Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

That is why measuring the motion of one pixel doesn't give you a meaningful perspective

You still don't even realise that everyone, including yourself, who keeps mentioning pixels has not bothered to read any of the explanations of tracing method I have provided. but (lazily and rather foolishly) simply take it as fact because *one of their buddies* has used similar language. It's really quite funny.

Again, the tracing methods I use track *features* (regions), not a pixel.

and why a different method (the one I'm using) gives you a better perspective of the early motions.

Your eyeball method ?

I quite agree that scrubbing through video is the best way to build a four dimensional mental model of the structural behaviour, and that is why I have raised issue with the NIST T0 time. However, proper tracing methods are far superior from that point on. All that changes is your interpretation of the resulting data because of the mental model you have created by immersing yourself in the three dimensional movement being shown on a two dimensional surface.

It is precisely for the fact that by interpreting the visual cue information that you can know that early motion is primarily north-south if not entirely north-south.

I am aware of your insistence on ALL motion being vertical...in which case the NIST T0 would be over 100s too LATE...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/666377698.png

Where woul you place T0 on that graph ?

See above.

Where would you place T0 on this graph ?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/842535832.gif

You're trying to introduce an unnecessary distraction into the discussion, when I was clearly looking at pre-kink, T=0 to T= +/- 1 sec motion.
The whole point is to determine a fair value for T=0, which I have done.

NIST clearly did not *notice* that their data was taken from a region not experiencing vertical movement they were trying to capture.

You are taking a T0 during the formation of the kink, and it is not a vertical kink. That's the problem.

As I have shown you, movement began much earlier than that, so it is important to understand that what you think T0 means, and what I think T0 means and what NIST think T0 means are all THE SAME THING.

They should all be the same value.

The vertical acceleration data defines the direction of the data we are looking for.

That we are looking at acceleration means the scope of T0 is set to be when *release* occurs, that being the point in time at which vertical descent of the building actually begins. There is of course a small amount of subjectivity in the definition of that point in time, given the noise levels in extractable data, and the fact that there is an interpretation step from two dimentional image to four dimensional real-world behaviour.

As you can see from the Dan Rather data, there is quite a lengthy *flat* period before unrecoverable descent begins, and it is for this reason I suggest a ~1s error in the NIST T0 value.

The Dan Rather viewpoint is from a camera perspective which does not show the North-South movement as the building twists, and so data extracted from it does not suffer from such extreme perspective skewing behaviours as that taken from the Cam#3 viewpoint NIST (and yourself) used.

The building deformations are quite evident from this viewpoint, no need to pretend that they can't be seen. There is no mistake.

Who said there were no deformations ? In fact the exact opposite, I've stated the early motion as being North-South. Again you are creating an *argument* out of thin air, making feigned accusation (no need to pretend) and then *solving the mystery*. It's really rather bizarre behaviour.

You are attempting to invalidate the entire clip, ie. to handwave the results. That's not very nice

Not in the slightest. I am highlighting that the clip introduces all manner of issues when dealing with the extraction of data for the purposes of generating velocity and acceleration details.

The DV version of the Cam#3 clip is excellent for fine data extraction IF and ONLY IF you take account of the factors which the viewpoint places upon that data.

Want a list of the issues the viewpoint introduces ? (Hint: there's one not far away)

Eyeballs must be used at some point, no valid reason to reject direct observation.

I don't, and as I said sub-pixel accurate tracing techniques reveal very fine motion detail, and allow the data to be plotted in handy graphs which let us process that information properly. An example would the the blip of the Dan Rather data near the start, which with your eyeball method you may mistake as being the start of motion as *stuff moves*, but it would actually be a very poor candidate for T0, which can be seen by looking at the data in graphical form.

You're still doing it - pretending that building motions are not collapse.

I am doing no such thing. If you are going to shift the goalposts in that manner, then the early motion data shows movement over 100s before release...is THAT where you think you should place T0 ? Please answer that one.

It was clearly both deforming horizontally and vertically. You can't really have one without atother, y'know. Not bloody likely.

See above.

This is something missed by virtually all truthers, and yourself as well - something which makes you curiously unobservant (and this ain't the first time you've missed the obvious as I've noted above) - those structures fall into the building as the global collapse begins, so they were moving faster than the curtain wall or North wall.

Again you are making up arguments. Very bizarre behaviour. I am fully aware of the behaviour of WTC7 elements. I imagine there are very few who have looked in more detail. To make the kind of assertion you have above is simply ludicrous.

Where the hell do you think the rooftop structures were going if not...into...the building ? (See how this works ?)

tracking any single point of the collapse is not going to give you the magical number you're looking for.

What magical number do you think I'm looking for ? You're sounding more and more, er, strange as you go along.

I notice that you have stopped posturing about the data *splice* you were adamant about earlier. I note that many here do not acknowledge when they are satisfied with detail presented in favour of further complaint about more stuff they will no doubt ultimately end up satisfied with. Rather annoying really.

the general information about the approximate time it took for the building to fall out of sight gives an appropriate frame of reference for the layman.

What has that to do with the context of this discussion ?

Slight change to T0 has quite a large effect on the *40% longer than freefall* figure. Surely it is important for this figure to be as accurate as possible, given how loudly it has been shouted from the rooftops ?

You don't control what I think or write. Sorry. I suggest you look for your submissive buddies elsewhere...

I suggest you stay off your soapbox, as such wanderings are off topic and will simply be reported. Then the mods can control what you write.

Well, 10 frames ain't gonna get you down to 4.4 seconds, which is the figure you claim. At best, you get a range between about 5.2 and 5.8 seconds, with a median of 5.5.

Again a false argument. Why would I use YOUR finger in air estimation about how far wrong your eyeball method T0 value was to justify my presentation of Dan Rather data suggesting a T0 value ~1s later than that stated by NIST ?

You really need to stop creating these false arguments. It's really silly.

The NIST 5.4 is certainly justifiable and reasonable.

I disagree, and as I said...
NIST misinterpreted initial motion as vertical rather than north-south (as they did not take account of the initial twisting motion visible from the Cam#3 viewpoint).

There are many other issues with their data, as I have also said.

Cross-check with Dan Rather viewpoint suggests a T0 value ~1s later in my book.

What you can't really get away with is supporting the NIST value by trying to say they didn't care that the motion wasn't vertical. That's what they presented it as.

That's why the Cam#3 and Dan Rather traces show different information...Cam#3 data includes north-south movement when you are trying to track vertical motion...dan Rather data doesn't (as much).

It is not 'fraud'

Never said it was.

it is not 'wrong'

Inaccurate enough to be labelled so in my opinion, for the reasons given.

it is a reasonably accurate measurement.

I do not agree. 1s difference in T0 makes a whopping 23% difference to the *40% longer than freefall* statement.

As you may have noticed by now, I am aware that all these attempts to quantify, to measure, base themselves on criteria which are somewhat arbitrary. The worst element is trying to determine whether early motion is collapse or not - I've outlined my reasons for accepting the deformation as the onset of global collapse, you've rejected them.

Yes, but T0 SHOULD be the same for all observers.
NIST clearly didn't notice ANY of this, and mistook the motion to be vertical.

At what point is the *kink* described ? In what direction is it described ?

What T0 value do you get from the NW corner ? Same one ?

Most reasonable people probably don't care and won't see the relevance of quibbling about .5 seconds.

See above.

Neither do I, except that you seem determined to deny that anybody can hold a valid opinion which does not agree with yours.

Nonsense.

You have been asked a number of times in the post for a T0 value. Be very careful in your response please.

Remember, I have shown you data indicating motion of the building over 100s before release.

Do you understand what I mean by *release* ? (It is the point here, T0)

 

[femr2]

It is perfectly possible to select a point on the parapet wall somewhere more or less directly above the final point using motion tracking software.
I've done it using a couple of different programs myself so I can assure you.

Again...

Please upload your trace data.

 

[femr2]

It's possible you may be onto something -- I don't think you are, but anything's possible, I suppose -- but I'm not going to give it a second's worth of thought unless you can explain to me all the other mountains of evidence that says 9/11 happened precisely the vast majority of people think it did. Single pixel that might be the Moon surrounded by a TV screenful of frogs, and all that.

What part of what I am saying leads you to say this ? Quotes please.

 

[alienentity]

You still don't even realise that everyone, including yourself, who keeps mentioning pixels has not bothered to read any of the explanations of tracing method I have provided. but (lazily and rather foolishly) simply take it as fact because *one of their buddies* has used similar language. It's really quite funny.

Not really worth commenting on this strawman argument.


I am aware of your insistence on ALL motion being vertical...in which case the NIST T0 would be over 100s too LATE...[/quote]

Femr2, you're wasting everyone's time with these constant misrepresentation of everyone else's viewpoints. Including mine. I said no such thing, I meant no such thing.

You are taking a T0 during the formation of the kink, and it is not a vertical kink. That's the problem.

Totally incorrect. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree that there were building motions (oscillations etc) long before the global collapse. Nobody here is disputing that fact. Your measurements are also useful in corroborating this behavior.

That we are looking at acceleration means the scope of T0 is set to be when *release* occurs, that being the point in time at which vertical descent of the building actually begins.

Not really. T=0 is the time when the global collapse begins, which is part of the progressive collapse, which itself began shortly b4 the E PH collapses into the building.
It is not an arbitrary measurement of building oscillation prior to the progressive collapse.

There is zero evidence that the building was moving 100% vertically at any point. There is zero evidence that the building moved as one uniform block.
It makes no sense to pretend that it did. It is logical and justifiable to count the large-scale deformation (again, the building cannot change its horizontal dimensions without also changing its vertical dimensions) as the T=0.

This can be easily seen by the naked eye, it is not a bit of digital trickery.

There is of course a small amount of subjectivity in the definition of that point in time, given the noise levels in extractable data, and the fact that there is an interpretation step from two dimentional image to four dimensional real-world behaviour.

The subjectivity is further-reaching than this definition allows, as I have already explained.

As you can see from the Dan Rather data, there is quite a lengthy *flat* period before unrecoverable descent begins, and it is for this reason I suggest a ~1s error in the NIST T0 value.

I'm not using the NIST data. I am using my own. See previous posts. Your objection to NIST's method is irrelevant to my method of measurement.

The Dan Rather viewpoint is from a camera perspective which does not show the North-South movement as the building twists, and so data extracted from it does not suffer from such extreme perspective skewing behaviours as that taken from the Cam#3 viewpoint NIST (and yourself) used.

The building was undergoing global collapse from either perspective. Your objections are rather moot.

Want a list of the issues the viewpoint introduces ? (Hint: there's one not far away)

Another boring attempt to deny something which can be easily seen, by using sciencey-sounding bafflegab? I'm sure you will produce this shortly.

I don't, and as I said sub-pixel accurate tracing techniques reveal very fine motion detail, and allow the data to be plotted in handy graphs which let us process that information properly. An example would the the blip of the Dan Rather data near the start, which with your eyeball method you may mistake as being the start of motion as *stuff moves*, but it would actually be a very poor candidate for T0, which can be seen by looking at the data in graphical form.

Nobody used the term *stuff moves* except you. You've just handwaved away your own strawman again. You have a bad habit of doing that.


It's hard to describe how boring and tedious it is to make even a minor point to you. Suffice to say it's very boring and tedious, and I'm not going to continue doing so.
It reminds me of the circular reasoning of no-planers, who are equally adamant and of course completely wrong. Your style of argumentation is a tattered page out of their playbook, I'm afraid.

I ain't doin' it no more. Your denials are just not worth my time.

 

[alienentity]

Do you understand what I mean by *release* ? (It is the point here, T0)

I understand that you have appointed yourself as the world's arbiter of what it is, and that there is no point arguing a different POV, as you will simply deny it with a terse 'wrong' or 'incorrect', or produce another pulsating gif which supposedly *proves* some obscure point you're trying to make.

I've seen your dance too many times already, your moves are as predictable as an endless loop of pulsating gifs.

 

[femr2]

Not really worth commenting on this strawman argument.

What ? It is a statement of fact. I don't track a pixel, I track features. Full stop. Strawman ?

Femr2, you're wasting everyone's time with these constant misrepresentation of everyone else's viewpoints. Including mine. I said no such thing, I meant no such thing.

Ahem...

It was clearly both deforming horizontally and vertically. You can't really have one without atother, y'know. Not bloody likely.

...thus the early motion graph presented showing motion (deformation) over 100s earlier.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Incorrect, and I have SHOWN you...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/321729423.png

...where is the kink ?

I agree that there were building motions (oscillations etc) long before the global collapse. Nobody here is disputing that fact. Your measurements are also useful in corroborating this behavior.

Deformation. See your earlier statement.

So that leaves you with the task of defining where *early motion you DON'T choose to identify as the start of collapse*, turns into *motion you DO choose to identify as the start of collapse*.

Your objective opinion being *where NIST said* even though I have shown you VERTICAL trace data which would suggest a later T0

I note you have ignored request to place T0 on several different graphs now. I wonder why ? Could it be that you would choose a point OTHER than the one you WANT to support, regardless.

How would it be if NIST had set T0 to where I suggest it should be, and then I turned up suggesting that it should be a second earlier (where NIST did place it), as they didn't capture the start of the twisting motion ?

I think the answer is obvious

You'd still be arguing in support of NIST.

Not really. T=0 is the time when the global collapse begins

Again... What is your T0 for the NW corner from the Cam#3 viewpoint ?

Doesn't *global* collapse start with the East Penthouse ? Earlier ?

There is zero evidence that the building was moving 100% vertically at any point.

Who said there was ?

There is zero evidence that the building moved as one uniform block.

Who said it did ?

It makes no sense to pretend that it did.

I'm not. You are again suffering from *making up argument* syndrome.

It is logical and justifiable to count the large-scale deformation (again, the building cannot change its horizontal dimensions without also changing its vertical dimensions) as the T=0.

Such motion began 100s earlier. You have to define T0 in a different way for it to be valid. T0 for horizontal motion is not the same as T0 for vertical motion. An important distinction if you choose to make it. NIST are clearly talking about vertical movement, and then deriving vertical acceleration data from motion that was not vertical. That the data was not vertical significatly affects their RESULTANT acceleration values.

Their T0 does not denote the *release point* in the vertical direction. It is a meaningless value some time prior to it, and on that basis they could have placed it over 100s earlier within the same scope.

You seem to miss that very important point, even though I've made it several times...

The 1s different in T0 makes ~23% difference to the oft quoted *40% longer than freefall* statement.

Look at the movment in both directions after the blue line...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/666377698.png



Where is T0 ?

This can be easily seen by the naked eye, it is not a bit of digital trickery.

Who said it was. It is correct interpretation of the visual information, and clear understanding of what T0 is that is important.

Your objection to NIST's method is irrelevant to my method of measurement.

The method is not the be-all. It is the interpretation. You choose to ignore what I'm saying about motion direction, and so you choose to place T0 at the same place NIST did. I disagree with that for the reasons I have made pretty clear.

The building was undergoing global collapse from either perspective. Your objections are rather moot.

You do not have a clear definition as to what denotes *global collapse* with respect to deriving VERTICAL acceleration data.

I ain't doin' it no more. Your denials are just not worth my time.

You're wrong

 

[femr2]

I understand that you have appointed yourself as the world's arbiter of what it is, and that there is no point arguing a different POV, as you will simply deny it with a terse 'wrong' or 'incorrect', or produce another pulsating gif which supposedly *proves* some obscure point you're trying to make.

I've seen your dance too many times already, your moves are as predictable as an endless loop of pulsating gifs.

I draw your attention to a part of my previous post...

T0 for horizontal motion is not the same as T0 for vertical motion.

An important distinction if you choose to make it.

NIST are clearly talking about vertical movement, and then deriving vertical acceleration data from motion that was not vertical.

That the data was not vertical significatly affects their RESULTANT acceleration values.

Their T0 does not denote the *release point* in the vertical direction.

It is a meaningless value some time prior to it, and on that basis they could have placed it over 100s earlier within the same scope.

You seem to miss that very important point, even though I've made it several times...

The 1s difference in T0 makes ~23% difference to the oft quoted *40% longer than freefall* statement.

 

[femr2]

Perhaps this will help make the point clearer...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/666377698.png



Why would you not place T0 at the point where the blue line is, and at which point the more extreme horizontal motion (red line) began ?

Why not earlier at around the 160s point where the inflexion of both directional components occurs ?

I'd suggest the vertical release point to be at the small peak on the black line just prior to it's final drop, which continues off the bottom of the graph.

I'd perform vertical acceleration computations from that point for that trace.

 

[beachnut]

You applied no model for atmospheric distortion, you applied no lens distortion data and you post accuracy to 0.01 pixel accuracy. Total nonsense.

 

[femr2]

you post accuracy to 0.01 pixel accuracy.

Nonsense. My estimation (which caused tfk to start this thread btw all 27 pages ago) for the Dan Rather data was +/- 0.2 pixels.

Bear in mind there is a difference between absolute and relative positional accuracy.

 

[beachnut]

Nonsense. My estimation (which caused tfk to start this thread btw all 27 pages ago) for the Dan Rather data was +/- 0.2 pixels.

Bear in mind there is a difference between absolute and relative positional accuracy.

I be a bearing.
Will I have to save your graphs to prove your nonsense, so there is a recored when you figure out your errors and erase your work?

"bear in mind" you have not proved anything (not published); how is your Official Theory is Fictional going? Have you deleted references to that like you have to other work you have done on 911?

 

[femr2]

Will I have to save your graphs to prove your nonsense

Go ahead

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6235551&postcount=45

You're off topic and addressing the arguer. Tsk.

 

[DGM]

Reading both sides (and all of this), it appears the NIST averaged (without saying so) the movement of the whole facade (I think alienentity did also). This is beginning to look like differences in objectives. NIST felt the need to address (to an extent they felt was sufficient)a public concern and femr2 wants "dead nut, to the millisecond accuracy".

We're getting dangerously close to showing relevance and assuming ones priorities and objectives.(again). Bottom line, NIST showed exactly how much they cared about the issue and femr2 thinks they should have cared more. Maybe if he showed why, people would pay more attention.

 

[femr2]

Noticed the following in the description AlienEntity placed in hisvideo created as a result of the recent discussion here about the 5.4s time period...

I made this video to carefully demonstrate why the collapse of WTC 7 did in fact take the time that the 2008 NIST report said it did.

I don't know how many times I've been told that 'NIST faked it' or 'NIST committed fraud' or whatever. People pretend to be interested in finding out the truth, but when you tell them the truth and it isn't what they want to hear, they can get very nasty.

I have sympathy for all those who have to fight this kind of disinformation - recently the Obama Birther movement has behaved in a very similar way, refusing to accept legitimate information - for purely reasons of hatred and bigotry.

I hope humankind can overcome this kind of primitive thinking.

Considering what prompted the creation of the video, it strikes me as rather odd that the description includes...

• NIST faked it
• NIST committed fraud
• People pretend to be interested in finding out the truth
• it isn't what they want to hear, they can get very nasty.
• I have sympathy for all those who have to fight this kind of disinformation
• refusing to accept legitimate information - for purely reasons of hatred and bigotry

...and...

• I hope humankind can overcome this kind of primitive thinking.

Quite a speech, and an interesting insight into differences in objectives I would say.

Are you aiming these observations at some element of our discussion here ?

 

[Myriad]

Ultimately this is an argument about standards. Femr2 feels that the investigation NIST performed did not attain sufficient detail to meet his personal standards. Others disagree -- not because they claim femr2's wrong about whether or not it satisfied femr2's standards, but because it satisfies their standards that differ from femr2's.

The problem is, except where they're coded into law or otherwise enforced by authority (such as a parent-child or employer-employee relationship), standards are mere opinions. There can be no resolution to the disagreement, as long as it concerns vague personal standards that are based on individual opinion of "how things should be done" and nothing else.

There is a possible solution, though. I think the U.S. Government should institute an official organization devoted entirely to establishing standards for things. Then, citizens with concerns like femr2's could submit them to that organization for a ruling.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[GlennB]

Bottom line, NIST showed exactly how much they cared about the issue and femr2 thinks they should have cared more. Maybe if he showed why, people would pay more attention.

In a nutshell.

 

[alienentity]

Noticed the following in the description AlienEntity placed in hisvideo created as a result of the recent discussion here about the 5.4s time period...


Considering what prompted the creation of the video, it strikes me as rather odd that the description includes...

• NIST faked it
• NIST committed fraud
• People pretend to be interested in finding out the truth
• it isn't what they want to hear, they can get very nasty.
• I have sympathy for all those who have to fight this kind of disinformation
• refusing to accept legitimate information - for purely reasons of hatred and bigotry

...and...

• I hope humankind can overcome this kind of primitive thinking.

Quite a speech, and an interesting insight into differences in objectives I would say.

Are you aiming these observations at some element of our discussion here ?

No, I'm not really. I'm thinking more of the constant barrage of accusations against NIST that I receive on my channel - and one of the earliest examples was the accusation of 'dry-labing' and 'fraud' by David S. Chandler.

I have already stated that your derogatory comments towards NIST feed into that mentality - I do not think you are primitive at all, but the primitive types will no doubt seize on your derision and take it out of context to attack and discredit the entire NIST report - actually, all the NIST reports, most likely.

 

[alienentity]

Ultimately this is an argument about standards. Femr2 feels that the investigation NIST performed did not attain sufficient detail to meet his personal standards. Others disagree -- not because they claim femr2's wrong about whether or not it satisfied femr2's standards, but because it satisfies their standards that differ from femr2's.

I think that's a fair assessment of the arguments.

 

[alienentity]

Femr2, I'm going to the cabin for a few days, no internet, no phone, but I will make some effort towards finding data on some CD's for you to look at.

Looking forward to working on some orchestra pieces and doing some snowshoeing.

cheers

AE

 

[femr2]

Reading both sides (and all of this), it appears the NIST averaged (without saying so) the movement of the whole facade (I think alienentity did also).

I disagree. How could they do such without taking data from multiple points ? They didn't take data from multiple points (other than their ill-advised splice), they simply stated the behaviour of one region applied to the entire facade.

AlienEntity also did not perform multiple traces to determine an averaged behaviour.

I would suggest the an averaged facade behaviour would require data from the NW corner, NE corner and a feature (not a pixel row) near the center of the building.

This is beginning to look like differences in objectives. NIST felt the need to address (to an extent they felt was sufficient)a public concern and femr2 wants "dead nut, to the millisecond accuracy".

I have made numerous reasons for discussing these details abundently clear on many occasions.

One is the fact that the *2.25s of freefall* and *40 percent longer than freefall* statements are taken literally by many, who have then based opinion on literal interpretation of such.

In order to validly counter such arguments it is necessary to ensure that correct data is available.

The NIST values are not accurate, and their methods were...not great.

Objectives ?

Did the north face drop at freefall for 2.25s or not ?

Well, no, it didn't.

Did the north face take 40 percent longer than freefall to drop 18 storeys, or not ?

Well, no, it didn't.

Objective number two. What DID the *north face* do ?

I note that few who decide to post in this thread are prepared to actually state viewpoint about specific technical details, preferring instead to repeatedly question objective and motivation.

So, DGM, do you agree that T0 should have been later, as the T0 NIST chose had data at the beginning which was before the vertical release point, and so resulted in their subsequent acceleration data being skewed by an errant start point ?

DGM, do you agree that NIST spliced together two sets of data to generate their position/time data ?

There is a list of issues a short while ago which you could address point by point if you wish for more productive dialogue.

We're getting dangerously close to showing relevance and assuming ones priorities and objectives.(again). Bottom line, NIST showed exactly how much they cared about the issue and femr2 thinks they should have cared more. Maybe if he showed why, people would pay more attention.

I have repeatedly stated reasons why.

And do you not think it matters that such infamous metrics such as 2.25s of freefall and 40 percent longer than freefall are actually...wrong ?

Are there two numbers generated within the NIST report that needed to be accurate more than those two ?

And yet you seem confused about motivation and relevance. Odd.