Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Oystein]

Still an engineer according to AE911

I know you're joking, but no

 

[tmd2_1]

Hi again mrkinnies,

Go to around 6:20 in part 18 of my youtube gage rebuttals. You'll see a picture of a highly asymmetrical collapse of Building 7 into the weakened south face.

So I've read through some of this thread...seems you have a pretty high regard for NIST right? You can say what you want about Gage AE for truth, or whatever. But take a look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
NIST's model is a disgrace and an embarrassment. An 8 year old could see the model doesn't come close to reality. At one point the sides of the building are almost touching each other. These are your scientists you want to believe? All Americans should be outraged that our tax dollars went to this.

Let's look for one second at what they say "In Stage 2, the north face descended at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s." (all caps is mine)

There's one and only one explanation for this. . Simultaneous and instantaneous column failure.

But I'm sure the model and the free fall all have perfectly reasonable explanations and make perfect sense right? They always do. Just like if we hear an explosion on a video it can never ever be an explosion. A witness who hears an explosion didn't really hear that, eye witness testimony is un-reliable..etc. In fact it's only reliable when identifying a commercial jet or military jet at the pentagon (I'm not saying what happened at the pentagon, just giving an example of the hypocrisy)

Very strange view on things some people have.

 

[carlitos]

But take a look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
NIST's model is a disgrace and an embarrassment. An 8 year old could see the model doesn't come close to reality. At one point the sides of the building are almost touching each other. .

I'm no fan of youtube comments, but here's the first comment on that video:

You do realize they are just showing the inner structure right? The outer perimeter the building stayed intact. The interior is what failed.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks Chris but this picture shows only that the building started to rotate towards the south after it had begun to fall. It had in fact fallen about half way at this time yet had rotated less than 5 degrees despite all the chaos of breaking steel and concrete going on below it. Rotation became noticeably more pronounced at the point this screen shot was taken but was little evident for the first half of the drop.

During the final collapse stage at the point where WTC7 began to fall as a single unit (as described by NIST), the building displayed no rotation and it is this movement, symmetrical and straight down, which is critical to the argument. If you ignore this then you display the same ignorance as you did of the free fall graph in your first attempt at video 18.

I AM ignorant, but as you can see from version 2 of video 18, I learn fast (I made all those corrections myself except for the explanation of the "dots above the line." How did I do?

Since I'm slow and ignorant, humor me: here are pure observations I am making just from looking at videos and photos of Building 7, most of which can be found in my videos 18, 13, 14 and 15. Oystein and Mrkinnies and others do correct me. I am avoiding ALL conclusions or conjectures. Fir example, I observe a kink along the roofline. I know that buildings being destroyed in CD also can have kinks so I'm not trying to prove anything. Nor do i care about 6 degrees or precise collapse speeds. I just want to see if we are actually observing the same phenomena with our own eyes.

The videos of the north perimeter collapsing start with the east penthouse disappearing. From the westerly angle I can then see light shining through the upper windows. I also see windows on the easterly side breaking very fast, more or less in a top-down direction. I see a photo of Building 7 shortly before collapse or maybe at the beginning of the collapse and it looks like it's leaning a little bit to the east. As the global collapse is about to begin, I see a little kink but the roofline is mostly straight across.

From the north perimeter straight-on video, it looks to me as though the building falls pretty much straight down, and really fast. I wouldn't use the words "as a single unit," because I just saw the east penthouse collapse into the building and vanish from sight before the north perimeter wall fell what looks to me like straight down and really fast.

Observing the second collapse video in my Part 18 YouTube series, now I can see both the north and west perimeter walls, and it looks to me like they came down together. It looks like it's pretty much straight down at first, and hmm, maybe mrkinney's right, it looks like the twisting is later!

On this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1&feature=fvwp
It looks like the collapse begins pretty straight but then the north perimeter all collapse backwards more and more.

Then the photo of the north perimeter wall kind of covering much of the debris pile at the end makes me wonder if maybe that southward collapse continued past what we can see in this third video.

Pure eyeball observation. Do we agree that this is what our eyes can see?

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm no fan of youtube comments, but here's the first comment on that video:

You left off the CORRECT and easy rebuttal the author of the video made. So I'll help you out.

"Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's look for one second at what they say "In Stage 2, the north face descended at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s." (all caps is mine)

There's one and only one explanation for this. . Simultaneous and instantaneous column failure.

This is a commonly repeated lie amongst truthers. I say lie, because it's been explained sufficiently often and sufficiently clearly that nobody repeating it by now can seriously claim to believe it's true. But let me explain exactly why, once again, it's a lie.

First of all, the period of near-freefall drop commenced 1.75 seconds after the initial observation of downward movement of the facade, and during the initial 1.75 seconds the building was accelerating at significantly less than 1G. Therefore, instantaneous failure of the columns cannot have occurred, because, during the initial 1.75 seconds of downward movement, those columns were exerting a resistive force on the remainder of the building. Therefore, it is a lie to say that the column failure was instantaneous.

Secondly, simultaneous failure is not needed to cause a period of near-freefall collapse at some point after the initiation of downward movement. All that is needed is that, during the initial 1.75 seconds, all columns lose all structural strength over at least a 32 metre length. Once this condition has been satisfied, then the building will fall unimpeded through that distance. As simultaneity is not a necessary condition for the observed collapse dynamics, it is therefore a lie to say that only simultaneous failure can explain them.

(If your definition of the words "simultaneous" and "instantaneous" means "at any time during a given 1.75 second interval", by the way, then whatever language you are speaking, it is not English; and, in whatever language you are speaking, it is obviously incorrect to claim that only explosives can produce simultaneous and instantaneous column failure by the definitions you're using.)

I'll give you a pass on this first occasion. If you repeat the "simultaneous and instantaneous" lie, however, then it'll be clear that you have no intention of trying to determine the truth about the events of 9/11, but are simply parroting the lies you've been spoon-fed and have chosen to believe in order to inflate your sense of self-importance.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

This is the appeal to perfection fallacy. It is based on the assumption that a model is either entirely correct, to an undefined level of precision, or entirely wrong. In fact, the model resembles reality in some ways and not in others, as would be expected from any computer model of this complexity.

"In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition."

This is a mixture of outright lies, self-contradiction, poor use of language and unsupported assertion. It doesn't merit any further reply.

Dave

 

[tmd2_1]

This is a commonly repeated lie amongst truthers. I say lie, because it's been explained sufficiently often and sufficiently clearly that nobody repeating it by now can seriously claim to believe it's true. But let me explain exactly why, once again, it's a lie.

First of all, the period of near-freefall drop commenced 1.75 seconds after the initial observation of downward movement of the facade, and during the initial 1.75 seconds the building was accelerating at significantly less than 1G. Therefore, instantaneous failure of the columns cannot have occurred, because, during the initial 1.75 seconds of downward movement, those columns were exerting a resistive force on the remainder of the building. Therefore, it is a lie to say that the column failure was instantaneous.

Secondly, simultaneous failure is not needed to cause a period of near-freefall collapse at some point after the initiation of downward movement. All that is needed is that, during the initial 1.75 seconds, all columns lose all structural strength over at least a 32 metre length. Once this condition has been satisfied, then the building will fall unimpeded through that distance. As simultaneity is not a necessary condition for the observed collapse dynamics, it is therefore a lie to say that only simultaneous failure can explain them.

(If your definition of the words "simultaneous" and "instantaneous" means "at any time during a given 1.75 second interval", by the way, then whatever language you are speaking, it is not English; and, in whatever language you are speaking, it is obviously incorrect to claim that only explosives can produce simultaneous and instantaneous column failure by the definitions you're using.)

I'll give you a pass on this first occasion. If you repeat the "simultaneous and instantaneous" lie, however, then it'll be clear that you have no intention of trying to determine the truth about the events of 9/11, but are simply parroting the lies you've been spoon-fed and have chosen to believe in order to inflate your sense of self-importance.

Dave

Fine don't take my word for it or any "truther's" word for it. Take NIST's. Here's Sunder himself talking about the difficulty. But I'm sure it's all mis-understood what he's saying. That's the only way it can be right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

 

[Oystein]

...
Since I'm slow and ignorant, humor me: here are pure observations I am making just from looking at videos and photos of Building 7, most of which can be found in my videos 18, 13, 14 and 15. Oystein and Mrkinnies and others do correct me. ...
Pure eyeball observation. Do we agree that this is what our eyes can see?

Too lazy (actually, doing more important actual work) now to carefully look at all the footage again, but everything you describe is a good description of something I have seen and remember in those videos.
The kink in the roofline is a deflection of the center perimeter columns towards the building, or of the outside columns away from the building, or both. In other words: Part of the columns are not verical any more.

 

[The Platypus]

Fine don't take my word for it or any "truther's" word for it. Take NIST's.

I will. I have no problem at all trusting qualified experts, over the delusional rants of some anonymous obnoxious kid on the internet who is desperate that everyone believe in his "word" and join some lunatic fringe cult...

 

[Dave Rogers]

But I'm sure it's all mis-understood what he's saying. That's the only way it can be right?

Yes, I'm absolutely certain, without even having to watch the video, that truthers have wilfully misunderstood what he's saying, because that's what truthers do.

Feel free to post a transcript that you think proves me wrong; I can't be bothered with argumentum ad youtubum.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Fine don't take my word for it or any "truther's" word for it. Take NIST's. Here's Sunder himself talking about the difficulty. But I'm sure it's all mis-understood what he's saying. That's the only way it can be right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

Timestamp, please. [ETA]Or better yet: transcript, please (thanks, Dave, for the idea)[/ETA]
It is tedious, tiresome, annoying and downright stupid to waste your debate partners' time again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again on lengthy videos withouf indication on where to look, when all we need is a 5 seconds soundbite. When will you ever learn?

 

[The Platypus]

Gee why should we listen to experts, when these arrogant kooks troll the internet with youtube videos and conspiracy sites, and give us their "word" that they know it all...

It amazes me how dumb one has to be to fall for these CT cults...

 

[alienentity]

So I've read through some of this thread...seems you have a pretty high regard for NIST right? You can say what you want about Gage AE for truth, or whatever. But take a look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
NIST's model is a disgrace and an embarrassment. An 8 year old could see the model doesn't come close to reality.

An 8 year old would not understand the complexity of engineering, but instead would enjoy watching a simple cartoon. You are actually arguing that NIST should have created a simple cartoon and pretended it mimicked a complex event. You can understand this by asking yourself the question 'Is it possible for an engineering model to exactly duplicate millions of random interactions between components as the collapse progresses?'

If your answer is 'yes', please explain, in technical terms, how.
If 'no', then you agree with NIST engineers (whom you have just insulted without any respect, like a petulant 8 year old child) who wrote:

NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2, pp 599 - 600
'12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation

Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.

One must always read the fine print lest you miss the important details. The most relevant thing you can learn from the collapse is that the model demonstrated that the building could indeed collapse from fire alone; and it showed this in engineering terms, with full documentation that is published and available for scrutiny. The goal was not to create a picture-perfect, Pixar™-style, child-friendly cartoon for people who are too intellectually lazy to actually understand the issues.

If you continue to show zero respect for this kind of work, you reveal yourself as a person whose opinion is rather worthless.

Let's look for one second at what they say "In Stage 2, the north face descended at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s." (all caps is mine)

There's one and only one explanation for this. . Simultaneous and instantaneous column failure.

This is flat-out incorrect. The empirical evidence shows that, following the progressive internal collapse which began roughly 8 seconds previously, the exterior columns of the shell buckled during the initial phase of the 'global collapse'. For some inexplicable reason you omitted all of this empirical information, which of course invalidates your conclusion!
So, in fact, the initial phase, approx. 1.74 seconds, is the interval in which the columns buckled. You see, we know this because the acceleration was <g, which corresponds precisely with the buckling phase.
Your use of the word 'instantaneous' is technically incorrect, 1.74 seconds is not 'instantaneous', nor do you follow NIST's own data and observations. You would do well to remain on the path of technical competence and simply pay attention to the data!

Stage 2, as you correctly copied from NIST (you seem to trust them only here, for some odd reason.... ) was the period following the buckling where there was no discernible resistance.

Then came Stage 3, where resistance was again encountered. This phase saw a return to the <g acceleration.

The correct conclusion from this data is that the columns buckled (resistance), and then there was essentially no resistance for about 2.25 seconds.

Let's break it down another way:

Out of the 3 stages of the partial view, 2 out of 3 occurred below the acceleration of gravity. The initial phase was 77% as long as the 2nd phase, the 3rd phase was 62% that length.
In total, the period of acceleration nearest g was about 42% of the portion that can be viewed in that video clip.

Conclusion: Resistance was observed for 58% of the clip, a majority of the time. Had the fall of the building been instantaneous, then the initial phase (Stage 1) would have been at g. This did not happen, therefore we can prove, using the data, that the global failure of the external columns was NOT instantaneous.

Your statement is false, based on the evidence.

Further destroying a plausible controlled demolition scenario, there were NO explosions of any kind recorded on any videos taken as WTC 7 collapsed. Thus, unless one argues that ALL the video cameras malfunctioned at that time (a rather amusing hypothesis, dontcha think?), we can safely conclude that there WERE NO EXPLOSIONS at that time.

Without explosions at that precise moment, you have no controlled demolition. It's really that simple.

But I'm sure the model and the free fall all have perfectly reasonable explanations and make perfect sense right? They always do. Just like if we hear an explosion on a video it can never ever be an explosion. A witness who hears an explosion didn't really hear that, eye witness testimony is un-reliable..etc.

Maybe you actually believe what you wrote, but nobody else will. It's a shameless strawman argument. Of COURSE explosions were heard, some of them have been recorded by video cameras, and I have videos on my channel dedicated to them.

Your argument 'if we hear an explosion on a video it can never ever be an explosion' is meaningless gibberish. What you are trying to argue, through the back door (I guess you're too shy to actually make the argument on its own merits) is that 'every explosion must be caused by a high explosive demolition charge'.
Of course you know, and we know, that this argument is a false argument, as nobody can prove exactly what caused these explosions. You don't even know where they came from, so what is the point of arguing that they were cutter charges? They might have emanated from the rubble of WTC 1 or 2, they might have come from the street. How on earth could you possibly know which is which?

You are left making a nonsense argument in protest, while completely failing to explain in any satisfactory manner how random explosions post- tower collapse are 'proof' of explosive CD of WTC 7.

I agree, people have some very strange views of the events, and I believe yours qualify as some of the strangest, most illogical and unsupported of the lot.

 

[tmd2_1]

Too lazy (actually, doing more important actual work) now to carefully look at all the footage again, but everything you describe is a good description of something I have seen and remember in those videos.
The kink in the roofline is a deflection of the center perimeter columns towards the building, or of the outside columns away from the building, or both. In other words: Part of the columns are not verical any more.

Yes, I'm absolutely certain, without even having to watch the video, that truthers have wilfully misunderstood what he's saying, because that's what truthers do.

Feel free to post a transcript that you think proves me wrong; I can't be bothered with argumentum ad youtubum.

Dave

The time you would want to pay attention to is about 2:30 to 5:45.

 

[alienentity]

Fine don't take my word for it or any "truther's" word for it. Take NIST's. Here's Sunder himself talking about the difficulty. But I'm sure it's all mis-understood what he's saying. That's the only way it can be right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

"Free fall time would be an object that has NO structural components below it”....“there was a structural resistance in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that have to take place and everything was not instantaneous'

The case in question was the overall time of 5.4 s for the 18 top floors to fall out of view. 5.4 seconds is slower than pure freefall would have produced, so in fact it shows there was resistance, and the fall was not instantaneous.

All he says is that ' everything was not instantaneous' and he's still correct. You are still wrong.

Sure, you can continue to misunderstand and disrespect the people who spent their adult lives training and working in the relevant fields. That's precisely why you are not a top-level engineer and they are. Why is that not a surprise?

 

[Oystein]

The time you would want to pay attention to is about 2:30 to 5:45.

Thanks.
Watching it...

Oops, nothing of interest until 3:15. Guy, you just wasted 45 seconds of my life!
From 3:15 to 4:24, everything Sunder says is spot-on. No difficulty yet. You wasted another 50 seconds of my life.
From then on, to 5:45, it' someone else speaking, so another 80 seconds of my life wasted.

Hey, that clip in no way refuted what Dave Rogers wrote in post 1886. You wasted my time, because you either lie, or are too dumb to understand what is being said by Shylam or Dave!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Where is your Pulitzer for exposing 911 as an inside job? When is the award? Is your failure to complete engineering school keeping your from breaking the biggest story in history? Or is it a matter of evidence? Do you think being an engineer is needed to understand 911, or it could help?

Chris is doing a good job, you have failed to make a valid point. You are trying to back in CD, you have no evidence, and no engineering to back your delusion.

He has eyes.

 

[mrkinnies]

"Free fall time would be an object that has NO structural components below it”....“there was a structural resistance in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that have to take place and everything was not instantaneous'

The case in question was the overall time of 5.4 s for the 18 top floors to fall out of view. 5.4 seconds is slower than pure freefall would have produced, so in fact it shows there was resistance, and the fall was not instantaneous.

All he says is that ' everything was not instantaneous' and he's still correct. You are still wrong.

Sure, you can continue to misunderstand and disrespect the people who spent their adult lives training and working in the relevant fields. That's precisely why you are not a top-level engineer and they are. Why is that not a surprise?

We mustn't forget that NIST makes only a probable conclusion in its investigation and can do no more. I therefore find it amazing that people believe what they say at all....oh yes, it's because they are the so called 'experts' with years of training therefore they must be speaking the truth.

Since it took them years to come up with the report and they will not disclose any of their data inputs used in the modelling, I for one think they are lying or at the very least are being deceitful.

Firstly, their assumption that the internal structure of the building fell to pieces to leave a shell is just ludicrous in the extreme. Since the connections between internal elements (columns, beams, bracing) are the same as the connections to the outer frame, how can the outer frame stay standing while all else disintegrates, then and only then, causing the outer frame to fall in one piece (or as a single unit as NIST describes it - and I agree). How can inextricably linked structural pieces break apart and yet stay intact all at the same time? It's an astonishing leap of imagination. No wonder NIST won't release the data because it probably would show that they tweaked the connection tolerances to add strength to the external structure in their models. Mind you, you only have to look at the further collapse of the roof, after the penthouse drops, which preceded the collapse of the single unit by less than a split second to see that the interior couldn't have broken apart to leave a shell since structure is still supporting the rest of the roof.

And NIST makes no effort to explain how all the exterior columns could buckle simultaneously probably because it doesn't want to highlight the difficult issue of simultaneous failure. But simultaneous failure is the only explanation for the lack of rotation observed when the building fell as a single unit in under 7 seconds. My children (ages 3, 7 and 9) can see and understand that between watching cartoons, as could any person off the street. But for some reason, the debunking fraternity chooses not to accept it, perhaps because NIST doesn't talk about it so it's not considered to be an issue. But it's of the most fundamental importance!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You left off the CORRECT and easy rebuttal the author of the video made. So I'll help you out.

"Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition."

I see your problem. you can't tell the difference between truth an lies so you chose which is which based on your beliefs not actual facts. The first comment was a easily verified fact, the rebuttal, a bare faced easily verified lie.