• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
Here is a link to a structural study of damaged steel structures using 3D modelling available through www.nafems.org. It's interesting because it highlights two issues relevant to both the truthers and debunkers.

Firstly, assuming the modelling is accurate, it does indeed suggest that vertical as well as horizontal progressive collapse can induce complete collapse in a steel structure. This is what NIST claims happened.

Secondly, the modelling clearly show that when structural members are destroyed in one area, that area falls first and rotation occurs towards that area before global collapse is complete. This is what I believe would have happened.

Not sure if any of this is significant but could add to the debate.

http://www.nafems.org/downloads/public/buildingblast.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting. I guessed that NIST would not use a scenario without it having some base of plausability.
 
Hi all,

I'm still crawling forward on this issue of the observable tilting of Building 7. The photo I have, I believe, is when the north perimeter wall began to collapse, and you can clearly see a tilt in an easterly direction. I've seen other pix of the tilting building 7 as well. Anyone care to repost those so we can show Bill that this tilt is indeed an observable fact? Mrkinnies has mostly agreed with these observations but Bill is holding back. And mrkinnies, as to your "so what" question about this exercise in observation, we'll get there. First I want to get Bill on board. Bill, I know that lenses and smoke and heat can slightly distort the angle of buildings etc but with the Building 7 photos, I am talking about something that I believe is clearly observable by the naked eye. I didn't notice clearly tilting buildings in your YouTube explosions video but I could be wrong.

The "direct observation" method could also apply to the sounds of explosions in real CDs vs the contested WTC collapses, but I would despair of ever arriving at agreement there!
 
mrkinnies said:
Here is a link to a structural study of damaged steel structures using 3D modelling available through www.nafems.org. It's interesting because it highlights two issues relevant to both the truthers and debunkers.

Firstly, assuming the modelling is accurate, it does indeed suggest that vertical as well as horizontal progressive collapse can induce complete collapse in a steel structure. This is what NIST claims happened.

Secondly, the modelling clearly shows that when structural members are destroyed in one area, that area falls first and rotation occurs towards that area before global collapse is complete. This is what I believe would have happened.

Not sure if any of this is significant but could add to the debate.

http://www.nafems.org/downloads/public/buildingblast.pdf
Click to expand...


1. How old are you?

2. What do you do for a living?

3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering?

4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed?

5. Do you think that some of the details of the construction of the building MIGHT just play a role in the nature of the collapse?

6. Or do you think that the collapse of this small, symmetrical erector set is valid for all large structures?

7. Do you think that the manufacturer of the FEA software sits up at night worrying that someone may catch on to the fact that his product is no longer needed because the analysis of one simplistic model applies to all other structures?

8. What experience in your background qualifies you to gainsay the results of several dozen PhDs in structural engineering who spent several years modeling, you know, the ACTUAL BUILDING, instead of a completely unrelated structure?

Please answer these questions.

If you do, I'll reply to your assertions about the necessity for "rotation before collapse".
 
bill smith said:
I have news helicopter footage from 2pm way after other air traffic was grounded. If one news organisation was there then they all were.
Click to expand...


The building collapsed hours later so what happens at 2.00PM is hardly relevant. The lack of any photos or video of the WTC7 burning from the air suggests there were no news Helicopters still flying.

Plus WTC7 collapsing was not a scheduled event so one would wast a lot of fuel flying around waiting for something that might take 5 or 20 hours to occur.
 
Wow.

You guys are really debating Bill Smith as if he were honestly participating in the discussion...???

Just sayin'... "Wow!!"

Really.

Wow.

Chris M, you're relatively new here. You evidently don't know the trolls.

Trust me, you do not want to waste any effort trying to get BS on board with anything.

JMO. It's your time to spend, of course.

tom
 
tfk said:
8. What experience in your background qualifies you to gainsay the results of several dozen PhDs in structural engineering who spent several years modeling, you know, the ACTUAL BUILDING, instead of a completely unrelated structure?
Click to expand...

To preempt his "argument from authority" defense, he has been saying he is an authority over and over again since got here my saying he is a retired architect.
 
tfk


Please answer these questions.


1. How old are you?

2. What do you do for a living?

3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering?

4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed?
 
Edx

Please answer these questions.

1. How old are you?

2. What do you do for a living?

3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering?

4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Edx
Click to expand...

Hey Clayton, good job missing the point. Either its stupidity or you have a reading disorder, or maybe English isn't your first language.

I am not claiming to be an expert, MrKinnies is claiming to be an expert. Since tfk is an engineer I am sure he wont mind answering the question however.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Hi all,

I'm still crawling forward on this issue of the observable tilting of Building 7. The photo I have, I believe, is when the north perimeter wall began to collapse, and you can clearly see a tilt in an easterly direction. I've seen other pix of the tilting building 7 as well. Anyone care to repost those so we can show Bill that this tilt is indeed an observable fact? Mrkinnies has mostly agreed with these observations but Bill is holding back. And mrkinnies, as to your "so what" question about this exercise in observation, we'll get there. First I want to get Bill on board. Bill, I know that lenses and smoke and heat can slightly distort the angle of buildings etc but with the Building 7 photos, I am talking about something that I believe is clearly observable by the naked eye. I didn't notice clearly tilting buildings in your YouTube explosions video but I could be wrong.

The "direct observation" method could also apply to the sounds of explosions in real CDs vs the contested WTC collapses, but I would despair of ever arriving at agreement there!
Click to expand...

No this type of "tilting" is to be expected. The design of the building, slight mili seconds difference in explosions, slight difference in size of explosions among other factors will keep it from falling completely symmetrical. It is the lack of deceleration that is the key. Notice in these videos of the verinage technique there is some slight "tilting" as the body descends with little resistance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

The type of tilting (and therefore deceleration) I am talking about is observed when the top bodies come in contact with the mostly intact lower bodies. Notice how eerily similar Blg 7 is.
 
tmd2_1 said:
No this type of "tilting" is to be expected. The design of the building, slight mili seconds difference in explosions, slight difference in size of explosions among other factors will keep it from falling completely symmetrical. It is the lack of deceleration that is the key. Notice in these videos of the verinage technique there is some slight "tilting" as the body descends with little resistance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

The type of tilting (and therefore deceleration) I am talking about is observed when the top bodies come in contact with the mostly intact lower bodies. Notice how eerily similar Blg 7 is.
Click to expand...


You keep saying explosions, where on any of the videos of the collapse do you hear any explosions?

There are various ones that we know would have picked them up.

And btw why reference verinage? verinage doesnt use explosives, it disproves truthers claims that pancake progressive collapses can only occur with explosives.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Hey Clayton, good job missing the point. Either its stupidity or you have a reading disorder, or maybe English isn't your first language.

I am not claiming to be an expert, MrKinnies is claiming to be an expert. Since tfk is an engineer I am sure he wont mind answering the question however.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss anything. Credentials don't mean a dang thing if you debunkers exfoliate the notion that the three WTC skyscrapers fell smooth as silk without being rigged to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom