Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[thedopefishlives]

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.

Going back to this comment, yet another difference between a real engineer and a conspiracy theorist is that real engineers understand when it's appropriate to accept a rough first-order approximation and when they need to split hairs. A conspiracy theorist believes that every minute detail is of the utmost importance, no matter how inconsequential it really is to the final math.

 

[DGM]

Going back to this comment, yet another difference between a real engineer and a conspiracy theorist is that real engineers understand when it's appropriate to accept a rough first-order approximation and when they need to split hairs. A conspiracy theorist believes that every minute detail is of the utmost importance, no matter how inconsequential it really is to the final math.

MajorTom in a nutshell.

 

[Oystein]

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).

uglyfish, who apparently came from where femr, M_T and achimspok are dwelling as well, claimed the opposite: that "in reality", there was more core damage to the South Tower than NIST estimated, and that tower came this close *imagine me holding my fingers with only a short distance between the tips of thumb and index finger* to immediate collapse from plane strike alone.

I asked him several times where he gathered that "reality" from, but he never answered it before he commited suiced by mod. I suspect though he, too, was referencing achimspok.

 

[pgimeno]

[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.

Are you referring to the mistake that the perspectives don't match and therefore the image means nothing (see the blatant difference in the east wall positioning)?

You're right, nobody is held accountable for that mistake. Who should? You tell us. Who did that lousy animated gif?

Come on, answer that question and I might be responding one of yours in future.

 

[George 152]

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


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

Obviously the aircraft hit the tower just as we all saw on TV ....
Is this 'new' anti NIST claim a sign of a kook breakdown ?

 

[femr2]

Who did that lousy animated gif?

That would be me, as I'm sure you know...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175.htm

http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175-part2.htm

 

[femr2]

His "claim", if you can call it that, is that NIST got the entry angle wrong.

And trajectory, yes. See links above to draft write-up.

Correcting for perspective, I would actually say that looks pretty good.

It was an early draft view. Accuracy improved as the camera position was confirmed (via folk on the ferry the Hezarkhani? footage was filmed from)

Latter camera positioning put placement within a 10ft radius...

...verifiable via parallax effects on foreground buildings (NIST RED, femr2 draft BLUE)

A few old test images...

 

[Christopher7]

Excellent summary.

You choose to take the word of an anonymous poster over NIST.

Did you ask Michael Newman about this key point during those five hours? Probably not. He would laugh at FEMR's "greater than g" because it's absurd. But would you take Michael's word for it? Probably not. You believe what you need to believe to deny FFA.

You also remain willfully blind to the FACT that bending columns provide resistance, gradually losing their resistance value, not all at once as they begin to bend. The impartial engineers told you that but you choose to ignore what they said.

 

[carlitos]

my book

 

[carlitos]

Strawman!
The drawings said 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches. It's not a matter of mind reading, it's obvious that NIST lied.
Even at this point you still don't know what the NIST hypothesis is.

That was the failure that started the collapse. Without it, there was no collapse. It could not have collapsed if the seat was 12 inches wide. That's why NIST lied about it. They did lie about it and there is no other reason for them to lie about it. You just can't accept that so you keep trying to find reasons not to believe it.

[FONT=&quot]That was nearly 7 years later and he offered no science to back up that claim.

Kent1, Dr. Barret has not said so publicly and your claim of an email is not verifiable. His original statement in the FEMA report is that the melted/corroded beam needed a detailed study to determine to the cause but NIST did not do so and then lied when they said that no steel from WTC 7 was recovered in the final report on the towers. The final report on WTC 7 does not mention Sample #1[/FONT]
.

etc.

You choose to take the word of an anonymous poster over NIST.

 

[Christopher7]

etc.

You don't know the difference between a bogus analysis and cold hard facts. NIST omitted the stiffeners and lied about the width of the seat to get their walk-off to work. That is documented.

NIST also lied about the existence of steel from WTC 7. That is also a documented fact.

 

[carlitos]

And I should believe those liars over anonymous internet posters because...?

 

[Christopher7]

And I should believe those liars over anonymous internet posters because...?

It's not the word of an anonymous poster, it's documentation. The plans show the seat was 1' 0" wide and the bottom flange has stiffeners. NIST said the seat was 11' wide and had no stiffeners. That is fraud.

 

[LSSBB]

You choose to take the word of an anonymous poster over NIST.

Did you ask Michael Newman about this key point during those five hours? Probably not. He would laugh at FEMR's "greater than g" because it's absurd. But would you take Michael's word for it? Probably not. You believe what you need to believe to deny FFA.

You also remain willfully blind to the FACT that bending columns provide resistance, gradually losing their resistance value, not all at once as they begin to bend. The impartial engineers told you that but you choose to ignore what they said.

Derp

 

[tsig]

[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.

Holy magic morphing videos, Batman!

 

[carlitos]

It's not the word of an anonymous poster, it's documentation. The plans show the seat was 1' 0" wide and the bottom flange has stiffeners. NIST said the seat was 11' wide and had no stiffeners. That is fraud.

So NIST are liars and perpetrators of fraud.

Based on that, it sounds like I'm better served listening to anonymous people on the internet then.

You choose to take the word of an anonymous poster over NIST.

So what's your problem?

 

[pgimeno]

That would be me, as I'm sure you know...

I only thought that was likely because I never paid much attention to your plane trajectory claims, but I certainly know about your bedfellows

The camera is obviously closer in the pic than in your 3D image, with a greater FOV. The camera angles provably don't match, therefore the planes can't match, therefore the image doesn't prove anything. That's only the result of looking at that single pic. I don't have interest in the rest of your analysis, which to me falls into the irrelevant nistpicking category.

 

[Christopher7]

So NIST are liars and perpetrators of fraud.

Based on that, it sounds like I'm better served listening to anonymous people on the internet then.

If you accept that NIST lied and their final report is a fraud then you are justified in not believing their FFA analysis.

But you can't have it both ways.

Do you accept that the NIST final report is a fraud?

 

[MarkLindeman]

If you accept that NIST lied and their final report is a fraud then you are justified in not believing their FFA analysis.

But you can't have it both ways.

That is perfectly wrong, perfectly. I should bookmark it as an exemplar of Truth Movement error. But it would be more satisfying if you can at least glimpse why it is perfectly wrong.

In a competent technical discussion of the NIST report, everyone involved would understand that the report may have been incomplete or mistaken on particular points, small and large. It's ridiculous to say that we have to choose between believing every aspect of their analysis and accepting that the report is a fraud. (And it's hard to understand how you of all people can tell someone else straight-faced that he "can't have it both ways.")

If you don't understand that, then there is no chance that you can follow the technical discussions.

 

[Christopher7]

In a competent technical discussion of the NIST report, everyone involved would understand that the report may have been incomplete or mistaken on particular points small and large.

You remain willfully blind to the clear documentation of fraud and try to say they were just mistaken. That is denial.

It's ridiculous to say that we have to choose between believing every aspect of their analysis and accepting that the report is a fraud.

Strawman. That is not what I said.