Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[leftysergeant]

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

That it happened in the time frame specified still does not mean anything in the absence of phenomena that should not be there. You are making a great show of your knowledge of measuring techniques (although some of the nerds here seem to disagree with your methodolgy.) Then you suggest that some process of which there is no evidence occurred. In all, you are setting yourself up as an expert in your field and then using your credentials in that field to address a topic best analysed using skills from a field in which you have no knowledge at all.

That the floors failed is undisputed. That they failed withion a given time frame is undisputed. That the time frame must neccessarily indicate theuse of explosives comes out of your underwear.If the collapsing front occurred at less than the rate that free-fall would indicate, the timing does not even suggest anything other than a gravity-driven collapse.

 

[femr2]

Why not start a shiny new, snark-free thread in science and 'peer review' your methodology for free?

Primarily because the process is, essentially, blindingly simple.

Video data is presented to SynthEyes in the correct form, and the SynthEyes feature tracing algorithms are absolutely top-notch.

I've been through it time and again both here and in other locations.

If this thread is moved, we'll be back at square one when results using the methods are presented (such as the WTC 1 tilt metrics) as I have no doubt that folk will *reject* the metrics by casting doubt upon the underlying technical methods.

And round in circles it would then go.

I'd almost guarantee there is technical ability far beyond your own to be found.

Which is a rather *snarky* assertion, based upon lack of understanding of the methods imo. Am fully open to superior knowledge within this field, but tell me, how could the methods be improved ?

Latest tracing accuracy for new Cam#3 static region...

That's raw data for one field.

Whether variance lower than around +/- 0.02 pixels could be gleaned is:

a) Very unlikely

b) Pretty irrelevant

 

[carlitos]

Which is a rather *snarky* assertion, based upon lack of understanding of the methods imo. Am fully open to superior knowledge within this field, but tell me, how could the methods be improved ?

Given my lack of knowledge of the field, I don't know. Given my knowledge of the world in which we live, an assertion that there is a far superior level of knowledge in any given area found in someone else is not "snarky" at all. What a curious statement.

 

[leftysergeant]

Meh. That motion occurs is not as important as what caused the motion, and that is not always discrernable from measurements of the movement. Probably too rarely so to matter. You still have to present evidence that there can be only one cause for that movement.

You are just setting up an argumentum ad authoritam, with yourself as the authority.

 

[femr2]

Yes again Leftysergeant, you are showing that you have only a very basic knowledge of the topics you are commenting upon...

That it happened in the time frame specified still does not mean anything in the absence of phenomena that should not be there.

ROOSD is a description of a gravity-only driven process by which all open office space flooring is stripped from core and perimeter connections. (*)

You are making a great show of your knowledge of measuring techniques (although some of the nerds here seem to disagree with your methodolgy.)

Incorrect. I *defend* the correctness of the methods I use, when faced with unfounded criticism.

Then you suggest that some process of which there is no evidence occurred.

See (*). You are not making much sense from this point on. You are suggesting that the OOS floors did NOT progressively collapse.

In all, you are setting yourself up as an expert in your field and then using your credentials in that field to address a topic best analysed using skills from a field in which you have no knowledge at all.

Please provide a specific example of *what y'r talkin about*.

That the floors failed is undisputed.

It's disputed by a whole truck-load of folk who suggest that only *floor by floor explosives*/*space beams*/*mini nukes*/... could result in such.

Again, see (*).

That they failed withion a given time frame is undisputed.

What is that *time frame* ?

(I've determined the time the WTC 1 primary (South-side) crush front took to traverse to ground, so can provide a value)

That the time frame must neccessarily indicate theuse of explosives comes out of your underwear.

See (*) (I am being very polite here)

If the collapsing front occurred at less than the rate that free-fall would indicate, the timing does not even suggest anything other than a gravity-driven collapse.

The primary crush front traversed at a fairly constant ~28m/s Lefty.

May I suggest...if you have only such a scant and basic knowledge of the subject...don't make these kind of assertions.

 

[Major_Tom]

All the information is already here so why don't we start a thread over there that directly links to the discussion here and request feedback on the discussion by those who consider themselves technically able?

Sounds like a great idea, no?

 

[femr2]

All the information is already here so why don't we start a thread over there that directly links to the discussion here and request feedback on the discussion by those who consider themselves technically able?

Sounds like a great idea, no?

Have no issue with the methods being examined from any thread location, though certainly don't want to be discussing the same thing in multiple locations.

If you want to, I have no objection, Let me know where though.

The problems I see with that are

a) The technical methods themselves are pretty simple, regardless of how complex some may perceive them to be
b) Pretty much all use of the traces apply to WTC 1, 2 or 7 on September 11 2001
c) Filtering through the thread noise is a bit impractical, and means basically replicating from stage one.

Is there a sub-thread for 9/11 technical issues ?

And what would happen to a thread there as soon as something was presented saying *this proves that* ? All the sub-thread locals go *OI! this thread should be in the *conspiracy* sub-thread....etc...

Chucking 15 pages of discussion of WTC 7 on 9/11 into, say, a *compters* thread with folk probably discussing how to improve their scores in HALO 3 doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Don't quite think the topic fits there.

 

[carlitos]

Give me the numbers of the posts and the links to the data and I'll set it up.

ETA - On second thought, don't. I'm a lousy representative for this and I'm about to be traveling.

 

[Major_Tom]

Meh. That motion occurs is not as important as what caused the motion, and that is not always discrernable from measurements of the movement. Probably too rarely so to matter. You still have to present evidence that there can be only one cause for that movement.

You are just setting up an argumentum ad authoritam, with yourself as the authority.

It is very funny that you do not demand that of the NIST. The movement that has been detected so far shows that their senario is pretty much fantasy.

Yet your criticism is aimed at only femr and myself.

It is the NIST that has the poor, incorrect descriiption of the collapse initiation of WTC1, not me. I'll release a WTC1 collapse initiation model in a week or two that is actually based on correct measurements and observations, not pure fantasy like the one the NIST provides.

Why do you have no criticism of them?

 

[leftysergeant]

Why do you have no criticism of them?

Because they assume, based on what they know of the behavior of steel in a fire, that any movement is the result of structural failures due to heat.

You seem to think that there was some other cause of the failure.

You would be wrong. There are no explosives or thermite indicated, so don't even go there.

 

[femr2]

You would be wrong. There are no explosives or thermite indicated, so don't even go there.

Option a) As you're not discussing *supernanothermiate*, you don't belong here.

Option b) If you're discussing *supernanothermiate* you're wrong, so *don't even go there*.

Classic.

Thanks Lefty

PS - How is your theory on how the WTC core was destroyed by resonance coming along ?

 

[leftysergeant]

Option a) As you're not discussing *supernanothermiate*, you don't belong here.

Option b) If you're discussing *supernanothermiate* you're wrong, so *don't even go there*.

So you are dismissing the possibility of super or regular thermite? If not, you need a lot more than moving pixels to show it. Same with explosives.

PS - How is your theory on how the WTC core was destroyed by resonance coming along ?

Better than CD theory. Maybe you can use your techniques to measure the motion of the columns. That would tell us something.

 

[femr2]

Option a) As you're not discussing *supernanothermiate*, you don't belong here.

Option b) If you're discussing *supernanothermiate* you're wrong, so *don't even go there*.

So you are dismissing the possibility of super or regular thermite? If not, you need a lot more than moving pixels to show it. Same with explosives.

There is something seriously wrong with how you interpret written words Lefty. Let's leave it at that eh.

PS - How is your theory on how the WTC core was destroyed by resonance coming along ?

Better than CD theory.

Noted.

Maybe you can use your techniques to measure the motion of the columns. That would tell us something.

Which columns ?

External, some, sure. Internal, not directly, but much of the internal behaviour can be inferred if the trace data is accurate enough and multiple trace locations are correlated to develop a 4D movement profile. Hoping to provide such for the WTC 7 North facade. If successful shall probably apply to WTC 1 also.

 

[leftysergeant]

Which columns ?

The columns in the spires at the end of collapse show movement in relation to each other. Measuring that movement might be an indication of whether or not mechanical resonnance was at work. The column with the "knuckle" moves at least twice in relation to the other columns. That is not consistant with its being hit just once at the bottom only and knocked loose from the ground.

 

[tfk]

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?

Spare me the drama, MT. You know, I know, femr knows that he called you here because he was getting pummeled over this issue.

I happen to agree with you: if a person exhibits a persistent pattern of being incorrect, then their credibility is questionable.

So, be my guest. Happy to join you in that. Don't pollute this thread with that nonsense.

I have zero problem admitting when I've made mistakes.

Here's one for you now: I freely admit that femr was able to show that some folks use "fps" to mean fields per second.

Here's another: I freely admit that femr appears to have a lot more experience than me in video issues.

Which is exactly what pisses me off about being mislead about simple trivial issues like this one. I've known lots of experts in various fields who will go to enormously lengths to be patient, clear & consistent when explaining issues within their fields of expertise. I've also known some that did the exact opposite: went to enormous lengths to obfuscate & confuse, for the simple purpose of maintaining a "I know something that you don't" advantage. Petty doctors, lawyers & accountants do this all the time.

One of these two groups is admirable & one is a real, petty pain in the keister. I'll let you guess which is which.

I'll also happily have you examine the way that I've explained mechanical engineering concepts - all of them 100x more complex than this stupid, lame, trivial "frame vs. field" nonsense - to non-engineers. With the intent of clearly explaining or obfuscating to maintain my status.

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.

A tactic admired by 15 year old across the internet.

Adults usually discuss the issues.

BTW, found any evidence of explosives, thermite or demolitions in the last 9 years, MT?

Shall we get into "big picture errors". Or would you prefer to stick to trivia & arcana?

I'll go where ever you want.

You started the thread doubting whether sub-pixel measuring was even possible.

Wrong.

An observant person might recognize the difference between "sub-pixel measuring being possible" and "femr achieving sub-pixel measurement".

An observant person might recognize the difference between "sub-pixel measurement being claimed" and "sub-pixel measurement being proven".

Shall I add this to the list of "Major Tom's Mistakes"?

That does not demonstrate a high level of knowledge of tracing methods available in 2010. Have you acknowledged that mistake at least?

No mistake at all. Show me anywhere I ever said that "tracing methods in 2010 are incapable of resolving sub-pixel measurements".

Another mistake, MT?

Show me a statement where I claimed to have "a high level of knowledge of tracing methods available in 2010".

Another mistake, MT?

Sick of the adolescent exercise in tallying past mistakes yet, MT?

You might have noticed the table that I posted in here. You may notice that 0.3 - 0.42 is less

Cripes, some people's kids…

 

[femr2]

The columns in the spires at the end of collapse show movement in relation to each other.

I assume by *spires* you mean the substantial portions of the central core of WTC 1.

Measuring that movement might be an indication of whether or not mechanical resonnance was at work.

I can certainly trace features of the core remnants, though the movement of the tallest sections is going to be pretty irrelevant given the scale of the rest...

The column with the "knuckle" moves at least twice in relation to the other columns. That is not consistant with its being hit just once at the bottom only and knocked loose from the ground.

When I'm done with WTC 7, I'll do further tracing of WTC 1, and include the core remnant.

Until then, it's your theory, go with it...

 

[femr2]

You know, I know, femr knows that he called you here because he was getting pummeled over this issue.

LMAO. You really think that ? No calling over going on. No pummeling either. Classic paranoia.

So, be my guest. Happy to join you in that. Don't pollute this thread with that nonsense.

I'd imagine that if MT does compile a list, that bearing mind all the info would be drawn from this thread, here is exactly where it would go.

You might have noticed the table that I posted in here. You may notice that 0.3 - 0.42 is less

1) Two of the traces were raw, without dejitter, skewing your results.
2) You did not respond to requests to provide detail on your value generation method
3) Your stated end result was around 0.8 pixels, even though SE showed variance in position within +/- 0.2 pixels for over 600 samples.
4) I provided you with my take on static point variance...

...using improved alignement methods, but got nothing back from you on the subject.

Oh, and *less* than what ?

