Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[W.D.Clinger]

I made a formal argument using propositional logic. I entered your propositions, and the result is clear: If your premises are valid, you prove there wasn't an intentional demolition.

People can train themselves to ignore familiar sounds. When Major_Tom hears a whoosh, he doesn't even flinch.

From 11 days ago:

Do known demolitions attain such accelerations? Have you ever bothered to check? Obviously not. How could you not have noticed that these accelerations are outside the range of known demolitions for years? Because it is much easier to think you know than it is to verify or even think.

Without ever checking, from where does your false confidence spring? You seem to believe that you believe. Even though measured demolitions do not come close to g accelerations, little facts like that don't seem to penetrate the fog.

If your highlighted statements are indeed facts, then the collapse of WTC7 was not a demolition.

....Your highlighted statements are alleged facts whose truth, as a matter of logic, would imply my opinion and would also refute the widespread Truther narratives that portray WTC7's collapse as some kind of demolition.

 

[Oystein]

People can train themselves to ignore familiar sounds. When Major_Tom hears a whoosh, he doesn't even flinch.

From 11 days ago:

Modus Tollens.
It's literally Logic 101.
About the third lesson you take in your very first logic class.

It follows that Major_Tom has never taken a lesson in logic.

 

[Major_Tom]

Accelerations over even known demolitions prove there was no intentional demolition. This is what passes for logic.

Thank you. A most sincere thanks for these exchanges. It has been refreshing and so revealing for me.

I joke not when I say I have sincerely enjoyed watching the group think together.

You've answered any questions I have had about JREF beyond expectation.

This is even better than the exchanges with TFK.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

People can train themselves to ignore familiar sounds. When Major_Tom hears a whoosh, he doesn't even flinch.

From 11 days ago:

Modus Tollens.
It's literally Logic 101.
About the third lesson you take in your very first logic class.

It follows that Major_Tom has never taken a lesson in logic.

We can conclude more than that.

Lots of people are able to reason logically, even though they have no formal training in logic. As Major_Tom continues to demonstrate, he is not one of them.

 

[Oystein]

Accelerations over even known demolitions prove there was no intentional demolition. This is what passes for logic.

Thank you. A most sincere thanks for these exchanges. It has been refreshing and so revealing for me.

I joke not when I say I have sincerely enjoyed watching the group think together.

You've answered any questions I have had about JREF beyond expectation.

You failed to address any and all points raised against your nonsense.
You have failed to apply logic.
You run away from arguments and declare yourself a winner for your bare-assed pronouncements.

You have revealed yourself as either a charlatan or a really dumb person now, if you haven't done so before.

Debating anything beyond 7th grade curriculum with you is pointless.


You fail on Modus Tollens? There is no telling how many other easy things you will fail on.

ETA: Major Tom, please lookup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
Try to formulate your reasoning viz. freefall and intentional demolitions in terms of propositional logic, and try to apply any modus you see fit to deduce logically what your propositions imply.
Go!

 

[tsig]

Pgimeno, I understand that you sincerely believe this.

Is there anyone else besides Pgimeno that sees this acceleration profile for a large building to be normal and expected?

Any other evidence of it besides that wonderful video by Pgimeno?

This is about as far as you've come as a group by 2011? And is this the same type of logic that was used to determine WTC7 fell naturally?

If so, guys, I think I've located the main problems with our discussions and debate:

1) Use of fake data
2) Lack of the capacity to critically analyze observations


This seems the heart of our whole imisunderstanding

Freudian slip?

 

[tsig]

Accelerations over even known demolitions prove there was no intentional demolition. This is what passes for logic.

Thank you. A most sincere thanks for these exchanges. It has been refreshing and so revealing for me.

I joke not when I say I have sincerely enjoyed watching the group think together.

You've answered any questions I have had about JREF beyond expectation.

This is even better than the exchanges with TFK.

Yes, you have truly shown up the JREF for what it is.

 

[alienentity]

...
You've answered any questions I have had about JREF beyond expectation.

This is even better than the exchanges with TFK.

MT, you've contributed virtually nothing of value to the conversation, and Oystein is quite correct - you have effectively pwned yourself.

