Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[LSSBB]

Obtaining pixel data points by sampling marginal quality video, means that video errors will also be sampled and included as data points.

By eliminating the extreme data points, which averaging does, the resulting data points, and their plot, reveal the truth.

MM

No, they give you an average. An estimate, subject to measurement error. That is all anyone has. Femr2's methods tighten the error. NIST and your Saint Chandler both have error also on their measurement, so you cannot say at any instant with absolute certainty what the actual acceleration is, especially if you average.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I imagine that Vogonic science must sound like this (provided you have your Babel fish in place).

You should Stundie the original on that one. His ignorance knows no bounds.

 

[twinstead]

To this layman, the most pertinent question--in the context of this subforum--is, "did fire and damage alone cause the buildings to collapse?". All this NISTpicking aside, to me that fact is incontrovertible. IMO everything else should be moved to an engineering or scientific forum

 

[Major_Tom]

This is a thread for Chris Mohr.

I don't want to mix the "book" thread more than as a reference to questions raised here.

 

[Major_Tom]

Purpose of NIST report clearly stated within the NIST report.

Reviewed here:

2.2: Purpose of the NIST Reports

They cannot make it any clearer.

Ozeco, why not let the NIST explain it to you in the executive summary.

Why the gut level interpretation when they state their purposes, methods and findings in a condensed summary quite clearly?

 

[pgimeno]

FEMR's results are not just a little different, they are entirely different.

That's a lie. You know that NIST did not obtain one set of results, but two, each with a different purpose. One of them, the one more accurately following all data points, can be described as just a little different to femr2's. You've been shown the graphs, therefore you know that.

No they do not. You are refusing to accept the obvious. The data points are not precise because they are taken from a video.

That is also a lie. You know that NIST obtained quite precise sub-pixel data from a video in their analysis of horizontal motion, therefore the reason for the lack of precision is not that they are taken from a video, but how they are obtained. femr2's method obtains the same precision in both directions, and in the horizontal direction it matches or exceeds NIST's precision, meaning it obtains the same accurate precision in the vertical direction.

Copout. This is not a nit picking, it's the most critical point in the report.

Alas, during all this time I was convinced that the center of the universe was Fraggle Rock, and I realize now that I was wrong. The center of the universe is Christopher7.

I got news for you. You don't get to define what is "the most critical point in the report". That section of the report is completely unnecessary, and was probably done only for PR reasons, which explains why it's shoddy. It doesn't change one iota the conclusions of the report, which are stated in chapters 4 (Principal findings) and 5 (Recomendations) of NCSTAR 1A.

Obtaining pixel data points by sampling marginal quality video, means that video errors will also be sampled and included as data points.

By eliminating the extreme data points, which averaging does, the resulting data points, and their plot, reveal the truth.

Heh, another one who confuses instant and average. Anyway...

The video NIST and femr2 dealt with was not marginal quality video. It served NIST to obtain a subpixel trace of the horizontal movement of the building, allowing them to measure said movement in a scale of inches.

Therefore, the problem with the vertical trace was NOT the quality of the video. It was the data acquisition method. Their moiré method wasn't applicable vertically because they lacked a reference line to base it on.

femr2 used the very same method in both the horizontal and vertical directions. His horizontal trace agrees with NIST. The logical conclusion is that his vertical trace has the same subpixel precision as the horizontal one, similar to NIST's moiré method, quite possibly better.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

You have it backwards. I see three huge buildings, each damaged differently, all three ending up completely demolished in less that 20 seconds of collapse time for each. I don't need no facts or stats to know the score.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST did not obtain one set of results, but two

If you are referring to the meaningless curved line that does not follow the data dots then that is not a result. It's just a line drawn on the graph.

FEMR's graph is nothing like that line either.

 

[Oystein]

If you are referring to the meaningless curved line that does not follow the data dots then that is not a result. It's just a line drawn on the graph.

So is any other line drawn by NIST, Chandler... (or, for that matter, femr2).

The lines for averages drawn through Chandlers arbitrary and imprecise dots are worse than NIST's curve; they assume the conclusion ("constant acceleration") and do not take any engineering considerations into account. Yet, you take Chandler's "just a line drawn on the graph" as gospel. That's pure, unadulterated confirmation bias.

 

[Christopher7]

So is any other line drawn by NIST, Chandler... (or, for that matter, femr2).

Please, you are straw grasping.

The curved line is not an average of the data points. It ignores the first dot of FFA and all the dots after FFA. The acceleration line is and average of the FFA dots.

 

[femr2]

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

We are quite clearly discussing the effect of a different impact trajectory upon the NIST simulation. A specious reply. Poor.

NIST showed that the buildings would fall under their assumptions.

I am highlighting that the most critical couple of numbers right at the beginning of the simulation chain were wrong.

It's impossible for them to get every possible condition right.

Wow

Messing up the path the aircraft entered the building is not important ?

Just wow.

 

[femr2]

if you comprehend the purpose of the NIST investigation

Goal #1...

1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed


Not difficult to comprehend.

It does no good to make recommendations about effects that "might possibly" have happened, or to base conclusions on unsupported assumptions.

Sticking the aircraft in the right direction helps though, yeah ?

With respect to the impact angle of UA 175, I haven't followed the calculations leading to femr2's claim that NIST is off by seven degrees, however this strikes me as "plausible." This corresponds to about 3 sigma of discrepancy between measurements, a significant difference but not an impossible one.

The technique is quite straightforward, and there are several accurate "knowns", such as the camera location and the camera lens target.

Those two alone allow setting up a very accurate reference viewpoint, with additional accuracy possible through inclusion of foreground building parallax effects.

I would suggest that there is an excluded middle possibility here -- the aircraft may have been skidding.

Minimal slew was measured, so, no.

It is possible that the orientation of the aircraft is better described by femr2's estimate, but that the actual momentum vector of the aircraft remains a good fit to NIST's.

Again, no. Orientation, trajectory and slew are included within my previous studies of the impact.

 

[femr2]

The "average" is the average of the data dots, NOT the acceleration.

Where does the acceleration come from ?

 

[femr2]

The video NIST and femr2 dealt with was not marginal quality video. It served NIST to obtain a subpixel trace of the horizontal movement of the building, allowing them to measure said movement in a scale of inches.

Therefore, the problem with the vertical trace was NOT the quality of the video. It was the data acquisition method. Their moiré method wasn't applicable vertically because they lacked a reference line to base it on.

femr2 used the very same method in both the horizontal and vertical directions. His horizontal trace agrees with NIST. The logical conclusion is that his vertical trace has the same subpixel precision as the horizontal one, similar to NIST's moiré method, quite possibly better.

Tips hat.

 

[Christopher7]

Where does the acceleration come from ?

God

Your graph measures acceleration. NIST and Chandler measure velocity. So there's no way to compare.

You don't give any data, just the resulting curve. That proves nothing because you could have input anything.

Is there a way to compare the time line?

 

[thedopefishlives]

You have it backwards. I see three huge buildings, each damaged differently, all three ending up completely demolished in less that 20 seconds of collapse time for each. I don't need no facts or stats to know the score.

Thank you for your honest admission that you will never be swayed by facts.

 

[NoahFence]

Purpose of NIST report clearly stated within the NIST report.

Reviewed here:

2.2: Purpose of the NIST Reports

They cannot make it any clearer.

I'm curious why you wouldn't just link to NIST. What are the chances that if I peruse your link (sharpprinting?!?!) and compare it to the NIST report itself, that it'll be different?

 

[tsig]

You have it backwards. I see three huge buildings, each damaged differently, all three ending up completely demolished in less that 20 seconds of collapse time for each. I don't need no facts or stats to know the score.

So your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts.

 

[femr2]

If you are referring to the meaningless curved line that does not follow the data dots then that is not a result. It's just a line drawn on the graph.

No. Time to remind (?) you what you are actually looking at...

NIST began by gathering displacement/time data from video...

The "dots" there are what you keep referring to when you say things like "The data points are not precise because they are taken from a video".

You keep saying that about datapoints on the derived velocity graph, which is really quite funny. Got bored waiting on you to notice.

Now, as you can see on the graph above, NIST determined a least-squares curve fit to the displacement data...

z(t) = 379.62{1 - exp[-(0.18562t)^3.5126]}

That is the black line on the graph (12-76) above.


To generate the datapoints on their velocity graph...



...NIST used central difference approximation on the displacement datapoints (a far from ideal method of derivation).

They also differentiated their function for displacement to determine a function for velocity...

The black line is the "time derivative of curve fit"...

v(t) = 247.52(0.18562t)^2.5126exp[-(0.18562t)^3.5126]

That equation was derived from the NIST least-squares curve fit to the displacement data.


The "meaningless curved line that does not follow the data dots" you refer to is not meaningless. It's derived from lousy data, but it has a meaning, which you should now know. (You should know all this already, given you have been discussing the datapoints on the derived velocity graph for how long ? )

The "dots" on the velocity graph are derived from the displacement data via central difference approximation.

 

[femr2]

The curved line is not an average of the data points. It ignores the first dot of FFA and all the dots after FFA. The acceleration line is and average of the FFA dots.

Lack of understanding is clear in your words. It's nonsense. See my previous post. Read it a few times. Understand what you are looking at, really.