Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Clayton Moore]

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. So not only was there complete collapse but it was symmetrical and precise. NIST relied on their models and models only to explain it yet those produced poor results. Unlike the Cardington Tests, the data relevant to NIST's models isn't available for anyone else to examine. I wonder why?

Exactly.
The damage and moment of failure could have only been at one point/area. It's aftermath, resulting damage/collapse could not have become a global collapse without being rigged to do so.

 

[Disbelief]

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).

You would not believe it even if he did, as evidenced by your brush off earlier of a sound engineer. But since you are the one who thinks NIST may be in error, it should be up to you to determine if tehy are wrong. Why don't you do the calculations, since you should have a lot of data about materials (since you were an architect)?

 

[mrkinnies]

"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."

You use the word stability - what do you mean here - are you talking of the gravitational loading or lateral loading?

 

[mrkinnies]

You would not believe it even if he did, as evidenced by your brush off earlier of a sound engineer. But since you are the one who thinks NIST may be in error, it should be up to you to determine if tehy are wrong. Why don't you do the calculations, since you should have a lot of data about materials (since you were an architect)?

I don't need calculations as simple structural theory is all that is required. Not one of you can even explain that so how do I know you'll understand a set of calculations?

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the outer walls weren't pulled in by the collapsing core and floors? You did say that a building is a set of interconnecting parts did you not?

 

[Disbelief]

I don't need calculations as simple structural theory is all that is required. Not one of you can even explain that so how do I know you'll understand a set of calculations?

How does this post even relate to the dB range? If you think that the NIST report is wrong about the dBs at 1/2 mile, you need to prove it. Saying so does not make it so, so you should provide calculations - not ask others to do it for you.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the outer walls weren't pulled in by the collapsing core and floors? You did say that a building is a set of interconnecting parts did you not?

Connections broke.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You use the word stability - what do you mean here - are you talking of the gravitational loading or lateral loading?

There are three classificatons of failure:

Stability - buckling is an example. A long column that buckles does so under a high compressive force but one that's less than it's ultimate buckling load. In other words It fails not because of a strength dficiency but because of a stability deficiency. The longer the unbraced length, the less stable the columns/assembly. It's known as the slenderness ratio.

Strength - Crushing is an example, and happens with short columns.


Intermediate columns fail via both crushing and buckling

The type of failure for WTC is analogous to the long column condition. It's influenced by both gravitational and lateral forces.

 

[mrkinnies]

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?

Watch the clips of WTC7 in the first few hours after the twin towers destruction. The ground floors are eerily quiet with few people.

And I've answered this before but will do it for you again....how do you know where the explosives were? If the witnesses who talk of the bottom floors exploding prior to collapse are to be believed then that would put the explosives below the area of fire which didn't go below floor 7.

 

[mrkinnies]

Connections broke.

 

[mrkinnies]

There are three classificatons of failure:

Stability - buckling is an example. A long column that buckles does so under a high compressive force but one that's less than it's ultimate buckling load. In other words It fails not because of a strength dficiency but because of a stability deficiency. The longer the unbraced length, the less stable the columns/assembly. It's known as the slenderness ratio.

Strength - Crushing is an example, and happens with short columns.


Intermediate columns fail via both crushing and buckling

The type of failure for WTC is analogous to the long column condition. It's influenced by both gravitational and lateral forces.

Well thanks for pointing out the obvious, that both gravitational and lateral loads were influenced. Since the building had to deal with only those two forces, I'd say your explanation is meaningless.

I'd give up on Wiki if I were you.

 

[paperboy05]

I like this because too many debunkers believe complete high-rise steel structural collapse due to fire is a common event when in fact it's never before happened.

Who believes it was a common event?

 

[Disbelief]

So, does that mean you are not going to do any of the sound calculations to determine if NIST was wrong? Don't worry, other truthers here have run away from the same.

 

[mrkinnies]

So, does that mean you are not going to do any of the sound calculations to determine if NIST was wrong? Don't worry, other truthers here have run away from the same.

Nope, I don't need to since I don't need to argue with it. No one has produced any visual evidence to show the building standing in the seconds prior to collapse followed by the collapse itself complete with clear soundtrack. Would you care to?

If you cannot understand the structural principles, why do you believe the official scientific investigation by NIST or is it simply because you believe the official story therefore anything any official says must be true?

 

[sylvan8798]

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?

I think this is what you need, here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

The exterior frame had moment connections in each face of the building.

