Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[DGM]

The most difficult barrier to communication on this subject is that so many regular posters are defending the NIST mechanisms while being ignorant of them.

If you took the time to learn what you are defending and comparing the NIST claims with observables, you would probably find why we have been telling you for a long time.

Ignorance of the theory you defend is the only thing keeping this balloon afloat.

Funny thing is I asked my SE lots of questions after I read the reports. Don't pretend you know what I know about the reports.

You're still missing the forrest because you're concerned about a spot on a vein of a leaf.

 

[femr2]

Yes, they do not explain every nuance in the detail that you expect.

No, significant elements of the detail they present is incorrect.

You choose to cling to your misinterpretation, whilst simultaneously clinging to your personal belief.

This does not change the the how and why.

Of course it does. What was the WTC1 initiation sequence ?

If you can do better, go for it. Keep in mind, if you post it in this sub-forum you really need it to include a conspiracy.

Better detail has already been presented, and banished from this sub-forum because it highlighted repeated embarrasing f'ups from the likes of Ryan Mackey and co.

Hilarious to watch from the side-lines. The *reputation* of JREF has been clarified in the process.

If you want to just discuss the intricate details "science" would be where to go.

ROFL. Dumbing-down detail to the amoeba level is no excuse for constructive discourse, you know

 

[DGM]

No, significant elements of the detail they present is incorrect.

Significant in what way?

Of course it does. What was the WTC1 initiation sequence ?

I tend to think the building was "done" when the perimeter columns were pulled in. The actual sequence is of little concern for me.

Better detail has already been presented, and banished from this sub-forum because it highlighted repeated embarrasing f'ups from the likes of Ryan Mackey and co.

Why can't it be discussed in science? Don't you consider what you do "science"?

 

[femr2]

Significant in what way?

What way ? I note the choice of language.

Significant portons. Vast chunks. Big sections.

All conclusions based upon the incorrect NIST initiation sequence are in your view what ? Correct ? Good enough ? Pretty close ? Wrong ?

Incorrect is, in my book, nothing but...incorrect.

I tend to think the building was "done" when the perimeter columns were pulled in. The actual sequence is of little concern for me.

What pulled the perimeter columns in ?
Did IB result in perimeter column buckling ?
What wat the geometric result of such IB at a building global level ?

Why can't it be discussed in science? Don't you consider what you do "science"?

Not really. It's pretty simple observation with application of a slightly technical feature tracing process thrown in in order to have verifiable data to work with.

I would suggest it is the view of the inept that anything beyond their understanding falls into the mythical arena of ...woooo.... science.

 

[DGM]

What pulled the perimeter columns in ?

The truss/floor system naturally

Did IB result in perimeter column buckling ?

No, Overload did.

What wat the geometric result of such IB at a building global level ?

Besides the redistribution of loads? The core would need to bear more load and the apposing wall would most likely go under tension.

Not really. It's pretty simple observation with application of a slightly technical feature tracing process thrown in in order to have verifiable data to work with.

I would suggest it is the view of the inept that anything beyond their understanding falls into the mythical arena of ...woooo.... science.

Exactly the answer I expected from you for this simple question. Why can't we discuss the mechanics of the collapse in "science"

 

[NoahFence]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out if all this data proves Controlled Demolition or not......

 

[ozeco41]

...Your work and femr2's work as posted here and as limited by you and femr2 respectively does no more that suggest possible alternate mechanisms which resulted in the collapse. If you were to change the global position to add some form of 'MIHOP' to 'impact damage plus fire damage' then the game would change - but you do not have 'MIHOP' in the scope of your current discussion so forget it at this stage.

So all that you are discussing is details within that global position - impact damage plus fire damage. Until and unless you change that global position you have no basis for your false claims such as:
That claim is a lie by inference. The "That" of "That is not true" refers to the clause '...the NIST theory is "good enough"...' you cannot say it is "not true" unless you specify "for who?"

Assuming for a moment that you accept that.............

You badly missed his point...........

Thank you DGM. I know. It's not the first time I have made that point to have it missed or avoided in response.

Quite surprising and a little frustrating since several of our members repeatedly say, in their own words, "...it is good enough for me to know that impact damage and fire damage caused the collapse." So the concept of a "big picture" with subordinate levels of detail of reducing levels of relevance is not a novel idea. And "relevance" is an individual assessment. It depends on the interests of each member and is NOT locked to femr2 or M_T's personal level of interest.

 

[ozeco41]

Further to my previous:

Significant in what way?

You ask about what is "significant" - meaning much the same as I mean when I say what relevance. And implicitly meaning "significant to me." Then you reinforce that point:

The actual sequence is of little concern for me.

Note the "for me"!

femr2 responds with:

Incorrect is, in my book, nothing but...incorrect.

..his own expectation of 100% At least on this occasion he states it is his position "in my book" but in context still implies that you should accept it.

Meanwhile NoahFence repeats his many times stated position:

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out if all this data proves Controlled Demolition or not......

...i.e. in ozeco language "unless it affects the big picture by bringing in CD it does not interest me.."

To many people posting here it does not matter whether it was Beam A that failed first not Column Z......UNLESS that difference leads to a change in the global position that the collapse of WTC "X" resulted from impact damage and fire damage alone. AND those people who hold such a global view are entitled to their position.

A point in femr2's favour those same people should not be insisting that femr2 pre-empt the outcomes of his detailed investigation OR that he not be interested in details because they are not interested.

(And that last "pro-truther" paragraph may spark more interest that the total of my recent posts. )

 

[NoahFence]

A point in femr2's favour those same people should not be insisting that femr2 pre-empt the outcomes of his detailed investigation OR that he not be interested in details because they are not interested.

It'll be quote mined.

(And that last "pro-truther" paragraph may spark more interest that the total of my recent posts. )

Told ya!

 

[ozeco41]

It'll be quote mined.


Told ya!

That was why I "injected the poison"

 

[femr2]

The truss/floor system naturally

In what manner ?

No, Overload did.

(the vast majority of) The perimeter columns did not buckle.

Is your knowledge of these events gleaned from observation, or simply *what NIST said* ?

In other words, what makes you think the perimeter columns buckled ?

 

[DGM]

In what manner ?

Almost self explanatory. Trusses sag and pull columns in. They don't have to pull them in to the point of buckling.

(the vast majority of) The perimeter columns did not buckle.

They didn't have to. Like I said

Is your knowledge of these events gleaned from observation, or simply *what NIST said* ?

In other words, what makes you think the perimeter columns buckled ?

Well for one thing it's shown in Major_Tom's observations. Are you saying the perimeter was wall was pulled in without buckling?

As far as what lead me to my understanding of the collapse. Mostly looking at the videos and seeing the way the building was constructed. I'm in construction and I do have a good handle on how loads are distributed by different designs. I came to my conclusion before I even read the NIST reports. I was close. Close enough as you don't like to hear.

BTW Fundamentally I have no real problem with ROOSD (or whatever you like to call it)

 

[femr2]

Almost self explanatory. Trusses sag and pull columns in. They don't have to pull them in to the point of buckling.

Are you aware of the amount of sag required to cause the observed scale of IB ?

Well for one thing it's shown in Major_Tom's observations.

Where ?

Are you saying the perimeter was wall was pulled in without buckling?

The perimeter fractured along bolt seams...

As far as what lead me to my understanding of the collapse. Mostly looking at the videos and seeing the way the building was constructed. I'm in construction and I do have a good handle on how loads are distributed by different designs.

Then why are these basic details not known by you ten years later ?

 

[Major_Tom]

From the posts given, it appears that posters do not feel they have to know what the NIST collapse initiation mechanisms are to claim they are "good enough".


This is what I assumed from previous posts, that regular posters tend to believe that the NIST initiation mechanisms are "good enough" but they don't seem to know what the mechanisms are.

If I were to ask, as I have for over a year, whether the NIST initiation mechanism are contradicted by observables, the posters seem to believe they are not, but they don't know what the initiation mechanisms are and they don't have access to accurate measurements.
..................................

Basically, posters seem convinced that the NIST descriptions are "good enough" but they do not know what those descriptions are, and they do not have accurate measurements to work with.

 

[Major_Tom]

The images that Femr posted show the WTC2 east wall breaking along staggered bolts shown in purple:

There are 7 ejections from the base of the pattern marked by ovals.

This was all included in the WTC2 thread that was removed.

If you do not understand how the buildings moved, how can you determine whether the NIST WTC1 and 2 initiation scenarios are correct or not? Your answer seems to be that the actual movement or the actual NIST explanation is unimportant and not worth knowing. They are not necessary to determine the explanations are "good enough".

 

[NoahFence]

Basically, posters seem convinced that the NIST descriptions are "good enough" but they do not know what those descriptions are, and they do not have accurate measurements to work with.

I know enough about it to know they concluded fire was the culprit. I've yet to see anything resembling a coherent argument to the contrary.

 

[NoahFence]

this was all included in the wtc2 thread that was removed.

ftfy

 

[Reactor drone]

The images that Femr posted show the WTC2 east wall breaking along staggered bolts shown in purple:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/ejection__locations.jpg[/qimg]

There are 7 ejections from the base of the pattern marked by ovals.

This was all included in the WTC2 thread that was removed.

If you do not understand how the buildings moved, how can you determine whether the NIST WTC1 and 2 initiation scenarios are correct or not? Your answer seems to be that the actual movement or the actual NIST explanation is unimportant and not worth knowing. They are not necessary to determine the explanations are "good enough".

And the significance of bolts breaking and material being expelled following the initiation of collapse is?


Femr's analysis seems to be a 4 stage process,

1-Collect data of the highest quality possible. He claims his syntheyes method is the best available. Stage 1 is therefore complete.

2-Assemble raw data in best way possible to eliminate signal noise and other errors. He claims that Savitzky-Golay is the best smoothing possible for the data therefore stage 2 is complete.

3-Analysis of data. Currently analysis of data seems to consist of pointing to graphs and saying ,"see NIST is inaccurate" or pointing at gifs and vaguely implying that something isn't right. Stage 3 is never ending and will never result in any meaningful analysis.

4-Conclusions. Due to the never ending nature of stage 3 stage 4 will never be reached.

 

[DGM]

Are you aware of the amount of sag required to cause the observed scale of IB ?

Yes. If not truss sagging then what? The wall was being pulled in.

Then why are these basic details not known by you ten years later ?

Simple. The distinction between failure at the bolt seem and buckling is not important to me or my over-all understanding of the collapse.

 

[femr2]

And the significance of bolts breaking and material being expelled following the initiation of collapse is?

Firstly, it contradicts the NIST hypothesis of the mechanism in action...floor assemblies did not pull in the perimeter to the point where the perimeter buckled.

Secondly, it raises the question...what occurred at the point in time when the bolt seams fractured (in detail)...

If MT's threads had not been removed from this sub-forum, you'd have in-depth resource to refer to on this specific behaviour...

Femr's analysis seems to be a 4 stage process,

1-Collect data of the highest quality possible. He claims his syntheyes method is the best available. Stage 1 is therefore complete.

Trace data extraction for the NW corner of WTC7 is complete, sure. Other traces have been performed, and additional traces may be required (especially given the gradual increase in available decent quality footage)

2-Assemble raw data in best way possible to eliminate signal noise and other errors. He claims that Savitzky-Golay is the best smoothing possible for the data therefore stage 2 is complete.

For the purpose of generating acceleration profile graphs for WTC7 NW corner with the Dan Rather dataset, yes, Savitzky-Golay is the most appropriate and practical method available. Other traces gleaned from higher quality footage, such as the WTC1 data extracted from the Sauret footage, have not required the use of such intensive smoothing methods, though it may well be useful to take another look at S-G processed data from such.

3-Analysis of data. Currently analysis of data seems to consist of pointing to graphs and saying ,"see NIST is inaccurate" or pointing at gifs and vaguely implying that something isn't right. Stage 3 is never ending and will never result in any meaningful analysis.

Analysis of trace data has already resulted in quite an array of conclusions, from the initial identification of the ejecta streams resulting in formulation of the ROOSD hypothesis, to indication of incorrect NIST WTC1 initiation sequence, to identification of a plethora of issues with the NIST WTC7 motion study.

The view of many members here seems to be...it doesn't matter how much of the NIST report is wrong, the NIST report is right.

There are, of course, many areas of the reports I am not satisfied with, though not all of those will overlap with video data analysis.