Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Any reasonable and competent person would also quantify the margin of error in order to support that statement. Would you care to do so?

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

Any reasonable and competent person would also quantify the margin of error in order to support that statement. Would you care to do so?

Dave

How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?

MM

 

[DGM]

How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?

MM

What difference does it make? Can you show a mechanism where FFA supports your pet CD theory?

 

[Dave Rogers]

How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?

If you don't know what the answer to that question is, then you don't know what a margin of error is. So why are you talking about them as if you did?

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

If you don't know what the answer to that question is, then you don't know what a margin of error is. So why are you talking about them as if you did?

Dave

Thanks for the non-answer dave.

I am well aware of what margin of error denotes.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for the non-answer dave.

I am well aware of what margin of error denotes.

Then how about telling us the answer to your own question?

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

In the interest of context and to clear the water Dave is trying so hard to muddy;

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

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".

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. ..."

"Any reasonable and competent person would also quantify the margin of error in order to support that statement. Would you care to do so?"

"How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?"

"If you don't know what the answer to that question is, then you don't know what a margin of error is. So why are you talking about them as if you did?"

"Thanks for the non-answer dave.

I am well aware of what margin of error denotes."

"Then how about telling us the answer to your own question?"

I am interested in your answer since you are the one demanding that Christopher7's statement requires greater clarity about 'margin of error'.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke in order to undermine the importance of FFA.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

In the interest of context and to clear the water Dave is trying so hard to muddy;

I am interested in your answer since you are the one demanding that Christopher7's statement requires greater clarity about 'margin of error'.

So let's see how this works. Chris makes a claim, I ask him to supply a piece of information he has omitted which is central to his claim, and for some reason you think I'm the one who has to supply it?

Classic.

Dave

 

[femr2]

How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?

>0.

 

[LSSBB]

>0.

Beat me to it, I was going to say "any".

To be fair, you can say "It may be FFA, within +/- X", but you can't know exactly for sure as long as error exists (which it always does, with a measurement)". It's often better to use a confidence interval, and say something like "With a 95% confidence, the acceleration is between -0.98g and -1.02 g"

 

[A W Smith]

Thanks for the non-answer dave.

I am well aware of what margin of error denotes. MM

No , No you don't. Not at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJV8CHIqFc&t=4m38s

Now, all-important in making measurements which is always ignored in every college book is the uncertainty in your measurement.
Any measurement that you make without any knowledge of the uncertainty is meaningless.
I will repeat this.
I want you to hear it tonight at 3:00 when you wake up.
Any measurement that you make without the knowledge of its uncertainty is completely meaningless.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Beat me to it, I was going to say "any".

To be fair, you can say "It may be FFA, within +/- X", but you can't know exactly for sure as long as error exists (which it always does, with a measurement)". It's often better to use a confidence interval, and say something like "With a 95% confidence, the acceleration is between -0.98g and -1.02 g"

Bear in mind that a crucial issue here is whether the acceleration can be said to be constant or variable, over a certain period of time.

femr2 believes that it can be said to vary, i.e., that measurement error cannot account for the apparent changes.

c7 believes that it can be said not to vary -- a position that makes no sense to me at all.

I do not have enough information to be sure whether or not it can be said to vary. femr2's position seems reasonable.

I can't really tell what the question "How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?" is supposed to mean. I would not try to guess.

 

[LSSBB]

Bear in mind that a crucial issue here is whether the acceleration can be said to be constant or variable, over a certain period of time.

femr2 believes that it can be said to vary, i.e., that measurement error cannot account for the apparent changes.

c7 believes that it can be said not to vary -- a position that makes no sense to me at all.

I do not have enough information to be sure whether or not it can be said to vary. femr2's position seems reasonable.

I can't really tell what the question "How great a margin of error is required to make it not FFA?" is supposed to mean. I would not try to guess.

Since the measurements are taken at discrete points in time, you definitely cannot say you know if it stays constant without lying, if you know there is measurement error. The acceleration at time t1 may be different than at time t2, and you would not be able to say with legitimate confidence, since acceleration is the change in velocity over time, and so it is a slope that can change greatly with the difference between measurements of velocity, which is in turn a measurement in the rate of change of position.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Since the measurements are taken at discrete points in time, you definitely cannot say you know if it stays constant without lying, if you know there is measurement error.

Right.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Since the measurements are taken at discrete points in time, you definitely cannot say you know if it stays constant without lying, if you know there is measurement error. The acceleration at time t1 may be different than at time t2, and you would not be able to say with legitimate confidence, since acceleration is the change in velocity over time, and so it is a slope that can change greatly with the difference between measurements of velocity, which is in turn a measurement in the rate of change of position.

Again, depending on the sampling interval and the measurement error. However, in Chris7's case, it's simpler than that: He doesn't care about the sampling interval or the measurement error, he is taking NIST's summary of "2.25 s at approximately freefall" at literal face value and extrapolating it to mean a literal 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration. Of course, no such broad-brush statement can be made, but it's not the first time he has tried to extrapolate such an effect from a statement clearly intended to convey an average or approximately representative result.

 

[femr2]

he doesn't care about the sampling interval or the measurement error, he is taking nist's summary of "2.25 s at approximately freefall" at literal face value and extrapolating it to mean a literal 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration. Of course, no such broad-brush statement can be made, but it's not the first time he has tried to extrapolate such an effect from a statement clearly intended to convey an average or approximately representative result.

...

nist and chandler [and any reasonable person] can easily understand this.

Ncstar 1-a pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"the slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

you are either in denial or lying.

...

nist say their estimation of approximate and average acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of gravity during that period.

 

[thedopefishlives]

...

...

Not you, I said Chris7. I have no complaints about your treatment of the data.

 

[femr2]

Not you, I said Chris7.

I know. Simply reminding him, using his own quote from NIST, of the important bolded qualifiers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

>0.

Just checking - do you know what a margin of error is?

Let me be a bit clearer, now that we've seen how ignorant MM is. The margin of error is proportional to the range of measurement results that can be found when measuring the value of a variable physical property; it's fundamentally statistical in nature so it's commonly expressed in standard deviations. Therefore, if we have a measurement of a variable, we can set confidence intervals on the real value of that variable based on the known measurement error. Put simply, the real acceleration is within the margin of error, either way, of the measurement.

So where did MM make a stupid mistake? Well, he asked how large a margin of error it would take for the acceleration not to be freefall. Bzzzt! Wrong question! The question is, how small a margin would it take? To give an example, if the measurement is 1.1G, and the margin of error is 20%, then we only know that the acceleration is between about 0.9 and 1.3G, so it could be freefall. However, if the margin of error is smaller at 5%, we know that the acceleration is between about 1.05G and 1.15G, then we can be certain that the acceleration was not 1G, but was definitely greater.

Now, femr2's answer: No, sorry, even your inequality's the wrong way round. If the margin of error is zero (a physical impossibility, but never mind), then we know with absolute certainty that the points showing a measured acceleration greater than 1G are measuring a real acceleration greater than 1G. However, if the error margin is greater than (A_max-G)/G, where A_max is the greatest acceleration measured, then an acceleration of 1G is always within the lower bound for possible values of acceleration, so we cannot say with certainty that greater than freefall acceleration has actually occurred. So the answer should be:

< (A_max-G)/G

for whether freefall has been exceeded; or, for any individual point measurement A of acceleration to be known not to equal FFA:

< |(A-G)/G|

Freshman stuff.

Dave

 

[Redwood]

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 ?

Shouldn't any responsible journalist writing about a technical subject ask the opinion of a technical expert? What, exactly, is wrong with Alex Cockburn asking the opinion of Manuel Garcia, Jr., who AFAIK wasn't involved in either the FEMA or NIST reports?

We could ask the opinion of Les Robertson. He engineered the Twin Towers, the Shanghai World Financial Center, and several other major skyscrapers. Or how about demolition expert Mark Loizeaux? Oh wait - they think WTC conspiracism is bunk.

Who, in your opinion, is the most prominent structural engineer who believes the WTCs were destroyed by pre-planted demolition devices?