Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

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

Please upload your trace data. (at least the fourth request now)

 

[Major_Tom]

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

A minus sign and a square root sign typed in wrong on a jpeg image months ago.

That is all the "dirt" you have on me in the last year?

And how long did I "cling" to that jpeg image? Not even one post? How long did I defend it?

Now how long to you defend walking errors like R Mackey? One big walking error. You do not correct you mistakes, be it in one post or one year.

The word "cling" in your last name seems a type of inside joke. Nature and custom do not lack an underlying sense of humor.

 

[carlitos]

Motion detectable over 100s HOURS earlier.

FDNY put a transit on the building in the afternoon. Horizontal motion was detected hours earlier than the videos you are analyzing. That's one of the reasons they cleared the area; they knew it was going to collapse.

ETA - surveyor's transit was put on before 2:30 Eastern, and motion detected before 3:00 Eastern.

 

[Oystein]

FDNY put a transit on the building in the afternoon. Horizontal motion was detected hours earlier than the videos you are analyzing. That's one of the reasons they cleared the area; they knew it was going to collapse.

ETA - surveyor's transit was put on before 2:30 Eastern, and motion detected before 3:00 Eastern.

I have read this before, but admit I don't know what the word "transit" means in this context. Can someone explain in layman's terms what you do when you "put a transit on the building"? Thanks.

 

[femr2]

Horizontal motion was detected hours earlier than the videos you are analyzing.

That data is not available, however, you highlight the important point...

Definition of T₀ is not about finding the earliest moment of motion, it is about defining the vertical release point. The point at which vertical velocity and acceleration derivations should begin.

The NIST T₀ is a little early (~1s). The movement they detected did not accurately match the vertical release point. The motion was initially primarily N-S and transitioned into primarily vertical motion a little later on.

That ~1s shift skewed other results.

 

[Oystein]

Please upload your trace data. (at least the fourth request now)

Fair request, I think.
AE?

 

[carlitos]

I have read this before, but admit I don't know what the word "transit" means in this context. Can someone explain in layman's terms what you do when you "put a transit on the building"? Thanks.

It's what land surveyors (auf Deutsch - Landvermesser) use. Like a tripod with a telescope on it. If it were trained on a fixed point on the building, and after time, that point had moved, they would know that the building was shifting.

That ~1s shift skewed other results.

As ever, if you could (at long last!) reveal what other dominos fell due to To being misstated by a second, people might be interested. Believe it or not, most of us think - building shifting, making sounds, burning out of control for hours = building fell down. The building fell in the real world, not cyberspace. We had 3 dimensions and 5 senses to process the event, not just VHS video. Yeah, NIST did some detailed analysis to try and better protect future buildings. Your analysis appears to change none of that.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

A minus sign and a square root sign typed in wrong on a jpeg image months ago.

That is all the "dirt" you have on me in the last year?

And how long did I "cling" to that jpeg image? Not even one post? How long did I defend it?

You're still defending your claims, several months after basic errors in your "proof" were exposed.

You explicitly denied those errors in several posts during the week you said would be more than sufficient to find and to fix your errors. You still pretend your mathematical errors had no effect on the "mathematical certainty" of your conclusions. You still cling to conclusions you drew from broken calculations.

It's been four months.

I don't mind you being wrong on the Internet. I'm just pointing out that you are not a reliable source of information on what I say or think, partly because you have demonstrated profound incapacity to understand technical arguments.

 

[femr2]

As ever, if you could (at long last!) reveal what other dominos fell due to To being misstated by a second, people might be interested.

The simplest domino effect is upon the stated *40% longer than freefall* metric, reducing it to under 20% longer than freefall.

As a slightly more complex consequence, the equations of motion are out of whack (technical term )

 

[Major_Tom]

WD Clinger, if it means that much to you we can go over it again. The jpgs were fixed a while ago.

I don't even link to that page from my site anymore since I told you then I had 2 presentations of concave roof-line curvature. I consider it redundant while a different researcher puts together a new presentation based on non-parallel light rays. All the bells and whistles in a way that even you cannot complain about.

The page itself has been inactive for months with the jpegs fixed, but if you need this exercise to put down that cross you seem to be carrying, OK by me.

Do you need me to revive the ill-fated jpeg images on the other thread?

Do you really need this purging? If so, let me know.


Whatever you need to heal.

 

[alienentity]

Fair request, I think.
AE?

I have already published videos with my measurements. They have been available since 2009.

Femr2 has conflated several ideas together and is looking for something I never claimed to have. I am not going to correct his error, but will let him continue the way he is going. For now.

 

[alienentity]

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

However, and it is a big however...

Neither did NIST. (Kind-of )

Weasel words. NIST knows where they measured. You do not. Stop with the obfuscation please.

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.

Supposition. No corroboration from NIST on this point.

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

So the building was collapsing at this point. Thank you for finally admitting this! We're getting somewhere - folks, the building was falling, imploding, twisting and leaning.

But in Femr2's and MT"s world, not collapsing.

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.

No. Incorrect. And you've provided thus far ZERO data points to back up this repeated bare assertion.

Also of grave issue is that NIST defined T₀ using "a single pixel close to the center of the north face roofline"...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/370825048.jpg[/qimg]
Bit of a problem given those rooftop structures being in the way.

You still don't understand what NIST did, and you haven't bothered to contact them to find out what they actually did. Fine. I get it.

Yes, it's a bit of a problem that you don't understand.

 

[alienentity]

There you have it folks, both Femr2 and MT now admit that the roofline of the collapsing building was moving in both the vertical and horizontal planes, but they have both failed to quantify the movements (Femr2 has actually dodged this issue claiming you don't need that kind of precision to understand - which itself is a mind-boggling departure from his usual obsession with minutia), and have arbitrarily decided that their shortcomings disqualify the measurements NIST did.

It's really an elaborate attempt to handwave away inconvenient facts, and is a major (no pun intended) cop-out on their part. Where is the agonizing precision guys? Where are the charts, graphs, and ten-decimal-point measurements to back 'em up?

M.I.A.

 

[alienentity]

Another small observation Femr2 - you do not seem capable of accepting or admitting that the engineers at NIST might know something that you do not.
It appears that if you do not have a piece of info, you automatically deny that NIST might have it.

Hence, when above you admit you don't know where the point was that they measured from, you pretend that they don't either, or that they could not have measured from where they say they did.

 

[femr2]

I have already published videos with my measurements. They have been available since 2009.

That is not your trace data.

Femr2 has conflated several ideas together and is looking for something I never claimed to have. I am not going to correct his error, but will let him continue the way he is going. For now.

...

Femr2, we've been over this fallacious argument already: The point where the brightness of the pixel was determined is not stated to be the same point where the horizontal position was tracked from. 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.

Your data from the motion tracking software you said you had used would be rather more useful than your assurance .

As an aside, my PC is currently scanning for which pixel in the original Cam#3 video matches the brightness profile in figure 12-75. It may take some time, but it should eventually spit out the pixel and initial frame used by NIST

 

[femr2]

NIST knows where they measured.

Correct.

You do not.

Correct

Supposition. No corroboration from NIST on this point.

Nonsense. NIST state that they use a horizontal position in the frame. Implications are then definite. No subtraction of horizontal motion. No feature with which to do so anyway

Thank you for finally admitting this!

Who denied it ? Only an idiot would think it had been denied

No. Incorrect. And you've provided thus far ZERO data points to back up this repeated bare assertion.

ROFL. Where is the visible roofline distortion in the Dan Rather image I showed you ?

This will be another of those factors you eventually get around to agreeing with me upon you know, so I suggest you don't dig yourself in too deep eh

 

[Major_Tom]

There you have it folks, both Femr2 and MT now admit that the roofline of the collapsing building was moving in both the vertical and horizontal planes, but they have both failed to quantify the movements (Femr2 has actually dodged this issue claiming you don't need that kind of precision to understand - which itself is a mind-boggling departure from his usual obsession with minutia), and have arbitrarily decided that their shortcomings disqualify the measurements NIST did.

.

Can someone fill this guy in on what he is missing?

It is very boring babysitting for the debunker side.

We are the ones that pointed out the horizontal component of the motion to you.

It is the NIST that ignores it in their camera 3 measurements, the ones that WD Clinger believe are good. How many posts will you need to grasp what is going on?


We "admit" horizontal motion? What are you on?

 

[femr2]

There you have it folks, both Femr2 and MT now admit that the roofline of the collapsing building was moving in both the vertical and horizontal planes

No-one said otherwise. No doubt you will take that obvious point (which you are incorrectly suggesting has been denied...aka lying) and use it to support the errant NIST T₀, thus providing further indication that you really don't understand the implcations...still.

but they have both failed to quantify the movements

There have been discussions aimed at determining specific N-S movement, but there are not really enough different video viewpoints to gain much accurate z-plane information. The better route is simply to recognise that the Cam#3 viewpoint suffers from the perspective problem and not use the region of flexure to define T₀, better still don't use the cam#3 viewopint to define T₀ at all. Use the Dan Rather viewpoint instead.

Femr2 has actually dodged this issue claiming you don't need that kind of precision to understand

That's not a dodge, it's ridiculously simple. You'd have to be a total idiot not to realise by now that the initial flexure of the North face as seen from the Cam#3 viewpoint is primarily non-vertical movement in the region near the middle of the roofline at the NIST T₀.

It's really an elaborate attempt to handwave away inconvenient facts

Which inconvenient facts ?

 

[Major_Tom]

There have been discussions aimed at determining specific N-S movement, but there are not really enough different video viewpoints to gain much accurate z-plane information. The better route is simply to recognise that the Cam#3 viewpoint suffers from the perspective problem and not use the region of flexure to define T₀, better still don't use the cam#3 viewopint to define T₀ at all. Use the Dan Rather viewpoint instead.

Yup. Simple.


And if the posts are reviewed this simple point has been stated many times.

It is absurd to have to tutor the same people that are insulting me. The constant absurdity of JREF is the insults interlaced with comments which reveal how little is understood.

And odd mixture indeed.

 

[femr2]

As an aside, my PC is currently scanning for which pixel in the original Cam#3 video matches the brightness profile in figure 12-75. It may take some time, but it should eventually spit out the pixel and initial frame used by NIST

The value has been spat



Pixel 304, 171

This frame is at the start of the data in Figure 12-75 (Frame 5398)

Source Video : CBS-Net Dub7 47.avi (RAW NIST FOIA - 1Gb DV File)