Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
twinstead said:
There is no such thing as the "official story". Do you think scientists around the world simply believed what The Mantm 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.
Click to expand...

twinstead, all you are capable of doing is twisting my words and meanings. I said no such thing about scientists and you know it.
 
Disbelief said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's why I stopped responding to his trolling. He asked for certain things, I took the time to provide those things (video with clear soundtracks that include the whole WTC 7 collapse, db levels for explosives which were published in the NIST report etc) but he rejected all of them with some rather garbled rationalizing and now claims nobody has offered this info at his request.

For the record, here are two videos which cover the period fully. The first is the Ashley Banfield interview, which David Chandler enhanced to bring out the collapse rumble (coinciding with the visual collapse). Note: you need to use good headphones to hear the detail, small computer speakers are not sufficient to resolve it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs

And the other - please note I kept the title first used by IC911STUDIES, but AE911Truth uses the title 'Huge explosion before the destruction of building 7 WTC' and still another '911 WTC 7 Explosion before its collapse'

Note that none of these sources bothers to mention that there is a time delay based on the distance from the source. None correct it.
So on my version I both corrected the timing (to the best of my ability) and noted the correction.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. During global collapse it was not symmetrical. The visual evidence shows this most clearly. Note the kink in the N face and the twisting. Later on the very clear lean to the S.

It was not symmetrical in the pre-global collapse phase either. The E Penthouse collapse demonstrates this. The fact that the W Penthouse overtakes the roofline is another example.
 
alienentity said:
That's why I stopped responding to his trolling. He asked for certain things, I took the time to provide those things (video with clear soundtracks that include the whole WTC 7 collapse, db levels for explosives which were published in the NIST report etc) but he rejected all of them with some rather garbled rationalizing and now claims nobody has offered this info at his request.

For the record, here are two videos which cover the period fully. The first is the Ashley Banfield interview, which David Chandler enhanced to bring out the collapse rumble (coinciding with the visual collapse). Note: you need to use good headphones to hear the detail, small computer speakers are not sufficient to resolve it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs

And the other - please note I kept the title first used by IC911STUDIES, but AE911Truth uses the title 'Huge explosion before the destruction of building 7 WTC' and still another '911 WTC 7 Explosion before its collapse'

Note that none of these sources bothers to mention that there is a time delay based on the distance from the source. None correct it.
So on my version I both corrected the timing (to the best of my ability) and noted the correction.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
Click to expand...

I've already spoken to you about the 2nd video. The most dominant sound is the boom a second or two before the collapse of the penthouse. You cannot ignore that.

The 1st video is worthless because it doesn't show the collapse at all, just a dust cloud, so any number of assumptions can be made about when collapse started. That dust cloud appears at about 9 seconds into the clip. Global collapse only started at 9 seconds after the penthouse began to fall so its hardly conclusive. As the 2nd video shows, there is a boom a second or two before the penthouse falls which suggests the 1st video starts too late to capture anything at all.

If that's all you have to go on then it's hardly conclusive.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...
If the basics are so obvious to you then I have to ask why you're having trouble understanding them.

mrkinnies said:
I'd give up on Wiki if I were you.
Click to expand...
I told you before when I tried to move our exchange to the general discussion thread. I use wikipedia for the sake of convenience after verifying that the information is accurate. I'm fully aware it is not considered an academic source. If you want to check with my main sources:

Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods -- Fourth Edition by Edward Allen & Joseph Iano

Understanding Structures by Fuller Moore

The first one is a $100 text book, and the other was $135 when I bought it in 2006. You can also check the Steel Designer's Manual. All of which are my primary references. Buy them if you're so adamant
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
twinstead, all you are capable of doing is twisting my words and meanings. I said no such thing about scientists and you know it.
Click to expand...

There can be no other way to interpret your words below but as a rationalization as to why your delightful little cult is ignored. So, people are willing to look the other way from mass murder for harmony's sake, huh? They haven't even looked at the evidence because their "belief system" is in the way, huh? That implies a pretty cynical view of humanity and science in general, and one born out of constantly having to rationalize why people don't agree with you instead of facing the fact they don't because you are wrong.


Because they'd have to alter their whole belief system before they can even look at the evidence.

99.99% of the population (of the US, UK, global, whatever), had no need to question the claims of the US government on and after 9/11. Probably not far that percentage still do although opinion polls suggest otherwise. I didn't at first, until the evidence led me elsewhere and I was able to overcome my original assumption that our leaders are always correct and tell the truth.

Until that belief system can be changed, it will be hard for anyone to look into the other evidence with more than passing curiosity. But if you can change enough people's hearts and minds, it will be accepted; although at the end of the day, most people want a peaceful life without stress so accepting a story is far easier than challenging one if it causes a person to have to distance themselves from their peers or loved ones in the process.

People will take note when the 'tipping point' is reached as described by Malcolm Gladwell in his book of the same name. Until then, they'll follow each other like sheep because that's the human way. I do think more professionals and organisations have doubts than you might think but for harmonies sake they keep quiet.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris,

Sound Pressure Levels for hypothetical explosives are detailed in NCSTAR 1-9, p 693 under
'Appendix D
HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS '

I can't quote the whole document here, it's too long. But relevant to questions regarding the accuracy of the estimate, I venture that there is simply no comparison between the NIST study and typical truther arguments from incredulity. It's not even a fair contest in terms of reliability - not that this will have an effect on truthers...

'D.3.1 SHAMRC Blast Modeling Code
SHAMRC (Crepeau 1998, Crepeau 2001) is a U.S. government-owned hydrocode solver that is used for analysis of explosive detonations, shock propagation, and structure loads due to blast and fragments. SHAMRC has a proven record of accurate calculations of airblast structural loading for explosive weights of less than one pound to more than 4,000 tons. SHAMRC has also been used to calculate the formation
and propagation of shaped charge jets and their interaction with structures. The code was well suited for the blast propagation analysis performed on WTC 7.
For the blast modeling effort, detailed two-dimensional SHAMRC hydrodynamic calculations were performed. The interior building layout was modeled to determine the transient pressure load inside the building after detonation. A two-dimensional analysis was sufficient to estimate pressures at window
locations for a small charge constrained between floors. The pressure histories were then used to determine whether windows would have broken, which would have provided visible evidence of a small charge detonation outside of the building. The window fragility analysis was conducted with a separate computational tool, SFOM, using window geometry, material properties, and construction information as
inputs to the model. The output from SFOM was Pressure-Impulse (P-I) failure curve predictions for WTC 7 windows. The SHAMRC-generated pressure histories were compared to the failure curves to predict window failure for each scenario considered. '

Effects on glass windows:

'D.3.3 Estimation of WTC 7 Perimeter Window Fragility
A Shard Fly-out Model (SFOM) (Meyer 2002∗) was used to predict window breakage, based on the pressure profiles from the SHAMRC analysis. The SFOM was originally developed for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to predict window breakage as well as size and shape of shards created by blast loading'


'D.4 PHASE III: 1-D ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS
Based on the results from Phase II, representative overpressure waveforms from the predicted broken windows on the north and east faces, as well as from open areas at the southwest corner from WTC 1 debris damage, were used to make sound-distance propagation predictions. '

SUMMARY

...'In Phase III, an acoustic analysis was performed to assess the distance from the building that the blast would have been audible. Analyses were performed for both layout scenarios, using the pressure history and window failure location predictions generated during Phase II. For all scenarios and charge sizes, significant audible sound was predicted from all building faces. For locations where sound propagation
was unobstructed, the sound level from all building perimeter openings at 1 km would have been approximately 130 dB to140 dB. '

In the case of the Ashley Banfield video, there is a direct line of sight to WTC 7 which is just a few blocks away. This would indicate a real explosive demolition as hypothesized by 9/11 Truthers would have easily reached 110db to 120db at the location of Ms Banfield and her microphone.
There is simply no plausible explanation as to how this could have happened without being clearly recorded by her microphone.

Similarly for the second clip I provided, there is a direct line-of-sight to WTC 7, but not for its entire length. Again, at a distance of less than 1/2 mile (approx. 2000 ft) a conservative SPL level would be in the 110db to 130db range.

To put this in perspective for the microphone, this is louder than a jackhammer at 1 metre, and roughly equivalent to a jet engine at 100m or a vuvuzela horn at 1m.

