Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

....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"

Global collapse stage saw the building fall as a single unit. Where the structural loss was is anyone's guess including NIST's. They say it must have been between floors 7 and 14 since they assume it was the fires which caused collapse. If explosives were used then they could have been on floor 1 or 5 or 2 etc etc.

 

[mrkinnies]

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?

The explosions weren't silent as Bill's excellent video from this morning shows.
Show me the beam which was common to the entire structure of the building whose job was to support the whole block?

 

[NoahFence]

So you're on WTC 7.....I can't keep track. The array of various twoofer narratives is mind-boggling.

Good thing I actually know what happened. Not so many different theories to jam into my head. Just one'll do.

Anyway, head on over to the proof thread if you will. I'm anxious to hear how this all went down.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I've never claimed that

you claimed you had 7 years of modeling.....do you really want me to link to you doing that???...so if it was not of 47 floor steel framed buildings or similar why did you make that claim as if it was relevant to you knowing NISTS job better than NIST? So what sort of modeling was it? what tools did you use and on what sort of structures?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

[qimg]http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor8.jpeg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor14.jpeg[/qimg]




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

[qimg]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnY0EAafITiUss7bo_kjKIBc9PqQuQz1PB78DsIv4NtRsybbli[/qimg]

The Windsor tower had a reinforced concrete core not steel. That likely held the machinery level strong enough to resist further progressive collapse. The whole building was a write off and it was demolished. And finally note that all the steel structure that was in the fire collapsed.

 

[DGM]

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.

I'll be happy to use the final.

I think you missed a post.

 

[sylvan8798]

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.

From my earlier post #774:

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?

You missed something. I didn't say a building can't fall on its side like a tree, as obviously, Bill had posted earlier the video of the Turkish building which rolled over during the attempted demolition. You were an ARCHITECT for pete's sake, you know damn well that a reinforced concrete building is VERY different than a steel framed one. And a 13 story building has a lot shorter distance to fall than a 47 story one. Your example proves nothing of relevance here.

And no, a 47 story steel framed building would most definitely NOT remain intact. You haven't addressed the question of how a limited number of steel columns could support the entire weight of the building to provide a fulcrum as it rolled over them.

For other posters who might be wondering how much structural engineering the architects take, it's pretty minimal - typically not enough that they would venture to undertake the structural design of anything more complicated than a house. Architects don't like differential equations and linear algebra.

 

[bill smith]

From my earlier post #774:



You missed something. I didn't say a building can't fall on its side like a tree, as obviously, Bill had posted earlier the video of the Turkish building which rolled over during the attempted demolition. You were an ARCHITECT for pete's sake, you know damn well that a reinforced concrete building is VERY different than a steel framed one. And a 13 story building has a lot shorter distance to fall than a 47 story one. Your example proves nothing of relevance here.

And no, a 47 story steel framed building would most definitely NOT remain intact. You haven't addressed the question of how a limited number of steel columns could support the entire weight of the building to provide a fulcrum as it rolled over them.

For other posters who might be wondering how much structural engineering the architects take, it's pretty minimal - typically not enough that they would venture to undertake the structural design of anything more complicated than a house. Architects don't like differential equations and linear algebra.

Would you say that that Turkish building had a steel frame ?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The explosions weren't silent as Bill's excellent video from this morning shows.

not nearly loud enough.....

Show me the beam which was common to the entire structure of the building whose job was to support the whole block?

doesn't have to be a single column doing that job (and you say you are an architect????) as a whole row or set of columns can be doing the job. As columns fail the load is transferred to the remaining columns. Eventually the load is exceeded on just one of them so it fails and that pushes the rest over the edge almost instantly. And since your 7 years of modeling clearly did not cover buckling....it results in almost no load support ability in milliseconds.

 

[sylvan8798]

Would you say that that Turkish building had a steel frame ?

The Turkish building is also reinforced concrete.

It can be seen clearly at about 36 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7z-FQUrfhc

 

[mrkinnies]

not nearly loud enough.....



doesn't have to be a single column doing that job (and you say you are an architect????) as a whole row or set of columns can be doing the job. As columns fail the load is transferred to the remaining columns. Eventually the load is exceeded on just one of them so it fails and that pushes the rest over the edge almost instantly. And since your 7 years of modeling clearly did not cover buckling....it results in almost no load support ability in milliseconds.

That's right, I said a set of columns in my post earlier today, not one, but enough to support the weight of the structure.

I did of course ask you to identify the common beam which could support the entire structure as you suggest could happen.

..but almost instantly isn't good enough.

Almost instantly is enough to cause rotation. I've said this before.

It needs to be instantly - exactly the same time - instantaneously.

This is the bit you debunkers have a problem with.

 

[mrkinnies]

From my earlier post #774:



You missed something. I didn't say a building can't fall on its side like a tree, as obviously, Bill had posted earlier the video of the Turkish building which rolled over during the attempted demolition. You were an ARCHITECT for pete's sake, you know damn well that a reinforced concrete building is VERY different than a steel framed one. And a 13 story building has a lot shorter distance to fall than a 47 story one. Your example proves nothing of relevance here.

And no, a 47 story steel framed building would most definitely NOT remain intact. You haven't addressed the question of how a limited number of steel columns could support the entire weight of the building to provide a fulcrum as it rolled over them.

For other posters who might be wondering how much structural engineering the architects take, it's pretty minimal - typically not enough that they would venture to undertake the structural design of anything more complicated than a house. Architects don't like differential equations and linear algebra.

Very true, most architects get limited training but it does involve differential equations and algebra. But that's not relevant here. It's the principle which matters and architects spend 5 years training to deal with principles.

Did I say a 47 storey building would remain intact if it fell over? It might, it might not.

 

[DGM]

It needs to be instantly - exactly the same time - instantaneously.

This is the bit you debunkers have a problem with.

Actually we have no problems with this. It's you ignoring the fact it did not start in an instant. That's the problem with you focusing only on one phase.

 

[bill smith]

The Turkish building is also reinforced concrete.

It can be seen clearly at about 36 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7z-FQUrfhc

Thanks .Would a steel framed building have rolled over intact the same way as that one in the same circumstances or is a steel framed building weaker than a reinforced concrete one ?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I did of course ask you to identify the common beam which could support the entire structure as you suggest could happen.

And I just explained why no single column is required. What part of that didn't you understand?

"..but almost instantly isn't good enough."

another baseless assertion.

Almost instantly is enough to cause rotation. I've said this before.

and we see rotation......and you have not shown that this was too much or too little...........you just made another baseless assertion.

"It needs to be instantly - exactly the same time - instantaneously."

Please show why that would be the case and that multiple explosives would any more "Instantaneous." list all assumptions and show working.....

This is the bit you debunkers have a problem with.

What problem? you have not demonstrated that your assertions have any basis in fact.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Thanks .Would a steel framed building have rolled over intact the same way as that one in the same circumstances or is a steel framed building weaker than a reinforced concrete one ?

answer to that is....it depends since neither are designed to fall over, their performance in that situation is not a design parameter.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Very true, most architects get limited training but it does involve differential equations and algebra. But that's not relevant here. It's the principle which matters and architects spend 5 years training to deal with principles..

LOL my kid does those in high school! and nothing in Architecture training covers failures like that of the WTC7, thats advanced Structural engineering that very few Architects do themselves, and something you clearly did not do.

Stick to choosing Doric or Ionian columns.....there you might be within your training.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

Every now and then we come across truthers that have a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physics concepts. An object with angular momentum will maintain that momentum unless an external force acts upon it (air resistance, the ground, etc). However, this angular momentum only applies to the object when it is whole and rigid. As it breaks apart from impact forces and the reduction of load bearing capacity as it rotates the angular momentum is lost.

Now I'm not sure if you expect the building to stay rigid as it rotates 90 degrees or if you're unclear on the concept of angular momentum. Either way, your post is nonsense.

 

[Newtons Bit]

LOL my kid does those in high school! and nothing in Architecture training covers failures like that of the WTC7, thats advanced Structural engineering that very few Architects do themselves, and something you clearly did not do.

Stick to choosing Doric or Ionian columns.....there you might be within your training.

Very few of us Structural Engineers do anything resembling failure analysis either

 

[beachnut]

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.

Total nonsense. How does this junk save Gage's from being a liar on 911?
Your nonsense does not rise to a level that makes sense - it is self-debunking claptrap. Worse than Gage. Gage avoids the details, he is only out to make money off of people who fail to think for themselves and are too lazy to check out 911 issues.

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

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor8.jpeg

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor14.jpeg

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/us/philadelphia-fire-officials-rule-out-collapse-of-tower.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

[URL]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnY0EAafITiUss7bo_kjKIBc9PqQuQz1PB78DsIv4NtRsybbli[/URL]

Do not present building which were totaled by fire and where the fires were fought to save the buildings. When you are spreading lies and delusions freely like you do, do not supply proof fire destroys steel, even in fire that are fought. It is self-debunking if you had the knowledge to understand fire sciences, engineering, and what you posted.

The Windsor Building in Spain is not here any more, it was totaled by fire too weak to stand. The fire was fought, and the steel only structure where significant water could not be used, failed. The reason the building stood after the fire; it was fought with water four hours, saving the building, and the concrete steel reinforce core held the building up, but it could not be used again.
You proved fire destroys steel's strength, and fire totals buildings. Good job debunking the lies of 911 truth.

One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, is gone! DESTROYED by fire, another proof of fire destroying high rises. Did you know the water system failed and One Meridian Plaza was in danger of falling, collapsing! But the fire fighters stepped in and rigged up a system to restore pressure and saved the building from collapsing and damaging surrounding buildings. But the building was too WEAK to save, it was totaled.
You proved fire destroys buildings. You debunked yourself and 911 truth without much effort. See how easy it is to debunk 911 truth?