The exterior walls were the moment frames, which are thus a structural entity in itself. They were much stiffer within the planes of the walls than the internal sections, making the exterior more like a big box. No surprise that it would take more to pull the "fixed" exterior connections apart than it would to pull the "pinned" internal floor connections.

But you know that. You're just counting on there not being anyone HERE who does.

 

[twinstead]

If you cannot understand the structural principles, why do you believe the official scientific investigation by NIST or is it simply because you believe the official story therefore anything any official says must be true?

There is no such thing as the "official story". Do you think scientists around the world simply believed what The Man^tm told them about the collapse, no questions asked? Oh, that's right. You do. According to you those scientists are cowards, idiots, or in on it.

But, in the real world, sadly and ironically it is YOU who believes what people tell you no questions asked--as long is it fits in your world view at least.

 

[Disbelief]

Nope, I don't need to since I don't need to argue with it. No one has produced any visual evidence to show the building standing in the seconds prior to collapse followed by the collapse itself complete with clear soundtrack. Would you care to?

So, you once again will not back up a claim. You are the one who questions the dB range and distance in the NIST report, so you need to prove your case. Wey would you need a video with soundtrack to determine the estimated dB level of an explosive device?

If you cannot understand the structural principles, why do you believe the official scientific investigation by NIST or is it simply because you believe the official story therefore anything any official says must be true?

Here, I will ask you:

If you cannot understand the structural principles, why do you believe the contrarian "scientific" investigation anomaly hunt by AETruth or is it simply because you don't believe the "official" story therefore anything any official says must be false?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't need calculations as simple structural theory is all that is required. Not one of you can even explain that so how do I know you'll understand a set of calculations?

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the outer walls weren't pulled in by the collapsing core and floors? You did say that a building is a set of interconnecting parts did you not?

Yes. What calculations could be necessary beyond what we calculated with our own eyes?

Three buildings were damaged in three different levels of severity and in different locations. Yet all three were totally demolished by sudden structural failures that took place in less than 20 seconds each.

That's my calculation.

 

[GlennB]

Watch the clips of WTC7 in the first few hours after the twin towers destruction. The ground floors are eerily quiet with few people.

And I've answered this before but will do it for you again....how do you know where the explosives were? If the witnesses who talk of the bottom floors exploding prior to collapse are to be believed then that would put the explosives below the area of fire which didn't go below floor 7.

When I pointed out that every column (or even many) of a busy office building could not be rigged for demolition secretly, it was you that came up with the idea of the mechanical floors. Remember that, or do you just invent stuff on the fly as it's required and forget about it later?

But never mind, wherever they were they would be at risk from the fires. Fires that were an integral part of any CD plan given that fire was ulimately going to be blamed for the collapse.

Planning to drop WTC7 by CD is a bat-crap crazy idea from the outset. Meanwhile I can't recall you mentioning why The Perps might want to attempt such a stunt.

 

[tfk]

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.

You said earlier that you "used to be an architect".

You claim that you've read the NIST report.

And yet, you utter sentences like this that are completely, utterly wrong. That shows zero understanding of what NIST concluded. That state, in essence, the exact opposite of what NIST concluded.

Gives me zero confidence that, if you actually were an architect, that you were any good at it.

Why is this such a common thread among "truther professionals"?

 

[mrkinnies]

You said earlier that you "used to be an architect".

You claim that you've read the NIST report.

And yet, you utter sentences like this that are completely, utterly wrong. That shows zero understanding of what NIST concluded. That state, in essence, the exact opposite of what NIST concluded.

Gives me zero confidence that, if you actually were an architect, that you were any good at it.

Why is this such a common thread among "truther professionals"?

NIST said the building above the floors 7-14 fell downward as a single unit in the global collapse stage. The visual evidence shows that to be symmetrical.

What more can I say if all you want to do is deny these two facts. I might as well talk to a cat or a dog.

 

[mrkinnies]

I think this is what you need, here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf


The exterior walls were the moment frames, which are thus a structural entity in itself. They were much stiffer within the planes of the walls than the internal sections, making the exterior more like a big box. No surprise that it would take more to pull the "fixed" exterior connections apart than it would to pull the "pinned" internal floor connections.

But you know that. You're just counting on there not being anyone HERE who does.

Regarding moment frames, is that the same as in the twin towers?

To suggest that every connection between every floor and outer frame structure was weak enough to break instantly thus showing no deformation in the outer walls is plain stupid and you know that too. The walls showed no such inward pull at all - but in your world that must be because the "pins" just got up and left the building.