Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Gamolon]

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 and Marokkaan.

Does this video show a symmetrical demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WvQbFMIWU

 

[tfk]

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

I thought it was a 'bulge' that they used the transits on anyway.

Unsurprising to ... nobody ... BS hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

There is no limitation to either the large or small scale of what a transit can measure. (Well, at the small scale, there is the same "diffraction limit" half-lambda that bounds all optical devices.)

Transits are not distance measuring devices. They are angle measuring devices.

They can do this with incredible precision, sometimes using components like RVDTs, which have an infinite resolution.

The scale of the motion that they measure is set, not by the device, but by the transit's distance from the object being measured.

As such, they are capable of measuring anything from nanometers to light years. (Telescopes usually track moving objects by comparing them to the star pattern in the background. When a telescope slews to track some object that has moved out of its initial field of view, it is operating essentially as a transit.)

Bill's nonsense about "measuring microscopic movements [of] a building" is simply one application in the midst of a giant size range. [And the type of meaningless statement that he regularly pulls out of his nether regions.]

BS ignores their far more common use as measuring edges of property lines, directions for roads & rail way tracks, locations & heights of mountains, etc. etc. etc.

You know, "microscopic" measurements like that...

 

[paperboy05]

[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.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/collapse-symmetry/
Origin of the image:


Larger image from this very forum and Randi poster boloboffin:

 

[paperboy05]

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.

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

Great video!

Another image:

 

[Gamolon]

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

Tell you what. Please provide your definition of what a symmetrical demolition is and let's compare it to the video evidence that shows WTC7 collapsing.

 

[chrismohr]

OK Bill can you see the tilt now? As soon as you and other 9/11 truth people say yes we see this tilt, then we can move from pure observation to the next step of my inquiry. Hint: Occam's Razor (as Bill referred to) points to the simplest explanation that explains through natural laws all the observed data. The simplest explanation for the collapse of Building 7 is that the devil brought it down through a miraculous malediction. But that doesn't really explain anything.

 

[Edx]

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

But but but! Ppl herd splosions!

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?

Thing is you can also find demolition of buildings where they literally do fall over like a tree, so even if that laughable scenario happened on 911,they would still say it was a CD because of that very reason.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

There is even a bigger event that refutes this claim of symmetrical collapse.

That's the east penthouse collapse.

The truth movement tries to force blinders on people and have them focus on the facade part of the collapse to try to make them believe that this was the entire building coming down. That is why they leave out the penthouse in their videos and then claim that WTC7 completely collapsed in less than 7 seconds in order to match that video.

Both video and the 7 second claim are blatant lies that they refuse to admit to because it makes people lean to the conspiracy side. "Dirty Laundry" sells stories...

 

[bill smith]

OK Bill can you see the tilt now? As soon as you and other 9/11 truth people say yes we see this tilt, then we can move from pure observation to the next step of my inquiry. Hint: Occam's Razor (as Bill referred to) points to the simplest explanation that explains through natural laws all the observed data. The simplest explanation for the collapse of Building 7 is that the devil brought it down through a miraculous malediction. But that doesn't really explain anything.

I would need to see many more photos Chris. This could be parallax or a tampered photo. If there was a tilt it must be clearly seen in many of the hundreds if not thousands of other photos of WTC7.

Have a look at this video and see how many of the building look slightly out of line with each pther..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oew1KYnC428 explosions WTC7 11am

PS. Ypu might enjoy this one too T.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I disagree with what you said. Several reasons have already been pointed out to you, but I will chime in.

Do I expect a model to be perfect? No of course not. Do I expect it to be reasonable? Of course, that model was a disgrace, if you are an American you should be outraged that our tax dollars went to that.

Now let's go back to the beginning, an internal collapse is what I believe you state right? First question is, how would anyone know this is going on? With it being internal, and all. I have always found this a little weird. But fine. Moving on, as has been pointed out to you, to think that the outer structure stayed intact while an internal collapse is going on is unbelievable. Explain to me how this is at all possible. Even the slightest bit.

Next let's move to free fall. Maybe I'll try explaining it a different way. There should be and has to be deceleration given any type of resistance. Just as when a hammer hits a nail, or you cut a log with an ax. The hammer and ax decelerate. For the support not to go out at the same time (ie only one support column) rotation, deceleration and/or tilting is expected.

In fact the only observable deceleration that is seen, is when it gets near the very bottom. You know what this kind of reminds me of? I'll give you a hint. Go to your youtube channel and look up your dubunking videos. Go to the brilliant video where you "debunk" CD by showing an example of CD. You guessed it the verinage technique. Looks just like it except nothing was done to the exterior.

Thanks for your opinion. That's all it is. And since you have shown yourself not to have a clue on almost any subject raised so far we can safely assume your opinion on this is equally clueless.

tell you what though.....
Do you think WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed in less than 7 seconds like the 400 professors homepage claims?


Yes or No

 

[paperboy05]

I would need to see many more photos Chris. This could be parallax or a tampered photo. If there was a tlt it must be clearly seen in many of the hundreds if not thousands of other photos of WTC7.

Not necessarily, it's all a matter of perspective.
Since I screwed up the link earlier, here is the video in which the image was taken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o

Have a look at this video and see how many of the building look slightly out of line with each pther..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oew1KYnC428 explosions WTC7 11am

Do you have something specific in mind or are you trying to compare how WTC 7 was no longer parallel to adjacent buildings to a flawed perspective based on the depth of field of the video?

 

[Marokkaan]

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?

Some points i agree, but some points its difficult to see.

But ok. Lets say i agree with all your points.

So?

 

[Gamolon]

Some points i agree, but some points its difficult to see.

But ok. Lets say i agree with all your points.

So?

It is not a symmetrical collapse because the east penthouse fell into the building first.

 

[bill smith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A collapse WTC71
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o&feature=player_embedded collapse WTC72

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A collapse WTC71
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o&feature=player_embedded collapse WTC72

Both of those do not show the east penthouse.

Why not?

 

[mrkinnies]

They fixate on the curtain walls, ignoring all the chaos and destruction going on as the internal structure fails progressively.

Is this some sort of joke or are you talking about another building?

WTC7 didn't have curtain walls, they were load bearing and subject to the same forces and horizontal progression as the internal columns. Since the internal structure allegedly fell to pieces, the exterior columns should have done the same, but they didn't.

 

[mrkinnies]

[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.

Hi Chris, I see no tilt.

 

[paperboy05]

Hi Chris, I see no tilt.

Does this help?

 

[mrkinnies]

Does this help?
[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/WTC7lean.jpg[/qimg]

Yes it does, thanks.

It shows me that the building was already falling to the ground and therefore subject to the chaotic forces of crashing steel and concrete at ground level.

But before the building started to fall as a single unit, there was no lean.

 

[alienentity]

Curtain walls? There ain't no curtain walls...

'Building Exterior - General
The outward appearance of the building was determined by the covering, often referred to as a curtain wall, which was attached to the exterior steel frame. The curtain walls included glass that covered the windows. The curtain walls were held in place by supports attached to the steel. The primary materials used to form the outer curtain walls were polished finish granite sections, aluminum window frames, and glass. The placement of the windows in conjunction with three colors of granite gave the WTC 7 its characteristic appearance.'

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol1 p 142