Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[W.D.Clinger]

Absolute nonsense. I suggest they used *eyeballs*.

Nonsense. They used *eyeballs* and a ruler I imagine. Pathetic.

You have nothing to support your claim.

Utter nonsense.

Here is what NIST actually state...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/891546683.png[/qimg]

Now, tell me W.D.Clinger, where exactly are you pulling your assertions from ? I could make a highly accurate suggestion.

In the passage you displayed, NIST said "The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s." In context, that explains NIST's choice of endpoints for Stage 2.

[size=-1](ETA for those who don't know calculus: "the slope of the velocity curve" is the acceleration in NIST's nonlinear model. When femr2 denies that NIST used its nonlinear model of acceleration, he is denying that NIST used the slope of that velocity curve for any purpose. His denials were contradicted by the passage he quoted.)[/size]​

You're free to invent whatever sources you like for my assertions and for NIST's, and I'm sure you will continue to do so.

To determine acceleration. You MIGHT want to realise that the METHOD of differentiating the Poly(10) and Poly(50) curves was symmetric differencing. Derivation of the Poly(10) curve was only performed as a cross-check.

You're saying you used two different methods to differentiate the same curves. As I have explained, differentiating either curve (by any method) yields profoundly misleading accelerations near the beginning of the collapse. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[femr2]

I guess his non-participation could mean that he sees no relevance himself, and draws or changes no conclusions from his months and years of work. I could be wrong of course, and he just likes to keep secrets.

ROFL. Making assertions about non-participation about 20 minutes after you start the thread ? Funny man

I note also that within a couple of posts you have turned your own thread into a *call-out* or personal attack venue.

If you choose to make this thread a place to *attack femr2*, go ahead, have fun.

If you expect me to do your leg-work gathering all the already presented issues, errors and refutements from both *truther* claims and NIST claims into this thread then you are going to be disappointed.

Even though the thread you reference is full of numerous instances of each of the above I'm guessing you are sitting there going *what conclusions* ?

Your first task is to gather that information together.

Have fun.

I see the possibility for valid reasons not to formulate conclusions yet.

And you'd be right.

 

[femr2]

For my money femr2's investigations show the potential to either confirm NIST or to differ from NIST - depending on which bit of collapse they are applied to - in either case at the detail level.

Indeed, though of course the implications of those differences are dificult to quantify.

Therefore NIST's global conclusions are not likely to be challenged, they may be confirmed OR a different explanation emerging which does not alter the global conclusion.

Items such as the WTC1 initiation sequence could affect global details. Certainly a ROOSD-type progression does not fit with a perimeter led initiation sequence.

Some members here have made a lot of comments to the effect that if femr's work does not change global conclusions it is a waste of time. It may be for those persons who are only interested in the big picture. Arguably they should recognise that the details are not their area of interest and stand aside from discussion. However others have a genuine interest in the details of "how" and that interest is as valid for them as the "global only" interest is for others.

Again addressing WTC1, I don't think there is any doubt that a ROOSD-type propogation mechanism ensued following initiation. Serious error with the NIST study into the physical initiation process cannot be seen as unimportant imo, but hey ho.

I suggest this thread is merged with the existing femr2 video data analysis thread.

 

[femr2]

To give you something to play with...

A conclusion

The traced early motion of WTC7 NW corner *debunks* any *truther* suggested theory which relies upon *boom* followed by immediate vertical descent.

Have fun.

 

[NoahFence]

I suggest this thread is merged with the existing femr2 video data analysis thread.

The whole point of this thread is because you refuse to answer simple questions in the other thread.

 

[femr2]

No irony at all. Whilst I am suggesting that's what I think NIST did, you have been repeatedly (for months) stating your opinion as fact. It appears below you are rapidly back-pedalling on that. You'll get there

In the passage you displayed, NIST said "The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s." In context, that explains NIST's choice of endpoints for Stage 2.

Indeed. Visual inspection of the VELOCITY profile, NOT usage of their formula derived to acceleration, as I have repeatedly stated and you have repeatedly denied, until now.

When femr2 denies that NIST used its nonlinear model of acceleration, he is denying that NIST used the slope of that velocity curve for any purpose.

Nonsense. I am denying that NIST derived their equation for velocity to determine an equation for acceleration. I have repeatedly stated that their only presented acceleration data is the linear regression, which you have repeatedly denied.

NIST did not use the derived formula below, at all...

NIST did not use the acceleration curve derived from their velocity equation, at all.

Perhaps they looked at it in the background, saw it was over-g and then decided to publish a linear regression chosen to result in a 32.196ft/s^2 (lol) average instead.

You're free to invent whatever sources you like for my assertions and for NIST's, and I'm sure you will continue to do so.

Invent ? Nah. You have written many-a word on the subject, and I shall endeavour to gather them all together for your delictation.

You're saying you used two different methods to differentiate the same curves. As I have explained, differentiating either curve (by any method) yields profoundly misleading accelerations near the beginning of the collapse.

