Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Mohr,

I am wondering what your qualifications and prior experience with either engineering or physics is?

Just I have been trying to find a debate between some of the AE911 members and other qualified engineers or physicists for a long while to get an impartial overview of how each sides arguments hold up. If you are not an engineer or physicist I can't really see the point in watching this long debate. It would likely just remind me watching a creationist vs scientist debate.
 
Miragememories said:
The scientists believed nano-thermite was used (hence their reference to explosive materials) and so they tested the same way you would with known nano-thermite (as directed by Tillotson), to see if comparable results would occur.


MM
Click to expand...

Tilston told them if they were testing to identify nanothermite to test in a non inert environment? Where did he say that?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Simply speaking, during design assumptions are made about what the building is expected to experience during its lifetime ranging from dead loads to live loads, wind loads, etc. These are modeled in BIM applications to see help verify that the structure will perform for the expected conditions; sometimes, hand calculations are still done at least for smaller scale projects (and this is how they did the "models" in the 1960's and 70's when the WTC was built).

Most computer models that "test" a building during design development only have to account for a limited set of assumptions and ensure that the building will be sturdy so as to avoid things like collapse in part or whole in the first place, which usually involves analyzing load paths in the existing design ideas, and ensuring that the structural members and assemblies are sized correctly.

The modeling in say, a pre design stage or existing where the conditions are static, rather than dynamic, is much easier because you have a constant and limited set of variables. Whereas, a precipitous chain of failures begins in one point and has an exponentially growing set of parameters that needs to be met to keep accuracy. As one poster pointed out, to account for every possibility to perfection as you demand would require so much time to accomplish that you wouldn't even live to see it...
Click to expand...

That's garbage.. OMG are you kidding? The failure of building had to begin in one freaking place.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That's garbage.. OMG are you kidding? The failure of building had to begin in one freaking place.
Click to expand...

As additional failures propagate the number of possible failure sequences leading to the final outcome increases exponentially, meaning it becomes more and more complex to model. Simplifying it down to a children's game is unprofessional, and inexperienced. Maybe you should listen to what people are saying rather than being cynical all the time.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Thanks for the laugh. Isn't that how they load test bridges, except you just keep using a larger truck until it breaks, then you rebuild it?:D
Click to expand...

They used to do that, but now they just use that contraption the Mythbusters used for the breakstep bridge myth....
 
sylvan - their specialty is making an outlandish claim "it's easy" - then have someone else figure out it's not quite so easy, then they ignore it.
 
Miragememories said:
If you wish to receive replies from me Noah do not ever imply or state I am knowingly lying.

I'm only willing to show you respect as long as you return the same courtesy.

MM
Click to expand...

With all due respect....

Wouldn't that include answering simple questions? As of now, the only way I can recieve replies from you is if I make a comment that you percieve is incorrect, which I've already shown is the truth.

You would get massive amounts of respect from me and everybody else if you'd just be that one truther who would be so kind as to answer these simple questions, instead of ignoring them.
 
NoahFence said:
With all due respect....

Wouldn't that include answering simple questions? As of now, the only way I can recieve replies from you is if I make a comment that you percieve is incorrect, which I've already shown is the truth.

You would get massive amounts of respect from me and everybody else if you'd just be that one truther who would be so kind as to answer these simple questions, instead of ignoring them.
Click to expand...

You must have noticed by now that I am quite willing to engage in extended dialogue with those members of JREF who refrain from childish and boorish behavior.

I am quite aware of how much fun it must be to know you are on the majority side and that most people will not criticize you for such bad behavior.

Go ahead if it makes your day, but I have no reason to engage in discussion with people who behave like that.

I do hope we understand each other?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You must have noticed by now that I am quite willing to engage in extended dialogue with those members of JREF who refrain from childish and boorish behavior.

I am quite aware of how much fun it must be to know you are on the majority side and that most people will not criticize you for such bad behavior.

Go ahead if it makes your day, but I have no reason to engage in discussion with people who behave like that.

I do hope we understand each other?

MM
Click to expand...

My "behavior" directed toward you and your kind would not be nearly as bad if you'd just swallow your pride for a 1/2 second and answer some fundamental questions that YOU people bring up.

FOR INSTANCE

You spew "fireproofing" as some sort of proof that fire couldn't take down WTC 7 yet you purposely ignore a question asking you what fire proofing means. YOU KNOW what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

YOU KNOW it doesn't mean "completely immune to fire for however long it takes to put it out". YOU KNOW that. Yet that is precicely what you imply.

Why do you people do that?

OH YEA - Go Bruins!
 
NoahFence said:
My "behavior" directed toward you and your kind would not be nearly as bad if you'd just swallow your pride for a 1/2 second and answer some fundamental questions that YOU people bring up.

FOR INSTANCE

You spew "fireproofing" as some sort of proof that fire couldn't take down WTC 7 yet you purposely ignore a question asking you what fire proofing means. YOU KNOW what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

YOU KNOW it doesn't mean "completely immune to fire for however long it takes to put it out". YOU KNOW that. Yet that is precicely what you imply.

Why do you people do that?

OH YEA - Go Bruins!
Click to expand...

We people?

Why do you ignore all the rest of my post and target what you obviously feel is a flaw in my comprehension of steel insulation?

Go Leafs go!

MM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom