Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[sheeplesnshills]

Pop mech guy makes a gaffe about reinforced concrete on the core of WTC towers............ countdown to new CT!

 

[bill smith]

What does he say and why should we be interested?

He said that he was a part of NY ATC on 9/11. Later in the day all the ATC gathered together and made a tape of their experiences on the day. He was outraged that the tape was taken and destroyed as it contained valuable information including that at least one of the planes turned off it's transponder as it took off. (Probably flight 93 if it was Newark NY.)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Have a listen to Anthony, a caller at around 36 minutes.

I doubt "Antony" is who he claims to be.........and he gets the facts about the black boxs wrong so what else is he wrong about?

"I also notice that James Meigs appears to be very nervous. His voice often seems to be just North of trembling. Lots of swallowing."

The guy is a magazine guy not radio.....

 

[DGM]

He said that he was a part of NY ATC on 9/11. Later in the day all the ATC gathered together and made a tape of their experiences on the day. He was outraged that the tape was taken and destroyed as it contained valuable information including that at least one of the planes turned off it's transponder as it took off. (Probably flight 93 if it was Newark NY.)

You do know this is very old news? If memory serves it was a stupid union requirement that should not have been followed. I agree, it could have been useful. Nothing leading to "inside job", unless you want to claim the AT controllers were in on it.

 

[DGM]

He said that he was a part of NY ATC on 9/11. Later in the day all the ATC gathered together and made a tape of their experiences on the day. He was outraged that the tape was taken and destroyed as it contained valuable information including that at least one of the planes turned off it's transponder as it took off. (Probably flight 93 if it was Newark NY.)

Did he say his name? Was he a local controller or from NY center?

The reason I ask is, there are hundreds of controllers in the NY sector. Is he commenting on something he said or over-heard?

 

[bill smith]

Did he say his name? Was he a local controller or from NY center?

Just listen for yourself why don't you ? At about 36 minutes.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Did he say his name? Was he a local controller or from NY center?

NY, and he implied he was a controller but then its fairly clear he was not one of the six and then he gets all twoofy with accusations of stand down orders, transponders and black boxes.

and why would the aircraft turn off its transponder on take off....why get folks alerted from the Gitgo???? ATC would be on that like a shot!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Just listen for yourself why don't you ? At about 36 minutes.

Its actually quite a good demo job on twoofers........not in the detail you get here on jref (or likely in Pop mechs book) but OK.

 

[DGM]

Just listen for yourself why don't you ? At about 36 minutes.

What's your proof he's telling the truth? Is it because it's what you want to hear?


Bill. you could have made that call.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Nothing leading to "inside job", unless you want to claim the AT controllers were in on it.

twoofers have the New York, Arlington and PA Firemen and the entire USAF etc in on it so no problem with a few ATC guys!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Except for the famous video of 77, yes. Did you miss my point, or are you just in outright denial? Here, I'll even link it for you.

Flight 77 video.


I think you're conflating "you", as in "MrK", with "everyone else".

Guys, it's clear that MrK is ignoring me. I have asked him three times whether there's a difference between a part of the a sequence/process and the entire process. This is relevant because NIST claimed that only the last part of WTC 7's collapse was "global", yet MrK says they called the entire collapse global. The only logical conclusion is that he is ignoring the inconvenient question.

That reminds me of the old faithful "I'mm so fast trick" you do with small children.


Wanna see it again?

 

[bill smith]

That reminds me of the old faithful "I'mm so fast trick" you do with small children.


Wanna see it again?

lol

 

[bill smith]

Pop mech guy makes a gaffe about reinforced concrete on the core of WTC towers............ countdown to new CT!

Pay no attention to that. It's just an attempt to throw a joker into the pack. You didn't hear our sharp friend Jonathan Kay jumping in to correct such an obvious mistake did you ?

 

[mrkinnies]

Short memory.



Written, typed, or verbal, please.

You said "video of the crashes". Not "video with the crashing plane in it".

In case you're wondering, security cameras generally aren't good at capturing a plane moving at hundreds of MPH impacting a wall someplace they aren't even pointed at.

Here's the part of my post you don't want us to notice you cut out, with emphasis.

How many times do I need to answer you? Show me where I said the global collapse is the entire collapse and I'll apologise.

 

[chrismohr]

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."

Marokkaan,

Since this thread is at least nominally connected to my 20 YouTube videos, this claim of the impossibility of freefall of Building 7 contradicts the explanation I have in video 18. Why do you think my explanation is wrong?

 

[mrkinnies]

Marokkaan,

Since this thread is at least nominally connected to my 20 YouTube videos, this claim of the impossibility of freefall of Building 7 contradicts the explanation I have in video 18. Why do you think my explanation is wrong?

Hi Chris,

It would be helpful if you could explain the following;

When you describe the action of the east penthouse collapsing due to the internal structure falling below it you make no mention of how this internal destruction could have occured without pulling downward on the adjacent outer walls. You then say the north wall fell due to a leveraging mechanism whereby you assume a number of floors still clung to the external structure and pulled it down.

Why should the floors have played a part in pulling down the outer structure at some points and not others? Also, why do you treat the north wall as a sub-system acting as a separate entity to the rest of the building collapse?

And why should the internal structure have waited until close to the end of its own collapse, which ran in a wave from east to west (according to NIST), before starting to drag down the exterior structure? Why didn't it do it from the beginning, starting at the north-eastern corner when the east penthouse fell? This suggests the building managed to fall apart internally, breaking connections and buckling columns, yet stay intact externally for much of the collapse. How was that possible?

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Chris,

It would be helpful if you could explain the following;

When you describe the action of the east penthouse collapsing due to the internal structure falling below it you make no mention of how this internal destruction could have occured without pulling downward on the adjacent outer walls. You then say the north wall fell due to a leveraging mechanism whereby you assume a number of floors still clung to the external structure and pulled it down.

Why should the floors have played a part in pulling down the outer structure at some points and not others? Also, why do you treat the north wall as a sub-system acting as a separate entity to the rest of the building collapse?

And why should the internal structure have waited until close to the end of its own collapse, which ran in a wave from east to west (according to NIST), before starting to drag down the exterior structure? Why didn't it do it from the beginning, starting at the north-eastern corner when the east penthouse fell? This suggests the building managed to fall apart internally, breaking connections and buckling columns, yet stay intact externally for much of the collapse. How was that possible?

OK I'll try but layperson that I am, others can probably do better.

The perimeter walls had support columns. If interior column 79 was the first to fail, then it would shift its load at the speed of sound to nearby columns, which would also then buckle and fail as each individual column's load exceeded its capacity. The north face, least affected by fire, probably had the strongest surviving columns. The south face probably had weaker columns, and internal columns were obviously weakest of all. So the interior columns (or column 79) buckled first until they could no longer support the east penthouse. For 8 seconds the collapsing interior of the building was like a chain reaction, breaking column resistance one at a time. Finally, I'm just guessing that perhaps the south perimeter columns collapsed next, which is why the building eventually fell to the south. Then, in the next second the collapse of the north perimeter wall began, starting at less than freefall and increasing its acceleration towards freefall over the first 2 seconds or less.

The strongest surviving columns on the north perimeter wall had the greatest ability to resist the pull of the collapsing floors until they buckled over a period of under two seconds one at a time at the very end. If we had a video of the south perimeter wall I am guessing it wouldn't look as "clean" during the collapse, but I can't know that.

Do you agree that leveraging/torquing could be a force affecting the final collapse sequence? If not, why not?

Anyone who has corrections or improvements on this please comment.

 

[tfk]

I just asked my son, (who, BTW, says he wants to be a firefighter when he is older. He's 10) and he understands the concept just fine.

In fact, his words were, and I quote: " What kind of moron can't figure out that it wasn't thermite? I mean, really? What kind of idiot doesn't understand the problem?"

Now, I understand that my son is kinda above the curve when it comes to fire and fire science, but really, that's basic math and reasoning.

LOL!!

Tri, I like your boy.

You ought to consider steering him towards engineering. As opinionated as he is, he's a natural.

tom

PS.
Go Sox.
Yankees suck.
Pats looking good.
In Bill we trust.

 

[mrkinnies]

OK I'll try but layperson that I am, others can probably do better.

The perimeter walls had support columns. If interior column 79 was the first to fail, then it would shift its load at the speed of sound to nearby columns, which would also then buckle and fail as each individual column's load exceeded its capacity. The north face, least affected by fire, probably had the strongest surviving columns. The south face probably had weaker columns, and internal columns were obviously weakest of all. So the interior columns (or column 79) buckled first until they could no longer support the east penthouse. For 8 seconds the collapsing interior of the building was like a chain reaction, breaking column resistance one at a time. Finally, I'm just guessing that perhaps the south perimeter columns collapsed next, which is why the building eventually fell to the south. Then, in the next second the collapse of the north perimeter wall began, starting at less than freefall and increasing its acceleration towards freefall over the first 2 seconds or less.

The strongest surviving columns on the north perimeter wall had the greatest ability to resist the pull of the collapsing floors until they buckled over a period of under two seconds one at a time at the very end. If we had a video of the south perimeter wall I am guessing it wouldn't look as "clean" during the collapse, but I can't know that.

Do you agree that leveraging/torquing could be a force affecting the final collapse sequence? If not, why not?

Anyone who has corrections or improvements on this please comment.

Thanks.

I don't believe the columns buckled because of increased weight, they buckled due to a lack of lateral stability and NIST indicates the lateral displacements in NCSTAR 1A. NIST is very explicit in saying that it was the buckling and only buckling of column 79 which initiated global collapse because they say collapsing floors are not in themselves capable of causing such complete destruction (NCSAT 1A Chapter 3 Section 3.4.6). Incidentally, this was possibly said in reaction to CTBUH who claimed the opposite.

You say the north face was least affected by fire yet column 79 was closer to the north face than the south. I can't see where NIST suggests the south burned hotter than the north so maybe you can correct me on this.

Do you any proof that the south wall fell first or is this an assumption because the video evidence was taken only from the north and you can't see the south wall? I also don't believe WTC7 was rotating towards the south at the start of the final stage when the building collapsed as a single unit. It only rotated after it had begun to fall, possibly because the north side was supported differently due to the sub-station below and that offered greater resistance to the path of collapse after the period of free fall when it had encountered no resistance.

As for the exterior columns, NIST is very clear in stating the east side became a shell between floors 7 and 14. Since the internal columns failed quickly (at the speed of sound as you claim), due to a lack of lateral support, why didn't the same apply to the east side at a similar speed thereby initiating collapse of the exterior from that corner? Why instead did the exterior columns buckle together over a period of under 2 seconds when the internal structure broke at the speed of sound?

Since the centre of the remaining roof fell a faction of a second before the entire building began to drop I don't see how leveraging can work as you say. If the centre is falling, how can the outer wall be pivoting at a different speed? Besides, it appears to contradict what NIST says when they claim the floor to exterior structure connections broke (NCSTAR 1A Chapter 2 Section 2.4).

 

[bill smith]

OK I'll try but layperson that I am, others can probably do better.

The perimeter walls had support columns. If interior column 79 was the first to fail, then it would shift its load at the speed of sound to nearby columns, which would also then buckle and fail as each individual column's load exceeded its capacity. The north face, least affected by fire, probably had the strongest surviving columns. The south face probably had weaker columns, and internal columns were obviously weakest of all. So the interior columns (or column 79) buckled first until they could no longer support the east penthouse. For 8 seconds the collapsing interior of the building was like a chain reaction, breaking column resistance one at a time. Finally, I'm just guessing that perhaps the south perimeter columns collapsed next, which is why the building eventually fell to the south. Then, in the next second the collapse of the north perimeter wall began, starting at less than freefall and increasing its acceleration towards freefall over the first 2 seconds or less.

The strongest surviving columns on the north perimeter wall had the greatest ability to resist the pull of the collapsing floors until they buckled over a period of under two seconds one at a time at the very end. If we had a video of the south perimeter wall I am guessing it wouldn't look as "clean" during the collapse, but I can't know that.

Do you agree that leveraging/torquing could be a force affecting the final collapse sequence? If not, why not?

Anyone who has corrections or improvements on this please comment.

It's a question of obervation again Chris. It takes about two seconds to say ' One one thousand, two one thousand' Now look at the attached video and say 'one one thousand ' when the leftmost corner column of the North face collapses and say 'two one thousand' when the rightmost corner column collapses. Not easy is it ? Sorry MrKinnies for jumping in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A collapse WTC71