Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[thedopefishlives]

That might happen at the east end but not the rest of the building where the core started down a split second before the exterior columns. You are grasping at straws.

In the NIST model, the exterior columns were intact until the core started pulling them down, then they buckled. i.e. no FFA.

Hogwash. The core could not make the resistance of the exterior columns go to zero instantly. As the engineering forum told Chris, the resistance reduction would be small at first.

I have read all the double talk.

The exterior columns are buckling in the NIST model and providing resistance as Sunder said. The NIST model does not fall at FFA. You refuse to deal with this fact.

Have you come to grips yet with the difference between "average" and "instantaneous" as it applies to acceleration, Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

No. Many of the same engineers, physicists and scientists that you trust to design, build, maintain and fly that airplane are the ones who wrote and signed off on the NIST reports

Only the principals at NIST signed off on the report. The rest had no control or say in the conclusion of the final report.

ETA: Thanks carlitos
Best of luck to you all in your denial.

 

[carlitos]

The word you are looking for is principals. Best of luck with your trolling.

 

[Christopher7]

Have you come to grips yet with the difference between "average" and "instantaneous" as it applies to acceleration, Chris?

Yes, the transition to FFA was instantaneous and lasted for ~2.25 seconds.

NIST and Chandler agree on this fact. Anonymous pseudo-scientists try to say they know better - they don't.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Yes, the transition to FFA was instantaneous and lasted for ~2.25 seconds.

NIST and Chandler agree on this fact. Anonymous pseudo-scientists try to say they know better - they don't.

So in other words, no you haven't. By the way, how could the transition to FFA be "instantaneous" if, as you say, the columns were still providing resistance?

 

[Christopher7]

So in other words, no you haven't. By the way, how could the transition to FFA be "instantaneous" if, as you say, the columns were still providing resistance?

In the NIST model the columns are providing resistance so it it not falling at FFA. The actual collapse does fall at FFA. NIST and chandler agree on that fact.

 

[femr2]

Yes, the transition to FFA was instantaneous and lasted for ~2.25 seconds.

ROFL.



My acceleration profile, and the NIST acceleration profile.

I repeat, the NIST acceleration profile, as provided in Section 12.5.3 of the report.

Please note that NEITHER show instantaneous transition to FFA, though my data correctly shows that the transition was faster than that suggested by NIST.

It irks me to use a tfk image, but here is what an instantaneous transition to FFA would look like...

Red line.

NIST and Chandler agree on this fact.

No, they don't.

Here's Chandlers (shoddy) WTC7 Velocity data graph.

Please note that it begins CURVED, aka, NO instantaneous acceleration change, as that would result in a perfectly straight line.(Not that he actually bothered to sample enough datapoints to get a clear picture of early motion)

Anonymous pseudo-scientists try to say they know better - they don't.

ROFL.

Do you realise that you are repeatedly making yourself look silly ?

Why does the end of the ruler exceed FFA ?

And...

When do you think the NW corner started "moving" ?





btw, the first graph shows NW corner behaviour before the second, so you have visual data stretching 7 minutes before the Penthouse dropped.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Then....

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.

Now....

No I am trying to coach others to rely more on their own abilities and not completely on someone else. To have faith in themselves. Above all, to do the unimaginable, and actually think for themselves. Which is exactly what the people who did this are hoping no one does.

You were trying to coach femr2 to rely on his own abilities and not completely on someone else?! Pshaw. More like you were asking femr2 not to wander off message.

I don't think it's by any means unimaginable for people to think for themselves. I just wonder how you can discourage people from doing it, while claiming to be doing the exact opposite. It's remarkable.

I'll also note this goes for both sides of this issue, don't just believe everything you're told.

OK, good. I'm glad we agree about something.

In terms of WTC 7 (and really everything involved on that day) I always like to look at things from a higher level. So I encourage people to think of a complete reconstruction of that building, or a similar building (we've all been in or near buildings like it) imagine lighting some fires, and think what would happen? It is completely and utterly ridiculous to think we'll see anything like what happened on that day. You could even lite fires in strategic locations and you'll get nothing like what we saw, let alone fires that were suppose to be "random".

How do you think you know that?

In effect, you seem to be saying that you know that because you watched the video. Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

If you had a reasoned rebuttal to the explanations of how it could happen, then I might construe that as thinking for yourself. But your stated position is that "All one has to do is watch the video." Do you really not see an issue here?

 

[tmd2_1]

Then....



Now....



You were trying to coach femr2 to rely on his own abilities and not completely on someone else?! Pshaw. More like you were asking femr2 not to wander off message.

I don't think it's by any means unimaginable for people to think for themselves. I just wonder how you can discourage people from doing it, while claiming to be doing the exact opposite. It's remarkable.



OK, good. I'm glad we agree about something.



How do you think you know that?

In effect, you seem to be saying that you know that because you watched the video. Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

If you had a reasoned rebuttal to the explanations of how it could happen, then I might construe that as thinking for yourself. But your stated position is that "All one has to do is watch the video." Do you really not see an issue here?

There's been no difference in what I've wrote, my message was always the same. I was imploring them to not worry about the extremely small differences in femr2, Chandler and NIST's data.

Yes all one has to do is watch the video, and not be given any indication of what it is, they'll all come to the same conclusion it is a CD. Only when told what the story behind the video, do they have doubts, and start to seek and find solace in things like the NIST report. They are relieved that it was "investigated" and there was some answer, that won't change their world view. This is hardly thinking for themselves. If someone really watches the video does their own research, and comes to the conclusion it was a natural collapse, so be it. It's been my experience based on what I just wrote that this doesn't usually happen.

What do I base my observations on? Well besides the laws of physics, and thermodynamics, the fact that fires never caused what we saw that day, also plays an important role.

 

[carlitos]

There's been no difference in what I've wrote, my message was always the same. I was imploring them to not worry about the extremely small differences in femr2, Chandler and NIST's data.

Yes all one has to do is watch the video, and not be given any indication of what it is, they'll all come to the same conclusion it is a CD. Only when told what the story behind the video, do they have doubts, and start to seek and find solace in things like the NIST report. They are relieved that it was "investigated" and there was some answer, that won't change their world view. This is hardly thinking for themselves. If someone really watches the video does their own research, and comes to the conclusion it was a natural collapse, so be it. It's been my experience based on what I just wrote that this doesn't usually happen.

What do I base my observations on? Well besides the laws of physics, and thermodynamics, the fact that fires never caused what we saw that day, also plays an important role.

By this logic, all you have to do is watch a video of superman flying over a building. It violates the laws of physics.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

 

[NoahFence]

In the NIST model, the exterior columns were intact until the core started pulling them down, then they buckled. i.e. no FFA.

That part of the report OK then? Not a lie or fraud?

 

[Miragememories]

"...You can achieve FFA, and greater than FFA, even if the exterior wall is providing resistance.

Again, regardless of your position, or whether you are prepared to accept such as the real-world cause of momentary over-g descent of the NW corner, you must stop making such silly statements. It is basic physics. You must change your stance. You have no choice. If you do not, you will simply receive ridicule from others here.

Again, no. Take the blinkers off.

First, understand... The end of the ruler exceeds FFA. Why ?"

Ridicule from others is SOP here. No news in that.

By hinging one end, torque will act on the ruler in addition to the g-force, resulting in a
downward force greater than from the g-force alone.

It is very useful in illustrating the absence of resistance required for freefall.

But it fails to prove that within the WTC7, structural conditions existed anywhere that meaningfully matched your ruler trick.

It does not establish that those 'trick conditions' caused a real world "greater than FFA", specifically for the NW corner of WTC7.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, the transition to FFA was instantaneous and lasted for ~2.25 seconds.

NIST and Chandler agree on this fact. Anonymous pseudo-scientists try to say they know better - they don't.

PS - "pseudo-scientists" don't say they know better.

They say "WHO CARES"

because it doesn't matter.
Fire killed WTC 7

Period.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes all one has to do is watch the video, and not be given any indication of what it is, they'll all come to the same conclusion it is a CD.

Baloney.
There is not one shred of visual evidence that you can point to.

Tell you what -
You find a video of a controlled demolition. Put it side-by-side with the collapse of WTC 7 and tell me exactly what's the same.

Find me a silent controlled demolition. Just one'll do. Find me one controlled demo where you can't see explosions immediately prior to, and during collapse. Find me a controlled demo that is virtually indistinguishable from WTC 7.


And.....

GO

 

[NoahFence]

It does not establish that those 'trick conditions' caused a real world "greater than FFA", specifically for the NW corner of WTC7.

Indeed.

Another "trick condition" would be silent explosives planted by imaginary ninja's in a controlled demo inside a populated building twice the size of the world record.

OR

Fire could have done it.

 

[LSSBB]

Ridicule from others is SOP here. No news in that.

By hinging one end, torque will act on the ruler in addition to the g-force, resulting in a
downward force greater than from the g-force alone.

It is very useful in illustrating the absence of resistance required for freefall.

But it fails to prove that within the WTC7, structural conditions existed anywhere that meaningfully matched your ruler trick.

It does not establish that those 'trick conditions' caused a real world "greater than FFA", specifically for the NW corner of WTC7.

MM

It's femr2's other analysis (plus NIST's acceleration measurements) that show the greater than FFA. It's the penthouse collapse, the tenting in of one wall and the shattering of windows that point to the interior collapse. There is no trick. You and C7 apparently still don't get it. There was no sustained period of the exterior falling EXACTLY at free fall. It doesn't matter if it is CD or not CD. The acceleration of the exterior went to above g and came back down, and the interior collapse explains how this is possible.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, the transition to FFA was instantaneous and lasted for ~2.25 seconds.

That makes zero sense as written. How can 2.25s = "instantaneous"

 

[Christopher7]

My acceleration profile, and the NIST acceleration profile.

Your acceleration "profile" is gibberish. Send it to NIST and see what they have to say about it or publish it in a journal or post it on a real science forum, but don't claim that you have proven NIST wrong until you do and get conformation from real scientists.

You are saying that NIST and Chandler are wrong and you know better. You don't. You claim that WTC 7 fell at greater than FFA and that's just silliness. Your greater than FFA garbage requires the core columns to pull so hard as to overcome all the [possibly slightly bent] exterior columns and then some, instantly.

You are nobody with a bunch of junk science. Only the fanatically faithful on this forum buy that crap.

The curved line superimposed on the NIST graph does NOT follow the data points going into or out of Stage 2. It ignores the data point at 1.75s. Here is the graph without the erroneous curved line. The building fell at FFA for 2.25s. NIST and Chandler understand that the data points are not exact and the line drawn by the software gives the best overall match.

 

[NoahFence]

Project much?

 

[LSSBB]

Your acceleration "profile" is gibberish. Send it to NIST and see what they have to say about it or publish it in a journal or post it on a real science forum, but don't claim that you have proven NIST wrong until you do and get conformation from real scientists.

You are saying that NIST and Chandler are wrong and you know better. You don't. You claim that WTC 7 fell at greater than FFA and that's just silliness. Your greater than FFA garbage requires the core columns to pull so hard as to overcome all the [possibly slightly bent] exterior columns and then some, instantly.

You are nobody with a bunch of junk science. Only the fanatically faithful on this forum buy that crap.

The curved line superimposed on the NIST graph does NOT follow the data points going into or out of Stage 2. It ignores the data point at 1.75s. Here is the graph without the erroneous curved line. The building fell at FFA for 2.25s. NIST and Chandler understand that the data points are not exact and the line drawn by the software gives the best overall match.

[qimg]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/4716/nistfreefallgraphe.jpg[/qimg]

Stop trying to hide behind the experts and THINK. It's not silly: things can dive down at a greater acceleration than g. It's basic physics: the addition of forces. The acceleration graph from NIST that femr2 has shows it. I can't speak to whatever Chandler thinks, but it doesn't matter. The acceleration CAN be greater than g. The data shows it IS greater than g. The interior collapse provides an explanation of HOW it gets to be greater than g.

If you don't take my word for it, ask a physicist. Try one with a PhD. Just show him my diagram, and femr2's ruler example.

If there really IS something wrong with my work, show me what it is. But just calling it silly and pointing at NIST and Chandler is a cop out.