Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[GlennB]

The problem for you is how a building can fall downward as a single unit with such symmetry when the initial collapse started internally and to one side of the building.

Because, in its weakened state, when overload of some elements happened the remaining elements were progressively overloaded so quickly that there was no time for significant toppling to occur. Then (almost) straight down was the only option. But this has already been explained to you.

Now - for the fifth time - what kind of moron would plan a CD that depended entirely on debris strike from WTC1 causing fires when such a strike was far from guaranteed?

Also I haven't noticed you suggesting exactly why The Perps might choose to demolish WTC7. Perhaps I missed it, but in any case you can give us all a laugh by telling us why they were so keen for the building to fall.

 

[Sunstealer]

Lacking anything of substance to offer...

as usual.

 

[mrkinnies]

Because, in its weakened state, when overload of some elements happened the remaining elements were progressively overloaded so quickly that there was no time for significant toppling to occur. Then (almost) straight down was the only option. But this has already been explained to you.

No, it hasn't been explained because no one can. NIST is only capable of attempting to explain it because they used computer models and data exclusive to them....and the resulting product doesn't even fit.

Almost straight down (within a degree or two of vertical at the beginning of global collapse) means all four walls and all internal interconnecting columns and beams failed at the same time. Impossible!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

(within a degree or two of vertical at the beginning of global collapse)

An image I put together a year or two ago. Rapid failure, yes, simultaneous, no. A couple degrees of offset, and the structure's ****'d. Visuals show the out-of-plane loading rendering the columns useless with absolutely no need for external mechanism. That's hardly shocking. NIST did the details, to set up what sequence of failures most likely initiated the collapse... If you have a problem with the NIST models, then you need to show it.

ETA: chris, you're free to use this if you think it helps visualize anything but it's up to you obviously. I did this at a point in time where I was drafting something similar to your videos, but it's a quick diagram of the buckling of the columns in the south tower to show that after only a small tilt the lateral forces on the perimeter were clearly distorting the structure

 

[mrkinnies]

[qimg]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4537/wtcbend.jpg[/qimg]
An image I put together a year or two ago. Rapid failure, yes, simultaneous, no. A couple degrees of offset, and the structure's ****'d. NIST did the details, visuals show that the out-of-plane loading rendering the columns useless with absolutely no need for external mechanism.

The south tower rotated then fell. WTC7 fell and rotated - it was still at 90 degrees at the start of global collapse and only 1 to 2 degrees off vertical after the first second. There was no out-of-plane loading in WTC7 when global collapse started.

The line drawings on the left of your image describe actions which are not seen in the actual collapse sequence of the South Tower.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

WTC7 fell and rotated.

Same rule applies to WTC 7. Out of plane loading kills the structural integrity. The collapse began internally and progressed until the exterior could no longer support itself through a span of time: ~18 seconds

 

[mrkinnies]

Same rule applies to WTC 7. Out of plane loading kills the structural integrity. The collapse began internally and progressed until the exterior could no longer support itself through a span of time: ~18 seconds

The out-of-plane loading happened after global collapse started.

Why would the outer walls collapse downward just because the inner structure has been destroyed? The supporting structure below those walls hasn't disappeared has it? The walls would have rotated inward or outward since only their lateral stability would have been lost.

 

[000063]

Save your misdirection and triple butterfly effect collapse double talk.

The collapses only looked smooth and even at first blush. The actual debris pattern and closer analysis shows they were anything but.

And, of course, "smooth and even" has no real scientific definition.

Any scenario involving controlled demolition, even in its most limited form necessary to produce the effects of 9/11, is impossible.

 

[GlennB]

The out-of-plane loading happened after global collapse started.

Why would the outer walls collapse downward just because the inner structure has been destroyed? The supporting structure below those walls hasn't disappeared has it?

No, but those walls were not monolithic. They were composed of sections. The mass of the collapsing core was perfectly capable of pushing sections of wall inwards or outwards, effectively and rapidly reducing their load-bearing capacity to virtually zero.

While you're here - what if WTC7 had not been hit by WTC1 debris (which was always possible) and no fires had started? Wouldn't that have left The Conspirators with WTC7 rigged to blow and with egg on their faces?

 

[mrkinnies]

No, but those walls were not monolithic. They were composed of sections. The mass of the collapsing core was perfectly capable of pushing sections of wall inwards or outwards, effectively and rapidly reducing their load-bearing capacity to virtually zero.

While you're here - what if WTC7 had not been hit by WTC1 debris (which was always possible) and no fires had started? Wouldn't that have left The Conspirators with WTC7 rigged to blow and with egg on their faces?

The whole building was sectional yet NIST themselves said the outer structure had more stiffness which is amazing because they also say it was a shell once the inner core began to fall (see P21-23 of NCSTAR 1A).

How can something which was so inextricably linked to something else work independently all of a sudden such that the core was able to fall and the outer walls became a shell and maintained their appearance. How can NIST say the collapsing core pulled with it the floors but imply that the floors didn't pull inward the walls?

As for your last - you've been wanting to catch me out with it for ages but it is of no relevance since fires could have been started without external damage and no one would be able to claim it wasn't connected to earlier collapses or events. Had that been the case, you'd still be arguing with me now that I have no proof as to what caused the fires.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Bill,

Do we have to go over these one at a time? Part 7 of my Gage rebuttal series deals with this. Generally I want to say these eyewitnesses reported honestly what they saw and it reminded them of a controlled demolition at the time. There are around ten former FDNY first responders (out of 5000 employees of FDNY total) who still think it was bombs, and nobody currently still on the force says they believe the building was bombed. Not one. That's an important fact, considering how up in arms these firefighters would be if they thought some government spook murdered over 300 of their own brothers. But here we go again:

Reporter John Bussey watches the collapse from the Wall Street Journal’s offices across the street from the WTC. He say s, “I… looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor, spewing glass and metal outward. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2001]

Yes to his eye it SEEMED LIKE synchronized explosions.

Deputy Fire Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick: “I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.… Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.” [City of New York, 10/1/2001]

See my video part one 11:39, the bellows effect I talk about.

Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory: “I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista… he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him… I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.… You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.” [City of New York, 10/3/2001

But he didn't also report 140 db explosive sounds

Firefighter Richard Banaciski: “It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” [City of New York, 12/6/2001]

See above, my explanation of the bellows effect

Firefighter Joseph Meola: “As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.… You thought it was just blowing out.” [City of New York, 12/11/2001]

He heard pops, did he hear 140 db sounds?

Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: “[T]here was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.” [City of New York, 10/31/2001]

Conjecture, I admit, but perhaps he saw the building coming down slowly at first, as it would in the first second of a collapse, and from the ground that didn't seem like a lot of motion, especially compared to its fast acceleration in the ensuing seconds.

Firefighter Timothy Burke: “Then the building popped, lower than the fire… I was going oh, my god, there is secondary device because the way the building popped I thought it was an explosion.” [City of New York, 1/22/2002]

Anyone know about this? I don't want to speculate. But I keep seeing the words pop, pop, pop. If he heard 140 db explosions his ears would be ringing. "Pop" is not the word I would use if I witnessed such an explosion.

Firefighter Edward Cachia: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom."

I don't recall seeing a video that can corroborate this. Everything I've seen looks like a collapse initiation at or maybe right above the fire zone

Firefighter Kenneth Rogers: “[T]here was an explosion in the South Tower… I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.” [City of New York, 12/10/2001]

Gravity.

Reporter Beth Fertig: “The tower went down perfectly straight, as if a demolition crew had imploded it. I wondered if it was being brought down deliberately.” [Gilbert et al., 2002, pp. 78]

How many of these people believe, in 2011, that what they was a controlled demolition?

 

[mrkinnies]

Hi Bill,

Do we have to go over these one at a time? Part 7 of my Gage rebuttal series deals with this. Generally I want to say these eyewitnesses reported honestly what they saw and it reminded them of a controlled demolition at the time. There are around ten former FDNY first responders (out of 5000 employees of FDNY total) who still think it was bombs, and nobody currently still on the force says they believe the building was bombed. Not one. That's an important fact, considering how up in arms these firefighters would be if they thought some government spook murdered over 300 of their own brothers. But here we go again:


Yes to his eye it SEEMED LIKE synchronized explosions.


See my video part one 11:39, the bellows effect I talk about.


But he didn't also report 140 db explosive sounds


See above, my explanation of the bellows effect


He heard pops, did he hear 140 db sounds?


Conjecture, I admit, but perhaps he saw the building coming down slowly at first, as it would in the first second of a collapse, and from the ground that didn't seem like a lot of motion, especially compared to its fast acceleration in the ensuing seconds.

Anyone know about this? I don't want to speculate. But I keep seeing the words pop, pop, pop. If he heard 140 db explosions his ears would be ringing. "Pop" is not the word I would use if I witnessed such an explosion.

I don't recall seeing a video that can corroborate this. Everything I've seen looks like a collapse initiation at or maybe right above the fire zone


Gravity.

How many of these people believe, in 2011, that what they was a controlled demolition?

Can you tell what the dB range of a sound is at varying distances using your own experience? Also, can you prove that the explosions would have led to that decibel reading? You and I only have NIST's word that the expected level of reading for a cutting charge is 130-140dB at 0.5 miles. They do not, for example, distinguish between a cutting charge detonated in a space free of immediate obstructions (as is the case in many CDs because the outer walls or cladding are removed) versus one detonated inside a building with intact windows (as most of the lower storey windows in WTC7 were).

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a clip with a working soundtrack which shows me the building in the seconds before the collapse sequence starts. The only one I've seen was sent through by AlienEntity and its not conclusive seeing that the sounds of the collapsing structure are barely audible (there is a bang at the beginning though which could be significant, especially as it's the loudest noise on there). All others are missing the actual moments before the penthouse collapsed which is the time the witnesses claimed the noise was heard. Some show heavy editing which is unaccounted for or explained by you.

 

[chrismohr]

No, I believe that you are wrong. Significantly wrong.

John Gross never said that "there are no eyewitnesses to molten steel."

He said "I know of no eyewitnesses to molten steel."

Those are two completely different statements.

tk

Again you can watch this on Part 8 of my videos. I just listened to the original John Gross video and what he said was, "There are no eyewitnesses who've said so." That one sentence was wrong. There were eyewitnesses who said so. They were mistaken, but they did say it. And Richard Gage and others have pounced on John Gross's one misstatement and repeated it endlessly.

I think it's appropriate for me (us) to admit that there was a misstatement there. But the bigger point is that there is no evidence of molten steel or iron in any large quantities in the debris. I wish I had been more supportive of John Gross's bigger point (which I agree with 100%), and I regret the edit that made my point less clear. John knows way more than I do, or the 9/11 Truth people do, or any of us on JREF. He spent years researching this and he knows his stuff.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The whole building was sectional yet NIST themselves said the outer structure had more stiffness which is amazing because they also say it was a shell once the inner core began to fall (see P21-23 of NCSTAR 1A).

The stiffness of the walls and columns was provided by the floor assemblies, which in turn were supported by the columns. As I said before, it's the assembly that provides the overall stability to the structure because it works as a system.

How can something which was so inextricably linked to something else work independently all of a sudden such that the core was able to fall and the outer walls became a shell and maintained their appearance.

Probably because it didn't need to be completely reduced to "just an empty shell" to collapse. Part of the interior structure began to collapse; for a time it hadn't been sufficient to cause the assembly to fail. When enough failed, what was left wasn't able to provide the stability necessary to hold it up. It was never working independently from the rest of the structure.

How can NIST say the collapsing core pulled with it the floors but imply that the floors didn't pull inward the walls?

Quote the relevant part of the NIST report and we'll compare it with the way you're interpreting it

 

[chrismohr]

Can you tell what the dB range of a sound is at varying distances using your own experience? Also, can you prove that the explosions would have led to that decibel reading? You and I only have NIST's word that the expected level of reading for a cutting charge is 130-140dB at 0.5 miles. They do not, for example, distinguish between a cutting charge detonated in a space free of immediate obstructions (as is the case in many CDs because the outer walls or cladding are removed) versus one detonated inside a building with intact windows (as most of the lower storey windows in WTC7 were).

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a clip with a working soundtrack which shows me the building in the seconds before the collapse sequence starts. The only one I've seen was sent through by AlienEntity and its not conclusive seeing that the sounds of the collapsing structure are barely audible (there is a bang at the beginning though which could be significant, especially as it's the loudest noise on there). All others are missing the actual moments before the penthouse collapsed which is the time the witnesses claimed the noise was heard. Some show heavy editing which is unaccounted for or explained by you.

Not having any direct experience, I can't answer directly. I can say this: in my debate and in my videos I accused Richard Gage of taking out the audio when he compares a known controlled demolition to the collapse of one of the WTC buildings. Leave the audio on for your comparisons and there is always a world of difference: the known CDs are ALWAYS LOUD while the audio for the WTC collapses is a big giant rumble. I believe this is why Gage and others take out the audio when they make their comparisons, because the differences are HUGE. I don't have such comparisons at my fingertips; anyone care to help with links?

Does anyone else want to give a non-NIST source for the noise generated by a classic explosive controlled demolition? Again, I don't have this at my fingertips. NIST says 140db at 1/2 mile, which is deafening. Conjecture, I admit, but it seems like a 140db blast would blow out the windows instantly and they would not provide all that much muffling anyway. And much of the structural support is around the outside perimeter, and explosions there would be BETWEEN the windows anyway.

 

[mrkinnies]

The stiffness of the walls and columns was provided by the floor assemblies, which in turn were supported by the columns. As I said before, it's the assembly that provides the overall stability to the structure because it works as a system.


Probably because it didn't need to be completely reduced to "just an empty shell" to collapse. Part of the interior structure began to collapse; for a time it hadn't been sufficient to cause the assembly to fail. When enough failed, what was left wasn't able to provide the stability necessary to hold it up. It was never working independently from the rest of the structure.


Quote the relevant part of the NIST report and we'll compare it with the way you're interpreting it

I gave you the relevant part, P21-23, NCSTAR 1A.

Thanks for agreeing with me that it was the floors which offered stiffness to the outer walls. But NIST said the outer walls became a shell which implies the floors became detached as the core pulled the floors downward (they have to use the word shell because that's the only way they can overcome the problem of the walls not having been pulled inward by the falling floors). Explain that?

 

[mrkinnies]

Not having any direct experience, I can't answer directly. I can say this: in my debate and in my videos I accused Richard Gage of taking out the audio when he compares a known controlled demolition to the collapse of one of the WTC buildings. Leave the audio on for your comparisons and there is always a world of difference: the known CDs are ALWAYS LOUD while the audio for the WTC collapses is a big giant rumble. I believe this is why Gage and others take out the audio when they make their comparisons, because the differences are HUGE. I don't have such comparisons at my fingertips; anyone care to help with links?

Does anyone else want to give a non-NIST source for the noise generated by a classic explosive controlled demolition? Again, I don't have this at my fingertips. NIST says 140db at 1/2 mile, which is deafening. Conjecture, I admit, but it seems like a 140db blast would blow out the windows instantly and they would not provide all that much muffling anyway. And much of the structural support is around the outside perimeter, and explosions there would be BETWEEN the windows anyway.

Can you give a quality sound clip as asked?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Explain that?

"Probably because it didn't need to be completely reduced to "just an empty shell" to collapse. Part of the interior structure began to collapse; for a time it hadn't been sufficient to cause the assembly to fail. When enough failed, what was left wasn't able to provide the stability necessary to hold it up. It was never working independently from the rest of the structure."

 

[GlennB]

As for your last - you've been wanting to catch me out with it for ages but it is of no relevance since fires could have been started without external damage and no one would be able to claim it wasn't connected to earlier collapses or events. Had that been the case, you'd still be arguing with me now that I have no proof as to what caused the fires.

Bravo! That didn't hurt did it. So you're saying there was an arson team on standby in case fires needed to be set. In streets that were crawling with FDNY and NYPD and other first-responders. mmmmkay.

What if natural fires had occurred in the mechanical floors where your charges were set? How do you suppose they and their detonation systems would stand up to raging fires?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not having any direct experience, I can't answer directly. I can say this: in my debate and in my videos I accused Richard...
<snipped for brevity>
...NIST says 140db at 1/2 mile, which is deafening. Conjecture, I admit, but it seems like a 140db blast would blow out the windows instantly and they would not provide all that much muffling anyway. And much of the structural support is around the outside perimeter, and explosions there would be BETWEEN the windows anyway.

NIST did calculations but most video recorded demolitions will give an indication of the noise levels experienced from analogous distances. I'll post some samples when I get hooked onto a faster internet connection unless someone wants to grab a few examples from the mountains of threads here.