Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[newton3376]

Asking someone to verify their claim of expertise is "sick".

ROFL

I have always been amazed how truthers seem to think claiming to be an Engineer or Scientist is so unbelievable that it requires careful scrutiny and verification....

Having a B.S or M.S in physics or engineering is not some great accomplishment....it's an accomplishment sure, but it's not as big a deal as truthers make it out to be.

Even having a PhD isn't a huge deal for the most part.....

Maybe I have a skewed opinion because I am a working Engineer and am surrounded by people with BS, MS, and PhD's on a daily basis....I dont know.



Look.......If the guy works for ONR then the degrees he listed aren't a big surprise.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Note that the movement is east west sway at upper floors. But the only way for a building to move up and down is in an earthquake when the ground moves up and down.

FEMRs vertical graph has the roofline (?) moving up and down 3 to 6 inches for ~2 seconds, then the 3 to 6 inch variance moves up ~6 inches for a second, then down ~16 inches, then up ~18 inches.

NOT!

The building is not moving up and down. The camera is over 3,000 feet* away and the warm air distorts the image from that distance.

*1-9 pg 263 [pdf pg 307]

ETA: NIST used camera 3 and that was over 2,000 feet away. The variation is due the atmospheric disturbance, not a variance in the rate of fall. Anyone interpreting the data as the building going from faster than FFA to slower than FFA and back again, does not understand this concept.

 

[LSSBB]

Asking someone to verify their claim of expertise is "sick".

I've already provided more than I need to. I'm not denying the common narrative of the events of 9/11, so I don't have to prove anything.

 

[triforcharity]

Asking someone to verify their claim of expertise is "sick".

No, it's the constant whining that you and Tony do when someone doesn't want to reveal their personal information.

Can you and Tony et al. not dispute their argument with that information? Their posts say all that needs to be said.

 

[000063]

What an odd statement. Everyone uses other peoples information all the time. The whole basis of schooling is learning and using what someone else has discovered.
...

And the whole basis of the scientific method is replicability. If you can't start from the same premises, follow the same processes, and arrive at the same results, then one or both of you is wrong. Truthers want to nitpick NIST's conclusions without being willing to collect their own info, even when they have access to the same things NIST used to make their measurements.

...
Yes another engineer might be able to come up with a comparable collapse scenario but that isn't the point here is it. NISTs report is supposed to be the final word on this

Says who? Because there have been several other words written on the matter since the report was released.

and its data need to be verified just like any other scientific discipline.

And it has been. It's used in engineering and architecture courses around the world. It has literally been used to build buildings that stood up to fire better.

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?

No, quite the opposite. Beachnut has pointed out that if anyone wants to use NIST's data as presented in the report, they can and have. Certain parts of NIST's analysis are proprietary, like their fire simulation, which is in any case a "best guess". But even without that, there's enough for many to see that they're right.

Now, if you would like to stop complaining and actually present something...

 

[000063]

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?

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.

Y'know, saying "all the data, which I will take to people who know more than me" is the exact opposite of being "specific". It also means you've been complaining about their omission of data without really knowing what's being omitted.

Hm.

You do remember the whole peer review process right..is not releasing data part of that?

Why don't you find out, get back to us, and quit JAQing off?

 

[chrismohr]

Note that the movement is east west sway at upper floors. But the only way for a building to move up and down is in an earthquake when the ground moves up and down.

FEMRs vertical graph has the roofline (?) moving up and down 3 to 6 inches for ~2 seconds, then the 3 to 6 inch variance moves up ~6 inches for a second, then down ~16 inches, then up ~18 inches.

NOT!

The building is not moving up and down. The camera is over 3,000 feet* away and the warm air distorts the image from that distance.

*1-9 pg 263 [pdf pg 307]

ETA: NIST used camera 3 and that was over 2,000 feet away. The variation is due the atmospheric disturbance, not a variance in the rate of fall. Anyone interpreting the data as the building going from faster than FFA to slower than FFA and back again, does not understand this concept.

To people who have studied FEMR's data,

Is what Chris7 saying here true? I was under the impression that what was going up and down was the speed of descent due to variable resistance, not that the building was descending at a negative rate sometimes (in other words, popping up and down).

Another question: I am assuming that Chris7's up-and-down charge on FEMR's data refers to the beginning of the collapse sequence. If so, even assuming that Chris7's reading of the data is accurate, is his claim that up-and-down motion is possible only in an earthquake true? For example, if the building is barely beginning its descent, and some internal torquing or leveraging is happening, could a single point along the roofline move a tiny bit upward?

 

[carlitos]

Here's 2400 posts to read on the matter. Try not to gouge your eyeballs out or get sick on your shoes. tfk, if he returns, can probably elaborate.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Simple research in 2001?

Google only actively started a few years earlier in 1998 and didn't issue an IPO until 2004.
Are you suggesting that in 2001, the military had openly published all their interception timings?

That they broadcast their national defense limitations to all would-be plane hijackers?

On top of this, it has already been established that the U.S. military did have time to make the intercepts, and that they had considered possible suicide attack scenarios with hijacked aircraft.

MM

There were many search engines prior to Google........and planes were hijacked and had issues that required an intercept prior to 911. I've never checked but I have no doubt the details were well documented in the reports at the time. I completed my Masters in 1996 and much of my research was done on the internet even then.

please show us where having the time in theory and being able to do it in practice are the same thing..........

 

[Miragememories]

Recent posts are meandering and off-topic.

As has occurred throughout this thread, the Official Story adherents have failed to address Christopher7's technical arguments.

I would say it shows little argument can be made against his points.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

There were many search engines prior to Google........and planes were hijacked and had issues that required an intercept prior to 911. I've never checked but I have no doubt the details were well documented in the reports at the time. I completed my Masters in 1996 and much of my research was done on the internet even then.

please show us where having the time in theory and being able to do it in practice are the same thing..........

"I've never checked but I have no doubt the details were well documented in the reports at the time."

It is so much easier to make an assumption than check.

If you wish to argue the existence of the Internet and search engines in 2001, I have no argument for you.

Congratulations on successfully obtaining your Masters Degree!

MM

 

[MarkLindeman]

You do remember the whole peer review process right..is not releasing data part of that?

Actually not. It certainly isn't that simple, at any rate.

At least two issues arise here. The most pertinent one here is that releasing the data may be unethical. I think most people would agree that it would be daft to insist that the Census Bureau release its raw questionnaire data in order to prove that they haven't faked their aggregates. That would violate their pledge to protect respondents' privacy (and, by the way, it wouldn't even prove that they didn't fake the data).

(The other issue doesn't seem to apply here -- at least not directly -- but it is widely agreed that researchers have some intellectual property rights in data that they collect. I would not be surprised if some of the things that people are demanding from NIST are protected by other parties' intellectual property rights; I know that's how it is in the climate change "debate.")

Yes, once again I'm reminded of the Great Exit Poll Debate. A lot of people professed to be shocked by Edison/Mitofsky's response to demands for data, but the fact was that E/M went far beyond the norm.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Personally i think they should just release the input data and end the arguments. If their sims are valid and the data is good then lets see it and move on.

Irrefutable proof has never silenced twoofers before so I see no reason to think it would do so now. Some of them even think there were no planes!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ego gone wild.
Chandler has masters degrees in math and teaching. No one here is qualified to say Chandler doesn't know what he is talking about.

Since when was a Masters in Math a vaccine against mental illness or incompertence? And Math is not Physics. One must study math to be able to do physics but there is no requirement at all that one studies physics to do math. Chandler likely has done no more physics than that required for his high school classes and its clear he did not understand even that.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Actually...
BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major--independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona. Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy educator at K-12 and Jr. college levels. Formerly on editorial board of The Physics Teacher (AAPT journal).
He teaches physics and holds a bach degree so i think he can speak about physics..unless his bio is also a lie..lol

Nothing there that requires formal education in Physics. K-12 and Jr College is beginners level where the questions and answers are in a text book. Sadly many high school teachers do not understand what they teach but luckily for most bright kids they don't need to, as the text books explain it well enough for them to gain that understanding.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Insufficient data.

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

Smart folks don't give their names to nuts on the internet.


I've got HND Mech Eng and an MBA and 30 years working as a design engineer, and I don't lie on the internet........you?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

ROFL

I have always been amazed how truthers seem to think claiming to be an Engineer or Scientist is so unbelievable that it requires careful scrutiny and verification....

Having a B.S or M.S in physics or engineering is not some great accomplishment....it's an accomplishment sure, but it's not as big a deal as truthers make it out to be.

Even having a PhD isn't a huge deal for the most part.....

Maybe I have a skewed opinion because I am a working Engineer and am surrounded by people with BS, MS, and PhD's on a daily basis....I dont know.



Look.......If the guy works for ONR then the degrees he listed aren't a big surprise.

Well relative to what your average truther manages any technical degree is a massive achievement. What they fail to understand is that Degrees are not vaccines against mental illness nor guarantees of competence. The are simply an indication that someone was capable at one moment in time. One has to look at current work to judge current competence.

 

[plague311]

Recent posts are meandering and off-topic.

As has occurred throughout this thread, the Official Story adherents have failed to address Christopher7's technical arguments.

I would say it shows little argument can be made against his points.

MM

Stating this shows why you still believe the truth movement is influencial or even relevant. The "official story adherents" have taken the time to prove Chrissy wrong at every turn. I can fully understand why you believe what you do, since handwaving is a specialty and requirement to join the truth movement.

If something proves you wrong, dismiss it with a wave of the hand. Practice with me now...

 

[pgimeno]

To people who have studied FEMR's data,

Is what Chris7 saying here true? I was under the impression that what was going up and down was the speed of descent due to variable resistance, not that the building was descending at a negative rate sometimes (in other words, popping up and down).

You can see the position graph by yourself. Here is the position data before the collapse, horizontal vs. vertical, scale in pixels. There is certainly some noise, but in general it fluctuates slowly. Note the correlation of the movement at some intervals, meaning that part of the movement was diagonal with respect to the camera viewpoint.

In the graph above it seems that 1 px is approx. 1' 9".

This shows the horizontal movement of the east penthouse, revealing that things were basically calm until the building suddenly started to shake moments before the penthause fell.

As an aside, here's position vs. acceleration, another important graph regarding FFA claims:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/447669743.png

Another question: I am assuming that Chris7's up-and-down charge on FEMR's data refers to the beginning of the collapse sequence. If so, even assuming that Chris7's reading of the data is accurate, is his claim that up-and-down motion is possible only in an earthquake true? For example, if the building is barely beginning its descent, and some internal torquing or leveraging is happening, could a single point along the roofline move a tiny bit upward?

I seem to remember people mentioning much less subtle movements of the building at a prior time. Maybe someone can elaborate on this.

 

[pgimeno]

Note that the movement is east west sway at upper floors. But the only way for a building to move up and down is in an earthquake when the ground moves up and down.

Whatever. That NIST appendix contradicts your statement that

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.

no matter how far you move your goalposts now.