Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

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.

NIST defined the last stage of collapse as being global, i.e, the final bit where the entire building fell as a single unit after the penthouse fell down.

Go read it yourself....Chapter 2 page 22

 

[mrkinnies]

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




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

And let me remind you again because you are clearly ignoring this.

NIST says WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of one column (79).

CTBUH says WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of multiple columns.

That latter fits more with CD than the former for the obvious reason.

 

[beachnut]

You call this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...amage2.jpg/756px-Verizon_building_damage2.jpg "virtually untouched"?

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

What 911 truth calls symmetry.

 

[Edx]

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!

They dont agree about column 79 but they think WTC7 was a progressive collapse that occured because of thermal expansion because of the fires, they praise the NIST report and denounce AE911 and 911 conspiracies as "preposterous". On the other side, AE911claim that explosives and thermite were used, that thermal expansion is nonsence, that progressive collpase would be impossible.

Here's some more quotes from David Scott, Chairman of CTBUH:

The ae911truth movement is not interested in truth. It presents one side of the argument and ignores all the facts that indicate that they may be wrong

I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous

And yet you claim David Scott to be "intelligent, sane and certainly not 'in on it'"

So I ask you again, how can he be competent engineer if he believes in everything you claim shows the NIST report to be frauds? He is either dangerously incompetent or he is insane or he is in on the coverup.

This is the reason REAL engineers debate the NIST report, from David Scott again:

My main concern is that the debate is that the CD theory is a distraction. 9/11 raises many issues about building performance, terror attacks and how structural steel behaves in extreme fire conditions. These issues need to be properly discussed and debated and every time the conversation starts, then CD takes us wildly of course.

Quotes from his post here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=26601528&postcount=30

 

[Edx]

CTBUH says WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of multiple columns.

That latter fits more with CD than the former for the obvious reason.

And yet they call your theories "prosperous", that they have no evidence to support them, that AE911 "arent interested in truth" and that their videos "are not technical". It must be tough being reduced to trying to use CTBUH to support you.

How do you imagine that their disagreement supports you? How is this NOT unlike a Creationist pointing to disagreement in scientists over some small aspect of evolution? They are not disgareeing about evolution happening, just in the exact mechanisms. And here, CTBUH are not disgreeing that fire caused the progressive collapse of the building due to thermal expansion, just the theory NIST gave as to the exact mechanism.

There is no way he can be an honest competent engineer and also say what he said at the same time. But you refuse to deal with the fact that this means he is either dangerous and should not hold that position, or that he is in on it or he is brainwashed somehow. You can't have it both ways, but I know that wont stop you.

I would also like to know what he thinks now, I know you dont give a crap about that either.

 

[mrkinnies]

So I ask you again, how can he be competent engineer if he believes in everything you claim shows the NIST report to be frauds? He is either dangerously incompetent or he is insane or he is in on the coverup.

Because David Scott has been brainwashed like you which was the intention of 9/11 anyway.

As David Chandler says at the end of that video, "it took some kind of consciousness raising on my part before I was willing to look at the possibilities....really you need to go where the evidence leads"

 

[000063]

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.

It's a disagreement.

 

[Edx]

Because David Scott has been brainwashed like you which was the intention of 9/11 anyway.

Thank you for finally admitting what you couldn't do in an earlier post! How can you be "intelligent" and "sane" and brainwashed to forget all of your training at the same time and follow something so obviously nonsence?

But hey, at least we know you have finially admitted that David Scott has somehow been brainwashed insane/stupid .

I do have to wonder why if he is so brainwashed he disgrees about column 79, but then logic doesn't really enter into your mind I am sure.

As David Chandler says at the end of that video, "it took some kind of consciousness raising on my part before I was willing to look at the possibilities....really you need to go where the evidence leads"

Or, the vast majority of engineers actually know what they're talking about and the people you rely on for information are in fact incompetent paranoid idiots.

It must be strange to live in a world where the majority of scientists are somehow so brainwashed they dont even know the basics of physics (according to you) and just believe whatever old nonsense someone says.

NISt alone contains more experts that Gage's entire list he has been collecting since about 2006, where he also includes architects, computer programmers and the retired from all over the world. In a single year approx 17,000 engineers enter the workforce in the US alone, maybe you can strain credulity that only an absurdly tiny amount of people arent brainwashed into idiocy but I'm not willing to throw my brain out the window.

 

[000063]

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?

Liar.

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

I like how you had to quote mine the post calling you a liar. Thus proving you are a liar.

 

[beachnut]

Because David Scott has been brainwashed like you which was the intention of 9/11 anyway.

As David Chandler says at the end of that video, "it took some kind of consciousness raising on my part before I was willing to look at the possibilities....really you need to go where the evidence leads"

No, it took no level of consciousness raising, it took willful need to make up nonsense, some dumbing down, a departure from reality to the world of woo, where Chandler found an audience gullible enough to eat up what he says without question, unable to do math, physics and engineering; the standard Mark A-1 911 Follower. Gage makes money off the fact 911 truth followers actually think they have had a "consciousness raising" epiphany, but it is gullibility fuel by ignorance.

...

That latter fits more with CD than the former for the obvious reason.

No rational engineers agree with your backing in CD due to your lack of knowledge in engineering.

 

[000063]

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

Columns and floors and trusses. (Oh my!)

Except, I assume, for the area under the East Penthouse. At least. Otherwise it wouldn't have collapsed.

Nice job conflating "the building" with "the bulk of the building", BTW.

 

[000063]

NIST defined the last stage of collapse as being global, i.e, the final bit where the entire building fell as a single unit after the penthouse fell down.

Go read it yourself....Chapter 2 page 22

Actually, you saved me having to go look up that bit in my PDF, after you quoted it earlier.

I find it hypocritical how, for your purposes, the EP isn't part of the building, yet a stage of the collapse is the same as entire collapse. The latter is like saying 3 is an even number because it has 2 in it.

So, is there a difference between the last stage of a process and the entire process? Again, yes or no.

 

[triforcharity]

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)."

Not what I asked.

I asked if the ICC disagreed with NIST's conclusions about the collapses of the WTC towers.

Also, nice job cherry-picking.

Did you read the rest of your own cited article.

It's continues

The following are the nine model building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended

Yeah, epic failure.

Keep searching.

 

[chrismohr]

It's not a problem to see what happens when people, including architects and engineers are educated in the facts instead of still being taken in by the conditioning induced by the shock and awe of 9/11 and the blanket 24/7 coverage of talking heads saying that terrorists in planes brought down the buildings. Like a kind of hypnosis many never questioned how the buildings were brought down again. Until Richard Gage and his 1,500 patriotic architects and engineers that is..

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1,159 attendees total.
Totals: before after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 52 : 2
I am Unsure 209 : 65
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 898 : 1092
http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php

Only 2 people of 1159 who attended believe the Government tall tale .That's less than 0.02%

Bill and all,

Richard Gage sent me these figures. He is a very persuasive speaker and these figures demonstrate it. Remember, when I first saw his Blueprint for Truth I wondered if maybe he was right. I didn't go into this trying to debunk him; I was skeptical but i could have been convinced if the science were convincing, which it was not.

In our debate last March, twice as many people moved their position towards natural collapse as towards CD, in a crowd that was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Gage's theories. That showed that I was a strong debater.

The truth reveals itself in the science, not in how persuasive Richard or I am, or who has the most credentials. Galileo had a minority opinion about astronomy but I'd like to believe that if he had let me look through his telescope I would have believed him and not the majority view of the time!

 

[chrismohr]

Just an idea but do you think it would be a good idea for Chris Mohr to start giving presentations in the same way as Richard Gage does ? He would generate tremendous support among debunkers and all those other people who you say support the government story. A real field test that might pay off big time.

Not interested. I love my job, and my wife!

 

[chrismohr]

Mrkinnies
On the complex theory of leveraging collapse of Bldg 7:. yes it was complex (see video 18). Took this layman months to even understand it. Complex doesn't mean wrong, especially with a huge collapsing building. Each side may have fallen at a slightly different speed, even if it looks about the same, and it fell far over towards the south face (see video 18).

 

[chrismohr]

Replying to myself here... on second thought, to a scientist my explanation in video 18 is not complex at all. All I said was freefall = no net resistance, an important correction of the 9/11 Truth assertion that freefall = no resistance. Then I said there were three forces: gravity being constant, and leveraging vs residual resistance the other two. 9/11 Truth acknowledges gravity and structural resistance but not leveraging. Three forces not two. Easy, actually... just took me awhile to get it. Get it?

 

[mrkinnies]

Thank you for finally admitting what you couldn't do in an earlier post! How can you be "intelligent" and "sane" and brainwashed to forget all of your training at the same time and follow something so obviously nonsence?

I spoke of brainwashing pages and pages ago in an answer to someone else. Stop making out you have some great upper hand here, brainwashing counts for everything otherwise why would so many 'educated' people believe in all that Jesus and God nonsense.

If engineers rule out the concept of CD from the start then they'll never include it in their investigations. Period.

Btw, I didn't search out that CTBUH article in the hope of glory, I just happened to find it while checking out what triforcharity asked me. But I'm glad he/she mentioned it because this is a significant issue.

I'll repeat, if NIST claims the building fell due to the failure of one column yet CTBUH says it was due to the expansion of the floors which affected multiple columns then that's quite a problem however you look at it. Seems to me that all these clever engineers you keep harping on about can't agree with one another either. And you can dance around this issue all you like, which you seem very good at what with all the layers of quotes and questions you like to add to your posts, but it doesn't change that fact.

Now, are you going to do what no other debunker has been capable of doing and tell me how the building fell as a single unit, straight down, with no initial rotation when, according to NIST, collapse started close to one corner?

I'm not going to bother answering anything else.

 

[mrkinnies]

Columns and floors and trusses. (Oh my!)

Except, I assume, for the area under the East Penthouse. At least. Otherwise it wouldn't have collapsed.

Nice job conflating "the building" with "the bulk of the building", BTW.

So, when are you going to answer my question?

I'm having to assume you can't otherwise you'd have done so by now. Perhaps you could get together with Edx as I've just asked him the same thing above.

 

[Oystein]

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.

The north face stayed in one piece, but it didn't remain vertical during that fall, nor unbent. As for the rest of the building, we can't know. But we know where the rest of the building fell: ALL OVER THE PLACE: It slammed into the Verizon, crossed streets on all 4 sides, even hit Fiterman Hall, a 15 story building across the street on Barclay and West Broadway, on the roof. It twisted and turned as it fell, and part of that was visible even on the north face from the beginning:

After the exterior facade began to fall downward at 6.9s, the north face developed a line or "kink" near the end of the core at column 76. As shown in figure 5.205, the northeast corner began to displace to the north at about 8.8s, and the kink was visible at 9.3s. The kink in the north face and rotation of the northeast facde occurred 2s to 3s after the exterior facade had begun to move downward, as a result of global collapse.

This describes how part of the north face rotated away from being vertical.

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

The problem is not what I know but what you don't know.

At no point did the walls fall towards one another as the entire structure fell.

You can't and don't know that.

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.

So? And what happened east and south?
Oh! You don't know!

Stop making stuff up.

You are the one making stuff up.