Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find it amazing how you can say that the collapse started in one place, then progressed to other places, and still call it a global collapse.
 
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
Click to expand...
Uh, no. Sequentially. Progressive. Not all at the same time.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Amazing. Millions of tons of 3 buildings are completely destroyed in less than 60 seconds and this guy is scratching his head over low frequencies carrying better. What planet are debunkers from?
Click to expand...
I see you've visited the Ergo School of Baseless Incredulity as a Debate Technique.
 
000063 said:
Uh, no. Sequentially. Progressive. Not all at the same time.
Click to expand...

Visually the lower floors failed first after the penthouse disappeared. Collapse at the penthouse and then the 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor and so on up to the 47th floor?

Collapse? Actually each "lowest" floor was pulverized making it look as if WTC7 was collapsing rather than sinking as it was losing its lowest floor.
 
000063 said:
I find it amazing how you can say that the collapse started in one place, then progressed to other places, and still call it a global collapse.
Click to expand...

:boggled:

That would be because you don't know what 'global collapse' means.
 
The ironic part is that you ergo, do not know the difference between into vs. onto, footprint, and many other things.
 
mrkinnies said:
..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).

...
Click to expand...

This is a prime example of someone who hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9, but thinks he knows everything about the NIST reports, or at least is trying to give that impression.

NIST certainly did make the necessary distinctions, as I've quoted from in an earlier post. I don't know why truthers seems to habitually make false statements (such as the one above) as if they were factual.
 
ergo said:
:boggled:

That would be because you don't know what 'global collapse' means.
Click to expand...
Gosh, the meaning is so flexible. Whatever your lot needs it to be this week. Whereas "progressive" has an actual meaning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive
1a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
2: of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : advancing
4a : increasing in extent or severity

As near as I can tell, global collapse, in the context of Trutherism, means "everything collapses at once", often taken by Truthers as evidence/proof of controlled demolition. However, the official story claims that the collapse was progressive. basically, every definition I quoted up there. Any collapse theory other than "everything collapses at once" is, by definition, progressive.
Clay even claimed that "the lower floors failed first after the penthouse disappeared." This is not an implication of some sort of sequence. This is a direct claim that there was some sort of sequence. IE: Progression, therefore a progressive collapse.

I note that you don't bother to attempt to educate us as to the correct meaning. In other words, your post is nothing but a sneer.
 
000063 said:
Gosh, the meaning is so flexible. Whatever your lot needs it to be this week. Whereas "progressive" has an actual meaning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive
1a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
2: of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : advancing
4a : increasing in extent or severity

As near as I can tell, global collapse, in the context of Trutherism, means "everything collapses at once", often taken by Truthers as evidence/proof of controlled demolition. However, the official story claims that the collapse was progressive. basically, every definition I quoted up there. Any collapse theory other than "everything collapses at once" is, by definition, progressive.
Clay even claimed that "the lower floors failed first after the penthouse disappeared." This is not an implication of some sort of sequence. This is a direct claim that there was some sort of sequence. IE: Progression, therefore a progressive collapse.

I note that you don't bother to attempt to educate us as to the correct meaning. In other words, your post is nothing but a sneer.
Click to expand...

Sudden global collapse is the same as sudden total collapse. Both are anomalies in the world of collapse science because damage and fire are local and creakingly gradual.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating that you can't properly interpret what NIST really said.

Some lousy architect you are...!

In 4 years, you haven't figured out that what NIST said fell during "Global Collapse" is not "the building".

Allow me to correct your sloppy attempt at a quote:

NIST NCSTAR1-9, vol 2, pg 586 (pdf pg. 248)

"Once column support was lost in the lower floors, the remaining exterior structure above
began to fall vertically as a single unit."

"Global collapse", in NIST's terms, refers to the collapse of the external walls, an event that they explicitly state happened AFTER initial collapse, then 1.3 seconds of vertical progression of initial collapse and then about 6.9 seconds of horizontal progression. The 2nd & 3rd stages ALSO reaching above the 14th floor.

___

Perhaps some of this will help:

Please refer to NCSTAR1-9 Vol 2, pg 599 (pdf pg 261).

They list the observables & compare them to their models.

NIST states explicitly (in Table 12-2) that the collapse begins at -6 seconds, the EP collapses at 0 seconds, and that the START of the collapse of the North wall starts at 6.9 seconds.

The East Penthouse, I think that you'll agree, is "above the 14th floor". As is the roofline of the North wall.

Please explain to me how two parts of the same building can descend "as a single unit, symmetrically" if one part begins to descend almost 7 seconds before another part.

6.9 seconds of "free fall" from a standing start result in a descent of about 766 feet.
___

Still claim that NIST said that "THE BUILDING" descended as a single unit"???

The favor of a reply is requested…

(C'mon, mrkinnies. I'm not "a cat or a dog", but an experienced mechanical engineer. Dazzle me with architectural tech talk.)


tk
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
I'm off on holiday - will speak to you all soon.

Perhaps one of you could answer the issue of how the core and floors collapsed downward without pulling the outer walls inwards or how the asymmetrical collapse of the core could pull the outer walls downward as a single unit.

Also, please describe what NIST means by the exterior walls having become a shell which implies the outer walls stopped being an inextricable part of the building and began to function as a separate stand-alone structure.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Answer my post above, then then I'll give this one a shot.

tk
 
alienentity said:
Chris, just reading your response to TFK, I also went back and listened to the clip I have. Again, assuming we're referring to the same clip, I still have to disagree with you about John Gross. Here's my transcript of his response to the allegation of 'huge pools of molten steel'

'First of all let's go back to your premise that there was a pool of molten steel.
I know of absolutely nobody (possibly he says nothing), no eyewitness who said so, nobody who has produced it....I was on the site I was on the steel yards,I don't know that that's so'.

Again, he states that he does not know of this. That simply indicates his personal knowledge, which he reiterates with 'I don't know that that's so'.
Chris, this is not a misstatement on his part. He is giving an opinion, fairly well qualified and defined in reference to the allegation of huge pools, but not to the general notion of molten steel.

I think the conflation of those things and the lack of distinction are the fault of Richard Gage and other truthers, not John Gross. I think Gage plays very fast and loose with his references, as in this case, but also in countless others. On that I hope we agree. :)
Click to expand...
Hi TFK and Alienmentity,

I listened again to the John Gross video and indeed I misheard and misinterpreted it. You're right, he didn't say no one spoke of molten steel, he said he knows of no one who reported it... a huge difference.

Because it costs me money and time to hire someone to edit videos, I told myself I would not make changes to my videos unless there was an egregious error. This is egregious and I will see if i can fix this soon.

Thanks,
Chris Mohr
 
chrismohr said:
Because it costs me money and time to hire someone to edit videos, I told myself I would not make changes to my videos unless there was an egregious error. This is egregious and I will see if i can fix this soon.

Thanks,
Chris Mohr
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of setup you got with the filiming, but it's just editing out a quick line or retaping a little bit and recompositing it... that's only a minute or two in Aftereffects for some really basic editing. I'm pretty sure someone would be willing to help if you asked around. Although I understand there's always a time issue with some of these things being side projects and such
 
chrismohr said:
Hi TFK and Alienmentity,

I listened again to the John Gross video and indeed I misheard and misinterpreted it. You're right, he didn't say no one spoke of molten steel, he said he knows of no one who reported it... a huge difference.

Because it costs me money and time to hire someone to edit videos, I told myself I would not make changes to my videos unless there was an egregious error. This is egregious and I will see if i can fix this soon.

Thanks,
Chris Mohr
Click to expand...

Right back at ya, Chris. Not a huge deal, just a minor quibble really. You've produced a huge amount of material, and considering this your accuracy is very high and commendable. Thank you for taking the time to do this work, it is much appreciated now and will be in future I am certain!

best

AE
 
chrismohr said:
Hi TFK and Alienmentity,

I listened again to the John Gross video and indeed I misheard and misinterpreted it. You're right, he didn't say no one spoke of molten steel, he said he knows of no one who reported it... a huge difference.

Because it costs me money and time to hire someone to edit videos, I told myself I would not make changes to my videos unless there was an egregious error. This is egregious and I will see if i can fix this soon.

Thanks,
Chris Mohr
Click to expand...

One could always do an errata video......quicker and cheaper....it would also show that admitting to errors is what honest people do. And don't forget to correct where you said WTC7 was broader than it was tall :)
 
You could also just for the time being, on the videos that are inaccurate, just make a note in the description.
 
I will be traveling tomorrow to NYC to see some friends, and have downloaded all of your videos to my Ipad, and will watch them while traveling.

Will post here and let you know what I think.

Thank you for taking the time to do this, as it was much needed. Clear, concise, and to the point.

Cheers!!

~Tri
 
chrismohr said:
good idea. will do... not that many mistakes to correct anyway but there had to be a few on something this big.
Click to expand...

So at the end of your series Chris is there anything significant about the official story that you still have doubts about ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom