Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[TSR]

No. Melting is endotherm, isn't it?

No, it requires an external source of energy, so exo- is correct.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I'm just wondering whether that particular element can be improved.

The techniques were developed over quite a period of time, and I'm personally not aware of any way to increase raw data accuracy. It's well sub-pixel already, and the limitation is the quality of the original recordings imo.

I'm sorry, I was unclear. The "particular element" I meant was precisely the smoothing. As I said in my initial post, it was really the Poly(10) that struck me.

I had seen the Savitsky-Golay results before, but did not understand what I was seeing. Now I'm catching up.

I think I'd be interested in seeing some sensitivity analysis based on a single set of readings, but comparing profiles for various points somewhat serves a similar purpose.

Thanks for the very interesting work.

 

[femr2]

The "particular element" I meant was precisely the smoothing. As I said in my initial post, it was really the Poly(10) that struck me.

Aiii. I hope I've shown that even the poly(10) end result exhibits the same general profile as the far superior S-G acceleration derivation.

I had seen the Savitsky-Golay results before, but did not understand what I was seeing. Now I'm catching up.

All good.

I think I'd be interested in seeing some sensitivity analysis based on a single set of readings, but comparing profiles for various points somewhat serves a similar purpose.

I've performed numerous tests, one of which may be of interest...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6114713&postcount=232

Thanks for the very interesting work.

You're welcome.

 

[femr2]

I read NIST, and there is no need for the data to be smoothed etc. It can be done like NIST did it.

Pity their trace data results were so shoddy really. The havok caused by their published words was really unneccesary, and could have been avoided if they had applied a little more time/effort/focus. Poor. It's not rocket science.

 

[pgimeno]

No. Melting is endotherm, isn't it?

My bad, that's what I meant. I reposted it in a hurry after my browser crashed when I had it written properly and got the term reversed the second time around. Sorry.

So, I've been wondering if the endothermic peak might be the result of the melting of the steel layer. Is that possible?

More exactly, the endothermic peak seen in some of the samples.

No, it requires an external source of energy, so exo- is correct.

Actually Oystein was right. As a rule-of-thumb, EXothermic^WP means the heat EXits as it is produced; ENdothermic^WP means the heat ENters because it is absorbed.

 

[pgimeno]

Pity their trace data results were so shoddy really. The havok caused by their published words was really unneccesary, and could have been avoided if they had applied a little more time/effort/focus. Poor. It's not rocket science.

I have to agree on the highlighted bit, but not on the corrective action. It was a really unnecessary study, with some hallmarks of being made in a hurry (as in, "let's put something together quickly to address this" without really caring about the quality of the final result), and what for? Just as a reply to purely accessory criticism. The influence on their conclusions? Zero. The focus of the report is, as it should be, on the initiation mechanism.

 

[femr2]

I have to agree on the highlighted bit, but not on the corrective action. It was a really unnecessary study, with some hallmarks of being made in a hurry (as in, "let's put something together quickly to address this" without really caring about the quality of the final result)

Given the extreme loss of life, scale of the events and available resources, zero excuse.

The focus of the report is, as it should be, on the initiation mechanism.

NIST have demonstrated a repeated and profound lack of effort/understanding/observation on many points.

Initiation mechanism ? With nay a mention of column 20 ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfhA_XsYUbk&feature=plcp

Misinterpretation of axis of "kink", ...I could go on.

Do a good job, or cast doubt on every word.

Consequences ? You're still here.

 

[DGM]

Pity their trace data results were so shoddy really. The havok caused by their published words was really unneccesary, and could have been avoided if they had applied a little more time/effort/focus. Poor. It's not rocket science.

I have to wonder what "havok" was really done.

I think there was absolutely none in the engineering or building world.

 

[beachnut]

Pity their trace data results were so shoddy really. The havok caused by their published words was really unneccesary, and could have been avoided if they had applied a little more time/effort/focus. Poor. It's not rocket science.

Specifically, without the nonsense of havoc and shoddy, how does your work change the NIST study?

 

[tmd2_1]

My trace data for WTC7 is certainly of much higher fidelity and quality than that produced by the others you mention. Rightly or wrongly, none of those others spent about 18 months spare-spare time developing the methods and procedures required to generate such high quality raw data.


Here...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/447669743.jpg[/qimg]
The red line (LHS axis) shows displacement (ft)
The black line (RHS axis) shows acceleration (ft/s^2)

If you want to call the period between 13s and 14.5s "about freefall", then fine, "about" 75ft "about" freefall.

At freefall ? Nope.

There's a couple of very boring and lengthy thread which discuss the process by which the data was extracted from video, along with direct critique of both the NIST and Chandler datasets. Have a peek.

Here is the NIST acceleration curve (in green)...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/238197312.jpg[/qimg]

Where is there ANY time AT freefall ?

The red line spans 2.25s, btw.

Anyway, suggest you locate the appropriate threads for critique of the data. It is good data, and should be useful to all "sides".

Not to sound arrogant or anything, but those of us who are "truthers" (or those who, at the very least, question the official story ) should try to avoid this type of thing. Your data is so insignificantly far from free fall that it doesn't really matter. I mean the reality is there really is no need to do measurements at all. All one had to do is watch the video a WTC7 to know it was a CD. If WTC7 was rigged, there is no doubt the towers were as well. When we argue or discuss freefall or non freefall we are doing a dis-service by making it seem like it makes a difference ( especially if we argue amongst ourselves) . All one has to do is watch the video, anybody honest with themselves, knows that was not a "fire induced" collapse.

Chris Mohr can show all the video he wants of him breaking sticks, and claim he beat Gage in a debate for as long as he wants. It doesn't change reality. There's a reason why the main stream media doesn't show 7. I've showed video of 7 to people without telling them what it is. Without fail every single one said something like "Why are you showing me a video of a demolition?" I tell them the story, then they start to rationalize, when moments before they thought it was a demolition.

People really need to have more faith in their own instincts and ability. In my opinion it is a major problem with society today. Every one looking for someone else to help, someone else with the answer. So we have people turning to "experts" when their own natural instinct tells them something was very wrong with events of that day. We have people now turning to the government for protection willing to forgo freedoms, become more of a police state. Which is exactly what the people who pulled of 9/11 wanted to have happen, and a main reason why it was done.

 

[LSSBB]

People really need to have more faith in their own instincts and ability. In my opinion it is a major problem with society today. Every one looking for someone else to help, someone else with answer. So we have people turning to "experts" when their own natural instinct tells them something was very wrong with events of that day. We have people now turning to the government for protection willing to forgo some freedoms, become more of a police state. Which is exactly what the people who pulled of 9/11 wanted to have happen, and a main reason why it was done.

How do your natural instincts explain no explosions when you see it collapse? How many skyscrapers collapsing due to fire have your natural instincts seen for comparison?

What if your "Natural Instincts" are wrong? Or do you have some superpower all us mere mortals do not possess?

 

[chrismohr]

How do your natural instincts explain no explosions when you see it collapse? How many skyscrapers collapsing due to fire have your natural instincts seen for comparison?

What if your "Natural Instincts" are wrong? Or do you have some superpower all us mere mortals do not possess?

I agree with LSSBB. I don't think you can use common sense to understand something as massive as the first collapses of major skyscrapers in history. You really do need the science and expertise, not just gut instinct, to understand what happened.

And BTW my "winning" of the debate refers to my view and the view of many others that I was better prepared and answered Gage's challenges better than he answered mine. I was the better speaker. That in itself does not mean I was right (tho of course I believe I was). And Gage did a very good job in that debate too. I think some people wanted to see him slaughter me, and that definitely didn't happen. But we slugged it out up there for four and a half hours together, and by the end our brains were mush!

 

[cjnewson88]

the reality is there really is no need to do measurements at all. All one had to do is watch the video a WTC7 to know it was a CD.

Wrong from the get go. No wonder you ignore experts. Why do you even bother coming on JREF?

 

[Christopher7]

Your quick google search fails. The response given to the question you linked is based on the peak burning temperature of Butane.
Butane also has an ignition temperature of 482-538 °C. Therefore, a bic lighter is somewhere between 482°C and 1970°C. Based on the tiny amount being burned, I would speculate nearer the lower figures, but hey, maybe tomorrow I'll go buy one and see.

Does your rectal thermometer go up to 2000^oC?
Find a source other than yourself.

The Red layer burned ("burst of energy") at 430C, the Gray layer melts.

Conjecture

Conjecture that at 430C the red layer burns and the Gray layer doesn't?
Your video and images would say otherwise..

You shifted from melt to burn. You can't even keep your argument straight.

That's Mark Basile's video and he says the gray layer did not ignite.
"But the gray layer basically seems to be largely iron, although there's some other stuff that's integrated into it too, it seems to have a fairly high carbon and oxygen content as well. But it doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites." http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-2...s-911-wtc-dust

Ok, so I am right, and my comment was not conjecture.

No, the gray layer is largely iron and iron melts at 1500^oC. You will say anything no matter how blatantly absurd. We're done.
Vaya con dios

 

[LSSBB]

They all have WTC 7 falling at greater that g for a full second. That is not possible. In other words, this is junk science from an anonymous blowhard. Publish that crap in a peer reviewed journal before claiming to debunk NIST and Chandler.

How is it not possible for something to head toward the center of the earth with an acceleration greater than g? Add gravity plus other forces and there it is.

 

[Christopher7]

How is it not possible for something to head toward the center of the earth with an acceleration greater than g? Add gravity plus other forces and there it is.

It would take an external force pushing down to achieve greater than g for over a second. The interior columns falling at FFA cannot make the exterior columns fall at greater than FFA for more than an instant. NIST and a physics teacher with two masters degrees agree that WTC 7 fell at FFA for 2.25 seconds. FEMR's graphs are junk science.

 

[LSSBB]

It would take an external force pushing down to achieve greater than g for over a second. The interior columns falling at FFA cannot make the exterior columns fall at greater than FFA for more than an instant. NIST and a physics teacher with two masters degrees agree that WTC 7 fell at FFA for 2.25 seconds. FEMR's graphs are junk science.

Let's see you prove that they can't be pulled faster than g with a free body diagram. And no, you can't keep hiding behind NIST whenever you feel like it and accusing them of fraud when you don't. And your other so called expert is wrong. Judy Woods has a doctorate, are her theories right?

 

[Christopher7]

It should be fairly easy for you to point out where Harrit e.al. describe white smoke, alumina, or analysis results of the DSC residue containing aluminium oxide.

They don't discuss the aluminum oxide as far as I can see. So what? That does not mean there wasn't any. They did say this: "Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section)".

The white smoke comment was made elsewhere. Smoke can be particulate matter as well as gases so the aluminum did not have to evaporate as pgimeno was suggesting. Example of white smoke @ 0:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S1TwVACENAo

They actually ignited (started to exhibit exotherm reactions) much earlier than 430°C, but were heated to 700°C. There really is nothing special about this number of 430°C wrt to the producing of spheres.

It's the average. My use of the word "suddenly" was incorrect. The reaction took place between 370^oC and 470^oC

and produced iron-rich spheres with the same signature as the iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust.

Very roughly, yes. It's apparently what happens when building materials, some organic, some inorganic, burn.

Please, we are talking about the red/gray chips, not building materials.

 

[Christopher7]

Let's see you prove that they can't be pulled faster than g with a free body diagram.

You are the one making that claim, you prove that it can happen. Don't ask me to prove a negative.

And no, you can't keep hiding behind NIST whenever you feel like it and accusing them of fraud when you don't.

How many times do I have to repeat this? I believe NIST when what they say can be verified by photos or in this case, by an independent researcher.

And your other so called expert is wrong.

Who are you to say that? NIST was forced to change their story because it is easily recognizable that Mr. Chandler was right. Only the pseudo-scientists here say they are both wrong.

Judy Woods has a doctorate, are her theories right?

We agree (?) that Judy Woods DEW theory is baseless conjecture and doesn't fit the observed destruction.

 

[Christopher7]

Harrit e.al., page 19:

So the red layer burned, the gray layer didn't, as per Harrit e.al. Agreed?
So where is the gray layer then? Do you see in Fig 20 how there is a lot of red layer left, but strangely any gray substance is now drawn to spherical shapes? Where did the gray layer go, and where did the gray spheres come from?
In Harrit's and your theory, the red, "nano-sized" iron oxide (particle size ~100-200 nm, just like ordinary red pigment) of the red layer was reduced to elemental iron, so anything that was red before should now be gone. That elemental iron allegedly formed spheres, aluminium oxide was created from elemental Al in the red layer, and the gray layer did not react.

The gray layer is under the residue of the red layer so we can't see it in the photos. How could the gray [mostly iron and oxygen] side melt at 370^oC to 470^oC if not in a thermitic reaction?