ROFL. Have you inspected the raw data in detail yet ?

The only misleading factor is your inept interpretation of the graphs.

You'll note there is upward acceleration near the start of the S-G curve too. Why ? Because there is upward motion within the fine detail of the extracted data. Does it indicate the building was moving UPWARDS ? No. Interpretation Will

Getting yourself locked into a position borne from your blinkered view of your own chosen field is never a good idea. As I said, it's about time to summarise your standpoint of this element in detail methinks

It's also time to highlight how closely the NIST velocity curve matches reality...it's not good.

Reference links...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7176575&postcount=1575
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7175406&postcount=1571
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7156594&postcount=1214
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7159486&postcount=1221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7159700&postcount=1223

 

[ozeco41]

...Certainly a ROOSD-type progression does not fit with a perimeter led initiation sequence...

I could be interested in pursuing that claim - maybe in a different thread/forum - at this stage I don't see the causal linkage. I don't recall seeing it made previously - but my memory could be wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A conclusion

The traced early motion of WTC7 NW corner *debunks* any *truther* suggested theory which relies upon *boom* followed by immediate vertical descent.

We discussed this in the other thread, and I think most debunkers would say that it's equally well debunked by the absence of the *boom*. However, it is at least a conclusion, however trivial. Do you have any more to offer?

Dave

 

[Oystein]

ROFL. Making assertions about non-participation about 20 minutes after you start the thread ? Funny man

I note also that within a couple of posts you have turned your own thread into a *call-out* or personal attack venue.

If you choose to make this thread a place to *attack femr2*, go ahead, have fun.

If you expect me to do your leg-work gathering all the already presented issues, errors and refutements from both *truther* claims and NIST claims into this thread then you are going to be disappointed.

Even though the thread you reference is full of numerous instances of each of the above I'm guessing you are sitting there going *what conclusions* ?

Your first task is to gather that information together.

Have fun.


And you'd be right.

Why don't you just state what your game plan is, what the relevance of your work is in your mind, and why you won't offer any conclusions yet? Why so many words of hot air? Is anything ever achieved by that?

The other thread is so full of hot air, so full of technobabble, so full of laboriously bitching about technicalities... I swear I have no clue what you are driving at. You make no claims beyond "my graph is different and better" - can't you state concisely just what this is all about, for once?



ETA: I wrote this more than an hour ago, before I had seen ozeco's edit to his post that I replied to, and before I had seen femr2's next reply. My girl friend got in the way, and I just now finally hit the "send" button. I will think about the replies that came in in the meantime a little later. Time for daily soaps now -.-

 

[Oystein]

By the way: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212331

 

[femr2]

It's also time to highlight how closely the NIST velocity curve matches reality...it's not good.

WTC 7 Velocity Profiles...


Curiously enough, you'll note that the NIST curve is, what is the phrase W.D.Clinger used, profoundly misleading, at the beginning and end of the trace.

 

[femr2]

Why don't you just state what your game plan is

I'm not playing games. Discussion of my video data analysis will continue to be performed in the original thread.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not playing games.

That reply right there would prove otherwise.

 

[twinstead]

I'm not playing games. Discussion of my video data analysis will continue to be performed in the original thread.

Your analysis has been done. It's time for the conclusions and how those conclusions affect the conclusions of the NIST report. That's what this thread is for.

The other thread and its mindless pedantry is getting boring.

 

[The Platypus]

I'm not playing games. Discussion of my video data analysis will continue to be performed in the original thread.

 

[RedIbis]

I'm not playing games. Discussion of my video data analysis will continue to be performed in the original thread.

IMO, Oystein's request is a reasonable one. He and others have admitted that you have provided useful criticism of the NIST report. I admit I can't speak to the technical issues in that thread, but I find the discourse interesting.

I, too, would like to know how your conclusions do or do not affect NIST's. If as you say the conclusions debunk CD theories, then how do they support a gravity driven collapse due to fire? These would seem reasonable questions. Whether or not the discussion belongs in the original thread, I imagine, is up to the mods, but I found that thread informative.

 

[NoahFence]

Do you have a graph of a known controlled demolition? I'd be interested to know how much it differs from the graph(s) on WTC 7.

This would do a bit to support or disprove a CD at WTC 7 I would think.

 

[femr2]

Do you have a graph of a known controlled demolition?

As I've said in the past, if you provide video from a static camera, along with accurate building measurements, I'll sort a graph if there is a suitable latch-point (like the NW corner of WTC7)

 

[tsig]

ROFL. Blind leading the blind.


So you don't have a smoothing method better than S-G for this purpose ? You only have to say so you know. It is not an excuse that you do not know how many datasets exist. It is not an excuse that you do not know that the same trend is revealed with usage of varying smoothing methods, varying trace locations, varying video segments...



Any suggestions for a better method ? Anyone ?

When you get the data all smoothed, beaten and blended are you going to tell us what it means?

 

[tsig]

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.

Femur would be arguing why it can't be done while Beechnut is doing it.