Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

Do you understand now that steel columns do not snap like sticks or will you continue decimating that disinformation?
...

Considering that it's been explained again and again that he was using a visual example to illustrate loss of strength, it was not "disinformation". Also, you are accusing him of lying, but you lack the intellectual courage to do so directly, especially since you cannot prove it. Just like you can't prove your claims that NIST is lying--but only when it's convenient for you.

Will you continue to talk about a possible leverage event with no data to suggest such a leverage event could occur in WTC 7?

Why do you talk about top-secret experimental nanothermite explosives which you admit you cannot prove even exist? Why is it that you prefer to obsess over minutae, instead of discussing these explosives and how they work?

(Those are all rhetorical questions.)

 

[Newtons Bit]

of which they say, and I am not kidding: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

You need to understand what "reasonably well" means in engineering. At the moment, you don't.

 

[Oystein]

...
There is a lot of blame to go around.
...

And who are YOU to blame anyone? I see the FALSIFICATIONS in your book continue to this day. And you blame if that on NIST.

 

[Christopher7]

Why don't you get off the man's nuts. He's done more research and actual work in the 1+ year that he's been working on this, than any of you 911 Truthers have done since 2004 COMBINED!!

Wrong.

I have read just about everything there is related to WTC 7 during the last 6 years including the FEMA and NIST reports. I demonstrated that their original hypothesis didn't happen and I have found a number of frauds in the final report.

He has done days and days of REAL research ( not YouTube watching) speaking with REAL, ACTUAL experts, AND commissioned a PEER REVIEWED STUDY of YOUR BS thermite.

Listening to anonymous blowhards is not research. Has he studied the thermite paper? I have. I have also had many conversations with experts.

tell him thank you for the Millette study

Millette did not repeat two critical experiments in the thermite paper and it has not been published. If and when he does publish it, there are Ph.D's ready to point out the flaws. Chris got screwed on that deal.

 

[Christopher7]

Considering that it's been explained again and again that he was using a visual example to illustrate loss of strength

The example is incorrect and misleading. Steel columns do NOT break like sticks.

you are accusing him of lying

Lying is saying something you know is false. I don't know what Chris believes so I cannot say he is lying.

you can't prove your claims that NIST is lying

They lied about the width of the girder seat. There is no chance that that is an "innocent" mistake. Omitting the stiffeners is effectively lying for the same reason.

Why do you talk about top-secret experimental nanothermite explosives which you admit you cannot prove even exist?

I have given the link to the article that says they do exist.

Why is it that you prefer to obsess over minutae

FFA is not minutiae.

 

[Christopher7]

Wrong. The highlighted portion is simply wrong. How many times must we make this point?

Clever trick, but nothing like that could happen in WTC 7. It requires a fixed fulcrum and a long arm with no resistance.

 

[Major_Tom]

C7 is right in that the people posting here have no mechanism for the measured accelerations.

Neither does the NIST. A decade later one can try to supplement some cartoon to defend ones world view, but a moment of honesty, rare within this forum, would allow one to realize the stubbornness here is very similar to the C7 stubbornness over the Femr2 measurements.

Two peas in the same pod.

 

[Major_Tom]

Why don't you get off the man's nuts. He's done more research and actual work in the 1+ year that he's been working on this, than any of you 911 Truthers have done since 2004 COMBINED!!

If you get off your own man's nuts and study the most accurate measurements and observations to date on all 3 collapsed buildings, you'd realize that many of you are just as head-strong as C7 concerning accuracy and mechanism.

Two peas in one pod, really.


There are no "truther" measurements and observations or "debunker" measurements and observations, just ones of more or less accuracy.

You should try to move beyond the sporting event mentality.

 

[Christopher7]

femr2's graph shows 2.5 s of FFA

Yet again, incorrect.

I was referring to your velocity graph.

If you use the velocity graph...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/135024800.jpg
...you'll obviously miss some profile shape detail, but you could say...

~1.75s at ~FFA (and I'd not complain too much)

I estimated 1.8s plus .4s to .6s at the beginning and between the two is .3 to .1s of >g which think is not >g but the camera moving slightly.

FFA or >FFA is only possible if ALL the supporting structure is REMOVED.

Incorrect.

Explain please. If you want to use the lever crap, demonstrate how it could occur in WTC 7 and overcome the exterior columns with moment frames.

Your >< >< g-string has been disproven

Incorrect.

Your graphs go from <g to >g to g and back to <g. Chris assumes that the data dots are perfectly accurate to get <g to >g to <g to >g to <g to g to <g. Dubbed "the g string" by tsig.
Would you please inform Chris that that is not the case? The dots are not perfectly accurate because they are being taken from a video.

we now have a third conformation of 2+ s of FFA.

Incorrect.

I'd be okay with... ~1.75s of ~FFA, of which >~0.5s is over-g ... for the NW corner.

There's ~1.8s of FFA between 13.1 and 14.9. You would have to use the highest point to get .5s but that would mean the descent stopped momentarily just before that. I averaged the curve which could be interpreted as .4s of g followed by .3s of >g

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2535/femr5e.jpg

 

[Christopher7]

C7 is right in that the people posting here have no mechanism for the measured accelerations.

Neither does the NIST.

Wrong. The program Chandler used is designed to measure velocity/acceleration. NIST used a similar program. To say they don't know what they doing is denial. Post your Ph.D, university and year or you have NO standing whatsoever.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Wrong. The program Chandler used is designed to measure velocity/acceleration. NIST used a similar program. To say they don't know what they doing is denial. Post your Ph.D, university and year or you have NO standing whatsoever.

In that case, neither do you.

 

[femr2]

Your graphs go from <g to >g to g and back to <g. Chris assumes that the data dots are perfectly accurate to get <g to >g to <g to >g to <g to g to <g.

I don't think anyone is asserting that the data is noise-free.

The data is not perfectly accurate, though it's pretty darn good. Best available imo.

Obviously, data derived from such is also subject to an amount of inaccuracy, so, say, suggesting that a linear fit to variable velocity data shows "absolute FFA" would be simply stupid. So stop doing it.

The dots are not perfectly accurate

Correct. "dots"

because they are being taken from a video.

Not specifically. There's many reasons.

There's ~1.8s of FFA

Arghh.

~FFA. Approximately.

You want to suggest ~1.8s of ~FFA, rather than ~1.75s of ~FFA. Fine. A more specific answer is possible, as you know, but for simplicity I don't have too much of a problem with ~1.8s of ~FFA.

Don't forget the "~".

The program Chandler used is designed to measure velocity/acceleration.

lol.

How did he perform the displacement data extraction ?

What program did he use ?

What mathematical method of derivation does it employ ?

NIST used a similar program.

lol.

How did NIST perform the displacement data extraction ?

What program did they use ?

What mathematical method of derivation did they employ ?

To say they don't know what they doing is denial.

I think there will be a Chandler data critique falling in here soon, but in the meantime, here's the list of issues with the NIST trace.

A non-exhaustive list of issues with the NIST trace data, each of which reduce the quality, validity and relevance of the data in various measures.

 

[Major_Tom]

Wrong. The program Chandler used is designed to measure velocity/acceleration. NIST used a similar program. To say they don't know what they doing is denial. Post your Ph.D, university and year or you have NO standing whatsoever.

Funny. Do you need my social security number, too?

Guys, don't you see how similar each "side" really is?


Beyond the endless appeal to authority is the capacity to verify all claims independently. Can some of you see yourselves in the mirror within the C7 posts?

 

[beachnut]

C7 is right in that the people posting here have no mechanism for the measured accelerations.

Neither does the NIST. A decade later one can try to supplement some cartoon to defend ones world view, but a moment of honesty, rare within this forum, would allow one to realize the stubbornness here is very similar to the C7 stubbornness over the Femr2 measurements.

Two peas in the same pod.

You are are talking about nonsense, you are measuring a falling building. It fell as it would after the damage and fires. If you study the building, what do you expect to happen? Your CD failed, your inside job that the gravity collapse is an illusion failed. Why can't you retract your gravity collapse illusion claim? You are reduced to telling C7 he is like both sides of some imaginary conflict you have in your head about 911 discussions. You think pilots can't hit building with planes without some higher power. You fail to retract your nonsense and manufacture more junk and call it a "book", a book with no purpose, no goal, no recommendations.

Explain why measuring acceleration, or tracking the falling building after collapse initiation is needed knowing the structure of the WTC. What did Leslie Robertson say?

 

[LSSBB]

Funny. Do you need my social security number, too?

Guys, don't you see how similar each "side" really is?


Beyond the endless appeal to authority is the capacity to verify all claims independently. Can some of you see yourselves in the mirror within the C7 posts?

So tell me, is the inside of the building not attached to the outside, when it falls? Therefore, theapplication of the inside forces needs to be considered in calculating the combined forces on the exterior, no? So when I and others here object that an acceleration of g can be explained by a non-demolition cause, are we not making a valid claim? Now, where does the burden of proof lie, is it with proving there was a demolition, or with proving there was not a demolition when there is no physical evidence of a demolition? Remember, this also involves allegations of criminal behavior by people currently walking free. That all given, when one side of the argument repeatedly says their theory is the only possible one and the government harbors nasty villains, and the other side is saying you haven't proven your own case, and disproven mine, are both sides equal?

 

[chrismohr]

Funny. Do you need my social security number, too?

Guys, don't you see how similar each "side" really is?


Beyond the endless appeal to authority is the capacity to verify all claims independently. Can some of you see yourselves in the mirror within the C7 posts?

I see parts of myself in the Chris7 mirror, especially my stubbornness. I don't see in myself Chris7's obnoxious putdowns like the one he just launched at you. I don't play the "authority" card in the same mean-spirited way he does. But it's always good to look for parts of yourself in those you oppose. See my opera website, www.fromtherealmoftheshadow.com for an extreme example.

 

[Fonebone]

And who are YOU to blame anyone? I see the FALSIFICATIONS in your book continue to this day. And you blame if that on NIST.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU OYSTEIN for this link.
WOW - you were absolutely correct about the amount of absolute garbage
A.K.A " falsifications " that , as you state , continue to this day.
I also agree that the "book's" author does an excellent job of listing these falsifications
and outright lies in a concise and coherent manner tailored for the
intelligentsia seeking the truth about 9/11 2001 terrorist attacks.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=284&MMN_position=550:550

I was thoroughly impressed by the last paragraphs excerpted below that
explains why "journalists" that regurgitate this flapdoodle restrict comments
on their "reporting" to debunker "green zones" like the JREF.

[excerpt]
Journalists merely echo technical claims from what they perceive to be the
most authoritative opinion on the subject. For example, Robert Parry
echoes the NIST. Alexander *bleep*burn echoes Manual Garcia Jr, who
echoes gravysites, who echoes the NIST. At what point during this echoing
process are technical claims fact-checked in a meaningful, critical way?

Engineers and technical experts >>>>>>>>> Journalists >>>>>>>>> Historians

One may assume that fact-checking occurs during each point in the
process, but if this is true, in the case of WTC1, how could there be no
accurate description of either collapse progression or collapse initiation
within any government, academic or professional literature a full decade
after the collapses?

Information which is provably incorrect can originate from claims made by
engineers and technical experts, pass through an echo chamber of various
journalists and end up in history books without any of the participating
parties being the wiser.[/excerpt]


Bravo to the site owner-- Is there a forum associated with this site that
provides a "greenzone " for the intelligentsia as well ?

 

[Oystein]

...
Bravo to the site owner-- Is there a forum associated with this site that provides a "greenzone " for the intelligentsia as well ?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php

But don't expect the folks there, including Major_Tom, to accept you as part of the "intelligentsia", or your nonsense 9/11 claims as "truth"

 

[Christopher7]

Your graphs go from <g to >g to g and back to <g. Chris assumes that the data dots are perfectly accurate to get <g to >g to <g to >g to <g to g to <g.

I don't think anyone is asserting that the data is noise-free.

By "noise" you are referring to the variance in the data points.

The data is not perfectly accurate, though it's pretty darn good.

The point I want Chris Mohr to understand is - tfk's interpretation of the data points showing variances in velocity is incorrect, that's just "noise".

Obviously, data derived from such is also subject to an amount of inaccuracy, so, say, suggesting that a linear fit to variable velocity data shows "absolute FFA" would be simply stupid.

Wrong. You have acknowledged that the variation in the data points is "noise", not a variation of acceleration.

FFA is a very unique acceleration. When something is measured by several sources to be FFA within the margin of error, then it is considered to be FFA. That is the way NIST and Chandler or any reasonable person would describe it.

To hang your hat on "approximately" is sophistry.

It is neither mean spirited or a put down to say you are not qualified to say NIST and Chandler don't know what they are talking about, it is simply a statement of fact.

There is no reason for anyone to doubt when two opposing sides agree on something, based on independent scientific analysis. Only someone not able to accept the result would try to find fault.

 

[MarkLindeman]

By "noise" you are referring to the variance in the data points.

Isn't it a wee bit hypocritical to demand advanced credentials from other people when you evidently don't understand basic vocabulary?

The point unsupported assertion I want Chris Mohr to understand accept is - tfk's interpretation of the data points showing variances in velocity is incorrect, that's just "noise".

FIFY. (Well, partly. I left the part about "variances in velocity" alone, because I'm just that mean-spirited.)