Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[bill smith]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ

Maybe you should start another thread for this..

 

[mrkinnies]

Usually when buildings collapse spontaneously nobody is around to film them.
But the 30 story building in Belem, Brazil collapsed completely without fire or even earthquake.

That must've been CD as well, I suppose... Since it collapsed mostly in its footprint

What utter rubbish. The building at Belem was a concrete cross-wall structure still under construction which collapsed during bad weather. No one knows how it fell and the debris pile gives no clues either.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So has a fish. Its what those eyes are attached to is where he has a problem.

I see three buildings fall almost gracefully as if choreographed. That doesn't happen and has never happened as a result of a damaged caused collapse of any structure. Plus the cement floors were pulverized to dust. That has never happened before or since. Excluding, of course, controlled demolitions.

People who say that the three collapses were not helped by some sort of man made instigated destructive process have an agenda. An agenda to the detriment of decent Americans and to the detriment of what America has stood for since it's inception.

I'm not pleased.

 

[dannyb]

Maybe you should start another thread for this..

I'll do it now.

 

[mrkinnies]

depending on the integrity of connections to the exterior.

Do you know how many connections there were?

Do you know what affects that integrity and how the integrity of the external wall/floor connections could have been so different to those connections of the internal structure which just seemed to disintegrate to leave a hollow shell.

And if the floors are pulling the exterior inward, then why does NIST say all connections to the exterior broke which allowed the floors to fall? ("All the floor connections to these three columns, as well as to the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building"). Which theory is correct, NIST's or yours?

NIST says the floors collapsed starting from the east and continued across to the west. So why did that collapse stop at the west face; after all, the columns were the same and had lost all lateral support just like the internal columns?

And I do know that all the exterior columns failed instantaneously because the building fell straight downward with great symmetry for at least the first half of the fall (it only rotated later as the chaotic and increasing jumbled mass of the structure at ground level affected the path of descent).

Btw, you can't see floors 7-14 on any facade in any of the videos and the bottom of the north wall rested on the structure of the sub-station which included reinforced concrete walls so that would have affected stability of that wall relative to the south wall.

Of course, FEMA hypothesised that it was failure between floors 5 and 7 which caused the full collapse of the building since..."The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

 

[alienentity]

Do you know how many connections there were?

No, do you? Do you know what was happening to every component during every time interval?
No, you don't.

You're not even a trained engineer, so why do you expect to 'get' everything, especially if it's so easy only a small child can understand it? Perhaps we ought to ask those 7 year olds for an answer.

Yes, let's do that, and make sure they have no exposure to engineering, that would spoil the exercise in incredulity that you're indulging in...

Do you know what affects that integrity and how the integrity of the external wall/floor connections could have been so different to those connections of the internal structure which just seemed to disintegrate to leave a hollow shell.

Sorry, that's word salad. No way to answer...

And if the floors are pulling the exterior inward, then why does NIST say all connections to the exterior broke which allowed the floors to fall? ("All the floor connections to these three columns, as well as to the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building"). Which theory is correct, NIST's or yours?

Your ability to misapprehend other's statements is noted. Your 'all or nothing' canard is not working, nobody said 'all connections' in the entire building. Not me, not NIST.
Well, actually, you did say that. You seem to have trouble comprehending that the East side is not the whole building. Maybe you can fix that....

NIST says the floors collapsed starting from the east and continued across to the west. So why did that collapse stop at the west face; after all, the columns were the same and had lost all lateral support just like the internal columns?

Perhaps because the building ended at the West face, so the collapse couldn't continue?
NIST does explain this process. If you'd read and comprehended the report, you wouldn't be spamming the same questions....

And I do know that all the exterior columns failed instantaneously because the building fell straight downward with great symmetry for at least the first half of the fall (it only rotated later as the chaotic and increasing jumbled mass of the structure at ground level affected the path of descent).

Nope. Wrong again. Simultaneous means at exactly the same time. You have no way to measure the exact timing, eyeballing a youtube video is not going to get you there.
You can guesstimate that it was very quick around the building exterior.

And your theory is invalidated merely by observing the formation of the kink on the East side, if you look carefully (it's not that obvious because of poor resolution of videos) you see the deformation of the parapet wall right away.
Now, that is asymmetrical which, even if a small degree, is not consistent with truther claims of perfect symmetry and simultaneity!

We could certainly say it's almost simultaneous, or near simultaneous. I think that's accurate.

I hope you will continue to try to prove your non-points, none of which prove explosive controlled demolition even to a slight degree.

 

[chrismohr]

Mrkinnies, I offered up an eyeball observation of the collapse of Building 7. Just looking at videos and photos, no interpretation. I might add one more thing: taken together, all these videos and photos show the north or northwest side only. I know of no collapse video or photo of the south or east sides, and no videos looking straight down from above.

I am trying to see if there is SOMETHING we can agree on here. Do you agree with my eyeball observations? Bill and others, feel free to weigh in too.

 

[alienentity]

What utter rubbish. The building at Belem was a concrete cross-wall structure still under construction which collapsed during bad weather. No one knows how it fell and the debris pile gives no clues either.

The debris pile is everything, as well as eyewitnesses who claimed to hear loud explosions.

Most truthers claim that a complete collapse cannot happen without explosives, but it happened anyway in Belem.

Before saying that no one knows how it fell perhaps you should consult an engineers report, and talk to someone who saw the debris pile first hand. And what of the sounds of explosions reported? Surely this must indicate controlled demolition, does it not?

Is the Brazilian government covering up another inside job? It would seem so...

 

[mrkinnies]

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?

Thanks for your honest observation and post.

I disagree that the building appeared to lean to the east side. Looking at the videos taken head-on to the north wall, the sides of that wall remain totally vertically for almost the entire duration of fall.

AS for the issue of the building falling as a single unit. The east penthouse was approximately one quarter of the area of a typical floor. That means it represented just over 0.5% of the total structure. In other words, the collapse of the remaining building after the penthouse had fallen was 99.5% complete (call it 99% if we include the drop of the west penthouse a split second before final collapse). Since there was no further visible destruction to the building at the moment in time when the north and west walls began to fall I'd say that it fell as a single unit.

That fall was also straight down and without initial rotation.

 

[mrkinnies]

The debris pile is everything, as well as eyewitnesses who claimed to hear loud explosions.

Most truthers claim that a complete collapse cannot happen without explosives, but it happened anyway in Belem.

Before saying that no one knows how it fell perhaps you should consult an engineers report, and talk to someone who saw the debris pile first hand. And what of the sounds of explosions reported? Surely this must indicate controlled demolition, does it not?

Is the Brazilian government covering up another inside job? It would seem so...

I don't disagree that explosive sounds can be caused by all manner of causes from cars crashing, to cranes falling over to computer monitors going bang. But that doesn't mean the explosive sounds on 9/11 were any of those things or anything else you care to dream of.

Like I said, the Brazilian building was made of concrete and brick and was in the process of being built.

 

[mrkinnies]

No, do you? Do you know what was happening to every component during every time interval?
No, you don't.

You're not even a trained engineer, so why do you expect to 'get' everything, especially if it's so easy only a small child can understand it? Perhaps we ought to ask those 7 year olds for an answer.

Yes, let's do that, and make sure they have no exposure to engineering, that would spoil the exercise in incredulity that you're indulging in...


Sorry, that's word salad. No way to answer...



Your ability to misapprehend other's statements is noted. Your 'all or nothing' canard is not working, nobody said 'all connections' in the entire building. Not me, not NIST.
Well, actually, you did say that. You seem to have trouble comprehending that the East side is not the whole building. Maybe you can fix that....


Perhaps because the building ended at the West face, so the collapse couldn't continue?
NIST does explain this process. If you'd read and comprehended the report, you wouldn't be spamming the same questions....


Nope. Wrong again. Simultaneous means at exactly the same time. You have no way to measure the exact timing, eyeballing a youtube video is not going to get you there.
You can guesstimate that it was very quick around the building exterior.

And your theory is invalidated merely by observing the formation of the kink on the East side, if you look carefully (it's not that obvious because of poor resolution of videos) you see the deformation of the parapet wall right away.
Now, that is asymmetrical which, even if a small degree, is not consistent with truther claims of perfect symmetry and simultaneity!

We could certainly say it's almost simultaneous, or near simultaneous. I think that's accurate.

I hope you will continue to try to prove your non-points, none of which prove explosive controlled demolition even to a slight degree.

NIST says the kink was due to the collapse of column 79. That happened before the symmetrical collapse of the entire block and only becomes evident once the building fell. All outer cladding and windows stayed horizontal during the fall as did the roof. The sides of the north wall remained perfectly vertical. (btw, FEMA notes that the kink occurred over the east transfer truss above columns 76-78)

So we have a building which was visibly intact as it fell, falling as it did straight down with no rotation and great symmetry. This occurs after a rumble is heard followed by the east penthouse falling. I'd say CD.

 

[alienentity]

NIST says the kink was due to the collapse of column 79. That happened before the symmetrical collapse of the entire block.

So you're caught in your own nonsense. The North wall clearly forms a kink almost instantly, which is an asymmetry in the collapse. Period.

The evidence does not square with your claims. You should modify your claims to fit the evidence.

I have a feeling you're going to go the 'Ergo' route and the argument will implode for its insistence on an oversimplified view of the collapse. You've latched onto 'simultaneous' as others latch onto 'footprint' when neither of those descriptions is really particularly helpful in understanding the cause of collapse.

Since we already know that the interior structure was collapsing for several seconds before the curtain walls, then the whole issue of 'simultaneous' is moot. The exterior collapse was part of a larger event which started internally.

Your argument does nothing to change this. The collapse started internally due to fires. There is no evidence of any other mechanism at play. Nor have you presented any such evidence.

 

[mrkinnies]

So you're caught in your own nonsense. The North wall clearly forms a kink almost instantly, which is an asymmetry in the collapse. Period.

The evidence does not square with your claims. You should modify your claims to fit the evidence.

I have a feeling you're going to go the 'Ergo' route and the argument will implode for its insistence on an oversimplified view of the collapse. You've latched onto 'simultaneous' as others latch onto 'footprint' when neither of those descriptions is really particularly helpful in understanding the cause of collapse.

Since we already know that the interior structure was collapsing for several seconds before the curtain walls, then the whole issue of 'simultaneous' is moot. The exterior collapse was part of a larger event which started internally.

Your argument does nothing to change this. The collapse started internally due to fires. There is no evidence of any other mechanism at play. Nor have you presented any such evidence.

It's actually your simplistic approach which prevents you from seeing the problem. The symmetry is clear by looking at the videos of the north wall from the front. The kink is not seen and the north wall retains it's shape perfectly for nearly all of the drop. To deny that is pure subterfuge.

How can an internal collapse in one corner of a building which has internal and external columns linked in exactly the same way to one another cause a building to collapse as a single unit. It's impossible and NIST has no evidence either which is why their whole report on the collapse is based on a probable outcome. And since NIST won't release the data they used, the probability cannot be assessed properly.

NIST cannot say on one hand that the internal structure will break apart in a motion from east to west yet assume the exterior columns stay intact while that happens - they are inextricably linked. That makes it impossible just as structural engineer Kamal Obeid for AE911 says in their latest video.

 

[alienentity]

It's actually your simplistic approach which prevents you from seeing the problem.

How can an internal collapse in one corner of a building which has internal and external columns linked in exactly the same way to one another cause a building to collapse as a single unit. It's impossible and NIST has no evidence either which is why their whole report on the collapse is based on a probable outcome. And since NIST won't release the data they used, the probability cannot be assessed properly.

NIST cannot say on one hand that the internal structure will break apart in a motion from east to west yet assume the exterior columns stay intact while that happens - they are inextricably linked. That makes it impossible just as structural engineer Kamal Obeid for AE911 says in their latest video.

Don't worry, I have an answer for you. Rendering now. It shows how the upper portion of the perimeter compressed outward and down, in response to the internal collapse. There was clear flexing behavior, something denied by Femr2 for example.

And more crushingly to David Chandler's obsession with the mythical 'start' of collapse, this behavior occurs well before Chandler's 'start' point. Not only is Chandler incorrect, but the collapse of the perimeter was not as instantaneous as truthers would like to pretend.

Or perhaps y'all can explain it in light of the video to come..... cheerio!

 

[bill smith]

It's actually your simplistic approach which prevents you from seeing the problem. The symmetry is clear by looking at the videos of the north wall from the front. The kink is not seen and the north wall retains it's shape perfectly for nearly all of the drop. To deny that is pure subterfuge.

How can an internal collapse in one corner of a building which has internal and external columns linked in exactly the same way to one another cause a building to collapse as a single unit. It's impossible and NIST has no evidence either which is why their whole report on the collapse is based on a probable outcome. And since NIST won't release the data they used, the probability cannot be assessed properly.

NIST cannot say on one hand that the internal structure will break apart in a motion from east to west yet assume the exterior columns stay intact while that happens - they are inextricably linked. That makes it impossible just as structural engineer Kamal Obeid for AE911 says in their latest video.

IS NIST fully committed to the kink ocurring as a direct result of the collapse of column 79 ?

 

[mrkinnies]

Don't worry, I have an answer for you. Rendering now. It shows how the upper portion of the perimeter compressed outward and down, in response to the internal collapse. There was clear flexing behavior, something denied by Femr2 for example.

And more crushingly to David Chandler's obsession with the mythical 'start' of collapse, this behavior occurs well before Chandler's 'start' point. Not only is Chandler incorrect, but the collapse of the perimeter was not as instantaneous as truthers would like to pretend.

Or perhaps y'all can explain it in light of the video to come..... cheerio!

Sure there was flexing, that's what the kink is, one side moved slightly sideways relative to the other (east-west) and the kink is where the two movements met.

THis can only be explained using FEMA's initial conclusions which is that it was the failure of the transfer trusses. These were situated either side (east-west) of the central core of internal columns and helped to bridge supports lower down. Sadly for NIST that means failure occurred below the area of fire.

 

[jaydeehess]

IS NIST fully committed to the kink ocurring as a direct result of the collapse of column 79 ?

"Most probable sequence"

The kink does indeed show itself ahead of the fall of the perimeter walls. It shows up first as a line of broken windows following the east Penthouse collapse. Its downward movement leads the rest of the facade just as you would expect if an internal collapse occured interior to that vertical line and then progressed horizontally through the core from that.

The collapse of the facade/perimeter is also exactly as one would expect given the degree of damage to the south wall along the western 2/3rds of the structure(allowing the western portion to fall t the south). It is also as one would expect if the southernmost columns under the cantilever trusses were to be destroyed forcing 40 storeys worth of mass to be born by columns not designed for such a load(in the pre-existing Con-ed building).

Collapse begins tilting the upper 40 storeys of the western portion , to the south and having that mass settle on the cantilever trusses, quickly failing them and pushing the lower north wall (from 8th floor and below) generally outward and to the north.

 

[mrkinnies]

IS NIST fully committed to the kink ocurring as a direct result of the collapse of column 79 ?

This is what they say;

"The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent."

As with much of the NIST report, it's very 'open-ended' as to what they mean since they don'y say whether it led directly or as part of a sequence.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sadly for NIST that means failure occurred below the area of fire.

Seems to me that NIST puts the girder and floor failure at the 11th floor which THEN has heavy debris falling down upon the lower floors which has col 79 move downward failing more floors all the way up to the penthouse raining more debris into the core and initiating a horizontal progression of collapse through the core.

-Initial failure at the 11th floor causing col 79 to buckle due to heat and loss of horizontal buttress.
-failure of floors along col 79 resulting in large amounts of debris impacting core supports at the 8th floor and lower
-horizontal failure of core

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I see three buildings fall almost gracefully as if choreographed. That doesn't happen and has never happened as a result of a damaged caused collapse of any structure. Plus the cement floors were pulverized to dust. That has never happened before or since. Excluding, of course, controlled demolitions.

actually not even with CDs as there has never been a CD of a steel building as high as even WTC7 let alone the twin towers. Things happen for the first, all the time including things like jets being flown at high speed into buildings and them having massive unfought fires.

People who say that the three collapses were not helped by some sort of man made instigated destructive process have an agenda.

LOL yes and it was called a 767!

An agenda to the detriment of decent Americans and to the detriment of what America has stood for since it's inception.

patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. But again I agree, AQs agenda certainly is to the detriment of the USA.

I'm not pleased.

Neither am I.