NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis

[BasqueArch]

Nope.

Yepper.

Correct. He was out of whack at the time. He chose to perform his calcs in a way that was innapropriate.

Will disagrees with you. My money is with Will.

Not quite. He estimated coefficients for a Poly10 curve fit, ignoring region of interest, which given that the NIST T₀ is a full second before that resulted in the early moments being massively skewed by early behaviour of the poly fit...which should have been cropped. Poly10 fit was a very old smoothing method used simply to show trend. Such has very little bearing on the accuracy of the actual trace data, which Will has freely stated is superior to that of NIST.

True. Will did say your actual trace data was superior to NIST's. It's not mathematics though, it's mining accurate data from video. I don't know if this is true.

You're talking about a curve fit I didn't perform, using innapropriate time range, not the accuracy of "my data". Will even highlights the T0 difference, but still chose to start earlier. Tsk, tsk. Sorry. Try again.

Will and Myriad disagree with you. My money is with Will and Myriad.

Not my paramaters.

That’s what Will began with and you didn’t disagree.

NIST's stage 1 profile is pants.

?
And your stage 1 profile is what … knee high stockings?

If you want another viewpoint, other than mine, as you clearly have issues there, how about tfk...

Doesn't seem to resemble the NIST acceleration profile determined by deriving their function for velocity...

Oh, what a quandary

I don’t know where this came from. Accompanying text? Is this graphic-mined?

LOL. I wrote much of it I'm fully aware of its contents.

No mistake then, intentional or memory loss explains these obstinate errors.

It's pretty clear you haven't looked at this in much detail. Simultaneous ? Er, no. "Kink" is not a good word to use in this context.

The building experienced flexure, lesser of course, for years prior to descent without columns "falling down".

Umm… ok, I can change, how about “flexure”.

“Erroneous, video shows NIST NE wall fall simultaneous with flexure.”

Also please notify MT, you and him have got me all confused.
MT repeatedly refers to "the kink."
Flexure due to wind was very small, this collapsing flexure was much greater, as MT insists, the result of a collapsing building, a matter of degree. Don’t blame you though. Not being an architect or structural engineer it would be difficult for you to tell the difference. Two aspirin, headache gone- 1000 aspirin, dead as a door nail.

Must be magic

It’s the only explanation for those who don’t know what’s going on.

You're not going to get data of higher quality than I have provided.

Sure I can, or rather others could. You left out data margin of error position, time calculations, compounded by position with time and its MOE graphing bands. Even greater for acceleration lines. This would tell you what data outliers to reasonably discard and whether or not >FFA was achieved.

For additional information, look at the comparison between the velocity profiles (with the NIST T0 shifted 1s as appropriate)...

Ok.

And, of course, make sure you remember that the NW corner is not a wandering position nearish the East side of the louvers.

I knew that. I stated it so. Why are you confused?

Were you expecting them to behave in exactly the same way ?

No Mr Bond, I expect you ....
No. NIST’s measure near column 44 was at the beginning of the collapse, with different dynamic loading than at the end of the core collapse at the NW column. I don’t expect you could recognize this structural engineering difference, though.

 

[femr2]

Yepper.

Deary me.

Firstly, you may be surprised to know (as it's obvious you didn't really bother to look at the links of my stage 1 critique) that my derived data plots have little to do with that critique...making it even more blatantly obvious that your intent is simply to "debunk" femr2 rather than have something useful to say.

Shame really.

There is use of displacement trace data to highlight early motion, of course, but very little derived data usage, or even much usage of my data AT ALL.

It's a critique of the NIST data, and their analysis of such. Try actually reading the linked posts. Then, if you disagree with any of the content, by all means say so. Said posts summarised...

Visual Stage 1
NIST Trace Method Critique
Detailed NIST Stage 1 Critique
Early Motion
Precision of subpixel tracing
Replicating the sum of four decaying modes determined by NIST
Derivation of NIST's displacement linear fit derivation for velocity
What the NIST data actually relates to

I suggest that, if you really want to discuss "femr2 data derivations" that you do it in a more relevant thread. You're digging a hole here in the wrong field.

Will disagrees with you. My money is with Will.

Unwise.

Will did say your actual trace data was superior to NIST's.

I know. It is.

It's not mathematics though, it's mining accurate data from video.

The comparison you linked to was fatally flawed, for reasons I've already told you.

I don't know if this is true.

Clearly. If you'd actually even read the post you linked to, you'd not have that problem.

Will and Myriad disagree with you. My money is with Will and Myriad.

So you said. Yay for blind faith

That’s what Will began with and you didn’t disagree.

ROFL. I state so in the post immediately afterwards man. Get a grip.

I don’t know where this came from.

You should if you are commenting with such "surety" on this subject

Accompanying text?

Whole threads of it matey.

Umm… ok, I can change, how about “flexure”.

“Erroneous, video shows NIST NE wall fall simultaneous with flexure.”

I won't laugh.

Flexure due to wind was very small, this collapsing flexure was much greater

But !!! Wait !!! "Wall can't move sideways without columns falling down.". Eleventy.

as MT insists

MT is not part of this discussion.

Sure I can, or rather others could.

By what method are you (or anyone else) going to extract sub-pixel accurate data from the available video base with higher quality than I have done ?

Stop wasting my time with this nonsense. If you want to discuss the specific elements you are mentioning, then the source thread is the place to do so, and I shall go into hugely boring and methodical detail to show you where you are, er, veering astray.

The sky is blue

 

[BasqueArch]

I won't waste my time either.

NIST Stage 1 data (the initial vertical movement near the NE side of the north wall), Chandler's data (NW corner), femr2's data (NW corner) all agree that the initial period of fall is less than FFA, so no, NIST did not "blow" WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

NIST's conclusions for the causes of the collapses of WTC1,2,7 remain correct.

 

[femr2]

NIST Stage 1 data (the initial vertical movement near the NE side of the north wall), Chandler's data (NW corner), femr2's data (NW corner) all agree that the initial period of fall is less than FFA, so no, NIST did not "blow" WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

So, ignore all the critique of their data and method...then conclude that because 3 separate datasets by three separate entities show three different things...NIST done gooood !?

Awesome. Way to go

 

[LashL]

I moved a bunch of off topic posts to Abandon All Hope. While the content of them is otherwise fine, the topic of this thread is not "7WTC was a deliberate demolition". So, feel free to resurrect those posts, if you wish, in an appropriate existing thread on that subject.

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

 

[Spanx]

I moved a bunch of off topic posts to Abandon All Hope. While the content of them is otherwise fine, the topic of this thread is not "7WTC was a deliberate demolition". So, feel free to resurrect those posts, if you wish, in an appropriate existing thread on that subject.

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

Thanks Lashl. I kind of thought that would happen.

As for the other person in question. I would imagine that he will think its part of a government cover up

 

[Spanx]

Thanks Lashl. I kind of thought that would happen.

As for the other person in question. I would imagine that he will think its part of a government cover up

Yep

 

[BasqueArch]

So, ignore all the critique of their data and method...

I didn't, and was getting into it until you put on your "Help I'm being sky is blue offtopic debunked!" cloak.

V V V
​

.....
...making it even more blatantly obvious that your intent is simply to "debunk" femr2 rather than have something useful to say....
I suggest that, if you really want to discuss "femr2 data derivations" that you do it in a more relevant thread. You're digging a hole here in the wrong field.
Stop wasting my time with this nonsense. If you want to discuss the specific elements you are mentioning, then the source thread is the place to do so,
.....The sky is blue

...then conclude that because 3 separate datasets by three separate entities show three different things...NIST done Good !?

I concluded that because 3 separate datasets by three separate entities show three same things - Stage 1<FFA...NIST done Right.

Awesome. Way to go

Resist the urge to type most, type last.
Thank you

 

[Major_Tom]

NIST's conclusions for the causes of the collapses of WTC1,2,7 remain correct.

Thanks, BasqueArch.

This is an excellent summary of not only your beliefs, but of many other regular posters on this forum.

If one could summarize the underlying beliefs expressed in the entire history of this subforum in one sentence, this small statement is as good as it gets.

I am not teasing you by saying this. It is not easy to formulate so many years of posting in one sentence. It takes an acute observer to do this, someone who can feel the pulse underlying so many different threads and different posters.

I do not think anyone is capable of stating it better than this.

 

[femr2]

Stage 1<FFA...NIST done Right.

We clearly have differing standards.

 

[Oystein]

We clearly have differing standards.

Could this be due to differing objectives?

 

[carlitos]

Bingo. First, have a goal. This is paramount in achieving your goal. It's hard to succeed when you have no purpose, no objective.

 

[femr2]

First, have a goal.

The goal was to identify issues with the NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

Fill your boots...

Visual Stage 1
NIST Trace Method Critique
Detailed NIST Stage 1 Critique
Early Motion
Precision of subpixel tracing
Replicating the sum of four decaying modes determined by NIST
Derivation of NIST's displacement linear fit derivation for velocity
What the NIST data actually relates to

Where is yours ?

 

[ozeco41]

...NIST's conclusions for the causes of the collapses of WTC1,2,7 remain correct.

This is an excellent summary of not only your beliefs, but of many other regular posters on this forum.

True Major_Tom. BUT don't neglect to observe that the (apparently) opposite viewpoint..

...NIST's conclusions for the causes of the collapses of WTC1,2,7 are wrong.

is also flawed in similar ways. And the flaws go beyond the obvious issue that global claims will almost certainly be false.

We clearly have differing standards.

Sure - and that is a key part of the apparent difference. There are "two sides" in effect claiming "black versus white" when reality is shades of grey. The two central issues to my observation - seem to be:
1) What level of precision is needed for any specific purpose or audience. Some purposes need higher accuracy than others Demands for near perfection being unnecessary in some cases whilst "near enough" approximations may not be "good enough"; AND
2) Issues from errors or mistakes of method - and the two can overlap - they are not mutually exclusive. The only thing they seem to share is the reluctance of opponents holding polarised views to actually address the reality that needs/objectives differ.

Could this be due to differing objectives?

You said it Oystein.

 

[carlitos]

The goal was to identify issues with the NIST WTC7 Stage 1 Analysis.

For the purpose of _________?

If "NIST-bashing" is your goal, that's fine. But you'll never finish.

 

[ozeco41]

Bingo. First, have a goal. This is paramount in achieving your goal. It's hard to succeed when you have no purpose, no objective.

Spot on but be aware of one big risk - the one beachnut repeatedly makes on the issue of goals or objectives.

The goal does not have to be a fixed predetermined target in the military style. The goal of "lets head down this path and see where the analysis leads" is also a valid goal. Finding out what is going on is a valid goal.

A lot of controversy could have been avoided if members had kept both forms of objectives in mind.

 

[femr2]

TSure - and that is a key part of the apparent difference. There are "two sides" in effect claiming "black versus white" when reality is shades of grey.

The greyness was discussed way back in June

I've simply stated BasquArch and I have differing standards immediately after he revealed the level to which his standards are set.

 

[ozeco41]

For the purpose of _________?...

Precisely....

A) Why are you doing it? and
B) Is your target a fixed endpoint objective or a heuristic i.e. a discoverable or "lets see what we find" style of goal?

So lets see what the OP "purpose" was (with me avoiding the words "goal" or "objective" ):

I've set up this thread for achimspok & uglypig to make their arguments that NIST blew the calculation of the Stage 1 of WTC7 collapse.
....make some statement, after you've made your cases, as to how your interpretation of the timing impacts the question of "CD vs. no CD", or "inside job vs. outside job".

So tfk set two targets:
1) "Why do achimspok and uglypig thin NIST blew the analysis"; AND
2) "please link that to the two big ticket questions".

At that stage we have no indication as to whether either achim or ugly had made that linkage NOR whether femr shared their views.

In the second post Oystein moved to get somewhat better focus on the issues of fact and issues of processing methods.

...Oh, and yes, it would be nice if both would be open about where they currently stand with regard to the "big picture" of what caused the collapse. But beware of unnecessary conflation.

Note the wisdom of the caution in that last sentence. Remember how many false accusations have been floated around this sub forum when people who are addressing detail issues of research have been accused of sins such as "trying to back in CD". Better to avoid that nonsense if we can.

Your final comment:

...If "NIST-bashing" is your goal, that's fine. But you'll never finish.

Is sort of appropriate. How often 9/11 arguments get lost between two objectives of:
a) Understanding the Towers collapses; OR
b) Proving NIST was wrong.

To commandeer Oystein's words for an equally valid observation "...beware of unnecessary conflation."

Even if every observation made by NIST was wrong it cannot affect the reality of what happened on 9/11. No report written years later can change the actual physical events of history.

 

[ozeco41]

The greyness was discussed way back in June

I've simply stated BasquArch and I have differing standards immediately after he revealed the level to which his standards are set.

Understood. I think I understand where you are coming from and the implicit drift of topic in BA's comments. I was deliberately not going into that territory so did not comment on either of the viewpoints. So I did not comment on yours OR the deja vu of people going over old ground.

In my opinion - expressed many times on various forums - the issues of objective setting and appropriate setting of "good enough" standards are not adequately understood. However experience tells me that attempting to discuss those matters does not get much support.

 

[BasqueArch]

delete