• 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.
Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...


1. 58
2. Mechanical engineer.
3. BSME, Cornell U.
(I've answered all of these before. Why is it that the vast majority of the truthers will NOT state their qualifications?)
4. None. I've done lots of small ones for my designs.

But I'm not the one who is claiming (with zero evidence, only baseless assertions) that a passel of successful, proven professionals working within their fields of expertise (NIST & their consulting experts & the 1000s of structural engineers who have accepted their report) got it all wrong.

See the difference?

tk

PS.

Hey Clayton,

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?

(truth please.)

Also, the jist of the post ... that you skipped / missed / chose to ignore.

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?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
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".
Click to expand...

1) 42

2) I own a construction company here in the UK.

3) I am not a qualified structural engineer. I have a BA (Hons) Arch and Dip Arch which are standard UK university qualifications in architecture - the latter being the higher qualification. I also have a diploma in Urban Design - just so that you know.

4) None

5) Absolutely

6) The principles are the same. Gravity doesn't distinguish between small structures or large ones.

7) Nope

8) Their work was based on probability - and in my opinion, leaps in imagination. It is not based on the ACTUAL BUIlDING because they didn't have the ACTUAL BUILDING to examine. They used models which don't even perform as WTC7 did when compared with the recorded visual data.


I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
... 8) Their work was based on probability - and in my opinion, leaps in imagination. It is not based on the ACTUAL BUIlDING because they didn't have the ACTUAL BUILDING to examine. They used models which don't even perform as WTC7 did when compared with the recorded visual data.


I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me.
Click to expand...
But at least he understands models, you don't as you make up the CD delusions for WTC 7. What will you do with Flight 93 and 77? 19 terrorists did 911. WTC 7 caught fire on 911 due to the collapse and aircraft impacts that day. No body fought the fire, why would you have to make up CD when fire is all that is needed?

Why did you wait nearly 10 years before you expose your failure to comprehend fire can destroy a building?
 
beachnut said:
But at least he understands models, you don't as you make up the CD delusions for WTC 7. What will you do with Flight 93 and 77? 19 terrorists did 911. WTC 7 caught fire on 911 due to the collapse and aircraft impacts that day. No body fought the fire, why would you have to make up CD when fire is all that is needed?

Why did you wait nearly 10 years before you expose your failure to comprehend fire can destroy a building?
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building.

But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7.

I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done......
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
1. 58
2. Mechanical engineer.
3. BSME, Cornell U.
(I've answered all of these before. Why is it that the vast majority of the truthers will NOT state their qualifications?)
4. None. I've done lots of small ones for my designs.

But I'm not the one who is claiming (with zero evidence, only baseless assertions) that a passel of successful, proven professionals working within their fields of expertise (NIST & their consulting experts & the 1000s of structural engineers who have accepted their report) got it all wrong.
Click to expand...
Why do you lie?? You are just speculating, why debunkers think speculating is the same as telling facts?
 
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...

Hi Chris, there was flexing in the building just at the point the west penthouse collapsed and the building came down as a single unit. The kink is seen as a result of this movement.

I'm interested to see your photo but you may wish to bear this in mind.
 
Edx said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is one of the arguments of the debunkers they often use.

It shows their lack of knowledge about demolitions.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/debunker-verinage-fantasies-are-bunk.html

Read everything, watch everything.
 
Edx said:
And btw why reference verinage? verinage doesnt use explosives, it disproves truthers claims that pancake progressive collapses can only occur with explosives.
Click to expand...

Verinage is a demolition technique and that means human beings are involved in causing the building to collapse.

Those human beings make damn sure that the building will fall as intended by removing key lateral restraints throughout the structure and applying simultaneous destruction to all the supporting members at the point collapse is to start.

It's calculated and executed with great skill and attention.

Natural building collapses don't follow the same procedure. They are messy and usually incomplete.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
1) 42

2) I own a construction company here in the UK.

3) I am not a qualified structural engineer. I have a BA (Hons) Arch and Dip Arch which are standard UK university qualifications in architecture - the latter being the higher qualification. I also have a diploma in Urban Design - just so that you know.

.
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe.
 
mrkinnies said:
I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building.

But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7.

I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done......
Click to expand...

Dispute away,you can't change the facts. When another ten years have passed will you still be disputing?
 
dafydd said:
Dispute away,you can't change the facts. When another ten years have passed will you still be disputing?
Click to expand...

How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way?

I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it.

I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also.
 
dafydd said:
I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same.
Click to expand...

All you have is words, nothing more.

I was a real architect and still work in the construction industry.

Richard Gage was an architect too with years of experience.

You can pick and choose all you like but I really don't care what you believe. It's worthless to me especially as you've added nothing to the debate in all the time I've been here.

But feel free to discuss the issues like Chris Mohr is actually doing and I'll be happy to engage with you.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
All you have is words, nothing more.

I was a real architect and still work in the construction industry.

Richard Gage was an architect too with years of experience.

You can pick and choose all you like but I really don't care what you believe. It's worthless to me especially as you've added nothing to the debate in all the time I've been here.

But feel free to discuss the issues like Chris Mohr is actually doing and I'll be happy to engage with you.
Click to expand...

Gage is a raving lunatic. I will leave it to Chris,he does a sterling job in educating truthers about the facts of 911. Cheerio.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way?

I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it.

I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also.
Click to expand...

You will take your 911 fantasy to the grave. Cheerybye.
 
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