Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[femr2]

Your line is right on the FFA line at that point

Nope. AGAIN...deriving acceleration from that line you requested results in...

Precisely where is the >g and how long does it last?

Ye gads man.

Between ~1s and ~2s on the NIST velocity timeline.

Why can you not determine these details yourself ?

Define "after release" please.

Release is the point in time at which the point on the building begins to move.

 

[BasqueArch]

I have provided position/time data stretching back ~7 minutes prior to release...

...and many similar graphs, numerous times.

I have released raw data...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/

...and provided longer timescale velocity plots...

I see displacement in pixels and velocity charts. Can you provide a single WTC7 acceleration chart from before collapse through the end.

 

[Christopher7]

Between ~1s and ~2s on the NIST velocity timeline.

On the NIST graph, >g is steeper than the FFA line,. Your line is steeper than the FFA line between 1.75 and 2.25 [roughly]

Release is the point in time at which the point on the building begins to move.

Where is that on the NIST timeline?

 

[pgimeno]

Yes. When you say "Downward force starts reducing from that point but so does upward force. Over-g reached."
That's where you are wrong. The exterior columns are providing resistance. i.e. no FFA.

Hopeless.

The physics here are quite simple.

Agreed. And yet you miss the point.

Buckling columns provide resistance, preventing FFA. Even if the core columns are pulling down on them.

That's basically the same as saying, "A tennis ball floats, preventing it from sinking. Even if there is a hand pushing it down". And just as silly and misguided.

 

[Christopher7]

Hopeless.

You certainly are.

That's basically the same as saying, "A tennis ball floats, preventing it from sinking. Even if there is a hand pushing it down". And just as silly and misguided.

That's not a valid comparison. No wonder you are having problems understanding the simple physics involved here. Hint: Steel is not a fluid.

Speaking of silly, this is very entertaining sometimes. I'm a big Monty Python fan and you guys get really silly trying to deny FFA and/or justify >g.

 

[pgimeno]

That's not a valid comparison. No wonder you are having problems understanding the simple physics involved here. Hint: Steel is not a fluid.

The fact that it's a fluid has nothing to do with it, only with the origin of the force, but in the end, it's a question of forces.

Buoyancy is a force pointing upwards, so is resistance. The core exerts a downwards force, so does the hand. When the hand's force equals the buoyancy force, the ball will sink as if its buoyancy were zero. When the pull-down force equals the resistance, the building will experience free fall as if its resistance were zero. Very elemental physics you still fail to understand.

 

[femr2]

I see displacement in pixels and velocity charts.

Me too. If I keep posting multiple copies of the others, in other units, they'll get edited out. They're not hard to find.

Can you provide a single WTC7 acceleration chart from before collapse through the end.

Another one...


Could probably filter out additional noise, but can't be bothered just at the mo. Wasted enough time trying to cater for C7's silly requests today.

 

[BasqueArch]

Me too. If I keep posting multiple copies of the others, in other units, they'll get edited out. They're not hard to find.


Another one...


Could probably filter out additional noise, but can't be bothered just at the mo. Wasted enough time trying to cater for C7's silly requests today.

Ok. Were all these data taken at the same point, NW corner? This looks like it began near the start of the east penthouse fall. Do you have anything 10-15 seconds prior.

 

[femr2]

Ok. Were all these data taken at the same point, NW corner?

Yes.

This looks like it began near the start of the east penthouse fall.

No. East Penthouse start is about t=6s on that graph.

Do you have anything 10-15 seconds prior.

Not from the Dan Rather viewpoint. NIST Cam#3, yes, which I have better resolution data from, but it has all of the perspective issues that the viewpoint incurs.

 

[carlitos]

That's basically the same as saying, "A tennis ball floats, preventing it from sinking. Even if there is a hand pushing it down". And just as silly and misguided.

Another excellent analogy about force. But you have the same pearls / swine problem as always. Truthy people don't do analogies; it mucks up their intentional ignorance mojo.

 

[femr2]

Release is the point in time at which the point on the building begins to move.

Where is that on the NIST timeline?

The NIST release point (T₀, or T=0) is obviously at time T=0.

Their release point is not accurate, but will be slightly different at every point along the roofline.

 

[Christopher7]

Their release point is not accurate, but will be slightly different at every point along the roofline.

Correct, but we are concerned with what happened during Stage 2.

On your acceleration graph, the descent begins at 12.3 s.
That equates to 1.25 s on the NIST graph.

The velocity increases from 0 to g in
0.5 s. >g begins and lasts for
1.0 s. then it transitions to <g.

On the NIST graph, your velocity curve begins at 0, descending at ~1'/s [should be 0 to match your acceleration graph].
This lasts until ~1.25 s.

The velocity increases from 1'/s to g in
0.5 s. >g begins and lasts for
0.5 s. then it transitions to g for
1.5 s. then it transitions to <g

 

[BasqueArch]

Me too. If I keep posting multiple copies of the others, in other units, they'll get edited out. They're not hard to find.


Another one...


Could probably filter out additional noise, but can't be bothered just at the mo. Wasted enough time trying to cater for C7's silly requests today.

Acceleration line at NW corner. Column 79 and east penthouse collapse at 6(s). There's no engineering reason why the NW corner should be hopping up and down past 0 acceleration from 1(s)-6(s). It should be a flat line 0. Gravity was pulling down, there was no column expansion due to the heating of the corner columns as these column temperatures were too low and the weight above too great.

The period 1(s)-6(s) should be recalibrated to produce a flat line 0 acceleration. This adjustment should be applied to the subsequent data (displacement,time) to see what the more accurate adjusted acceleration line would look like. A vertical line indicating the start of the east PH fall and the start of the NW corner fall would help.

 

[Christopher7]

Acceleration line at NW corner. Column 79 and east penthouse collapses at 6(s). There's no engineering reason why the NW corner should be hopping up and down past 0 acceleration from 1(s)-6(s). It should be a flat line 0. Gravity was pulling down, there was no column expansion due to the heating of the corner columns as these column temperatures were too low and the weight above too great.

The period 1(s)-6(s) should be recalibrated to produce a flat line 0 acceleration. This adjustment should be applied to the subsequent data (displacement,time) to see what the more accurate adjusted acceleration line would look like. A vertical line indicating the start of the east PH fall and the start of the NW corner fall would help.

That "hoping up and down" is the vibrations in the floor where the camera tripod is standing. WTC 7 was several moles away and the slightest movement in the camera will create the "noise" you see on the graph as hoping up and down. There is also atmospheric disturbance.

 

[BasqueArch]

That "hoping up and down" is the vibrations in the floor where the camera tripod is standing. WTC 7 was several moles away and the slightest movement in the camera will create the "noise" you see on the graph as hoping up and down. There is also atmospheric disturbance.

The reasons for the hopping up and down don't matter. Period 1(s)-6(s) should be adjusted to produce a flat line 0 acceleration. A narrower margin of error should result for the subsequent acceleration line.

 

[femr2]

Correct

I know. I'm telling you.

but we are concerned with what happened during Stage 2

Not really.

On your acceleration graph, the descent begins at 12.3 s

Incorrect.

My T₀ is ~11.9s.

The NW corner has reached~10ft/s² by 12.3s

That equates to 1.25 s on the NIST graph.

They are different points on the building, and will have slightly different effective release points.

I'll dig out a frame accurate timing sync if I can be bothered.

 

[femr2]

There's no engineering reason why the NW corner should be hopping up and down past 0 acceleration from 1(s)-6(s).

Deriving to acceleration amplifies small noise in the displacement data significantly.

The period 1(s)-6(s) should be recalibrated to produce a flat line 0 acceleration.

It doesn't work like that I'm afraid. I can perhaps filter out some more noise, but it cannot be eliminated completely, and will remove real data in the process.

This adjustment should be applied to the subsequent data (displacement,time) to see what the more accurate adjusted acceleration line would look like.

Savitzky-Golay smoothing is applied at each derivation step already.

A vertical line indicating the start of the east PH fall and the start of the NW corner fall would help.

It's present on other graph, but this one is too long a timescale for it to be useful imo.

 

[pgimeno]

You certainly are.

That's not a valid comparison. No wonder you are having problems understanding the simple physics involved here. Hint: Steel is not a fluid.

Didn't you like the buoyancy analogy? Ok.

Here goes another. Imagine a special form of arm-wrestling, where instead of pushing laterally, one of the opponents pushes up and the other pushes down. The one pushing down has the advantage of gravity: his arm and his opponent's arm have a weight, meaning more force pushing down.

Same case as WTC7 and the tennis ball: two opposite forces into play, plus gravity.

What you're saying is akin to saying that the one pushing down can never win under any circumstances, because there will always be resistance exerted by the one pushing up. In reality, though, when the forces the two people are exerting are equal, the one pushing down will win thanks to the help of gravity.

I know, I know. Steel is not flesh and bones, right? Certainly, but we're still discussing forces. Forces are independent of media and materials.

Another example: remember the crane video? There was a falling piece and a crane arm. The crane arm had resistance. The falling piece exerted a force downwards. The dynamic effect, transmitted to the arm through the somewhat elastic cable, caused for an instant a force much greater than the resistance of the arm, making it fail and accelerate very quickly from zero to a significant velocity.

But your statement that FFA means zero resistance of the columns regardless of the downards force, is akin to saying that the arm falling at all means zero negative resistance of the arm, regardless of the yank exerted by the falling piece. That's nonsense.

As a reminder, the crane video again:



I know, I know. Steel is not steel... oh wait...

 

[Christopher7]

The reasons for the hopping up and down don't matter. Period 1(s)-6(s) should be adjusted to produce a flat line 0 acceleration. A narrower margin of error should result for the subsequent acceleration line.

The error is due to very slight movement of the camera, shooting from several miles away. That's why and average is drawn.

 

[femr2]

That "hoping up and down" is the vibrations in the floor where the camera tripod is standing.

Largely incorrect. Camera motion (static region data) is extracted from the position/time data already.

It is "noise", which occurs from many unavoidable sources, including remnant camera motion.

The Dan Rather footage is not the best. The cam#3 footage is better quality, but suffers from perspective issues for the purpose of deriving acceleration.

WTC 7 was several moles away

Sorry, but Moley, moley.

There is also atmospheric disturbance.

There are a multitude of noise sources.

Dan rather variance was estimated at ~+/-0.2px.

Cam#3 almost an order of magnitude better.