Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[twinstead]

Strawman. That is not what I said.

It is EXACTLY what you are saying. I am saying that unless you can show that fire and damage didn't bring the buildings down, the discussion belongs in an engineering forum and not a conspiracy forum.

 

[femr2]

The camera is obviously closer in the pic than in your 3D image, with a greater FOV

Heard of cropping ?

The camera angles provably don't match

That was a draft, as I said above.

Camera angle, via discussion with Carmen Taylor, was narrowed to within +/- 0.2 degrees.

I don't have interest in the rest of your analysis, which to me falls into the irrelevant nistpicking category.

The problem is...

The NIST impact angle and trajectory are over 7 degrees out.

The consequence of that is...



a) They simulated an aircraft crashing into the building in the wrong direction.

b) The NIST impact damage estimates were therefore inaccurate.

c) Structural response and thermal simulations were therefore based on erronious initial state.

d) Pre-initiation simulation was therefore also based on erronious data.


The impact angle and trajectory is CRITICAL and THE initial step in the chain of simulation.


It's significantly out of whack.


All of the subsequent WTC2 NIST simulations are based on a dodgy impact damage simulation.

WTC1, not too bad, pretty accurate in fact.

WTC2, well out.

 

[MarkLindeman]

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

Whether or not NIST is guilty of fraud is, in this context, completely irrelevant -- and I didn't "try to say" anything about it.

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.

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.

How so? It's closely based on your actual words; it's the most natural interpretation. The only other interpretation I can imagine is that carlitos would be justified in not believing some other aspect of NIST's analysis, but somehow NIST's "FFA analysis" has special status.

 

[Major_Tom]

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.

Yes. It is also a chief feature of this forum. It is happening right now in this thread.

Observation and measurement are ways to test belief for accuracy. It is absurd to talk about "believing" in measurement.

In the same way, those who have pathologically criticized Femr2 in the past are now using his WTC7 early motion measurements as superior to those of the NIST. The same people ignore his aircraft impact angle measurements of WTC2 or his collections of measurements on WTC1 presented in a different thread.

They, too, have no chance of following technical discussions.

As you criticize C7, so Oystein and Pgimeno do the exact same thing. Chris Mohr does the exact same thing.


It is a question of the interrelation of 3 things.....

Observation, measurement, belief.

The true relation is to use the former 2 to test belief.

If that were to happen in this forum, it would pop like a balloon.


The forum holds onto beliefs in authority when convenient, just as C7 is doing now.

 

[Oystein]

...
It is a question of the interrelation of 3 things.....

Observation, measurement, belief.

The true relation is to use the former 2 to test belief.
...

You are missing the key ingredient.

Can you guess what you are missing?

Here it is:

Theory.

 

[pgimeno]

Heard of cropping ?

Cropping of individual building features?!?!

That was a draft, as I said above.

But it's the one MT used, so he failed to prove what he intended by showing that image. And as I said in the very same message you're quoting, "That's only the result of looking at that single pic".

The impact angle and trajectory is CRITICAL and THE initial step in the chain of simulation.

And if I understand it correctly, the actual damage should have been greater.

Therefore, NIST found the buildings would fall even if the damage was underestimated.

It's a pretty strong conclusion in my opinion. More than satisfactory. The rest is indeed nistpicking.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Major_Tom champions yet another false choice:

In the same way, those who have pathologically criticized Femr2 in the past are now using his WTC7 early motion measurements as superior to those of the NIST. The same people ignore his aircraft impact angle measurements of WTC2 or his collections of measurements on WTC1 presented in a different thread.

They, too, have no chance of following technical discussions.

Balderdash.

I have stated several times that I regard femr2's data as superior to NIST's.

Unlike Major_Tom, who is advocating a false binary choice between

• accept everything femr2 says
• accept nothing femr2 says

I distinguish femr2's data extraction, which is pretty good, from his data analysis, which is often not. Major_Tom gave us an example just a few posts above, when he presented yet another jiggling GIF. As noted by pgimeno:

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?

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

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.

That was a draft, as I said above.

I hold Major_Tom accountable for presenting yet another jiggling GIF that means nothing because it was done so poorly. I accept femr2's explanation that the GIF was just a draft.

I'm tired of seeing drafts, and will wait for the finished journal article or book. Please post the ISBN when it's available.

 

[femr2]

Cropping of individual building features?!?!

Nope. Cropping of image frame. aka, cropping.

But it's the one MT used

So ? Not up to me how MT links to my images. That's why I clarified.

That's only the result of looking at that single pic

So I've provided links to see that, and other images, in context.

And if I understand it correctly, the actual damage should have been greater.

Who knows ? Certainly different.

Therefore, NIST found the buildings would fall even if the damage was underestimated.

Absolute nonsense. One of your favorite "logical oopsies" there I'm afraid.

Different damage = different subsequent behaviour.

No idea what effect it may have had.


PLUS...you're okay with stage 1, the critical initiating data, being wrong ?

It's a pretty strong conclusion in my opinion.

Very poor.

More than satisfactory.

Very poor.

I can imagine MT's reaction right now...

The rest is indeed nistpicking.

Identifying a serious error at a critical, indeed the critical, stage in the NIST simulation analysis...is nitpicking ?!

Wow.


We're literally talking about the 2 or 3 numbers which affect every single other number in the billions/trillions of subsequent calculations.

THE most critical numbers in the entire chain.


Nitpicking ?


Wow.

 

[MarkLindeman]

The true relation is to use the former 2 to test belief.

If that were to happen in this forum, it would pop like a balloon.

Your rhetorical style here is a coarse mixture of science wonkery, A Few Good Men, and apocalyptic scripture. It does not lend itself to serious discussion of engineering issues. Is it, perhaps, part of your experiment?

It strikes me that actually to demonstrate the importance of a particular finding would be more persuasive than to denounce the forum for neglecting its importance. All spat, no cattle.

 

[Christopher7]

Whether or not NIST is guilty of fraud is, in this context, completely irrelevant -- and I didn't "try to say" anything about it.

Fraud is not relevant to you? OK, got it.

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.

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.

How so? It's closely based on your actual words; it's the most natural interpretation. The only other interpretation I can imagine is that carlitos would be justified in not believing some other aspect of NIST's analysis, but somehow NIST's "FFA analysis" has special status.

I can see where this is difficult for you. "Either or" is hard for some folks to grasp.

This is getting too silly and I'm getting sarcastic. Time to call it a day.
Mañana

 

[chrismohr]

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.

All I care about is "is this true?" Looks to me like femr2 and others got more precision in their measurements than NIST and Chandler. Plus, 100.0000000000000% FFA would seem impossible in a collapse anyway, and even NIST's measurements show slight variations above and below freefall that average to FFA. I stand by my "no net resistance" explanation. Michael Newman is sick of me and I'm not asking him any more NISTpicking questions. Also, I am not "blind" to or "ignoring" the column resistance question. At some point a badly bent column gets to 2% resistance. How that precisely dovetails with NIST estimates of timings of Phase One and Two remains an open question for me, as is the question of whether the columns mostly bent or broke at the welded connections. Many people look at the debris pile and conclude that most actually broke, because there are many more broken columns than severely bent ones.

I know JREF is a rough playground, but I prefer to be told I'm wrong than that I am blind or ignorant or a know-nothing when it comes to physics. I try to give you the same courtesy.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Whether or not NIST is guilty of fraud is, in this context, completely irrelevant -- and I didn't "try to say" anything about it.

Fraud is not relevant to you? OK, got it.

Riiiight, that's exactly what I said. Because the words in bold obviously mean nothing whatsoever!

 

[pgimeno]

Nope. Cropping of image frame. aka, cropping.

Then I don't get your point. Let me revisit my statement:

The camera is obviously closer in the pic than in your 3D image, with a greater FOV. The camera angles provably don't match, [...]

To which you replied "Heard of cropping?" That question makes no sense in the context of a statement aimed at showing a necessary angle mismatch, demonstrated by the relative widths of the east wall in the real vs. synthetic perspective views, which revealed a different camera placement. (I didn't include the divergence of the ST's corners as part of my claim of proof. I should).

Cropping alters FOV, therefore it supports my argument.

No idea what effect it may have had.

Maybe you didn't see the buildings fall then. I did.

NIST showed that the buildings would fall under their assumptions. It's impossible for them to get every possible condition right. Therefore:

Nitpicking ?

Yes.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

The columns will only provide resistance through a fraction of the collapse height. This is because the connections from that deliver load to the columns (the girders, floor beams, etc) cannot develop the full capacity of the column.

 

[pgimeno]

The columns will only provide resistance through a fraction of the collapse height. This is because the connections from that deliver load to the columns (the girders, floor beams, etc) cannot develop the full capacity of the column.

Do you mean that the plastic hinges (at the connections) "develop fracture [...], and probably do so already at rather small rotations", as noted by Bazant in the text that accompanies the illustration that C7 uses to show resistance, but that he "forgets" to cite?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Do you mean that the plastic hinges (at the connections) "develop fracture [...], and probably do so already at rather small rotations", as noted by Bazant in the text that accompanies the illustration that C7 uses to show resistance, but that he "forgets" to cite?

Bazant is talking about fractures occurring in the column. This occurs at about 8-12 degrees. I'm saying that the connections that deliver the force to the columns will rupture long before the column undergoes 8-12 degrees of rotation.

 

[Major_Tom]

Interesting exchange. If the members simply take the time to verify what they can there is no need for all this emotion.

First verify, map and measure what is possible....then emote.

 

[Major_Tom]

Unlike Major_Tom, who is advocating a false binary choice between

• accept everything femr2 says
• accept nothing femr2 says

I distinguish femr2's data extraction, which is pretty good, from his data analysis, which is often not. Major_Tom gave us an example just a few posts above, when he presented yet another jiggling GIF. As noted by pgimeno:

Nobody asked you to believe anything, quite the opposite.

Verify. This is within ones power.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Interesting exchange. If the members simply take the time to verify what they can there is no need for all this emotion.

First verify, map and measure what is possible....then emote.

Nobody asked you to believe anything, quite the opposite.

Verify. This is within ones power.

Indeed. We did as you suggested, and discovered that the animated GIF you posted was so poorly made that nothing could be learned from it. Afterwards, the maker of that GIF told us it was a mere draft and disclaimed responsibility for your posting it to this forum.

That doesn't mean NIST was right. It doesn't mean NIST was wrong. It means nothing at all.

By posting that meaningless GIF, you increased the intellectual entropy of this subforum. If that was your purpose, you succeeded. If you were trying to achieve some other goal, you failed.

 

[Major_Tom]

No, you didn't.

You reacted emotionally to it. Why not cut the emotion and re-examine the linked studies more carefully.

This is the same way you reacted to the earlier Femr2 measurements on WTC7. All passion. All hate.

The study is there to examine and to comment upon.


Observation. Measurement. Belief.

Try the first two, intellectually, before emoting the third.