Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[alienentity]

chris, you are a very patient man. Unfortunately there are some hopeless cases, and no amount of reasoning is going to affect them. I think you've found at least one of those cases here. That's my prediction, anyway.

 

[Marokkaan]

No, I'm a Mech Eng., and yes the apparent freefall for a short period of time is not important to me as I can think of several mechanisms through which it could happen. Its a curiosity, no more.

Its also not important to NIST either as its near the end of the collapse progression, long after (relatively speaking) the initiation event.


Its important to you? Wait, I guess you're a twoofer??

I just quote an explanation, so you can understand in good english how important the free fall is. Its shocking you say freefall is not important because its a short period of time LOL. (but even it was not important, you can not forget/ignore the free fall, especially when you first denied there was freefall LOL.

"When accelerating constantly from rest, the distance-acceleration-time formula is distance = ½ × acceleration × time² (S = ½ a t²). WTC7 was 180 metres tall. So for WTC7 falling at constant freefall acceleration (9.8ms-2), the values would be:180 = ½ × 9.8 × t²Which gives you a value for t of about 6 seconds. Now let's imagine WTC7 fell at only half the rate of gravity (4.9 ms-2). The values in this case would be:180 = ½ × 4.9 × t²Which would give you a value for t of about 8.5 seconds. The rate of fall has been halved, but the time has only increased by a couple of seconds. This is because everytime you halve a, you double t². Which means you multiply t by √2 (1.4). So halving the acceleration will yield only a 40% increase in time.Now if WTC7 had taken 8.5 seconds to collapse, a truther might say "this is only a couple of seconds longer than freefall, this is proof of demolition", and a debunker might respond by saying "8.5 seconds corresponds to an acceleration of half that of freefall, no demolition needed", and the debunker would be correct. But this is assuming the acceleration is constant throughout. In reality the acceleration was not constant.This was the mistake NIST made in their draft report. They correctly pointed out that the time between the moment the main structure (excluding the east penthouse) began to collapse and the moment the building disappeared from view in the most well known video of its collapse, was 5.4 seconds. Freefall time would have been 3.9 seconds. But the time is irrelevant, what matters is the acceleration. When physicist David Chandler called them out on this, they did a revised analysis for their final report. Below is NIST's velocity-time graph of WTC7's collapse..."In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration ... This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." ~ NIST NCSTAR 1-ASo NIST admitted that for 2.25 seconds, the building fell at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 - gravitational acceleration - as if eight stories worth of building were just teleported away.This is what we've been saying all along is impossible. Because when an object is falling at freefall acceleration, all of its gravitational potential energy is being converted into energy of motion, which means there is no energy left over to actually collapse the building! It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the period of freefall is only a small fraction of the overall collapse time, freefall acceleration at any moment is impossible."

"NIST have not explained the 2.25 seconds of freefall, they've simply asserted that it is consistent with their computer model. Their computer model has not been independently reviewed and they haven't even released an animation of the entire collapse. All we have from them therefore is their word. Even if several floors of the outer structure were buckled as depicted above, there would still be plenty of structure to prevent the building from accelerating at free fall. Because in order to crush that buckled structure, it would have to use some of its gravitational potential energy, this would mean that not all the gravitational energy is being converted to kinetic enegy, and therefore freefall would not occur."

 

[bill smith]

Bill,

This is your big chance to prove EDX wrong! Don't miss this incredible opportunity! (see his post #2175 immediately above). Or do you totally mistrust the parade of firefighters who testified that they saw structural deformations and huge fires in Building 7 prior to its collapse? EDX says you have no respect for FDNY except when they talk about explosions.

So please tell me, do you not believe firefighter Miller, and do you also believe the photo I showed you of the tilting of Building 7 is fraudulently distorted? Or can you allow this into our little exercise in direct visual observation? Is EDX right about you? I hope not!

Is there some suggestion that firefighters cannot be subverted ? Logic says that they are the same as the general population from which they spring where many can be bought off by money or manipulated by threats. That much is self evident surely ?

My objective disbelief in firefighters who said things like 'the building was fully involved in fire,all 47 floors from ground to ceiling'' is well supported by the total lack of evidence from the historical video and photo record to back up such an outlandish claim.

With Miller I don't believe him on subjective grounds bacause to me he shows all the body language signs of somebody who is lying and objectively because there is no satisfactory evidence by video or photo to show the lean that he describes. It is impossible that this lean would not be clearly and widely shown in the extensive visual record if it had in fact existed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA firefighter miller

To sum up. I believe that most fire fighter accounts of 9/11 are honest ones but I also believe that a minority of firefighter accounts are false for the reasons I gave.

 

[Marokkaan]

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.

Then you can explain, how freefall was possible?? If you really understand physics, you know its impossible that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall in a natural collapse

So now you are saying to me, we can easily ignore 8 stories in freefall??? LOL

Can you please tell me your expertise??

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.

You have to understand 8 stories in freefall in a natural collapse is IMPOSSIBLE.

Only controlled demolition is possible to do this.

 

[mrkinnies]

Wrong again. The term covers all four locations. Full stop.

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread490652/pg1

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028
' The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane.'


See why it's not worth the time? mrkinnies is doing a Femr2 and attempting to redefine 'no planers' to mean something that it really doesn't. I supported the term with several popular websites, mrkinnies..... he moved the goalpost as expected without any citation but his own opinion.....

Every major 9/11 conspiracy site is replete with 'no plane' claims for all four locations, but the most popular 'no plane' subjects are the Pentagon and Shanksville.

If mrkinnies states that he doesn't think flt 77 hit the Pentagon, he is, by definition, a 'no planer'. Again, we don't require his approval to understand this.... or does he get to veto our thoughts?

As usual alienentity, that's all you do have, thoughts.

Your posts are littered with your thoughts which because of your arrogance you assume to be absolute proof and you're quick to shift the goalposts when your thoughts are shown to be invalid. Now, had you asked me what I thought the definition of a no-planer is then I'd have told you that it is someone who believes no planes hit the Twin Towers. That would then have confirmed to you where I'm coming from but instead you make an erroneous assumption ahead of asking that question and apply it to me to suit your own agenda. Like so many other debunkers, you're not debating, you're ranting. I can do that, that's easy, the hard bit is to quantify where someone is coming from then make your argument based on the other person's level of knowledge or viewpoint. Since you've failed in the latter, you've only demonstrated to me how immature you are.

That said, I find it surprising that my admission concerning Flight 77 should suddenly disqualify me from the debate since, apart from the fact I had already stated this belief many many posts ago, the very fact that I don't believe in the official story surely suggests that I don't believe in other aspects of it also. Were you expecting me to disagree with the collapse of WTC7 only and believe all else?

Now, just for you, I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and I don't believe Flight 93 landed in that field in Shanksville. Until yesterday, I didn't believe that qualified me as a no-planer since there is no visual evidence to prove that the alleged planes hit these sites as we were told, contrary to the visual evidence of the Twin Towers attacks which confirms that planes hit these.

Say all you like alienentity but as usual you are talking bunkum.

 

[Marokkaan]

Is there some suggestion that firefighters cannot be subverted ? Logic says that they are the same as the general population from which they spring where many can be bought off by money or manipulated by threats. That much is self evident surely ?

My objective disbelief in firefighters who said things like 'the building was fully involved in fire,all 47 floors from ground to ceiling'' is well supported by the total lack of evidence from the historical video and photo record to back up such an outlandish claim.

With Miller I don't believe him on subjective grounds bacause to me he shows all the body language signs of somebody who is lying and objectively because there is no satisfactory evidence by video or photo to show the lean that he describes. It is impossible that this lean would not be clearly and widely shown in the extensive visual record if it had in fact existed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA firefighter miller

To sum up. I believe that most fire fighter accounts of 9/11 are honest ones but I also believe that a minority of firefighter accounts are false for the reasons I gave.

ITs funny, they use an eyewitness when they need it.

First they say, eye witnesses can not judge if its molten steel.

And then they say, eyewitnesses can judge if a building can come down LOL

I think somebody said it, and the firefighters were getting the information, the tower would collapse.

 

[mrkinnies]

But YOU KNOW how it happened, right? You KNOW its thermate right? All these dumbass scientists just cant figure it out, right?

Anyhoo, they do discuss the time element by definition the reaction cannot happen in an instant and did so at a lower temperature than steel melts.

Also, an aside, why is it they only found this on two pieces of steel? Surely there should be this stuff all over the place if it really was thermate/thermite? And if you're saying they covered it up on purpose, why did they (like FEMA) specifically SAVE these pieces?

And I still want to know if you would be happy being treated by a doctor that doesn't accept germ theory. Very simple question.

No, I don't know what happened. Like I said, you're the one who claims I am saying it was thermite. I don't know and cannot argue this aspect of the truther's claims since I am not a chemist. I was asking Chris what he thought of FEMA's findings especially in respect of the FEMA scientists who were baffled by what they saw.

Now, concerning the issue of time, I appreciate that I don't understand what eutectic actually means and how relevant it is here; I'm dumb when it comes to this - I admit it. But when I read this quote below (which you posted), I notice that the FEMA scientists talk about the deterioration as being rapid. Perhaps you or one of your colleagues would care to enlighten me here?

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.

The problem the FEMA guys encountered was that they really didn't know where the sulphur had come from and as far as I can see, they still don't.

http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/WTC_Talk.pdf

 

[Myriad]

Now, concerning the issue of time, I appreciate that I don't understand what eutectic actually means and how relevant it is here; I'm dumb when it comes to this - I admit it. But when I read this quote below (which you posted), I notice that the FEMA scientists talk about the deterioration as being rapid. Perhaps you or one of your colleagues would care to enlighten me here?

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.

Sure. Deep corrosion of thick steel, exposed to typical environmental conditions, normally takes years to decades. So when it happens in just a few weeks or months, due to being exposed to unusual conditions of high temperature and corrosive gases in a sustained underground fire, that's rapid.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[mrkinnies]

Sure. Deep corrosion of thick steel, exposed to typical environmental conditions, normally takes years to decades. So when it happens in just a few weeks or months, due to being exposed to unusual conditions of high temperature and corrosive gases in a sustained underground fire, that's rapid.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you.

That corroborates what FEMA said.

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 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.”

 

[NutCracker]

Thank you.

That corroborates what FEMA said.

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 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.”

Good. We don't know. And then what?

 

[mrkinnies]

Good. We don't know. And then what?

It's another unexplainable and unusual action to add to the long list of other unexplainable and unusual actions which all happened on the same day.

 

[excaza]

Unexplainable...

Like the entire CD delusion?

 

[dafydd]

Bill doesn't actually exist. "bill smith" is an act, probably from some overseas actors.

For any newcomers, 'bill smith' is a troll who will say anything and agree with any crackpot truther theory just to get a reaction. Ignore is the best option here.

 

[dafydd]

As usual alienentity, that's all you do have, thoughts.

Your posts are littered with your thoughts which because of your arrogance you assume to be absolute proof and you're quick to shift the goalposts when your thoughts are shown to be invalid. Now, had you asked me what I thought the definition of a no-planer is then I'd have told you that it is someone who believes no planes hit the Twin Towers. That would then have confirmed to you where I'm coming from but instead you make an erroneous assumption ahead of asking that question and apply it to me to suit your own agenda. Like so many other debunkers, you're not debating, you're ranting. I can do that, that's easy, the hard bit is to quantify where someone is coming from then make your argument based on the other person's level of knowledge or viewpoint. Since you've failed in the latter, you've only demonstrated to me how immature you are.

That said, I find it surprising that my admission concerning Flight 77 should suddenly disqualify me from the debate since, apart from the fact I had already stated this belief many many posts ago, the very fact that I don't believe in the official story surely suggests that I don't believe in other aspects of it also. Were you expecting me to disagree with the collapse of WTC7 only and believe all else?

Now, just for you, I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and I don't believe Flight 93 landed in that field in Shanksville. Until yesterday, I didn't believe that qualified me as a no-planer since there is no visual evidence to prove that the alleged planes hit these sites as we were told, contrary to the visual evidence of the Twin Towers attacks which confirms that planes hit these.

Say all you like alienentity but as usual you are talking bunkum.

Ok,you're a semi no-planer, and still wrong.

 

[dafydd]

Unexplainable...

Like the entire CD delusion?

Talking about entire delusions,perhaps mrkinnies could give us his/her full theory about the events of 911. No truther has a full theory,just nit picking on small details.

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Tri,

I'm still asking around about pix of Building 7 and its tilt either before collapse or as it was collapsing. Seems I can't convince our friend Bill that there was a visible tilt in Building 7. BTW Bill go 11 minutes into part 16 of my videos to see and hear firefighter Miller talking about and showing the visible leaning of Building 7 and predicting its collapse. Maybe Tri has another picture. I'm not quitting on you Bill. Do you agree that Building 7 was tilting based on this video or do you still deny it? Maybe Tri or his ten year old son has the proof you need. It's frustraing that we can;t even agree on visual observation.

Honestly Chris, I wouldn't waste too much time with Bill. He's mearly a troll here.

He honestly thinks that a firetruck drove through a flow of molten steel, and kept driving.

Yeah, I wouldn't waste your time.

In regards to pictures of the lean, I only have two.

This is taken earlier in the collapse

Here is the other. Both taken from the same video. I believe it's been sourced in this thread.

But, Bill won't agree on much of anything really. The crazier the better is his motto. Don't waste your time.

But, that is just my opinion. Most of us just point and laugh at him.

 

[triforcharity]

Sounds like a chip off the old block

Thanks AE. He's a pretty smart kid. I just wish he would clean his damn room.......

 

[dafydd]

Thanks AE. He's a pretty smart kid. I just wish he would clean his damn room.......

My two daughter's rooms were no-go areas. Sometimes they could hardly get the doors open because everything they possessed was on the floor.

 

[dafydd]

Honestly Chris, I wouldn't waste too much time with Bill. He's mearly a troll here.

He honestly thinks that a firetruck drove through a flow of molten steel, and kept driving.

.

He/she doesn't believe it. If a truther turned up here claiming that Godzilla did it then bill would pretend to give it credence just to provoke a reaction. The ignore button was invented for a purpose.

 

[mrkinnies]

Honestly Chris, I wouldn't waste too much time with Bill. He's mearly a troll here.

He honestly thinks that a firetruck drove through a flow of molten steel, and kept driving.

Yeah, I wouldn't waste your time.

In regards to pictures of the lean, I only have two.

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/wtc7f1.jpg[/qimg]

This is taken earlier in the collapse

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/wtc7f2.jpg[/qimg]

Here is the other. Both taken from the same video. I believe it's been sourced in this thread.

But, Bill won't agree on much of anything really. The crazier the better is his motto. Don't waste your time.

But, that is just my opinion. Most of us just point and laugh at him.

So nothing to show the lean prior to collapse. The lean that firefighter Miller is assumed to talk of.

As an aside, I never can quite work out why Silverstein said he and the firefighters agreed to 'pull' Wtc7 and yet no firefighters entered the building.