Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
I like this because too many debunkers believe complete steel structural collapse due to fire is a common event when in fact its never before happened.
Click to expand...

Ok, enough of this. You're probably new enough here to where you haven't seen this brought up over the course of the years, but you need to realize that you're arguing from a false premise and stating an invalid conclusion. First of all, the fact that it's never happened before doesn't mean it is impossible to happen. Second, the one actual controlled experiment - the Cardington tests - did indeed demonstrate what happens to steel when exposed to intense fires. The distortions evident from the Cardington test inform our understanding of the WTC collapses, and demonstrate clearly that the sorts of failure modes either observed in the steel (the main towers) or modeled (WTC 7) can and indeed will occur. Creep, severe distortion of a structure, expansion, etc. were observed in the test rig, and when you apply the principles of behavior established in those tests to the specifics of how either the Twin Towers or 7 World Trade were constructed, you can clearly demonstrate that the fires effects could and indeed did collapse the towers.

There were multiple factors in each towers collapse. For the main towers, the design led to the unfortunate fact that debris impacting the floors sever lateral supports, leading to unstable exterior columns. For 7 World Trade, there's the design that left it vulnerable to thermal expansion of the long-span trusses. Until and unless those are taken into account in analyses, as well as the other unique issues at work that day - not the least of which was the severe damage from the impacts to the main towers, nor the extreme length of time the fire affected 7 World Trade - then blithe write-offs of the notion of steel structures not collapsing under fire are nothing more than demonstrations of ignorance. All the details apply, not simply the gross comparison of steel framed structures.

Furthermore, remember that while there are zero cases of high-rise buildings that are entirely steel framed collapsing, there are indeed cases of steel structures doing so. Take the Kader Toy factory as an example: The only part of the building that remained standing was the non-steel part. The steel part of the structure suffered total failure.

There are other examples I cannot recall off the top of my head. But this argument has been tried before, and has failed. See past threads, such as this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133271

The point is that you're attempting to claim that steel structures do not collapse when subjected to fire. All the research that has been done by engineers such as the Arup and University of Edinburgh ones, by the various fire and structural engineering researchers in the US, such as Astaneh-Asl and James Quintiere, and so on all point to the fact that steel can indeed collapse in fires. The fact that no skyscraper has done so yet is a canard: Few suffered the same sorts of fires, none suffered jet impact damage, and among the biggest fires in history, only two or three (Beijing CCTV and Andrus Bank fire in Brazil) were even remotely as large, and I can't think of any off the top of my head where not only no fire retardation systems (i.e. sprinklers, firewalls, etc.) rendered ineffective, but no active firefighting was conducted. The point is, saying that no steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire is like saying no human has ever been killed by supernova or stellar phenomena: The principle is demonstrated very clearly; the fact that it hasn't happened before is not a demonstration that it cannot ever happen.

------

And last: Take care in trying to critique Grizzly Bear's choice of citations. Wiki is to be avoided as a sole and ultimate authority, but when it's used simply as a description of details (such as the structural categorizations that GB was showing), the information is verifiable. You risk writing it off and thus demonstrating ignorance at your own peril; the real critique of a Wikipedia source is whether it's accurate. In too many cases, it's not, but that doesn't extrapolate to all, and you've not demonstrated that it's inaccurate in this specific case to begin with. So don't write it off; address his point, not his source. Your text following your write off does neither; it merely makes an unsupported assertion that professional surprise at the collapses means that the collapses couldn't have happened. As demonstrated by not just the NIST conclusions, but also the Arup findings, the Purdue ones, and other organizations, it's accepted that it indeed occurred. Regardless of surprise.
 
GlennB said:
Because it was a relatively slow process. A landslide generates far more energy than a gunshot, but it's the gunshot that hurts your ears. You might want to look up the word brisance. Explosions get attention for a reason, but you know this. You've watched the CD videos.

Meanwhile - for the fifth time - how do you suppose the CD plan would have panned out had WTC7 not been hit by WTC1 debris?
Click to expand...

All of the relatively close videos, most notably the Ashley Banfield video (used by David Chandler to supposedly show the sounds of explosions) do in fact contain some sounds of collapse as 7 comes down.

The reason we know this is because the additional noise of the collapse is not present at the times before and after it, and is therefore not a continuous background rumble (for example).

Chandler's video employs very heavy EQ to bump the levels of certain frequencies in the collapse sound, which he then claims are explosions.
There are many problems with his approach - I won't get into them now - but he is correct that there is a noise made as the building collapses, caught on the audio track.

So even David Chandler contradicts the rather odd truther claim that microphones were unable to pick up even the collapse sound. It is actually a bit humorous to see a truther argue that the lack of explosion sounds means that explosions must have occurred.... go figure!:boggled:
 
mrkinnies said:
http://www.iconreview.org/news/13656

"and the complete collapse of WTC7 after burning unchecked for approximately seven hours, the team found particularly significant. "Prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist."
.
Click to expand...

Why did you snip the first part of the paragraph Mr Kinnies?

However, the partial collapse of WTC5, not initiated by falling debris, and the complete collapse of WTC7 after burning unchecked for approximately seven hours, the team found particularly significant. "Prior to these events, "
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

So the quoted part is talking about WTC5's collapse as much as WTC7. So if we go by your interpretation of what this means you must believe the collapse in WTC5 to be a demolition because according to the quote above they didn't previously believe it could happen either. You can't have one without the other while still using this quote to support you.

Maybe your interpretation is wrong, maybe its been wrong this whole time and instead of finding out why you've been reduced to quote mining like a Creationist. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
George152 said:
His playing the banjo explains a lot.
Click to expand...
To me it explains that he has the drive to teach himself to play a stringed acoustic instrument. I taught myself to play acoustic guitar and it's not easy.

What does it explain to you, George? Are you trying to say banjo players are stupid? Do you think Earl Scruggs or Bela Fleck (to be more modern) are stupid?

Please explain.
 
mrkinnies said:
so Disbelief, did the upper 33 floors of WTC7 fall as one block or was NIST wrong too?
Click to expand...

I thought that mrkinnies, claiming to be a "retired architect", might bring something meaningful to the discussion.

What a disappointment. Nothing but long disproved pablum & gross misunderstanding.

I'd be curious, mrkinnies, to hear the type & number of (whatever) you've ever architected. Because I don't hear much comprehension of what the NIST report engineers really said.

A question for ya: do you really believe that NIST said that the "upper 33 floors of WTC7 fall as one block"?

How interesting...

tk
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Ok, enough of this. You're probably new enough here to where you haven't seen this brought up over the course of the years, but you need to realize that you're arguing from a false premise and stating an invalid conclusion. First of all, the fact that it's never happened before doesn't mean it is impossible to happen. Second, the one actual controlled experiment - the Cardington tests - did indeed demonstrate what happens to steel when exposed to intense fires. The distortions evident from the Cardington test inform our understanding of the WTC collapses, and demonstrate clearly that the sorts of failure modes either observed in the steel (the main towers) or modeled (WTC 7) can and indeed will occur. Creep, severe distortion of a structure, expansion, etc. were observed in the test rig, and when you apply the principles of behavior established in those tests to the specifics of how either the Twin Towers or 7 World Trade were constructed, you can clearly demonstrate that the fires effects could and indeed did collapse the towers.

There were multiple factors in each towers collapse. For the main towers, the design led to the unfortunate fact that debris impacting the floors sever lateral supports, leading to unstable exterior columns. For 7 World Trade, there's the design that left it vulnerable to thermal expansion of the long-span trusses. Until and unless those are taken into account in analyses, as well as the other unique issues at work that day - not the least of which was the severe damage from the impacts to the main towers, nor the extreme length of time the fire affected 7 World Trade - then blithe write-offs of the notion of steel structures not collapsing under fire are nothing more than demonstrations of ignorance. All the details apply, not simply the gross comparison of steel framed structures.

Furthermore, remember that while there are zero cases of high-rise buildings that are entirely steel framed collapsing, there are indeed cases of steel structures doing so. Take the Kader Toy factory as an example: The only part of the building that remained standing was the non-steel part. The steel part of the structure suffered total failure.

There are other examples I cannot recall off the top of my head. But this argument has been tried before, and has failed. See past threads, such as this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133271

The point is that you're attempting to claim that steel structures do not collapse when subjected to fire. All the research that has been done by engineers such as the Arup and University of Edinburgh ones, by the various fire and structural engineering researchers in the US, such as Astaneh-Asl and James Quintiere, and so on all point to the fact that steel can indeed collapse in fires. The fact that no skyscraper has done so yet is a canard: Few suffered the same sorts of fires, none suffered jet impact damage, and among the biggest fires in history, only two or three (Beijing CCTV and Andrus Bank fire in Brazil) were even remotely as large, and I can't think of any off the top of my head where not only no fire retardation systems (i.e. sprinklers, firewalls, etc.) rendered ineffective, but no active firefighting was conducted. The point is, saying that no steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire is like saying no human has ever been killed by supernova or stellar phenomena: The principle is demonstrated very clearly; the fact that it hasn't happened before is not a demonstration that it cannot ever happen.

------

And last: Take care in trying to critique Grizzly Bear's choice of citations. Wiki is to be avoided as a sole and ultimate authority, but when it's used simply as a description of details (such as the structural categorizations that GB was showing), the information is verifiable. You risk writing it off and thus demonstrating ignorance at your own peril; the real critique of a Wikipedia source is whether it's accurate. In too many cases, it's not, but that doesn't extrapolate to all, and you've not demonstrated that it's inaccurate in this specific case to begin with. So don't write it off; address his point, not his source. Your text following your write off does neither; it merely makes an unsupported assertion that professional surprise at the collapses means that the collapses couldn't have happened. As demonstrated by not just the NIST conclusions, but also the Arup findings, the Purdue ones, and other organizations, it's accepted that it indeed occurred. Regardless of surprise.
Click to expand...
You should add McCormick Place in Chicago (early 70's?) to your examples. Steel roof on concrete block wall, IIRC. Unsprinklered. Collapsed even though the FD fought the fire.
 
Making this Thread Easier to Follow

Hi all,

Anyone who comes onto the Richard Gage rebuttal thread may well think we aren't even discussing my YouTube videos at all. Some arguments are not in either Gage's Blueprint for Truth OR my YouTubve rebuttal videos.

I request that we agree to:

1) Not engage in protracted debate on issues not in either Gage's video or my YouTubes. Those belong elsewhere on JREF.

2) To make it easier for everyone, make a quick referral to which video you are responding to (for example, "Gage says in his video that..." or "Chris's video #18 tries to explain freefall collapse of Building 7 but he's wrong because..." or "TruthShines911" said that Chris's video #18 was inaccurate but MIT Professor Nguyen Thun corroborates Chris's assertions in..."

This way newcomers to the discussion will know where we are... and frankly, so will I.

3) If someone launches off on a completely unrelated topic, let's all agree to tell him/her so and not respond to their assertion (no matter how tempting)... maybe even suggest a better place to take it, like the general 9/11 Thread.

Thanks all, I might have some time for actual responses later tonight too,
Chris Mohr

Here is a complete list of my YouTube videos, with links, for future reference (please copy if you are involved in this):


part 0 introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQXuMPs4&feature=related
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2gW0jFA&feature=related
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q&feature=related
part 14 Size of Building 7 fires http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto
part 15 Path of Leasrt Resistance Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ_3JVjHeo
part 16 Eyewitness Accounts re Building 7; Foreknowledge of Destruction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4
part 17 Size of Conspiracy, How Many People Would it Take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
part 18 Building 7 freefall collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkbDyAJuirg
part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM
part 20 Concluding Remarks: Waking Up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare of 9/11;" a heartflet appeal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l7j6h9elQ
 
Mr. Skinny said:
You should add McCormick Place in Chicago (early 70's?) to your examples. Steel roof on concrete block wall, IIRC. Unsprinklered. Collapsed even though the FD fought the fire.
Click to expand...

What about Windsor tower in madrid? Steel collapsed including the top 12 (?) steel framed floors only leaving behind the concrete and the core.
 
mrkinnies said:
Hi Grizzly Bear, I agree, but the sounds of the collapsing structure weren't picked up above the sound of people talking so here lies the overall problem.
Click to expand...

what problem? the collapses of buildings in CD is usually quieter than the explosions so the fact that one can't here the collapse in one video is no inducation that one would not hear the explosives which would be an order of magnitude louder.
 
mrkinnies said:
Hi Grizzly Bear, I agree, but the sounds of the collapsing structure weren't picked up above the sound of people talking so here lies the overall problem.
Click to expand...

There is no "problem".

The problem is instantly resolved by listening to the videos of any other real CD that uses explosives. Especially if you exclude those with howling winds that tend to (conveniently, and deceptively) saturate the microphone, so that the sounds of explosions are merely "obvious to anyone who listens for them", instead of "wtf obvious".

Same cameras, same explosives (actually, quite smaller explosives), people & camera microphones, far, far closer to WTC7 than they would ever allow folks at CDs.

And in every CD, the sounds of the explosions are unmistakeable.

Which it the precise reason that AE911t & truthers always show collapse without sound.

Very deceptive.


tk
 
Mr. Skinny said:
You should add McCormick Place in Chicago (early 70's?) to your examples. Steel roof on concrete block wall, IIRC. Unsprinklered. Collapsed even though the FD fought the fire.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I only remembered that one after I had posted :o. Found it again when I scrolled down on a webpage I was going to close.

But yes, that's also a good example. Steel structures can collapse due to fire; limiting the analysis to skyscrapers needs justification, and in the absence of such is indefensible, IMO.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi all,

Anyone who comes onto the Richard Gage rebuttal thread may well think we aren't even discussing my YouTube videos at all. Some arguments are not in either Gage's Blueprint for Truth OR my YouTubve rebuttal videos.

I request that we agree to:

1) Not engage in protracted debate on issues not in either Gage's video or my YouTubes. Those belong elsewhere on JREF.

2) To make it easier for everyone, make a quick referral to which video you are responding to (for example, "Gage says in his video that..." or "Chris's video #18 tries to explain freefall collapse of Building 7 but he's wrong because..." or "TruthShines911" said that Chris's video #18 was inaccurate but MIT Professor Nguyen Thun corroborates Chris's assertions in..."

This way newcomers to the discussion will know where we are... and frankly, so will I.

3) If someone launches off on a completely unrelated topic, let's all agree to tell him/her so and not respond to their assertion (no matter how tempting)... maybe even suggest a better place to take it, like the general 9/11 Thread.

Thanks all, I might have some time for actual responses later tonight too,
Chris Mohr

Here is a complete list of my YouTube videos, with links, for future reference (please copy if you are involved in this):


part 0 introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQXuMPs4&feature=related
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2gW0jFA&feature=related
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q&feature=related
part 14 Size of Building 7 fires http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto
part 15 Path of Leasrt Resistance Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ_3JVjHeo
part 16 Eyewitness Accounts re Building 7; Foreknowledge of Destruction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4
part 17 Size of Conspiracy, How Many People Would it Take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
part 18 Building 7 freefall collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkbDyAJuirg
part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM
part 20 Concluding Remarks: Waking Up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare of 9/11;" a heartflet appeal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l7j6h9elQ
Click to expand...

Yeah, Chris has got a point. A lot of this is derail. I won't object to a split of posts off to another thread if it's deemed necessary.
 
Hi Chris, I have added the rest of your vids to my playlist devoted to them.

I was checking part 16, and noticed you mentioned there is a video of Barry Jennings waving out of a window. I wonder if anyone can link me to it, because all I recall seeing is a recent video with Michael Hess waving and shouting out of it. But not Jennings!

Thx
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Ok, enough of this. You're probably new enough here to where you haven't seen this brought up over the course of the years, but you need to realize that you're arguing from a false premise and stating an invalid conclusion. First of all, the fact that it's never happened before doesn't mean it is impossible to happen. Second, the one actual controlled experiment - the Cardington tests - did indeed demonstrate what happens to steel when exposed to intense fires. The distortions evident from the Cardington test inform our understanding of the WTC collapses, and demonstrate clearly that the sorts of failure modes either observed in the steel (the main towers) or modeled (WTC 7) can and indeed will occur. Creep, severe distortion of a structure, expansion, etc. were observed in the test rig, and when you apply the principles of behavior established in those tests to the specifics of how either the Twin Towers or 7 World Trade were constructed, you can clearly demonstrate that the fires effects could and indeed did collapse the towers.

There were multiple factors in each towers collapse. For the main towers, the design led to the unfortunate fact that debris impacting the floors sever lateral supports, leading to unstable exterior columns. For 7 World Trade, there's the design that left it vulnerable to thermal expansion of the long-span trusses. Until and unless those are taken into account in analyses, as well as the other unique issues at work that day - not the least of which was the severe damage from the impacts to the main towers, nor the extreme length of time the fire affected 7 World Trade - then blithe write-offs of the notion of steel structures not collapsing under fire are nothing more than demonstrations of ignorance. All the details apply, not simply the gross comparison of steel framed structures.

Furthermore, remember that while there are zero cases of high-rise buildings that are entirely steel framed collapsing, there are indeed cases of steel structures doing so. Take the Kader Toy factory as an example: The only part of the building that remained standing was the non-steel part. The steel part of the structure suffered total failure.

There are other examples I cannot recall off the top of my head. But this argument has been tried before, and has failed. See past threads, such as this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133271

The point is that you're attempting to claim that steel structures do not collapse when subjected to fire. All the research that has been done by engineers such as the Arup and University of Edinburgh ones, by the various fire and structural engineering researchers in the US, such as Astaneh-Asl and James Quintiere, and so on all point to the fact that steel can indeed collapse in fires. The fact that no skyscraper has done so yet is a canard: Few suffered the same sorts of fires, none suffered jet impact damage, and among the biggest fires in history, only two or three (Beijing CCTV and Andrus Bank fire in Brazil) were even remotely as large, and I can't think of any off the top of my head where not only no fire retardation systems (i.e. sprinklers, firewalls, etc.) rendered ineffective, but no active firefighting was conducted. The point is, saying that no steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire is like saying no human has ever been killed by supernova or stellar phenomena: The principle is demonstrated very clearly; the fact that it hasn't happened before is not a demonstration that it cannot ever happen.

------

And last: Take care in trying to critique Grizzly Bear's choice of citations. Wiki is to be avoided as a sole and ultimate authority, but when it's used simply as a description of details (such as the structural categorizations that GB was showing), the information is verifiable. You risk writing it off and thus demonstrating ignorance at your own peril; the real critique of a Wikipedia source is whether it's accurate. In too many cases, it's not, but that doesn't extrapolate to all, and you've not demonstrated that it's inaccurate in this specific case to begin with. So don't write it off; address his point, not his source. Your text following your write off does neither; it merely makes an unsupported assertion that professional surprise at the collapses means that the collapses couldn't have happened. As demonstrated by not just the NIST conclusions, but also the Arup findings, the Purdue ones, and other organizations, it's accepted that it indeed occurred. Regardless of surprise.
Click to expand...

Thanks for laugh(s).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=player_embedded

If you look at the so called collapses you'll see, if you're perceptive enough, the towers disappear from the top down as floor by floor is completely demolished and WTC7 sinks from view as the lower floors were being demolished.

All three smooth and even "collapses." A word to the wise and most of the rest here, damage and fire never, in the history of the world, have resulted in anything smooth and even.

It's common sense. That's why they call it common sense.

Good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Thank for laugh(s).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=player_embedded

If you look at the so called collapses you'll see, if you're perceptive enough, the towers disappear from the top down as floor by floor is completely demolished and WTC7 sinks from view as the lower floors were being demolished.
Click to expand...
And yet with a complete absence of any of the audio, visual or physical evidence consistent with explosives.

All three smooth and even "collapses." A word to the wise and most of the rest here, damage and fire never, in the history of the world, have resulted in anything smooth and even.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything besides old, false, truther memes?

It's common sense. That's why they call it common sense.
Click to expand...
Common sense told us the sun revolved the earth. Common sense tells us that people were burned at the stake in the Salem Witch Trials. Common sense tells us apes are the same as monkeys.

All of those "common sense" facts are wrong.

Good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
Click to expand...
I note the conspicuous lack of "evidence" and "research" and "reason" in there.
 
Clayton Moore said:
All three smooth and even "collapses." A word to the wise and most of the rest here, damage and fire never, in the history of the world, have resulted in anything smooth and even.
Click to expand...


lots of firsts on 911........none look particularly smooth or even to me (please define those words in this context) and all three were the first steel high rises to EVER have large uncontrolled fires in them. So there is is NO precedent against which to judge how they "should" have looked.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom