Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[rwguinn]

-0.108668919
precision on that value is
+/- 0.000000005
that is 5 parts in 20 million.
But you aren't giving precision values.
And BTW--averaging response values along the axis of a system that is being excited perpendicular to that axis is a silly idea...

 

[femr2]

-0.108668919
precision on that value is
+/- 0.000000005
that is 5 parts in 20 million.
But you aren't giving precision values.

Deary me.

That value has nothing to do with measurement precision.

It's an estimate, based on the average of 5000 sampled positions, of how far out the initial sample was from *zero*.

The value I stated was 0.1. (As-in... shift the dataset up 0.1ft to ensure the static data is centered about zero, using 5000 samples. Fine by me )

Talk about clutching at straws.

And BTW--averaging response values along the axis of a system that is being excited perpendicular to that axis is a silly idea...

Again, deary me.

(Not giving anything away to carlitos' required leg-work) Here's a frame segment with the major direction of motion indicated...

Now, how would you go about translating horizontal trace pixel measurements into real-world motion in that direction ?

Why do you think I chose that viewpoint, rather than the numerous others available ?

 

[carlitos]

(Not giving anything away to carlitos' required leg-work)

I have no leg work. I will not be calculating anything, as I have no goal or project that requires such a calculation.

real-world motion

"Real world" motion, as noted, happens in three dimensions.

 

[BasqueArch]

..........................

As you also know, such discussion is off-topic.
This forum is for ALL discussion related to 911. End of.


......

No, not end of. Not that fast. Wrong once again. This forum is titled "9/11 ConspiracyTheories."

You have no conspiracy, only claims about uncorroborated pixelated motion, building motion which NIST competently analyzed both from impact and fires.

You have graphs and a smirk.
Not even in the same universe as NIST's engineering achievements.

 

[tsig]

Hogwash. If there was a legitimate need to defend my comment on discussion process I could do so in the appropriate part of the forum. I don't see such defence as necessary. I will not discuss the process of the discussion in this thread in preference to the content of the discussion AKA the "topic". Discussion of forum procedural matters has been frowned upon several times by Moderators. I agree. In addition, as party of my normal "rules of engagement", I rarely enter into derail and off-topic discussions. Especially when those seem to be part of a debating trick.

Now quote mining to make a strawman tsig? Whether accidental or otherwise you misinterpret my comment to W.D.Clinger. I did not say "process of analysis". Given that I used the common expression 'You are confusing "process" with "content"' my meaning was clear in the context of my response to W.D.Clinger. The way you try to interpret it is nonsensical - it effectively turns my statement into 'You are confusing "content" with "content"'.

I see, when you use a word it means exactly what you want it to mean in order to make your point.

 

[Oystein]

Why did you request a thread dedicated to trying to get you to have an actual point be merged with this one?

You are talking about a thread opened by me. I would like to clarify:

I didn't open it so much as a call-out thread to femr2, with the explicit intention of getting femr2, and only femr2, to have a point or deduce conclusions. Of course, a contribution by femr2 along those lines would have been greatly appreciated, but the thread would have served its purpose if femr2 had stayed clear of it, as long as somebody, anybody looks at his data and analysis and discussed their implications with regard to CTs.

In opening that thread, I finally accepted femr2's (apparent) wish to not think about conclusions with regard to specific CTs, or changes to the NIST conclusions, and that acceptance included accepting that femr2 might not wish to participate in that new thread.

However, when femr2 asked for the 2 threads to be merged, and that wish was granted by a mod, this was a clear sign that discussion of conclusions drawn from the analysis (beyond "NIST' data was wrong") is clearly on topic here. Even if femr2 himself does not wish to contibute.

 

[femr2]

I didn't open it so much as a call-out thread to femr2

The thread was started with the false premise that conclusions have not been presented within this thread. Many have, repeatedly. The truth is that you are only interested in one single conclusion, namely *demolition or not*. Thousands of other conclusions are available for discussion.

I even provided you with a short list of conclusions derived from video data analysis, which simply spurred the repeated question of *demolition or not*.

with the explicit intention of getting femr2, and only femr2, to have a point or deduce conclusions. Of course, a contribution by femr2 along those lines would have been greatly appreciated, but the thread would have served its purpose if femr2 had stayed clear of it, as long as somebody, anybody looks at his data and analysis and discussed their implications with regard to CTs.

I provided you with a response. Several in fact.

In opening that thread, I finally accepted femr2's (apparent) wish to not think about conclusions with regard to specific CTs, or changes to the NIST conclusions, and that acceptance included accepting that femr2 might not wish to participate in that new thread.

All false assertions Oystein.

1) Conclusions regarding specific CTs have been presented.
2) Specific errors in NIST conclusions have been presented.
3) I participated in the thread (until it was clear that it really was simply a call-out thread with no purpose that could not be served here.). If you choose to conclude that any of this information does or does not chage the singular conclusion you actually mean, then do so. Then ignore the thread. No-one is required to post after they have *had their say*.

Nuggets like this cropped up almost immediately...

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

Others used it as a call-out thread, even if that was not your intention.

However, when femr2 asked for the 2 threads to be merged, and that wish was granted by a mod, this was a clear sign that discussion of conclusions drawn from the analysis (beyond "NIST' data was wrong") is clearly on topic here. Even if femr2 himself does not wish to contibute.

Draw whatever conclusions you please. Also, ensure that your discussion does not encroach upon forum management, as the mods have specifically requested such is not performed here.

 

[NoahFence]

femr2:
NIST WTC 1 initiation sequence is wrong. Implications galore.

You don't name the implications.

spurred the repeated question of *demolition or not*.

IF you'd answer the question, it wouldn't have to be repeated.

 

[Oystein]

The thread was started with the false premise that conclusions have not been presented within this thread. Many have, repeatedly. The truth is that you are only interested in one single conclusion, namely *demolition or not*. Thousands of other conclusions are available for discussion.

Yes, I did say it later in my post ("...with regard to CTs"), I could have been more explicit that in fact I was most interested in any conclusions that have a bearing on the various CTs, among which those that posit intentional demolition are the most prominent and obvious.

I even provided you with a short list of conclusions derived from video data analysis, which simply spurred the repeated question of *demolition or not*.


I provided you with a response. Several in fact.


All false assertions Oystein.

1) Conclusions regarding specific CTs have been presented.
2) Specific errors in NIST conclusions have been presented.
3) I participated in the thread (until it was clear that it really was simply a call-out thread with no purpose that could not be served here.). If you choose to conclude that any of this information does or does not chage the singular conclusion you actually mean, then do so. Then ignore the thread. No-one is required to post after they have *had their say*.

None of the points raised in the linked post makes any reference to any CT, such as demolition theories. I frankly have never seen you discussing CTs in this thread. This may be my fault, I have not follwed it page by page for a whole year. But when I did participate and tried to get you to respond if your analysis has any consequences wrt 9/11 CTs, you would refuse to answer that, and I still have not seen you elaborate on the implications of your data analysis with regard to CTs". I thus concluded that you are not personally interested in pursuing that topic, and accepted it.

[ETA]: Whoops, you did raise one point: You say your analysis debunks a particular truther talking point, that of instant changes in rate of motion, which would prove ... whatever. What I do not know is: Do YOU conclude that there is a serious possibility that any or all of the towers were intentionally demolished? Cause it still appears like you are more supportive of truthers, even though, as far as I have seen, your work only helps to debunk truthers, if it has any bearing at all on CTs.[/ETA]

So could you NOW tell me how and where you draw conclusions from your data analysis with regard to CTs, please?

I did however also ask how the NIST conclusions would be affected by your anylysis, and you did respond to that by listing some very general areas of concern, which I appreciate. What's unanswered, as far as I can see, is: Which of NIST's real conclusions needs to be revised? On top level, that would be the finding that plane impacts and fires caused the TT to collapse; that fires caused building 7 to collapse; and several recommendations for building code changes. And how would they have to be revised - what conclusions do you draw [ETA]about the causes of collapses[/ETA], and what code changes would you recommend instead?

Nuggets like this cropped up almost immediately...

Others used it as a call-out thread, even if that was not your intention.

Correct. I didn't like that development myself. That's the reason for my reply to NoahFence above. You didn't think we were in disagreement on this, were you?

Draw whatever conclusions you please. Also, ensure that your discussion does not encroach upon forum management, as the mods have specifically requested such is not performed here.

I'd really like to learn yours, ozeco's, WDC's, Basque Arch's, Major_Tom's, etc.

 

[Tricky]

Off-topic and bickering posts, including those complaining about being off topic. split to AAH. Cut it out, guys.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[femr2]

None of the points raised in the linked post makes any reference to any CT, such as demolition theories.

Correct. That post highlights issues with NIST conclusions.

I frankly have never seen you discussing CTs in this thread.

Here is a post of yours responding to such.

This may be my fault, I have not follwed it page by page for a whole year.

See above.

But when I did participate and tried to get you to respond if your analysis has any consequences wrt 9/11 CTs, you would refuse to answer that, and I still have not seen you elaborate on the implications of your data analysis with regard to CTs".

Incorrect. See above.

I thus concluded that you are not personally interested in pursuing that topic, and accepted it.

As I said to LashL...

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.

[ETA]: Whoops, you did raise one point: You say your analysis debunks a particular truther talking point, that of instant changes in rate of motion, which would prove ... whatever. What I do not know is: Do YOU conclude that there is a serious possibility that any or all of the towers were intentionally demolished?

An answer to that question will be the final post I make within this forum.

As I've said lord-knows how many times...I'm not happy with the NIST report. When my *analysis* is complete, I'll present conclusions (if there any that I think are especially significant). Until then, stop asking. I'll let you know Again, I'll simply IGNORE repeated calls to answer the same question. End of.

Cause it still appears like you are more supportive of truthers

Where ?

Which of NIST's real conclusions needs to be revised?

Your personal definition of *real* conclusions is your own affair. I've stated my position on numerous NIST conclusions. If you don't like that, no offence, but tough luck I'm afraid.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Do YOU conclude that there is a serious possibility that any or all of the towers were intentionally demolished?

An answer to that question will be the final post I make within this forum.

I look forward to femr2's final post.

Draw whatever conclusions you please. Also, ensure that your discussion does not encroach upon forum management, as the mods have specifically requested such is not performed here.

I'd really like to learn yours, ozeco's, WDC's, Basque Arch's, Major_Tom's, etc.

My conclusions are no more significant than femr2's.

Unlike femr2, I will respond to Oystein's specific questions:

femr2 tries to avoid at all costs to debate what conclusions can and ought to be drawn from his data analysis. Are the differences to NIST's analysis relevant? In particular, in what way does his data analysis warrant a change in NIST's conclusions? And finally: does this change go in the direction of making any conspiracy theory, such as explosive demolition, a more likely, or even the most likely explanation of ALL of the available observation?

My answers to those questions are in blue:

• Are the differences to NIST's analysis relevant? No.
• In particular, in what way does his data analysis warrant a change in NIST's conclusions? In no way.
• And finally: does this change go in the direction of making any conspiracy theory, such as explosive demolition, a more likely, or even the most likely explanation of ALL of the available observation? No.

I will now review some of the evidence for those blue answers, taking them in reverse order.

[size=+1]Conspiracy theories[/size]

When pressed to explain how his analysis might be related to some 9/11 conspiracy theory, femr2 said "demolition, or not."

femr2 has not said how his analysis would answer that question. We now know he does not intend to answer that question until his "final post" in this forum.

Fortunately, we can answer Oystein's question without waiting for femr2. We already have overwhelming evidence against deliberate demolition by any means other than hijacked aircraft, and no aspect of femr2's analysis even begins to hint at becoming a pale imitation of evidence for any alternative.

