Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[beachnut]

...
.... It is impossible to achieve such symmetry of movement for a whole building when you get a localised collapse which is why FEMA could only assume the collapse started lower down (below the fire) in the transfer floors.

Who says? Source?
What Engineering school did you graduate from? Are you going to publish your paper soon? Pulitzer? Will you include how the bad guys found silent explosives that leave no blast effects? This will be the first time 911 truth has done something.

Oops, it was not symmetric. Did you take a math course yet higher than grade school level? Please show the symmetry stuff you speak of. Last eye exam?

 

[alienentity]

The problem with discussing this with MrKinnies and his ilk is that 'the building' as they perceive it is actually not the entire building, only part of it. They fixate on the curtain walls, ignoring all the chaos and destruction going on as the internal structure fails progressively.
They don't understand that this took place in a mere few seconds, and that eventually the downward motion of the majority of the core pulled the exterior down with it - but not instantaneously - it was clearly progressive.

Coupled with the fact that there were no explosions happening as this occurred, it is obvious to competent observers that this was a natural collapse caused by fires and ensuing structural failure - not explosive CD.
That is the most important point of all. No evidence of CD anywhere to be seen.

As you can easily see in the video, the upper portion of the outer structure flexes, bows, compresses, however you would describe it, but it reacts to the internal collapse at the moment when the W Penthouse starts to collapse into the building.
Somewhere in this period, the exterior columns begin to buckle, but it's not instantaneous, you can see the flexion and compression, then the exterior begins to fall as well.

Truthers can not see this as they are self-indoctrinated to ignore anything that supports a natural collapse. Stripped of this doctrinal crutch, they have nothing to offer.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Nope, can't be bothered. Type in a transcript and I'll read it, then explain why it doesn't mean what you're pretending it means.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Transits are used to measure microscopic movements in a building Chris. Why would you use transits if you can already see a lean?

Because perhaps they were not sure. being professionals, with professional equipment, they checked and found they were right. Furthermore they could check for changes that might indicate immediacy of the problem

Well, we're having trouble agreeing with even visual observation. The firefighters saw bulges, and used a transit to confirm their visual observation. But I just want to ask, do you see the kink in the roofline? Do you see a tilt in the picture? Just questions of observation. Bill? Mrkinney?

I only ever heard about one 'bulge' Chris. The guy said smething like 'we saw a bulge and we put a transit on it' A bulge sticks out from a flatter surface.

i have seen a kink in the roofline the same as what you see when a controlled demolition is performed. Put up your best pictures of the lean and I'll tell you what I think.

'' Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.''


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.''
''

 

[Oystein]

I don't think that transits have microscopic measuring accuracy. But, I could be wrong. I haven't used a transit in many years.

It depends. You have different kinds of transits for different purposes. Accuracy depends on distance of course (you are more precise at 30 feet distance than at 300 feet distance). Another important factir is the target that you aim the transit at: The transit can't be more accurate that the target is defined. If your target is some feature on the wall, accuracy depends on how exactly you hit the same target between two measurements.

From my experience with assisting land surveyors (I had up to 3 in my close family) I'd say that accuracy in that situation wasn't better than in the range of 1cm to 1 inch. Not microscopic. Reasons for my assessment would be the long distance, the unknown optical properties of the potentially hot air, and the probable inaccuracy of targets on the building perimeter.

 

[chrismohr]

Alright Kinnies, here you go. Oh dear, your statement 'The kink is not seen and the north wall retains it's shape perfectly for nearly all of the drop.' is nonsense. Case closed.

Here's a picture of the kink, from my new video. Contrary to your erroneous statement, the kink IS visible, almost immediately as the building drops.

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC7kink.jpg[/qimg]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HNMcWk5WpY

Well done alienentity. You show asymmetry in even the most symmetrical-looking of the collapse videos. I also provided this link to another collapse video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1&feature=fvwp
where we see extreme asymmetry as (it looks like to me) the whole building collapses into its weakest south-facing wall (and eventually from post-collapse photos it looks like the north perimeter wall literally folds over the top of the entire debris pile).

As mrkinney said about this video, the building started out straight and the tilt became more extreme as the collapse progressed. Are my eyeball observations accurate here, everyone?

 

[Edx]

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.''
''

They were not using a transit to confirm the buldge Bill, its more likely they would have been using it to measure changes.

Also, I dunno why you firefighters that you think are either idiots or lying.

 

[Marokkaan]

Well done alienentity. You show asymmetry in even the most symmetrical-looking of the collapse videos. I also provided this link to another collapse video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1&feature=fvwp
where we see extreme asymmetry as (it looks like to me) the whole building collapses into its weakest south-facing wall (and eventually from post-collapse photos it looks like the north perimeter wall literally folds over the top of the entire debris pile).

As mrkinney said about this video, the building started out straight and the tilt became more extreme as the collapse progressed. Are my eyeball observations accurate here, everyone?

:facepalm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTMyzz8vqmQ&feature=player_embedded



Whats your point?

 

[Marokkaan]

Ow my god, whats this another building with cd collapsed with a kink?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg&feature=player_embedded

 

[chrismohr]

picture of tilt in building 7



Bill and mrkinney and clayton etc, here is the picture of Building 7 tilting towards the east before the collapse of the perimeter walls. Can you see that there is a noticeable tilt there in the building? Again, so far all I'm trying to do is get agreement on some eyeballing observations.

And in Clayton's defense, from the level of simple visual observation of the north face collapse video, I'd say Clayton was being poetic by calling it choreographed but I agree that it looks like an awfully clean collapse too. I've been as honest as I can about these visual observations, as even mrkinney has acknowledged. Remember, as a layman I started looking at this whole thing wondering if Richard Gage was right. That's why it's helpful for me to go back to pure visual observation a bit to make sure we are all at least seeing the same thing. Our explanations of what caused what we see will differ totally but at least let's agree on what we see.

 

[chrismohr]

Marokaan is right. Kinks appear in controlled demolitions, as this video shows and as I mentioned just a few days ago in an earlier post. Marokaan, I think the argument here is against claims of perfect symmetry of collapse in the case of Building 7. The kink refutes the claim that Building 7 was symmetrical but as you show in your YouTube video, it most certainly does not prove natural collapse.

 

[bill smith]

Marokaan is right. Kinks appear in controlled demolitions, as this video shows and as I mentioned just a few days ago in an earlier post. Marokaan, I think the argument here is against claims of perfect symmetry of collapse in the case of Building 7. The kink refutes the claim that Building 7 was symmetrical but as you show in your YouTube video, it most certainly does not prove natural collapse.

Whether it was perfectly symmetrical or not makes no difference in my opinion. It was as symmetrical or perhaps more so than most legal controlled demolitions, Nobody in their right mind could possibly consider for one second that it was a case of a steel framed structure collapsing from fire for the first time in the recorded history of the planet and looking so much like a controlled demolition.

Occam's razor in the flesh.

 

[Marokkaan]

Whether it was perfectly symmetrical or not makes no difference in my opinion. It was as symmetrical or perhaps more so than most legal controlled demolitions, Nobody in their right mind could possibly consider for one second that it was a case of a steel framed structure collapsing from fire for the first time in the recorded history of the planet and looking so much like a controlled demolition.

Occam's razor in the flesh.

Only people with no expertise or they are biased are telling its no symmetrical collapse, those people do not understand the behaviour of a collapse.

 

[bill smith]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/485124e5516bb18c80.jpg[/qimg]

Bill and mrkinney and clayton etc, here is the picture of Building 7 tilting towards the east before the collapse of the perimeter walls. Can you see that there is a noticeable tilt there in the building? Again, so far all I'm trying to do is get agreement on some eyeballing observations.

And in Clayton's defense, from the level of simple visual observation of the north face collapse video, I'd say Clayton was being poetic by calling it choreographed but I agree that it looks like an awfully clean collapse too. I've been as honest as I can about these visual observations, as even mrkinney has acknowledged. Remember, as a layman I started looking at this whole thing wondering if Richard Gage was right. That's why it's helpful for me to go back to pure visual observation a bit to make sure we are all at least seeing the same thing. Our explanations of what caused what we see will differ totally but at least let's agree on what we see.

I wonder if somebody would repost that photo larger ?

 

[chrismohr]

FYI last January I wrote to NIST and they answered the toughest questions I could throw at them from Richard Gage's side. I asked them partially from the 9/11 truth point of view. Their answers were a launchpad for me, and if I didn't fully understand some of their answers I took it to my friends here at jref.

Here's a link to a 9/11 truth rebuttal of NIST's answers to me:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/03/22511-answers-from-nist-to-questions-by.html

 

[chrismohr]

Whether it was perfectly symmetrical or not makes no difference in my opinion. It was as symmetrical or perhaps more so than most legal controlled demolitions, Nobody in their right mind could possibly consider for one second that it was a case of a steel framed structure collapsing from fire for the first time in the recorded history of the planet and looking so much like a controlled demolition.

Occam's razor in the flesh.

So can we agree that from observing these videos and photos that
1) to a gross order it looks like Building 7's north perimeter fell pretty much straight down and very fast?
2) There was some tilt in the building prior to collapse (photo in above post)?
3) The collapse was not perfectly symmetrical but from these videos it looks like it was pretty close to symmetrical at least at first?
4) Even the video showing the building eventually collapsing southwards begins with a nearly vertical descent before the southwards tilt becomes pronounced?
Does anyone NOT see any of this?

 

[bill smith]

FYI last January I wrote to NIST and they answered the toughest questions I could throw at them from Richard Gage's side. I asked them partially from the 9/11 truth point of view. Their answers were a launchpad for me, and if I didn't fully understand some of their answers I took it to my friends here at jref.

Here's a link to a 9/11 truth rebuttal of NIST's answers to me:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/03/22511-answers-from-nist-to-questions-by.html

Are you prepared to write to NIST again and get them to answer some questions that we formulate here ?

 

[bill smith]

So can we agree that from observing these videos and photos that
1) to a gross order it looks like Building 7's north perimeter fell pretty much straight down and very fast?
2) There was some tilt in the building prior to collapse (photo in above post)?
3) The collapse was not perfectly symmetrical but from these videos it looks like it was pretty close to symmetrical at least at first?
4) Even the video showing the building eventually collapsing southwards begins with a nearly vertical descent before the southwards tilt becomes pronounced?
Does anyone NOT see any of this?

I don't believe that there was a tilt in the building at this time. I would need to see much more photograhic exvidence of such a tilt to even consider it. Is that photo the only one that you can show of a tilt ?

 

[alienentity]

So can we agree that from observing these videos and photos that
1) to a gross order it looks like Building 7's north perimeter fell pretty much straight down and very fast?
2) There was some tilt in the building prior to collapse (photo in above post)?
3) The collapse was not perfectly symmetrical but from these videos it looks like it was pretty close to symmetrical at least at first?
4) Even the video showing the building eventually collapsing southwards begins with a nearly vertical descent before the southwards tilt becomes pronounced?
Does anyone NOT see any of this?

Hi Chris, regarding item 3, it depends which part of the collapse you're looking at, IMO. If you take the first part of the collapse, where the external structures fall into the collapsing core, then it is definitely not symmetrical in any way - it is progressive, East to West.

If you take just the portion after the West penthouse starts to collapse, and after the kink forms, and both the East and West corners of the exterior are falling, then the remaining structure does move fairly uniformly for a few seconds.

Where I object to the use of 'symmetrical' somewhat, and 'simultaneous' to a greater degree, is when truthers use those terms to describe the entire collapse; and also that they continually treat the remaining exterior as 'the building', meaning 'the whole building'.

I bellieve in that context the use of those terms is false and incorrect. But certain aspects of the collapse are fairly symmetrical, as you have observed.

 

[paperboy05]

Ow my god, whats this another building with cd collapsed with a kink?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg&feature=player_embedded

I just love how loud the explosions are in this video. They should have used the silent ones!

Side note, is it just me or are truthers claiming that a symmetrical collapse = CD and also an asymmetrical collapse = CD? Is there anything in their minds that doesn't equal CD?