
- WTC Attacks not 911 in fact are 711
- Any 9/11 conspiracy debunkers in Bristol, UK?
- Look Here For a Commentary on the Latest News from AE911Truth
The video data analysis centers upon analysis of high resolution trace data of motion for WTC1, 2 & 7.
The use of such data refutes some assertions by bodies such as NIST, and also affirms others. The data both *debunks* some *Truther* theories, whilst also *debunking* other *debunker* theories.
As ozeco41 said fairly recently...
But remember one of the attempts to stop your discussions is the many times repeated claim that unless the topic is "conspiracy" it doesn't belong in this sub forum.
A more ridiculous bit of attempted censorship I have not seen. The idea that technical discussions do not belong here is silly enough and totally at odds with the historic practice of this sub forum. No one familiar with the discussions in this forum could seriously suggest that technical stuff has even been discouraged let alone barred.
Likewise look at the amount of thread discussions we would have to curtail if this "conspiracy only" was to become the rule and technical stuff without conspiracy becomes verboten....
...the old saying "cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.
I imagine the thread would be quieter without all the NOISE from those with no personal interest in technical discussion. I guess they'd rather be having some fun talking about space beams and hush-a-booms. Good luck to them.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
They presented both. Since their linear fit confirmed the general trend of their nonlinear model, and NIST's conclusions were based on that general trend, it would be idiotic for you to claim they used one but not the other. They used both.ROFL. Again, the derived NIST curve is in the damn graph within the post you just replied to
They did not USE such, instead presenting a linear fit, as I said.
Looks like the same general trend to me.
I note once again that you are unable to explain the significance of the small differences between the green curve (NIST's model) and the red curve (your preferred smoothing of the data, whose general trend is modelled by NIST's green curve), nor can you explain how those differences might matter for any 9/11 conspiracy theory.
You have just provided us with yet another example of your blithe denials of previously established facts.Nonsense. Where is this denial of which you speak (aka make up) ?
It is an established fact that you spent months denying the nonlinearity of NIST's model. To refresh your memory:
As documented above, it is an established fact that femr2 has denied that NIST presented a nonlinear model. He would now have us believe that he was only denying NIST's use of their nonlinear model, but femr2's ongoing attempts to mislead us about that are themselves denials of established fact.
Finally, LashL asks a relevant question:
Once again, femr2 refused to answer that question.
If his work were relevant or important, he could explain why it's relevant or important.
NoahFence
Banned
NoahFence
Banned
Bravo! Can I hire you to argue with my wife for me? I give you the talking points and you just go to town.....
(I'm not as good at it!)
NoahFence
Banned
That irony meter emote is around here somewhere.....
NoahFence
Banned
NoahFence
Banned
Neither you nor he has ever even come close to HINTING there might be a conspiracy involved. When asked for clarification on that point, you ignore. What the HELL do you expect?
Show me where NIST presented their derived acceleration formula or used it at all...
They did not use the derived acceleration function.
They are very different. We disagree. Shock.
Significance has been presented time and time again.
Nope. Quite different.
Nonsense. You are playing tfk's game of creating your own inference and actually believing it. I've stated repeatedly, and do so again, that NIST used a linear regression for acceleration, and only a linear regression for acceleration. They did not use their non-linear model for acceleration.
No need. Stooping to manipulating context eh. Tsk. tfk would be proud