Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[DGM]

The NIST graphic images visually render results concluded by the model's calculations.

If a careful examination of those simulation images reveals a collapse pattern strongly at odds with the reference video, you have to question the very validity of the NIST collapse conclusions.

This is hardly "NIST-picking".

MM

Thank goodness it wasn't.

In engineering terms, how much exactly is "strongly"?

 

[LSSBB]

The NIST graphic images visually render results concluded by the model's calculations.

If a careful examination of those simulation images reveals a collapse pattern strongly at odds with the reference video, you have to question the very validity of the NIST collapse conclusions.

This is hardly "NIST-picking".

MM

MM, you need to define the highlighted comparative phrase in non-subjective terms in order to be able to non-subjectively use "have to".

ETA: DGM beat me to it, props.

 

[pgimeno]

The NIST graphic images visually render results concluded by the model's calculations.

If a careful examination of those simulation images reveals a collapse pattern strongly at odds with the reference video, you have to question the very validity of the NIST collapse conclusions.

This is hardly "NIST-picking".

MM

I agree that it is not NIST-picking.

It is a misrepresentation of the purpose of the NIST model.

Just like yours.

The conclusions of the model are not "column X makes a 7.3° angle with column Y".

The conclusions are "the building falls".

As simulated time progresses, the simulation is expected to differ substantially from reality. Butterfly effect^WP and all that, you know. Something that Christopher7 has been told repeatedly and is deliberately ignoring each time he posts that graphic.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7,

I do not engage in NIST-picking. I know the models don't 100% reflect the video and photo evidence. NIST says so. I have one interest: CD or natural collapse?

Then why are you ignoring the fact that the NIST simulation shows the exterior columns still buckling 20 feet into the collapse, during the FFA of Stage 2 ?

 

[MarkLindeman]

Then why are you ignoring the fact that the NIST simulation shows the exterior columns still buckling 20 feet into the collapse, during the FFA of Stage 2 ?

Sad to say, you haven't convinced anyone that your subjective certainty that the roofline in one of NIST's figures is 13 feet too low has any bearing on any relevant question.

Your apparent inability to understand the preceding point isn't scoring any points, either.

 

[carlitos]

It's right in DGM's signature:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"
-Jay Windley

 

[Christopher7]

It's right in DGM's signature:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"
-Jay Windley

True, the conspiracy theorists who believe 19 misfits got by the most sophisticated military in the world, bog down the discussion with endless denial and double talk.

 

[Christopher7]

Sad to say, you haven't convinced anyone that your subjective certainty that the roofline in one of NIST's figures is 13 feet too low has any bearing on any relevant question.

I can't teach a brick to think but I want the lurkers to see just how absurd the official conspiracy theorists get in their effort to deny any and all evidence that the 3 towers were CD's

ETA: Chris Mohr will not address the fact that the columns are still buckling during the FFA in Stage 2 because he cannot accept that the NIST simulation in NOT falling at FFA.

 

[DGM]

True, the conspiracy theorists who believe 19 misfits got by the most sophisticated military in the world, bog down the discussion with endless denial and double talk.

This is true. Tell us, why do you believe this? We certainly don't.

 

[Christopher7]

True, the conspiracy theorists who believe 19 misfits got by the most sophisticated military in the world, bog down the discussion with endless denial and double talk.

This is true. Tell us, why do you believe this? We certainly don't.

I don't believe the conspiracy theory about 19 misfits getting by our military but I'm surprised to hear that you don't either.

 

[DGM]

I don't believe the conspiracy theory about 19 misfits getting by our military but I'm surprised to hear that you don't either.

I don't think anyone here believes that myth. In fact, wasn't that just made up by "truthers"?

 

[MarkLindeman]

I can't teach a brick to think

Keeping it classy for the lurkers, eh? If there are any, and if they have any questions, I sincerely encourage them to ask.

It's clear on the record that you are lashing out like this not because people are ignoring your evidence, but because people decline to agree with you. Indeed, I don't agree with you, and I have explained why. There is nothing else I can do for you.

 

[Miragememories]

"The NIST graphic images visually render results concluded by the model's calculations.

If a careful examination of those simulation images reveals a collapse pattern strongly at odds with the reference video, you have to question the very validity of the NIST collapse conclusions.

This is hardly "NIST-picking""

"I agree that it is not NIST-picking.

It is a misrepresentation of the purpose of the NIST model.

Just like yours.

The conclusions of the model are not "column X makes a 7.3° angle with column Y".

The conclusions are "the building falls".

As simulated time progresses, the simulation is expected to differ substantially from reality. Butterfly effect^WP and all that, you know. Something that Christopher7 has been told repeatedly and is deliberately ignoring each time he posts that graphic."

[ Drumroll ]..."The building falls"

Well a computer modeled timeline that didn't conclude with a total building failure, could only mean the input data was seriously in error.

And of course If the NIST engineering calculations are based on the same erroneous data...

Consider that the NIST attempted to describe a perfect storm of targeted destruction created by the office furnishings fires.

The 'pre-Butterfly Effect' timeline shown by the NIST graphics and animations, to have any value, should stand up to comparison with the same early stages of global collapse as observed in the actual video reference recordings.

MM

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't think anyone here believes that myth. In fact, wasn't that just made up by "truthers"?

Please explain.

Would you care for a libation? A malt Scotch perhaps?

 

[000063]

[ Drumroll ]..."The building falls"

Well a computer modeled timeline that didn't conclude with a total building failure, could only mean the input data was seriously in error.

Except the failure in all three buildings was progressive.

Nice goalpost-moving.

And of course If the NIST engineering calculations are based on the same erroneous data...

That's a whole lot of "if".

Consider that the NIST attempted to describe a perfect storm of targeted destruction created by the office furnishings fires.

No they didn't. They said the fire made 7 fail. Progressively.

The 'pre-Butterfly Effect' timeline shown by the NIST graphics and animations, to have any value, should stand up to comparison with the same early stages of global collapse as observed in the actual video reference recordings.

MM

You are aware that NIST did more than just plug numbers into a computer, right? It is literally impossible, even today, to model the collapse perfectly.

Thank goodness it wasn't.

In engineering terms, how much exactly is "strongly"?

MM, you need to define the highlighted comparative phrase in non-subjective terms in order to be able to non-subjectively use "have to".

ETA: DGM beat me to it, props.

I've noticed that you rarely answer direct questions, preferring to swoop in and swipe at assertions made to others. Why is that? What is your definition of "strongly" in the sense you used it in your earlier statement?

 

[carlitos]

I don't think anyone here believes that myth. In fact, wasn't that just made up by "truthers"?

Yes, I don't recall having to get by "the military" when I checked in on any flights before September of 2001.

 

[Sabretooth]

Then why are you ignoring the fact that the NIST simulation shows the exterior columns still buckling 20 feet into the collapse, during the FFA of Stage 2 ?

Let's pretend, for a split second, that NIST didn't even publish a report.

Find those explosives yet, C7?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

True, the conspiracy theorists who believe 19 misfits got by the most sophisticated military in the world, bog down the discussion with endless denial and double talk.

when did the Military get in their way? The whole point of a surprise attack is that your opponent is not ready for you. the terrorists calculated that the US Military would be too slow to react to a novel threat and they were right.
That's what I don't get about Twoofers, they deny a simple plot and create a vastly more complex one and claim its more likely.

There is something about complexity that they find compelling......

 

[lexicon008]

when did the Military get in their way? The whole point of a surprise attack is that your opponent is not ready for you. the terrorists calculated that the US Military would be too slow to react to a novel threat and they were right.
That's what I don't get about Twoofers, they deny a simple plot and create a vastly more complex one and claim its more likely.

There is something about complexity that they find compelling......

true but the military had fighters in the air within 12 minutes of the first hijack notice. this was before the impact of the first plane i beleive.
What happened after that? There were planes within 1 minute flight time of the pentagon and the plane was being tracked both on radar and apparently by a C130 yet no intercept?
That strains credability a little bit don't ya think? Certainly does cause some questions to be asked i would think.

 

[carlitos]

true but the military had fighters in the air within 12 minutes of the first hijack notice. this was before the impact of the first plane i beleive.
What happened after that? There were planes within 1 minute flight time of the pentagon and the plane was being tracked both on radar and apparently by a C130 yet no intercept?
That strains credability a little bit don't ya think? Certainly does cause some questions to be asked i would think.

Specific to intercept times - http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Intercept_time

On the idea that military jets should have / could have done more in general - http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down