Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[beachnut]

Your words ring true for the debunkers too. Perhaps you should look at what history tells us. Here's a quote from Goring during the Nuremberg Trials;

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Why do 911 truth Followers drag out the quotes from the biggest losers in history to support their lies and delusions? Why do you dig out the NAZI quotes when you have failed for 10 years with your 911 delusions?

 

[Sabretooth]

Perhaps you'd care to explain?

If you're picking on who's then you'd be right. I was writing quickly. So what? That proves that all truthers are incompetent does it? How silly!

Why not discuss the collapse of WTC7 instead?

This does:

 

[twinstead]

Why do 911 truth Followers drag out the quotes from the biggest losers in history to support their lies and delusions? Why do you dig out the NAZI quotes when you have failed for 10 years with your 911 delusions?

It's because they have to resort to ideological reasons to explain why they are in such an abject minority on this issue. It can't be because they're wrong, of course, it HAS to be because everybody who disagrees is brainwashed. It's a woo woo circuit breaker. Otherwise they'd have to start re-evaluating their position and we just CAN'T have that, can we?

It's the same spiel from just about every cult and crackpot in history.

 

[alienentity]

Then why they did need a highschool teacher to change the report?

Measuring instantaneous acceleration was apparently important to some interested groups, so NIST provided that detail on request.

Their initial statement about the measurements was correct and is still correct:
5.4s is about 40% longer than freefall would have produced

I believe that in the draft report this measurement was given to provide some context as to the speed (ie comparing it to freefall), but it had no significance in terms of the reasons that the building collapsed - that is a far more complex question which they answered to the best of their abilities.

I don't think the engineering community at large is particularly interested in the exact speed with which the buildings fell; it is far more concerned with the cause of the collapse, and any remedies required in future construction relevant to the collapses.

These continued obsessions with acceleration were, and still are, red herrings. Even real CD's don't necessarily fall at a prescribed 'this is a CD' speed. There is no relevant benchmark to look at, no 'proof of CD' based on speed of collapse.

Try and find such a protocol in engineering, please. If you find it, post links here.

What you, and most other truthers are doing, is making a false, unsupported claim that a particular speed of collapse is proof of CD. This is fantasy, there is no such test.

 

[mrkinnies]

and I'm thoroughly convinced the science ain't there to support CD.

What do you make of FEMA's findings after examining some of the steel?

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

 

[alienentity]

mrkinnies, I'd prefer if you didn't reply to my last post anyway, I'm not really interested in debating you. I'm merely making a point from your remarks.

I'm sorry to say that the revelation that you are some kind of no-planer puts you in the 'flat earth' category of people that are not rational enough to have an intelligent discussion with. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I have a very, very low opinion of your conceptual abilities in these areas.

One final remark to your boast about overturning the scientific consensus on 9/11 - you're dead wrong, chum. 9/11 Truthers are NOT going to convince the engineering community that the WTC tower collapses were controlled demolitions. It's not going to happen.
Please, mark my words on that. You will learn in time that the majority here on the forum are correct and you are incorrect. Time and knowledge are on our side...

 

[mrkinnies]

Measuring instantaneous acceleration was apparently important to some interested groups, so NIST provided that detail on request.

Their initial statement about the measurements was correct and is still correct:
5.4s is about 40% longer than freefall would have produced

I believe that in the draft report this measurement was given to provide some context as to the speed (ie comparing it to freefall), but it had no significance in terms of the reasons that the building collapsed - that is a far more complex question which they answered to the best of their abilities.

I don't think the engineering community at large is particularly interested in the exact speed with which the buildings fell; it is far more concerned with the cause of the collapse, and any remedies required in future construction relevant to the collapses.

These continued obsessions with acceleration were, and still are, red herrings. Even real CD's don't necessarily fall at a prescribed 'this is a CD' speed. There is no relevant benchmark to look at, no 'proof of CD' based on speed of collapse.

Try and find such a protocol in engineering, please. If you find it, post links here.

What you, and most other truthers are doing, is making a false, unsupported claim that a particular speed of collapse is proof of CD. This is fantasy, there is no such test.

So you suggest the speed is not relevant based on nothing more than your belief that engineers will find it irrelevant.

Hmmm, is this fantasy too or do you have proof?

 

[Edx]

What do you make of FEMA's findings after examining some of the steel?

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Metal Processing Institute - Worcester Polytechnic Institute
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Research/MPI/News/aninit697.html

Obviously they are "brainwashed" as well.

 

[mrkinnies]

mrkinnies, I'd prefer if you didn't reply to my last post anyway, I'm not really interested in debating you. I'm merely making a point from your remarks.

I'm sorry to say that the revelation that you are some kind of no-planer puts you in the 'flat earth' category of people that are not rational enough to have an intelligent discussion with. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I have a very, very low opinion of your conceptual abilities in these areas.

One final remark to your boast about overturning the scientific consensus on 9/11 - you're dead wrong, chum. 9/11 Truthers are NOT going to convince the engineering community that the WTC tower collapses were controlled demolitions. It's not going to happen.
Please, mark my words on that. You will learn in time that the majority here on the forum are correct and you are incorrect. Time and knowledge are on our side...

No-planer - what do you mean? I'm not a no-planer so not sure where you get that from?

I had the balls to admit my mistake yesterday. I see that you don't.

 

[beachnut]

No-planer - what do you mean?

Time for another NAZI quote from 911 truth? When will you figure out 911 and publish your findings with evidence? Will you include some math, a little physics and some engineering, or stick with the NAZI quotes to support your opinions and delusions of CD?

 

[mrkinnies]

One final remark to your boast about overturning the scientific consensus on 9/11 - you're dead wrong, chum. 9/11 Truthers are NOT going to convince the engineering community that the WTC tower collapses were controlled demolitions. It's not going to happen.
Please, mark my words on that. You will learn in time that the majority here on the forum are correct and you are incorrect. Time and knowledge are on our side...

And I wasn't boasting, I was simply twisting what sheeplesnshills was saying to show that whatever argument is applied by the debunkers can be applied by the truthers too. Why don't you look back at the words he used versus the ones I used?

 

[mrkinnies]

Metal Processing Institute - Worcester Polytechnic Institute
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7




http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Research/MPI/News/aninit697.html

Obviously they are "brainwashed" as well.

Since all they are saying is the beam reached 1000 degreesC I don't see what your point is?

 

[beachnut]

And I wasn't boasting, I was simply twisting what sheeplesnshills was saying to show that whatever argument is applied by the debunkers can be applied by the truthers too. Why don't you look back at the words he used versus the ones I used?

Truthers believe in fantasy. Debunkers believe in reality.
Truthers think they have an open mind, and they fill it with nonsense, which is easy, skipping evidence, making up fantasy.
Debunkers are skeptics, they use evidence (you don't) to form rational conclusions, not the fantasy you fall for.

 

[alienentity]

So you suggest the speed is not relevant based on nothing more than your belief that engineers will find it irrelevant.

Hmmm, is this fantasy too or do you have proof?

I loath to discuss things with an essentially irrational person, but the simple answer is that, of the real CD's that have been studied by David Chandler, Femr2, E Yarimer at London University, and others, freefall is not a typical component of controlled demolition.

Most of the time (verinage is one example) the speed is considerably slower than freefall.

So, no, there is no empirical data to suggest that freefall = CD. That is a false claim, and is completely unsupported by the engineering community or literature.

So if one makes that claim, one needs to back it up. You haven't, nor has any other 9/11 Truther. The opposite, in fact, is shown by careful analysis.

David Chandler ''have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. '
Now, if Chandler were not overwhelmed by confirmation bias, he'd say 'freefall is not an indicator of CD', but instead he jumps the shark and states 'Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill'

 

[alienentity]

No-planer - what do you mean? I'm not a no-planer so not sure where you get that from?

I had the balls to admit my mistake yesterday. I see that you don't.

Y'see why I don't really want to engage in a discussion with mrkinnies? Read the bolded part now read below:

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......

I rest my case. He's a no-planer, and doesn't even have the intellectual integrity to recognize it.

That's why discussing these issues with mrkinnies is a waste of my time.

Just for the record, it is generally accepted in the 9/11 Truth community that a no-planer includes anybody who denies that planes crashed at either:
1) WTC 1
2) WTC 2
3) The Pentagon
4) Shanksville

Here's an example of the typical truther perspective. I'm sure mrkinnies will attempt to somehow shift the goalpost, but it's too late...again. He's a no-planer, whether he admits it or not.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/no-planes.html

 

[mrkinnies]

Y'see why I don't really want to engage in a discussion with mrkinnies? Read the bolded part now read below:



I rest my case. He's a no-planer, and doesn't even have the intellectual integrity to recognize it.

That's why discussing these issues with mrkinnies is a waste of my time.

'No-planers' are those people who believe no planes hit the Twin Towers. Since the video evidence essentially proves this then I'd say there were planes.

It does not relate to the Pentagon because there is no visual video evidence to prove that Flight 77 hit it.

If that's all you have as an excuse to ignore me then it is proof positive that you have no argument at all, which I've long since suspected (that and having no balls with which to admit you are wrong).

 

[Sam.I.Am]

because I was so P.O.'ed at Bush for starting the Iraq War on false pretenses of WMDs I could believe almost anything about them.

This is something that I've pointed out here many times in the past. It's my belief that most of the truthers started off that way because they wanted those lies and distortions to be true due to political ideology. Once the Congress went to the Democrats in 2006 many of them disappeared and after Obama took office all that remained were the hardcore people on both sides of the political spectrum that wouldn't believe anything coming from the government no matter how well documented it was and the mentally ill. The rest are just preying upon them for their money or are internet trolls.

 

[Animal]

LOL , no it makes him vastly more qualified as to become a Mech Eng you study both Statics and Dynamics, the Basics of Structural Engineering.

Architecture is essentially an arts degree and does not cover these subjects in anything like the same depth. My brother in law is an architect in the UK but he, unlike you, knows his limitations, and has Engineers do the Engineering.

Mine is a Science degree......not art. Had the same Statics and Mechanics classes that all the engineering majors had as well as engineering calculus (don't have a clue why we needed that) Also three structure courses taught by aeronautical engineers (and they hated us architects)

But then, I went to and predominately engineering Institute. My second degree was from a more usual university.......and that I would agree was more arts degree.

 

[bill smith]

Y'see why I don't really want to engage in a discussion with mrkinnies? Read the bolded part now read below:



I rest my case. He's a no-planer, and doesn't even have the intellectual integrity to recognize it.

That's why discussing these issues with mrkinnies is a waste of my time.

Just for the record, it is generally accepted in the 9/11 Truth community that a no-planer includes anybody who denies that planes crashed at either:
1) WTC 1
2) WTC 2
3) The Pentagon
4) Shanksville

Here's an example of the typical truther perspective. I'm sure mrkinnies will attempt to somehow shift the goalpost, but it's too late...again. He's a no-planer, whether he admits it or not.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/no-planes.html

I'd trust the Pentagon story about as far as I could throw it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7416643&postcount=24. hyperlink

 

[The Almond]

It does not relate to the Pentagon because there is no visual video evidence to prove that Flight 77 hit it.

Ten years later, this still makes me laugh.