Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[Myriad]

Building tremor absorbtion behaviour would come into play, but, again, the focus here should really be on the tower behaviour rather than get into such, aiii ?

If the focus should be on the tower behavior, why are you focusing on the camera behavior?

To put it another way: by what plausible mechanisms could:

a) Shaking of a camera cause "events" on the tower?

b) "Events" on the tower cause shaking of a camera three quarters of a mile away with no generally observed tremor, shock wave, etc. elsewhere including in between?

c) Some event cause both shaking of the camera and "events" on the tower, again without significant observed phenomena in between?

Propose a plausible mechanism.

Numerous events on the tower coincide. How many would stretch the bounds of coincidence do you rekn ? Again, I'm simply saying they coincide.

Have you counted how many comparable events on the tower do not coincide? How do the events per second over the entire (say) final 20 seconds compare with events per second for the 2 seconds of shake? Since only you know at this point what constitutes a suitable "event," only you can run those numbers.

It's only misleading when you make assumptions. Here's the shake vertical and horizontal motions overlaid...

Thanks for the fix. It was misleading because common x axis scales is a reasonable assumption when time series graphs (with otherwise unlabeled x axes) are presented stacked on top of one another.

Based on the image size and stated distance, the shake does seem to have caused a "permanent" shift of the camera tilt by about 1/20th of a degree. That's the angle that a clock's minute hand moves in half a second. We're not talking about someone kicking a tripod; touching it gently with a fingertip is more likely. (I've taken telescope photos at similar magnification. One tries not to breathe on the camera.) Knowing that the shot was from three quarters of a mile away makes it very unlikely that this means anything at all.

Without a proposed mechanism for tower events causing camera shake or the other possibilities, I'm likely to lose interest in this. Sorry.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[femr2]

If the focus should be on the tower behavior, why are you focusing on the camera behavior?

I've suggested focus on the tower movement ~9.5s in advance of release of the upper section of WTC 1, what, 6, 7 times now ?

I'm fairly amenable, so when others focus on the shake, I'm inclined to answer.

Propose a plausible mechanism.

Any of the above, plus untold others. You can suggest additional possible factors ad infinitum if you please, but I'd rather simply say that, bearing in mind that's how I managed to find them, by looking at the shake, that events on the tower coincide with the period of time the camera shakes.

A factor to possibly consider to narrow correlation will be to determine the *seismic* time delay between tower and camera. Unlikely to be too fruitful, as the camera shake itself spans quite a long period of time, and so would mask the very slight tower movements which follow.

Thanks for the fix. It was misleading because common x axis scales is a reasonable assumption when time series graphs (with otherwise unlabeled x axes) are presented stacked on top of one another.

You're welcome. I always assume a graph without defined axes is arbitary in scale personally, but whatever. The new graph is there, and there was no intention to mislead.

Based on the image size and stated distance, the shake does seem to have caused a "permanent" shift of the camera tilt

Yes.

by about 1/20th of a degree

Haven't quantified it. Not sure how you will have done so, as the feature which shifts is on the building near to the camera, not the tower.

Do you still think a doppler shift is present ?

Without a proposed mechanism for tower events causing camera shake or the other possibilities, I'm likely to lose interest in this. Sorry.

Back to the start of the post...

I've suggested focus on the tower movement ~9.5s in advance of release of the upper section of WTC 1, what, 6, 7 times now ?

I'll probably still have a look at the seismic data, but there is clearly nothing there of large amplitude just prior to release. It is interesting how a significant portion of the camera shake during descent does not show up on the seismic chart, which may require a bit of thought. The camera shake is almost certainly due to the descent, but nothing much appears on the seismic data for quite a while. Hmm.

 

[femr2]

Hmm. Odd.

The seismic data, when overlaid upon the shake graphs horizontal motion, matches the first period of shake a lot better than that actually during descent...

No, I'm not saying it's an actual match, as I've only just had a quick 0.5-5Hz filter on the raw seismic data, but it's...odd.

The raw data includes the time, and it's 80 samples per second, not 40. The horizontal scaling used in the above image is therefore fairly accurate.

Notice also the correlation between the seismic data and the actual descent period.

Very, er, odd.

 

[Dog Town]

Hmm. Odd.

Come on MARSHA!

 

[carlitos]

I believe he made this post before he learned the camera was in 7 floors up in a building.

Ah. Never mind, I'm not going to waste any effort contacting Mr. Sauret. femr2 does this stuff instead of videogames or something, so he's going to "analyze" the irrelevant thing to death, with or without a reason or plausible explanation of relevance.

 

[Major_Tom]

Did any of the readers notice the part where points on the antenna and the NW corner of the building begin moving eastward just after the vibration of the camera?

I have seen a different poster measure the same phenomenon.

Points tracked on the antenna and along the NW corner begin move relative to static points just after the shake by achimspok.

High res at http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9873/sauretfulllengthl.png

Notice the deviation of the antenna and NW corner points from the static points labeled stick, window and a point on the 92nd floor.

He generated his data independently. Please read the similar results obtained by femr in the thread he linked to.

Horizontal movement begins 9.5 seconds before the initial column failure sequence, just after the camera shake.

The NW corner above floor 92 begins to be pulled inward while the antenna slowly tilts eastward and and then sag downward. All this happens before the collapse initiation visible to the naked eye.

 

[Major_Tom]

The same movement can be seen on the individual pixel level from about 4 seconds before visible collapse initiation.

This shows the antenna moving to to the east and down a bit over a 4 second period on a pixel level:

So even if you do not "believe" in sub-pixel tracking there is no excuse to not notice this movement.

Tracking on a sub-pixel level allows us to trace the earliest "creep' movement back 9.5 seconds before visible collapse initiation, which just happens to be immediately after the Sauret camera shake as the data shows.

The thread to which femr linked contains the detailed measurements.

 

[carlitos]

We have officially reached Bigfoot / UFO level proof of 9/11 malfeasance. Great job.

 

[femr2]

We have officially reached Bigfoot / UFO level proof of 9/11 malfeasance. Great job.

Interesting and disturbingly unfathomable at the same time.

In what context are you using the legal term *malfeasance* ?

I hazard a guess you simply don't understand what is being presented, but by all means explain...

Feel free to state exactly what it is that you object? to...

 

[carlitos]

Proof by blurry photo.

 

[Major_Tom]

The tail end of this movement is even visible to the naked eye.

Notice the inward movement of the NW corner and the downward movement of the antenna. If these points are traced back to the origin of detectable movement, the resulting graphs would be as they are traced at the link and graphs provided.

Carlitos, all source footage is available for download. If you bother to read the thread with the detailed measurements, you will see much more than here, but you have to overcome your inherent laziness and read all by yourself.

 

[pgimeno]

It is interesting how a significant portion of the camera shake during descent does not show up on the seismic chart, which may require a bit of thought.

Maybe the filtering is not adequate?

In this graph it is more or less visible: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/Collapse_2.jpg. The legend says: "Filter: B W 0.6 5 3 5". Not sure what that means exactly; I guess the first 0.6 5 means a bandpass from 0.6 to 5 Hz.

The camera shake is almost certainly due to the descent, but nothing much appears on the seismic data for quite a while. Hmm.

Maybe you can get to reproduce that latter graph? I was looking for something of that magnitude in the previous seconds.

Anyway, lacking any information of what kind of feature to search for, and any evident bump in the seismic data, unless someone shows a similar simultaneous shake in any other view, I'm inclined to dismiss any relation whatsoever with WTC1 movement, despite the timing coincidence.

I've not discussed the evident difference in magnitude between the initial shake and the latter shake, which obviously also points in the direction of no relation at all.

 

[carlitos]

The tail end of this movement is even visible to the naked eye.
...
Notice the inward movement of the NW corner and the downward movement of the antenna. If these points are traced back to the origin of detectable movement, the resulting graphs would be as they are traced at the link and graphs provided.

Carlitos, all source footage is available for download. If you bother to read the thread with the detailed measurements, you will see much more than here, but you have to overcome your inherent laziness and read all by yourself.

Perhaps I haven't made my point more clearly in the past. The building was moving for the entire time it existed. It was moving more after the plane hit it. It moved even more when it fell down.

Now, please tell us how this trace movement fits into your hypothesis about the events of 9/11/01. Please ensure that your hypothesis fits with the observed data. This the next step you need to take. Otherwise, you are analyzing an image and saying ... what, exactly? At least the bigfoot people claim to see a bigfoot in their images. You point at video and insert "controlled demolition" non-sequiturs into your paper. Make a claim, already.

 

[femr2]

Maybe the filtering is not adequate?

Am looking into specific seismic data filtering techniques. Simple low and high pass filtering doesn't replicate the LDEO results.

"Filter: B W 0.6 5 3 5". Not sure what that means exactly; I guess the first 0.6 5 means a bandpass from 0.6 to 5 Hz.

Agreed. Needs further understanding.

Anyway, lacking any information of what kind of feature to search for, and any evident bump in the seismic data, unless someone shows a similar simultaneous shake in any other view, I'm inclined to dismiss any relation whatsoever with WTC1 movement, despite the timing coincidence.

Shall be looking of course, but whether there is a relation or not is secondary to quantified movement beginning 9.5s in advance of release. Very surprised folk are not focussing on that metric.

I've not discussed the evident difference in magnitude between the initial shake and the latter shake, which obviously also points in the direction of no relation at all.

Not obviously, but again, the shake may be linked to the tower events, it may not. Doesn't change that movement of the upper section of WTC 1 begins immediately following it, 9.5s in advance of release.

 

[beachnut]

We have officially reached Bigfoot / UFO level proof of 9/11 malfeasance. Great job.

They reached that level when they adopted delusional CD scam.

No sources, no references, just open loops made up analysis failing to model the errors.

What was the goal? Why are sources and reference not provided with each step. The cool part is, proprietary tracking software already exists well beyond this level, and to track actual position takes filters not discussed yet.

What was the goal of the analysis? It is to back in CD. That makes it a failed pursuit from the beginning. Like looking at photos of bears, and trying to analysis them to back in Bigfoot. A waste of time, trying to prove a delusion. This is like Derek discussing his failed ideas on 911, failing to launch.

When will they publish this outstanding work? What does it mean?

The gravity collapse of the WTC towers, started as soon as the aircraft impacted. Each little faction of 911 truth has their own part of the elephant to analysis, and fail due to lack of knowledge, understanding, and experience. We learned this in first grade, they forgot.

 

[Jackanory]

9.5s in advance of release.

Yeah yeah................9.5s of wooooooooo. Burning tower. Softened steel. Unstable structure. Heavy structure sitting on a now unstable section of structure. What is it in your mind that makes this 9.5s so significant is nothing more than a weakened structure? More wooooo than you know what to do with femr2. Get a life man. Your charalatan antics are boring us to death. There is no fun in your posts, just desperation at attention going nowhere. The hours you put in to this stupid has so far resulted in failure. POD scams an all. Why is that? Is it because you think nobody understands you or is it because your methods and conclusions are flawed?

Edited. Do not make sockpuppet accusations in threads. If you suspect sockpuppetry, simply report it.

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

 

[Major_Tom]

Some highly intellectual responses, guys.

These are real measurements of the actual tower. What have you folks been using to determine that south wall instability progressed through the core over an angle of 8 degrees as the NIST claimed?

Numbers out of your arses?

 

[femr2]

Your most useful post ever I think...

9.5s of wooooooooo.

No, quantified movement 9.5s in advance of release.

Burning tower.

Yep.

Softened steel.

Some, to a certain extent, yep.

Unstable structure.

From 9.5s in advance of release, yep. Before that, lacking any real available metrics.

Heavy structure sitting on a now unstable section of structure.

With *now unstable* referring to <9.5s in advance of release, yep.

What is it in your mind that makes this 9.5s so significant is nothing more than a weakened structure?

That makes no sense.

More wooooo than you know what to do with femr2.

Woo ? I fail to see how quantifying real movements of the tower is something you classify as *woo*. Bizarre.

Your side kick/sock puppet Major Tom sure is a chip. lol.

You of all folk should be very cautious of accusing folk of *sock puppetry*. I'll respond in kind

 

[femr2]

proprietary tracking software already exists well beyond this level, and to track actual position takes filters not discussed yet.

Name the software.
Specify the filters.

 

[femr2]

At 31 sec WTC1 collapses, neither camera nor foreground building shakes.

Incorrect...

Period of shake due to descent is between frames 1000 and 2000 (horizontal axis)