Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

Sorry MrKinnies for jumping in.

You're welcome.

 

[tfk]

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.

Think.

One simple fact ALONE proves that at least one firefighter thought that the building was leaning, or bulging:

... the fact that a firefighter called for a transit to be put on the building.

If somebody didn't think that it was bulging or leaning, they wouldn't have bothered. They did have a couple of other things to do that day.

This firefighters "impression" was confirmed by measurements taken by the transit operator. (He could have been wrong. He wasn't.)

A second simple fact ALONE proves that it is very difficult to detect or quantify such a lean or bulge by eye unless you have a favorable viewpoint or comparative reference:

... the fact that they called for a transit to be put on the building.

If it were easy to detect a bulge or lean by eye, they wouldn't have needed a transit.

A transit is specifically designed to measure tiny changes in angle that are, over the course of hours, undetectable by eye alone.

A third simple fact ALONE proves that relatively tiny tilts can be, and all progressive tilts will be, fatal to a modern skyscraper:

... the fact that firefighters use transit to detect slow, tiny building motions.

If a tall building's collapse required large tilts - large enough to be discernible with the naked eye - then transits would be unnecessary, and firefighters wouldn't use them.

___

Re: viewpoints

If a carpenter wishes to see if a board is curved or bulging, he doesn't look at it from the side. He brings it up to his eye & sights down along one edge of the board. This gives him an advantageous viewpoint to easily see curves that he couldn't see from the side. In essence, he uses near & far points on the board to establish a straight reference line (much like near & far gunsights), and can easily see deviations from that line in the middle.

It warrants repeating that the tilt in WTC7 was discernible to the naked eye. But only "easily visible by the naked eye" from a very few, very specific viewpoints very near the building. Where the firefighters were.

From the side, those deviations are not easily visible to the naked eye. But they are easily visible to calibrated instruments.

Like transits.

 

[Marokkaan]

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?

Video 18 has been analyzed and refuted by somebody with the expertise physics.

The only thing in the video you do, is speculating without calculations or simulations and without expertise.

So i really dont understand why you dont listen to him?

Did you watched all the video's of chandler? Lets do that first.

This was the answer of nist on your question.

NIST: "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

They are doing the same like you are, they dont take the free fall serious, and just say it was happen thanks to the buckling. You dont see calculations, you dont see any simulations.

THis is what we call no science.

Let me ask why NIST, in every report of wtc 7 is saying, the three stage analysis is consistent with physical principles. And at the final report, after they admit freefall, they removed the sentence: "consistent with physical principles"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7511810#post7511810

 

[triforcharity]

LOL!!

Tri, I like your boy.

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

tom

Yes, that would be a good fit for him. I would like him to follow my footsteps, my fathers' footsteps, my uncles' footsteps, and go the fire service route, but if he chose to go into fire protection engineering, I would be happy.

PS.
Go Sox.

Damn skippy.

Yankees suck.

Still 1 game out of first.

Pats looking good.

In Bill we trust.

No, not at all. I cannot STAND BB, and hope the fleas of a thousand camels infest his crotch.

(I'm not a Pats fan at all. I know, I know.....it's not natural.)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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


Wanna see it again?

Only a truther finds watching the death of almost 200 people humerous.

They seem to imagine that one can get a low frame count recording to look like a hi def slo mo movie like it was in a CSI episode......And the really sad thing is they wouldn't even believe it even if it was.....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

Why ask Chris, he is not a structural engineer? The structural engineers at NIST have no issues with its possibility so perhaps a better question is why do you think its impossible and even more important why would anyone care what you think, as you have zero expertise in this field?
you are just making a classic argument from personal incredulity.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Video 18 has been analyzed and refuted by somebody with the expertise physics.

Who????

The only thing in the video you do, is speculating without calculations or simulations and without expertise.

Irony

So i really dont understand why you dont listen to him?

Who?

Did you watched all the video's of chandler? Lets do that first.

Chandker? he is your expert??? LOL that is just too funny. The guy is a high school teacher......

This was the answer of nist on your question.

NIST: "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

They are doing the same like you are, they don't take the free fall serious, and just say it was happen thanks to the buckling. You don't see calculations, you don't see any simulations.

THis is what we call no science.

No its what we engineers call education and experience.

Let me ask why NIST, in every report of wtc 7 is saying, the three stage analysis is consistent with physical principles. And at the final report, after they admit freefall, they removed the sentence: "consistent with physical principles"

Perhaps because its redundant. Everything in the world always happens "consistent with physical principles, its not possible then to do otherwise.

 

[mrkinnies]

Why ask Chris, he is not a structural engineer? The structural engineers at NIST have no issues with its possibility so perhaps a better question is why do you think its impossible and even more important why would anyone care what you think, as you have zero expertise in this field?
you are just making a classic argument from personal incredulity.

You've not watched Chris's videos have you? Perhaps you've not even read the title of this thread?

But you're right, Chris isn't a structural engineer so why do the debunkers here believe and support what he says?

 

[triforcharity]

You've not watched Chris's videos have you? Perhaps you've not even read the title of this thread?

But you're right, Chris isn't a structural engineer so why do the debunkers here believe and support what he says?

Because what he says stands on it's own merit. It's accurate, because it can be verified by known experts. Which, BTW, is not only people on this forum, but first responders, engineers, and physicists, etc.

 

[Marokkaan]

You've not watched Chris's videos have you? Perhaps you've not even read the title of this thread?

But you're right, Chris isn't a structural engineer so why do the debunkers here believe and support what he says?

Its simple as that, becaus chris is a debunker. even it was a 10 year old kid, they would believe the person, as long the person defends the official theory its ok.

 

[funk de fino]

Its simple as that, becaus chris is a debunker. even it was a 10 year old kid, they would believe the person, as long the person defends the official theory its ok.

A mangled falsehood.

 

[triforcharity]

Its simple as that, becaus chris is a debunker. even it was a 10 year old kid, they would believe the person, as long the person defends the official theory its ok.

A lie.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There's no anger at all. If that's what you believe then I won't argue with you.

Anger seems to flow from the debunkers. So they think it is natural for anyone who disagrees with them MUST be angry also. It would seem to be a class difference.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yes you are confused, it explains a lot about you.

You've not watched Chris's videos have you? Perhaps you've not even read the title of this thread?

Yes I did watch them all and if you had actually read anything in this thread you would know I was one of the folks that corrected him on a minor point.

But you're right, Chris isn't a structural engineer so why do the debunkers here believe and support what he says?

He never pretends to be a expert, unlike you. He talks to experts. And what he reports is by and large, accurate and credible. How can you have failed to grasp that point IF you had actually watched and UNDERSTOOD them?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Its simple as that, becaus chris is a debunker. even it was a 10 year old kid, they would believe the person, as long the person defends the official theory its ok.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Anger seems to flow from the debunkers. So they think it is natural for anyone who disagrees with them MUST be angry also. It would seem to be a class difference.

a class difference?????......very 60s! Though I have to agree with you on that one. Twoofers have no class at all

 

[Clayton Moore]

Kinda sad that so many 10 are growing u in a Humpty Dumpty gravity childhood.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Kinda sad that so many 10 are growing u in a Humpty Dumpty gravity childhood.

would you like to try that again in English?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Kinda sad that so many 10 are growing u in a Humpty Dumpty gravity childhood.

The next time I want to get high I going to want some of whatever he's on when he wrote this.

 

[triforcharity]

Kinda sad that so many 10 are growing u in a Humpty Dumpty gravity childhood.

Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall, and fell to the ground, and broke beyond repair.

What's the problem with that logic? Now, I am no physicist, but it seems right to me.....