Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Oystein

The north face stayed in one piece, but it didn't remain vertical during that fall, nor unbent. As for the rest of the building, we can't know. But we know where the rest of the building fell: ALL OVER THE PLACE: It slammed into the Verizon, crossed streets on all 4 sides, even hit Fiterman Hall, a 15 story building across the street on Barclay and West Broadway, on the roof. It twisted and turned as it fell, and part of that was visible even on the north face from the beginning:

This describes how part of the north face rotated away from being vertical.


The problem is not what I know but what you don't know.


You can't and don't know that.


So? And what happened east and south?
Oh! You don't know!


You are the one making stuff up.

For the collapse of a 47 storey skyscraper, the debris pile was incredibly neat. And no, it did not slam into the Verizon building. Some relatively small parts hit it but that's to be expected when steel dropped from great height hits the ground so close to other buildings (Verizon, Post Office and Fiterman Hall).

Can you answer the question I asked Edx an hour ago?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

What a load of waffle.

Of course that is relevant. Relevant because NIST based all of its models on WTC7 collapsing due to the failure of column 79.

That makes NIST's work worthless.

You didn't read the NIST report for comprehension, and didn't read the CTBUH critique of the draft report for comprehension.

CBTUH identified an internal consistency in the NIST report: NIST describes and models plausibly how the floors and their connection to column 79 failed first, making 79 excessively slender, and causing it to buckle subsequently. Therefore, the one statement in the summary that the failure of 79 was the cause of collapse is misleading. CBTUH wished that this discrepancy be resolved. If you read the whole NIST report for comprehension, you will find that NIST does not really connsider the failure of 79 to be the start of all trouble; its a slip. Nothing more.

Your elaborate attempts to ignore MOST of what CBTUH wrote is a shining testimony to your dishonesty.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

What a worthless question. I'd consider CTBUH to be intelligent, sane and certainly not 'in on it'. Then again they don't give an explanation for the symmetry of collapse.

Why on earth should they explain something that did not happen?
And even if it did happen (it didn't - nothing was symmetric about that collapse), why should CBTUH explain it? It is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

But the simple fact is, they don't agree WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of one column. Oooops!

So? They fully agree that WTC7 collapses due to intense, unfought fires, and they most strongly disagree with everything you, as a truther, believe in.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Not interested. I love my job, and my wife!

I guess that you more than anybody can appreciate just how much Richard Gage has sacrificed for the cause.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

And let me remind you again because you are clearly ignoring this.

NIST says WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of one column (79).

WRONG.
NIST actually says on pages 623 and 624 of NCSTAR 1-9 (I paraphrase):

• Heating of long floor beams led to breaking of connections to slabs
• At column 79, heating and excpansion of the floor beams caused the loss of connection betweemn column and girder
• As floor 13 fell, a cascade of floor failures followed down to floor 5, leaving column 79 without lateral support over 9 floors
• Then column 79 buckled

For those with reading cvomprehension, NIST describes clearly how floor failures came first, and how these caused the buckling of column 79, which in turn led to progressive collapse.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

CTBUH says WTC7 collapsed due to the failure of multiple columns.

WRONG.
CBTUH in fact says:

Originally Posted by CBTUH

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

That latter fits more with CD than the former for the obvious reason.

Because the latter was WRONG, your conclusion is INVALID.

Now that you know that your premise was wrong, are you ready to retract your conclusion?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

...
As David Chandler says at the end of that video, "it took some kind of consciousness raising on my part before I was willing to look at the possibilities....really you need to go where the evidence leads"

David Chandler talks about his own personal problems with reality there.

[newton3376]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

For the collapse of a 47 storey skyscraper, the debris pile was incredibly neat.

Incredibly neat?

How do you know this?

What are you comparing it too?

I guess we all missed the dozens of examples of other 47 story skyscrapers that have collapsed in a "neat" pile that you are using as comparison....oh wait.....

Your comment is really stupid.....try not to say dumb things in the future.....that will make reading your posts much less painful.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Because David Scott has been brainwashed ...

That's funny: When the CBTUH guys say something which you believe supports your position, they are sane and intelligent. As soon as you realize they do not in fact support you but call you nuts, you switch your position and call them brainwashed.

What a disingenious little man you are!

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

That's funny: When the CBTUH guys say something which you believe supports your position, they are sane and intelligent. As soon as you realize they do not in fact support you but call you nuts, you switch your position and call them brainwashed.

What a disingenious little man you are!

As Danny Jowenko said it doesn't pay for organisations to cross the government on matters 9/11. The management of CBTUH is well aware of that fact. I don't think they really enjoyed having all these building code changes foisted on them either as they make pretty clear in their pdf.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

For the collapse of a 47 storey skyscraper, the debris pile was incredibly neat. And no, it did not slam into the Verizon building. Some relatively small parts hit it but that's to be expected when steel dropped from great height hits the ground so close to other buildings (Verizon, Post Office and Fiterman Hall).

"Neat" is not an objective engineering term.
When buildings are CDed, their "neat" debris piles are aimed at areas with no other buildings on them. When the aim is to collapse "onto the footprint", not even adjacent streets are touched by more than dust.
WTC7 caused the TOTAL destruction of Fiterman Hall (it was damaged beyond repair and had to be deconstructed) and added substantially to the more than US$ 1 billion of damages to the Verizon Building.
Nothing "neat" about that.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Can you answer the question I asked Edx an hour ago?

Which question? This:
"Now, are you going to do what no other debunker has been capable of doing and tell me how the building fell as a single unit, straight down, with no initial rotation when, according to NIST, collapse started close to one corner?"
No, I can't answer that question. We can't explain to you how something happened when that something didn't happen. Several FALSE premises in the question:

• Building fell in stages, not truly as a single, solid unit, as you imply
• It didn't fall straight down: It twisted, turned, leaned, and fell across the streets in all four directions.
• Collapse didn't start in a corner according to NIST. Visible downward movement started in the core, when floor failures caused internal column 79 to fail, and other internal columns in rapid succession. (Yes, the floors that initially failed were near one corner. So? The critically affected not the corner but the core. You'd know this if you had read the NIST report for comprehension. So either you did not comprehend the NIST report, or you are a liar)

But if you must:
By the time collapse progression reached the periphery, all internal structural integrity was lost. When the first north and/or west face columns started to buckle out of sight, load reditribution happened at the speed of sound in steel and caused the remaining unbraced columns in that peripheral assembly to buckle in very rapid succession (fraction of a second).

[Marokkaan]

Originally Posted by Oystein

WRONG.
NIST actually says on pages 623 and 624 of NCSTAR 1-9 (I paraphrase):

• Heating of long floor beams led to breaking of connections to slabs
• At column 79, heating and excpansion of the floor beams caused the loss of connection betweemn column and girder
• As floor 13 fell, a cascade of floor failures followed down to floor 5, leaving column 79 without lateral support over 9 floors
• Then column 79 buckled

For those with reading cvomprehension, NIST describes clearly how floor failures came first, and how these caused the buckling of column 79, which in turn led to progressive collapse.



WRONG.
CBTUH in fact says:



Because the latter was WRONG, your conclusion is INVALID.

Now that you know that your premise was wrong, are you ready to retract your conclusion?

He said the right thing, but not perfectly, you are acting like he said something very very wrong lol.

This is typically the debunkersstyle.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

He said the right thing, but not perfectly, you are acting like he said something very very wrong lol.

This is typically the debunkersstyle.

hey it not the debunkers fault when truthers get it all wrong all the time.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

He said the right thing, but not perfectly, you are acting like he said something very very wrong lol.

This is typically the debunkersstyle.

Incorrect.
He is superficially right about what NIST said: NIST is inconsistent and somewhat confusing about this "coluimn 79" thing: In their summary, it does indeed sound like column failure was first; but again, if you read the whole context, indeed the whole report, for comprehension, it becomes clear that NIST does NOT think column failure was the ultimate cause of collapse, but rather NIST is clear that several steps of floor failure lead to the first column failure.
So he was substantially WRONG about what NIST said.

He is TOTALLY WRONG about what CTBUH said: CBUTH did NOT AT ALL say that the collapse stared with multiple column failures. In fact, CBTUH stressed that collapse did NOT begin with column failure at all, but rather that it was floor failure that started the mess. They explicitly corrected the false impression given by NIST in their sloppy summary statement about column 79!
mrkinnies' rendering of what CTBUH said is in fact the exact opposite of what they really said! You can't get any wronger than that! So yes, it was very very VERY wrong!

Marokkaan; Why are you participating in this debate if you can see nothing at all that is of substance? You get everything so very wrong - you surely have not understood the NIST reports, and you definetely have not understood the CTBUH critique thereof at all.

[Marokkaan]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Incorrect.
He is superficially right about what NIST said: NIST is inconsistent and somewhat confusing about this "coluimn 79" thing: In their summary, it does indeed sound like column failure was first; but again, if you read the whole context, indeed the whole report, for comprehension, it becomes clear that NIST does NOT think column failure was the ultimate cause of collapse, but rather NIST is clear that several steps of floor failure lead to the first column failure.
So he was substantially WRONG about what NIST said.

He is TOTALLY WRONG about what CTBUH said: CBUTH did NOT AT ALL say that the collapse stared with multiple column failures. In fact, CBTUH stressed that collapse did NOT begin with column failure at all, but rather that it was floor failure that started the mess. They explicitly corrected the false impression given by NIST in their sloppy summary statement about column 79!
mrkinnies' rendering of what CTBUH said is in fact the exact opposite of what they really said! You can't get any wronger than that! So yes, it was very very VERY wrong!

Marokkaan; Why are you participating in this debate if you can see nothing at all that is of substance? You get everything so very wrong - you surely have not understood the NIST reports, and you definetely have not understood the CTBUH critique thereof at all.

Its about the importance of the columns, you dont understand the principle.

No it was not very wrong, you have a problem with understanding reading.

He never said wtc 7 BEGINS WITH

And he never said wtc 7 STARTED WITH multiple columns

And why you dont understand, the columns are the cause of the collapse, if nothing happened with the columns, then a total collapse of the building is impossible.

By the way, why you are ignoring the debate in the other thread? Where you can see you made a lot of mistakes.

And i will ask you again, why are you debating about this subject while you dont have the expertise?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

By the way, why you are ignoring the debate in the other thread? Where you can see you made a lot of mistakes.

I'd like to ask you the same question, Marokkaan. You've posted in several threads and after being asked a number of questions, you disappear, possibly reappearing a day or two later and act like the questions don't exist.

Why is that?

Could you please come back to one of the other threads and answer the questions I and others have repeatedly posed to you?

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Incorrect.
He is superficially right about what NIST said: NIST is inconsistent and somewhat confusing about this "coluimn 79" thing: In their summary, it does indeed sound like column failure was first; but again, if you read the whole context, indeed the whole report, for comprehension, it becomes clear that NIST does NOT think column failure was the ultimate cause of collapse, but rather NIST is clear that several steps of floor failure lead to the first column failure.
So he was substantially WRONG about what NIST said.

He is TOTALLY WRONG about what CTBUH said: CBUTH did NOT AT ALL say that the collapse stared with multiple column failures. In fact, CBTUH stressed that collapse did NOT begin with column failure at all, but rather that it was floor failure that started the mess. They explicitly corrected the false impression given by NIST in their sloppy summary statement about column 79!
mrkinnies' rendering of what CTBUH said is in fact the exact opposite of what they really said! You can't get any wronger than that! So yes, it was very very VERY wrong!

Marokkaan; Why are you participating in this debate if you can see nothing at all that is of substance? You get everything so very wrong - you surely have not understood the NIST reports, and you definetely have not understood the CTBUH critique thereof at all.

Oystein, clearly you have to agree that NIST says column 79 failed because that's what they say....and yes, they say it was due to floor expansion.

Silly me for ommitting the latter explanation when I referred to NIST but you can stop jumping up and down about it now.

Just for you....

NIST says floor expansion caused a failure in one internal column which led to collapse.

CTBUH says floor expansion caused a loss of lateral restraint which led to the failure of multiple internal columns which led to collapse.

Still an enormous difference and proves your beloved engineers don't quite agree with one another, especially when you read the list of issues CTBUH has with the NIST hypothesis and NIST's understanding of the fire and its role in causing column 79 to fail.

And neither hypothesis can account for what the external columns were doing which is mightily problematic since these supported the facades.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Still an enormous difference and proves your beloved engineers don't quite agree with one another.

Do either NIST or CTBUH say it was controlled demolition?

[DC]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Oystein, clearly you have to agree that NIST says column 79 failed because that's what they say....and yes, they say it was due to floor expansion.

Silly me for ommitting the latter explanation when I referred to NIST but you can stop jumping up and down about it now.

Just for you....

NIST says floor expansion caused a failure in one internal column which led to collapse.

CTBUH says floor expansion caused a loss of lateral restraint which led to the failure of multiple internal columns which led to collapse.

Still an enormous difference and proves your beloved engineers don't quite agree with one another.

LOL nor do the truther "Experts" agree with one another.
not even inside AE9/11.
some say WTC1 and 2 collapsed into its footprint, Michael Donly however says, steel beams have been hurled so far away it must have been explosives......

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Oystein, clearly you have to agree that NIST says column 79 failed because that's what they say....and yes, they say it was due to floor expansion.

Silly me for ommitting the latter explanation when I referred to NIST but you can stop jumping up and down about it now.

Just for you....

NIST says floor expansion caused a failure in one internal column which led to collapse.

CTBUH says floor expansion caused a loss of lateral restraint which led to the failure of multiple internal columns which led to collapse.

Still an enormous difference and proves your beloved engineers don't quite agree with one another, especially when you read the list of issues CTBUH has with the NIST hypothesis and NIST's understanding of the fire and its role in causing column 79 to fail.

And neither hypothesis can account for what the external columns were doing which is mightily problematic since these supported the facades.

This is truly shocking. I hadn't realised the the CBTUH had so radically disagreed with NIST. How come there hasn't been an outcry to have such an august body as the CBTUH disgreee with NIST on their key collapse precursor ? The scenario that their entire collapse model is based on.

NIST say that they will not release their test data for independent verification because that might endanger the public safety but this completely changes everything.

NIST was already disagreed with by technical professionals on many sides in their explantion of the collapse but to have the CBTUH express doubts as to the validity of NIST's explantion is the final straw. NIST should be compelled to release the data at once in the public interest and our continued safety.

This clear doubt on such an important matter of public safety certainly cannot be allowed to stand.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

[lots of nonsense clipped]
And i will ask you again, why are you debating about this subject while you dont have the expertise?

I'll explain, even though you won't understand:

What matters is if some claim or argument is correct, or true.
In principle, everybody, regardless of education and expertise, can investigate questions and come to factually true conclusions.

That is not what you are about when you make arguments from authority: When you construct an argument around the claim that someone else said this and this, and you want me to believe that other person, without presenting their actual arguments, that's an "argument from authority". This is valid if the other person is indeed an authority:
- Has the relevant credentials
- Is sufficiently and correctly informed about the subject matter.
So, for example, referring to the NIST reports and saying "I believe X because these experts say so", is not bad, because
- All the NIST guys have great relevant credentials
- They have worked on a lot of correct data
When you say, on the other hand, that I believe X, because 400 "professors" or "1500 architects and engineers" say so", than that's an argument from FALSE authority:
- Most of these people do not have the relevant expertise
- Most of the people are falsely or insufficiently informed about the subject matter
Both points can be easily shown by randomly picking some guys from those lists.


Now, when I make arguments here, they are never of the form "I believe X, and so should you, because I say so". I am not an authority. Don't believe me just because I say it. Judge my conclusions by the truth value of my premises and the validity of my reasoning and logic.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Of course it is irrelevant.

It may well be that the vast majority of engineers and physicists would reject critiques of WTC7 spontaneous collapse, but we will never know because the vast majority never read them or consider them.

This is not the case with creationism, the rejection of which is implicit in many scientific disciplines.

Because Creationists have and continue to be a threat to the US educational system.

Twoofers threaten nothing except the wallets of the gullible

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Oystein, clearly you have to agree that NIST says column 79 failed because that's what they say....and yes, they say it was due to floor expansion.

Silly me for ommitting the latter explanation when I referred to NIST but you can stop jumping up and down about it now.

Just for you....

NIST says floor expansion caused a failure in one internal column which led to collapse.

Yes. If you add "collapse of several floors".

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

CTBUH says floor expansion caused a loss of lateral restraint which led to the failure of multiple internal columns which led to collapse.

Yes. With 79 being the first to buckle.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Still an enormous difference

No!
The way you phrased it now, there is no difference at all! It's just a matter of detail and focus, but we - NIST, CTBUH, you, I - agree now on the following sequence:

1. 1 floor fails
2. several floors fail
3. column 79 fails
4. multiple columns fail
5. global collapse

CTBUH criticised NIST for stating in a summary that step 3 was the cause of global collapse, even though NIST very clearly explained how 1., then 2., then 3., then 4. lead to global collapse.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

and proves your beloved engineers don't quite agree with one another, especially when you read the list of issues CTBUH has with the NIST hypothesis and NIST's understanding of the fire and its role in causing column 79 to fail.

No, CTBUH does not at all disagree with NISTs finding that fires around column 79 and the 13th floor were responsible for global collapse by making floors fail.
Do you acknowledge that? If so, I would ask you to repeat that in your own words!

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

And neither hypothesis can account for what the external columns were doing which is mightily problematic since these supported the facades.

WRONG.
Both NIST and CTBUH understand very well that progressive collapse of the building core doomed the rest of the building to very rapid demise. On that, CTBUH very strongly supports NIST and very explicitly condemns your stance (CD of some kind) into the domain of bad, ugly, unwanted fairy tales.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

[/b]

Wishful thinking, one of the biggest problems of humankind.

Irony at it finest.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by bill smith

'' Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down''

You are being devious Oystein. Your engineering friends mentioned here of course do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building (which is the only kind of building that matters for this conversation). For the simple reason that no hi-rise steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the Planet Earth. (Apart from at the WTC on 9/11 of course)

The only three that ever had large unfought fires all collapsed. First time in the recorded history of the Planet Earth fires in a high rise had not been fought.

[Marokkaan]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I'll explain, even though you won't understand:

What matters is if some claim or argument is correct, or true.
In principle, everybody, regardless of education and expertise, can investigate questions and come to factually true conclusions.

That is not what you are about when you make arguments from authority: When you construct an argument around the claim that someone else said this and this, and you want me to believe that other person, without presenting their actual arguments, that's an "argument from authority". This is valid if the other person is indeed an authority:
- Has the relevant credentials
- Is sufficiently and correctly informed about the subject matter.
So, for example, referring to the NIST reports and saying "I believe X because these experts say so", is not bad, because
- All the NIST guys have great relevant credentials
- They have worked on a lot of correct data
When you say, on the other hand, that I believe X, because 400 "professors" or "1500 architects and engineers" say so", than that's an argument from FALSE authority:
- Most of these people do not have the relevant expertise
- Most of the people are falsely or insufficiently informed about the subject matter
Both points can be easily shown by randomly picking some guys from those lists.


Now, when I make arguments here, they are never of the form "I believe X, and so should you, because I say so". I am not an authority. Don't believe me just because I say it. Judge my conclusions by the truth value of my premises and the validity of my reasoning and logic.

You are good in ignoring people, and you can not even say, that you were wrong.

You show it here, and in the other thread.

Thats not respectful.

So i have to put you on ignore.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

'' Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down''

You are being devious Oystein. Your engineering friends mentioned here of course do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building (which is the only kind of building that matters for this conversation). For the simple reason that no hi-rise steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the Planet Earth. (Apart from at the WTC on 9/11 of course)

How absurdly wrong you are, Bill.
I know you're trolling, but anyway. Let me educate you:

Every structural and fire protection engineer knows, of course, that fire is a hazard to steel constructions.

Why else would they spray fireproofing in steel, huh? Can you explain that?

It is obvious that failure of steel members can lead to collapse.
The Kader toy factory is the usual example for this: A low.rise steel frame building that collapsed completely due to fire (and gravity).
Can you please acknowledge, Bill, that you are informed now that low-rise steel buildings can collapse completel due to fire? If so, please repeat that in your own words!


Now - what if you build a low-rise building, only a lot higher? Is there some strange law that prevents steel structures from failing once they exceed, say, 30 meters, or 10 floors, or wherever "hi-rise" begins in your book? If so, then please explain!
If not, then please think about this for a second: If low-rise buildings can collapse from fires, so can hi-rise buildings.

In fact, it is much harder to construct hi-rise buildings than low-rise buildings such that they don't collapse.



Now on to my engineering friends - here is a little true story I have told a few times already:

One friend, who was also my neighbour at the time, and I had a chance to climb into the spire of our church tower, which is pretty high as churches go, something like 87m, IIRC. More than 80 at any rate. The tower is traditional brickwork up to maybe 55m, on top of that is a copper-clad helmet, which has had a steel-frame since the late 19th century.
You climb up inside the helmet on open stairs that allow you to see the naked structure. My friend, who is a structural engineer, noticed quickly that several of the long steel elements were naked, with no fire protection on them. This, he explained, is a major hazard: Steel like that is prone to heat up VERY quickly to a point where their strength decreases below actual loads. He said that he's expect our church's tower cap to collapse complely within 15 or 20 minutes in case of an ordinary fire inside the tower. He went to explain that even old traditional wood beams would last considerably longer than that. And he explained to me that this is why the World Trade Center towers collapsed they way they did: Because no structural steel can survive intense fires for very long, unless the fire is speedily fought, and fire protection intact.

Of course we know that the fire protection in the towers was NOT intact, and that the fires were not fought.

My structural engineering friend knew very well, that WTC were fire-induced collapses, and that was far from a mystery or surprise to him. Quite the opposite is true: It is what any structural engineer worth his title finds obvious, expected and natural.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

...
So i have to put you on ignore.

I'd love to see Marokkaan's ignore list.
It is a list of all posters who he feels inderior to.

[bill smith]

What a load of rubbish you talk Oystein. Your engineering friends do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building- period. No steel framed hi-rise buildimg has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the universe despite having much larger, hotter and vastly more long lasting fires, You are being transparently devious as I noted earlier.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

NCSTAR 1A Page 22 Chapter 2 (page 64 of the entire report)

"The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."



NIST's use of the word core here is used to define the inner columns as opposed to the outer columns. But the inner and outer columns were inextricable linked and one has to wonder whether they were deliberately trying to confuse lay people such as yourself.

The debunkers here are not confused. That is fer certain. Their billet is coverup assistant.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I guess that you more than anybody can appreciate just how much Richard Gage has sacrificed for the cause.

Or he is nuts or a fraud. Also reasons for ones Wife to kick you out.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by bill smith

What a load of rubbish you talk Oystein. Your engineering friends do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building- period. No steel framed hi-rise buildimg has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the universe despite having much larger, hotter and vastly more long lasting fires, You are being transparently devious as I noted earlier.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

No buildings the size of the WTC have EVER been brought down with CD in the history of the universe. End of debate.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This is truly shocking. I hadn't realised the the CBTUH had so radically disagreed with NIST. How come there hasn't been an outcry to have such an august body as the CBTUH disgreee with NIST on their key collapse precursor ? The scenario that their entire collapse model is based on.

They don't radically disagree at all. Both say floors collapsed leaving column unsupported so they buckled. NIST specified a specific column where they think it started, CBTUH did not. All they disagreed on was the exact mechanism involved in the failure of the floor to column attachments. Given that NIST spent much more time and effort on the problem I'd go with their version but it doesn't really matter either way as regards to the reason why 7 failed. Both agree it was fire.

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Oystein

No!
The way you phrased it now, there is no difference at all! It's just a matter of detail and focus, but we - NIST, CTBUH, you, I - agree now on the following sequence:

1. 1 floor fails
2. several floors fail
3. column 79 fails
4. multiple columns fail
5. global collapse

CTBUH criticised NIST for stating in a summary that step 3 was the cause of global collapse, even though NIST very clearly explained how 1., then 2., then 3., then 4. lead to global collapse.


No, CTBUH does not at all disagree with NISTs finding that fires around column 79 and the 13th floor were responsible for global collapse by making floors fail.
Do you acknowledge that? If so, I would ask you to repeat that in your own words!


WRONG.
Both NIST and CTBUH understand very well that progressive collapse of the building core doomed the rest of the building to very rapid demise. On that, CTBUH very strongly supports NIST and very explicitly condemns your stance (CD of some kind) into the domain of bad, ugly, unwanted fairy tales.

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.

But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which started close to the north eastern corner could possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by bill smith

What a load of rubbish you talk Oystein. Your engineering friends do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building- period. No steel framed hi-rise buildimg has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the universe despite having much larger, hotter and vastly more long lasting fires, You are being transparently devious as I noted earlier.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

What previous fire was in exactly the same kind of building and was unfought?

The fires in WTC1,2 and 7 were in unique buildings and uniquely were not fought.

Every steel framed hi-rise building has always collapsed from unfought fire in the recorded history of the universe

[DC]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.

But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which starts close the north eastern corner can possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

yeah and AE9/11 doesn't even get a B Movie, they are stuck on Youtube

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.

But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which starts close the north eastern corner can possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

I guess it's a new concept like 'thermal expansion' It's probably called 'instant progressive collapse'.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The debunkers here are not confused. That is fer certain. Their billet is coverup assistant.

I was wondering how long it would before the shill accusation was made.
I find it strange that truthers are so sure there is an army of paid shills out there yet cannot actually show who is employing them or where.

I wish they would find out and let me know. I could use the money!

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

NIST clearly states that the probable collapse sequence started with the girder supported by column 79 ''walking-off that column due to thermal expansion. This led floors 13 down to 5 to collapse causing column 79 to buckle, blah de blah de blah.

CTBUH disagrees with NIST that the buckling of column 79 and only that column was to blame citing instead a loss of lateral restraint and buckling of internal columns.
But still, CTBUH, NIST or any debunkers including Chris Mohr and yourself have not been able to explain how all the exterior columns would buckle simultaneously just because the internal structure is collapsing. For NIST to say it just happened is pure folly because what they are saying is the internal columns and beams where weak enough to fall to pieces inside the building but strong enough to stay attached to the outer walls to maintain the loading on these walls in equal distribution. Even more foolish is their assertion that a collapse which started close to the north eastern corner could possibly drag all the contents and outer walls of the steel framing down on the opposite corner (approx 200-250 feet away) at the very same moment in time.

It's laughable and is like reading a script from a 'B' movie. And you believe this crap!

Does the hilighted text impact on the NIST collapse model rendering it invalid ?

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by DC

yeah and AE9/11 doesn't even get a B Movie, they are stuck on Youtube

Would you care to explain my query with NIST's assumption or are you too one of those one-line writing <snip>?

Edited by Loss Leader:

Personal insult deleted.

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Does the hilighted text impact on the NIST collapse model rendering it invalid ?

Hi Bill, I would say it does.