[size=+1]NIST's conclusions[/size]

femr2 demonstrated the irrelevance of his analysis to NIST's conclusions by posting a childish response to pgimeno's map of NIST's conclusions.

That is not an isolated example. femr2 has consistently refused to explain how his analysis could affect NIST's conclusions.

femr2 prefers to discuss minutiae. It is conceivable that femr2 may eventually stumble across some minutiae that could affect one of NIST's many conclusions, but I have seen no signs that point in that direction.

[size=+1]Relevance of the minute differences between NIST's and femr2's analyses[/size]

As I have said, femr2's methods for extracting data points from video are better than NIST's, and several of femr2's related methods may also be better than NIST's. Note, however, that I distinguish data extraction from analysis of the extracted data.

femr2's analysis has been unimpressive. Although his analysis may improve upon NIST's in some ways, the fact that his analysis has thus far been irrelevant to NIST's conclusions implies that femr2's analysis is irrelevant to what ozeco41 would call the big picture. Although I respect ozeco41's belief that femr2's analysis has advanced ozeco41's personal understanding of what happened, it is safe to say that femr2's analysis has shown no sign of becoming relevant even within the specialized world of structural engineering.

Once again, it is conceivable that femr2's analysis could become relevant to the highly specialized community whose job is to care about this sort of minutiae, but that's unlikely because femr2 is going about it the wrong way. He's not going to write any scholarly papers, and he's not going to present his results at a relevant conference. He's not even going to defend whatever conclusions he may state within his final post at this forum.

 

[NoahFence]

We now know he does not intend to answer that question until his "final post" in this forum.

Thereby removing all possibility of actually discussing the answser that'll never come.

 

[BasqueArch]

I look forward to femr2's final post.


My conclusions are no more significant than femr2's.

Unlike femr2, I will respond to Oystein's specific questions:

My answers to those questions are in blue:

• Are the differences to NIST's analysis relevant? No.
• In particular, in what way does his data analysis warrant a change in NIST's conclusions? In no way.
• And finally: does this change go in the direction of making any conspiracy theory, such as explosive demolition, a more likely, or even the most likely explanation of ALL of the available observation? No.

I will now review some of the evidence for those blue answers, taking them in reverse order.

[SIZE=+1]Conspiracy theories[/SIZE]

When pressed to explain how his analysis might be related to some 9/11 conspiracy theory, femr2 said "demolition, or not."

femr2 has not said how his analysis would answer that question. We now know he does not intend to answer that question until his "final post" in this forum.

Fortunately, we can answer Oystein's question without waiting for femr2. We already have overwhelming evidence against deliberate demolition by any means other than hijacked aircraft, and no aspect of femr2's analysis even begins to hint at becoming a pale imitation of evidence for any alternative.

[SIZE=+1]NIST's conclusions[/SIZE]

femr2 demonstrated the irrelevance of his analysis to NIST's conclusions by posting a childish response to pgimeno's map of NIST's conclusions.

That is not an isolated example. femr2 has consistently refused to explain how his analysis could affect NIST's conclusions.

femr2 prefers to discuss minutiae. It is conceivable that femr2 may eventually stumble across some minutiae that could affect one of NIST's many conclusions, but I have seen no signs that point in that direction.

[SIZE=+1]Relevance of the minute differences between NIST's and femr2's analyses[/SIZE]

As I have said, femr2's methods for extracting data points from video are better than NIST's, and several of femr2's related methods may also be better than NIST's. Note, however, that I distinguish data extraction from analysis of the extracted data.

femr2's analysis has been unimpressive. Although his analysis may improve upon NIST's in some ways, the fact that his analysis has thus far been irrelevant to NIST's conclusions implies that femr2's analysis is irrelevant to what ozeco41 would call the big picture. Although I respect ozeco41's belief that femr2's analysis has advanced ozeco41's personal understanding of what happened, it is safe to say that femr2's analysis has shown no sign of becoming relevant even within the specialized world of structural engineering.

Once again, it is conceivable that femr2's analysis could become relevant to the highly specialized community whose job is to care about this sort of minutiae, but that's unlikely because femr2 is going about it the wrong way. He's not going to write any scholarly papers, and he's not going to present his results at a relevant conference. He's not even going to defend whatever conclusions he may state within his final post at this forum.

Top notch summary by an experienced professional.
Anything I would add would subtract.

 

[ozeco41]

...I'd really like to learn yours, ozeco's, WDC's, Basque Arch's, Major_Tom's, etc.

My position is:
The "big picture" for the Twin Towers is that collapse resulted from combination of either two or three factors. viz

1. Aircraft Impact damage;
2. accumulating damage from unfought fires; AND
3. possible human assistance if ever the evidence and argument could be presented to show such assistance.

Note I regard it as wrong in any argument to pre-judge "no human assistance" - reasons should be obvious. However I currently hold to no CD because:

• No technical argument based on evidence has been advanced for MIHOP;
• My own analysis says explosive OR incendiary assistance was not needed;
• Independent of the technical arguments the security and logistic aspects make MIHOP to all practical purposes impossible.

My attitude towards NIST is also relevant:

• I have never relied on NIST conclusions because my early (2007-2008) Internet debates often involved conspiracy supporters who could not decide whether their objective was "prove demolition" or "prove NIST wrong". So I set out to explain how the collapses occured without CD (Later "without MIHOP") without reliance on NIST findings.;
• My own position is that given the complexity of all three collapses I do not demand that NIST guarantee 100% accuracy in identifying the key mechanisms - viz the collapse initiation mechanisms for WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
• I am satisfied that NIST has suggested plausible explanations and that is good enough for me;
• Therefore it would not concern me much if femr2 or any other person was to identify (say) a core led scenario for WTC1 or WTC2 initiation.

One of the main issues of discussion process that I find tiresome is those people who personally espouse a "global position" that "impact damage and unfought fires caused the collapses and I am not interested in anything until you try to introduce CD". Such persons:
(1) fail to recognise that investigation of alternate mechanisms within that global setting is a legitimate pursuit for many of us who are interested in how it happened THEN
(2) set out to repeatedly insult and abuse femr2 because he has interests different to theirs and will not toe their line.

Investigation of details is a legit pursuit for those who are interested and those who have no interest in details should simply stay out of the kitchen.

At some risk of pointing out the obvious....

..my "position" or "conclusion" is mine and neither relies on nor requires me to denigrate femr2.

 

[Oystein]

Correct. That post highlights issues with NIST conclusions.


Here is a post of yours responding to such.

Uhm - ya. My reading was that your analysis does NOT change any NIST conclusions wrt any CT: You "debunk" something that the NIST report, as it is, already debunks.

Nothing needs to be changed as a result of your work.

...
An answer to that question will be the final post I make within this forum.

As I've said lord-knows how many times...I'm not happy with the NIST report. When my *analysis* is complete, I'll present conclusions (if there any that I think are especially significant). Until then, stop asking. I'll let you know Again, I'll simply IGNORE repeated calls to answer the same question. End of. ...

As I said a little earlier:
"I thus concluded that you are not personally interested in pursuing that topic, and accepted it."

...Where ?

The titles of your youtube videos (last time I checked).

Your personal definition of *real* conclusions is your own affair. I've stated my position on numerous NIST conclusions. If you don't like that, no offence, but tough luck I'm afraid.

I haven't said it often, but I have said it, that improving on NIST's data and data analysis is cool, and I am not protesting it. In fact I commend you for that effort. It's just that, the way I see it today, I have little hope that all that effort will change anything that is interesting to me. Yeah, I guess that is tough luck then.

 

[Oystein]

My position is:
The "big picture" for the Twin Towers is that collapse resulted from combination of either two or three factors. viz

1. Aircraft Impact damage;
2. accumulating damage from unfought fires; AND
3. possible human assistance if ever the evidence and argument could be presented to show such assistance.

Note I regard it as wrong in any argument to pre-judge "no human assistance" - reasons should be obvious. However I currently hold to no CD because:

• No technical argument based on evidence has been advanced for MIHOP;
• My own analysis says explosive OR incendiary assistance was not needed;
• Independent of the technical arguments the security and logistic aspects make MIHOP to all practical purposes impossible.

My attitude towards NIST is also relevant:

• I have never relied on NIST conclusions because my early (2007-2008) Internet debates often involved conspiracy supporters who could not decide whether their objective was "prove demolition" or "prove NIST wrong". So I set out to explain how the collapses occured without CD (Later "without MIHOP") without reliance on NIST findings.;
• My own position is that given the complexity of all three collapses I do not demand that NIST guarantee 100% accuracy in identifying the key mechanisms - viz the collapse initiation mechanisms for WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
• I am satisfied that NIST has suggested plausible explanations and that is good enough for me;
• Therefore it would not concern me much if femr2 or any other person was to identify (say) a core led scenario for WTC1 or WTC2 initiation.

One of the main issues of discussion process that I find tiresome is those people who personally espouse a "global position" that "impact damage and unfought fires caused the collapses and I am not interested in anything until you try to introduce CD". Such persons:
(1) fail to recognise that investigation of alternate mechanisms within that global setting is a legitimate pursuit for many of us who are interested in how it happened THEN
(2) set out to repeatedly insult and abuse femr2 because he has interests different to theirs and will not toe their line.

Investigation of details is a legit pursuit for those who are interested and those who have no interest in details should simply stay out of the kitchen.

At some risk of pointing out the obvious....

..my "position" or "conclusion" is mine and neither relies on nor requires me to denigrate femr2.

But - what about femr's video data analysis? Do you, at this point in time, see it reaching a state where any conclusions either by NIST or by this or that CT needs to be changed because of femr's video data analysis? On the level of detail and what not that you, ozeco, are interested in? Or has femr's video data analysis so far helped you to come to new or revised conclusions of your own?

Or is it too early for that? Should we maybe suggest to femr to stop debating his video data analysis for now, and come back when he is done?

 

[Oystein]

...
Unlike femr2, I will respond to Oystein's specific questions:

...

I will now review some of the evidence for those blue answers, taking them in reverse order.

[size=+1]Conspiracy theories[/size]
...
[size=+1]NIST's conclusions[/size]
...
[size=+1]Relevance of the minute differences between NIST's and femr2's analyses[/size]
...

Well written. Thanks, and duly noted

 

[NoahFence]

Why folk are so interested in my personal opinion, and yet constantly asserting that they know what it is, whilst calling me names or branding me in some way they hope to apply a derogatory meaning to...is beyond me

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to know what it is I'm looking at. I've asked several times quite rationally this or that question. Such as "what is it about observation X that I should be looking at to determine CD or Aircraft Impact / Fire"

or whatever.

You show a gif, and nothing in it illustrates a theory. A point. This is a discussion forum, is it not? Some of us would like to discuss. Theories. Thats all.

Its when you get on your condesending high horse that we have problems with. Today is the first day I've even seen you hint that you might eventually talk about it. Of course in so doing you made it quite clear you have no intention of discussing your conclusions.

So to summarize, for me, I'd like to know why what I'm looking at is supposed to contradict what I knew before the towers even hit the ground. If you could give me an actual date when you'll present your conclusion, again speaking just for me, I'll just skip this thread until then.

 

[ozeco41]

<tips hat>

As an additional note, in my opinion...my opinion on the final question is utterly irrelevant until the very end of any of my investigations/analysis/NIST checks/...

A related issue is the persistent criticism by some members - Beachnut for example - that your process is invalid because it does not state an explicit goal, from the outset.

Such goals or objectives are only appropriate to one form of investigation. There is an alternate - sometimes referred to as an heuristic process - "we will know what the end point is when we get there".