Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

because it probably shows how easily a certain class of building could be brought down. Perhaps you want that information in the hands of terrorists....but I don't.

 

[RedIbis]

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

I said I would, but first I have to quote you, which in this context, is deliciously ironic:

Then your research skills are lamentably awful. I suggest you go away and find out the explanation for this rather basic feature of 9/11, and don't bother anyone any more until you've found it. It's not our job to educate you, and you don't help your position by repeatedly advertising your ignorance.

Dave

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

[mrkinnies]

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?

Ah, but it wasn't just the facade that came down, it was the bulk of the building. Let me remind you....according to NIST, this is the entire top section above floor 14 falling downward as a single unit.

NIST could be wrong and it was bulk of the building above floor 2 or 5 or 7. Who knows?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

more baseless assertions...........prove, or at least attempt to prove, what you claim or go away. You are getting tiresome.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I said I would, but first I have to quote you, which in this context, is deliciously ironic:

Thank you. We can agree, then, that in the WTC7 FAQ, NIST stated that the collapse "appeared symmetrical", although no such statement appeared in the main body of the report. In fact the collapse was not symmetrical, as we have seen from photographs, so NIST are clearly commenting on the fact that some observers have made a subjective judgement, and are explaining how they might have arrived at that incorrect conclusion.

Now, the question arising is, why are you so evasive even when you know you're right? How unsure of yourself do you have to be to demand preconditions before you'll justify your own claims, even when you know they're justified?

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

18 hours of fire is still 18 hours of fire however you look at it.

I could have a piece of string burn for 18 hours and it wouldn't make any building collapse. Its not just time that is important, its also intensity and size.

A fought fire will dramatically reduce both. They can slow or stop the advance of a fire, reduce its intensity and put out its trailing edge faster. More of the building is undamaged and its structure can cope withe the increased loading due to failed portions.

 

[RedIbis]

Thank you. We can agree, then, that in the WTC7 FAQ, NIST stated that the collapse "appeared symmetrical", although no such statement appeared in the main body of the report. In fact the collapse was not symmetrical, as we have seen from photographs, so NIST are clearly commenting on the fact that some observers have made a subjective judgement, and are explaining how they might have arrived at that incorrect conclusion.

Now, the question arising is, why are you so evasive even when you know you're right? How unsure of yourself do you have to be to demand preconditions before you'll justify your own claims, even when you know they're justified?

Dave

Our first exchange on this topic went like this:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Even NIST admits the collapse appeared symmetrical so what's the debate?

Please point out where they admitted that. And please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that "as a single block" means "symmetrically".

Dave

You obviously were not aware that NIST admits the collapse appears symmetrical. Now you're saying that they don't say that in reports (moving the goalposts) and that their FAQ is wrong. This is petulance, Dave. What you are trying to avoid is the uncomfortable realization that the collapse of WTC 7 was observably symmetrical, that NIST's simulated images do not match reality.

Your claim that photos show the collapse to be asymmetrical and display rotation is desperation. In fact, what you claim is proof of rotation is nothing more than the walls falling inward, eventually covering the collapse pile as is obvious in post collapse photos. If nothing else you should be commended for your dogged support of the unsupportable.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ah, but it wasn't just the facade that came down, it was the bulk of the building. Let me remind you....according to NIST, this is the entire top section above floor 14 falling downward as a single unit.

yet they show that the penthouse came down first so how could they be reasonably interpreted as meaning that the entire top section came down together?. Perhaps they should have spelled it out in words in one syllable for simpletons......

NIST could be wrong and it was bulk of the building above floor 2 or 5 or 7. Who knows?

Perhaps, feel free to prove it.

 

[sylvan8798]

You obviously were not aware that NIST admits the collapse appears symmetrical.

I love how truthers say "admit" when it suits them to believe one of the statements in a report they are saying is a made-up pack of lies. So obvious.

 

[sylvan8798]

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?

Then how would it look after it landed?

 

[mrkinnies]

I could have a piece of string burn for 18 hours and it wouldn't make any building collapse. Its not just time that is important, its also intensity and size.

A fought fire will dramatically reduce both. They can slow or stop the advance of a fire, reduce its intensity and put out its trailing edge faster. More of the building is undamaged and its structure can cope withe the increased loading due to failed portions.

You're right, I apologise for focussing in only on the time element of the fire.

The WTC7 fires weren't as intense or as big as at One Meridian Plaza. In fact, they were smaller and across only a few floors although the upper storey fires burnt themselves out (that's how small they were). The fires were also spread across different parts of the building with NO floor fully consumed by fire all at once (as parts of a floor caught fire, other parts burnt out).

 

[Dave Rogers]

You obviously were not aware that NIST admits the collapse appears symmetrical. Now you're saying that they don't say that in reports (moving the goalposts) and that their FAQ is wrong. This is petulance, Dave. What you are trying to avoid is the uncomfortable realization that the collapse of WTC 7 was observably symmetrical, that NIST's simulated images do not match reality.

This is a classic piece of confirmation bias. If you want something to be true, and some official source can be misinterpreted as stating that it was true, then you will cite that official source as irrefutable despite the fact that you reject everything else that source has stated, and you will also insist that your personal interpretation is the only possible one. And yet you never say that NIST "admitted" that explosives could not possibly have been responsible for the collapse of WTC7, that they "admitted" that the fire was the primary cause of collapse, that they "admitted" that the impact damage resulted in the initial multi-storey buckle occurring too low in the structure to be seen in videos, or that they "admitted" that the period of near-freefall acceleration was expected from the predicted collapse dynamics. You don't want to believe any of these things, so when NIST states them in the main body of its report, you characterise them as lies. And yet, when NIST says that the collapse "appeared symmetrical" in a FAQ attached to its report as a layman's guide, you interpret this, not only as a claim that the collapse was in fact completely symmetrical, in direct opposition to all the evidence, but also as an irrefutable appeal to authority - NIST said it, so it must be so.

Your claim that photos show the collapse to be asymmetrical and display rotation is desperation. In fact, what you claim is proof of rotation is nothing more than the walls falling inward, eventually covering the collapse pile as is obvious in post collapse photos.

Congratulations; you get a truthiness point for making up a new absurd rationalisation for denying reality. As we see from post collapse photos, the rubble pile is in fact covered by the south wall, which is in itself an asymmetry. If all the walls had fallen inwards symmetrically, as you've just decided to pretend they did, then parts of all four would have been seen covering the rubble pile.

And, hey, didn't NIST "admit" that the building fell as a solid block, which is why it "appeared symmetrical"? If you don't believe them when they say it fell as a solid block, how come you believe them when they say that the only reason it appeared symmetrical was because it fell as a solid block?

If nothing else you should be commended for your dogged support of the unsupportable.

If nothing else, you should be commended for your ability to get things wrong even when you could have got them right.

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

Then how would it look after it landed?

What is the relevance of your question because I see none?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What you are trying to avoid is the uncomfortable realization that the collapse of WTC 7 was observably symmetrical, that NIST's simulated images do not match reality.

Only a fool would expect a computer model that has so many unknowns to exactly reflect reality. Are you a fool or a troll?

"our claim that photos show the collapse to be asymmetrical and display rotation is desperation. In fact, what you claim is proof of rotation is nothing more than the walls falling inward"

Thanks for your OPINION......and what are they falling inward into? perhaps the collapse up to the east penthouse that took out the core of the building?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What is the relevance of your question because I see none?

He is trying to work out your grasp of reality........its certainly a relevant line of questioning given your claims to date.

 

[mrkinnies]

This is a classic piece of confirmation bias. If you want something to be true, and some official source can be misinterpreted as stating that it was true, then you will cite that official source as irrefutable despite the fact that you reject everything else that source has stated, and you will also insist that your personal interpretation is the only possible one. And yet you never say that NIST "admitted" that explosives could not possibly have been responsible for the collapse of WTC7, that they "admitted" that the fire was the primary cause of collapse, that they "admitted" that the impact damage resulted in the initial multi-storey buckle occurring too low in the structure to be seen in videos, or that they "admitted" that the period of near-freefall acceleration was expected from the predicted collapse dynamics. You don't want to believe any of these things, so when NIST states them in the main body of its report, you characterise them as lies. And yet, when NIST says that the collapse "appeared symmetrical" in a FAQ attached to its report as a layman's guide, you interpret this, not only as a claim that the collapse was in fact completely symmetrical, in direct opposition to all the evidence, but also as an irrefutable appeal to authority - NIST said it, so it must be so.



Congratulations; you get a truthiness point for making up a new absurd rationalisation for denying reality. As we see from post collapse photos, the rubble pile is in fact covered by the south wall, which is in itself an asymmetry. If all the walls had fallen inwards symmetrically, as you've just decided to pretend they did, then parts of all four would have been seen covering the rubble pile.

And, hey, didn't NIST "admit" that the building fell as a solid block, which is why it "appeared symmetrical"? If you don't believe them when they say it fell as a solid block, how come you believe them when they say that the only reason it appeared symmetrical was because it fell as a solid block?



If nothing else, you should be commended for your ability to get things wrong even when you could have got them right.

Dave

Dave, at what point do you stop discussing the debris pile as evidence of asymmetrical collapse?

That pile was the end result of pure chaos caused by hundreds and thousands of individual parts hitting one another and the ground unlike the start of global collapse which showed a distinct, singular and symmetrical movement of one unit in one direction.

NIST can say all they want to the layman about being wrong when he or she thinks the global collapse looks symmetrical but ask anyone and they'll agree it looks like just that...because it was!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You're right, I apologise for focussing in only on the time element of the fire.

Good you are making progress.

"The WTC7 fires weren't as intense or as big as at One Meridian Plaza."

Show this to be the case

"In fact, they were smaller and across only a few floors although the upper storey fires burnt themselves out (that's how small they were). "

show this to be the case. Perhaps they simply were no longer visible from the North face. It was bright daylight and we can only see one face clearly so the exact extent of the fires can never be known. Given the intensity of similar office fires its unlikely they were anything other than very intense.

The fires were also spread across different parts of the building with NO floor fully consumed by fire all at once (as parts of a floor caught fire, other parts burnt out).

And as as they did so they progressively compromised the structure of the building (as seen at the Meridian)....until eventually it could take no more and failed.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

NIST can say all they want to the layman about being wrong when he or she thinks the global collapse looks symmetrical but ask anyone and they'll agree it looks like just that...because it was!

The layman??? why would an Engineer care what a layman thinks something "looks like" If laymen could understand engineering I'd be out of a job! They simply lack the basic knowledge to make anything more than generalizations.......

 

[RedIbis]

NIST can say all they want to the layman about being wrong when he or she thinks the global collapse looks symmetrical but ask anyone and they'll agree it looks like just that...because it was!

But they don't say that and Dave has not been able to post NIST saying that the observation is wrong.

NIST tries to explain why it appears symmetrical because, well, it appears symmetrical.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But they don't say that and Dave has not been able to post NIST saying that the observation is wrong.

NIST tries to explain why it appears symmetrical because, well, it appears symmetrical.

and still you don't grasp what the word "appears" means in this context.....