Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Oystein]

...
The main point he makes is that the NIST report is engineering. ...

Hmm engineering is an activity with the future in mind - the individual structures that will be useful and safe.

The natural sciences are more or less timeless - they try to find principles that hold true at all times; the scientific method looks at the past and can make predictions for the future, but essentially it is an endeavour for the present.

Part of what NIST did was looking at and describing the past - that is history! History is neither a natural science nor is it planning for the future like engineering. Engineering forensics can be described as merely a technologoically specialized branch of history.


Different epistemologies apply to past, presence and future.


The other part of what NIST is has the future in mind, without being actually engineering of individual objects. Rather, they set a framework with sets of good practices for engineers to use. That is part engineering (decide on specific solutions), part science (describe in a useful manner the general principles that always apply).

 

[Animal]

That is all conjecture and speculation without any data as to how it could occur ......

Pretty much sums up every troofer claim ever made.

 

[OCaptain]

Have you read this yet? One does not need a college education to see the unscientific elements and fraudulent tests in the final NIST report on WTC7

and yet you're the only one here among a board of skeptics and scientists that thinks so?!

Have you ever stopped to wonder why??

 

[Animal]

and yet you're the only one here among a board of skeptics and scientists that thinks so?!

Have you ever stopped to wonder why??

It is rather funny that Sarns is still pitching his claims that have been proven fraudulent. Repeating lies often enough that he hopes they will be accepted as true.

 

[MarkLindeman]

No, the subject is physics and Mr. Chandler used the the accepted method as did NIST.

[citation needed]

Seriously, this is an interesting expression of faith, but on what basis do you think you can pontificate about "the accepted method" in physics for extrapolating acceleration estimates from video footage? That's remarkable.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, Lynn Margulis was indeed a biologist, even probably one the best-known and most accomplished contemporary biologists in the world (at least she is among the probably less than 10 biologists^*) in the world that I could have named from memory even before I first saw her mentioned in connection with 9/11), and yes, she died last november, aged 73.
Bit of trivia: As a young woman she was married to Carl Sagan for 8 years!




*) The others being Ernst Mayr, Steven Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Mark Ridley, Jared Diamond (not even sure if he is a biologist)

I read some of PZ Myers' comments on her work, and it was indeed impressive. With the glaring exceptions being her weird thoughts on how symbiosis could better explain evolution vs. natural selection, her idiocy on 9/11 truth and lies about "there is no HIV, only syphilis." 2 things:

1 - Sarns appeared not to even know that she was dead when he said "she is" and "she thinks" about whatever. My remark was "cold blooded" and targeted at his ignorance.

2 - HIV / AIDS denial pisses me off. A lot. It doesn't surprise me that 9/11 truth overlaps with this, much as it overlaps with Holocaust denial.

 

[Christopher7]

[citation needed]

Seriously, this is an interesting expression of faith, but on what basis do you think you can pontificate about "the accepted method" in physics for extrapolating acceleration estimates from video footage? That's remarkable.

So you find that remarkable? Chandler said he had used that online program to measure velocities and acceleration so he applied it to the TT and WTC 7. NIST used a similar program. They are professionals so I figure that must be the way it's done. But that's just me . You keep claiming that they don't know what they are doing if you like.

 

[carlitos]

So you find that remarkable? Chandler said he had used that online program to measure velocities and acceleration so he applied it to the TT and WTC 7. NIST used a similar program. They are professionals so I figure that must be the way it's done. But that's just me . You keep claiming that they don't know what they are doing if you like.

What program was that?

 

[Oystein]

Chandler ... NIST ... They are professionals ...

Chandler is a physics teacher I hear.

How does using online software play a role in the profession of a physics reacher?
Oh and don't come with an off-hand claim like "he uses it in class" or some invention like that. I want you to show me (hint: links, citations...) that physics teachers actually use that software (which?) in class, if that is what you want to claim!

 

[pgimeno]

I'd be curious if someone who knows about video compression, someone with credibility, could explain the cause of these dark lines.

I do have some knowledge in the field of image manipulation and DCT compression, though I have been mostly self-taught in these areas so take my words with a grain of salt.

I agree with femr2 in that it's unlikely to be due to video compression artifacts; they get indeed worse near edges with high contrast but do not typically show the observed effect. Grainy noise in the 8x8 squares that the image is divided into is much more likely than pure vertical lines.

As an example, here's a zoomed in fragment of the above image:

(I've highlighted the 8x8 tile border lines. These are characteristic of JPEG but I think they apply to MPEG as well.)

Observe how there's a noisy zone in the edge but with no resemblance to the effect that we see in the building.

I don't agree with femr2's assessment that it's likely to come from the signal undershooting then overshooting. While the idea was appealing and I thought of it before I read his response, I think that if that were the cause, in the right edge of the building we would actually see first an overshooting (white line) then an undershooting (darker line than the sky). The scan wouldn't anticipate the future and undershoot first as happens when analyzing the signal as a whole (as in http://cnx.org/content/m0041/latest/fourier4.png), but rather something more like this: http://www.ganssle.com/articles/clip_image008.jpg

A third and more likely possibility in my opinion is that digital zoom was applied to the image. Some nonlinear interpolating algorithms used in digital zoom will exhibit such behavior, including Catmull-Rom and Lanczos.

Consider this test image consisting of a 25% grey rectangle inside a 75% grey background:

And look to what happens to the borders of the rectangle when zoomed 777% with Lanczos interpolation (cropped because it's a 995x995px image):

The digital zoom artifact hypothesis has some support in the fact that there are close to no features in the image with a thickness less than several pixels. The image is very lacking in high frequency information and that's likely because of digital zoom.

I'm not sure though. This image also shows dark/light lines, for example:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/03/336542.jpg

Yet there is a strong perspective effect that makes me think it's not digitally zoomed.

My second best guess is that it's due to applying some kind of sharpening to the image, but I highly doubt so.

I doubt that we can get a definitive answer without any further knowledge on the equipment and conditions used to film.

 

[pgimeno]

You have been informed that NIST lied about the width of the girder seat and omitted the stiffeners to get their walk-off theory to work.

That statement needs retraction:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8418047&postcount=2980

 

[triforcharity]

That is all conjecture and speculation without any data as to how it could occur in WTC 7. It is not science and not a valid argument or rebuttal.

Kinda like this http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/ is not science, has no data, and is not a valid argument or rebuttal?

Yeah, like that....

 

[LSSBB]

That is all conjecture and speculation without any data as to how it could occur in WTC 7. It is not science and not a valid argument or rebuttal.

Which of these is conjecture:

• The center of the building was falling.
• The center of the building has weight.
• The center of the building was attached to the exterior of the building.
• When something falls, it pulls on anything that is attached to it that is not falling.

What isn't available is the precise amount and location effect, but what isn't conjecture is that the effect exists and is non-zero.

How much precisely is the effect of demolition of the columns where we can't see them, which I take it is your conjecture? Remember, you have the burden of proof. Have you modelled all the forces? That is science (or forensic engineering, eh, Oystein?)

 

[Christopher7]

That statement needs retraction:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8418047&postcount=2980

Thank you for the info.

June 2012 Text Changes to the NIST Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST NCSTAR 1-9
last update 6/27/12
They just made that change. And only after they were told of that "error" and the missing stiffeners in a response to their JSE Journal posting of part of the final report. I'm sure you will buy this double talk, but I'm not.

"The 5.5 in. dimension was the length of the girder bearing on the seat connection that had to slide off the seat axially to the girder. The 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the length from the flange tip to the far side of the web, so that the web was no longer supported on the bearing plate. This change corrects a typographical error which showed a lateral displacement of 5.5 in. instead of the correct value of 6.25 in., which was used in the analyses."

ETA:
They don't even try to explain how they mistook 1' 0" for 11". They just repeat the same double talk they used above about the 5.5" being wrong.

"The 16-story model of WTC 7 used a 12 in. bearing plate on the north side of Column 79, consistent with Frankel drawing 1091. The 5.5 in. dimension was incorrectly cited, as the 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the lateral walk-off distance. These changes correct typographical errors. The dimensions and lateral displacements used in the analyses were correct."


And there's still the fraudulent omission of the stiffeners that were there to prevent the flange from folding and would not have allowed the girder to fall for several more inches.

 

[pgimeno]

They just made that change. And only after they were told of that "error" and the missing stiffeners in a response to their JSE Journal posting of part of the final report. I'm sure you will buy this double talk, but I'm not.

What double talk do you mean? They used the correct width in their simulation, as I noted to you here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8354504&postcount=2711

They just wrote the size in their explanation wrong. Their analysis is based on the correct width.

Would you retract now your repeated statement that they lied about the width of the seat? Or can you explain how doing the simulation with the right size but writing the wrong one in text is anything but an innocent mistake?

You have a LOT to retract. You'd better start.

 

[lexicon008]

Chandler is a physics teacher I hear.

How does using online software play a role in the profession of a physics reacher?
Oh and don't come with an off-hand claim like "he uses it in class" or some invention like that. I want you to show me (hint: links, citations...) that physics teachers actually use that software (which?) in class, if that is what you want to claim!

Having done some teaching in the past, i can tell you with a great deal of confidence that no 2 teachers teach or use the same outlines or materials unless they are prescribed to do so by the institution. In fact i doubt you would be able to find 2 teachers that teach math the same way unless they are following a scripted text or teach together all the time.
Much teaching is more facilitation these days. That means they give students the books and some instruction but for the most part they learn through reading and in the case of sciences experimentation.
The fact that Chandler used a program in his class is not inconsistant with this idea. To dismiss it because other teachers do not or that it is not standard practice is irrelevant.
The bigger issue here is the accuracy of the program in question and the results. Since NIST seems to have agreed with Chandler, then any attempts to prove chandler wrong must also prove NIST wrong.

 

[Oystein]

Having done some teaching in the past, i can tell you with a great deal of confidence that no 2 teachers teach or use the same outlines or materials unless they are prescribed to do so by the institution. In fact i doubt you would be able to find 2 teachers that teach math the same way unless they are following a scripted text or teach together all the time.
Much teaching is more facilitation these days. That means they give students the books and some instruction but for the most part they learn through reading and in the case of sciences experimentation.
The fact that Chandler used a program in his class is not inconsistant with this idea. To dismiss it because other teachers do not or that it is not standard practice is irrelevant.
The bigger issue here is the accuracy of the program in question and the results. Since NIST seems to have agreed with Chandler, then any attempts to prove chandler wrong must also prove NIST wrong.

The fact? Is that a known fact? What does Chandler use it for in class?

However, if, as a matter of fact, a given individual teacher applies a method of his own choosing in class, that in itself does not imply that he is doing it competently, as C7's claim that Chandler is "a professional" implies. I would accept he is doing it "professionally", and competently, if that software is featured in college curricula for physics teachers, or part of the curricula for their students, or covered in high school physics textbooks used at Chandler's school(s).

I was assuming

 

[lexicon008]

The fact? Is that a known fact? What does Chandler use it for in class?

However, if, as a matter of fact, a given individual teacher applies a method of his own choosing in class, that in itself does not imply that he is doing it competently, as C7's claim that Chandler is "a professional" implies. I would accept he is doing it "professionally", and competently, if that software is featured in college curricula for physics teachers, or part of the curricula for their students, or covered in high school physics textbooks used at Chandler's school(s).

I was assuming

Have to disagree again. In teaching, many times the course is outlined or given a broad scope curriculum. There is no clearly defined lectures or labs. The objective is to teach/learn certain information and in many cases it is the responsibility of the instructor/teacher to make sure you are given the information/practice to learn those objectives.
How you go about teaching those objectives is largely left up to the teacher.
Unless the school gives a defined and detailed set of instructions on how a course is taught then no 2 teachers will teach the same or use the same methods. In fact unless a teacher is forced to follow a script, no 2 teachers even follow an outlined course the same. There are always "me-isms" in teaching and unless these are proven to be detrimental to the course (i.e they are not conveying the needed info) or they are objected to by the majority of the field and the school puts a halt to it, they must be considered as part of accepted practice.
Now I agree that if Chandler was not proficient in the program he was using, the results could be grossly in error, however, again, since NIST seems to agree with him in terms of the time frames..we must either trust that his measurements are correct (within error) or that NIST too is wrong.

 

[twinstead]

That is all conjecture and speculation without any data as to how it could occur in WTC 7. It is not science and not a valid argument or rebuttal.

You owe me one irony meter; you just made mine explode

 

[Oystein]

Have to disagree again. In teaching, many times the course is outlined or given a broad scope curriculum. There is no clearly defined lectures or labs. The objective is to teach/learn certain information and in many cases it is the responsibility of the instructor/teacher to make sure you are given the information/practice to learn those objectives.
How you go about teaching those objectives is largely left up to the teacher.
Unless the school gives a defined and detailed set of instructions on how a course is taught then no 2 teachers will teach the same or use the same methods. In fact unless a teacher is forced to follow a script, no 2 teachers even follow an outlined course the same. There are always "me-isms" in teaching and unless these are proven to be detrimental to the course (i.e they are not conveying the needed info) or they are objected to by the majority of the field and the school puts a halt to it, they must be considered as part of accepted practice.
Now I agree that if Chandler was not proficient in the program he was using, the results could be grossly in error, however, again, since NIST seems to agree with him in terms of the time frames..we must either trust that his measurements are correct (within error) or that NIST too is wrong.

You "have to" disagree with what exactly? With my statement "if, as a matter of fact, a given individual teacher applies a method of his own choosing in class, that in itself does not imply that he is doing it competently, as C7's claim that Chandler is "a professional" implies."?
Do you then assert that "if, as a matter of fact, a given individual teacher applies a method of his own choosing in class, that in itself does imply that he is doing it competently, as C7's claim that Chandler is "a professional" implies."?