Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

...

Like the fire had burned out and could not have started the collapse at 5:20 p.m.?...

It's been pointed out time and time again that the fire not being present at the time of the collapse does not mean the steel wasn't weakened.

and
NIST omitting the stiffeners [lying] that would have prevented the girder flange from folding and thereby preventing the triggering event?....

See, this is what I'm talking about. One second you use the NIST report about where the collapse started, the next you're saying they're incorrect about major details and calling them liars baselessly.

 

[Christopher7]

It's been pointed out time and time again that the fire not being present at the time of the collapse does not mean the steel wasn't weakened.

So what? That is NOT the NIST hypotheses and you know it. The NIST hypotheses is:
The fired caused the beams to expand and that expansion pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 pm.

A fire that has burned out cannot heat the beams and make them expand.

 

[pgimeno]

So what? That is NOT the NIST hypotheses and you know it. The NIST hypotheses is:
The fired caused the beams to expand and that expansion pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 pm.

A fire that has burned out cannot heat the beams and make them expand.

But in message 5058 you said Oystein was right about NIST getting the big picture right.

 

[Animal]

But in message 5058 you said Oystein was right about NIST getting the big picture right.

And completely ignores where the NIST says the girder was ROCKED off its seat. He cherry picks the "pushed off" because it fits the narrative of his cult beliefs.

 

[LSSBB]

So what? That is NOT the NIST hypotheses and you know it. The NIST hypotheses is:
The fired caused the beams to expand and that expansion pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 pm.

A fire that has burned out cannot heat the beams and make them expand.

No fire present does not equal "environment cooled to room temperature"

 

[Christopher7]

And completely ignores where the NIST says the girder was ROCKED off its seat. He cherry picks the "pushed off" because it fits the narrative of his cult beliefs.

The "rock-off" was a preliminary test.
"This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further." NCSTAR 1-9 p.353

The final hypothesis:
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

 

[Animal]

the "rock-off" was a preliminary test. from the 730 page report
"this analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further." ncstar 1-9 p.353

the final hypothesis:from the 88 page summary report
fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding column 79 led to the collapse of floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (see figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) this movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at column 79.

[qimg]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg[/qimg]

ftfy

 

[uglypig]

NIST seems bit confused about this issue. Somewhere they say the framing reached only 400°C>, in their graphic they show 600°C.

Now, we know the fire didn't sustain temps higher than 800°C for longer than 40mins. We know that from the photos and from the approx. fuel loading.

The floor system got to maximum of about 350°C. It expanded, damaged some connections, possibly sagged. It has failed when it contracted back from the damaged connections.

see:

damn, don't have that link, will supply later

Anyone claiming 2h fire, 600°C+ framing or pure walk-off is claiming nonsense.

to C7: your wrong, the floor system got busted

to JREFers claiming 2h fire or 600°C framing: your just as wrong

 

[pgimeno]

Hi again gang,

I've just finished boiling down and submitting our re-re-rebuttals of points 1-44 on the chrismohr911.com site being put together for AE911Truth. They've re-rebutted many of my 238 YouTube rebuttals of Gage's Blueprint for Truth video there.

Now I'd like to ask if we can work on rebuttals for #45-86. People can also give me links for other YouTube videos from the likes of Dave Thomas and Alienentity etc. for ANY of the AE9/11 rebuttals (by number so I know where to link them up).

Thanks in advance again for all your help,
Chris Mohr

Hi Chris,

I've visited the page again in order to prepare for writing my take on the answers to part 4, and I was surprised to see several responses have been changed, especially in parts 2 and 3 for which you haven't added the counter-responses yet, since I submitted to you the corresponding answer proposals.

It is not a serious and honest debate if you can change the responses after the counter-responses have been prepared and without notice. History rewriters are not my cup of tea. Sorry to say, I'm not going to continue adding my opinion on the responses if they are allowed to rewrite what they said.

 

[triforcharity]

NIST seems bit confused about this issue. Somewhere they say the framing reached only 400°C>, in their graphic they show 600°C.

Now, we know the fire didn't sustain temps higher than 800°C for longer than 40mins. We know that from the photos and from the approx. fuel loading.

The floor system got to maximum of about 350°C. It expanded, damaged some connections, possibly sagged. It has failed when it contracted back from the damaged connections.

see:

damn, don't have that link, will supply later

Anyone claiming 2h fire, 600°C+ framing or pure walk-off is claiming nonsense.

to C7: your wrong, the floor system got busted

to JREFers claiming 2h fire or 600°C framing: your just as wrong

What makes you assume the fuel loading wouldn't allow a temperature of more than 800 deg. C for more than 40 minutes? I'm curious.

Mainly because fuel load isn't as important as fuel load content makeup.

 

[pgimeno]

Comparison between what it said and what it says:

# | Before | After
45 | Nobody said "Total" dismemberment, but there certainly was a lot. | Although Richard Gage said "total" dismemberment, it was a figure of speech not ideal for use in a debate. (Californians use the word "totally" a lot). Terms like "total", "none", "never" and "always" are too easy to defeat with one example. Ok, let's say there is still abundant dismemberment - more than would be expected from a natural collapse. \\ The buildings were clearly destroyed beyond repair.
46 | (empty) | Only happens in classic controlled demolition. Richard Gage acknowledges this fact in his presentation.
47 | (empty) | This feature is common in demolitions, and given that the Towers exhibited other characteristics of demolition, then it is more likely that demolition is what occurred.
48 | Nothing in the future can be completely controlled, due to unknown variables. But the demolition was controlled as much as possible. It seems that too many explosives were used, making it too obvious. | Nothing in the future can be completely controlled, due to unknown variables. But the demolition was controlled as much as possible. It seems that too many explosives were used, to make sure the WTCs collapsed. But the perpetrators ended up making it too obvious that it was a controlled demolition. The word "impossible" can only be verified by experiment. Landing on the Moon was once thought "impossible". \\ No, it is not impossible. The demolitions were covert and set up to avoid effects from the planes and fires. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#access
49 | Tom Sullivan is an experienced demolition expert, and an active member of AE911Truth. He believes the WTCs came down by CD. The Control of the Demolition did not have to be "perfect" to be effective. | Tom Sullivan is an experienced demolition expert, and an active member of AE911Truth. He believes the WTCs came down by CD. The Control of the Demolition did not have to be "perfect" to be effective. \\ Tom Sullivan also agrees that fires could not have caused what we saw. The demolitions were evidently successful.
50 | Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds. See and listen for yourself www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM For sounds of explosions this should be used: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-secti...574-faq-7.html | Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds. See and listen for yourself www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM For sounds of explosions this should be used: www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/574-faq-7.html \\There were explosive sounds from the Tower collapses. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EseUt2LUan4#t=11m0s

Etc.

The previous contents are what I responded to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8285572&postcount=4768

If they are allowed to peek at what the responses are and change the arguments on the fly (as the change to point #45 suggests), then I say it's not an honest debate.

 

[LSSBB]

Comparison between what it said and what it says:

# | Before | After
45 | Nobody said "Total" dismemberment, but there certainly was a lot. | Although Richard Gage said "total" dismemberment, it was a figure of speech not ideal for use in a debate. (Californians use the word "totally" a lot). Terms like "total", "none", "never" and "always" are too easy to defeat with one example. Ok, let's say there is still abundant dismemberment - more than would be expected from a natural collapse. \\ The buildings were clearly destroyed beyond repair.

Ahhh, the "Valley Girl" excuse, a new Truther low.

 

[Animal]

So what do you propose to identify and fix NIST's inaccuracies at the detail level? Understand that inventing rough and dirty fantasy scenarios with zero evidence to back them up even at the crudest of levels doesn't cut it.



You can criticize NIST only because their hypothesis comes with a great amount of detail. You have none, so you deserve to be ignored.

NIST knows its limitations......they admit it. there is no "fraud"

9.5 SUMMARY OF THE SIMULATION OF FIRES IN WTC 7

Although the visual evidence for WTC 7 was not nearly as extensive as for WTC 1 and WTC 2, the fire simulations did exploit as much as possible the few photographs showing the location of severe fire activity in
WTC 7 at various times during the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Compared to the actual files, the simulated fires followed the same general paths and, as evidenced by the validation experiments reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-5E, generated comparable temperatures to those in fire tests. THe simulations of the 12th floor fires (and thus the derivative 11th and 13th floor fires) may have mildly overestimated the duration of the fires and the fraction of the burning near the north face windows, relative to the burning in the interior of the tenant space.


(my bolding)

 

[000063]

So what? That is NOT the NIST hypotheses and you know it. The NIST hypotheses is:
The fired caused the beams to expand and that expansion pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 pm.

A fire that has burned out cannot heat the beams and make them expand.

Does the NIST report ever specifically say that the beam in question was being heated at the time it failed? Because that "and" looks a lot like a conjunction linking two different events, not a break in a direct sequence.

 

[chrismohr]

Comparison between what it said and what it says:

# | Before | After
45 | Nobody said "Total" dismemberment, but there certainly was a lot. | Although Richard Gage said "total" dismemberment, it was a figure of speech not ideal for use in a debate. (Californians use the word "totally" a lot). Terms like "total", "none", "never" and "always" are too easy to defeat with one example. Ok, let's say there is still abundant dismemberment - more than would be expected from a natural collapse. \\ The buildings were clearly destroyed beyond repair.
46 | (empty) | Only happens in classic controlled demolition. Richard Gage acknowledges this fact in his presentation.
47 | (empty) | This feature is common in demolitions, and given that the Towers exhibited other characteristics of demolition, then it is more likely that demolition is what occurred.
48 | Nothing in the future can be completely controlled, due to unknown variables. But the demolition was controlled as much as possible. It seems that too many explosives were used, making it too obvious. | Nothing in the future can be completely controlled, due to unknown variables. But the demolition was controlled as much as possible. It seems that too many explosives were used, to make sure the WTCs collapsed. But the perpetrators ended up making it too obvious that it was a controlled demolition. The word "impossible" can only be verified by experiment. Landing on the Moon was once thought "impossible". \\ No, it is not impossible. The demolitions were covert and set up to avoid effects from the planes and fires. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#access
49 | Tom Sullivan is an experienced demolition expert, and an active member of AE911Truth. He believes the WTCs came down by CD. The Control of the Demolition did not have to be "perfect" to be effective. | Tom Sullivan is an experienced demolition expert, and an active member of AE911Truth. He believes the WTCs came down by CD. The Control of the Demolition did not have to be "perfect" to be effective. \\ Tom Sullivan also agrees that fires could not have caused what we saw. The demolitions were evidently successful.
50 | Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds. See and listen for yourself www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM For sounds of explosions this should be used: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-secti...574-faq-7.html | Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds. See and listen for yourself www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM For sounds of explosions this should be used: www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/574-faq-7.html \\There were explosive sounds from the Tower collapses. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EseUt2LUan4#t=11m0s

Etc.

The previous contents are what I responded to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8285572&postcount=4768

If they are allowed to peek at what the responses are and change the arguments on the fly (as the change to point #45 suggests), then I say it's not an honest debate.

Hi Pgimeno,

I expected Rick to make improvements along the way. I think some of the responses he put were intended as "first drafts," and when the other researchers came along they made changes. Other changes were made after my rebuttals showed an obvious error. I greatly appreciated your contributions and hope you'll continue, even knowing this will happen. I too can make changes along the way, and have. My mutual goal with Rick is to have a place where the best available arguments on both sides will be available in a simple format. Your help is greatly valued in this.

I also need to check and see what I haven't put into chrismohr911.com yet. Between a niece graduating and two friends dying in the past two weeks, I have not been keeping up on this but will get back to it soon!

 

[pgimeno]

Hi Pgimeno,

I expected Rick to make improvements along the way. I think some of the responses he put were intended as "first drafts," and when the other researchers came along they made changes. Other changes were made after my rebuttals showed an obvious error. I greatly appreciated your contributions and hope you'll continue, even knowing this will happen. I too can make changes along the way, and have. My mutual goal with Rick is to have a place where the best available arguments on both sides will be available in a simple format. Your help is greatly valued in this.

I also need to check and see what I haven't put into chrismohr911.com yet. Between a niece graduating and two friends dying in the past two weeks, I have not been keeping up on this but will get back to it soon!

I'm very sorry about your losses.

The problem is that now my previous effort feels futile. It would seem that they based this review on what I wrote, anticipating the responses to counter the arguments before they are posted.

 

[chrismohr]

I'm very sorry about your losses.

The problem is that now my previous effort feels futile. It would seem that they based this review on what I wrote, anticipating the responses to counter the arguments before they are posted.

Thank you. Yeah, it's been rough.

In my opinion there is nothing futile at all about your efforts. If they make a change and it answers what you or I or anyone else says, the fact is that the best arguments are laid out. In some cases you caught some obvious mistakes and I will have to adjust our responses according to the fact that they are not standing by an obvious error. But if they publish a "Valley Girl" defense of what Gage said, so be it. Why does that make our efforts to put out accurate information for real truth seekers a waste? As long as Richard Gage and others are offering their compelling arguments to lay audiences, something like this provides much needed, nonthreatening information they can easil;y access.

 

[chrismohr]

BTW the re-rebuttals are now up on chrismohr911.com for #28-31 reasons, which they skipped over on the first round. So if anyone has re-re-rebuttal material feel free! I have also finally made my way through to reason #54, which should get posted soon.

 

[Christopher7]

It's been pointed out time and time again that the fire not being present at the time of the collapse does not mean the steel wasn't weakened.

You are ignoring the point again.

The NIST hypothesis requires the fire to heat the beams at 5:20 p.m.

But the fire had burned out in that area so the NIST hypothesis does not result in collapse.

 

[pgimeno]

You are ignoring the point again.

The NIST hypothesis requires the fire to heat the beams at 5:20 p.m.

But the fire had burned out in that area so the NIST hypothesis does not result in collapse.

C7, can you please acknowledge that "no fire visible from the outside" does not equal "no fire at all"?

Thanks.