Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Oystein]

Why can you not construe that it fell as a solid unit?

Read my post:
Because we know (and NIST explains and models it well) that collapse of the inner structure had well progressed (floors had gone down, columns buckled, roofs sunk down) by the time the north wall went into free fall. The building as a whole was a broken mess by then, not anything solid.

 

[triforcharity]

Heaven help Mr Mohr. From what I've read there are no experts in the debunking camp here.

Really? There are engineers, architects, firefighters, physicists and at least one fire science professor posting here.

Perhaps you mean somewhere else.....??

You haven't watched the video then?

Yes, I have. It's nothing new. It's a painted turd. You know what they say about painted turds, right? It's still a turd.

I don't see a landscape architect but I do see a forensic fire protection engineer so maybe the landscape architect you are referring to worked for NIST.

Nope, I certainly see a landscape architect.

Regine C. Naeckel, Graduate Engineer for Landscape and Environmental
Graduate Engineer
Berlin – Germany

And a bunch of landscape architects.

Dale Williams, Landscape Architect
Lic: 2384 CA
MS in Land Arch, Univ of Arizona
Cameron Park, CA

Frederick Jon Wepfer, Licensed Landscape Architect, Building Designer, C
Lic: Registered Landscape Architect
environmental design
Lacey, WA

John Robert Russell, Professor Emeritus Landscape Architecture
Lic: Indiana Landscape Architect's License # LA80050004
Grad. Dipl. Urban & Reg. Plng. AA London
Bloomington, IN

And plenty of outher irrelevant disciplines.

Nima Kalbasi, Mechanical Engineer
Lic: P.ENG
B.A of Applied science and engineering
Toronto, ON – CAN

Steve Kretschmann, B.Sc. Engineering (Computer)
B.S. Eng TE, U Manitoba, MB, Canada
Winnipeg, MB – CAN

Richard Mathis, P.E.
Lic: 14534PE OR, E17725 CA
BS, Electr & Computer Engr, OR St U
Santa Cruz, CA

Computer engineers? Really?

BTW, nice FUTILE attempt at shifting the goalposts.


So, you have A forensic fire protection engineer. I'll raise you 10 more.

Either way, you're talking rubbish.

I think I saw a sanitation engineer on AE911T's list. Maybe you could talk to him.

Care to address the rest of my post? You know, this part?

And yet, non-federal agencies like ASCE, CTBUH, ICC, or any of the other engineering organizations and regulatory groups do not agree with AE911T, and support the recent building code changes following 911.

 

[mrkinnies]

This.
For the north wall, the core columns and floor trusses, whose collapse preceded that of the walls, provided that leverage, and there is no good reason why that couldn't happen on the other sides as well, and simultaneously.

Why are you asking? This is pure speculation. As the slightly-over-g acceleration on the north wall does not shed any particular light on collapse progression, neither would the same elsewhere.

How can leveraging pull walls down such that they stay fully vertical and the building continues to behave as a single, solid unit as it falls? Wouldn't leveraging have pulled the walls inward as well as downward - especially as the roof has now been destroyed so is offering no cross bracing in itself.

 

[Oystein]

So what you are saying is I have great humility, ergo my theory is the only correct one.

How naive.

Not quite. I say I allow my errors to be corrected, therefore I have a superior method of gaining knowledge and telling facts from non-facts, therefore I have a better chance of ending up with a more correct theory.

 

[beachnut]

You have proof it fell through the entire structure do you or that it pulled everything else with it?

I knew it, you have no clue what you are talking about or the fact 8 seconds before the FACADE fell to the outside observer from a distance, WTC 7 was collapseing internally. What engineering school did you go to? Did you graduate?

99%, where do you get that from? Proof is required.

It is true, you can't do anything about it. You are in an anti-intellectual liars club known as 911 truth, where hearsay, lies and fantasy form your world.

Your failed movement has less than 0.1 percent of engineers to support the lies, and they do it with the same evidence you have, called ignorance.

No wonder you 911 truth followers fail, you fail to check with the millions of rational engineers, instead you find a few nuts who like fantasy. Good for you, don't stop with your fantasy, fantasy is more fun than reality, and you are deep into fantasy. Why do you need NIST? Can't you do your own engineering work without attacking NIST's work?

 

[DGM]

You have proof it fell through the entire structure do you or that it pulled everything else with it?

Can we take it you agree the collapse took ~17 seconds and the penthouse was closely connected to the drop of the facade.

 

[Oystein]

How can leveraging pull walls down such that they stay fully vertical

They didn't. Hint: "Kink"

and the building continues to behave as a single, solid unit as it falls?

It wasn't solid.

Wouldn't leveraging have pulled the walls inward as well as downward - especially as the roof has now been destroyed so is offering no cross bracing in itself.

Yes, and that happened. Look at the debris pile, and how a good deal of the walls ended on top of everything else.
There is one video that shows how indeed the walls leaned heavily inwards on at least one side as the building fell.

 

[mrkinnies]

They didn't. Hint: "Kink"

It wasn't solid.

Yes, and that happened. Look at the debris pile, and how a good deal of the walls ended on top of everything else.
There is one video that shows how indeed the walls leaned heavily inwards on at least one side as the building fell.

That didn't happen at all. The building stayed in a shape which resembled a solid unit until it all disappeared behind the dust cloud. You know that but are not brave enough to admit it. At no point did the walls fall towards one another as the entire structure fell. The kink occurred on the north wall only, not on the west which stayed perfectly upright which is amazing considering that the "core" was closer to this wall than any other.

Stop making stuff up.

 

[Edx]

That didn't happen at all. The building stayed in a shape which resembled a solid unit until it all disappeared behind the dust cloud. You know that but are not brave enough to admit it. At no point did the walls fall towards one another as the entire structure fell. The kink occurred on the north wall only, not on the west which stayed perfectly upright which is amazing considering that the "core" was closer to this wall than any other.

Stop making stuff up.

Amazing that it managed to hit 30 Westbroadway despite coming down as a solid unit

 

[beachnut]

...
Stop making stuff up.

When you finish engineering school you will have the tools to understand WTC 7 structure and collapse. Good luck. Chris was right, most engineers understand fire can cause the destruction of a building. Why do arsonists use fire to destroy buildings? It works.

 

[mrkinnies]

Care to address the rest of my post? You know, this part?

CTBUH actually disagreed with NIST on the reasons they gave for the collapse despite agreeing to changing the building codes.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

 

[mrkinnies]

When you finish engineering school you will have the tools to understand WTC 7 structure and collapse. Good luck. Chris was right, most engineers understand fire can cause the destruction of a building. Why do arsonists use fire to destroy buildings? It works.

No one denies the part fire can play. The problem is the symmetry, speed and completeness of collapse.

 

[Edx]

CTBUH actually disagreed with NIST on the reasons they gave for the collapse despite agreeing to changing the building codes.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

Why do you lie?

The CTBUH do not disagree with NIST, if you disagree I dare you to explain exactly where they disagree.

 

[beachnut]

No one denies the part fire can play. The problem is the symmetry, speed and completeness of collapse.

There was no symmetry, better take a math course while you finish your engineering degree.
Speed, the collapse took longer than 18 seconds, much slower than free-fall acceleration.
The collapse was exactly what a gravity collapse would be, a few stories of rubble, not symmetrical. You and 911 truth have big problems with math; why?

 

[mrkinnies]

Why do you lie?

The CTBUH do not disagree with NIST, if you disagree I dare you to explain exactly where they disagree.

As the above document shows, CTBUH clearly disagreed with NIST one month before NCSTAR 1A was published believing the failure of column 79 was not to blame. Since NIST continued with their hypothesis, it can only be assumed NIST did not carry out the studies CTBUH asked of it and which are laid out in their document.

 

[Edx]

As the above document shows, CTBUH clearly disagreed with NIST one month before NCSTAR 1A was published believing the failure of column 79 was not to blame.

Yes yes, now please quote for us what they went straight on to say, right after they said that and then please how it relates to what Tri told you.

 

[mrkinnies]

There was no symmetry, better take a math course while you finish your engineering degree.
Speed, the collapse took longer than 18 seconds, much slower than free-fall acceleration.
The collapse was exactly what a gravity collapse would be, a few stories of rubble, not symmetrical. You and 911 truth have big problems with math; why?

That's all you have isn't it beachnut, the ability to twist the situation. Even NIST was careful not to group the collapse sequence into one simple motion but amazingly you do.

Once the entire top of the building started to fall, the motion was clearly symmetrical since the whole building fell straight down as a single unit. This final motion during the global collapse stage occurred in less than 7 seconds. Had I been the demolition guy in charge of that implosion I would have been very pleased to watch such a beautiful and complete move.

Stop trying to confuse matters. It's pointless and doesn't help you in the slightest.

 

[Edx]

That's all you have isn't it beachnut, the ability to twist the situation. Even NIST was careful not to group the collapse sequence into one simple motion but amazingly you do.

Once the entire top of the building started to fall, the motion was clearly symmetrical since the whole building fell straight down as a single unit. This final motion during the global collapse stage occurred in less than 7 seconds. Had I been the demolition guy in charge of that implosion I would have been very pleased to watch such a beautiful and complete move.

Stop trying to confuse matters. It's pointless and doesn't help you in the slightest.

How did WTC7 hit 30 Westbroadway?

 

[mrkinnies]

Yes yes, now please quote for us what they went straight on to say, right after they said that and then please how it relates to what Tri told you.

What more is there to say. They didn't believe collapse was due to column 79. How more opposing a theory can there be?

 

[beachnut]

That's all you have isn't it beachnut, the ability to twist the situation. Even NIST was careful not to group the collapse sequence into one simple motion but amazingly you do.

Once the entire top of the building started to fall, the motion was clearly symmetrical since the whole building fell straight down as a single unit. This final motion during the global collapse stage occurred in less than 7 seconds. Had I been the demolition guy in charge of that implosion I would have been very pleased to watch such a beautiful and complete move.

Stop trying to confuse matters. It's pointless and doesn't help you in the slightest.

You have no clue what symmetry is, and you are not going to be an engineer anytime soon. Better find a topic you might be qualified to discuss, you have failed here, your speed claims, symmetry and completeness of collapse are so nonsensical, you have lost the credibility you thought you had but never did.

It is pointless for you to try, your posts, your claims never rise to a piont where they mean anything more than lack of knowledge, quote-minining failure, etc. When will you try to go to engineering school, so you can figure out you picked the fantasy side on 911.

CTBUH actually disagreed with NIST on the reasons they gave for the collapse despite agreeing to changing the building codes.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

They don't support your inside job nonsense, they support fire did it, the same as NIST. Gee, thousand of engineers who don't support your failed claims? What did your fantasy, thermite, C4, RDX, or HMX?