Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Clayton Moore]

I can't even understand this last sentence: "All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage." Do you mean the computer simulation has to show the building completely falling in ten seconds? And what do you mean, if anything, by "unlimited applications of force"?

How do you think the plans for new skyscraper are reviewed and analyzed to determine if the building will be safe? They determine the amount force the building might/would incur over many years, Rain, wind, damaged infrastructure, fire, planes hitting the building and on and on and on.

What if,
what if,
what if,
what if,
what if.

Then they build the building much stronger.

Then they run stress simulations to prevent oversights.

 

[triforcharity]

I think that is the absolute, most ******* STUPID statement I have EVER heard!! Holy Jesus on a corndog!!

 

[chrismohr]

"Planes hitting the building..." and WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson said that his team designed the Twin Towers to withstand the physical impact of a big jet hitting them (which they did) but NOT the inferno caused by the fires, which no building could withstand (and the Towers eventually didn't).

And what are the "unlimited applications of force" you were talking about? I still haven't been able to lift my jaw from the floor (it dropped at freefall when I read your post).

 

[chrismohr]

I think that is the absolute, most ******* STUPID statement I have EVER heard!! Holy Jesus on a corndog!!

Tri you do find creative ways to swear while staying within the JREF rules. Jesus on a corndog, I will remember that.

 

[Justin39640]

"Planes hitting the building..." and WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson said that his team designed the Twin Towers to withstand the physical impact of a big jet hitting them (which they did) but NOT the inferno caused by the fires, which no building could withstand (and the Towers eventually didn't).

And what are the "unlimited applications of force" you were talking about? I still haven't been able to lift my jaw from the floor (it dropped at freefall when I read your post).

I think he's talking about increasing the virtual gravity in a simulation... I think.

 

[tsig]

Tri you do find creative ways to swear while staying within the JREF rules. Jesus on a corndog, I will remember that.

You need to read the ET corn gods thread.

 

[Clayton Moore]

"Planes hitting the building..." and WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson said that his team designed the Twin Towers to withstand the physical impact of a big jet hitting them (which they did) but NOT the inferno caused by the fires, which no building could withstand (and the Towers eventually didn't).

And what are the "unlimited applications of force" you were talking about? I still haven't been able to lift my jaw from the floor (it dropped at freefall when I read your post).

LOL

There were no infernos.

 

[BasqueArch]

How do you think the plans for new skyscraper are reviewed and analyzed to determine if the building will be safe? They determine the amount force the building might/would incur over many years, Rain, wind, damaged infrastructure, fire, planes hitting the building and on and on and on.

What if,
what if,
what if,
what if,
what if.

Then they build the building much stronger.

Then they run stress simulations to prevent oversights.

However, in those early 1960’s days some new additional forces the Towers engineers could not have foreseen, such as the increasing obesity of the population, sex in the stairs, The Yardbirds, plurality of religious beliefs, vibrators, weight of cellphones, iPads, internet, sex in the elevators, foreign wines and cheeses, Fellini's City of Women, global warming, sex in the bathrooms, beachnut’s posts, and the exponential national debt.

The Towers teetered precariously under these additional forces until the crashing planes, fires, therm*te, high explosives, nuclear bombs and death rays broke the camel’s back over the edge.

 

[LSSBB]

How do you think the plans for new skyscraper are reviewed and analyzed to determine if the building will be safe? They determine the amount force the building might/would incur over many years, Rain, wind, damaged infrastructure, fire, planes hitting the building and on and on and on.

What if,
what if,
what if,
what if,
what if.

Then they build the building much stronger.

Then they run stress simulations to prevent oversights.

Tell me then, how good a simulations did they run on WTC7 being hit by debris from another building and having several floors worth of unfought fires burning for several hours, at the time they designed it?

 

[chrismohr]

LOL

There were no infernos.

Let's ask someone who was there. Could someone who was there that day, perhaps a First Responder Firefighter, and saw it with his own eyes, maybe weigh in on this deeply challenging question. Were there any infernos that day, or would you say the fires were pretty easy to manage until suddenly the buildings collapsed 1,2,3 for no obvious reason? Was Gage right when he said the Twin Towers' fires were almost extinguished and Building 7 was just a few small pockets of fires before their collapses? Or are Richard Gage and our friend Clayton perhaps a wee bit inaccurate in the characterization of the fires that day? Was it at least hot enough to cook many Jesuses on corndogs?

Clayton, I have had some great much-needed belly laughs this evening. Thank you!

 

[Christopher7]

This is also wrong (mostly). In a sense, an exact measurement cannot be made from any source whatsoever, because every instrument has a measurement error. BUT you can extract quite precise measurements from a video, see this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182833

This is utter claptrap. If you insist that every data point is accurate then WTC 7 was moving up and down according to femr2's graph.

The acceleration profile obtained by tfk is derived from the data gathered by femr2 using the means described in that thread. The acceleration is not within 0.1% of FFA for more than a few milliseconds, as the acceleration curve crosses the zero line.

The 0.1% error is the line representing the average, not the individual data points. It is negligible - too small to be considered.

Same with the WTC7 façade. The core was pulling the façade down through the girders. That's how over-g is explained.

It is possible that the core could momentarily pull the north face down at slightly more than FFA at the very beginning of the FFA but the data does not reflect that.

Once the core and north wall have equalized their common FFA, neither can speed up or slow down the other because there are no stresses within the system. The entire upper part of the building [minus the part that had already collapsed] was falling at FFA.

NIST was correct when they said that it was FFA. All this double talk and playing with semantics is a lot of hogwash to deny this established scientific fact.

 

[Christopher7]

Let's ask someone who was there. Could someone who was there that day, perhaps a First Responder Firefighter, and saw it with his own eyes, maybe weigh in on this deeply challenging question. Were there any infernos that day, or would you say the fires were pretty easy to manage until suddenly the buildings collapsed 1,2,3 for no obvious reason? Was Gage right when he said the Twin Towers' fires were almost extinguished and Building 7 was just a few small pockets of fires before their collapses? Or are Richard Gage and our friend Clayton perhaps a wee bit inaccurate in the characterization of the fires that day? Was it at least hot enough to cook many Jesuses on corndogs?

The firefighters describing infernos were looking at the SW corner early in the afternoon. The only fires were on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30. If there were fires on other floors they would have broken the windows on the west face.

At the time of collapse the fires on floors 19, 22, 29, 30 and 12 had burned out. The fires on floors 7, 8, and 9 and 11 had died down on the north face.

NCSTAR 1-9 pg 243 - 244
Floor 7
By 4:38:11 p.m., the last image available, windows were open at least as far east as 7-44D, and the new flames had already died down.
No additional images are available to indicate the fire behavior further to the east on this floor. It is likely that the fire continued spreading toward the east face.

Floor 8
By shortly after 4:00 p.m., much of the burning near the center of the north face had died down. The small fires that were observed appeared to be located well away from the exterior wall.

Floor 9
At 4:38:11 p.m., only small spot fires were visible between windows 9-44D and 9-47B.
NIST found no evidence regarding fire behavior after 4:40 p.m. It is possible that the fires continued to spread eastward and moved onto the east face.

Floor 11
Shortly after the flames first appeared on the north face, a photograph showed intense burning in windows 11-45C to 11-48A. By around 4:52 p.m., the flames in the area had apparently died down, and flames on
this floor were not observed again until around 5:10 p.m.
Here is a frame from a video taken at 5:20 pm. showing the fire on floor 11.

 

[Christopher7]

Tom/TFK, I found Ryan Mackey's old email in a different location. This is the one that talks about the eight floors hanging on inside Building 7:

Eight floors? So Mackey has x-ray vision? You would assail me for making such a wild assumption but you believe Ryan without question.

Think of pushing down on a long stick -- you can push it down just a little as it bends, and then it snaps, and you fall on the ground.

There you go again comparing a heavy steel H beam and moment frame to a stick. You have no knowledge of steel structures and no reference to back up that absurd statement. Look at the NIST model! The frame is NOT snapping like a stick, it is folding and bending but hanging together.

The part of WTC 7 that the conspiracy peddlers focus on starts AFTER the core has already gone

Wrong. Most of the core columns fell with the exterior walls.

Thus, after buckling, the entire perimeter comes down, and there's really nothing to slow it down. There's no momentum transfer like there was in WTC 1 and 2 (because there's nothing to hit), and there's no strength left to oppose the weight.

Again you are talking thru your hat. You have no idea how much resistance buckling columns will provide. Provide a source or stop making that claim.

there wasn't much fire on the upper floors of WTC 7

There were NO fires on the upper floors at the time of the collapse.

 

[GlennB]

Wrong. Most of the core columns fell with the exterior walls.

But at the top of this very page you agreed that most did not fall in synch with the N wall.

Do you even know what you believe? If so, please spell it out.

 

[triforcharity]

You need to read the ET corn gods thread.

That is almost realistice.......

 

[triforcharity]

The firefighters describing infernos were looking at the SW corner early in the afternoon. The only fires were on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30. If there were fires on other floors they would have broken the windows on the west face.

At the time of collapse the fires on floors 19, 22, 29, 30 and 12 had burned out. The fires on floors 7, 8, and 9 and 11 had died down on the north face.

Um, he's talking about 1&2 WTC. Need a pry bar to get your foot out of your mouth? There's one in my workshop. Feel free to use it, but put it back where you got it.

 

[triforcharity]

Let's ask someone who was there. Could someone who was there that day, perhaps a First Responder Firefighter, and saw it with his own eyes, maybe weigh in on this deeply challenging question. Were there any infernos that day, or would you say the fires were pretty easy to manage until suddenly the buildings collapsed 1,2,3 for no obvious reason? Was Gage right when he said the Twin Towers' fires were almost extinguished and Building 7 was just a few small pockets of fires before their collapses? Or are Richard Gage and our friend Clayton perhaps a wee bit inaccurate in the characterization of the fires that day? Was it at least hot enough to cook many Jesuses on corndogs?
Clayton, I have had some great much-needed belly laughs this evening. Thank you!

I have given up on Clayton.

Hell, anyone with two functioning Mark II factory installed eyeballs can see that it was an inferno.

Oh, and I lol'ed at the hilited portion.

 

[000063]

No I'm not.

The support structure, the dimensions of the support structure, the physical properties/makeup of the support structure, the strength of the support structure are all known.

The physical force needed to damage any part of the support structure can be easily applied in a simulation.


All the force and damage instances have to be applied and linked in sequence to occur in about 10 seconds.

The problem is that the source of a physical force is not available without some sort of explosives.

I strongly suggest you research actual computer science, instead of watching CSI: Miami. You might learn...

*shades*

...Moore.

(YEAHHHH!)

 

[000063]

"Planes hitting the building..." and WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson said that his team designed the Twin Towers to withstand the physical impact of a big jet hitting them (which they did) but NOT the inferno caused by the fires, which no building could withstand (and the Towers eventually didn't).

And what are the "unlimited applications of force" you were talking about? I still haven't been able to lift my jaw from the floor (it dropped at freefall when I read your post).

Also, they never actually tested the WTC by flying a plane into it, much less, y'know, a jet that literally didn't exist until after the towers were completed, moving at full speed instead of accidentally running into a tower in the fog.

 

[000063]

LOL

There were no infernos.

You can stop digging at any time, Clay.

But at the top of this very page you agreed that most did not fall in synch with the N wall.

Do you even know what you believe? If so, please spell it out.

Whatever's convenient for his current argument. Which is why he'll declare NIST is lying one second and then that they're holy writ the next, and how he'll say Mohr didn't lie, but did make "misleading statements".