Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

This answer is 100% wishful thinking. You can't just say there could be a device, or the light would be covered.

Yes I can and just did. Jon Cole demonstrated that thermitic devices can cut steel beams. The military or clandestine CIA operations, with their virtually unlimited budgets, could develop devices and methods to get the job done without the flashes of light being detected, your denial notwithstanding.

You have to SHOW how the device would work and you have to do the math on the light being obscured.

No, you demand something you know I could not possibly know in a vain attempt to deny the existing evidence and engage in a never ending argument.

 

[triforcharity]

With the WTC Twin Towers, once the sound of each upper section failing became audible on the street, it was possible to hide the sound of explosives.

Prove it champ. I'd LOVE to see you explain to me the decibels of the building's collapse versus the sound of a high explosive capable of cutting the core columns.

Annnnndddd.......go.

(Don't forget, that each time you increase the decibels by even 10, the sound it 100x's louder)

Good luck....

 

[LSSBB]

Yes I can and just did. Jon Cole demonstrated that thermitic devices can cut steel beams. The military or clandestine CIA operations, with their virtually unlimited budgets, could develop devices and methods to get the job done without the flashes of light being detected, your denial notwithstanding.

No, you demand something you know I could not possibly know in a vain attempt to deny the existing evidence and engage in a never ending argument.

Your device is a dragon. It is invisible, it shows no light. Appeal to magic.

 

[triforcharity]

It should be noted that the defenders of the official collapse theory are also using an "appeal to authority" when they quote the NIST report as proof of collapse due to normal building fires.

ESO is a rebuttal by experts in all related fields with decades of experience.

The personal attacks on these professionals says more about the attackers than the people being attacked.

It's not an appeal to authority if THOSE people ARE the factual authority!

The problem with ESO, is that it uses every Tom Dick and Harry to discuss topics that are outside their area of expertise.

Do you see the difference there?

I'll make it simple. If you have a medical problem, say, cranial rectal inversion for instance, do you see a doctor, or do you call a local excavation company?

How about a heart problem? Cardiologist or dermatologist?

I'm calling the doctors, you're looking up plumbers in the yellow pages.

 

[beachnut]

Yes I can and just did. Jon Cole demonstrated that thermitic devices can cut steel beams. The military or clandestine CIA operations, with their virtually unlimited budgets, could develop devices and methods to get the job done without the flashes of light being detected, your denial notwithstanding.

No, you demand something you know I could not possibly know in a vain attempt to deny the existing evidence and engage in a never ending argument.

We had voice controled silent flash free thermite. We r AFWAL, ...

U r paranoid
I m the MIC

We won

 

[pgimeno]

Wrong. If using every 5th or 6th frame is considered to be scientifically sound [and it is by both sides], then the sub-pixel canard is just techno-babble.

It's you who is wrong. It is scientifically sound for very rough qualitative approximations such as that made by NIST, but a more accurate trace with subpixel accuracy and a better sampling rate (such as that made by NIST in Appendix C of NCSTAR-1.9 using moiré analysis) can serve for precise estimations, not just rough ones. [ETA:] In Appendix C they did the analysis frame by frame: Figures C-8 and C-9 show the results of performing this analysis on each video frame, over the final 22 s before collapse and over the entire duration of the video, respectively. If they had done the analysis every 5th or 6th frame, they would have lost lots of details, but since they had subpixel precision, they could use a bigger sampling rate to obtain better data. They couldn't use their moiré analysis for the vertical direction, which is why they just did a rough estimation for lack of better data such as that captured by femr2. That proves that you're utterly wrong on this account.[/ETA]

I understand that the advances in motion tracking techniques sound like techno-babble to you though. Maybe if you were willing to be educated instead of rejecting anything that sounds like knowledge, it would sound like information instead of techno-babble to you.

 

[Christopher7]

It's not an appeal to authority if THOSE people ARE the factual authority!

They are no more an authority than any other qualified person. Government employees are not our superiors, they are servants of the people.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin

Don't they teach civics in school any more?

The problem with ESO, is that it uses every Tom Dick and Harry to discuss topics that are outside their area of expertise.

Your glib "Tom, Dick and Harry" comment demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of who these experts really are. The professionals in ESO speak to issues that are within their areas of their expertise.

For instance, Lynn Margulis Ph.D, was a scientist and University professor who discovered that some life forms come into being by two life forms joining together. This was a major discovery as it confirmed an exception to Darwin's theory of evolution. She talks about the scientific method and how the NIST reports are not science.

Roland Angle is a civil engineer with over 40 years of experience. He designed and tested Minute Man missile silos. He was a Green Barret, trained in the use of demolitions and he "blew a lot of things up". He would analyze structures, place explosives and then analyze the results. He spoke about his areas of expertise.

Kamal Obeid is a structural engineer with a masters degree and 30 years of experience. He says that WTC 7 is a classic case of controlled demolition.

Steven Dusterwald is a structural engineer with 37 years of experience. He says that the connections in WTC 7 could not fail at the rate they did without explosives.

There are dozens of experts in ESO that cover all aspects of the destruction of the three towers on 9/11.

 

[Christopher7]

It's you who is wrong. It is scientifically sound for very rough qualitative approximations such as that made by NIST

Tell that to the experts at NIST and stop bugging me with your denial of their ability to assess FFA.

but a more accurate trace with subpixel accuracy and a better sampling rate

Nonsense

I'm not going to take the word of an antonymous blowhard over NIST and Chandler. Show me a credible scientific study that confirms your claim or stop claiming that FEMR knows better than NIST and Chandler.

 

[Christopher7]

This answer is 100% wishful thinking. You can't just say there could be a device, or the light would be covered. You have to SHOW how the device would work, and you have to do the math on the light being obscured. There are actual formulas Astrophysicists use for light transmission through dust / particulate matter. Note that the light has a spectrum, so you have to take into account the material makeup of the smoke and debris and it's absorption and scatter charateristics. As far as I have seen, brilliant bright light will transmit through smoke (with varying degrees of absorption en route) and reflect off surfaces.

This may come as a blow to your ego but I don't take orders from you.

You would not believe me anyway. Your demands are just an excuse to deny the evidence we have.

 

[pgimeno]

Nonsense

I'm not going to take the word of an antonymous blowhard over NIST and Chandler. Show me a credible scientific study that confirms your claim or stop claiming that FEMR knows better than NIST and Chandler.

NIST's curve fit is a credible study that confirms that an acceleration of g was not sustained over time. It proceeds from the same data as their linear fit, and you can't have it both ways, so you have to reject your claim that the acceleration was g for a sustained period of time. NIST's explanation refers to average acceleration only, no matter how much you try to spin it.

And I already pointed you out to NIST's appendix C, that's how their subpixel traces are done. My claim is that NIST's vertical analysis lacks precision, compared to their horizontal analysis. Are you seriously contending that?

Once you admit (and you can't deny it if you're reasonable) that their horizontal analysis is more precise, you can observe how femr2's analysis basically matches their horizontal analysis, therefore he matches their precision, and since he applies the exact same method to the vertical movement analysis, his data is of far better quality, with subpixel detail and with a higher sampling rate.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST's curve fit is a credible study that confirms that an acceleration of g was not sustained over time.

IYO

It proceeds from the same data as their linear fit, and you can't have it both ways, so you have to reject your claim that the acceleration was g for a sustained period of time. NIST's explanation refers to average acceleration only, no matter how much you try to spin it.

No, I reject FEMR's analysis and the "average" is used because the data points are not exact.

THE LINE IS THE AVERAGE OF THE DATA POINTS, NOT THE ACCELERATION.

 

[GlennB]

It would be covered and/or consumed by the mushroom debris ejections in the TT and hidden by the smoke covering the lower part of the north face of WTC 7.

My bolding of a statement of almost cosmic absurdity.

So the entire cover-up depends on there being multiple cars to set ablaze in case of wind shifts, while nobody has line-of-sight to an unobscured part of any of WTC7's lower exterior? C'mon Chris, you're engaging in an obscure form of comedy, right?

 

[pgimeno]

IYO

No, I reject FEMR's analysis and the "average" is used because the data points are not exact.

So you reject it out of incredulity. Noted.

And I of course agree with you that NIST's data points are not exact. Which is the reason why your rejection of femr2's analysis is unjustified: it's much more exact data, and the proof is that it matches NIST's subpixel-precise horizontal analysis and it uses the very same method in the vertical direction.

THE LINE IS THE AVERAGE OF THE DATA POINTS, NOT THE ACCELERATION.

Correct. Then why do you claim that the acceleration is exactly that of free fall for more than 2 seconds, if now you are conceding that that is just an average?

I take it that you've changed your opinion and now you no longer claim that it was sustained for more than 2 seconds. Either that, or your assertion is not supported by any data whatsoever.

 

[Christopher7]

So the entire cover-up depends on there being multiple cars to set ablaze in case of wind shifts

The wind was steady all day, but you knew that.

while nobody has line-of-sight to an unobscured part of any of WTC7's lower exterior?

The only videos of WTC 7 collapsing that showed the bottom floors were from 8 and 9 blocks away. [about 2,000 and 2,500 feet]
Cameras 4, 8 and 9

 

[pgimeno]

So, to correct GlennB, what Christopher7 implicitly claims is that the coverup depended on whether there was a camera recording at the precise moment the building fell. Because what these takes show is mostly the dust from the collapse.

(ETA: Just like in the Pentagon, by the way)

 

[Dave Rogers]

The wind was steady all day, but you knew that.

I'm close to calling performance art. This is too stylish an invocation of the a priori/a posteriori fallacy to be the product of mere ignorance or blind dogmatism.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

So you reject it out of incredulity. Noted.

I reject anonymous blowhards claiming to have special knowledge that NIST and Chandler do not have.

And I of course agree with you that NIST's data points are not exact.

Then you understand why they have the computer software find the average of the data points. i.e. That gives the actual acceleration.

Which is the reason why your rejection of femr2's analysis is unjustified: it's much more exact data, and the proof is that it matches NIST's subpixel-precise horizontal analysis and it uses the very same method in the vertical direction.

Doesn't seem to work very well in the vertical direction. That's why NIST used another method to determine the vertical acceleration.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm close to calling performance art. This is too stylish an invocation of the a priori/a posteriori fallacy to be the product of mere ignorance or blind dogmatism.

Dave

Excellent point avoiding. Well done.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Excellent point avoiding. Well done.

And an inability to distinguish between avoiding and highlighting the point simply complements the rest of the performance.

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

This may come as a blow to your ego but I don't take orders from you.

You would not believe me anyway. Your demands are just an excuse to deny the evidence we have.

Dodge noted.

What evidence, and who's "we", or is that a royal "we"?