Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr - Page 52

tfk · 24th August 2011, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

tfk

Please answer these questions.

1. How old are you?

2. What do you do for a living?

3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering?

4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed?

1. 58
2. Mechanical engineer.
3. BSME, Cornell U.
(I've answered all of these before. Why is it that the vast majority of the truthers will NOT state their qualifications?)
4. None. I've done lots of small ones for my designs.

But I'm not the one who is claiming (with zero evidence, only baseless assertions) that a passel of successful, proven professionals working within their fields of expertise (NIST & their consulting experts & the 1000s of structural engineers who have accepted their report) got it all wrong.

See the difference?

tk

PS.

Hey Clayton,

1. How old are you?

2. What do you do for a living?

3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering?

4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed?

(truth please.)

Also, the jist of the post ... that you skipped / missed / chose to ignore.

5. Do you think that some of the details of the construction of the building MIGHT just play a role in the nature of the collapse?

6. Or do you think that the collapse of this small, symmetrical erector set is valid for all large structures?

7. Do you think that the manufacturer of the FEA software sits up at night worrying that someone may catch on to the fact that his product is no longer needed because the analysis of one simplistic model applies to all other structures?

8. What experience in your background qualifies you to gainsay the results of several dozen PhDs in structural engineering who spent several years modeling, you know, the ACTUAL BUILDING, instead of a completely unrelated structure?

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by tfk

1. How old are you?

2. What do you do for a living?

3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering?

4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed?

5. Do you think that some of the details of the construction of the building MIGHT just play a role in the nature of the collapse?

6. Or do you think that the collapse of this small, symmetrical erector set is valid for all large structures?

7. Do you think that the manufacturer of the FEA software sits up at night worrying that someone may catch on to the fact that his product is no longer needed because the analysis of one simplistic model applies to all other structures?

8. What experience in your background qualifies you to gainsay the results of several dozen PhDs in structural engineering who spent several years modeling, you know, the ACTUAL BUILDING, instead of a completely unrelated structure?

Please answer these questions.

If you do, I'll reply to your assertions about the necessity for "rotation before collapse".

1) 42

2) I own a construction company here in the UK.

3) I am not a qualified structural engineer. I have a BA (Hons) Arch and Dip Arch which are standard UK university qualifications in architecture - the latter being the higher qualification. I also have a diploma in Urban Design - just so that you know.

4) None

5) Absolutely

6) The principles are the same. Gravity doesn't distinguish between small structures or large ones.

7) Nope

8) Their work was based on probability - and in my opinion, leaps in imagination. It is not based on the ACTUAL BUIlDING because they didn't have the ACTUAL BUILDING to examine. They used models which don't even perform as WTC7 did when compared with the recorded visual data.

I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me.

beachnut · 25th August 2011, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

... 8) Their work was based on probability - and in my opinion, leaps in imagination. It is not based on the ACTUAL BUIlDING because they didn't have the ACTUAL BUILDING to examine. They used models which don't even perform as WTC7 did when compared with the recorded visual data.

I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me.

But at least he understands models, you don't as you make up the CD delusions for WTC 7. What will you do with Flight 93 and 77? 19 terrorists did 911. WTC 7 caught fire on 911 due to the collapse and aircraft impacts that day. No body fought the fire, why would you have to make up CD when fire is all that is needed?

Why did you wait nearly 10 years before you expose your failure to comprehend fire can destroy a building?

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

But at least he understands models, you don't as you make up the CD delusions for WTC 7. What will you do with Flight 93 and 77? 19 terrorists did 911. WTC 7 caught fire on 911 due to the collapse and aircraft impacts that day. No body fought the fire, why would you have to make up CD when fire is all that is needed?

Why did you wait nearly 10 years before you expose your failure to comprehend fire can destroy a building?

I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building.

But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7.

I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done......

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by tfk

1. 58
2. Mechanical engineer.
3. BSME, Cornell U.
(I've answered all of these before. Why is it that the vast majority of the truthers will NOT state their qualifications?)
4. None. I've done lots of small ones for my designs.

But I'm not the one who is claiming (with zero evidence, only baseless assertions) that a passel of successful, proven professionals working within their fields of expertise (NIST & their consulting experts & the 1000s of structural engineers who have accepted their report) got it all wrong.

Why do you lie?? You are just speculating, why debunkers think speculating is the same as telling facts?

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Hi all,

I'm still crawling forward on this issue of the observable tilting of Building 7. The photo I have, I believe, is when the north perimeter wall began to collapse, and you can clearly see a tilt in an easterly direction. I've seen other pix of the tilting building 7 as well. Anyone care to repost those so we can show Bill that this tilt is indeed an observable fact? Mrkinnies has mostly agreed with these observations but Bill is holding back. And mrkinnies, as to your "so what" question about this exercise in observation, we'll get there. First I want to get Bill on board. Bill, I know that lenses and smoke and heat can slightly distort the angle of buildings etc but with the Building 7 photos, I am talking about something that I believe is clearly observable by the naked eye. I didn't notice clearly tilting buildings in your YouTube explosions video but I could be wrong.

The "direct observation" method could also apply to the sounds of explosions in real CDs vs the contested WTC collapses, but I would despair of ever arriving at agreement there!

Hi Chris, there was flexing in the building just at the point the west penthouse collapsed and the building came down as a single unit. The kink is seen as a result of this movement.

I'm interested to see your photo but you may wish to bear this in mind.

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Edx

You keep saying explosions, where on any of the videos of the collapse do you hear any explosions?

There are various ones that we know would have picked them up.

And btw why reference verinage? verinage doesnt use explosives, it disproves truthers claims that pancake progressive collapses can only occur with explosives.

This is one of the arguments of the debunkers they often use.

It shows their lack of knowledge about demolitions.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...-are-bunk.html

Read everything, watch everything.

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Edx

And btw why reference verinage? verinage doesnt use explosives, it disproves truthers claims that pancake progressive collapses can only occur with explosives.

Verinage is a demolition technique and that means human beings are involved in causing the building to collapse.

Those human beings make damn sure that the building will fall as intended by removing key lateral restraints throughout the structure and applying simultaneous destruction to all the supporting members at the point collapse is to start.

It's calculated and executed with great skill and attention.

Natural building collapses don't follow the same procedure. They are messy and usually incomplete.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

1) 42

2) I own a construction company here in the UK.

3) I am not a qualified structural engineer. I have a BA (Hons) Arch and Dip Arch which are standard UK university qualifications in architecture - the latter being the higher qualification. I also have a diploma in Urban Design - just so that you know.

.

I find that hard to believe.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building.

But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7.

I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done......

Dispute away,you can't change the facts. When another ten years have passed will you still be disputing?

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

This is one of the arguments of the debunkers they often use.

It shows their lack of knowledge about demolitions.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...-are-bunk.html

Read everything, watch everything.

Pass. I've seen all that junk before. Do you have any new evidence instead of the same rehashed truther nonsense?

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I find that hard to believe.

Any proof as to why you don't believe that?

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Any proof as to why you don't believe that?

I cite everything you have posted so far.

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I cite everything you have posted so far.

Why don't you be more explicit and join in with the debate?

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Why don't you be more explicit and join in with the debate?

I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same.

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Dispute away,you can't change the facts. When another ten years have passed will you still be disputing?

How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way?

I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it.

I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also.

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same.

All you have is words, nothing more.

I was a real architect and still work in the construction industry.

Richard Gage was an architect too with years of experience.

You can pick and choose all you like but I really don't care what you believe. It's worthless to me especially as you've added nothing to the debate in all the time I've been here.

But feel free to discuss the issues like Chris Mohr is actually doing and I'll be happy to engage with you.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

All you have is words, nothing more.

I was a real architect and still work in the construction industry.

Richard Gage was an architect too with years of experience.

You can pick and choose all you like but I really don't care what you believe. It's worthless to me especially as you've added nothing to the debate in all the time I've been here.

But feel free to discuss the issues like Chris Mohr is actually doing and I'll be happy to engage with you.

Gage is a raving lunatic. I will leave it to Chris,he does a sterling job in educating truthers about the facts of 911. Cheerio.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way?

I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it.

I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also.

You will take your 911 fantasy to the grave. Cheerybye.

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same.

Originally Posted by dafydd

Gage is a raving lunatic. I will leave it to Chris,he does a sterling job in educating truthers about the facts of 911. Cheerio.

Irony meter?

excaza · 25th August 2011, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Why do you lie??

The quoted text was not a lie, nor was it speculation. Perhaps you'd like to show the class why you believe it is?

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

The quoted text was not a lie, nor was it speculation. Perhaps you'd like to show the class why you believe it is?

Its the truth? So you can show its the truth?

excaza · 25th August 2011, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Its the truth? So you can show its the truth?

Investigators working in their fields of expertise: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...am_members.cfm

Public Briefs and Conference Presentations: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...c_meetings.cfm

For someone so interested in finding the "truth," you're pretty incompetent.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Irony meter?

Wrong context.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way?

I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it.

I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also.

I know what happened. Terrorists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the buildings,damaging them so badly that they collapsed. Why can't that be true?

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

Investigators working in their fields of expertise: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...am_members.cfm

Public Briefs and Conference Presentations: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...c_meetings.cfm

For someone so interested in finding the "truth," you're pretty incompetent.

Woww amazing, but i dont see 1000 structural engineers on any page of yours

sheeplesnshills · 25th August 2011, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me.

LOL , no it makes him vastly more qualified as to become a Mech Eng you study both Statics and Dynamics, the Basics of Structural Engineering.

Architecture is essentially an arts degree and does not cover these subjects in anything like the same depth. My brother in law is an architect in the UK but he, unlike you, knows his limitations, and has Engineers do the Engineering.

excaza · 25th August 2011, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Woww amazing, but i dont see 1000 structural engineers on any page of yours

I'm not sure how things work in Holland, but most countries have these things called 'conferences,' where those who work in certain fields attend lectures and presentations about work people are doing in the field. Conferences are generally attended by hundreds of people, all of whom have the ability to openly discuss the work being presented with the people presenting them.

So far, the only people who have taken issue with what has been presented and published are wing nuts. Those who do not take issue with it....wait for it

wait for it...

waiiiiit for it...

...

...

agree with it.

Hardly an intangible concept.

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

I'm not sure how things work in Holland, but most countries have these things called 'conferences,' where those who work in certain fields attend lectures and presentations about work people are doing in the field. Conferences are generally attended by hundreds of people, all of whom have the ability to openly discuss the work being presented with the people presenting them.

So far, the only people who have taken issue with what has been presented and published are wing nuts. Those who do not take issue with it....wait for it

wait for it...

waiiiiit for it...

...

...

agree with it.

Hardly an intangible concept.

So you can not show the 1000 structural engineers?

How shocking is this...

excaza · 25th August 2011, 05:44 AM

Get the attendance lists and start calling. You're not very good at this.

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

Get the attendance lists and start calling. You're not very good at this.

Lol, where is the list?

Gamolon · 25th August 2011, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Woww amazing, but i dont see 1000 structural engineers on any page of yours

I don't see 1000 structural engineers on yours either.

excaza · 25th August 2011, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Lol, where is the list?

If you google the name of the conference, you'll get contact information.

It's hard to believe that someone with research skills this poor is going to uncover a vast government conspiracy.

Marokkaan · 25th August 2011, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

If you google the name of the conference, you'll get contact information.

It's hard to believe that someone with research skills this poor is going to uncover a vast government conspiracy.

And again...

So you can not show the 1000 structural engineers?

The Platypus · 25th August 2011, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Why do you lie?? You are just speculating, why debunkers think speculating is the same as telling facts?

In your sad attempts at reverse psychology, I guess you forgot that you are the one that came here to troll for recruits for the cult...

Gamolon · 25th August 2011, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

And again...

So you can not show the 1000 structural engineers?

Can YOU show me 1,000 structural engineers?

tsig · 25th August 2011, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I didn't miss anything. Credentials don't mean a dang thing if you debunkers exfoliate the notion that the three WTC skyscrapers fell smooth as silk without being rigged to do so.

What??

ex·fo·li·ate (ks-fl-t)
v. ex·fo·li·at·ed, ex·fo·li·at·ing, ex·fo·li·ates
v.tr.
1. To remove (a layer of bark or skin, for example) in flakes or scales; peel.
2. To cast off in scales, flakes, or splinters.

sheeplesnshills · 25th August 2011, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

What??

ex·fo·li·ate (ks-fl-t)
v. ex·fo·li·at·ed, ex·fo·li·at·ing, ex·fo·li·ates
v.tr.
1. To remove (a layer of bark or skin, for example) in flakes or scales; peel.
2. To cast off in scales, flakes, or splinters.

yeah I thought that was a strange one too........but then so is everything he says so I let it pass. Its obvious he is a shape shifting Illuminati lizard shill trying to make the twoofers look foolish. You must admit he is good at that

mrkinnies · 25th August 2011, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

LOL , no it makes him vastly more qualified as to become a Mech Eng you study both Statics and Dynamics, the Basics of Structural Engineering.

Architecture is essentially an arts degree and does not cover these subjects in anything like the same depth. My brother in law is an architect in the UK but he, unlike you, knows his limitations, and has Engineers do the Engineering.

I use structural engineers too. They know far more than I about detailing, Eurocodes and health & safety requirements since they deal with this stuff everyday. Most of the time all I get from them is detailing for code compliance since the principles of the structure have already been given to them by me.

The principles of structures are very simple, the hard part is proving mathematically that a structural design can withstand the necessary tolerances for safety and to meet building codes. I can't do the latter nor have any interest in doing so.

dafydd · 25th August 2011, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

I use structural engineers too.

I will bet that none of them are truthers.

24th August 2011, 11:26 PM	#2041
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore tfk Please answer these questions. 1. How old are you? 2. What do you do for a living? 3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering? 4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed? 1. 58 2. Mechanical engineer. 3. BSME, Cornell U. (I've answered all of these before. Why is it that the vast majority of the truthers will NOT state their qualifications?) 4. None. I've done lots of small ones for my designs. But I'm not the one who is claiming (with zero evidence, only baseless assertions) that a passel of successful, proven professionals working within their fields of expertise (NIST & their consulting experts & the 1000s of structural engineers who have accepted their report) got it all wrong. See the difference? tk PS. Hey Clayton, 1. How old are you? 2. What do you do for a living? 3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering? 4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed? (truth please.) Also, the jist of the post ... that you skipped / missed / chose to ignore. 5. Do you think that some of the details of the construction of the building MIGHT just play a role in the nature of the collapse? 6. Or do you think that the collapse of this small, symmetrical erector set is valid for all large structures? 7. Do you think that the manufacturer of the FEA software sits up at night worrying that someone may catch on to the fact that his product is no longer needed because the analysis of one simplistic model applies to all other structures? 8. What experience in your background qualifies you to gainsay the results of several dozen PhDs in structural engineering who spent several years modeling, you know, the ACTUAL BUILDING, instead of a completely unrelated structure?
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Last edited by tfk; 24th August 2011 at 11:32 PM.

25th August 2011, 12:20 AM	#2042
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by tfk 1. How old are you? 2. What do you do for a living? 3. Where did you get your PhD / MS in structural engineering? 4. How many FEAs for the collapse of giant structures have you performed? 5. Do you think that some of the details of the construction of the building MIGHT just play a role in the nature of the collapse? 6. Or do you think that the collapse of this small, symmetrical erector set is valid for all large structures? 7. Do you think that the manufacturer of the FEA software sits up at night worrying that someone may catch on to the fact that his product is no longer needed because the analysis of one simplistic model applies to all other structures? 8. What experience in your background qualifies you to gainsay the results of several dozen PhDs in structural engineering who spent several years modeling, you know, the ACTUAL BUILDING, instead of a completely unrelated structure? Please answer these questions. If you do, I'll reply to your assertions about the necessity for "rotation before collapse". 1) 42 2) I own a construction company here in the UK. 3) I am not a qualified structural engineer. I have a BA (Hons) Arch and Dip Arch which are standard UK university qualifications in architecture - the latter being the higher qualification. I also have a diploma in Urban Design - just so that you know. 4) None 5) Absolutely 6) The principles are the same. Gravity doesn't distinguish between small structures or large ones. 7) Nope 8) Their work was based on probability - and in my opinion, leaps in imagination. It is not based on the ACTUAL BUIlDING because they didn't have the ACTUAL BUILDING to examine. They used models which don't even perform as WTC7 did when compared with the recorded visual data. I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me.
	Last edited by mrkinnies; 25th August 2011 at 12:25 AM.

25th August 2011, 12:46 AM	#2044
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by beachnut But at least he understands models, you don't as you make up the CD delusions for WTC 7. What will you do with Flight 93 and 77? 19 terrorists did 911. WTC 7 caught fire on 911 due to the collapse and aircraft impacts that day. No body fought the fire, why would you have to make up CD when fire is all that is needed? Why did you wait nearly 10 years before you expose your failure to comprehend fire can destroy a building? I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building. But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7. I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done......
	Last edited by mrkinnies; 25th August 2011 at 12:51 AM.

25th August 2011, 01:17 AM	#2048
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by Edx And btw why reference verinage? verinage doesnt use explosives, it disproves truthers claims that pancake progressive collapses can only occur with explosives. Verinage is a demolition technique and that means human beings are involved in causing the building to collapse. Those human beings make damn sure that the building will fall as intended by removing key lateral restraints throughout the structure and applying simultaneous destruction to all the supporting members at the point collapse is to start. It's calculated and executed with great skill and attention. Natural building collapses don't follow the same procedure. They are messy and usually incomplete.
	Last edited by mrkinnies; 25th August 2011 at 01:23 AM.

25th August 2011, 02:59 AM	#2057
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by dafydd I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same. All you have is words, nothing more. I was a real architect and still work in the construction industry. Richard Gage was an architect too with years of experience. You can pick and choose all you like but I really don't care what you believe. It's worthless to me especially as you've added nothing to the debate in all the time I've been here. But feel free to discuss the issues like Chris Mohr is actually doing and I'll be happy to engage with you.
	Last edited by mrkinnies; 25th August 2011 at 03:01 AM.

25th August 2011, 12:30 AM	#2043
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,881	Originally Posted by mrkinnies ... 8) Their work was based on probability - and in my opinion, leaps in imagination. It is not based on the ACTUAL BUIlDING because they didn't have the ACTUAL BUILDING to examine. They used models which don't even perform as WTC7 did when compared with the recorded visual data. I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me. But at least he understands models, you don't as you make up the CD delusions for WTC 7. What will you do with Flight 93 and 77? 19 terrorists did 911. WTC 7 caught fire on 911 due to the collapse and aircraft impacts that day. No body fought the fire, why would you have to make up CD when fire is all that is needed? Why did you wait nearly 10 years before you expose your failure to comprehend fire can destroy a building?

25th August 2011, 12:52 AM	#2045
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by tfk 1. 58 2. Mechanical engineer. 3. BSME, Cornell U. (I've answered all of these before. Why is it that the vast majority of the truthers will NOT state their qualifications?) 4. None. I've done lots of small ones for my designs. But I'm not the one who is claiming (with zero evidence, only baseless assertions) that a passel of successful, proven professionals working within their fields of expertise (NIST & their consulting experts & the 1000s of structural engineers who have accepted their report) got it all wrong. Why do you lie?? You are just speculating, why debunkers think speculating is the same as telling facts?

25th August 2011, 01:04 AM	#2046
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by chrismohr Hi all, I'm still crawling forward on this issue of the observable tilting of Building 7. The photo I have, I believe, is when the north perimeter wall began to collapse, and you can clearly see a tilt in an easterly direction. I've seen other pix of the tilting building 7 as well. Anyone care to repost those so we can show Bill that this tilt is indeed an observable fact? Mrkinnies has mostly agreed with these observations but Bill is holding back. And mrkinnies, as to your "so what" question about this exercise in observation, we'll get there. First I want to get Bill on board. Bill, I know that lenses and smoke and heat can slightly distort the angle of buildings etc but with the Building 7 photos, I am talking about something that I believe is clearly observable by the naked eye. I didn't notice clearly tilting buildings in your YouTube explosions video but I could be wrong. The "direct observation" method could also apply to the sounds of explosions in real CDs vs the contested WTC collapses, but I would despair of ever arriving at agreement there! Hi Chris, there was flexing in the building just at the point the west penthouse collapsed and the building came down as a single unit. The kink is seen as a result of this movement. I'm interested to see your photo but you may wish to bear this in mind.

25th August 2011, 01:04 AM	#2047
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by Edx You keep saying explosions, where on any of the videos of the collapse do you hear any explosions? There are various ones that we know would have picked them up. And btw why reference verinage? verinage doesnt use explosives, it disproves truthers claims that pancake progressive collapses can only occur with explosives. This is one of the arguments of the debunkers they often use. It shows their lack of knowledge about demolitions. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...-are-bunk.html Read everything, watch everything.

25th August 2011, 02:29 AM	#2049
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies 1) 42 2) I own a construction company here in the UK. 3) I am not a qualified structural engineer. I have a BA (Hons) Arch and Dip Arch which are standard UK university qualifications in architecture - the latter being the higher qualification. I also have a diploma in Urban Design - just so that you know. . I find that hard to believe.

25th August 2011, 02:31 AM	#2050
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building. But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7. I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done...... Dispute away,you can't change the facts. When another ten years have passed will you still be disputing?

25th August 2011, 02:33 AM	#2051
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by Marokkaan This is one of the arguments of the debunkers they often use. It shows their lack of knowledge about demolitions. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...-are-bunk.html Read everything, watch everything. Pass. I've seen all that junk before. Do you have any new evidence instead of the same rehashed truther nonsense?

25th August 2011, 02:41 AM	#2052
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by dafydd I find that hard to believe. Any proof as to why you don't believe that?

25th August 2011, 02:48 AM	#2053
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies Any proof as to why you don't believe that? I cite everything you have posted so far.

25th August 2011, 02:52 AM	#2054
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by dafydd I cite everything you have posted so far. Why don't you be more explicit and join in with the debate?

25th August 2011, 02:54 AM	#2055
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies Why don't you be more explicit and join in with the debate? I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same.

25th August 2011, 02:56 AM	#2056
mrkinnies Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 358	Originally Posted by dafydd Dispute away,you can't change the facts. When another ten years have passed will you still be disputing? How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way? I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it. I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also.

25th August 2011, 03:43 AM	#2058
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies All you have is words, nothing more. I was a real architect and still work in the construction industry. Richard Gage was an architect too with years of experience. You can pick and choose all you like but I really don't care what you believe. It's worthless to me especially as you've added nothing to the debate in all the time I've been here. But feel free to discuss the issues like Chris Mohr is actually doing and I'll be happy to engage with you. Gage is a raving lunatic. I will leave it to Chris,he does a sterling job in educating truthers about the facts of 911. Cheerio.
	Last edited by dafydd; 25th August 2011 at 03:45 AM.

25th August 2011, 03:45 AM	#2059
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way? I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it. I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also. You will take your 911 fantasy to the grave. Cheerybye.

25th August 2011, 04:34 AM	#2060
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by dafydd I will leave the debating to the real engineers and architects,I learn from their posts,I advise you to do the same. Originally Posted by dafydd Gage is a raving lunatic. I will leave it to Chris,he does a sterling job in educating truthers about the facts of 911. Cheerio. Irony meter?

25th August 2011, 04:46 AM	#2061
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Why do you lie?? The quoted text was not a lie, nor was it speculation. Perhaps you'd like to show the class why you believe it is?
	__________________

25th August 2011, 04:50 AM	#2062
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by excaza The quoted text was not a lie, nor was it speculation. Perhaps you'd like to show the class why you believe it is? Its the truth? So you can show its the truth?

