Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
But you are the one writing silly one line comments in the hope of catching me out.

Grow up!
Click to expand...

A grown up doesn't feign expertise about something he does not know anything about. Get some respected engineering organizations anywhere on Earth to back you and then you might have something.
 
DGM said:
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?
Click to expand...

The number of degrees rotation I use is taken directly from the images of WTC7. It is applicable only to WTC7 since it proves the tower fell as a single unit in a vertical or near vertical direction.

The angle of rotation in a natural high rise collapse depends on the point at which the rotation is stopped. If it is the ground that stops it then it will be 90 degrees. If it's another structure close by then it may be 10 degrees or 30 degrees. WTC7 started to fall at an angle within a degree or two of vertical and never more than a few degrees until the chaos of the rubble pile acted on the building towards the end of collapse and the walls shifted violently. Such a movement is only possible with human intervention, i.e. CD.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

And what you are saying didn't happen.



mrkinnies said:
The number of degrees rotation I use is taken directly from the images of WTC7.
Click to expand...
So you're getting your parameters from WTC 7 to demonstrate your claims about WTC 7? :S
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
The number of degrees rotation I use is taken directly from the images of WTC7. It is applicable only to WTC7 since it proves the tower fell as a single unit in a vertical or near vertical direction.

The angle of rotation in a natural high rise collapse depends on the point at which the rotation is stopped. If it is the ground that stops it then it will be 90 degrees. If it's another structure close by then it may be 10 degrees or 30 degrees. WTC7 started to fall at an angle within a degree or two of vertical and never more than a few degrees until the chaos of the rubble pile acted on the building towards the end of collapse and the walls shifted violently. Such a movement is only possible with human intervention, i.e. CD.
Click to expand...
So your threshold on "natural" to "man-made" is a few degrees. That wasn't so hard was it? You do know it's going to be hard to convince people with such a vague description?

You might also have a problem explaining the "penthouse" considering you don't want to even deal with it.
 
grandmastershek said:
And what you are saying didn't happen.

Click to expand...

I refer to the final phase of the collapse when global collapse occurred. NIST describes as thus:

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

This was the upper 33 floors in case you've not read NCSTAR 1A

The buckled-column region they refer to is based on their hypothesis so could be true or might not be.
 
DGM said:
So your threshold on "natural" to "man-made" is a few degrees. That wasn't so hard was it? You do know it's going to be hard to convince people with such a vague description?

You might also have a problem explaining the "penthouse" considering you don't want to even deal with it.
Click to expand...

We've not been discussing it.

Besides, this focusses on the global collapse stage.
 
mrkinnies said:
Ask Disbelief, she or he made the comparison first or do you ignore that bit?
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I asked you if you were comparing a tree to a building, and you were. That you actually believe the two should fall the same way is still laughable.

Take a deep breath, so you can get a zen-like feeling.
 
Disbelief said:
Actually, no. I asked you if you were comparing a tree to a building, and you were. That you actually believe the two should fall the same way is still laughable.

Take a deep breath, so you can get a zen-like feeling.
Click to expand...

I apologise, having re-read what you said, I was wrong to make that claim. I misinterpreted what you said.
 
mrkinnies said:
We've not been discussing it.

Besides, this focusses on the global collapse stage.
Click to expand...
Why would you only want to focus on one stage? Doesn't what happened before this effect the discussion? Do you think it's best to start in the middle and work out to solve engineering problems?
 
DGM said:
Why would you only want to focus on one stage? Doesn't what happened before this effect the discussion? Do you think it's best to start in the middle and work out to solve engineering problems?
Click to expand...

Yep, I've been asking people to examine NCSTAR 1A in relation to Chris Mohr's video 18.

No one is doing that.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Please point out where they admitted that. And please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that "as a single block" means "symmetrically".

Dave
Click to expand...

Sure, I promise I will. But first I'd like to know what happens when I do show that NIST admits the collapse appeared symmetrical. Will you then admit you are ill-informed on the language that they use? Will you revise your understanding of their explanations to include the fact that the collapse does appear symmetrical and that all descriptions of the bldg violently rotating is hypothetical at best? I doubt it, but first I'd like to see how confident you are that they don't use such language to describe the bldg's collapse.
 
mrkinnies said:
Yep, I've been asking people to examine NCSTAR 1A in relation to Chris Mohr's video 18.

No one is doing that.
Click to expand...
I've read (and understand)NCSTAR 1A. Your problem with Chris seems to stem from your denial of the rotation (you know, the pivot that had to occur for it to happen). Can you show that NIST was wrong in their analysis of this phase (you do know they showed the rotation)?


BTW: NCSTAR 1A has many sections, you might want to more specific.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom