Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Disbelief said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even NIST admits the collapse appeared symmetrical so what's the debate?
 
I think all those expert contributers to the NIST Report will be very sad to know that their evil plan has been uncovered by an intrepid Googlevestigator who spent 7 years in architecture school dealing with models.

And we would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids and your talking dogs!
 
RedIbis said:
Even NIST admits the collapse appeared symmetrical so what's the debate?
Click to expand...

It did appear symmetrical, but it really wasn't, so after thinking that the collapse was suspicious because it WAS symmetrical when upon close examination it really wasn't should make one reconsider ones position instead of redefining symmetrical to suit ones argument.
 
Last edited:
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...


but didn't you say all support was taken away at once????? and if one last explosion can result in the the collapse as seen then why cannot one final beam failing in the fire do the same???:confused:

I think you just debunked yourself....again.:D
 
twinstead said:
It did appear symmetrical, but it really wasn't, so after thinking that the collapse was suspicious because it WAS symmetrical when upon close examination it really wasn't should make one reconsider ones position instead of redefining symmetrical to suit ones argument.
Click to expand...

Ah, this is the old don't believe your lying eyes, believe me. What you're recommending is that we dispense with the video record and rely on NIST's entirely fabricated computer simulations that have little bearing on reality. There was no violent twisting and rotating. The video that DaveMSR posted shows the exterior walls imploding inwards. The whole bldg does not rotate and twist.

To even make that claim you would think NIST could produce some of these twisted columns. Of course, they make this crap up out of whole cloth and don't produce a single piece of physical evidence to support this preposterous hypothesis.
 
chrismohr said:
Whew! I never thought I'd see the end of this!

Here's part 20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l7j6h9elQ

You'll see that when I take off my debater's jacket, underneath I'm still a preacher.

I don't drink much so I think I'll celebrate with a piece of chocolate.
Click to expand...


Chris, good work. However you are too trusting. Gage is educated and no fool and cannot possibly believe his version of what happened on 911 because as you have shown it does not even pass the first hurdles of credulity. That leaves two choices, either he is insane and cannot differentiate between fact and fantasy or he is a conman.

Given the money he is making out of A&E911 it seems likely he is the latter.
 
RedIbis said:
Ah, this is the old don't believe your lying eyes, believe me. What you're recommending is that we dispense with the video record and rely on NIST's entirely fabricated computer simulations that have little bearing on reality. There was no violent twisting and rotating. The video that DaveMSR posted shows the exterior walls imploding inwards. The whole bldg does not rotate and twist.

To even make that claim you would think NIST could produce some of these twisted columns. Of course, they make this crap up out of whole cloth and don't produce a single piece of physical evidence to support this preposterous hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Although not perfect, the collapse has been explained enough to satisfy just about any expert or engineering/scientific organization who's opinion I respect. The fact that you and a tiny cult disagree is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

But thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
I did a 2-year urban design degree also.
Click to expand...


Where? And I'm willing to bet structural modeling of 47 floor steel frame structures was a tiny part. if any, of that.

Admit it, only a small part, if any, of that seven years was done modeling on buildings similar to WTC7. That being the case you are ill equipped to challenge the work of professionals in the field.
 
mrkinnies said:
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...

Let's get technical for a minute. You suggest that explosives were used basically from 10:30ish up until 5:20 to weaken the structure before the final "straw" of a few little ones to finish it off. Weaken in what way? By doing what exactly?
 
bill smith said:
This was shot about 11:00 am. The North Tower collapsed at 10:28: Can you imagine the racket of weakening explosions in WTC7 as they used the noise and cover of the North Tower collapsing ? These later explosions were probably final touches.
Click to expand...


so why didn't "they" just bring down WTC7 when WTC1 collapsed? Who would have been surprised if a 100 floor building could bring down a 47 floor one?:confused:

And why are the windows in the north side of WTC7 intact except for where there were fires? Charges big enough to take out beams would have shattered them all for floors.:confused:
 
mrkinnies said:
We've been through this already.

There is no significant turning moment. Get real.
Click to expand...

The building is seen to rotate. By definition, it must have experienced a significant turning moment, however much you deny the obvious.

mrkinnies said:
The building falls downward - straight down - vertically down - whatever.....
Click to expand...

Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. You've seen the pictures and the videos; the building rotated as it fell. All you're doing here is proving that you're a shameless liar.

mrkinnies said:
but it doesn't topple or twist over violently as you seem to assert.
Click to expand...

Link, please to where I make the assertion that the building topples or twists over violently. Otherwise, we can add it to the list of your lies.

Dave
 
Disbelief said:
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.
Click to expand...

Global collapse sees the "downward movement of a single unit" as described by NIST. Those are their words. According to NIST, the unit comprises the top 33 floors of the building so it's very large. They describe no further damage to that unit other than to say it kinked slightly. It could have course been more than 33 floors as only their own hypothesis claims the failure started below floor 14 - it could have been on floor one.

The video evidence shows this as well - as clear as day. The walls are vertical and the roof and windows are horizontal with some slight distortion which is to be expected. The east and west sides fall at the same time and speed as the centre of the north wall so it is symmetrical. From one angle the building appears to lean ever so slightly but it is by a degree or two so is to be expected. You cannot argue with this because it is there for all to see. The building falls straight down.

As for centre of gravity, I'm not sure what you mean. Gravity acts downwards which means for a building to fall straight downwards as a single unit it must lose all support below it at once. If any support remains off centre to the centre of gravity then the building will start to rotate sideways and topple over. WTC7 didn't rotate (except by a degree or two as I say above) so that means the support across the entire floor plan had to have been lost for it to fall DOWNWARD as a single unit. You are right to say the building is a set of interconnected parts so how on earth can all the interconnecting parts on one level disappear to allow the building to drop DOWNWARD as a single unit. Remember, if any of those interconnecting parts stay intact, even for a split second, they will offer support and the building will rotate and topple over. No fire in any high rise steel building has ever achieved the effect of instantaneous loss of structure across an entire level. CDs have.

Your tree analogy is quite interesting. When cutting down a tree, will it drop straight down when the chain saw cuts through the trunk or will it topple over sideways. The latter of course because unless the chain saw can cut through the trunk fast enough to remove a section of said trunk in an instant, the tree will rotate rather than fall downward. A building is no different except that a tree has a solid structure and a building doesn't. The structural principle of moving downward versus rotation is the same though.
 
mrkinnies said:
And assuming a natural collapse (as bizarre as that is), where's the noise of the collapsing penthouse structure and all that buckling NIST states happened in WTC7. Did the microphones miss that too or would the windows have masked such deafening sounds?
Click to expand...


Do you understand what "orders of magnitude" means.......:rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
In a natural collapse you couldn't have all four corners drop at the same time. Picture the four corners of a table when you cut all four legs at the same time.
Click to expand...


Argument form incredulity. Please prove that to be the case, list all assumptions and show working.:D
 
sheeplesnshills said:
but didn't you say all support was taken away at once????? and if one last explosion can result in the the collapse as seen then why cannot one final beam failing in the fire do the same???:confused:

I think you just debunked yourself....again.:D
Click to expand...

That's right, support in the sense of what supports the entire building. Steel frame buildings have huge redundancy, so if a column fails, the others compensate with no loss of structural integrity. Take several columns away and the building will still stand although the support has now shifted to less columns.

CD removes a number of columns first, effectively stopping them from ever again taking a load. As the overall support shifts to a smaller number of columns, those columns are destroyed and the overall support is lost.

On 9/11, I believe they reduced the number of columns to a bare minimum by destroying many of them throughout the day. It was then a case of removing the final critical columns to allow full loss of support so the upper tower could fall downward as a single unit.

The problem with a fire doing this is that the fire was spread across different parts of the building. NIST even shows the loading of the fires and it wasn't spread evenly. With CD, you must maintain support across the entire floor to prevent toppling then remove all those remaining supports at once.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
From one angle the building appears to lean ever so slightly but it is by a degree or two so is to be expected. You cannot argue with this because it is there for all to see. The building falls straight down.
Click to expand...

Let's try and express what mrkinnies is saying mathematically. His argument, all along, is that the building falls straight down with no rotation, and this is only possible for a CD. Mathematically, we can define an angle A, such that:

Acd = 0

Anc > 0

where Acd is the angle of rotation expected for a CD, and Anc is the angle of rotation expected for a natural collapse. His evidence for this claim is... well, I'm sure he thinks he has some. Now, he also points out that the building rotates through 1-2º, and that this is to be expected. We can therefore deduce the further relationship:

Aobs = (1.5 ± 0.5)º

where Aobs is the observed angle of rotation. He draws from this the conclusion that the building fell in a CD rather than a natural collapse. We can therefore deduce that:

Aobs = Acd

and that:

Aobs =/= Anc

Therefore, we reach the conclusion that:

1.5 ± 0.5 = 0

and

1.5 ± 0.5 <= 0.

Clearly, mrkinnies' argument is absurd.


Let's be charitable, and say that the rotation has to be greater than some threshold for a natural collapse. Clearly, mrkinnies feels that this threshold must be at least 2º. What, I wonder, is his source for this belief?

Dave
 
mrkinnies said:
The building has fallen by more than 50% at this stage yet the angle of rotation is a few degrees at most (possibly less than 5). Print out the picture, draw a vertical line and measure it....4 degrees possibly?
Click to expand...

I see you've changed your mind from "a degree or two". Now, be specific: what is the minimum it could possibly have rotated in a collapse not caused by explosives? And, of course, how did you arrive at this number?

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom