Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
funk de fino said:
I have bolded the parts you have missed. Adds context.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

The bolded parts are NIST's assumption since no other proof exists. The second part about the global collapse and the downward movement of the single block is available for all to see via the videos.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Where were the explosives planted,who planted them,how were they rigged without anybody noticing,how were the explosives made fireproof,these are just a few of the questions that you will have to answer before any non-troofers even begin to take you seriously.
Click to expand...

I don't know and if I did come up with a theory you'd only laugh since that is all it'll be.

Why go down this route? Why not debate what Chris Mohr says in Video 18?

Why do you not take seriously the downward fall of a skycraper as a single block when to do so would have required the instantaneous loss of all structural support below? Is it because you don't understand the significance of it? If demolition teams could produce this result by using only fire then why do none do so?
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Chris Mohr asked for a critique of his video No.18 a few pages ago - this was about the WTC7 collapse and his agreement with NCSTAR 1A. I gave him an answer to find myself bombarded by petty tirades which were off topic. We still haven't debated that video properly.
Click to expand...

Then I think the best course of action would be to report posts that you feel are off-topic, not to reply to any off-topics, and instead take that debate to a more appropriate thread.

It would be a shame to roll over Chris' effort so brutally.
 
mrkinnies said:
NCSTAR 1A Page 20...

"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."

Note the word downward....not sideways...but DOWNWARD AS A SINGLE UNIT
Click to expand...

Note the absence of the words "straight down". So you were lying. You've done that a lot.

Dave
 
mrkinnies said:
Why do you not take seriously the downward fall of a skycraper as a single block when to do so would have required the instantaneous loss of all structural support below?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. In fact, we know it didn't, because the building rotated as it fell, demonstrating that at some point it experienced a significant turning moment. This can only have arisen from the supports on the north side failing before those on the south side, because, once the building began to fall, the resistive force of the structure was too small for differences between the sides to have a significant effect. We can therefore be absolutely certain that the loss of support was not instantaneous.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
It wouldn't. In fact, we know it didn't, because the building rotated as it fell, demonstrating that at some point it experienced a significant turning moment. This can only have arisen from the supports on the north side failing before those on the south side, because, once the building began to fall, the resistive force of the structure was too small for differences between the sides to have a significant effect. We can therefore be absolutely certain that the loss of support was not instantaneous.

Dave
Click to expand...

We've been through this already.

There is no significant turning moment. Get real.

The building falls downward - straight down - vertically down - whatever.....but it doesn't topple or twist over violently as you seem to assert.
 
GlennB said:
Because it's unpredictable, messy and extremely dangerous.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Exactly. WTC7 was clean and as about as precise as you can get with a CD. An intact upper structure (except for the penthouse damage of course) falling straight downward as a single unit. No mess, caused minimal damage and some firefighters seemed capable of predicting it.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
We've been through this already.

There is no significant turning moment. Get real.

The building falls downward - straight down - vertically down - whatever.....but it doesn't topple or twist over violently as you seem to assert.
Click to expand...

For an architect, you certainly do not seem to understand symmetry, center of gravity or how buildings are constructed.
 
mrkinnies said:
Oh dear beachnut, now you make yourself look very stupid.

Ask yourself this, if you wanted to hide the explosions of a CD would you A) put a pillow over each explosive device or B) spread out the timing of each detonation to occur individually in the hours and minutes before the collapse so as not to draw attention to lots of explosions going off at once when the building does fall?
Click to expand...

How do they manage to delay the effects of the explosions so they're all felt at once. Some sort of delayed shock wave? Slow shock explosives?
 
mrkinnies said:
I don't know and if I did come up with a theory you'd only laugh since that is all it'll be.

Why go down this route? Why not debate what Chris Mohr says in Video 18?

Why do you not take seriously the downward fall of a skycraper as a single block when to do so would have required the instantaneous loss of all structural support below? Is it because you don't understand the significance of it? If demolition teams could produce this result by using only fire then why do none do so?
Click to expand...

I will believe the real engineers here. Your speculations have no value at all. Your mistakes have been pointed out to you but you soldier blithely on.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Come on, explain yourself or are your words hollow?
Click to expand...

You start by saying that the fall was symmetrical and need it explained to you why it is not. So instead of admitting your error, you redefine symmetrical to fit your conspiracy within. You do not understand center of gravity or you would understand why the building would not topple over and why it must fall down as it does. Finally, you do not understand that the building is not like a tree and that it is made up of many interconnections.
 
mrkinnies said:
We've been through this already.

There is no significant turning moment. Get real.

The building falls downward - straight down - vertically down - whatever.....but it doesn't topple or twist over violently as you seem to assert.
Click to expand...

Yes, we've been through this already.

Your assertion that WTC7 didn't "topple or twist over violently" has been convincingly and overwhelmingly demolished, by actual physical evidence:



Do try to keep up!
 
mrkinnies said:
I spent 7 years at architecture school dealing with models so I can spot when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes as NIST has tried to do.
Click to expand...


Seven years? What kind of qualification did you get that took you 7 years?
And all 7 years in structural modeling???

I call bogus!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom