Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

Says the carpenter who doesn't understand fire science......

Says the guy pretending he does.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

I also understand that the fire on floor 12, that supposedly triggered the collapse, had burned out in the NE corner over an hour before the collapse, so the NIST hypothesis is impossible.

 

[chrismohr]

Says the guy pretending he does.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

I also understand that the fire on floor 12, that supposedly triggered the collapse, had burned out in the NE corner over an hour before the collapse, so the NIST hypothesis is impossible.

Chris7,

deleted, response to wrong post

 

[TSR]

There are qualified engineers that could look at the input data and see if it were realistic.

There are.

They did.

It is.

Anything else? Shall I jump on your chest and start you breathing as well?

 

[chrismohr]

As if you didn't know.

The "data" is the input to the collapse model - the actual numbers.
Ron Brookman SE, filed a FOIA request and NIST said no.

Chris7,

This is not a rebuttal, just information... A year and a half ago I asked Michael Newman at NIST about this and he said that while most information was released to the public, some information was kept secret because it could be used as a blueprint for future terrorist attacks. In other words, detailed information about a building's structure could reveal weaknesses in other structures.

I am neutral on this question. I do know that "Top Secret" is often stamped onto government documents unnecessarily. And "Top Secret" is also stamped on documents and information that deserve to be Top Secret. I can't say what the truth is because I don't know if NIST's raw data really could be used to destroy other buildings.

 

[pgimeno]

In the 3 seconds before the collapse it would not be vibrating up and down many times a second as much as 6".

It is vibrating diagonally from the point of view of the camera. That vibration only happens at the last moment prior to the collapse - see my response to Chris Mohr in post 4379.

NIST did not do that nor did Mr. Chandler because they know that the data points are NOT absolutely accurate. That's why they use a lot of points and have the software compute the average.

Wrong. They didn't use the moiré method vertically because it wasn't applicable in the vertical direction. IIRC they had to resort to whole pixel measurements, which is utterly inaccurate. femr2's measurement was subpixel. Did I already mention that spot movement tracking techniques have improved since NIST did the study?

Of course dear. Would you post the quote please?

It shows sub-pixel-accurate measurements. No need for any particular quote.

 

[NoahFence]

Says the guy pretending he does.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

I also understand that the fire on floor 12, that supposedly triggered the collapse, had burned out in the NE corner over an hour before the collapse, so the NIST hypothesis is impossible.

Yes, and the resulting damage just fixed itself! It was built with silly-puddy!

 

[triforcharity]

Says the guy pretending he does.

The Certificate of Diploma on my wall says otherwise.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

Yes, maybe water, or simple air, but not in a building with a fire burning. No matter how much you protest to the contrary.

I also understand that the fire on floor 12, that supposedly triggered the collapse, had burned out in the NE corner over an hour before the collapse, so the NIST hypothesis is impossible.

So, because the fire burned out in that 10' radius, that removes all heat and corrects all damage already done?

Please, explain how that works.

 

[000063]

How many times has that been pointed out? How many times has he ignored it?

 

[Christopher7]

They didn't use the moiré method vertically because it wasn't applicable in the vertical direction.

So it doesn't apply to the collapse.

IIRC they had to resort to whole pixel measurements, which is utterly inaccurate.

Chris, Do you understand what he said? The individual data points are inaccurate.

That's why they used many spots and took an average.

Interpreting the dots on the NIST and Chandler graphs as absolutely accurate is an erroneous interpretation of the data.

 

[Christopher7]

The Certificate of Diploma on my wall says otherwise.

Ah yes, I can see it now. Thanks.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

Yes, maybe water, or simple air, but not in a building with a fire burning.

I also understand that the fire on floor 12, that supposedly triggered the collapse, had burned out in the NE corner over an hour before the collapse, so the NIST hypothesis is impossible.

So, because the fire burned out in that 10' radius, that removes all heat and corrects all damage already done?

Please, explain how that works.

I love the way some people make absurd assumptions and ask questions about them.

By 4 p.m. the fire was over 100 feet away. It would still be heating the air around column 79 somewhat but not enough to be heating the floor beams in the NE corner area.

And this is still an hour and 20 minutes before the collapse.

The fire on floor 12 had burned out in the area of the triggering event by about 3:45 p.m. and on the entire floor by about 4:45 p.m.

Therefore, it could not have caused the floor beams under floor 13 to expand at 5:20 p.m. as is required by the NIST theory.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7,

This is not a rebuttal, just information... A year and a half ago I asked Michael Newman at NIST about this and he said that while most information was released to the public, some information was kept secret because it could be used as a blueprint for future terrorist attacks. In other words, detailed information about a building's structure could reveal weaknesses in other structures.

They have already given all the information necessary if that were a problem.

This ultra paranoid excuse ignores the necessity for engineers to make corrections if needed to other existing structures and future structures.

You have not responded to this critical fact yet:

The exterior columns in Figure 12-62 and the simulation video had buckled ~20-25 feet and had not broken, which means they were still providing resistance beyond the 7 feet (?) of descent in Stage 1 and well into the FFA of Stage 2.

Previously you sidestepped the distance and talked about the NIST claim that it took 2 seconds for the collapse of the exterior columns to propagate around the building starting at column 14 [next to SW corner]. That clearly did not happen because the west wall did not start falling before the north face.

 

[pgimeno]

They didn't use the moiré method vertically because it wasn't applicable in the vertical direction.

So it doesn't apply to the collapse.

Of course; if NIST could have used it vertically they would, but they required the top to be basically horizontal to apply the same analysis method, and it wasn't in that view, so they couldn't. [ETA: the method had other limitations that would prevent it from being used anyway even if the top was horizontal.]

femr2's data, on the other hand, is both horizontal and vertical because the spot tracking software doesn't have the same limitations as NIST's moiré method, and femr2's horizontal data matches NIST's moiré analysis quite well, while the vertical data shows over-G quite clearly and unequivocally.

 

[Christopher7]

They didn't use the moiré method vertically because it wasn't applicable in the vertical direction.

So it doesn't apply to the collapse.

Of course; if NIST could have used it vertically they would

So NIST couldn't use this method because it wasn't applicable in the vertical direction, but FEMR could because he has better software?

femr2's data, on the other hand, is both horizontal and vertical because the spot tracking software doesn't have the same limitations as NIST's moiré method, and femr2's horizontal data matches NIST's moiré analysis quite well, while the vertical data shows over-G quite clearly and unequivocally.

Objects cannot fall at greater than FFA without an external downward force.

I don't buy FEMR's analysis but I do believe that it was possible for the core to momentarily pull the NW corner down at slightly more than FFA because it started down a split second before the exterior walls. But once the acceleration equalized, both were falling at FFA. Then they cannot speed up or slow down until they hit resistance as they did ~2.25 seconds later.

However, both Chandler and NIST are qualified to measure FFA and FEMR is not, his unsupported claim of expertise notwithstanding.

Both Chandler and NIST said that the entire upper part of the building [minus the pare that had already collapsed is assumed] fell AT FFA for about 2.25 seconds.

Faster than FFA is irrelevant anyway, just another red herring to babble about and avoid the fact that it was [at least] FFA for about 100 feet.

 

[pgimeno]

So NIST couldn't use this method because it wasn't applicable in the vertical direction, but FEMR could because he has better software?

Right. I pointed you to four motion tracking programs. To my knowledge these didn't exist by the time NIST did their analysis. femr2 used a commercial program. I assume that NIST developed their own (simple) program to extract the data with their method, a method which is roughly based on finding the vertical position where two pixels with the same intensity are, which because of the small angle with the vertical, results in an amplification of the horizontal movement which yields sub-pixel determination of the horizontal position and allows some error analysis.

Motion tracking software uses very different and more general techniques that femr2 described at the beginning of that thread. As a drawback, error analysis is quite hard to do with these techniques, if not impossible, and that's a point raised against femr2's data in a good part of that thread.

I don't buy FEMR's analysis but I do believe that it was possible for the core to momentarily pull the NW corner down at slightly more than FFA because it started down a split second before the exterior walls.

That admission is enough to tear your zero resistance claim into pieces.

Both Chandler and NIST said that the entire upper part of the building [minus the pare that had already collapsed is assumed] fell AT FFA for about 2.25 seconds.

Wrong. NIST analyzes the fall from several points of view. One is a linear regression; another is a position-over-time curve whose derivative does not result in a straight line at all and which results in a different acceleration curve that incidentally also goes beyond g. The acceleration curve derived from NIST's velocity curve is the one in green here:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/819970289.png

You focus only on the linear regression analysis, disregarding the curve fit because it doesn't fit your pre-decided conclusions.

 

[Animal]

Says the guy pretending he does.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

Yes, maybe water, or simple air, but not in a building with a fire burning. No matter how much you protest to the contrary.

Not even air......a welding torch proves him wrong.
You can be burning pure acetylene and have a rather moderate flame. Add oxygen from a compressed cylinder (it will be extremely cold as it expands).
Trust me......the flame (and the air around it) is anything but "warm"

Another ignorant troofer claim failure

 

[Christopher7]

NIST analyzes the fall from several points of view. One is a linear regression; another is a position-over-time curve whose derivative does not result in a straight line at all and which results in a different acceleration curve that incidentally also goes beyond g. The acceleration curve derived from NIST's velocity curve is the one in green here:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/819970289.png

You focus only on the linear regression analysis, disregarding the curve fit because it doesn't fit your pre-decided conclusions.

Correct. My conclusion that WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet is based on the conclusions of Mr. Chandler and the scientific conformation by NIST.

Those are really interesting wiggly lines but they do not mean that NIST and Chandler are wrong. "So sayeth FEMR" doesn't mean squat.


ETA: Chris,
Would you ask Michael Newman at NIST if NIST meant what they said about the north face falling at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds and that the entire upper part of the building came down as a single unit, as observed?

Send him tfk's green lines showing greater than FFA on the NIST graphic and FEMR's graphs, ask what he thinks. Let us know when he replies please.

 

[Christopher7]

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

Yes, maybe water, or simple air, but not in a building with a fire burning. No matter how much you protest to the contrary.

Not even air......a welding torch proves him wrong.
You can be burning pure acetylene and have a rather moderate flame. Add oxygen from a compressed cylinder (it will be extremely cold as it expands).
Trust me......the flame (and the air around it) is anything but "warm"

Most astute observation. How hot would it be 100 feet from the flame? That is what we are discussing.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Correct. My conclusion that WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet is based on the conclusions of Mr. Chandler and the scientific conformation by NIST.

Those are really interesting wiggly lines but they do not mean that NIST and Chandler are wrong. "So sayeth FEMR" doesn't mean squat.


ETA: Chris,
Would you ask Michael Newman at NIST if NIST meant what they said about the north face falling at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds and that the entire upper part of the building came down as a single unit, as observed?

Send him tfk's green lines showing greater than FFA on the NIST graphic and FEMR's graphs, ask what he thinks. Let us know when he replies please.

I hate to keep clobbering you in the head with this point, but do you understand yet the difference between "average" and "instantaneous" as it applies to acceleration?

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Chris7,
I am in minutiae burnout. The fire has now migrated away from parts of my brain, causing thermal shrinkage as explained by CTBUH which will soon cause the final collapse of my entire head. It shows itself in the following ways:
1) Last month I asked Michael Newman about moment frames (remember that argument?). A week ago, I asked him if he was going to reply and he said believe it or not, NIST has other things on their plate and the scientists there will and get back to me when they can.
2) I will not be asking Michael Newman any more questions that deal with minutiae. The question you request I put forth to him here about FFA as a single unit and FEMR's sub-pixel program vs NIST's program etc. is probably beyond the level of testing or research they even did, and rightfully so. Michael and NIST are not very interested in the mechanics of the collapse itself. Once it hits collapse inevitability, "gravity takes care of it," as he has repeatedly told me. Their simulation of what a bomb in Building 7 would look like and their measurement of the collapse rate of Building 7 were not part of their core study, they were add-ons. NIST-picking such details is of zero interest to me.
3.) You continue to go after me for my "ignoring" discrepancies you have found in the NIST Report around the precise moments when collapse rates were when, when flames had exited certain floors, etc etc etc. I responded repeatedly that the NIST model is a means to explain the mechanism, not a precise second-by-second match for the videos. I'm not interested in further discussion.
4.) Remember the questions I put forth to the engineering chat room? You know, about bending vs snapping columns, and how much resistance a bending column would have etc? A couple engineers on the thread I created asked, in essence, why are you so interested in the behavior of collapse after it has become inevitable anyway? I told them it was a question regarding Building 7 and my thread was immediately taken down, I was banned from the website without explanation, and three emails from me to the threadmasters have been unanswered. It gives me an appreciation of what you go through, my friend.
5.) Emotionally, I just get no juice any more going way above and beyond to try to get answers to your NIST-picking, getting negative responses from the people outside this forum whom I ask, feeling like a fool for wasting their time on this crap, and then having you tell me I'm ignoring you. I expect you will declare victory to your lurker friends on the basis of the fact that you have simply worn me out with your minutiae.
A mind is a terrible thing to burn out. I think I'll go back to my composing now.
PS Jim Millette's research is being delayed but he still plans to publish his WTC dust paper. I'm still hoping he will also look into the source of the red-grey chips and the iron microspheres. No date set for any of this though, and he may go straight to publication without more preliminary reports along the way.

 

[NoahFence]

Most astute observation. How hot would it be 100 feet from the flame? That is what we are discussing.

Bad comparison.

Do you think 100 feet away from an acetelyne torch is as safe as say, 100 feet away from a forest fire?


AND WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE?