Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismohr said:
BTW I just got a response from another former 9/11 Truth guy who now believes in natural collapse. He thanked me for my work and linked to his own video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHlG8Zu5JDE&feature=email
This may have already been played out on JREF on some other thread.
Click to expand...

clap.gif

Those are the ones that make your efforts worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
it seems like he distinguished and eliminated early horizontal movement and found that some of the apparent early vertical movement isn't really going down.

For some reason, no one ever picked this up at the911forum.
Click to expand...
It's been discussed and treated many times, both here and at the911forum.

Without dredging up the (very many) posts on that specific point from within this forum, as a quick reminder, that NIST chose a point within the region where the "kink" (as viewed from the Cam#3 viewpoint) caused most significant distortion, was one of the many issues highlighted against the NIST data methods, quality, ...
 
femr2 said:
It's been discussed and treated many times, both here and at the911forum.

Without dredging up the (very many) posts on that specific point from within this forum, as a quick reminder, that NIST chose a point within the region where the "kink" (as viewed from the Cam#3 viewpoint) caused most significant distortion, was one of the many issues highlighted against the NIST data methods, quality, ...
Click to expand...
How exactly does this effect their conclusions?


:D
 
DGM said:
How exactly does this effect their conclusions?


:D
Click to expand...
Depends what conclusions you mean. Assuming you mean the timings of their silly "descent phases", then they are wrong, and based on crap data.

Things don't change roun'ere I see :rolleyes:
 
I knew you'd see it this way.

No one cares exactly how the building fell. In the big picture (9/11 and building design) it just doesn't matter.

;)
 
femr2 said:
It's been discussed and treated many times, both here and at the911forum.

Without dredging up the (very many) posts on that specific point from within this forum, as a quick reminder, that NIST chose a point within the region where the "kink" (as viewed from the Cam#3 viewpoint) caused most significant distortion, was one of the many issues highlighted against the NIST data methods, quality, ...
Click to expand...
Sorry, I had not seen it before, and it is also not near my main interests. Just wanted to bring this to Chris's attention.

femr2 said:
Depends what conclusions you mean. Assuming you mean the timings of their silly "descent phases", then they are wrong, and based on crap data.

Things don't change roun'ere I see :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Uhm I wasn't so much interested in how NIST's conclusions would be changed (they basically draw no conclusions from this apparent FFA quirk, and why should they), but how this squares with YOUR analysis, as I am under the impression that your tracking, which reveals acceleration around (below and above) g for a while, has been widely accepted roun'ere.
 
Oystein said:
but how this squares with YOUR analysis, as I am under the impression that your tracking, which reveals acceleration around (below and above) g for a while, has been widely accepted roun'ere.
Click to expand...
I've looked at correction for motion away from the camera (as opposed to purely vertical) in various ways.

My primary (preferred) trace datasets are extracted from the Dan Rather viewpoint...
321729423.png

...which minimises distortion; certainly much more so than the NIST Cam#3 viewpoint...
516330913.png

...(their trace start point being A, and trace finish point somewhere in region B).

Analysis of the Southward motion itself (from NW view) was also performed...
190193859.png

...with the understanding that initial data was subject to wobble/error resulting from initial extreme camera motion that was not possible to remove via frame stabilisation.

As I hope you can see, initial Southward motion will not have affected early acceleration data taken from the Dan Rather viewpoint to a significant level, and certainly extraction of the lower quality NW viewpoint data would have reduced the accuracy of the acceleration profile data rather than improve it...

Other processes were looked at, but don't think here is the place to reiterate...
 
femr2 said:
Depends what conclusions you mean. Assuming you mean the timings of their silly "descent phases", then they are wrong, and based on crap data.

Things don't change roun'ere I see :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They only had one conclusion, fire killed WTC 7.

You can have all your fancy graphs, observations and analysis that may or may not be accurate, but it changes nothing.

Fire killed WTC
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
Depends what conclusions you mean. Assuming you mean the timings of their silly "descent phases", then they are wrong, and based on crap data.

Things don't change roun'ere I see :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You still don't have goals, and you have no comment on Gage's fraud - correct things don't change here, as you don't set goal, and make no conclusions. Like Balsamo, you offer no theory, but he does sell DVDs full of nonsense.

How does it change the fact fire caused the collapse? Where does that leave your CD theory? Simple questions for those who have to attack NIST to make their day. An engineer would simply publish his work and let it stand. The attack on NIST is a waste of time, publish your work. It would be neat if you had a reason to smooth the living daylight out of your data to make it look, "smooth". What would Peter Maybeck say? I don't need NIST to figure out WTC 7 fell due to fire - that happens when the fire systems are not working and there is no fire fighting.
 
femr2 said:
My primary (preferred) trace datasets are extracted from the Dan Rather viewpoint...
...which minimises distortion; certainly much more so than the NIST Cam#3 viewpoint...
Click to expand...
Do you have trace and derived acceleration data of the NW corner from both viewpoints? If so, do they match?

If they match, that would play down the lens / warm air distortion arguments, as well as boost the argument on the accuracy of the data.
 
femr2 said:
I've looked at correction for motion away from the camera (as opposed to purely vertical) in various ways.

My primary (preferred) trace datasets are extracted from the Dan Rather viewpoint...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/321729423.png[/qimg]
...which minimises distortion; certainly much more so than the NIST Cam#3 viewpoint...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/516330913.png[/qimg]
...(their trace start point being A, and trace finish point somewhere in region B).

Analysis of the Southward motion itself (from NW view) was also performed...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/190193859.png[/qimg]
...with the understanding that initial data was subject to wobble/error resulting from initial extreme camera motion that was not possible to remove via frame stabilisation.

As I hope you can see, initial Southward motion will not have affected early acceleration data taken from the Dan Rather viewpoint to a significant level, and certainly extraction of the lower quality NW viewpoint data would have reduced the accuracy of the acceleration profile data rather than improve it...

Other processes were looked at, but don't think here is the place to reiterate...
Click to expand...

Ok ... so you still have faith in your trace, which you posted earlier yesterday, and which I interprete as having ca. 0.75 seconds of a "Stage 1" of "slow buckling" (a increasing from near 0 to near g in that time). Am I reading that right?

Now Achimspok wrote
achimspok said:
I measured the very same spot like NIST did and corrected the the failure due to perspective.

The NIST method (red fat) looks like an onset (frame 150) about 70 frames before the parapet wall reaches G acceleration.
The truth is, the vertical motion of the parapet do not start before frame 200 and reaches almost immediately G acceleration.
Femr2 did more measurements on that topic and he got...
femr2.png

That piece of truth do not become nicer if you measure the fall fo the screenwall or of the west penthouse.
There is no "Stage 1 of slow buckling".
Click to expand...

And this confuses me somewhat - he takes your data and interprets it differently.

What, or who, is wrong here?
 
People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.
Click to expand...
MarkLindeman said:
There is no rational basis upon which any reasonable person could accept your assertion here. It is self-rebutting.
Click to expand...
So the people at NIST were irrational when they said WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration but rational when they said a fire that had burned out caused beams to thermally expand?
 
Oystein said:
I am stunned by the profound depth of C7's ... urrrrr ... "alternative perception of reality".
Click to expand...
Your excessive verbiage is to obfuscate the fact that you are the one with an "alternative perception of reality".

Silicone dioxide is used in nano-thermite as a buffering agent. You ignore the fact that they put silicone dioxide in nano-thermite for a reason.

"This paper will discuss the performance of energetic nanocomposites containing Fe2O3-SiO2 binary oxidizing phases. Thermite nanocomposites have been prepared by mixing aluminum nanoparticles with both commercial Fe2O3-SiO2 nanopowders and solgel prepared Fe2O3-SiO2 nanopowders. The effect of these two synthesis and mixing techniques on the burning rates of the resulting thermites will be discussed. Finally, thermites containing binary oxidizing phases that incorporate organic functionality for gas generation will be evaluated."

"We have successfully synthesized energetic nanocomposites using sol-gel methodology. Nanocomposites based on energetic thermites have been produced with both burn rate modifiers and gas generators through a silica-oxidizing phase.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf
 
femr2 said:
It's been discussed and treated many times, both here and at the911forum.

Without dredging up the (very many) posts on that specific point from within this forum, as a quick reminder, that NIST chose a point within the region where the "kink" (as viewed from the Cam#3 viewpoint) caused most significant distortion, was one of the many issues highlighted against the NIST data methods, quality, ...
Click to expand...
That was my understanding. Thanks for your clarification and reminder posts.
 
Oystein said:
next time you try to pass off a suggestion that chips (a)-(d) and the MEK-soaked chip are the same can clearly be recognized as a bold-faced lie.
Click to expand...
I thought they were. To you and your ilk, whenever anyone is wrong they are lying. That's because you see in others what your are yourself.

[Insults and accusations deleted]

Millette did not separate Al from Si because he already had proven that they are part of chemical compound that, by definition, cannot be separated by non-chemical processes such as soaking. Al and Si have been PROVEN to be chemically bound when Millette named the chemical compound (kaolin) that they are bound in.
Click to expand...
A chemist tells me that infrared spectroscopy is not decisive for identifying the presence of a compound in a mixture. I can only be decisive in excluding the presence of a compound.

Millette clearly showed there is no aluminium in these chips of type "(a)-(d)", and hence zero thermite.
Click to expand...
IYO

One purple, the other blue. The Si-map is slightly noisier, otherwise the correlation is PERFECT
Click to expand...
None are so blind . . . . .

it takes an astounding level of self-delusion or dishonesty not to see that extremely obvious fact.
Click to expand...
And the extremely obvious fact is, they are different.

Don't play that STUPID or DISHONEST game with us!
Click to expand...
Good to hear you admit that you are playing a stupid dishonest game. :D

You KNOW very well that NOBODY thinks clay ignites anywhere! You KNOW very well that the red layer is MOSTLY organic matrix., You SHOULD know very well that solid organic substances are prone to ignite at such temperatures. And surely you KNOW very well that every SANE and HONEST person claims that it is the ORGANIC matrix that must be burning there, NOT the minerals?
Click to expand...
Since when do organic materials produce iron spheres when ignited?

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3113/fig20.jpg
 
Last edited:
C7 said:
Since when do organic materials produce iron-rich spheres when ignited? ftfy
Click to expand...
GlennB said:
ftfy
Click to expand...
Thanks :D

Of course it's against forum rules to change someones quote but the rules [like insulting other posters] don't apply to the "in" crowd.

Be that as it may, the creation of iron-rich spheres is proof of a thermitic reaction, your objections and denial notwithstanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom