Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[W.D.Clinger]

Your refusal to answer tsig's question tells us you are unable or unwilling to defend the hypothesis you advanced in this thread...

Not so. You are confusing "process" with "content". The topic I choose not to explore was a potential derail into process matters. I generally ignore such sidetracks or do no more than identify the derail as I did here.

You are being hypocritical.

You introduced this discussion of "process". You cannot blame anyone else for your decision to introduce that topic into this discussion. You are now pretending that legitimate questions about the matter of "process" you went out of your way to mention are off topic.

...In scientific discourse, hypotheses that no one is willing to defend are generally presumed to be indefensible.

Not a valid criticism because my comments amounted to "lets focus on the hypothesis which is the topic of the thread". What I am not willing to defend in this thread are those matters of process which are off topic. There is no need to defend my reluctance to go off topic. The topic is "femr's video data analysis" which subsumes application of those techniques of analysis to WTC Tower collapses.

Had this thread been limited to the results of femr2's analysis, it would have been an extremely short thread.

This thread is about femr2's analysis. Because he has claimed more importance for his analysis than results, this thread is mostly about the vacuity of femr2's results.

You suggested an implausible excuse for femr2's shortage of results. You are unwilling to defend your hypothesis.

 

[NoahFence]

There was a thread not too long ago that was created to specifically discuss the results. Naturally FEMR declined to discuss what this all meant in that thread, and actually successfully petitioned to have that thread merged with this one.

It was a different thread to specifically get his input on what this thread means.

Therefore, it is completely relevant to discuss matters other than the absurd levels of detail he insists NIST missed for some dastardly purpose.

 

[tsig]

Except that at the very start of ROOSD - apart from the floor bits and pieces already damaged by aircraft impact or fire or directly involved in initiating collapse:
1) The 'other' floors are still tied to the outer perimeter (and core at the other end);
2) Where do you get the impetus to fail the first floor of the ROOSD process; AND
3) How do you stop the perimeter columns applying force to the floors if you want it to be "floor on floor"?

Then, probably more important in understanding the details, at what stage do the staggered ends of broken columns become available relative to the shearing of the floors at that level?

The answer to that is easy for floor levels below the initiating zone once ROOSD is under way. The floors are stripped THEN the perimeter fails so the staggered ends of perimeter only become available after the floors are fallen - so your statement appears valid once ROOSD is under way. Floor on floor is the mechanism but I realise that is not the stage you were addressing.

It ain't so obvious for the impact and fire damage levels where the collapse initiates and transitions into ROOSD.

Which naturally is one of the answers that femr2 is working towards if only those people who don't want more info than NIST provides could let him get on with the process. The perennial circling on the theme of "I'm not interested in those details so what right have you to be interested" - flavoured by the sauce of personal comments.

The only thing that is near certain for my money is that at the start of the process it is floors attached to top block perimeter and core (and maybe hat truss) which combine to give sufficient falling weight to shear the first floor or two or three or...

After that falling floor mass with accumulated debris is sufficient to sustain ROOSD.

Not so. You are confusing "process" with "content". The topic I choose not to explore was a potential derail into process matters. I generally ignore such sidetracks or do no more than identify the derail as I did here.
Not a valid criticism because my comments amounted to "lets focus on the hypothesis which is the topic of the thread". What I am not willing to defend in this thread are those matters of process which are off topic. There is no need to defend my reluctance to go off topic. The topic is "femr's video data analysis" which subsumes application of those techniques of analysis to WTC Tower collapses.

Odd, you say that posters here are impeding femur2 process of analysis and now you insist that the process is off topic.

 

[rwguinn]

evasions noted

 

[femr2]

WTC2 Global Lateral Motion



I'll sync with IB progression soon.

 

[carlitos]

In your latest graph, how can horizontal displacement not start on zero? Displacement from what? Is below zero left and above zero right? And what does "lower tower" mean exactly?

 

[femr2]

In your latest graph, how can horizontal displacement not start on zero?

The start of that graph is at frame 6000.

The start of the data is set to *zero* (back at frame zero).

Given that there is an amount of noise, the initial sample is unlikely to be at the exact centre-point of the static variance.

I'd imagine a slight shift (increase of ~0.1ft) would be required to center on a more appropriate *zero*, but it's not too important for this graph.

I'm simply showing that global motion occurs, and a rough estimation of the extent.


(Full timespan)

Displacement from what?

From where it would normally be.

During initiation, the entire tower is in motion, as you would expect.

Is below zero left and above zero right?

Positive is to the *right* (WNW)

And what does "lower tower" mean exactly?

Below the initiation level. Around storey 70.

 

[rwguinn]

Is "around" similarr in magnitude to "near"?
For someone nit-picking details, your assumptions lack precision...

 

[femr2]

Is "around" similarr in magnitude to "near"?
For someone nit-picking details, your assumptions lack precision...

LOL.

The average over the first 5000 frames is... -0.108668919

I'd assume you're alright with truncating that at -0.1

The vertical trace region spans storeys 69 to 71. Around storey 70. NE Corner.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks for clarifying. Again, you'd be well-served to better label your graphs.

ETA -

Positive is to the *right* (WNW)

Measuring diagonal motion as "horizontal" is a bit odd. Why not triangulate with two camera shots and figure out real motion? Apologies if you or MT have done this.

 

[rwguinn]

Thanks for clarifying. Again, you'd be well-served to better label your graphs.

LOL.

The average over the first 5000 frames is... -0.108668919

I'd assume you're alright with truncating that at -0.1

The vertical trace region spans storeys 69 to 71. Around storey 70. NE Corner.

...


Below the initiation level. Around storey 70.

I was referring to the location the dataset was taken from, not the values of the data.
You are very precise, using 9 place accuracy on 3 place data, but only on the nits.
WHERE the data was taken can be as important as WHAT the data was...

 

[femr2]

I was referring to the location the dataset was taken from

Which I provided you with...

The vertical trace region spans storeys 69 to 71. Around storey 70. NE Corner.

NE corner, spanning the storey above and below storey 70. Around storey 70. About storey 70.

WHERE the data was taken can be as important as WHAT the data was...

In this case, even though I've provided you with the region, no, not really. The maximum extent will vary depending upon how far from the initiation zone it is traced from.

What importance were you thinking of, or was it just a way to write something (seemingly) critical and ever-so-slightly condescending ?

You are very precise, using 9 place accuracy on 3 place data, but only on the nits.

What a pointless whine. The average of 5000 values is not going to be self-limiting in decimal place precision. The value I used from the beginning was 0.1, so I really don't see why you are making a point about *using 9 place accuracy*. Or was it just a way to write something (seemingly) critical and ever-so-slightly condescending ?

 

[femr2]

Thanks for clarifying. Again, you'd be well-served to better label your graphs.

Additional information is not best served being on ever longer graph labels, and better provided with additional text, like this.

Measuring diagonal motion as "horizontal" is a bit odd.

Not really. It's horizontal axis of the trace, with a scaler to account for eastimated direction.

Why not triangulate with two camera shots and figure out real motion?

Real motion ? It is real motion. As-yet the exact direction of that real motion is estimated. Perhaps I shall cross-reference to determine a more accurate direction, but given the behaviour of the upper section, there are limits on what direction the lower tower is going to move in in reaction to such, yes ?

 

[carlitos]

I meant that the World Trade Center was built in three dimensions. So, to me anyway, pixels left / right representing movement approximately (how many degrees?) WNW aren't what I think of as "real motion."

In other words, your oft-criticized false precision is precisely measuring something that actually isn't even defined. As you say:

As-yet the exact direction of that real motion is estimated.

As ever, having a goal would help to prioritize these measurement tasks.

 

[femr2]

I meant that the World Trade Center was built in three dimensions.

Really ?

So, to me anyway, pixels left / right representing movement approximately (how many degrees?) WNW aren't what I think of as "real motion."

Given that I don't think you have any interest in any such motion, why is it important to you, and what difference do you think it would make ?

You can see the viewpoint angle the trace was taken from in the images provided.

I'll provide you with the estimate used, after you've provided your calculation (I don't need additional acuracy for this trace, so you do some leg-work and I'll provide you with the simple way to do it (experience helps) aftwerwards). Personally, for this trace, I'm quite happy with it being approximate, especially given that each vertical location will move a slightly different maximum amount.

As I said to you earlier...

I'm simply showing that global motion occurs, and a rough estimation of the extent.

Is there some reason why you want this particular trace to be in more accurate real-world units ?

(I'd guesstimate determining more accurate angle of motion relative to camera would have trivial effect upon the maxima, and the scaling metric used on the graph.)

In other words, your oft-criticized false precision is precisely measuring something that actually isn't even defined.

ROFL.

Here we go again.

WHAT false precision ?

This thread is a priceless testament to the fact that sub-pixel tracing methods are exactly that, and a bunch of *debunkers* whilst previously attempting to have the thread removed for being *too technical* constantly resort to drilling into lower and lower levels of technical detail in order to find something to criticize the JREF branded *twoofer* with (even if the JREF branded *twoofer* is presenting detail which supports elements of the NIST report or such-like). Really very very funny.

Folk here would criticize me if I said the cloudless sky was blue. Go figure

As ever, having a goal would help to prioritize these measurement tasks.

My priorities are fine thanks. How about yours ?

Look at it this way...I posted a graph, and said...I'll sync with IB progression soon. Nothing more to be said from my perspective.

That's my *priorities* sorted.

Look at what *you lot* are doing.

Intriguing, eh ?

 

[ozeco41]

You are being hypocritical... You are unwilling to defend your hypothesis.

Hogwash. If there was a legitimate need to defend my comment on discussion process I could do so in the appropriate part of the forum. I don't see such defence as necessary. I will not discuss the process of the discussion in this thread in preference to the content of the discussion AKA the "topic". Discussion of forum procedural matters has been frowned upon several times by Moderators. I agree. In addition, as party of my normal "rules of engagement", I rarely enter into derail and off-topic discussions. Especially when those seem to be part of a debating trick.

Odd, you say that posters here are impeding femur2 process of analysis and now you insist that the process is off topic.

Now quote mining to make a strawman tsig? Whether accidental or otherwise you misinterpret my comment to W.D.Clinger. I did not say "process of analysis". Given that I used the common expression 'You are confusing "process" with "content"' my meaning was clear in the context of my response to W.D.Clinger. The way you try to interpret it is nonsensical - it effectively turns my statement into 'You are confusing "content" with "content"'.

 

[carlitos]

As for false precision, rwguinn notes one example on this page alone.

Snark aside, I meant 3d vs. 2d on all of your graphs, not just this one. I wasn't actually asking you "how many degrees?" just observing that you are measuring some movement in some direction, and being inordinately precise about it, to the point where engineers keep chiding you for it. This has nothing at all to do with your "truth" or other stance.

I think I have mentioned this before in this very thread - the idea of triangulating the real-world position. If you want to study the building's movement, that seems to me the best way to go. Just my 2p, as they say. As I have said before, I'd love to see this topic moved to the science forum to see some real technical evaluations of what you're doing. Most of those guys don't wade into the 9/11 section much.

Lastly, seeing your location listed, we'd merely doubt that the sky was indeed cloudless in the first place.

 

[ozeco41]

...Folk here would criticize me if I said the cloudless sky was blue. Go figure

now where have I read that before?

 

[femr2]

As for false precision, rwguinn notes one example on this page alone.

ROFL. That's not false precision in the slightest. It's the average of 5000 values. The average is as stated. The value I used was 0.1. That has 1dp, you know. You are confusing rwguinn's false interpretation with your/his desire to attribute false precision to me.

Snark aside, I meant 3d vs. 2d on all of your graphs, not just this one. I wasn't actually asking you "how many degrees?" just observing that you are measuring some movement in some direction, and being inordinately precise about it, to the point where engineers keep chiding you for it. This has nothing at all to do with your "truth" or other stance.

What claim have I made about the precision of this data ?

I seem to have missed that part. Oh, wait, I haven't stated precision, so your assertion of me *being inordinately precise* about it is moot (and an example of what I said previously).

In contrast, the direction of WTC7 motion has been looked at in great deal. Checked, reckecked. Slight southward movement late in descent not accounted for in data, yep, but all post peak. Your point ?

I think I have mentioned this before in this very thread - the idea of triangulating the real-world position. If you want to study the building's movement, that seems to me the best way to go. Just my 2p, as they say.

As I said...

I'll provide you with the estimate used, after you've provided your calculation (I don't need additional acuracy for this trace, so you do some leg-work and I'll provide you with the simple way to do it (experience helps) aftwerwards).

Perhaps I shall cross-reference to determine a more accurate direction, but given the behaviour of the upper section, there are limits on what direction the lower tower is going to move in in reaction to such, yes ?

So, I've said I may get around to it, and yet you are still complaining that I haven't done so yet. Going to post every ten minutes until I do ? might get around to it. There's a pre-requisite above for a start.

As I have said before, I'd love to see this topic moved to the science forum to see some real technical evaluations of what you're doing. Most of those guys don't wade into the 9/11 section much.

As you also know, such discussion is off-topic.
This forum is for ALL discussion related to 911. End of.

Lastly, seeing your location listed, we'd merely doubt that the sky was indeed cloudless in the first place.

We ? Speak for yourself carlitos.

 

[femr2]

now where have I read that before?

No idea

But...

Lastly, seeing your location listed, we'd merely doubt that the sky was indeed cloudless in the first place.

Yes, I know, joke, but.