Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

Chris7 et al are liars, insane, etc.

Rule 12 violation that will probably not be enforced by mods.

The "Breeze from the window makes the fire cool down" canard was quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read on this forum outside of the Stundie awards.

Y'all love to make stupid [false] statements and talk about how stupid they are. Stupid in not understanding what I clearly said. Go back and read the many posts where I have responded to this strawman.

 

[pgimeno]

NIST said the fire on floor 12 had burned out because they knew it had started on the south side and burned around the core area to the NW corner, burning out all that area.

Reference, please?

I have responded to this already. The hottest gases, 1800^oF indicated in red, are directly above the fire. The gasses cool as they spread out.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you complaining about a mismatch between the simulation and the visible part of the fire?

 

[Christopher7]

Reference, please?

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 299 [pdf pg 343]
Multiple FDNY personnel reported seeing fires in WTC 7 from the exterior, some as early as about 11:00 a.m. Fires were observed on the west face around Floor 10, and several fires were seen higher up in the building, around the 20s and 30s. These fires were seen from Vesey and West Street. A firefighter reported seeing fire near the center of the south face around Floor 14 [12], which appeared to be a single office fire. Windows were broken, and smoke and fire were coming out of the building.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you complaining about a mismatch between the simulation and the visible part of the fire?

You're still not sure? Methinks thou dost jest too much.

 

[pgimeno]

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 299 [pdf pg 343]

Multiple FDNY personnel reported seeing fires in WTC 7 from the exterior, some as early as about 11:00 a.m. Fires were observed on the west face around Floor 10, and several fires were seen higher up in the building, around the 20s and 30s. These fires were seen from Vesey and West Street. A firefighter reported seeing fire near the center of the south face around Floor 14 [12], which appeared to be a single office fire. Windows were broken, and smoke and fire were coming out of the building.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I mean... I don't think it says what you claim it says, which is:

NIST said the fire on floor 12 had burned out because they knew it had started on the south side and burned around the core area to the NW corner, burning out all that area.​

Can you please either actually support that statement or take it back?

You're still not sure? Methinks thou dost jest too much.

Let me just be absolutely sure about this, so I don't get the wrong idea.
Are you complaining about a mismatch between the simulation and the visible part of the fire?

 

[triforcharity]

Let me just be absolutely sure about this, so I don't get the wrong idea.
Are you complaining about a mismatch between the simulation and the visible part of the fire?

Yes, that is EXACTLY what he's claiming. When I explained that the window that he claims should have flame breaching to the outside, is actually an accumulation of hot gasses, and NOT fire, he claims that it's stupid.

Yeah, cool eh?

 

[pgimeno]

Not very cool, no. Actually, like 1000°C hot.

But I think that this raises the bar for the burden of proof on the "fires burnt out" claim, which can't now really be taken seriously if coming from Christopher7 unless he does a much better job at proving it.

 

[tsig]

So, explain how the offices on the south side, towards the middle, avoided the fire completely.

Oh, and fire spread is NEVER axiomatic. Ever.

All you need to know is that office fires burn from 20 to 30 minutes then go out and cool down while the next office fire burns.

 

[triforcharity]

All you need to know is that office fires burn from 20 to 30 minutes then go out and cool down while the next office fire burns.

Seems like a 10 minute certificate would be used more often, as opposed to 4 years of schooling.......

Maybe the other 3 years, 11 months + is just a waste.....maybe it's the NWO plan to make us spend more.......

 

[tsig]

Seems like a 10 minute certificate would be used more often, as opposed to 4 years of schooling.......

Maybe the other 3 years, 11 months + is just a waste.....maybe it's the NWO plan to make us spend more.......

Well there are a few other things, fresh air cools a fire and heat stays stationary over the visible fire.

You should have taken up carpentry instead of going to school that way you'd have a trade and innate knowledge of fire behavior. Nail-benders rule!

 

[Christopher7]

Seems like a 10 minute certificate would be used more often, as opposed to 4 years of schooling.......

Maybe the other 3 years, 11 months + is just a waste

In your case, it was.

 

[Christopher7]

Well there are a few other things, fresh air cools a fire and heat stays stationary over the visible fire.

Those stupid ideas came out of your head, not mine.

 

[Christopher7]

All you need to know is that office fires burn from 20 to 30 minutes then go out and cool down while the next office fire burns.

Go out is incorrect. After 20 to 30 minutes the fire has consumed most of the fuel and dies down to a couple hundred degrees or less.

The fire ignited the offices next to it as NIST explained. Looking at the floor plan reveals that the offices were consistent throughout the east end and NIST knew that the area above the offices was open.

To know how the fire spread on the east end of floor 12, that is all NIST or anyone else has to go on. Do you know of any other information NIST had?

You guys always saying "It's very complicated" and you are the experts. Neither is true.

 

[triforcharity]

It's not complicated? Really? Where's your FDS of one room?

Where's your load calculations?

Where's your math on the CFPM of air that comes through the window?

Why haven't you done even ONE of those "not complicated" things?

Humm.......maybe because.......it's too complicated for you to do? Maybe because you don't have the knowledge?

Yeah. Maybe that's why.

Wanna explain why some offices were spared? Mainly on the south side towards the middle? Hum........Wanna take a stab at that Sarns? It should be simple, right?

Why is it that you ONLY address questions that you can answer with a handwave, and not ANYTHING technical?

Why is that Carpenter?

 

[triforcharity]

In your case, it was.

That was almost close to being funny, if it weren't for the fact that you're a carpenter, and I save lives.....yeah......Good call champ.

 

[Christopher7]

Multiple FDNY personnel reported seeing fires in WTC 7 from the exterior, some as early as about 11:00 a.m. Fires were observed on the west face around Floor 10, and several fires were seen higher up in the building, around the 20s and 30s. These fires were seen from Vesey and West Street. A firefighter reported seeing fire near the center of the south face around Floor 14 [12], which appeared to be a single office fire. Windows were broken, and smoke and fire were coming out of the building.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I mean... I don't think it says what you claim it says, which is:

NIST said the fire on floor 12 had burned out because they knew it had started on the south side and burned around the core area to the NW corner, burning out all that area.​

Can you please either actually support that statement or take it back?

The photos show the fire did burn around the core area. The NIST model shows that too, but progressively later than the actual fires, skipping areas and burning for widely varying amounts of time.

Let me just be absolutely sure about this, so I don't get the wrong idea.
Are you complaining about a mismatch between the simulation and the visible part of the fire?

You are incredibly slow on the uptake. I have been talking the visible parts [offices along the outer walls] but there are also anomalies in the interior fires that I will get to.

 

[Christopher7]

It's not complicated? Really? Where's your FDS of one room?
Where's your load calculations?
Where's your math on the CFPM of air that comes through the window?
Why haven't you done even ONE of those "not complicated" things?

Why do you keep asking. I have said that I accept NIST's calculations. Stop asking the same stupid questions.

Maybe because you don't have the knowledge?

Correct. But you know that so your questions are stupid and rhetorical.

Wanna explain why some offices were spared?

There is no explanation and therein lies the rub. Don't just claim your superior knowledge. Post the data concerning the fire on floor 12 that would cause an exception to a consistent fire spread as described by NIST [office to office].

 

[Christopher7]

That was almost close to being funny, if it weren't for the fact that you're a carpenter, and I save lives

Of course dear. Being anonymous means you can be anything you say you are.

 

[000063]

...
You are incredibly slow on the uptake. I have been talking the visible parts [offices along the outer walls] but there are also anomalies in the interior fires that I will get to.

Insulting an opponent who asks for clarification of your argument is not cricket, Sarns ol' chap, especially if you follow it by not actually answering his question. Repeatedly. Almost as if you were dodging.

Why do you keep asking. I have said that I accept NIST's calculations. Stop asking the same stupid questions.

No, you've said you accept some of NIST's calculations on some things. The rest of the time they're liars, as you have claimed repeatedly.

Correct. But you know that so your questions are stupid and rhetorical.

So when I asked you how you could do better than NIST by looking at photos, you were lying? You actually accept their calculations?

There is no explanation and therein lies the rub. Don't just claim your superior knowledge. Post the data concerning the fire on floor 12 that would cause an exception to a consistent fire spread as described by NIST [office to office].

That is a vast oversimplification of how fire spreads.

 

[chrismohr]

Of course dear. Being anonymous means you can be anything you say you are.

Chris7 this insultfest may be fun for you, but it's sure tiring for me. If you doubt that Tri is a firefighter with specialized knowledge, that's a serious accusation. It's pretty flip of you to blow off not only his credentials but his willingness to risk his life for strangers.

 

[newton3376]

Why do you keep asking. I have said that I accept NIST's calculations. Stop asking the same stupid questions.

You don't "accept" anything.

You can't "accept" it or reject it because you are clueless on these topics.........you don't have the education, experience, or knowledge to even say you "accept" something.

Until you can show you understand (or are even capable of understanding) the mathematics/physics behind such things please refrain from making it sound as if you can even judge on way or the other.

You can't.

It is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst for you to act like you can "accept" anything that NIST (or any technical professional) writes.

You can't.......you know it and we know it.

Stop pretending to be something you are not....if that bothers you then hit the books and get a degree.

My prediction is that you will continue writing useless nonsense on internet forums and having zero impact on anything......10, 15, 20, even 30 years from now you will still be having no impact but acting like you are in a position to "accept" what NIST wrote.

You aren't and likely never will be.