Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[LSSBB]

Hello?
Smoke is covering 25 floors at the NE corner in the camera 4 still. [before the west penthouse collapsed] and cameras 8 and 9 show the smoke was coming from near the west end.

I provided evidence to show that the bottom floors of WTC 7 were obscured by smoke that would have covered flashes from thermite devices.

The bit about "the coverup depended on whether there was a camera recording at the precise moment the building fell." came out of your head.

You have not shown how the smoke could absorb 100% of the spectrum emitted by the thermite, and you cannot validly assume it is true and use that as an accusation of intentional destruction of a building.

 

[tsig]

A rebuttal has been sent to the journal.

No kidding? How profoundly perceptive. Don't you think the military could develop devices to do the job, given their propensity for blowing things up and their virtually unlimited budget?

TMWIMW

The military works in mysterious ways.

 

[tsig]

People who say thermite could not be used to bring dawn the TT and WTC 7 have no idea how thermite could be used so they are lying.

Where did you gain your knowledge of thermite?

 

[dafydd]

People who say thermite could not be used to bring dawn the TT and WTC 7 have no idea how thermite could be used so they are lying.

Unfortunately for you the uses of thermite are well known.

 

[dafydd]

Where did you gain your knowledge of thermite?

Investigoogleing wacko truther websites. That's my bet.

 

[Christopher7]

I note how carefully you're avoiding saying whether or not the fires were set on purpose. Of course, what you call GlennB's theory is merely a logical inference from yours.

If you say so.

Either the bad guys knew the smoke would cover them, or they somehow failed to notice the massive amount of light thermite generates in their test runs and it was just lucky the smoke happened to cover it. The later is impossible. The former is only slightly less impossible.

And, of course, given the EMP collapse, there had to have been charges on high as well. We have video of the upper portions of the building during the EMP collapse and the rest of the collapse. There's a notable lack of 45-second flares of light.

I love the way you guys think up stupid scenarios and remark on how stupid they are.

Actually, the CIA works in fairly standard and well-known ways including the need for funding and accountability. There's no such thing as a blank check operation.

Can you spell "naive" ?

Or do you think that an agency sworn to protect America would so willingly murder several thousand people, including people they knew personally in the Pentagon?

What makes you think a criminal element within a compartmentalized agency couldn't or wouldn't? Faith in the goodness of government? American exceptionalism? Have you heard about "Fast and Furious"?

I'm not saying a criminal element within the CIA was involved but you cannot rule that out.

 

[dafydd]

People that claim that thermite COULD have been used to bring down the TT and WTC 7 have no idea of the workings of a modern office tower that is occupied 24/7 in a city that is active 24/7 so they are delusional.

They rigged the building using their super secret CIA invisibility cloaking devices.

 

[Christopher7]

People that claim that thermite COULD have been used to bring down the TT and WTC 7 have no idea of the workings of a modern office tower that is occupied 24/7 in a city that is active 24/7 so they are delusional.

Wrong.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

Unfortunately for you the uses of thermite are well known.

Except for the state of the art techniques that the military keeps secret.

 

[LSSBB]

The more we dig into this thermite theory, the closer it converges on no-planer holographic territory, with similar appeals to magic:

You can't say how these thermite devices work, so they can do what ever is needed to fit the observations.
The smoke would obscure 100% of the light generated by thermite.
The CIA and military have infinite resources at their disposal. To deny this is naïve.
The devices would be planted at just the right places for when the planes hit.
The planes could have been guided by homing beacons.
The exterior acceleration of WTC7 shown by the NIST and femr2 graphs were "error". Femr2's graph can be discounted merely because the author is anonymous, regardless of the method used to generate it.
Chemical analysis discounting thermite can be discounted because it didn't use a test that can't even positively identify the material.
Any time anyone heard what sounded like an explosion, that was an explosive.

The CD case thus presented to date has many unproven assumptions, conjecture and appeals to magic that it is tantamount to pure fantasy. To keep clinging to it is tantamount to religious belief.

 

[Clayton Moore]

A rebuttal has been sent to the journal.

No kidding? How profoundly perceptive. Don't you think the military could develop devices to do the job, given their propensity for blowing things up and their virtually unlimited budget?

I'm sure most of the duhbunkers don't realize a TS clearance is the tip of the iceberg. You can almost guarantee that any so called SOTA military/communications technology the public is aware of is 5 to 10 years old or older.

 

[pgimeno]

Hello?
Smoke is covering 25 floors at the NE corner in the camera 4 still. [before the west penthouse collapsed] and cameras 8 and 9 show the smoke was coming from near the west end.

I stand corrected. It seems GlennB was right then. I still consider the possibility that the EMP or the floors collapsed caused that smoke, though. They certainly would blow smoke out of the building.

____

I take it you concede my post #4833. That's progress. ETA: never mind, I missed your response.

 

[Animal]

Wrong.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871[/FONT]

LMAO.......thank you for proving me right............you have no clue.

 

[pgimeno]

I just pointed out that the lower floors were covered by smoke.

You're the one with a conspiracy theory about the fire being set intentionally.

Oh WOW!

So they actually left the proof of the demolition right there for everyone to see and just by chance it got obscured by nearby smoke. They were just as lucky.

I mean, WHAT?

 

[000063]

If you say so.

I do. You are avoiding a claim because all possibilities arising from your earlier claim are impossible.

I love the way you guys think up stupid scenarios and remark on how stupid they are.

Stupid scenarios based on your presented premise. They are stupid because of that premise. That's kind of our entire point.

Can you spell "naive" ?

That's not a contradiction, just a gainsay.

What makes you think a criminal element within a compartmentalized agency couldn't or wouldn't? Faith in the goodness of government? American exceptionalism? Have you heard about "Fast and Furious"?

Yep. Except this conspiracy would require both a large number of people from inside and outside the CIA. You can't rig three buildings with explosives/thermite/both by sitting in a Langley Hooters after work with your coworkers. It will require non-Agency cooperation. Civilian experts. Paying off the FBI, NIST, and so on, and so forth. They would have to come up with this unprecedented thermite-based demo method, hire experts, and build something close to a scale model to test it. They have to hire contractors to replicate a good portion of a 47-story building, much less the Twin Towers. Several times, just to make sure they got it perfect. We are already talking tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, not including developing the charges in the first place.

And most damningly, a small portion of the CIA is not the same as the entire CIA, any more than dirty cops are the same as an entire police force.

I'm not saying a criminal element within the CIA was involved but you cannot rule that out.

Giving yourself backpedal room, I see.

Yes I can. No version of the conspiracy is possible with only a few people, or even a few dozen.

Wrong.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871[/FONT]

Those directly contradict your assertion that a small group withing the CIA could've been responsible.

It also uses a theory involving explosives, yet you're pushing Thermite. It asserts that explosives were used, and Al Qaeda could not have planted them, and laughably calls the towers some of the most secure facilities in the world at the time. Then it points the finger at everyone in a flurry of speculation about connections and a notable paucity of evidence of actual wrongdoing.

Except for the state of the art techniques that the military keeps secret.

And by "keeps secret", you mean "publishes several of openly", right? Why has no one been able to reproduce such a substance in ten years?

 

[femr2]

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

It's not a matter of knowledge, but more of effort. I've refined the procedures over time, sure, but none of it is rocket science. Full instructions are within this forum if you want to replicate the process yourself. There are not really any experts in the field of "extracting building descent acceleration profile data from video footage", you know. Except me of course NISTs moire method wasn't bad, but veered towards a spherical cow imo.

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

The "computer software" is likely to be a simple linear fit in excel. Excel certainly chooses the same fit using digitised data from the NIST velocity graph.

A linear fit can provide approximate average acceleration for the ROI, not "actual acceleration".

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

ROFL. There is no record of NIST attempting to use their moire method for vertical motion detection. What are you basing your assertion upon exactly ? Why doesn't it "seem to" ? How would you "know" why NIST used an alternate method. Please direct me to your source for that statement

And remember...

The NIST data suffers from the following (non-exhaustive) series of technical issues, each of which reduce the quality, validity and relevance of the data in various measures...

• NIST did not deinterlace their source video. This has two main detrimental effects: 1) Each image they look at is actually a composite of two separate points in time, and 2) Instant halving of the number of frames available...half the available video data information. Tracing features using interlaced video is a really bad idea, especially for features changing vertical position. I have gone into detail on issues related to tracing of features using interlaced video data previously.
  
• NIST did not sample every frame, reducing the sampling rate considerably and reducing available data redundancy for the purposes of noise reduction and derivation of velocity and acceleration profile data.
  
• NIST used an inconsistent inter-sample time-step, skipping roughly every 56 out of 60 available unique images. They ignored over 90% of the available positional data.
  
• NIST likely used a manual (by hand-eye) tracking process using two single pixel columns, rather than a tried and tested feature tracking method such as those provided in systems such as SynthEyes. Manual tracking introduces a raft of accuracy issues. Feature tracking systems such as SynthEyes employ an automated region-based system which entails upscaling of the target region, application of LancZos3 filtering and pattern matching (with FOM) to provide a sub-pixel accurate relative location of initial feature pattern in subsequent frames in video.
  
• NIST tracked the *roofline* using a pixel column, rather than an actual feature of the building. This means that the trace is not actually of a point of the building, as the building does not descend completely vertically. This means the tracked pixel column is actually a rather meaningless point on the roofline which wanders left and right as the building moves East and West.
  
• NIST chose an initial trace location which precluded starting the trace before the East Penthouse had already descended (as the East Penthouse obscured their trace location). Consequently they no way of gathering early motion data, or quantifying long term noise levels.
  
• NIST chose a trace endpoint which could not be traced from their selected T₀ time, and so subsequently merged data from two separate traces together, without accounting for change in scaling metric.
  
• NIST used the Cam#3 viewpoint which includes significant perspective effects (such as early motion being north-south rather than up-down and yet appearing to be vertical motion). It also means that each horizontal position across the facade requires calculation of a unique scaling metric, which NIST did not bother to do.
  
• NIST did not perform perspective correction upon the resultant trace data.
  
• NIST did not recognise that the initial movement at their chosen pixel column was primarily north-south movement resulting from twisting of the building before the release point of the north facade.
  
• NIST did not perform static point extraction (H, V). Even when the camera appears static, there is still (at least) fine movement. Subtraction of static point movement from trace data significantly reduces camera shake noise, and so reduces track data noise.
  
• NIST did not choose a track point which could actually be identified from the beginning to the end of the trace, and so they needed to splice together information from separate points. Without perspective correction the scaling metrics for these two points resulted in data skewing, especially of the early motion.
  
• NIST performed only a linear approximation for acceleration, choosing not to further derive their chosen displacement function.
  
• NISTs displacement function, if derived to obtain acceleration/time contains a ~1s period of over-g acceleration. Whilst that in itself is fine, it's at the wrong time, and in their conclusions they ignore it.
  
• NISTs displacement function, if derived to obtain acceleration/time does not suggest a 2.25s period of roughly gravitational acceleration.
  
• The displacement data appears to have been extracted initially from the T₀ pixel column, but using the scaling factor determined for a point above Region B, further skewing the displacement data.

As long as you know what's wrong with the data you are supporting, and misinterpreting, then it's all good I suppose

 

[grandmastershek]

People who say thermite could not be used to bring dawn the TT and WTC 7 have no idea how thermite could be used so they are lying.

why am i not shocked you are confused. funny enough though you seem to know what this super secret technology can without any evidence whatsoever. sorry but just crying that peopel are lying or ilinformed because it contradicts your faith is not impressive.

 

[pgimeno]

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

Did NIST or Chandler use motion tracking software for tracking the vertical motion?

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

Of course, it doesn't give anything but average acceleration. Which is the best they can have out of the data collected with such a poor data acquisition method: just rough estimations.

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

You don't know what you're talking about.

NIST's method for subpixel resolution is based on the NW corner of the building top-to-bottom having just a very small angle with respect to the vertical. That allows them to track the vertical position where the intensities of two columns of pixels, which happen to have similar intensities, get equal, in order to convert that vertical point to an horizontal displacement. It requires a series of assumptions in order to work correctly, not all of them too evident.

THAT method doesn't work in the vertical direction for this case, because they don't have a similarly angled pixel row with a similar feature to which to apply it.

The software used by femr2 uses a wholly different method, a standard motion tracking method (used in several fields including biology, and about which there are quite some papers written) that doesn't depend on such a tilt or anything, instead it considers groups of pixels and their intensities. He tracked the top NW corner, and in the horizontal direction his motion tracking software was able to come up with a result very similar to NIST's. The vertical direction is tracked by the software just in the same way as the horizontal one, therefore if his horizontal results had similar quality to these of NIST, his vertical results necessarily do have that quality as well, which NIST's vertical data doesn't have.

 

[grandmastershek]

Except for the state of the art techniques that the military keeps secret.

and that gives you license to claim whatever you want?

 

[femr2]

Did NIST or Chandler use motion tracking software for tracking the vertical motion?

NIST, no. Chandler, yes, and older version of Tracker and Physics Toolkit, though it is unclear whether he allowed automated tracking, or manually placed markers.

From the results, and other lower level factors that may not be obvious, I suggest he placed points manually, using the Dan Rather viewpoint, and the Tracker software...


Tracker kind of works, though its automated tracking facilities are at best "rough and ready".

I managed to get his WTC1 trace data and the actual video he used. If either are anything to go by, there are other issues which will have affected the data. Didn't manage to get hold of his WTC7 data before he stopped posting. Would be useful to try again. Shall ask for it.