Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Gamolon]

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.

Let me get this straight.

You want to believe that the people who supposedly planned 9/11 wanted the destruction of WTC7 to LOOK like a controlled demolition by bringing what was left of WTC7 straight down into it's own footprint???? You mean to tell me that after years of planning this supposed fiasco, they wouldn't have thought to NOT bring it down that way?

Your logic is dizzying to say the least...

Let's look at another part of your logic. Do you mean to tell me that when structural components fail, the load they supported as a whole is NOT transferred to the remaining structural components? So you believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the remaining structural components, already in a weakened state due to heat/thermal expansion, could not have surpassed their load supporting capacity in a way to cause the global collapse of the remaining structure?

 

[mrkinnies]

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

You are not comparing a tower toppling over in your picture with one falling downward. Your picture is of the tower as it had fallen by a considerable amount.

As it fell, the debris pile builds and that changed the way the building fell towards the end as the pictures show. At the beginning however, it didn't rotate more than a degree or two as it dropped downward.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If demolition teams could produce this result by using only fire then why do none do so?

Please show us how many 47 floor steel frame buildings, especially ones with the same structure as WTC7 have ever been demolished?

and even if they could be brought down reliably and predictably with fire alone the environmental effects alone would prohibit this.

 

[mrkinnies]

Let me get this straight.

You want to believe that the people who supposedly planned 9/11 wanted the destruction of WTC7 to LOOK like a controlled demolition by bringing what was left of WTC7 straight down into it's own footprint???? You mean to tell me that after years of planning this supposed fiasco, they wouldn't have thought to NOT bring it down that way?

Your logic is dizzying to say the least...

Let's look at another part of your logic. Do you mean to tell me that when structural components fail, the load they supported as a whole is NOT transferred to the remaining structural components? So you believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the remaining structural components, already in a weakened state due to heat/thermal expansion, could not have surpassed their load supporting capacity in a way to cause the global collapse of the remaining structure?

I have no idea what you are on about. Try writing english and use comprehension. It helps me. Your last sentence is pure gobbledygook

 

[twinstead]

You are not comparing a tower toppling over in your picture with one falling downward. Your picture is of the tower as it had fallen by a considerable amount.

As it fell, the debris pile builds and that changed the way the building fell towards the end as the pictures show. At the beginning however, it didn't rotate more than a degree or two as it dropped downward.

You didn't answer his question really: In your "expert" opinion concerning WTC7, what is the minimum it could possibly have rotated in a collapse not caused by explosives?

 

[Gamolon]

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.

 

[Gamolon]

Try writing english and use comprehension.

I did.

It helps me.

No it doesn't.

 

[mrkinnies]

You didn't answer his question really: In your "expert" opinion concerning WTC7, what is the minimum it could possibly have rotated in a collapse not caused by explosives?

Rotation is rotation until something stops it. So full destruction of a rotating tower means it ends up on its side, so 90 degrees unless something stops it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

And a fire can have the same effect

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.

And a fire can have the same effect. a buckled or unrestrained column can be there but will carry very little load.

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.

No one cares what you "believe" This is science not religion.

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.

Argument from incredulity and this was not CD so who cares what is required to do that? Similar affects can be achieved by fire....they did so in WTC1, 2 and 7. All three very large steel frame buildings that have ever had unfought fires, collapsed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Rotation is rotation until something stops it. So full destruction of a rotating tower means it ends up on its side, so 90 degrees unless something stops it.

Seriously? You're arguing that, unless a building rotates 90 degrees, it must have been demolished?

Well then, look at pictures of the rubble pile from WTC7, where the remains of the north wall finished up lying across the rest of the rubble. What angle, on average, would you say that it ended up at?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Rotation is rotation until something stops it. So full destruction of a rotating tower means it ends up on its side, so 90 degrees unless something stops it.

No disrespect intended, but you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You are not comparing a tower toppling over in your picture with one falling downward. Your picture is of the tower as it had fallen by a considerable amount.

As it fell, the debris pile builds and that changed the way the building fell towards the end as the pictures show. At the beginning however, it didn't rotate more than a degree or two as it dropped downward.

please show that to be the case (looks more like 5 to me) and also show that this is outside the possibility that progressive fire damage can cause. Please list all assumptions made and show working.......we'll wait

oh and explain why anyone wanting to make the WTC7 failure look like an accident would make it look (as you claim) so like a CD when they could have simply brought it down when WTC1 fell or made it very unlike a CD?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I have no idea what you are on about. Try writing english and use comprehension. It helps me. Your last sentence is pure gobbledygook

No one but you seems to have a problem.........

 

[mrkinnies]

Seriously? You're arguing that, unless a building rotates 90 degrees, it must have been demolished?

Well then, look at pictures of the rubble pile from WTC7, where the remains of the north wall finished up lying across the rest of the rubble. What angle, on average, would you say that it ended up at?

Dave

Where are you trying to take your line of argument? You've been working on it all day and now you want me to say that the images of the walls lying on their sides are evidence that the building toppled over at 90 degrees?

This is plain absurd.

High rise buildings never fully collapse downward without human intervention, they rotate or bits of them rotate (or crumble) off and down. That means they either end up on their side, or still standing and damaged. Not one has ever collapsed downward and completely due to fire. British Steel and the BRE in the UK conducted such research by building a high rise steel block and setting it on fire....it didn't move an inch even though many beams deformed. The BRE is the same as NIST in the UK.

 

[mrkinnies]

please show that to be the case (looks more like 5 to me) and also show that this is outside the possibility that progressive fire damage can cause. Please list all assumptions made and show working.......we'll wait

oh and explain why anyone wanting to make the WTC7 failure look like an accident would make it look (as you claim) so like a CD when they could have simply brought it down when WTC1 fell or made it very unlike a CD?

Wow, 5 degrees for a building which has fallen 300ft in that photo and is meeting resistance at ground level. Don't make me laugh!

The whole building was over 600ft tall and yet that single unit rotated less than 10 degrees as it fell. The verinage teams would love to achieve a rotation that small for such a drop.

 

[bill smith]

This kind of rotation ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7z-FQUrfhc

 

[sylvan8798]

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.

Some problems here: 1) Suppose the "remaining support" is a number of columns here and there, which don't form a fulcrum to rotate about. Would they not just be crushed straight down?

2) You are assuming that the remaining supports off center would somehow be strong enough to endure having a 47 story building rotate over while remaining connected and supported by them, in the manner, say, that the base of a tree stays rooted while the top rotates over the edge of it. You are down to a few columns forming a fulcrum when they were not even designed to support the entire building in a static position.

3) While your 47 story building is rotating, if it is rotating towards its footprint the floors above will contact those below (or the ground if we are talking about rotation at the level of the first floor). Once contact is made, the upper and lower floors will start being demolished (as was seen in the collapse of WTC 2). The building will move downward as opposed to continuing to rotate. It would have to rotate quite aways before the center of mass would be outboard of the footprint. This is unlikely because the structure fails first.

 

[Disbelief]

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.

Rotation is rotation until something stops it. So full destruction of a rotating tower means it ends up on its side, so 90 degrees unless something stops it.

Thank you for proving my earlier point about not understanding CoG and anything about building construction. No way you are an architect. Two stundies as well, but I am probably too late to claim them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Where are you trying to take your line of argument? You've been working on it all day and now you want me to say that the images of the walls lying on their sides are evidence that the building toppled over at 90 degrees?

How far did WTC7 ultimately rotate? How far had it rotated when it lay in a pile of rubble on the ground? Because that's the number you're using, it seems now, to determine whether it was a natural collapse or not. If you don't have a value for it, then how do you know it was a CD?

High rise buildings never fully collapse downward without human intervention, they rotate or bits of them rotate (or crumble) off and down. That means they either end up on their side, or still standing and damaged.

Nice fantasy there. I expect you think you can prove it. Give us all a laugh by posting lots of examples, and pretending they prove that there are no counter-examples.

Not one has ever collapsed downward and completely due to fire. The BRE in the UK conducted such research by building a high rise steel block and setting it on fire....it didn't move an inch even though many beams deformed. The BRE is the same as NIST in the UK.

I don't think you even realise what a pack of lies that is. The Cardington tests were deliberately terminated before the structure could collapse, because nothing would have been learned from a collapse.

I think you need to contact your architecture school and ask for a refund.

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

Thank you for proving my earlier point about not understanding CoG and anything about building construction. No way you are an architect. Two stundies as well, but I am probably too late to claim them.

This is the sort of drivel a child comes up with. Do you not have anything better to say.

You're right, I'm no longer an architect...but I was. I said that right at the beginning. Just saying I'm not doesn't mean I wasn't. How immature are you?