Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

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

Show this to be the case



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.



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.

One Meridian Plaza was still standing. Bits fell off it progressively, but it didn't fully collapse progressively since such buildings never do.

Assuming NIST gathered witnesses to the fire as well as photographic evidence, we can assume the details of the fires in their report are fairly accurate. Why don't you read what they said?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

As we agreed, NIST said that the collapse "appears symmetrical". That's a subjective impression drawn from an observation, not the observation itself; that's what the word "appears" means.

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

Except, when you study it in detail - by, for example, looking at videos of the collapse, looking at photos of the rubble pile, and applying very simple reasoning - then it's clear that it wasn't symmetrical, despite some people's superficial impressions.

Not that any of this is in any way relevant to anything, given that nobody has offered a shred of evidence that (a) symmetry is a property of controlled demolitions or (b) a superficial appearance of symmetry is impossible in a collapse due to fire and impact damage.

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

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.

Here's the web page for everyone to read where they say it looks symmetrical...

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


"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. 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."

 

[Newtons Bit]

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?

I'm just trying to understand what you think happened. So far it seems to be: the fulcrum is on the other-side of the building, and the upper block falls through the building. If so, then I think we're on the same page here.


You've also stated that you don't expect the building to stay intact as it falls through the lower block. So why do you expect the upper block to keep rotating?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

One Meridian Plaza was still standing. Bits fell off it progressively, but it didn't fully collapse progressively since such buildings never do.

As you have already accepted, Meridian was fought, WTC7 was not.
and yes they do, WTC1, 2 and 7 come to mind immediately.

"Assuming NIST gathered witnesses to the fire as well as photographic evidence, we can assume the details of the fires in their report are fairly accurate. Why don't you read what they said?[/QUOTE]"

The building was empty for most of the 7 hours it burnt and there were no close witnesses for much of that time so any estimate of fires is, at best, just that, an estimate.

 

[Clayton Moore]

As we agreed, NIST said that the collapse "appears symmetrical". That's a subjective impression drawn from an observation, not the observation itself; that's what the word "appears" means.



Except, when you study it in detail - by, for example, looking at videos of the collapse, looking at photos of the rubble pile, and applying very simple reasoning - then it's clear that it wasn't symmetrical, despite some people's superficial impressions.

Not that any of this is in any way relevant to anything, given that nobody has offered a shred of evidence that (a) symmetry is a property of controlled demolitions or (b) a superficial appearance of symmetry is impossible in a collapse due to fire and impact damage.

Dave

That's called nitpicking or skirting the issue. Not unlike saying adult identical twins are not identical.

 

[mrkinnies]

As you have already accepted, Meridian was fought, WTC7 was not.
and yes they do, WTC1, 2 and 7 come to mind immediately.

"Assuming NIST gathered witnesses to the fire as well as photographic evidence, we can assume the details of the fires in their report are fairly accurate. Why don't you read what they said?

"

The building was empty for most of the 7 hours it burnt and there were no close witnesses for much of that time so any estimate of fires is, at best, just that, an estimate.[/QUOTE]

Is that like all of NIST's other analysis - an estimate?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Here's the web page for everyone to read where they say it looks symmetrical...

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


"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. 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."

so you are not clear on what the word "appearance" means either?????

 

[alienentity]

As usual, you pull out the debunker's fallacy, the lack of peer reviewed counter evidence.

LOL, it is not a fallacy to note that there has been no peer-reviewed engineering paper published in an engineering journal which supports 9/11 Truthers and argues against fire-induced collapse of WTC 7.

You are now misusing another term. We see the pattern - you attempt to twist the facts by playing word games. That's not honest - think about the argument you've just made, perhaps you can see how false it is. But I don't think you're emotionally ready to let go of your fixed beliefs... perhaps in time you will be able to think critically and honestly.

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.

1) 'classified'? really? Can you provide a citation to prove that allegation?
2) NIST did release data, are you aware of this and do you know what it was?
3) The NIST reports include ALL the basis for data inputs in detail. Any engineer can study it on that basis and invalidate the results based on the data in the reports - but none have. Your point is specious.

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.

Excuse me, you are betting on something which hasn't happened. You are claiming that it will. Watch out, you're in danger of eating serious crow.
btw, if peer-reviewed research is so meaningless (after all, you've just spent a lot of energy dismissing any part of the NIST reports you don't like, oddly clinging to parts you DO like, but in the end accusing them of a 'cover-up' and disrespecting the entire organization) why should a truther like yourself even think about it? After all, YOU already KNOW, by your own 'expert' analysis, exactly HOW the collapse SHOULD have looked, so why do you need any further documentation?

ie your ego at this point is allowing you to imagine that you know better than any professional analyst. Good for you!!! You're a savant. Now, too bad nobody is going to listen to your genius-level untrained opinion. But you could do something useful with your genius and start your own engineering firm....LOL

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)

Your argument is invalid; cherry-picking a feature of the collapse, screaming 'symmetrical' 100x and making the bare assertion (remember, ZERO documentation to support your claim, not even a fallacious peer-reviewed paper!!) that this = CD does not constitute a valid claim. FAIL.

When you include the collapse of the Penthouse, the debunkers argument becomes harder to resolve. How can an asymmetrical event give a symmetrical outcome?

Bingo, so now you contradict yourself and admit that the collapse was not symmetrical. Therefore there is NO NEED to act as though it was.

You've already been shown the correct data, but the reason you're still not able to understand is that you refuse to respect it. This is resulting in cognitive dissonance for you. The solution is to let go of your fixed ideology that the collapse was 'symmetrical' - it wasn't.

That will relieve your mental confusion. The collapse simply does NOT behave as a controlled demolition, when you admit the facts and stop cherry-picking. There is NO NEED to impose the condition of CD on the collapse except as a doctrinal construct, ie the ideological belief that there was a secret 'inside job' at play.

If you give your mind the flexibility to drop the ideological imperative, CD disappears immediately as a possibility - because the evidence is simply NOT THERE.

It may help for you to realize that your arguments are nothing but amateur interpretations of incomplete data, and as such their 'strength' is dependent on you NOT being competent in analysis. As your knowledge and competence grow, you will find less and less evidence for CD. I guarantee it.

 

[mrkinnies]

I'm just trying to understand what you think happened. So far it seems to be: the fulcrum is on the other-side of the building, and the upper block falls through the building. If so, then I think we're on the same page here.


You've also stated that you don't expect the building to stay intact as it falls through the lower block. So why do you expect the upper block to keep rotating?

Understand what I think happened to what? Your model or WTC7.

Get on with it!

 

[alienentity]

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?

It helps to demonstrate that you're wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, not a single citation of any engineering study to back up this torrent of bare assertions. Quelle surprise!

 

[Edx]

LOL, it is not a fallacy to note that there has been no peer-reviewed engineering paper published in an engineering journal which supports 9/11 Truthers and argues against fire-induced collapse of WTC 7.

In fact its more than just that, outside of AE911 and the internet and its fringe nobodys there is ZERO disagreement in the scientific and engineering community. There's plenty of professional commentary written about the collapses in various areas and none back up anything truthers say about it. NISTs work is being taught in college classes, they changed the US building codes based on NIST's reccomendations, they changed the building codes, why then isn't there any more than this tiny irrelevant fraction saying their work is so wrong a child could figure it out?

One of the problems they have is that they want all this to be so obvious they are right, so obvious NIST can't even understand basic physics, so obvious its a fraud, so obvious a child could tell just by looking at the collapses and yet then throw up their hands and claim it doesn't matter that no one apart from them can see that.

 

[mrkinnies]

LOL, it is not a fallacy to note that there has been no peer-reviewed engineering paper published in an engineering journal which supports 9/11 Truthers and argues against fire-induced collapse of WTC 7.

You are now misusing another term. We see the pattern - you attempt to twist the facts by playing word games. That's not honest - think about the argument you've just made, perhaps you can see how false it is. But I don't think you're emotionally ready to let go of your fixed beliefs... perhaps in time you will be able to think critically and honestly.



1) 'classified'? really? Can you provide a citation to prove that allegation?
2) NIST did release data, are you aware of this and do you know what it was?
3) The NIST reports include ALL the basis for data inputs in detail. Any engineer can study it on that basis and invalidate the results based on the data in the reports - but none have. Your point is specious.

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



Excuse me, you are betting on something which hasn't happened. You are claiming that it will. Watch out, you're in danger of eating serious crow.
btw, if peer-reviewed research is so meaningless (after all, you've just spent a lot of energy dismissing any part of the NIST reports you don't like, oddly clinging to parts you DO like, but in the end accusing them of a 'cover-up' and disrespecting the entire organization) why should a truther like yourself even think about it? After all, YOU already KNOW, by your own 'expert' analysis, exactly HOW the collapse SHOULD have looked, so why do you need any further documentation?

ie your ego at this point is allowing you to imagine that you know better than any professional analyst. Good for you!!! You're a savant. Now, too bad nobody is going to listen to your genius-level untrained opinion. But you could do something useful with your genius and start your own engineering firm....LOL



Your argument is invalid; cherry-picking a feature of the collapse, screaming 'symmetrical' 100x and making the bare assertion (remember, ZERO documentation to support your claim, not even a fallacious peer-reviewed paper!!) that this = CD does not constitute a valid claim. FAIL.



Bingo, so now you contradict yourself and admit that the collapse was not symmetrical. Therefore there is NO NEED to act as though it was.

You've already been shown the correct data, but the reason you're still not able to understand is that you refuse to respect it. This is resulting in cognitive dissonance for you. The solution is to let go of your fixed ideology that the collapse was 'symmetrical' - it wasn't.

That will relieve your mental confusion. The collapse simply does NOT behave as a controlled demolition, when you admit the facts and stop cherry-picking. There is NO NEED to impose the condition of CD on the collapse except as a doctrinal construct, ie the ideological belief that there was a secret 'inside job' at play.

If you give your mind the flexibility to drop the ideological imperative, CD disappears immediately as a possibility - because the evidence is simply NOT THERE.

It may help for you to realize that your arguments are nothing but amateur interpretations of incomplete data, and as such their 'strength' is dependent on you NOT being competent in analysis. As your knowledge and competence grow, you will find less and less evidence for CD. I guarantee it.

Oh please, have you read any of the other comments today. I've just posted the bit where NIST says global collapse appeared to be symmetrical.

And as for twisting terms and meanings...your debunking colleagues have been trying it for hours now and can offer nothing. I notice you do the same on your silly YouTube videos about the collapse times.

Show me where I have cherry picked the stuff I like and discarded the stuff I don't from NIST.

And can you tell me why the data NIST used in its modelling is not available for public use. I mean you can say all you want as to why I'm not professional enough to be credible yet you offer nothing to back NIST up. Just saying NIST is the authority here is not good enough. If it were then why are you here?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So far mrkinnies has stated that the building, if it collapsed naturally, should fall through the lower block with a significant amount of rotation. It should also break apart when crashing through the lower block. Furthermore, he agrees that only intact objects should maintain their angular momentum.

Which leaves him a bit of a pickle.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"
Is that like all of NIST's other analysis - an estimate?

Given that there were many unknowns, the extent of physical damage to the building, the extent of the fires, their intensity and duration etc. any analysis can only ever be a best estimate of what happened. they were tasked to see if they could work out how the building COULD have collapsed as it did.
This they did and they made recommendation so that in future this is less likely to occur. Only a fool would expect that possible failure mechanism to be EXACTLY what happened in reality.
NIST showed that the building could fail as it did through fire alone, if you can prove otherwise please feel free to do so.

 

[mrkinnies]

So far mrkinnies has stated that the building, if it collapsed naturally, should fall through the lower block with a significant amount of rotation. It should also break apart when crashing through the lower block. Furthermore, he agrees that only intact objects should maintain their angular momentum.

Which leaves him a bit of a pickle.

No, that's your conclusion based on your misinterpretation of what I've written.

 

[Travis]

Yeah, you say that because when it's all summarized like that it makes no sense. But that summary sure looks accurate to me.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"And can you tell me why the data NIST used in its modelling is not available for public use."

I have already done so and so have they. It has security implications that are more important than the idle curiosity of twoofers.

I mean you can say all you want as to why I'm not professional enough to be credible yet you offer nothing to back NIST up.

Why would we? their credentials speak for themselves.

"Just saying NIST is the authority here is not good enough. If it were then why are you here? "

Its good enough for intelligent and sane folks.......unfortunately not everyone is intelligent or sane.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Furthermore, he agrees that only intact objects should maintain their angular momentum.

Good grief. If his high school physics teacher is still alive, he should ask him for a refund too.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

Oh please, have you read any of the other comments today. I've just posted the bit where NIST says global collapse appeared to be symmetrical.

OK, I've stated right from the get-go that PART of the collapse was fairly symmetrical. You are making a non-argument against something I didn't say.
What I did say was that you have NO VALID ENGINEERING BASIS FOR CLAIMING THIS COULD ONLY HAPPEN DUE TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There, I've written it very clearly so you won't miss it again.

Stated another way, you have no data, no engineering analysis, nada to back up this bare assertion.

Show me where I have cherry picked the stuff I like and discarded the stuff I don't from NIST.

See above!! Never mind that you've - again - completely ignored the East side floor failures, the progressive collapse from E to W, which are NOT SYMMETRICAL, but you again cherry pick the term 'symmetric appearance' to mean literally that the collapse was symmetrical, but that's actually not at all what NIST means.

Here is the funniest part - you STILL do not understand what NIST writes in the FAQ even whilst you've quoted from it. I know this because you recently wrote that you can't reconcile an asymmetric process resulting in symmetrical features. Yet NIST spells it out, in writing, in the paragraph you just quoted!! Do you even read what you post??

'WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. 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."'

Again, this paragraph uses a number of qualifiers to indicate that it is not an absolute statement, unlike your rigid interpretation. Nor does NIST quantify the parameters of the symmetry in a way that you could argue for or against, as you have done.
You're merely seizing upon a word and trying to make it something that it clearly isn't - 'symmetry' is not a magic word you can use to make any coherent argument for Controlled Demolition, anymore than 'freefall' is.
I've already explained this to you. And you still do not understand these simple things.

'almost uniformly'
'appear to fall'

Nowhere does NIST claim, as you incorrectly do, that it was a 'uniform, symmetrical collapse'. Nowhere.

You are almost right, but unfortunately that is still wrong.

And can you tell me why the data NIST used in its modelling is not available for public use.

Stop whining. The reasons for this are public and available. And the fact that you do not accept the findings, based on your own amateur judgement combined with paranoia is not impressive in the least.

You've appointed yourself as an engineering authority throughout this thread, without any valid basis for doing so. And YOU complain about NIST not providing enough documentation? Please, I can't keep rolling on the floor laughing, I have work to do.
YOU'VE PROVIDED ZERO DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORY! Stop being a complete hypocrite.