Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

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

They created a computer model that would enable them to strategically weaken the building gradually.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's just recap here. Which one of the following statements is true?

(1) Buildings don't rotate when demolished artificially.
(2) Buildings are expected to rotate about one or two degrees when demolished artificially.
(3) Buildings can rotate up to maybe five degrees when demolished artificially.
(4) Buildings rarely rotate less than ten degrees when demolished artificially.

Since you've said all these four things, which three of them were lies?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
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?



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.



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
Click to expand...

Which bit of WTC7 are you referring to when you say "How far did it rotate"? The whole thing or the bits of walls you see lying flat on the ground.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Let's just recap here. Which one of the following statements is true?

(1) Buildings don't rotate when demolished artificially.
(2) Buildings are expected to rotate about one or two degrees when demolished artificially.
(3) Buildings can rotate up to maybe five degrees when demolished artificially.
(4) Buildings rarely rotate less than ten degrees when demolished artificially.

Since you've said all these four things, which three of them were lies?

Dave
Click to expand...

Nope, I haven't said any of this at all. You twist words and meanings to make yourself look good.
 
mrkinnies said:
Which bit of WTC7 are you referring to when you say "How far did it rotate"? The whole thing or the bits of walls you see lying flat on the ground.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the same bit of it that you're referring to when you claim that it didn't rotate far enough to be a natural collapse. You've said that a naturally collapsing building rotates 90º, but clearly that's only true when it's finally in a pile of rubble on the ground. So let's have some specific numbers: how much should WTC7 have rotated, at any point in its collapse you want to specify, if it was a natural collapse, and how far had it in fact rotated at that point?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm referring to the same bit of it that you're referring to when you claim that it didn't rotate far enough to be a natural collapse. You've said that a naturally collapsing building rotates 90º, but clearly that's only true when it's finally in a pile of rubble on the ground. So let's have some specific numbers: how much should WTC7 have rotated, at any point in its collapse you want to specify, if it was a natural collapse, and how far had it in fact rotated at that point?

Dave
Click to expand...

Natural collapse are chaotic so you're asking me to define a chaotic event using my own imagination. Wow, how stupid!
 
Dave Rogers said:
You're sure you want to tell that lie, as well as all your others? We can all use the scroll bar, you know.

Dave
Click to expand...

Of course you can use the scroll bar but it is easy for you to change the meaning by creating that list. You have taken my words out of context and attempted to apply them to your own straw man argument.

It's as transparent as glass and shows the level that debunkers will stoop to.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
This is the sort of drivel a child comes up with. Do you not have anything better to say.
Click to expand...

Why, since you do not understand what is explained to you. You believe that the building is comparable to a tree and should fall over like one. A building is made up of many components and connections, which break apart in a chaotic event. How is this comparable to a tree in any way?

As for CoG, look up how it comes into play for something to topple.


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?
Click to expand...

If you were, then prove it. Your posts have not demonstrated this at all. You can send the information to a moderator, as others here have done, to prove that you were. As for immaturity, you are the one who tries to change definitions and shift goalposts to suit you.
 
mrkinnies said:
Natural collapse are chaotic so you're asking me to define a chaotic event using my own imagination. Wow, how stupid!
Click to expand...

Try to keep up. You have argued that the rotation observed in WTC7's collapse was too small for it to be a natural collapse. However, you've refused to say how much rotation you would expect from a natural collapse other than that the building would ultimately lie on the ground at 90º to its original angle. However, it's been pointed out to you that WTC7 met this condition. What is the condition that WTC7 did not meet, quantitatively, as a result of which you conclude it was not a natural collapse?

Stop dodging; either give a number, or admit that you're simply handwaving in favour of a predetermined conclusion.

Dave
 
Disbelief said:
Why, since you do not understand what is explained to you. You believe that the building is comparable to a tree and should fall over like one. A building is made up of many components and connections, which break apart in a chaotic event. How is this comparable to a tree in any way?

As for CoG, look up how it comes into play for something to topple.




If you were, then prove it. Your posts have not demonstrated this at all. You can send the information to a moderator, as others here have done, to prove that you were. As for immaturity, you are the one who tries to change definitions and shift goalposts to suit you.
Click to expand...

I said the structural principle of a tree being broken is the same as that for a building. Both work under the influence of gravity. Both are subject to rotation if support shifts to one side of COG else is in place to stop that rotation. Both will fall straight downward if you remove full support completely and quickly.

Or do you think trees are influenced by another force other than gravity?
 
mrkinnies said:
I said the structural principle of a tree being broken is the same as that for a building. Both work under the influence of gravity. Both are subject to rotation if support shifts to one side of COG else is in place to stop that rotation. Both will fall straight downward if you remove full support completely and quickly.

Or do you think trees are influenced by another force other than gravity?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a 47 story steel framed building could rotate over onto its side and be an intact thing just lying there? Like a tree? Really?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Try to keep up. You have argued that the rotation observed in WTC7's collapse was too small for it to be a natural collapse. However, you've refused to say how much rotation you would expect from a natural collapse other than that the building would ultimately lie on the ground at 90º to its original angle. However, it's been pointed out to you that WTC7 met this condition. What is the condition that WTC7 did not meet, quantitatively, as a result of which you conclude it was not a natural collapse?

Stop dodging; either give a number, or admit that you're simply handwaving in favour of a predetermined conclusion.

Dave
Click to expand...

WTC7 ended up as a pile of rubble so of course everything was on its side - it was in pieces. The single unit (as NIST described it) was no longer intact. Had it been, then it wouldn't have fallen downward would it?

The problem for you is that you know a natural collapse will result in rotation ending at 90 degrees (when a vertical structure lies on its side having once been stood) yet because WTC7 didn't (rotating no more than a few degrees for the entire 610ft drop), you have to claim the piles of walls and debris lying horizontally on the ground is proof it did rotate by 90 degrees.

This really IS laughable!
 
Please don't tell me somebody is comparing a tree with a steel-framed skyscraper...
 
mrkinnies said:
WTC7 ended up as a pile of rubble so of course everything was on its side - it was in pieces. The single unit (as NIST described it) was no longer intact. Had it been, then it wouldn't have fallen downward would it?

The problem for you is that you know a natural collapse will result in rotation ending at 90 degrees (when a vertical structure lies on its side having once been stood) yet because WTC7 didn't (rotating no more than a few degrees for the entire 610ft drop), you have to claim the piles of walls and debris lying horizontally on the ground is proof it did rotate by 90 degrees.

This really IS laughable!
Click to expand...

LOL. Get your money back for your education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom