Another debunker with empty words to use. This is getting boring. Not one of you cares to discuss Chris Mohr's pivot/leveraging of the north wall theory as he describes in video 18. You'd rather twist people's logic and words.
It's quite pathetic.
Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
- Status
Another debunker with empty words to use. This is getting boring. Not one of you cares to discuss Chris Mohr's pivot/leveraging of the north wall theory as he describes in video 18. You'd rather twist people's logic and words.
It's quite pathetic.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
Look up CoG. Really, you are embarrassing yourself.
Well, at least now you're comparing buildings. Still an epic fail though.
That building was made from concrete...
That building wasn't even 1/2 the size of 7 WTC....
That building fell for a totally different reason.....
etc..etc..etc.....
So what, one of your brigade suggested a building can't fall on its side like a tree so I proved them wrong.
The structural principle of that building is still the same as WTC7. Both were framed buildings which is why it stayed intact....because framed buildings do that in natural collapses.
Last edited:
Is a tree under the same influence of gravity as a building?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That much is pretty obvious, yes. So, at the end of the collapse, all the fragments of WTC7 lay on their side, at 90º to their original orientation, as you predict for a natural collapse.
Ah, I think I'm beginning to see exactly how insane your argument is. Are you claiming that, had WTC7's collapse been natural, then the building would have finished up lying on its side as a single block, with one wall supported above the other by the lateral members in the structure?
If you aren't claiming that, then you haven't identified any way in which the collapse of WTC7 differed from a natural collapse, so you have nothing to offer. If you are claiming that, then you're claiming that the structure of WTC7 was sufficiently strong that the floor girders must have been capable of not only supporting the entire weight of one wall, but also the transient loads imposed by the movement of that wall throughout the collapse, even though there was no conceivable reason to design in any such capability. Now, how could I best describe that claim?
Yes, that'll do.
So, should a natural collapse have ended up with a heap of rubble, all elements lying on their side? Or should it have ended up with a substantially intact block of building lying on its side? Or, perhaps, something else?
And if your answer is "I don't know what it should have looked like," how can you say that it didn't look the way it should have?
Dave
ETA: Whoah. You really do believe that a 47-storey lightweight steel-framed tube-in-tube building with long span floor girders should have behaved exactly the same in a collapse as a conservatively engineered, concrete framed 13-storey apartment block.
I was right. You were swindled by your architecture school. I think you should sue them, and cite this thread in evidence.
Last edited:
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
I used to feel the same way, but now I just shake my head at you people.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
There is a difference between a tree and a building? Can you spot what it is?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Quite right
To answer your first point, the building is in bits. Those bits were on their side. Look at any demolition or natural collapse and you'll see plenty if not all of the bits on their sides. It doesn't prove one of the other.
For your second assumption...no, I am not saying the tower would have ended up as a complete block on its side. It might have done, it might not. Part of the building could have fallen down to leave some standing, it may have rotated onto its side and be broken to pieces, who knows with a natural collapse.
BUT, it wouldn't all have fallen downward as a single unit with minimal rotation as the unit dropped had it been natural. That is what I am saying.
NoahFence
Banned
As opposed to buildings with no frames?
Ask Disbelief, she or he made the comparison first or do you ignore that bit?
NoahFence
Banned
Seriously?
A tree is a solid object. A building is not. This is how you fit people inside the building.
You don't know what a framed building is do you? And here you are talking about building failures.
NoahFence
Banned
I'm sure some of us will act as witnesses. For a nominal fee.
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL
This is great. This is what I said when I replied to Desbelief about her use of the tree analogy. And now here you are saying it back to me as if you're the wise and mighty one.
You debunkers are god awful useless. I expect these silly one liners from my young kids; at least they can think for themselves.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
I'm not the one making the laughable claim that I have experience in these matters. You are.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
All he's been asking all along (and you refuse to answer) is , how much is this "minimal rotation"? It is key in your definition of "natural" but you refuse to explain how you reached whatever number you come up with.
GET IT?
But you are the one writing silly one line comments in the hope of catching me out.
Grow up!
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Then why are you comparing a steel-framed building to a tree??? YOU are the one who used the tree analogy!
The buildings were MUCH closely related to a Jinga tower or a house of cards than a tree
- Status