Again, an explosive controlled demolition is not a realistic scenario from this data alone, and truthers have not even attempted to validate their claims in a scientific manner. Instead they continue to make what are essentially bare assertions with no data in support.
 
alienentity said:
In the case of the Ashley Banfield video, there is a direct line of sight to WTC 7 which is just a few blocks away. This would indicate a real explosive demolition as hypothesized by 9/11 Truthers would have easily reached 110db to 120db at the location of Ms Banfield and her microphone.
There is simply no plausible explanation as to how this could have happened without being clearly recorded by her microphone.

Similarly for the second clip I provided, there is a direct line-of-sight to WTC 7, but not for its entire length. Again, at a distance of less than 1/2 mile (approx. 2000 ft) a conservative SPL level would be in the 110db to 130db range.

To put this in perspective for the microphone, this is louder than a jackhammer at 1 metre, and roughly equivalent to a jet engine at 100m or a vuvuzela horn at 1m.

Again, an explosive controlled demolition is not a realistic scenario from this data alone, and truthers have not even attempted to validate their claims in a scientific manner. Instead they continue to make what are essentially bare assertions with no data in support.
Click to expand...

Except that the Ashley Banfield video starts too soon to the point when the single unit fell downward and caused that dust cloud which means it's too late to capture the start of overall collapse.
 
mrkinnies said:
Except that the Ashley Banfield video starts too soon to the point when the single unit fell downward and caused that dust cloud which means it's too late to capture the start of overall collapse.
Click to expand...

For goodness sake, they didnt even notice the collapse had started when the video starts! You think they'd miss explosives going off? Gage claims explosives were destroying (vaporising) 8 stories worth of WTC7, and they don't notice even though they were going off a few blocks behind them? :rolleyes:

And what about the WTC1+2's collapses? You say you agree with Gage which believes massive explosives were going off DURING the collapse flinging steel around something no demoltions are even trying to do and I gave you two videos which show the collapse in full and no explosives can be heard, not even small shaped charges!
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdFjtLx6TrY

-Left hand side, looks like deformation to me.
 
twinstead said:
There can be no other way to interpret your words below but as a rationalization as to why your delightful little cult is ignored. So, people are willing to look the other way from mass murder for harmony's sake, huh? They haven't even looked at the evidence because their "belief system" is in the way, huh? That implies a pretty cynical view of humanity and science in general, and one born out of constantly having to rationalize why people don't agree with you instead of facing the fact they don't because you are wrong.
Click to expand...

You imply that, I don't.
 
mrkinnies said:
Except that the Ashley Banfield video starts too soon to the point when the single unit fell downward and caused that dust cloud which means it's too late to capture the start of overall collapse.
Click to expand...

Assuming that this is true, how would that stop thousands of witnesses, all within a few blocks of WTC7, recognising the reality of multiple high-explosive blasts? Or being recorded on other videos?

Does the absolute nature (given in alien's post) of the blast volume simply disappear because you believe that particular video is inadequate to record the evidence you require? Do you count this as a point towards your side? Is it still possible that hundreds of 120db blasts were missed by everybody nearby?

The world of science happily carries on turning without your delusions slowing it down.
 
chrismohr said:
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?
Click to expand...

It was important to go over those statements one at a time Chris, We needed to have a reasonable explanation for the individual firemen's assessments in black and white.
 
mrkinnies said:
You imply that, I don't.
Click to expand...

Noted.

So it's been a decade. The collapses of 9-11 have been studied in countless universities. Building codes have been changed because of the studies done of the collapses. No respected engineering, scientific, or demolition organization has come out to say the collapses as described were impossible. No respected media, judicial, or law enforcement organization from anywhere on Earth has complained. Truther rallies draw fewer participants than NAMBLA and neo-nazis. There is no debate raging in the halls of academia about whether it was possible for damage and fires alone to bring down the WTC buildings. There have been no deathbed confessions.

The "Truth Movement" disappears when I turn my computer off.

When is this tipping point supposed to happen?
 
Last edited:
Here's a longer clip of the Banfield video. Note that she mentions talking to officers who say they expect the building to come down next, 'there's no way it's going to be recovered and there's no way they can stabilize it'.

Again, you hear a growing rumble (actually before Ashley notices it) which continues as the building falls. So why can we hear the building fall, but not explode, if in fact there were explosions?
There's no plausible scenario for explosions at that time. Sorry truthers, it's a fail for you.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom