Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
LSSBB said:
If you are just talking degrees, I have a MS in Mech E, a Bachelors in Physics and a Bachelors in Astrophysics, plus 23 years of experience and a Six Sigma Black Belt.
Click to expand...
Of course you do.

Will you post your name and credentials as Mr. Chandler has?
 
lexicon008 said:
Would you be willing to take a drug that no one but the company has had a chance to test?
Click to expand...

This is a REALLY bad analogy. Why you ask?

Because people will react to medicine differently.

Steel is pretty much a constant. We can calculate how steel will react under different circumstances. Medicine cannot.
 
triforcharity said:
This is a REALLY bad analogy. Why you ask?

Because people will react to medicine differently.

Steel is pretty much a constant. We can calculate how steel will react under different circumstances. Medicine cannot.
Click to expand...

maybe so..but people on this forum have been screaming at people who disagree for data, math, evidence yet when someone asks for NISTs data all of a sudden its taboo and idiotic and stupid. Sounds like a double standard don't ya think?
 
lexicon008 said:
maybe so..but people on this forum have been screaming at people who disagree for data, math, evidence yet when someone asks for NISTs data all of a sudden its taboo and idiotic and stupid. Sounds like a double standard don't ya think?
Click to expand...

Are you on topic? Do you know the topic? Do you care?

What NIST data do you need? Be specific. This is the second time you have been asked to specify the data you want. Why can't you supply the which data you want? Because you are blindly asking for what 911 truth cries about out of ignorance, or do you know what you require to do your own work? Can you be specific? What will you do with the data?
 
beachnut said:
Are you on topic? Do you know the topic? Do you care?

What NIST data do you need? Be specific. This is the second time you have been asked to specify the data you want. Why can't you supply the which data you want? Because you are blindly asking for what 911 truth cries about out of ignorance, or do you know what you require to do your own work? Can you be specific? What will you do with the data?
Click to expand...

sorry beach..apparently you need specific language or you get cranky.

i would like NIST to release all the data they used in their computer simulations so that the scientific community that wants to see it can look at it and verify its reliability.
What would i do with it..well probably take it to someone with more letters after their name (or atleast different letters) then me and see what they have to say about it.
You do remember the whole peer review process right..is not releasing data part of that?
 
LSSBB said:
"Asinine" and "this scientifically confirmed fact" apparently = "Chris cannot or will not refute the methodology used by FEMR2 so he will resort to a blanket statement."
Click to expand...
FEMR's graph, but of course. NIST and Mr. Chandler are wrong because "FEMR" says so.

Have Mr. FEMR post his name and credentials.
 
lexicon008 said:
sorry beach..apparently you need specific language or you get cranky.

i would like NIST to release all the data they used in their computer simulations so that the scientific community that wants to see it can look at it and verify its reliability.
What would i do with it..well probably take it to someone with more letters after their name (or atleast different letters) then me and see what they have to say about it.
You do remember the whole peer review process right..is not releasing data part of that?
Click to expand...
How long have you been an engineer?

You can't specify which data you want. You are only repeating claims made by 911 truth, you have no clue what data you want, or what simulation you want repeated. The irony, you will not understand the next simulation if you can't specify what your needs are now. You blindly repeat statements made up by 911 truth as they have fantasy of CD and the inside job.

911 truth peaked out many years ago - 10 years of constant failure.

You have failed to follow up on your open claims in other threads - what the heck will you do when you get to flight 93? If you can't specify the data needed, you are in the same boat as 911 truth - they can't figure out 911.
 
Last edited:
Because him and Tony and Lawyer have some sick obsession with finding out the real names of people they don't like, so they can.....I dunno, drive by your house and maybe peer into your windows or something. Who knows.

It's a silly and sick obsession. Especially ironic coming from Sarns, whom has NO engineering qualifications whatsoever.
 
LSSBB said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because he is evading the real issue. Is Chandler right? -- no he is wrong on all his key claims that I have seen. Just as Tony S is wrong on the main premises of the three papers I have read. Similarly femr2 tends to be right on anything he claims - and very careful to not claim what he cannot support.

It matters not how many degrees a person has their claims can be either right or wrong and that status is independent of who has what degrees.

Remember the legal advocates maxim, first corollary, "If they are attacking the witnesses they almost certainly have no case."
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
beachnut said:
The full scale model on 911 failed in fire.
Click to expand...

That is a really good point.
Click to expand...
clap.gif
It is the only significant point at issue. Hence umpteen pages of evasive trollery because "they" cannot make a reasoned claim for a failure other than by fire.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Insufficient data.:rolleyes:

Post your name and when/where you got your degree so it can be verified.
Click to expand...

No need for verification..........those degrees are common place where he works.

Based off of where he works and the content of his posts...he likely has the degrees he claims to have.
 
Christopher7 said:
That asinine interpretation of the data is refuted by NIST and Chandler. Measurements taken from a video are not exact so many are taken and the software computes the average.
Click to expand...
You keep showing your ignorance on the subject.

Have you read NIST's NCSTAR 1-9 appendix C?

They elaborate a technique called Moiré analysis in order to check the movement of the building with sub-pixel resolution. Femr2 used the same program that he used for analyzing the vertical movement of the NW corner and obtained similar results to NIST's in this instance.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/89078455.jpg

Note scale in inches.

But accepting tfk's or femr2's accel graph would mean for you to admit that there was a force pulling the building down, making your zero resistance claim incorrect, so you have to resort to denying that it is even possible to extract that data, against all evidence, including the evidence that even NIST's data shows over G acceleration.

Meanwhile, you just resort to deny the utility of video tracking software such as these:
http://www.visionxinc.com/software-systems-machines/Motion-tracking-video-capture-and-analysis.html
http://www.mikromak.com/en/support.htm#subpixel_accuracy
http://www.spicatek.com/dmas/dmas.htm
http://cismm.cs.unc.edu/resources/software-manuals/video-spot-tracker-manual/

or of this research paper on the subject:
http://www2.cvl.isy.liu.se/ScOut/Publications/Papers/isvc06_jf.pdf

ETA: A relevant search:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sub-pixel+motion
and a quote from the second link above:
There is the possibility to track an object motion in an image sequence with subpixel accuracy. This means that motion can be determined to fractions of a pixel (up to 0.01 pixel), what results in a more exact analysis. Subpixel calculations are in a sense the same as extending the image resolution.​
Emphasis mine.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Because him and Tony and Lawyer have some sick obsession with finding out the real names of people they don't like, so they can.....I dunno, drive by your house and maybe peer into your windows or something. Who knows.

It's a silly and sick obsession.
Click to expand...
Asking someone to verify their claim of expertise is "sick". :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom