Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[beachnut]

...
This is why, once again, femr looked at other viewpoints and chose the best one.

Prove it.
The best one? Infinite points and femr2 has the best one? This is why your defense of femr2 is nonsense. And you failed to explain how this "study" (of acceleration, which one is the best out of how many "smoothed" ones) dovetails with your claim of CD. Why can't explain? The best one was funny, since there are infinite points to pick from. What was the goal of this work? The conclusion, or is the work not finished? Good luck.

 

[alienentity]

You are not familiar with which points they chose to measure?

They explain the whole thing. They explain which points they chose to measure. It is no secret.

Yes, I am familiar with the way truthers misinterpret the statements that NIST made. They apparently were not clear enough for truthers, who continue to misunderstand.....

If you read their statements very carefully, you'll understand that they do not say what truthers think they do.. they used 2 different points along the top of the curtain wall:

1 point was chosen for the determination of the start of the global collapse
another was chosen for the measurement of the descent.


But as I've already alluded to, the problems get much worse for you in maintaining your denials. As you shall find out in good time.

 

[alienentity]

ps - in the meantime, neither of you have provided any meaningful data to quantify the 'horizontal' and 'vertical' motions to support your claims -
Nor have you quantified the problems of perspective that you claim nullify attempts to measure downward acceleration.

You simply repeat the assertions ad nauseum.

 

[oody]

I was having a heck of a time following that last animated GIF, and I wanted to learn a little more about using gimp to make them. I added a few lines and slowed it down a little:

 

[beachnut]

I was having a heck of a time following that last animated GIF, and I wanted to learn a little more about using gimp to make them. I added a few lines and slowed it down a little: ...

There was an earthquake that day, the buildings are moving.

 

[carlitos]

More building porn. Cool.

 

[oody]

More building porn. Cool.

Heh. Clearly I had too much time on my hands today. It seemed like a little more of the camera motion could have been separated from building motion, which is what I wanted to see. Since I was starting with the frames that had lines on them already, outlining the foreground building was about all I could do to at least get a better visual handle on how much jitter remained after the previous alignment of features.

 

[Major_Tom]

ps - in the meantime, neither of you have provided any meaningful data to quantify the 'horizontal' and 'vertical' motions to support your claims -
Nor have you quantified the problems of perspective that you claim nullify attempts to measure downward acceleration.

You simply repeat the assertions ad nauseum.

Once again to be very clear: WD Clinger is asserting that the NIST camera 3 data is good during the early motion.

I really don't think you understand you are actually criticizing the NIST without realizing it.

Don't you get it? Femr doesn't use camera 3 data, the NIST does and WD Clinger thinks it is a good measurement.

Femr doesn't have to quantify horizontal motion because he uses the Dan Rather video.

The horizontal motion is your problem, not femr's. It is your problem and the problem of the NIST and WD Clinger. It screws up your measurements, not those of femr.

You have to factor it in, not Femr. You are the one ignoring it, not femr.

How can you not see this????:"?

 

[alienentity]

..
The horizontal motion is your problem, not femr's. It is your problem and the problem of the NIST and WD Clinger. It screws up your measurements, not those of femr.

You have to factor it in, not Femr. You are the one ignoring it, not femr.

How can you not see this????:"?

It's actually your problem, because you are making the claim, yet are failing to provide any meaningful data to prove the claim. I'm sorry, but that's the way this is playing out for you.

I in fact have measured the descent from the Dan Rather video. It was the first one I used, actually.

 

[Major_Tom]

I didn't make a claim. I pointed out the obvious, camera 3 data cannot distinguish between horizontal and true vertical motion.

NIST uses camera 3, not femr.


I can tell you do not know how NIST makes their measurements.

 

[femr2]

what does that tell you about the center of gravity and the time of release?

Not relevant to the task in hand. I'm looking at the vertical motion component, not global motion. Global motion began much earlier...

 

[femr2]

Why not just use the s-g smoothing and move on? That lets you derive acceleration, reasonably reflects the limitations of the available data, and still shows in the data what seems to be your major points (if you ever go anywhere with them) about above-g acceleration and the timing of the phases.

I'm quite happy to favour the S-G curves. Best of the bunch in my opinion, as I've already stated quite a few times.

That's what you need, unless your need is to make dick-wagging claims about "a model superior to NIST's"

It's not me making *dick-wagging claims about "a model superior to NIST's"*. I've stated numerous times that I'm not building a model, but simply capturing and extracting data. It's the NIST-can-do-no-wrong crowd making claims about subjective model superiority. My resultant velocity and acceleration data is superior to that NIST published, sure.

 

[femr2]

We've all seen these video clips, we can all see downward motion, which you and MT are denying the existence of.

You are going down the road of sticking your head in the sand. I've shown you a pair of images, one Cam#3, one Dan Rather, highlighting that the kink is not apparent from the Dan Rather viewpoint.

The early motion near the center of the North facade seen on the Cam#3 video is primarily non-vertical.

what is the vertical/horizontal displacement in metres or degrees per frame that you are referring to?

Haven't calculated, no need right now...

The early motion near the center of the North facade seen on the Cam#3 video is primarily non-vertical.

That is the point. The Dan Rather viewpoint minimises perspective-related vertical motion distortion effects.

This is pretty vague, I'm sorry. It's not meaningful enough to rebut.

You're precluding agreement ? Interesting

Can you provide some hard data?

Sure...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7167812&postcount=1371

ie: you don't understand. Fine. Just as I thought.

It's statements like this that will cause regret when you finally accept that the early motion being discussed is primarily non-vertical.

No, not at all. Just reveals your out-of-control hostility towards anything that NIST did..... You're being irrational, IMO.

Calm down dear.

 

[femr2]

Lens data? You guys are using data from unknown lenses, you have to have the model

Trivial. You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Spam. Why did NIST not perform lens distortion correction ?

 

[femr2]

Not of the north façade but it is downward motion of the building.

Incorrect.

It is motion of the building.

That motion has directional components which of course change over time.

The earliest moment of motion that NIST calculated using the Cam#3 viewpoint was of motion with a dominant N-S component. It is primarily non-vertical.

That mistake resulted in T₀ being placed too early (by ~1s) and skewed the resultant velocity and acceleration data.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Once again to be very clear: WD Clinger is asserting that the NIST camera 3 data is good during the early motion.

I really don't think you understand you are actually criticizing the NIST without realizing it.

Don't you get it? Femr doesn't use camera 3 data, the NIST does and WD Clinger thinks it is a good measurement.

Femr doesn't have to quantify horizontal motion because he uses the Dan Rather video.

The horizontal motion is your problem, not femr's. It is your problem and the problem of the NIST and WD Clinger. It screws up your measurements, not those of femr.

Major_Tom understands what I am asserting and thinking about as well as he understands geometry.

 

[femr2]

Bare assertion. You do not know where they measured the acceleration from.

Ironic really. We know roughly the area they chose. Exact spot, no.

However, and it is a big however...

Neither did NIST. (Kind-of )

As I've highlighted many times, they extracted data from a horizontal location in the video image. They did not take account of lateral movement of the building within the frame.

The end result being that NIST tracked the position of a wandering point on the roofline, not a specific point.

that's the least of your problems in terms of denying any vertical motion.

No-one is denying a vertical component to the motion.

What is being highlighted is that from the Cam#3 viewpoint what appears to be vertical motion is in fact primarily N-S, and primarily non-vertical.

Defining T₀ based on that motion was erronious and has skewed the NIST velocity and acceleration data.

If you want the earliest moment of motion, it was over 100s earlier, but that's not the intent.

Small error in T₀ definition has an increasingly amplified effect as you derive velocity and acceleration.

Also of grave issue is that NIST defined T₀ using "a single pixel close to the center of the north face roofline"...

Bit of a problem given those rooftop structures being in the way.

 

[femr2]

Femr2 and MT are literally denying that there is any downward component to this deformation.

Nonsense. I have repeatedly stated primarily non-vertical.

 

[femr2]

That proves that the release happens when the horizontal motion starts, thus invalidating the T₀ argument against NIST.

Motion detectable over 100s earlier. Is that where you'd place T₀ ?

What release do you mean ? I assume you the mean vertical release point, not any leading creep motion ?

It might be arguable, however, whether that was just luck, or the result of observations, but their 40% more than free fall estimation still holds.

Not for the NW corner at least. That's only 17% longer than *freefall*.

 

[femr2]

If you read their statements very carefully, you'll understand that they do not say what truthers think they do.. they used 2 different points along the top of the curtain wall:

1 point was chosen for the determination of the start of the global collapse
another was chosen for the measurement of the descent.

Correct, almost. They chose a horizontal pixel column location, which resulted in the point along the top of the curtain wall wandering (up to 58 inches) as the building moved laterally within the frame.

I note you have finally accepted the trace splice we were discussing earlier.