 

[tfk]

Your references:

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/46726_framesimages-per-second
two (2) fields equal one (1) frame
___

http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-822662.html
Sometimes interlaced fields are called half-frames, but they are not, because two fields of one frame are temporally shifted
___

http://www.drastictech.com/wp_compression.html
Resolution - 720 x 486 x 29.97 frames per second (Fps) (720 x 243 x 59.94 fields per second - fps) [i.e., 1 frame = 2 fields)

Frame Rate - 29.97 Frames Per Second

PAL Video Rate is 25 Frames Per Second (50 fields) instead of 29.97
PAL Horizontal Resolution is 576 lines per frame
One Frame 576 lines per frame
___

http://tangentsoft.net/video/glossary.html
Each half-frame is called a field.

NTSC - The National Television Standards Committee. This committee defined the analog over-the-air television standard originally used in the United States. Since its inception there, its use has spread to the rest of North America, to parts of South America and to Japan. It has 480 horizontal lines of video data and 29.97 frames per second.

PAL - Phase Alternating Line. This term describes the over-the-air video encoding used in Australia and most of Eurasia. It has 576 horizontal lines of video data and 25 frames per second.
___

http://everything2.com/title/FPS
there are two fields per frame
___

[Fairly useless reference. A bunch of people guessing. One might wonder why you quoted it.]
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=49777
50 FIELDS per second
25 FRAMES per second
atleast that's my (somewhat educated) guess
____

So, 5 out of 5 of your references say 1 frame = 2 fields.
Including the references that I posted here (a RANDOM sample of all first 10 posts from a google search).

100% of the references say NTSC video is ~30 frames per second.
100% of the references say NTSC video is ~60 fields per second.
100% of the references say 1 frame = 2 fields.

Many of the references say the term "fps" can be confusing, because it refers to both.
But 100% of the references say "~30 fps" refers to "30 frames per second" and "~60 fps" refers to "60 fields per seconds".
___

femr says "sometimes 1 frame = 1 field."

femr says "when femr uses the word, the meaning of the word 'frame' is flexible." When femr uses the word, it can mean field, image, frame, interlaced frame, or tomato.

femr says "when anyone else uses the term, then the meaning is inflexible, fixed & rigid. TV sets do NOT operate at 30 frames per second, because then, by the rigid definition of the word, frame does NOT mean frame. When someone else uses the word, 'frame' means 'field'. Or 'frame' means 'half frame'. Or 'frame' means 'image'. It means just about anything. Except 'frame'.
___

The last I'll say on this matter.
___

 

[femr2]

The last I'll say on this matter.

Thank the Lord for that. It's clear you learned nowt from the process, but meh.

As I said a long, long time ago (in a galaxy...)...

A field is only a field whilst it is part of an interlaced frame. Once it is separated from the frame, call it whatever you please...field, frame, image, picture. Context depends upon when you refer to the image, and your prior knowledge of it's original container. QED.

Does your TV display 30fps ?

Mine displays 50 fps.

No, don't answer that. It's FAR too tedious and FAR too pointless. lol.

 

[alienentity]

Femr2, you may very well be one of the most intransigent debaters on the planet, from what I've seen.
Be that as it may, nobody in the TV business I've ever encountered EVER referred to 'regular' NTSC as anything else but '29.97 drop-frame' or 30fps.

They NEVER use the term '60fps' to refer to NTSC broadcast. So here in North America your fixation to refer to it that way is irrelevant and annoying.
You will notice that, when people are referring to interlaced vs progressive scan, they will use the modifier 'i' or 'p'. So, in our parlance, you should refer to 60-field-per-second video as '60i', but never 60fps.

That will help to make your use of terminology more appropriate, less exclusive to yourself, and far less annoying to everybody else. You may think that hanging onto strange tidbits of technical terminology and data make you somehow 'special', and somehow more knowledgeable than others, but it's really an illusion which works only on yourself....I kid you not.

LIkewise, you can measure the motion of WTC buildings for the next 10 years, and you may even spend thousands of hours doing so. It won't change a lot of the macro-events, even a little bit. Because while that info may be fascinating to a scant few video geeks, nobody else is going to give a damn - nor should they -as it pertains to the greater questions regarding 9/11 Truth conspiracy theories, and the failures of the WTC buildings on 9/11.

But carry on staring in ever-greater detail into your microcosm if you wish. I know you will