25th August 2011, 04:59 AM	#2063
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Its the truth? So you can show its the truth? Investigators working in their fields of expertise: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...am_members.cfm Public Briefs and Conference Presentations: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...c_meetings.cfm For someone so interested in finding the "truth," you're pretty incompetent.
	__________________

25th August 2011, 05:12 AM	#2064
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Irony meter? Wrong context.

25th August 2011, 05:15 AM	#2065
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by mrkinnies How do you know they are facts. What proof do you have other than you were told it happened in a certain way? I will dispute the official story until I see better evidence to confirm it. If I die still thinking the way I do then so be it. I don't believe there is any evidence of god either. Some people will hate me for that but until I see absolute proof I will take such a belief to my grave also. I know what happened. Terrorists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the buildings,damaging them so badly that they collapsed. Why can't that be true?

25th August 2011, 05:23 AM	#2066
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by excaza Investigators working in their fields of expertise: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...am_members.cfm Public Briefs and Conference Presentations: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...c_meetings.cfm For someone so interested in finding the "truth," you're pretty incompetent. Woww amazing, but i dont see 1000 structural engineers on any page of yours

25th August 2011, 05:26 AM	#2067
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by mrkinnies I see you are a mechanical engineer - that makes you as qualified as me. LOL , no it makes him vastly more qualified as to become a Mech Eng you study both Statics and Dynamics, the Basics of Structural Engineering. Architecture is essentially an arts degree and does not cover these subjects in anything like the same depth. My brother in law is an architect in the UK but he, unlike you, knows his limitations, and has Engineers do the Engineering.

25th August 2011, 05:32 AM	#2068
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Woww amazing, but i dont see 1000 structural engineers on any page of yours I'm not sure how things work in Holland, but most countries have these things called 'conferences,' where those who work in certain fields attend lectures and presentations about work people are doing in the field. Conferences are generally attended by hundreds of people, all of whom have the ability to openly discuss the work being presented with the people presenting them. So far, the only people who have taken issue with what has been presented and published are wing nuts. Those who do not take issue with it....wait for it wait for it... waiiiiit for it... ... ... agree with it. Hardly an intangible concept.
	__________________

25th August 2011, 05:42 AM	#2069
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by excaza I'm not sure how things work in Holland, but most countries have these things called 'conferences,' where those who work in certain fields attend lectures and presentations about work people are doing in the field. Conferences are generally attended by hundreds of people, all of whom have the ability to openly discuss the work being presented with the people presenting them. So far, the only people who have taken issue with what has been presented and published are wing nuts. Those who do not take issue with it....wait for it wait for it... waiiiiit for it... ... ... agree with it. Hardly an intangible concept. So you can not show the 1000 structural engineers? How shocking is this...

25th August 2011, 05:44 AM	#2070
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Get the attendance lists and start calling. You're not very good at this.
	__________________

25th August 2011, 05:49 AM	#2071
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by excaza Get the attendance lists and start calling. You're not very good at this. Lol, where is the list?

25th August 2011, 05:52 AM	#2072
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,262	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Woww amazing, but i dont see 1000 structural engineers on any page of yours I don't see 1000 structural engineers on yours either.
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,262

25th August 2011, 05:57 AM	#2073
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Lol, where is the list? If you google the name of the conference, you'll get contact information. It's hard to believe that someone with research skills this poor is going to uncover a vast government conspiracy.
	__________________

25th August 2011, 05:59 AM	#2074
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by excaza If you google the name of the conference, you'll get contact information. It's hard to believe that someone with research skills this poor is going to uncover a vast government conspiracy. And again... So you can not show the 1000 structural engineers?

25th August 2011, 06:02 AM	#2075
The Platypus Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,789	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Why do you lie?? You are just speculating, why debunkers think speculating is the same as telling facts? In your sad attempts at reverse psychology, I guess you forgot that you are the one that came here to troll for recruits for the cult...
	__________________ I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth". Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.