Your false air of superiority is not convincing anyone around here, I'm sorry to say..

 

[femr2]

Within this post I asserted that the NIST positional trace was started a period of time after the NIST T₀ due to rooftop structures still being visible and obscuring the roofline above Region B at that point in time...

Following claims from AlienEntity that I was saying a trace above Region B was not possible and repeated assertion of the above I highlighted that the NIST positional data contained within Figure 12-76 contains no datapoints between T=0 and T=0.86, by providing the following graph...


As the title and axis labels make clear, this graph shows the amount of time between each datapoint pair within Figure 12-76 as a Separation (s)/Datapoint-pair plot.

The first point on the graph above, datapoint pair 1, shows that the amount of time between the first Figure 12-76 datapoint (at T=0) and the next is 0.86s which can be confirmed by inspection of Figure 12-76 itself...

This detail was explained to AlienEntity on several occasions.

During the ensuing, er, discussion, AlienEntity made the following statements when repeatedly challenged that he wasn't reading the graph correctly:

• I can indeed read the graph. Don't be childish.
• Figure 12-76 in NCSTAR 1-9 doesn't look like the graph in your post!
• Uhm, using your own timescale (1second interval), unless you've graphed it incorrectly, datapoint 1 to datapoint 2 are about .6 seconds apart.
• Where is the datatapoint at T=0? Oh, it's missing. I checked 12-76 I see it is there in that graph.
• But the fact is you didn't plot the first datapoint at T=0. NIST does put their first point there in 12-76. You see? I really do understand.
• All data points are connected on the NIST graph, whereas yours is missing a red line to connect with the nonexistent first datapoint.
• Unlike the NIST data, which is presented with a black point for all the datapoints, yours omits the first one.
• ETA NIST calls theirs 'Velocity data points', you call yours 'datapoint pairs'. They are the same datapoints.
• 21 datapoints spread out in exactly the same time intervals in both graphs. Identical info, minus the displacement data.
• Hmm, and the datapoints just happen to be in the same positions as the NIST position/time graph?

AlienEntity is continuing to assert (in the previous post)...

I understand your graph perfectly.

This is clearly not the case.


AlienEntity,

Please take your time and review the above.

Please ensure that you understand the content of the graph.


I assert again that the NIST positional trace above region B was started at least 0.86 after T₀ as the rooftop buildings were still in place...and they recorded no positional data during that period.

The late start is still an issue, as the rooftop structures were still visible 0.86s after T₀ and so still obscuring the roofline.

This suggests that either the NIST positional trace was started using the rooftop structures, or the trace was performed manually.

AlienEntity,

You spent a couple of pages talking utter nonsense.

You have not yet acknowledged such, nor confirmed whether or not you have figured out that simple referenced graph.

 

[beachnut]

AlienEntity,

You spent a couple of pages talking utter nonsense.

You have not yet acknowledged such, nor confirmed whether or not you have figured out that simple referenced graph.

Have you figured out if your analysis supports Major Tom's claim the gravity collapse is an illusion to cover for some Satan like figure behind 911, as an inside job? How does your analysis support or reject Major Tom's claim of an inside job?

 

[DGM]

And if you cannot it shows you are just telling a story to fool yourself and others.

I think you need to turn this thought inward.


This thread is about femr2's video data. We were having what was turning out to be a productive discussion (in a small sense). Your posts are adding only noise. Femr2 to his credit is trying to keep this discussion on a technical track. You are pushing it into la-la land with your thinly vailed insinuations this data somehow suggest the NIST conclusion is wrong. Femr2 has repeatedly said that this is not the purpose of his work.

Why are you peeing in his pool?

 

[alienentity]

AlienEntity,

You spent a couple of pages talking utter nonsense.

Incorrect

You have not yet acknowledged such, nor confirmed whether or not you have figured out that simple referenced graph.

Point 1 - correct, I disagree with your phony contentions.
Point 2 - incorrect, I have confirmed that I do understand your poorly-marked graph.

Glad to be of help to you

 

[femr2]

Figure 12-76 in NCSTAR 1-9 doesn't look like the graph in your post! Not in my version anyway.

Of course it doesn't. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think it should.

Uhm, using your own timescale (1second interval), unless you've graphed it incorrectly, datapoint 1 to datapoint 2 are about .6 seconds apart.

You are suggesting that the axis on my graph is a time axis, when it's clearly labelled *Datapoint Pair*, and not only that, you are calculating that the separation between them (which is of course exactly half way, it not being a time axis) is about 0.6s, and not only that you just worked out a datapoint pair separation...on a graph showing datapoint pair separation time. Too funny.

Where is the datatapoint at T=0? Oh, it's missing. I checked 12-76 I see it is there in that graph.

Oh my many Gods. Total understanding lack much ? You are a funny guy. Inept, but funny.

Wasn't clear on yours because of that.

Oh THAT's why, is it ? Still don't get it though. ROFL.

But the fact is you didn't plot the first datapoint at T=0. NIST does put their first point there in 12-76.

You see? I really do understand.

I see, you really don't understand at all. Getting painful already.

I can indeed read the graph. Don't be childish.

Clearly not.

1) Unlike the NIST data, which is presented with a black point for all the datapoints, yours omits the first one.
2) All data points are connected on the NIST graph, whereas yours is missing a red line to connect with the nonexistent first datapoint.

Wow You're really smart, aren't you

I do give lectures and masterclasses

Hmm, and the datapoints just happen to be in the same positions as the NIST position/time graph?

ETA NIST calls theirs 'Velocity data points', you call yours 'datapoint pairs'. They are the same datapoints.

I see. You label it differently, so it's now different information. Wow.

ROFL right back atcha.

ROFL ? Indeed. LMAO.

21 datapoints spread out in exactly the same time intervals in both graphs.

The irony of this idiotic statement is quite extreme, you know. But you know how stupid it is already surely ?

why don't you take the time to make your graph clearer by plotting the T=0 point, which you left out, and tracing the red line (which you also omitted) from it to the 2nd datapoint? Unless you don't care about such details, of course...

That would be a pretty darned stupid thing to do, you know.

Now, rather than make accusations of *phony contentions*, simply fess-up that you got it wrong, said a few silly things and have now managed to read the graph correctly, and we can move on...

 

[DGM]

Oh my many Gods.

Someday we'll have to delve into this (not just yet)

 

[alienentity]

-snipped boring and irrelevant nitpicks and dodges-

Yawn, you really are just about the most tedious and boring....and irrelevant picker of nits that ever inhabited this space.

But keep making whatever non-points you wish, it's what you do....

 

[DGM]

.

For the record I agree.

(no "knee-jerk here but)
You agree with what? Personally I have no problem with femr2's data. I think his graphs are most likely geared to emphasizes the differences between his and NIST's data in a way that "proves" his analysis is superior to theirs. They are not models that can be used for anything other than showing what he has declared as "information only". He has not shown any interest in analysis of this data so, I do question the relevance.

I think femr2's raw data is better than NIST. I think this was because NIST saw no reason to do more than what they did because it has no bearing on their work. This whole argument comes down to one person (or group) considering this "free-fall" moment in time important. I would like them to explain why?

 

[ozeco41]

You agree with what?...

As per the context in which I posted - you started to press MT to come from the "big picture" downwards towards details. Starting with:

...Let's start here. Do you agree WTC7 was in fact on earth (specifically. NYC, USA)?

Whilst it was targeted at MT I happen to agree. WTC7 was on earth in NYC, USA.

Coming in from the "big picture" happens to be a favourite approach of mine.

 

[carlitos]

The funny thing is that MT doesn't use the quote function, which resulted in his response to "Do you agree WTC7 was in fact on earth (specifically. NYC, USA)?" and ozeco29 saying "I agree" being:

"Of course not."

 

[DGM]

Coming in from the "big picture" happens to be a favourite approach of mine.

I tend to go with the "big picture" myself. I only wish I could explain to femr2 that discovering the "big picture" gets harder if you view it one pixel at a time.

 

[femr2]

I see AlienEntity is not capable of honesty or admission of error. Tsk, tsk.

Interesting to note that none of you are prepared to criticise his inept mistakes. Very telling.