Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[ozeco41]

Well, there's this:


By understanding the effect of these parameters upon the collapse time and energetics, and experimenting with multiple options, the user should be able to reach an informed personal opinion as to whether the events witnessed on that tragic day point to a gravity driven collapse, or a controlled demolition.


http://femr2.ucoz.com/

Which, of course, is why so many members presume that is where femr2 is heading despite his tactics of [not having any]/[not admitting any]/[denying any implicit]/[being obtuse with fancy words about any] goal.

The reality is that, no matter how fine the metrics, no matter how many details of NIST's explanation may be proven to be wrong, the bottom line is there was no demolition. Femr2 et al can keep that implicit goal at arms length as long as they can string out the micro measurement. Ultimately the fact of no demolition will bar the path which leads to "demolition or not?".

That is not to gainsay in any way the interest in the processes of measurement. They have a validity in themselves as interesting techniques. The science of the techniques is interesting. The application of those techniques to the WTC collapses seems to be showing some details of collapse mechanisms hitherto not known or misinterpreted or even simply wrong. But in the bigger picture of causality - "demolition or not?" - it is still "So what?"

...but fine measurements wont shift the "no demolition" outcome which is a certainty in lay person speak and as near to certainty as can be claimed in the language of the scientific method. If anyone is to shift the certainty of "no demolition" the counter will have to come from a totally different direction than fine measurement.

...and the best of luck to anyone trying it. Nine years and not even the outline of an hypothesis so far.

 

[leftysergeant]

Have to agree that most of this mish-mosh of number crunching claims and counter-claims belongs in science and mathematics and has bloody little to do with proving CD. None has been presented in the measurements. There are many ways that a structure will fall after support elements are removed. Either it will just sort of slump over, or collapse into itself, or peel open. Maybe different parts of the structure will do different things.

Free fall speed of one portion of a building means exactly nothing in terms of whether or not it was CDed.

(If you think it does, show us in another thread how it does prove CD. We can probably all agree to the speed of the fall of at least one portion of the wall. What is in dispute is what it means.)

 

[carlitos]

The whole frame/field context depends upon *when* you refer to each image, or your prior knowledge of their original container. Such a waste of time arguing about it when folk want a one-liner *this is an orange* end result.

I guess so, but still, most people with a passing knowledge of this use "fps" exclusively to refer to the frame rate. In any case, tfk's television does display 30 fps, so it makes your assertion to the contrary a little weird.

Well, there's this:


By understanding the effect of these parameters upon the collapse time and energetics, and experimenting with multiple options, the user should be able to reach an informed personal opinion as to whether the events witnessed on that tragic day point to a gravity driven collapse, or a controlled demolition.


http://femr2.ucoz.com/

Thanks. Between this and Major_Tom's "demolitions team," it's hard to deny where this analysis is headed, despite their [not having any]/[not admitting any]/[denying any implicit]/[being obtuse with fancy words about any] goal.

Excellent summary of the non-goal, ozeco41.

tfk, I count a strong majority for moving this to science. I'd be curious to see femr2 defend his methodology there.

 

[femr2]

I guess so, but still, most people with a passing knowledge of this use "fps" exclusively to refer to the frame rate.

Not relevant, especially when such people are professing to have definitive knowledge of correctness and accusing me of either lying or being deliberately misleading.

In any case, tfk's television does display 30 fps, so it makes your assertion to the contrary a little weird.

No, tfk's television displays ~60fps.

A television is an interlaced display device and does not display *interlaced frames* at all.

It only ever displays *fields*.

Any reference to TV image display rate is by definition talking about *fields*.

tfk, I count a strong majority for moving this to science.

Couple of ayes, one maybe and one no. Hardly a *strong* anything.

I don't think it should be moved, given it's direct relation to the other threads mentioned, but I'd find it similarly interesting to see whether folk outside of this *conspiracy* sub thread would dredge through all of the utterly ridiculous comments that have been posted by others on this thread.

I have no problem *defending my methodology* in the slightest, and if tfk wants to subject his posting history on the thread to additional scrutiny...

---

A while ago I threw the WTC 1 Sauret footage camera shake in the pot, with the *suggestion* that it may be related to the commencement of WTC 1 feature movement at that time.

A definitive cause of the camera shake has not yet been confirmed.

 

[carlitos]

Couple of ayes, one maybe and one no. Hardly a *strong* anything.

5 ayes:

femr2, I've long held that this thread doesn't belong in the 9/11 conspiracy forum; it is a discussion about methodology, and at no time have I seen you attempt to link your observations to any conspiracy.

Even criticism of the NIST hypothesis (ROOSD theory) is not really a conspiracy topic either, as far as I can tell. Unless you or Major Tom is positing a specific conspiracy to link to, that is. In that case, you're both taking an inordinate amount of time to come to the point.

Maybe it's time to take further discussion to the Science and Technology section.

tfk - As I noted earlier, I'd love to see this in science so that the methodology and findings could be delved into more rigorously.

Have to agree that most of this mish-mosh of number crunching claims and counter-claims belongs in science and mathematics and has bloody little to do with proving CD.

...Should this whole elementary exerciser not be moved to the science forum, where it can be accurately assessed and your flaws pointed out?

Please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do, this is not your forum. If you noticed, I was responding to Glenn's post. If you don't like a post, report it, instead of whining about it. I will do you a favor, I'll put you on ignore, and leave it up to tfk if he wants this thread moved to Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, where IMO I think it belongs.

...

I agree, there's no CT here and this thread should be moved to the science forum. You'll probably get more attention there from other people that are adept in these fields. Posting it here and stating I don't know if it is a CT or not doesn't cut it.

Without a good way to find the "nays," I'm at 5 ayes, one "maybe," several "indifferent" posts and femr2's "nay." Does this sound reasonable?

 

[femr2]

Without a good way to find the "nays," I'm at 5 ayes, one "maybe," several "indifferent" posts and femr2's "nay." Does this sound reasonable?

With the dredge back through the thread prior to tfk's recent request, aiii. As I said, I reckon nay.

There are plenty of threads in this sub-forum which, if assessed, would be deemed to belong under other mantle.

Strikes me simply as a means to shuffle it aside because there's *not enough woo* in it for some peoples liking.

Folk have just posted posts suggesting *where this is all leading*.

Now, if the outcome is *proof* of NO MIHOP...does it belong here ?

Now, if the outcome is *proof* of MIHOP...does it belong here ?

I'd say aye to both.

That the thread is growing longer is mostly about the constant whining of some, rather than the gradual presentation of observations.


Bottom line...tfk started the thread as he didn't like my +/- 0.2 pixel variance value.

+/- 0.2 pixel variance is fine. The methods are sound. The accuracy is excellent. Any observations can be backed with very specific data.

Very few observations based upon the data have been presented, so there's very little *analysis*.

However...

femr2's video feature movement tracing methods rock !

 

[tsig]

5 ayes:










Without a good way to find the "nays," I'm at 5 ayes, one "maybe," several "indifferent" posts and femr2's "nay." Does this sound reasonable?

6 ayes.

 

[femr2]

it's hard to deny where this analysis is headed...tfk, I count a strong majority for moving this to science.

Seems rather conflicting.

 

[carlitos]

Seems rather conflicting.

Inability to admit error is my least-favorite truther trait. Please illustrate how 6 ayes vs. ... you seems "rather conflicting."

 

[Major_Tom]

In about 1 week about 6 or 7 applications of this tracing method will be released on this forum. From my reading there is not a single poster that can show and prove over what angle WTC1 "tilted" before all columns had failed. If you don't even know that, it seems strange to have such a desire to boot this thread out of this forum.

You can move the thread where you want, but in about 1 week the posters will be responsible for knowing what is discussed here or accept the results of the building measurements presented without the usual fuss.

WHen I posted the same data in the OOS model thread posters ignored it even though the measuring techniques and original source video was provided to them. I heard comments like "why should we believe you?" while nobody bothered to investigate by making their own measurements.

Using this method of measuring anyone can verify that the base of the WTC1 antenna is shifting eastward and sagging in a hook motion and pulling the west wall eastward over 9.5s before visible initiation. How can anyone justify the NIST scenario with this kind of movement? You cannot even get the failure angle right, yet it is so important to move this thread out of your subforum.

 

[femr2]

Inability to admit error is my least-favorite truther trait. Please illustrate how 6 ayes vs. ... you seems "rather conflicting."

What seems rather conflicting is your statement that you have an opinion on *where this analysis is headed* whist at the same time suggesting the thread is moved as *it has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy sub-thread*.

it seems strange to have such a desire to boot this thread out of this forum.

Is that a *nay* ?

As MT has indicated, it really doesn't matter where the thread is located, but it is directly related to any observations made through sub-pixel feature tracing, so with the caveat that no-one is going to question the methods when such observations are presented..no worries. I'm still a *nay*

 

[enik]

I'll give you a nay.

 

[carlitos]

What seems rather conflicting is your statement that you have an opinion on *where this analysis is headed* whist at the same time suggesting the thread is moved as *it has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy sub-thread*.

Ah, now that's a fair point. Honestly, I'd just like to see some non-truth-interested scientists review your methodology. This sub-forum seems a bit insular.

Anyway, I suppose it's a moot point as we stand 6:3 or so...

 

[alienentity]

In about 1 week about 6 or 7 applications of this tracing method will be released on this forum. From my reading there is not a single poster that can show and prove over what angle WTC1 "tilted" before all columns had failed. If you don't even know that, it seems strange to have such a desire to boot this thread out of this forum.

You can move the thread where you want, but in about 1 week the posters will be responsible for knowing what is discussed here or accept the results of the building measurements presented without the usual fuss.

WHen I posted the same data in the OOS model thread posters ignored it even though the measuring techniques and original source video was provided to them. I heard comments like "why should we believe you?" while nobody bothered to investigate by making their own measurements.

Using this method of measuring anyone can verify that the base of the WTC1 antenna is shifting eastward and sagging in a hook motion and pulling the west wall eastward over 9.5s before visible initiation. How can anyone justify the NIST scenario with this kind of movement? You cannot even get the failure angle right, yet it is so important to move this thread out of your subforum.

I submit that the above data on WTC 1 should again be posted in the Science forum, not the Conspiracy forum.

If you are making a technical argument about the NIST report, it is not a 9/11 Conspiracy topic per se. It may indeed be of some interest to 9/11 Conspiracy buffs, just as other general science topics are of interest.

Where your research would, IMO, be appropriate to refer to is in the case that someone wishes to correlate it to a specific conspiracy theory. Otherwise it really doesn't belong here, anymore than any other science topic (thermodynamics, conservation of momentum etc) does.

Does this make sense to you all?

ETA I believe that's the reason this forum was created in the first place - this is most definitely not a science forum - it's a conspiracy forum.

 

[leftysergeant]

Using this method of measuring anyone can verify that the base of the WTC1 antenna is shifting eastward and sagging in a hook motion and pulling the west wall eastward over 9.5s before visible initiation. How can anyone justify the NIST scenario with this kind of movement? You cannot even get the failure angle right, yet it is so important to move this thread out of your subforum.

That they fell is obvious. That the collapse started earlier than believed is relevant. I think that most of us can accept that as a given. We can even accept that there was localized free-fall acceleration of some parts of the building. We have all stated that the debris that first hit the ground was in free fall acceleration.

The collapsing front was not. This posturing over who measured what movement most accurately has little to do with why it occurred. Unless you can provide some explanation as to why it matters, it is akin to measuring your junk, for purposes of proving or diproving CD..

 

[femr2]

I submit that the above data on WTC 1 should again be posted in the Science forum, not the Conspiracy forum.

If you are making a technical argument about the NIST report, it is not a 9/11 Conspiracy topic per se. It may indeed be of some interest to 9/11 Conspiracy buffs, just as other general science topics are of interest.

Where your research would, IMO, be appropriate to refer to is in the case that someone wishes to correlate it to a specific conspiracy theory. Otherwise it really doesn't belong here, anymore than any other science topic (thermodynamics, conservation of momentum etc) does.

Does this make sense to you all?

ETA I believe that's the reason this forum was created in the first place - this is most definitely not a science forum - it's a conspiracy forum.

Whilst I agree (in general *) that these analyses do not *correlate to a specific conspiracy theory*, my viewpoint is this...

When folk make an assertion about the physical events, the response is generally of the form *see this section of the NIST report*.

Observations already presented are at odds with said NIST report.


If all discussion on this sub-forum proceeds from this point on without reference to NIST, no problem.

If NIST is referenced, then all critique of the report belongs here in my opinion.

* - ROOSD directly correlates to *conspiracy theories* about floor-by-floor explosives. Feature tracing is an integral element of the formation of that study.

 

[femr2]

Honestly, I'd just like to see some non-truth-interested scientists review your methodology.

I assume that must the the royal "truth" ?

How does that reflect upon the scientists here, if those up a directory level or two are *different/better* ?

This sub-forum seems a bit insular.

That's one word for it I suppose.

Hey ho. The methods are cool. Happy for critique by anyone at all, especially if technical ability far beyond my own arose and resulted in improvement of the methods (rather than the complaining more common within the thread)

THAT would be wonderful.

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK writes to WD, post 614: "Finally, "equanimity" is admirable. So are "open & clear discussion", "full disclosure" & "answering questions honestly", IMO. femr & I had a history long before this thread. It wasn't pretty. Just like this thread isn't pretty. But I was absolutely not looking to simply bash him."

I watched your history. It wasn't pretty because you have been rude and wrong in just about every confrontation. The history is recorded on a couple of forums for all to read and verify for themselves. Shall I reproduce a few excerpts?

Femr has been very patient with you, much more than I would have been. I would have had a list going of every time you have been wrong so far, none of which you have acknowledged as far as I have seen, and posted it repeatedly to remove all doubt of your posting patterns.

I can assemble one if you like. You started the thread doubting whether sub-pixel measuring was even possible. That does not demonstrate a high level of knowledge of tracing methods available in 2010. Have you acknowledged that mistake at least?

 

[carlitos]

I assume that must the the royal "truth" ?

As in "9/11 Truth," yes.

How does that reflect upon the scientists here, if those up a directory level or two are *different/better* ?

Fixed. Just scanned the usernames on the front page, and yup - lots of different names there.

Happy for critique by anyone at all, especially if technical ability far beyond my own arose and resulted in improvement of the methods (rather than the complaining more common within the thread)

THAT would be wonderful.

Sounds like we agree. Why not start a shiny new, snark-free thread in science and 'peer review' your methodology for free? I'd think there would be value in that, and I'd almost guarantee there is technical ability far beyond your own to be found.

ETA - could also go in technology / computers / etc., I suppose.

 

[femr2]

THAT would be wonderful.

I don't think there's much room for improvement of the underlying tracing methods, including the pre-trace video processing steps.

What would benefit the subsequent results are improved noise treatment methods, smoothing algorithms, ...