Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

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

Stop dodging questions. 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. Laugh all you like.....its ok with us if you sound like a madman.

Oh and show that contact with the ground would result in measurable rotation. 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. If you can't we will assume its just another baseless assertion on your part
 
mrkinnies said:
Ask Disbelief, she or he made the comparison first or do you ignore that bit?
Click to expand...

A diversion,why do you believe that a building acts the same way as a tree? Twinstead has already quoted you. In which school of architecture did you learn that? Ask for your money back,that's my advice.
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
Stop dodging questions. 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. Laugh all you like.....its ok with us if you sound like a madman.

Oh and show that contact with the ground would result in measurable rotation. 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. If you can't we will assume its just another baseless assertion on your part
Click to expand...

what are you on about?
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can't say fairer than that Dave. Well..?
 
mrkinnies said:
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?
Click to expand...

Similarly you saying you were doesn't make it true either. Nor have you shown how you could have spent 7 years at school doing structural modelling of steel frame high rises as you claim.
 
mrkinnies said:
You asked...."If you think the fires could survive"

...doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

The explosives. I said this already. I asked you to refer to a thread that would make it crystal clear. My fingers were faster than my brain for a moment, but that's irrelevant, as this isn't the first time I've asked you specifically to answer that.
 
NoahFence said:
The explosives. I said this already. I asked you to refer to a thread that would make it crystal clear. My fingers were faster than my brain for a moment, but that's irrelevant, as this isn't the first time I've asked you specifically to answer that.
Click to expand...

Not sure if I said but how do you know the explosives were anywhere near the fire?
 
NoahFence said:
A really big frickin' fire?!?
Click to expand...


When are you and your buddies going to get what a real raging fire is?

The Windser fire.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

windsor8.jpeg


windsor14.jpeg



Notably, the entire core of the structure is still intact (and still supporting the large crane temporarily mounted on the roof), as are all of the lower floors of the building -- even though the tower continued to burn at exceedingly high temperatures for many hours after the partial collapses began. What the Windsor fire revealed, quite dramatically, is that even if the WTC towers had been subjected to ferocious fires, and even if those fires had instigated the collapse of the upper floor assemblies, we are still lacking an explanation for the complete and total destruction of the buildings.

So what was it again that caused the collapse of the Twin Towers (and WTC7)?
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/u...ut-collapse-of-tower.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

images
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bollocks

wtc7leansouth-1.jpg
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see where this is going. Did they say it actually was symmetrical, or that it looked, ostensibly, symmetrical to observers on-site?
 
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...

Right, show that to be the case. list all assumptions and show working. otherwise what you are making is simply a baseless assertion.

Furthermore you dodged an earlier question, how if a single or small number (of amazingly silent) explosives can be the final trigger for collapse why then can a final beam weakened by fire not do the same thing? It buckles and results in overload buckling within milliseconds of all other supports.

Furthermore explain why any CD of WTC7 would be planned to look like a CD??? since you imagine elaborate planning and pre-placement of explosives why wouldn't they simply place them too look very different?

Furthermore why wouldn't they simply have the building collapse just after WTC1 came down? perfect disguise and excuse


Furthermore how do you explain the silence of all the NYFD who were there and report that its fire, and fire alone, that is threatening WTC7 and that they SEE it failing?
 
mrkinnies said:
Not sure if I said but how do you know the explosives were anywhere near the fire?
Click to expand...

....cuz that's where the collapses started?

You're not one of those folks who think explosives on the 20th can initiate a collapse on the 85th, are ya?

eta - do not get this off topic - if you think you can prove these things, go to the other thread "truther challenge"
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

It hit the ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom