Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[beachnut]

A very odd thing to say.

What would, in your opinion, the data be able to show in terms of *blast effects* ?

And how does the data, in your opinion, show no *blast effects* ?

Movement (flexing) clearly occurs before the start of the Cam#3 clip I have available at this time. I will be looking at the full 7 minute version as and when it surfaces. Whether that will provide any useful information is yet to be seen.

Not odd, it is a fact. But I am an engineer, are you?

Not an opinion, your data shows no blast effects. I thought that was your goal? It is clear. Maybe you can hire an engineer to help you, so you can see it. Are you an engineer yourself?

Gee Whiz, the Penthouse falls through the interior of WTC7, the interior of WTC7 is collapsing as you watch the facade. What were your goals again? Any sources/references for your methods? You need to study your data again; it proves no blast effects. This is a study; right?

 

[femr2]

Beachnut,

You said *Your data shows no blast effects.*.

As per usual, you throw these kind of statements around with the suggestion that you know what you are talking about.

I rather suspect you have absolutely no idea how to answer my simple questions, namely...

1) What would, in your opinion, the data be able to show in terms of *blast effects* ?

2) And how does the data, in your opinion, show no *blast effects* ?

I rather suspect you'll avoid answering the questions again, and go off on a normal tangent, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if you do actually answer.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut,

You said *Your data shows no blast effects.*.

As per usual, you throw these kind of statements around with the suggestion that you know what you are talking about.

I rather suspect you have absolutely no idea how to answer my simple questions, namely...

1) What would, in your opinion, the data be able to show in terms of *blast effects* ?

2) And how does the data, in your opinion, show no *blast effects* ?

I rather suspect you'll avoid answering the questions again, and go off on a normal tangent, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if you do actually answer.

Your data shows no blast effects. It is a fact. If you don't see it too bad; you seem to be stuck on single points and tracking them. You are watching a tree as the forest is destroyed, and you missed it.

My parents wanted me to become an engineer, I wanted to fly; the USAF wanted BOTH! Sorry you never went to engineering school, never got your masters in engineering, I did. I learned from experience how to do research and use data to make rational conclusions. You are failing to learn from your data because you don't have experience in research projects and it shows. The big clue you are wandering aimlessly, you have no goal. You missed the no blast effects. I have seen your data, and it shows no blast effects. I think you have not studied your data, and are lost on the nonsensical details that lead to nothing.

Please show me with your data the blast effects. I have used your data and it proves no blast effects. Please show me wrong; if you want details you can buy them; I am an engineer, I don't give out free research, I need the money to build more speakers.

Like your failure to use the data you had on flight 175 to figure out why the tracking Internet software showed 175 flying somewhere else. The 175 data you collected explained why the tracking software could diverge from the REAL RADAR data; but you missed it. You now have data, presented a bunch of stuff, and failed to see no blast effects. Try harder!

Go ahead make my day, show with your data blast effects. Darn, i just proved no blast effects again, because you can't show blast effects. Are you implying you can show blast effects? Does this mean you are not a thermite guy, or do you think thermite can produce blast effects? How did you miss this in your own data collection? Too much data?

 

[femr2]

Your data shows no blast effects. It is a fact.

I have seen your data, and it shows no blast effects.

Please show me with your data the blast effects.

I have used your data and it proves no blast effects.

Please show me wrong; if you want details you can buy them; I am an engineer, I don't give out free research, I need the money to build more speakers.

You now have data, presented a bunch of stuff, and failed to see no blast effects.

show with your data blast effects.

Darn, i just proved no blast effects again, because you can't show blast effects.

Are you implying you can show blast effects?

Wow. What an insight into your, er, trail of thought.
Seriously, take a break mate. Hit the beach. Do something fun. Build some speakers.

 

[beachnut]

Wow. What an insight into your, er, trail of thought.
Seriously, take a break mate. Hit the beach. Do something fun. Build some speakers.

You may have a target fixation problem. Trying to prove something you can't do; your unknown goal. You may be so fixated on one goal (the secret purpose of your study) you failed to see what the data does reveal.

I did take a break, I put in another section of irrigation system for the yard and I do have a beach right here in my yard. I am building some speakers, selecting the wood, it is fun getting my grandkids to see real engineering with real goals; defined goals. They like the beach also, and love building speakers.

It is your data; you better try again. What was your goal and expected outcome? Your data shows no blast effects. You better try harder if you want to prove that fact is not true. Are you saying your data does show blast effects? Or does your data not show blast effects? I can prove no blast effects with your data, why can't you? You might have a problem understanding what your data is. You had the same problem when you studied flight 175.

 

[femr2]

I've been playing with femr's data from WTC7 for a while.

Specifically, I've been looking at the calculations of 1st & 2nd derivatives of the data.

The really interesting part (to me) has been the enormous impact on the calculated velocity & acceleration that results from the simple act of increasing the sampling rate.

Can I assume you now understand that the treatment of data noise and the methods employed are the critical factors for any data containing noise when performing first and second order derivations, rather than an increase in noise from increased sample rate ?

People have said before that "computers are the fast way known to generate errors." This may be the purest implementation of that adage that I've ever seen.

Normally a problem between keyboard and seat imo. In this context, use of inappropriate techniques can result in significant amplification of pre-existing data noise, but there is no *generation of error*.

I'd like to request that everyone (including me) keep this thread to the engineering. There are plenty of other places that we can express our dissatisfaction with each of our perceptions of the other side's politics, agendas, etc.

Here, let's stick to engineering, please.

Still a problem keeping the noise level down, isn't it.

Femr, one of the critical questions that we've argued about is your claimed "sub-pixel resolution", as produced by the SynthEyes program.

And now ?

Here's a simple test.

Please pick some points on some other buildings (not WTC7) that have definable points that are comparable (in size, distance, spatial frequency & contrast) to the points on WTC7 that you've tracked, and provide tracings of those feature for several seconds. A couple of tracings of near-to-each-other features (one on WTC7 and one nearby in the frame, but on another building) would be very useful.

Provided.

Presumably, that point on that building will be stationary.

Not entirely, as you now know.

If there are no "sub-pixel" jumping up & down in those traces, it'll go a long way to showing that the bouncing signal are at least associated with WTC7. Perhaps schlieren effects from heat, if not actual motion of the building.

And your viewpoint now ?

However, if the signal from a non-impacted building is bouncing just like the WTC7 signal is, then it's pretty clear that source of the trace noise is from some other source. Perhaps the software algorithms.

Do you understand now ? I assume you were looking at jitter for *bounce* and are clear on the extremely low noise level introduced by SE itself (0.0625px)

 

[femr2]

Tom,

Noticed your usage of the trace data in another thread, with reference to your derived acceleration data for the Dan Rather viewpoint...

My version looks slightly different, and the animation shows the effect of increase in order of the poly fit (steps of 2 if I recall)...

...but essentially similar to yours. I think that the animation shows that significant increase in order does not significantly change the shape of the graph, and so would suggest my version is a little *truer* to reality.

Are we now at the point where you are prepared to accept the validity of the tracing methods to make such observations ?

I'd add that, as our graphs are not exactly the same, there is still the need to refine/agree the derivation process such that the results are more in agreement/*common*.

I also note your mention of scaling. Without further building metric data there is little I can do to improve the scaling metrics. They are *as good as I can do* if you will. If you can improve them, by all means do so.

 

[femr2]

As I see you are active in other threads, I'll asume, unless you indicate otherwise, your non-participation in this thread indicates concession of the following...


a) Positional trace data accurately reflects movement of the traced feature.

b) Scaling metrics are accurate enough for fit-for-purpose usage (such as you using your derived acceleration data to make your point)

c) The data in the current video is plenty accurate enough to answer any of the questions that are significant. (your words)

d) All methods used by either of us do not introduce error, but rather, if poor or inappropriate techniques are used, can amplify inherent noise in the data.

I find it encouraging that you (and others) are now using trace data to determine more accurate observations.

There have been far too many instances in the past of folk making claims about building feature movement without using measurement techniques which enable specific answers to be determined.

Reviewing such claims using the tracing techniques will allow clarification of their validity.

That, after all, is the purpose.

Please let me know of any further observations you make utilising such data, and feel free to request additional pertinent traces.

 

[femr2]

Okay, time to chuck a *claim* or two in the pot then...

onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake

Feature tracing of the Sauret footage indicates that movement of WTC 1 began in close correlation to the camera shake, ~9.5s in advance of *release* of the upper section.

There are also numerous visual events which occur on the building itself at that time.

I suggest the camera shake and the tower events are related.

Comments ?

 

[carlitos]

I think that the camera was blown around by a close-flying helicopter. You can hear it if you listen closely.

ETA - As Lefty posted here.

 

[femr2]

I think that the camera was blown around by a close-flying helicopter. You can hear it if you listen closely.

ETA - As Lefty posted here.

As I responded to here.

Here's the horizontal motion during the camera shake...

...and the vertical...

May I suggest that you actually look in detail at events before accepting the vague suggestions of others.

I have no problem with you saying it may be caused by a helicopter, as I'm sure it's not something you've looked at in any detail yet.

There are, however, many other correlated events and factors which lead me to suggest otherwise.

I suggest you begin by reading the thread linked here.

I will then begin the process of listing out the numerous events which correlate to the camera shake, and go into more detail about the behaviour of the shake itself.

 

[pgimeno]

Have you correlated the shake with any seismic data activity?

As I responded to here.

The link doesn't work.

 

[femr2]

Have you correlated the shake with any seismic data activity?

No. There are so many grey-variables in latching the seismic data to a specific time that it becomes very unwieldy, especially with poor quality graphs being the only data I've seen.

If the numeric seismic data is available, I'd be happy to do so. (or high fidelity graphs I suppose)

The link doesn't work.

Not really any different to my response above, but...

Try this.

 

[carlitos]

As I responded to here.

Here's the horizontal motion during the camera shake...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/26055033.jpg[/qimg]
...and the vertical...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/68321176.png[/qimg]

May I suggest that you actually look in detail at events before accepting the vague suggestions of others.

I have no problem with you saying it may be caused by a helicopter, as I'm sure it's not something you've looked at in any detail yet.

There are, however, many other correlated events and factors which lead me to suggest otherwise.

I suggest you begin by reading the thread linked here.

I will then begin the process of listing out the numerous events which correlate to the camera shake, and go into more detail about the behaviour of the shake itself.

Right. "I think it was" is so much different than saying "it may be a helicopter." Thank you Mr. Pedant.

I hope you will be including the obvious helicopter in your list of "events." I had already read that thread you linked before I posted, so I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise.

Perhaps you think that your diagrams somehow rebut what I said. I have no idea on what you base this belief, as it certainly isn't evident in reading your post. How do trace analyses of visual elements rebut a sound? Can you please elaborate?

 

[femr2]

Right. "I think it was" is so much different than saying "it may be a helicopter." Thank you Mr. Pedant.

As I said, I have no issue with you suggesting it may (or you think) it was a helicopter. I suggested looking in more detail as your justification for what you think it may be looked like it may solely be the suggestion from Lefty, which, without further justification, is a bit hand-wavy, imo.

I hope you will be including the obvious helicopter in your list of "events."

Again, I have no issue with the suggestion, and will be focussing on presenting the other events on the tower which correlate, which clearly will not be caused by the proximity of the helicopter to the camera.

Perhaps you think that your diagrams somehow rebut what I said.

Not at all, simply to indicate that the event has been looked at in more detail than...can hear helicopter, therefore must be that.

The request was to look at the linked thread, which begins the process of highlighting movement of the tower beginning at that time.

I have no idea on what you base this belief, as it certainly isn't evident in reading your post. How do trace analyses of visual elements rebut a sound? Can you please elaborate?

Please read the linked thread, and then we can progress.

 

[carlitos]

As I said, I have no issue with you suggesting it may (or you think) it was a helicopter. I suggested looking in more detail as your justification for what you think it may be looked like it may solely be the suggestion from Lefty, which, without further justification, is a bit hand-wavy, imo.

Your opinion is noted. I looked in detail. I reject your assertion.

Again, I have no issue with the suggestion, and will be focussing on presenting the other events on the tower which correlate, which clearly will not be caused by the proximity of the helicopter to the camera.

I am sure that you will focus on extreme levels of detail, while excluding relevant facts and "the big picture," as you do in all of your analyses. You will prove nothing, accomplish nothing, and do nothing more than waste time and energy.

Not at all, simply to indicate that the event has been looked at in more detail than...can hear helicopter, therefore must be that.

You just made up "must," right? I said "I think" and you presumed "may be" but really you're just grasping at straws here.

The request was to look at the linked thread, which begins the process of highlighting movement of the tower beginning at that time.

You insist upon looking at details in a vacuum. You insist upon rejecting half the information contained in a video, which you "analyze" to death. I reject your approach. As my mom would say, tough cookies.

Please read the linked thread, and then we can progress.

Done. Nothing changes based on reading that thread. As I have said previously regarding your "analyses," you are counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. You are full of crap. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[femr2]

I reject your assertion.

What assertion ?

Are you stating that it is incorrect to suggest that movement of the tower begins in close correlation to the camera shake ?

(It's the red/black line you want to be-a looking at btw. The camera shake begins around frame 1150.)

You would have thought that folk such as yourself would be rather pleased to see an accurate method utilised which shows movement ~9.5s in advance of release of the upper section.

So are you rejecting that too ?

 

[Dog Town]

Good Lord F2 cut to the freaken chase! Do you really require this much attention, to get your work completed?

 

[alienentity]

Are you stating that it is incorrect to suggest that movement of the tower begins in close correlation to the camera shake ?

I'd like to suggest that it is a meaningless correlation. Who knows what caused the camera to be disturbed - maybe, while filming this static shot for long periods of time, somebody moved over close to it, maybe they were eating a ham sandwich and got careless.

Sure, you can use software to 'trace' the movements. So what? I fail to see what possible insight of value is ever going to come from this.

Whatever floats your boat; if you just plain love to dig into every minute detail for the sake of it, go right ahead. Is it interesting and particularly relevant? Not in this case, it isn't.

What I would love to see you do is measure some real controlled demolitions with your methods and determine what the acceleration plots look like. Then we could use them to compare to the 3 WTC collapses...especially if you'd include WTC 2, which seems to be permanently off the radar with the Szamboti/Major_Tom crowd.

Just a thought.

 

[alienentity]

Oh dear - I just read thru the 'Seismic Events' thread and saw what prompted this latest offering from Femr2.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the spectacle of people claiming to measure gigantic explosions which didn't make any sound. This cannot be either sane or honest inquiry, I'm sorry. It's unacceptable to me.