Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
As usual, you pull out the debunker's fallacy, the lack of peer reviewed counter evidence. Let me remind you it took 7 years for NIST to produce an answer to WTC7 and they had access to all the data and witnesses. How many people were involved with this investigation? And where is the data they used? Oh I forgot....it's classified as secret, which suggests a cover up.

Why don't NIST release that data so others can use it?

Give it time and the paper you say is lacking will appear but just because it isn't around today doesn't prove your theory to be the right one. That's a lame excuse although I do wonder why you are here and make your YouTube videos, to distort what truthers say, if you truly believe that your theory is as sound as you say it is.
Click to expand...

So you say have no access to data and witnesses, haven't had enough time, and don't have enough people to perform a proper investigation, yet you think you know exactly what happened. Right. You are STARTING from the assumption that it was CD and working your way backward. You give real investigators a bad name.

Of course since you're wrong, and the vast majority of data and evidence that the NIST used IS available in the public domain for all to peruse, that makes it a moot point.

As for the issue of symmetry, global collapse was symmetrical. I have made no attempt to cover up that it wasn't perfect acknowledging the slight twists and kink in the building as it falls (downward) but other than that, the east and west sides move down at the same time as the north facade with little distortion in the horizontal plane. The action was of a single unit falling within a degree or two of vertical. You cannot argue with this. And a degree or two of rotation is insignificant when discussing whether it fell downward or not. It did. Had it rotated by 30 degrees within a second then I'd agree with you, but it was one or two degrees. Hardly a convincing piece of evidence to suggest it rotated or the action wasn't symmetrical.
Click to expand...

As has been explained to you, you don't have the knowledge or relevant expertise to make ANY judgment on this issue.

When you include the collapse of the Penthouse, the debunkers argument becomes harder to resolve. How can an asymmetrical event give a symmetrical outcome? How can one part of the building fall in on itself and cause all four walls to drop at the same time such that the rest of the tower falls as a single unit downward with very very minor rotation? NIST's hypothesis is weak and their own models cannot reproduce this so why do you believe them?
Click to expand...

NIST uses science, you use incredulity. The reason I believe them is that there is NO competing theory that explains it better. You keep giving excuses why there isn't, but I don't buy it. You have already decided what you believe; you are simply scrambling for some evidence to support it and making excuses when you can't find it. People like you on relatively obscure internet forums spewing spittle about the NIST report do nothing to sway me at all.

There are three kinds of truthers: Stupid, snake oil salesmen, and ideologues. You are the ideologue type. Take heart that at least you're not the stupid type.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
I've answered the issue of rotation already but you fail to understand probably because you have already decided in advance what the conclusion is and cannot bear to accept that a rotation of one or two degrees from vertical is still downward.
Click to expand...

Well, a rotation of 90° would still be 'downward' so that statement makes no sense given that the building was incapable of rotating 'upward'

However - what degree of rotation would have convinced you that the collapse was due to a fire-weakened structure? And why? Your 7 years at 'architect school' should be sufficient training to at least attempt such an explanation.
 
funk de fino said:
Fire makes steel frame buildings collapse. Yes or no?

It didnt even burn for too long and the contents were normal household and office stuff. It was also fought by the fire brigade.

The low walls were concrete block walls inbetween the frame. And on the left hand side there was another building it was tied to.
Click to expand...

Fire does make steel buildings collapse.

I see no concrete walls.
 
GlennB said:
Well, a rotation of 90° would still be 'downward' so that statement makes no sense given that the building was incapable of rotating 'upward'

However - what degree of rotation would have convinced you that the collapse was due to a fire-weakened structure? And why? Your 7 years at 'architect school' should be sufficient training to at least attempt such an explanation.
Click to expand...

OK, downward with insignificant rotation - how about that?

A fire-weakened structure would have either partially collapsed, broken up into separate pieces with those pieces falling downward or with rotation off the building, or rotated as a single unit to 90 degrees but NOT downward as a single unit with insignificant rotation.

Does that help?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Of course since you're wrong, and the vast majority of data and evidence that the NIST used IS available in the public domain for all to peruse, that makes it a moot point.
Click to expand...

Thanks for suggesting I'm not stupid. I feel better now.

The data NIST used in its modelling isn't available for public view, something Patrick Gallagher declared under Section 7(D) of the National Construction Safety Team Act. It is deemed to be data which "might jeopardise public safety".

In other words, they have used scientific analysis but no one can see what scientific data they used for that analysis.


FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009



Go check out the Cardington Steel fire tests. The data is fully in the public domain because it is of public and professional interest.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

What do you think of this?
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
It was on the same topic but about two different scenarios - and here you are claiming intelligence!
Click to expand...

Strawman - I've claimed nothing about intelligence.

First you asked this..."You think the structure should stay intact as it crashes through the building below and after it impacts the ground below then"

This implies the building is falling through itself - no mention of rotation here.
Click to expand...

It was part of my questions on your understanding of physics, where you stated the building should rotate 90 degrees if the ground stopped it.

Second you asked this..."Then why did you state that the building will be at 90 degrees if the ground stopped it?"

Your question here refers to another conversation I had with Dave Rogers about the general principles of rotation. I wasn't talking about buildings crashing into each other at this point but rotating freely.

Nice twist by you though yet proves nothing other than you can twist meanings. Dave Rogers spent all day yesterday trying to do the same thing. What is it with you guys?
Click to expand...

It was all in reference to the very first post I made in this thread. Do you have trouble following conversations?
 
mrkinnies said:
It was too little, I have told you.
Click to expand...

Who cares what you "tell"???? You could tell me the moon was made of green cheese and would that make it true?. You assert its too little so please show that this assertion is in fact true. List all assumptions made and show working.:rolleyes:

one to two degrees although this is by my reckoning. Hey, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Show us the calcs that make up your "reckoning" and since you have made the assertion why do I have any duty to prove you wrong????:confused:
 
mrkinnies said:
Classical theory isn't taught in too many schools of architecture these days, unless it has changed in the twenty years since I was at one.
Click to expand...

It is at good schools as its the basis of all architecture. Still waiting to hear what school you went to and what tools you used to "model" structures and how many 47 floor buildings or similar you modeled.

So far we have established you know nothing about structures, nothing about classical architecture........how much did this "degree" cost you? This might also explain why you are no longer in employment.....
 
MrKinnies, do you expect buildings that have failed naturally to rotate through a point something like this:






Please assume that there are no other buildings to get in the way.
 
mrkinnies said:
Because they'd have to alter their whole belief system before they can even look at the evidence.

99.99% of the population (of the US, UK, global, whatever), had no need to question the claims of the US government on and after 9/11. Probably not far that percentage still do although opinion polls suggest otherwise. I didn't at first, until the evidence led me elsewhere and I was able to overcome my original assumption that our leaders are always correct and tell the truth.

Until that belief system can be changed, it will be hard for anyone to look into the other evidence with more than passing curiosity. But if you can change enough people's hearts and minds, it will be accepted; although at the end of the day, most people want a peaceful life without stress so accepting a story is far easier than challenging one if it causes a person to have to distance themselves from their peers or loved ones in the process.

People will take note when the 'tipping point' is reached as described by Malcolm Gladwell in his book of the same name. Until then, they'll follow each other like sheep because that's the human way. I do think more professionals and organisations have doubts than you might think but for harmonies sake they keep quiet.
Click to expand...


Not that sad old lame excuse.....we are talking about engineers here not the man in the street. Produce a paper that shows what you claim to be incontrovertibly true and its game over.
The reason you do not is because you simply lack the training and/or intellect to do it and I think you know it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No dice, sorry. I'm not playing your "I won't tell you unless you admit I'll be right whatever I tell you" games. Either say what you have to say with confidence that it proves you right, or don't. Either way, I'm not going to tell you how I'll react to what you say when you haven't said it yet.

Incidentally, your use of the term "violently rotating" is your own personal strawman. I've never claimed any such thing.

Dave
Click to expand...

Ok, I didn't see this one, but you do sound a bit childish. You're challenging me to prove that NIST admits that the collapse appeared symmetrical (why you can't find this with a simple google search is a bit curious). I just want to know what seeing this admission means to you. Does it mean you have been wrong? Misinformed? Would you be surprised? Like I said, I doubt you'd admit anything, and I'm damn sure you'll try to wiggle out of it with semantics. But again, what does it mean to see such an admission? Absolutely nothing?
 
Newtons Bit said:
MrKinnies, do you expect buildings that have failed naturally to rotate through a point something like this:



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_163294e301ae589946.gif[/qimg]


Please assume that there are no other buildings to get in the way.
Click to expand...

Why would the point shown by the red dot act as a fulcrum? The fulcrum is in the wrong position if you want it to rotate in the direction you have shown. It should be on the other side with the building falling through itself. Unless you're suggesting something is blowing the top of that block upward, like a Jack-in-the-box maybe?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Ok, I didn't see this one, but you do sound a bit childish. You're challenging me to prove that NIST admits that the collapse appeared symmetrical (why you can't find this with a simple google search is a bit curious). I just want to know what seeing this admission means to you. Does it mean you have been wrong? Misinformed? Would you be surprised? Like I said, I doubt you'd admit anything, and I'm damn sure you'll try to wiggle out of it with semantics. But again, what does it mean to see such an admission? Absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...

All I'm asking is for you to substantiate a claim you've made. If you're not prepared to do that without imposing preconditions, then I'll read into that whatever I choose.

Dave
 
mrkinnies said:
A fire-weakened structure would have either partially collapsed, broken up into separate pieces with those pieces falling downward or with rotation off the building, or rotated as a single unit to 90 degrees but NOT downward as a single unit with insignificant rotation.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out many times, the core structure was in the process of collapse for several seconds before the facade came down. This is most definitely not a characteristic of CD and appears to fit nicely the category bolded above.

So what's the problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom