Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[thedopefishlives]

Does math hurt, Chris?

He's repeatedly displayed an inability to grasp the concept of "average" versus "instantaneous", something that any first-year physics student can understand. Well, except for Chandler, whom Chris7 cites constantly and who also gets the concept hilariously wrong (see his "2/3 g" argument for the collapse of the Twin Towers).

 

[Oystein]

You need to get over your denial. NIST confirmed FFA. Deal with it.

Still FALSE.
You are the one who is in denial here.
NIST say their estimation of approximate and average acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of gravity during that period.
This is not the same as saying the actual and exact acceleration at all points in time during the interval confirms FFA (as in "this is free fall").

Do you see the differences between your crude paraphrase and what they actually say?

BTW: Chandler did another analysis using better software.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

How do you know it's "better", when you didn't even know what the first software was? Better in what regard?

The result of 2.28 seconds of FFA is very close to the NIST result of 2.25 seconds.

So? They both do an average over some period of time (that is in and of itself somewhat arbitrary), both using less accurate software and methods thatn femr2 did subsequently.
Do these averages imply that acceleration was strictly constant during these 2.25/2.28 seconds? Do you know?

 

[carlitos]

On the bright side, "denoir choir" could be a good band name.

 

[LSSBB]

Still FALSE.
You are the one who is in denial here.
NIST say their estimation of approximate and average acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of gravity during that period.
This is not the same as saying the actual and exact acceleration at all points in time during the interval confirms FFA (as in "this is free fall").

Do you see the differences between your crude paraphrase and what they actually say?


How do you know it's "better", when you didn't even know what the first software was? Better in what regard?


So? They both do an average over some period of time (that is in and of itself somewhat arbitrary), both using less accurate software and methods thatn femr2 did subsequently.
Do these averages imply that acceleration was strictly constant during these 2.25/2.28 seconds? Do you know?

To reinforce your point Oystein, he can't know the acceleration was exactly g at any point for the same reason he is trying to use to shoot down the acceleration being above g: the margin of error on the measurement.

So, to recap:
1. The acceleration at any time cannot be determined to be exactly g
2. Instants of g acceleration can be explained by the balance of forces and does not show that the exterior is freely falling.

Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to claim the exterior of the building was freely falling for a non-instant period of time, and there is no basis to use this as evidence of a given collapse cause.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I did not conclude that the analysis confirmed FFA, NIST did.
Your question is moot.

You offer a remarkably feeble attempted deflection.

If you honestly think that NIST "confirmed FFA" -- by which, presumably, you mean constant acceleration at g -- the question remains: How could NIST possibly have done that?

So far your answer seems to be that they knew which software to use. Is that your final answer?

 

[Major_Tom]

Because they are the "experts".

When one sees representatives of AE911T arguing for the NIST, the narrowed false choice is pretty obvious.


AE911T vs NIST. NIST vs AE911T. They need each other. Each gives a false impression of the competence/incompetence of the other. Like Punch and Judy.

AE911T exists in their present form because the collapse progression modes of WTC1 and 2 remain ambiguous. Without that ambiguity, they would pop like a balloon.

The NIST is let off the hook for their many errors because AE911T argues so poorly.


Meanwhile, everyone else is deprived of an accurate technical history of the collapses. Each is allowed to bluff by recognizing the other as the only "other" worth addressing.


Far beyond those 2 choices lies the reality of the events. It is the reality that remains neglected while the puppet show continues.

 

[Oystein]

Because they are the "experts".

When one sees representatives of AE911T arguing for the NIST, the narrowed false choice is pretty obvious.

Perhaps.

AE911T vs NIST. NIST vs AE911T. They need each other. Each gives a false impression of the competence/incompetence of the other. Like Punch and Judy.

What obvious nonsense. NIST doesn't need a fringe club of loons and hardly notices them.

AE911T exists in their present form because the collapse progression modes of WTC1 and 2 remain ambiguous. Without that ambiguity, they would pop like a balloon.

No. It exists because they can still squeeze money out of a tiny (but sufficient to pay one full time wage) fringe of gullible loons who will lap up every lie dished out to them as long as it feeds their "evil government" prejudice.

The NIST is let off the hook for their many errors because AE911T argues so poorly.

NIST couldn't care less. AE911T is not part of any relevant debate among engineers.

Meanwhile, everyone else is deprived of an accurate technical history of the collapses. Each is allowed to bluff by recognizing the other as the only "other" worth addressing.

I am not sure NISTs recognizes AE911T as "worth addressing", let alone the only other worth addressing. That's some mighty blinders you have on.

I guess you are just envious that they recognize you even less than them.

Far beyond those 2 choices lies the reality of the events. It is the reality that remains neglected while the puppet show continues.

I am sure NIST as well as many other relevant engineering groups know of more choices than just the 2. Remember, criticism of NIST's work has come from serious groups as well.

 

[chrismohr]

To reinforce your point Oystein, he can't know the acceleration was exactly g at any point for the same reason he is trying to use to shoot down the acceleration being above g: the margin of error on the measurement.

So, to recap:
1. The acceleration at any time cannot be determined to be exactly g
2. Instants of g acceleration can be explained by the balance of forces and does not show that the exterior is freely falling.

Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to claim the exterior of the building was freely falling for a non-instant period of time, and there is no basis to use this as evidence of a given collapse cause.

Excellent summary.

And Major Tom's claim of NIST vs 9/11 Truth does not in any way harmonize with my experience talking with NIST for over five hours over several mmonths. They don't take any of the 9/11 Truth claims seriously. I tried to push Michael Newman to set up a debate between someone from NIST and a 9/11 Truther and he said, "Why should we? There's nothing to debate." Michael, as a public relations guy, deals with the Truth movement, but he also told me he has to shield NIST scientists from the people who would attack their work so they can do their work and not get caught in the static. He also explained that there were public hearings and peer-reviews all along the way, and they took feedback from people, so he says claims of lack of transparency are invalid. They are VERY transparent to the scientific community and the Truth movement is a PR issue but otherwise of very little significance to them.

And BTW AE911Truth is a small part of what he has to respond to. He also gets emails, letters and calls from the Judy Woods camp, the mininukers, the no-planers... then there are the libertarian architects who tell him NIST's safety recommendations are a waste of taxpayer money, and people expressing beliefs about everything they do, even time measuring. A couple months ago I asked him to answer some questions about "moment frames" and the collapse of Building 7. After all the questions I've thrown at him this past year, I don't mind that this obscure and (in my mind) useless line of inquiry was never answered. To say that NIST and AE911Truth need each other is exactly the opposite of what I encountered in my extensive conversations with NIST people (and not just Michael).

 

[femr2]

Please

What, is the trivially simple example too much for you ? If you engaged it really would help you. It's not difficult. Give it a whirl, it'll be good for you.

You are just trying to deny FFA.

Not at all. Portions (even big'uns) of the North facade of WTC7 approached, reached and even exceeded "FFA" at various points during the descent.

What I "deny" is the infantile "2.25s AT Freefall" meme that you keep repeating. It's simply not true.

Again, if you want to change your record to include any of the afforementioned qualifiers..."NIST say their estimation of approximate and average acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of gravity during that period."...fine. The "2.25s" chunk is over the top too, as it's more like "~1s", but you'll get much less pointless banter if you simply concede the OBVIOUS...estimation, approximate, average, equivalent...

this crap about greater than g is just silliness.

Your "beloved" NIST include >g.

 

[NoahFence]

AE911T vs NIST. NIST vs AE911T. They need each other. Each gives a false impression of the competence/incompetence of the other. Like Punch and Judy.

That's almost Stundie material right there. NIST needs AE911T??!?

Are you kidding? I'd venture a guess that 90% of people employed by NIST aren't even aware of AE911T. The other 10% are tired of answering lunatic questions.

NIST is NOT a 9/11 research study group. They did what they were tasked to do, and are now done. That a tiny group of people continue to harp on it doesn't change that.

Meanwhile, everyone else is deprived of an accurate technical history of the collapses. Each is allowed to bluff by recognizing the other as the only "other" worth addressing.

Who exactly is "everyone"? Do you think you're speaking for me? I don't care about what girder failed at exactly what time and exactly how long it took to collapse. All I care about is if buildings are safer from fire-induced collapse than they were on 9/11. I'd say they are. Every skyscraper built from 9/12/2001 onward is safer because of what happened on 9/11. Painful lessons have been learned.

THAT is what "everybody" cares about. Not some pointless exercise in how special someone thinks they are.

 

[Major_Tom]

Excellent summary.

And Major Tom's claim of NIST vs 9/11 Truth does not in any way harmonize with my experience talking with NIST for over five hours over several mmonths. They don't take any of the 9/11 Truth claims seriously. I tried to push Michael Newman to set up a debate between someone from NIST and a 9/11 Truther and he said, "Why should we? There's nothing to debate." Michael, as a public relations guy, deals with the Truth movement, but he also told me he has to shield NIST scientists from the people who would attack their work so they can do their work and not get caught in the static. He also explained that there were public hearings and peer-reviews all along the way, and they took feedback from people, so he says claims of lack of transparency are invalid. They are VERY transparent to the scientific community and the Truth movement is a PR issue but otherwise of very little significance to them.

And BTW AE911Truth is a small part of what he has to respond to. He also gets emails, letters and calls from the Judy Woods camp, the mininukers, the no-planers... then there are the libertarian architects who tell him NIST's safety recommendations are a waste of taxpayer money, and people expressing beliefs about everything they do, even time measuring. A couple months ago I asked him to answer some questions about "moment frames" and the collapse of Building 7. After all the questions I've thrown at him this past year, I don't mind that this obscure and (in my mind) useless line of inquiry was never answered. To say that NIST and AE911Truth need each other is exactly the opposite of what I encountered in my extensive conversations with NIST people (and not just Michael).

This allows them to ignore their own mistakes. All opposition can be characterized as "crazy".

Gross misrepresentations of building behavior are allowed since the opposition is characterized as "crazy".


None of the misrepresentations require any belief to see their internal contradictions. They can be observed and verified by anyone who makes the effort to do so.

It is wonderful that after a few years some posters here can see that the Femr2 measurements are superior to those of the NIST. So are those of Achimspok.

All you need to do is look at their work on WTC1 in the same way you look at the WTC7 early motion. I'll show you on the thread where my book is being discussed (attacked) later today or tomorrow.


Same measuring techniques. Same people. No belief required.

 

[Major_Tom]

NIST claim in blue. Actual shown in comparison.

One of many, many examples.


This is a mistake for which nobody is held accountable. Many examples.

 

[Clayton Moore]

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175_files/image081.gif[/qimg]

NIST claim in blue. Actual shown in comparison.

One of many, many examples.


This is a mistake for which nobody is held accountable. Many examples.

That's because it most likely wasn't a mistake.

 

[NoahFence]

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175_files/image081.gif[/qimg]

NIST claim in blue. Actual shown in comparison.

One of many, many examples.


This is a mistake for which nobody is held accountable. Many examples.

!?!?!??!!!!???


NIST Claimed a plane hit the tower, and to correct them, you superimpose a plane hitting the tower?

 

[thedopefishlives]

!?!?!??!!!!???


NIST Claimed a plane hit the tower, and to correct them, you superimpose a plane hitting the tower?

His "claim", if you can call it that, is that NIST got the entry angle wrong. Correcting for perspective, I would actually say that looks pretty good.

 

[DGM]

I would actually say that looks pretty good.

What's wrong with you? "Pretty good" is not good enough! We need to know within thousands of an inch where that plane hit, it's important.

 

[NoahFence]

His "claim", if you can call it that, is that NIST got the entry angle wrong. Correcting for perspective, I would actually say that looks pretty good.

The entry angle.


The : entry angle??????


Holy FSM what a waste of time.

This is a mistake for which nobody is held accountable. Many examples.

Incorrect!

It's a "mistake" for which NOBODY CARES!

 

[DGM]

Incorrect!

It's a "mistake" for which NOBODY CARES!

The claim is the angle is off so there wasn't as much core damage as NIST estimated. I'm not sure the amount MajorTom claims matters as much as he thinks (after accounting for perspective).

 

[thedopefishlives]

The claim is the angle is off so there wasn't as much core damage as NIST estimated. I'm not sure the amount MajorTom claims matters as much as he thinks (after accounting for perspective).

Pretty much what I was going to say, word-for-word. If Tom thinks he can come up with a better damage estimate, I'd like to see the simulation and compare side-by-side with the NIST one.

 

[carlitos]

re: accounting for perspective,

In femr2's video analysis thread, I wondered why he didn't triangulate different camera angles in 3d if he indeed sought the level of precision these hobbyists claim to desire. I don't believe it ever happened.

ETA - looks like others have pointed this out to Major_Tom as well. (re-edited to add - scroll down to leftyseargent's posts in that archived thread)