Do Subpixel Video Measurements Reveal Errors in the NIST account of 9/11?

econ41

Senior Member
Hi @qed I'm intrigued that you "disagree" with my post at #31 given that I made 10 assertions advising @Abdullah of some of the history of this topic. All 10 are true with the partial exception of #2.
(1)Yes. Major_Tom's site has been "off-line" for some time.
(2) A comprehensive collection of data no longer available
(3) And I have had no contact with him for at least 2-3 years.
(4) He was an outstanding researcher of the video record who, together with three colleagues, approached WTC Towers collapse research from a "truther side" starting perspective.
(5) Then honestly rebutted a number of truth-movement memes.
(6) The example I recall from Major_Tom - the photo-shopped graphic used by (I think) S Jones showing alleged molten steel in the debris pile. It was a collage of four separate photos and Major_Tom identified where the added bits of imagery were sourced in the debris pile relative to the central feature of heated steel.
(7) He was the first person to put the "ROOSD" explanation into mainstream 9/11 debate
(8) and was met by denials, insults and personal attacks on another forum
(9) which was renowned for hostility to truthers. (It had in fact seen a "split" of members over those issues. )

(10) His colleague "femr2" was the person who specialised in accurate interpretation of video measurements including the related issues of "sub-pixel" accuracy.
As for #2 Major_Tom's own website is still offline and that status appears to be permanent. @Abdullah has located the data on the "Wayback Machine". BUT which of the other 9 do you disagree with?

I was very careful in #7 to refer to 'put the "ROOSD" explanation into mainstream 9/11 debate' which Major Tom did early in 2009. Yes I put the explanation without the acronym on-line in 2007 but that was on the R Dawkins Forum which was not a mainstream 9/11 debate.

So why "Disagree" with the other nine? When seven of them are assertions of fact and only two of them include value judgments which I considered appropriate in a post written as advice for member @Abdullah.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As one who has been through what remains on the internet, this "work" was a bunch of amateurs playing with very noisy data. No one on this forum who participated in those experiments can repeat them. They do not have the required skills.
I do, and I'll probably get around to it eventually. I'm going to write a motion tracking tool for Sitrec.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Wait ..it should be possible to get a 3D model of building deformations using sychronized and located videos from different angles. Does anyone know of a software that does this?
It seems you are asking for accurate data from low-res, noisy, analog footage. Where is the accuracy supposed to come from?

Computer software operates by the GIGO principle: garbage in, garbage out.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Wait ..it should be possible to get a 3D model of building deformations using sychronized and located videos from different sngles. Does anyone know of a software that does this?
Step #1 - What are you trying to prove?? The proposal goes well beyond the single issue question of the OP.
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
I do, and I'll probably get around to it eventually. I'm going to write a motion tracking tool for Sitrec.
Why not use the subpixel tracker that comes with MatLab?

Once you have a de-jittered subpixel tracking of the the penthouse corner, what would you consider a sound method for analyzing that dataset with respect to the question of the acceleration of that point? Further, how would you analyze error bounds or noise in the data set?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why not use the subpixel tracker that comes with MatLab?

Once you have a de-jittered subpixel tracking of the the penthouse corner, what would you consider a sound method for analyzing that dataset with respect to the question of the acceleration of that point? Further, how would you analyze error bounds or noise in the data set?
This is all stuff that has been done before. I've done sub-pixel motion tracking with After Effects, years ago. You could measure noise in the normal way (amplitude about the mean, std dev, sigma).

The biggest issue is really the lack of data points, combined with the lack of resolution.

I don't really think there's going to be much new coming from rehashing this. But saying nobody has the skills to do it is a bit odd. There's a wide variety of people here. There are also new technologies, like OpenCV that might be newly applicable (region tracking vs. point tracking), and people who've done stuff with that in the UFO forums, like @logicbear
 

Abdullah

Active Member
Step #1 - What are you trying to prove?? The proposal goes well beyond the single issue question of the OP.
Correct. We may need a new thread.

This 3D reconstruction is needed to reconstruct the strains on all visible components. We can then trace the load redistribution and find what broke when. For example

1. The south wall has already buckled before collapse initiation

2. The core thermally expanded, suggesting relatively low temperatures

3. Etc

Basically, investigate the collapse.
 

qed

Senior Member
Hi @qed I'm intrigued that you "disagree" with my post at #31 given that I made 10 assertions advising @Abdullah of some of the history of this topic. All 10 are true with the partial exception of #2.

As for #2 Major_Tom's own website is still offline and that status appears to be permanent. @Abdullah has located the data on the "Wayback Machine". BUT which of the other 9 do you disagree with?

I was very careful in #7 to refer to 'put the "ROOSD" explanation into mainstream 9/11 debate' which Major Tom did early in 2009. Yes I put the explanation without the acronym on-line in 2007 but that was on the R Dawkins Forum which was not a mainstream 9/11 debate.

So why "Disagree" with the other nine? When seven of them are assertions of fact and only two of them include value judgments which I considered appropriate in a post written as advice for member @Abdullah.
I disagree with: (4) He was an outstanding researcher of the video record who, together with three colleagues, approached WTC Towers collapse research from a "truther side" starting perspective.

You are confusing "researcher" with "social media user".
 

econ41

Senior Member
I disagree with: (4) He was an outstanding researcher of the video record who, together with three colleagues, approached WTC Towers collapse research from a "truther side" starting perspective.

You are confusing "researcher" with "social media user".
Thank you for your explicit and focused response.

I would normally back off the hyperbole of "outstanding" but the post was intended to advise @Abdullah. And he appears to be unaware of some of the history of on-line discussion and analysis of WTC Twin Towers collapses.

We should probably agree to differ over your denigration of research communicated via social media. Most of my own learning about 9/11 events came from discussions such as these.
 
Top