Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[sheeplesnshills]

Of course it is irrelevant.

It may well be that the vast majority of engineers and physicists would reject critiques of WTC7 spontaneous collapse, but we will never know because the vast majority never read them or consider them.

This is not the case with creationism, the rejection of which is implicit in many scientific disciplines.

Because Creationists have and continue to be a threat to the US educational system.

Twoofers threaten nothing except the wallets of the gullible

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, clearly you have to agree that NIST says column 79 failed because that's what they say....and yes, they say it was due to floor expansion.

Silly me for ommitting the latter explanation when I referred to NIST but you can stop jumping up and down about it now.

Just for you....

NIST says floor expansion caused a failure in one internal column which led to collapse.

Yes. If you add "collapse of several floors".

CTBUH says floor expansion caused a loss of lateral restraint which led to the failure of multiple internal columns which led to collapse.

Yes. With 79 being the first to buckle.

Still an enormous difference

No!
The way you phrased it now, there is no difference at all! It's just a matter of detail and focus, but we - NIST, CTBUH, you, I - agree now on the following sequence:

1. 1 floor fails
2. several floors fail
3. column 79 fails
4. multiple columns fail
5. global collapse

CTBUH criticised NIST for stating in a summary that step 3 was the cause of global collapse, even though NIST very clearly explained how 1., then 2., then 3., then 4. lead to global collapse.

and proves your beloved engineers don't quite agree with one another, especially when you read the list of issues CTBUH has with the NIST hypothesis and NIST's understanding of the fire and its role in causing column 79 to fail.

No, CTBUH does not at all disagree with NISTs finding that fires around column 79 and the 13th floor were responsible for global collapse by making floors fail.
Do you acknowledge that? If so, I would ask you to repeat that in your own words!

And neither hypothesis can account for what the external columns were doing which is mightily problematic since these supported the facades.

WRONG.
Both NIST and CTBUH understand very well that progressive collapse of the building core doomed the rest of the building to very rapid demise. On that, CTBUH very strongly supports NIST and very explicitly condemns your stance (CD of some kind) into the domain of bad, ugly, unwanted fairy tales.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[/B]

Wishful thinking, one of the biggest problems of humankind.

Irony at it finest.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

'' Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down''

You are being devious Oystein. Your engineering friends mentioned here of course do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building (which is the only kind of building that matters for this conversation). For the simple reason that no hi-rise steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the Planet Earth. (Apart from at the WTC on 9/11 of course)

The only three that ever had large unfought fires all collapsed. First time in the recorded history of the Planet Earth fires in a high rise had not been fought.

 

[Marokkaan]

I'll explain, even though you won't understand:

What matters is if some claim or argument is correct, or true.
In principle, everybody, regardless of education and expertise, can investigate questions and come to factually true conclusions.

That is not what you are about when you make arguments from authority: When you construct an argument around the claim that someone else said this and this, and you want me to believe that other person, without presenting their actual arguments, that's an "argument from authority". This is valid if the other person is indeed an authority:
- Has the relevant credentials
- Is sufficiently and correctly informed about the subject matter.
So, for example, referring to the NIST reports and saying "I believe X because these experts say so", is not bad, because
- All the NIST guys have great relevant credentials
- They have worked on a lot of correct data
When you say, on the other hand, that I believe X, because 400 "professors" or "1500 architects and engineers" say so", than that's an argument from FALSE authority:
- Most of these people do not have the relevant expertise
- Most of the people are falsely or insufficiently informed about the subject matter
Both points can be easily shown by randomly picking some guys from those lists.


Now, when I make arguments here, they are never of the form "I believe X, and so should you, because I say so". I am not an authority. Don't believe me just because I say it. Judge my conclusions by the truth value of my premises and the validity of my reasoning and logic.

You are good in ignoring people, and you can not even say, that you were wrong.

You show it here, and in the other thread.

Thats not respectful.

So i have to put you on ignore.

 

[Oystein]

'' Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down''

You are being devious Oystein. Your engineering friends mentioned here of course do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building (which is the only kind of building that matters for this conversation). For the simple reason that no hi-rise steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the Planet Earth. (Apart from at the WTC on 9/11 of course)

How absurdly wrong you are, Bill.
I know you're trolling, but anyway. Let me educate you:

Every structural and fire protection engineer knows, of course, that fire is a hazard to steel constructions.

Why else would they spray fireproofing in steel, huh? Can you explain that?

It is obvious that failure of steel members can lead to collapse.
The Kader toy factory is the usual example for this: A low.rise steel frame building that collapsed completely due to fire (and gravity).
Can you please acknowledge, Bill, that you are informed now that low-rise steel buildings can collapse completel due to fire? If so, please repeat that in your own words!


Now - what if you build a low-rise building, only a lot higher? Is there some strange law that prevents steel structures from failing once they exceed, say, 30 meters, or 10 floors, or wherever "hi-rise" begins in your book? If so, then please explain!
If not, then please think about this for a second: If low-rise buildings can collapse from fires, so can hi-rise buildings.

In fact, it is much harder to construct hi-rise buildings than low-rise buildings such that they don't collapse.



Now on to my engineering friends - here is a little true story I have told a few times already:

One friend, who was also my neighbour at the time, and I had a chance to climb into the spire of our church tower, which is pretty high as churches go, something like 87m, IIRC. More than 80 at any rate. The tower is traditional brickwork up to maybe 55m, on top of that is a copper-clad helmet, which has had a steel-frame since the late 19th century.
You climb up inside the helmet on open stairs that allow you to see the naked structure. My friend, who is a structural engineer, noticed quickly that several of the long steel elements were naked, with no fire protection on them. This, he explained, is a major hazard: Steel like that is prone to heat up VERY quickly to a point where their strength decreases below actual loads. He said that he's expect our church's tower cap to collapse complely within 15 or 20 minutes in case of an ordinary fire inside the tower. He went to explain that even old traditional wood beams would last considerably longer than that. And he explained to me that this is why the World Trade Center towers collapsed they way they did: Because no structural steel can survive intense fires for very long, unless the fire is speedily fought, and fire protection intact.

Of course we know that the fire protection in the towers was NOT intact, and that the fires were not fought.

My structural engineering friend knew very well, that WTC were fire-induced collapses, and that was far from a mystery or surprise to him. Quite the opposite is true: It is what any structural engineer worth his title finds obvious, expected and natural.

 

[Oystein]

...
So i have to put you on ignore.

I'd love to see Marokkaan's ignore list.
It is a list of all posters who he feels inderior to.

 

[bill smith]

What a load of rubbish you talk Oystein. Your engineering friends do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building- period. No steel framed hi-rise buildimg has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the universe despite having much larger, hotter and vastly more long lasting fires, You are being transparently devious as I noted earlier.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

[Clayton Moore]

NCSTAR 1A Page 22 Chapter 2 (page 64 of the entire report)

"The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."



NIST's use of the word core here is used to define the inner columns as opposed to the outer columns. But the inner and outer columns were inextricable linked and one has to wonder whether they were deliberately trying to confuse lay people such as yourself.

The debunkers here are not confused. That is fer certain. Their billet is coverup assistant.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I guess that you more than anybody can appreciate just how much Richard Gage has sacrificed for the cause.

Or he is nuts or a fraud. Also reasons for ones Wife to kick you out.

 

[twinstead]

What a load of rubbish you talk Oystein. Your engineering friends do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building- period. No steel framed hi-rise buildimg has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the universe despite having much larger, hotter and vastly more long lasting fires, You are being transparently devious as I noted earlier.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

No buildings the size of the WTC have EVER been brought down with CD in the history of the universe. End of debate.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This is truly shocking. I hadn't realised the the CBTUH had so radically disagreed with NIST. How come there hasn't been an outcry to have such an august body as the CBTUH disgreee with NIST on their key collapse precursor ? The scenario that their entire collapse model is based on.

They don't radically disagree at all. Both say floors collapsed leaving column unsupported so they buckled. NIST specified a specific column where they think it started, CBTUH did not. All they disagreed on was the exact mechanism involved in the failure of the floor to column attachments. Given that NIST spent much more time and effort on the problem I'd go with their version but it doesn't really matter either way as regards to the reason why 7 failed. Both agree it was fire.

 

[mrkinnies]

No!
The way you phrased it now, there is no difference at all! It's just a matter of detail and focus, but we - NIST, CTBUH, you, I - agree now on the following sequence:

1. 1 floor fails
2. several floors fail
3. column 79 fails
4. multiple columns fail
5. global collapse

CTBUH criticised NIST for stating in a summary that step 3 was the cause of global collapse, even though NIST very clearly explained how 1., then 2., then 3., then 4. lead to global collapse.


No, CTBUH does not at all disagree with NISTs finding that fires around column 79 and the 13th floor were responsible for global collapse by making floors fail.
Do you acknowledge that? If so, I would ask you to repeat that in your own words!


WRONG.
Both NIST and CTBUH understand very well that progressive collapse of the building core doomed the rest of the building to very rapid demise. On that, CTBUH very strongly supports NIST and very explicitly condemns your stance (CD of some kind) into the domain of bad, ugly, unwanted fairy tales.

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.

But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which started close to the north eastern corner could possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What a load of rubbish you talk Oystein. Your engineering friends do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building- period. No steel framed hi-rise buildimg has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the universe despite having much larger, hotter and vastly more long lasting fires, You are being transparently devious as I noted earlier.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

What previous fire was in exactly the same kind of building and was unfought?

The fires in WTC1,2 and 7 were in unique buildings and uniquely were not fought.

Every steel framed hi-rise building has always collapsed from unfought fire in the recorded history of the universe

 

[DC]

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.

But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which starts close the north eastern corner can possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

yeah and AE9/11 doesn't even get a B Movie, they are stuck on Youtube

 

[bill smith]

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.

But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which starts close the north eastern corner can possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

I guess it's a new concept like 'thermal expansion' It's probably called 'instant progressive collapse'.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The debunkers here are not confused. That is fer certain. Their billet is coverup assistant.

I was wondering how long it would before the shill accusation was made.
I find it strange that truthers are so sure there is an army of paid shills out there yet cannot actually show who is employing them or where.

I wish they would find out and let me know. I could use the money!

 

[bill smith]

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which started close to the north eastern corner could possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

Does the hilighted text impact on the NIST collapse model rendering it invalid ?

 

[mrkinnies]

yeah and AE9/11 doesn't even get a B Movie, they are stuck on Youtube

Would you care to explain my query with NIST's assumption or are you too one of those one-line writing <snip>?

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Personal insult deleted.

 

[mrkinnies]

Does the hilighted text impact on the NIST collapse model rendering it invalid ?

Hi Bill, I would say it does.