Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

Tell me, what was the supporting structure of the bulk of the building oh clever one?

Not until you tell me whether you agree with my assertion that the collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th, 2001, was a progressive collapse.

• YES: I agree with your assertion. It was a progressive collapse.
• NO: I disagree with your assertion. It was not a progressive collapse.

I'll ignore anything else.

 

[mrkinnies]

How did WTC7 hit 30 Westbroadway?

30 West Broadway was 17 storeys tall. WTC7 was 47 storeys tall. I would say it's amazing that Fiterman Hall got away with the damage it did. I would have expected so much more considering the building's proximity to one another. Verizon and the Post Office were virtually untouched.

Astounding.

 

[mrkinnies]

Not until you tell me whether you agree with my assertion that the collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th, 2001, was a progressive collapse.

• YES: I agree with your assertion. It was a progressive collapse.
• NO: I disagree with your assertion. It was not a progressive collapse.

I'll ignore anything else.

NO: I disagree with your assertion. It was not a progressive collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Liar.

Did you happen to find any of the others' objections?

 

[mrkinnies]

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.


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?

So NIST stated WTC7 collapsed due to fire which critically damaged a certain column (79) in that building. CTBUH agrees that fire caused collapse but disagreed it was due to that column.

That's a fundamental paradox.

 

[triforcharity]

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'd be happy with the millions if not billions of dollars of damage that 7WTC did to the surrounding buildings?

The building did NOT fall straight down. Straight down would not have caused the damage to Fitterman Hall.

 

[000063]

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

How naive.

I like how you're not answering the question.

 

[mrkinnies]

Liar.

Is this all you guys can say. Why not discuss this issue in more detail instead of using the word liar. Or are you using the word liar because you have no argument and are just pissed off?

How futile is this?

 

[triforcharity]

30 West Broadway was 17 storeys tall. WTC7 was 47 storeys tall. I would say it's amazing that Fiterman Hall got away with the damage it did. I would have expected so much more considering the building's proximity to one another. Verizon and the Post Office were virtually untouched.

Astounding.

You call this

"virtually untouched"?

Wow. Your ignorance of building damage is astoundingly low.

But, then again, you are a truther.....

 

[triforcharity]

Is this all you guys can say. Why not discuss this issue in more detail instead of using the word liar. Or are you using the word liar because you have no argument and are just pissed off?

How futile is this?

Why don't you read for comprehension what the CTBUH said?

 

[Edx]

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

Even though you're being stubborn on purpose I'll try and put this as simply as I can.

Tri said this you this:

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.

You replied by saying that the CTBUH disagree with NIST and you say "how more opposing a theory can there be?"

Interesting you should use those words. This is the full quote from CTBUH's comments:

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction, as NIST appears
to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns."

This is like two biologists arguing over what species of finch they are looking at, while you are pointing to their disagreement and claiming that this supports your claims that its actually a elephant.

No one says that NIST theories are not criticised, just that no one outside the tiny fringe bunch of nobodies in AE911 believe the towers collapsed with explosives or thermite. The exact mechanism for how the impacts and the fire caused the collapses might still be debated, but this is small potatoes. In the same way as scientists will quarrel about many aspects of evolution and like truthers Creationists have and do point to that disagreement to claim their claims of magical Creation are therefore just as valid.

This is what CTBUH thinks about the truth movement:

I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.

However, that being said, I would like to be clear that I see no credibility whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.

David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=24814132&postcount=14


Those comments to NIST were a professional disagreement about a minor aspect of the report. Minor in the sence that it is a minor disagreement compared with the claims of the Truth Movement of bombs and thermite. You also believe NIST are a group of frauds and liars, yet CTBUH does not. Therefore this means CTBUH has to be either in on the conspiracy as well, or they are dangerously incompetent. But its not just them, your claims require hundreds of thousands of people to be in the same boat, either incompetent or stupid or in on it.

David Scott in that thread also goes on to say:

1. How do we account for the evenness, totality, and swiftness of all
thee collapses, in entirely different types of structures?"

The inside of WTC 7 collapsed first, followed by a buckling failure of
the perimeter in the lower 15 floors. A non-linear collapse analysis
would verify the speed of failure. From my perspective the building
behaves as expected. Once the building collapse had started and
momentum gained there is nothing of substance to arrest it.

So either they are in on it, stupid, or insane. Which one is it?

They do not disagree in any relevant way with the NIST report, sorry.

 

[mrkinnies]

Did you happen to find any of the others' objections?

Yes.

The ICC didn't approve all of NIST's recommendations.

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/designconstruction/article/ICC-Approves-New-Code-Changes-Based-on-Recommendations-from-NIST-World-Trade-Center-Investigation--9850#


"Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.

These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard for conducting wind tunnel tests (routinely used for determining wind loads in the design of tall buildings), limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors in stairways, installing stairway communication and monitoring systems on specific floors of tall buildings, and requiring risk assessments for buildings with substantial hazard (such as buildings more than 420 feet high with occupant loads exceeding 5,000 persons)."

 

[mrkinnies]

They do not disagree in any relevant way with the NIST report, sorry.

What a load of waffle.

Of course that is relevant. Relevant because NIST based all of its models on WTC7 collapsing due to the failure of column 79.

That makes NIST's work worthless.

 

[beachnut]

So NIST stated WTC7 collapsed due to fire which critically damaged a certain column (79) in that building. CTBUH agrees that fire caused collapse but disagreed it was due to that column.

That's a fundamental paradox.

No, it is called engineering, something you don't do. The best part, both NIST and CTBUH are aware fire did it, and will study how to make buildings better against upset and terrorist action you seem to apologize for.

What did your collapse, in your fantasy? Thermite?

 

[Edx]

What a load of waffle.

Of course that is relevant. Relevant because NIST based all of its models on WTC7 collapsing due to the failure of column 79.

That makes NIST's work worthless.

Lol, you ignored everything else I said. Good job.

Even if NIST was 100% wrong about column 79, why is it that CTBUH still believes it was a progressive collapsed caused by fire damage? If you're going to assert that we accept that CTBUH is correct that it wasnt Column 79, why do you then reject their opinion that it was caused by fire and had nothing to do with explosives or thermite?

Again, are they stupid, in on it, or insane? How can they be anything other than this?

Tri said they do not argree with AE911, how do CTBUH agree with AE911? They specifically said they do not agree with any of their claims, yet because they have a minor disagreement by comparision you conclude bombs and thermite is equally as likely.

 

[000063]

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.

Except for the part where it's false. East Penthouse already collapsed, remember?

You know that but are not brave enough to admit it.

While you, by contrast, are "not brave enough" to call Oystein a liar, even if only by omission.

I'm calling you an intellectually dishonest coward, just to be clear.

 

[mrkinnies]

Lol, you ignored everything else I said. Good job.

Even if NIST was 100% wrong about column 79, why is it that CTBUH still believes it was a progressive collapsed caused by fire damage? If you're going to assert that we accept that CTBUH is correct that it wasnt Column 79, why do you then reject their opinion that it was caused by fire and had nothing to do with explosives or thermite?

Again, are they stupid, in on it or insane? How can they be anything other than this?

What a worthless question. I'd consider CTBUH to be intelligent, sane and certainly not 'in on it'. Then again they don't give an explanation for the symmetry of collapse.

But the simple fact is, they don't agree WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of one column. Oooops!

 

[mrkinnies]

Except for the part where it's false. East Penthouse already collapsed, remember?

While you, by contrast, are "not brave enough" to call Oystein a liar, even if only by omission.

I'm calling you an intellectually dishonest coward, just to be clear.

Are you going to answer my question or avoid it with further silly remarks?

 

[Edx]

Here's some more quotes for you to ignore mrkinnies:

No, the Council does not cast doubt on what you call NIST’s thermal expansion fairy tale. We believe that the failure was caused by thermal expansion but perhaps the critical point of time was as the expanded beam returns back to its original position. This is part of the thermal expansion theory

...

"Finally, the CTBUH states that it finds the NIST report confusing and contradictory:"

Yes there are aspects of the report that we think could be better but not in the way that is implied. NIST issued the report for comment and the plan was to make it better

...


The NIST report is written by engineers and is about technical issues that can and should be discussed on a technical basis. The videos on the 911truth and ae911truth web sites are not technical and it is difficult to say any more than is contained in the NIST report. There is no blatant evidence in support of controlled demolition.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=26600832&postcount=29

Lol, you ignored everything else I said. Good job.

Even if NIST was 100% wrong about column 79, why is it that CTBUH still believes it was a progressive collapsed caused by fire damage? If you're going to assert that we accept that CTBUH is correct that it wasnt Column 79, why do you then reject their opinion that it was caused by fire and had nothing to do with explosives or thermite?

Again, are they stupid, in on it, or insane? How can they be anything other than this?

Tri said they do not argree with AE911, how do CTBUH agree with AE911? They specifically said they do not agree with any of their claims, yet because they have a minor disagreement by comparision you conclude bombs and thermite is equally as likely.

 

[000063]

NO: I disagree with your assertion. It was not a progressive collapse.

The East Penthouse collapsed before the rest of WTC 7. That's a sequence, which is progressive, which differs from a global collapse(all at once).

You're wrong.