• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
Would you care to explain my query with NIST's assumption or are you too one of those one-line writing <snip>?
Click to expand...

NIST does a great Job in explaining, you could read their reports.
<snip>

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed previously moderated content and response to same
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sheeplesnshills said:
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!:D
Click to expand...

Put it this way...if I was the perps I would definitely have Shills fighting on the forums for me. I would not believe in a hundred years that I do not encounter such 'propaganda assets' here every day.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Put it this way...if I was the perps I would definitely have Shills fighting on the forums for me. I would not believe in a hundred years that I do not encounter such 'propaganda assets' here every day. Not that I'm directly accusing anybody of course
Click to expand...

Why would they even need too waste their time when CT kooks discredit themselves by making crazy, delusional, paranoid posts like this all the time?
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...


LOL what do you think will happen to those exterior columns when their interior bracing is removed and when the collapsed interior pushes them out of the vertical at the base? The loading of the first few to fail, would be transferred to the others, until as the internal collapse continues across the building there were simply no long enough intact columns to take the increased load and the remainder would fail almost simultaneously.

Heres a twoofer level experiment for you to do......support a pile of paving slabs on a square of empty coke cans. until they are support about half the weight required to crush them (you can find that out by experimentation).

Now start tapping in the sides of the cans one by one, in groups, even spaced or randomly.....what do you think will happen when you have tapped about half the cans?

Find out......and watch those fingers:D
 
sheeplesnshills said:
LOL what do you think will happen to those exterior columns when their interior bracing is removed and when the collapsed interior pushes them out of the vertical at the base? The loading of the first few to fail, would be transferred to the others, until as the internal collapse continues across the building there were simply no long enough intact columns to take the increased load and the remainder would fail almost simultaneously.

Heres a twoofer level experiment for you to do......support a pile of paving slabs on a square of empty coke cans. until they are support about half the weight required to crush them (you can find that out by experimentation).

Now start tapping in the sides of the cans one by one, in groups, even spaced or randomly.....what do you think will happen when you have tapped about half the cans?

Find out......and watch those fingers:D
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd care to video it for me - I don't have enough coke cans.

Regardless of the fact that such an experiment is hardly a valid attempt at modelling a 47 storey steel structure, I would say that that paving slab does not stay in the horizontal plane as it falls; one side or corner will fall first. That didn't happen at WTC7.

Also, who was tapping on top of WTC7 - the man in the moon?!
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Put it this way...if I was the perps I would definitely have Shills fighting on the forums for me. I would not believe in a hundred years that I do not encounter such 'propaganda assets' here every day.
Click to expand...

who cares what you "believe". Belief without evidence is worthless and as hollow as the "faith" religions demand.

And I were the putative "perps" I would definitely simply have you killed or sent to jail for kiddie porn. Likely cheaper and much more reliable;)
 
sheeplesnshills said:
who cares what you "believe". Belief without evidence is worthless and as hollow as the "faith" religions demand.

And I were the putative "perps" I would definitely simply have you killed or sent to jail for kiddie porn. Likely cheaper and much more reliable;)
Click to expand...

CTBUH claimed NIST had no evidence that column 79 was to blame for causing collapse. And that means there's no real way of knowing that collapse started in that region (one has to assume NIST chose column 79 because it aligned with the penthouse yet is pure hypothesis on their part)

NIST gives no evidence that all the exterior columns could fail simultaneously; they just say it happened that way.

I would say that makes your belief worthless.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Perhaps you'd care to video it for me - I don't have enough coke cans.

Regardless of the fact that such an experiment is hardly a valid attempt at modeling a 47 storey steel structure, I would say that that paving slab does not stay in the horizontal plane as it falls; one side or corner will fall first. That didn't happen at WTC7.
Click to expand...

Except it clearly did which is why the north face was draped over the debris pile. The south and center fell first.

And the experiment is not to replicate WTC 7, its to replicate how bucking of remaining columns could be very quick indeed, essentially instantaneously.

I covered this in Engineering at College..........and you?;)
 
mrkinnies said:
CTBUH claimed NIST had no evidence that column 79 was to blame for causing collapse.
Click to expand...

Really where?
I don't NIST claimed they did. They worked out thats what happened.

"And that means there's no real way of knowing that collapse started in that region (one has to assume NIST chose column 79 because it aligned with the penthouse yet is pure hypothesis on their part)"
Click to expand...

which is what they were asked to do. Form a hypothesis as to why WTC7 failed. Given the scarcity of data available I consider that they did a good job

"NIST gives no evidence that all the exterior columns could fail simultaneously; they just say it happened that way."
Click to expand...

Really where? (we have to make you guys provide links to actual text because we know twoofer predilection for quote mining, misrepresenting and just plain lying.

I would say that makes your belief worthless.
Click to expand...

and as usual you would be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
mrkinnies said:
Also, who was tapping on top of WTC7 - the man in the moon?!
Click to expand...

wheres that facepalm icon when you need it?

The (empty) cans are under the paving stone stack and you tap the side of them to buckle them (you have tried that? its a classic......). I would think that having the inside of WTC collapse would provide plenty of "tap" to the exterior columns!

and to show you that soda cans are a valid example

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~strsteel/TipSheet_Mar05.html

and by the way the failing strength of an empty soda can is about 122lbs so you will need a lot of paving stones..........

maybe straws might be nearer your budget:D

http://www.cs.wright.edu/~jslater/SDTCOutreachWebsite/column_buckle.htm
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Well you should try running naked around ground zero on 9/11/2011 with a sign around your neck.........you will be noticed:D
Click to expand...

You know that guy who's doing all the new 9/11 cartoons ? He should make one of a guy huddled down in a trench with a stone wall behind him,barbed wire all around, helmet pulled down over his ears and a big 'NIST' painted on it in white letters. lol
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Except it clearly did which is why the north face was draped over the debris pile. The south and center fell first.

And the experiment is not to replicate WTC 7, its to replicate how bucking of remaining columns could be very quick indeed, essentially instantaneously.

I covered this in Engineering at College..........and you?;)
Click to expand...

That's absolute rubbish. When you say college do you mean kindergarten?

The building fell as a single block. There is absolutely no evidence that the south side fell first. NONE
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Really where?
I don't NIST claimed they did. They worked out thats what happened.



which is what they were asked to do. Form a hypothesis as to why WTC7 failed. Given the scarcity of data available I consider that they did a good job



Really where? (we have to make you guys provide links to actual text because we know twoofer predilection for quote mining, misrepresenting and just plain lying.



and as usual you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Chapter 2 Section 2.4 Page 21 NCSTAR 1A. It's all there as clear as day.

Do I have to keep repeating this to you guys?
Click to expand...
 
mrkinnies said:
That's absolute rubbish. When you say college do you mean kindergarten?

The building fell as a single block. There is absolutely no evidence that the south side fell first. NONE
Click to expand...

WTC 7? as a single block? what about the penthosue? :confused:
 
mrkinnies said:
Did the penthouse walk out of the building or was it still inside when the building fell to the ground?
Click to expand...

it fell before the rest even started to collapse, so it did sure not fall as a single block as you falsly claimed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom