Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[chrismohr]

thanks for the thorough reply. I'll try to be brief about my points.



Clearly, the delft building did not go "down pretty much all at once". At best you can say that a small percentage of the bldg collapsed, but even that did not collapse to the ground.

Yes the part of the building that collapsed is what i am talking about of course.


None of the building collapsed all the way to the ground and most of it was still standing. The part that did collapse, i would agree collapsed "sort of straight down, pretty darn fast, sort of toward its own footprints" but to compare it to anything that happened on 9/11 you would have to adjust for scale.

It is not unusual for a collapsing building to slow down because of debris piling up at the end.

And do you actually have data that compares the rate of descent between the two buildings to determine how "fast" this collapse actually was?


No. David chandler could help you with that, and recommends a simple program you can use to do this if you want to know. I never claimed almost freefall, i just said very fast.

But even the collapse of the delft portion was arrested by the lowest floors, sort of proving gage's point about resistance. Whereas it appears to weaken your point since the very partial collapse was in fact arrested.




If you really wanted to make delft a fair comparison you would have to account for the materials, the length and heat of the respective fires, etc etc.

its the fairest comparison i have, obviously

 

[RedIbis]

its the fairest comparison i have, obviously

Well then that aint much.

 

[grandmastershek]

Is Ergo really trying to argue that the collapses occurred at FFA & symmetrically? He really has said bye bye to reality a long time ago, huh?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Hi all,

<snip>

I hardly need to invite you to let me know what you think, do I?

I got a lot of catch up to do! XD
I'm watching part 3 for now... Will try to see the remaining parts as I get breaks between a big project I'm helping out with. Coupla comments on my part:

1:20
Reason #56: Unsound isn't quite correct. As an extreme example look up the Burj Dubai which exceeds the height of Taipei 101. The real issue with concrete i that it's heavier, and will often result in thicker structural components and on average somewhat shorter spans.

Steel OTOH has a very high strength to weight ration, allowing for strong designs with less "column" space. In other words, you get more habitable space for your buck. You'll find also that the new WTC 7 building is a concrete core system. In essence it's more an issue of efficiency. but of course site specific criteria also determine the use of materials.

#55 is a decent remark.... and one of many things to keep in mind when using non-analogous case studies. No other significant fire has ever started immedialy following an event in which numerous load bearing components critical to the building's strctural integrity had been either damaged or destroyed "pre-weakening" the building from the outset.

5:17
Reason 58: These examples mainly serve to point out that steel has a vulnerability to fire and that the WTC were no different in that regard. Where these play in, is to show that the WTC had the vulnerability, had protection, but could still fall if the right combination of circumstances came together. The plausibility is determined by the damage they sustained and any unique design methods that might have made them more susceptible to such an event, scenarios which were present. The examples here, at least as far I've seen in application, have never been used to make direct analgies with the WTC, and there's no indication of such here either.

6:25
Reason 59: Never heard of that coming up in "truth" debated per se, but sensible. Titatnic was rumoured as unsinkable and it sank, the Tacoma Narrows bridge flapped like a cloth and came apart due to engineering errors, space shuttle Columbia disintegrated in the atmosphere during reentry (never before happened), Skyscrapers collapsed after a very rare culmination of circumstances that designers attempted to address but had no express warranty of succeeding against.

Reason 60: more or less correct... steel will sag and creep if heated sufficiently, whereas concrete will generally "spall" and retain most of it's strength. I would edit the last sentence there as it can be somewhat confusing to people unfamiliar with the specific advantages and disadvantages between the two materials.


#62 at 7:15
Another one you may want to clarify. You're referring to thermal expansion/contraction, and it's important to keep in mind that in cases where the heat isn't sufficient to cause creep, the worry of it is is cases where the beam or column is restrained during expansion or contraction, which in turn causes additional sheer, or other cases in which the structure has no additional room to move and begins to deflect from that action. In cases of higher temperature, steel under load will still expand but it will also creep due to whatever loads it carries

9:38
#64 and 65 seem reasonable points to bring up. I would add, as a side note that while the protective measures attempt to address the weaknesses, performance is ultimately determined by whether or not the proximal cause of the event is within the scope that the protection can handle. In other words as I mentioned earlier, we as designers cannot address every single scenarios that can conceivably pop up. It's not possible to do so. Seems you do address this to an extent when you speak of using caution when using the word "indestructible"

Hopefully all of this helps!

But even the collapse of the Delft portion was arrested by the lowest floors, sort of proving Gage's point about resistance. Whereas it appears to weaken your point since the very partial collapse was in fact arrested.

I beg to differ. As you yourself pointed out the building in question is of different construction than the WTC, and their was no pre-existing structural damage to the area in which the fires started, The building is no where near as tall, and no where near as "slender." This essentially means that while certain aspects can be compared if you make the scope of relevance clear, the "totality of collapse" is not among these. The best way to answer the question of "why" is to research the specifics of the building itself. In most cases it'll provide answers as to why the result was different, and I wouldn't be surprised if the construction methods, more specifically the lack of a tube-on-tube core design was one of the main factors making the result different.

If you really wanted to make Delft a fair comparison you would have to account for the materials, the length and heat of the respective fires, etc etc.

Which also needs to be considered when making a critique about collapse totality, outlined above. IMO chris was clear about the scope of relevance wrt the comparison he made.

The points he outlines about the topple over scenario, and collapse path are within reason, sensible for example, providing he's clear that that a building with different construction isn't intended as a 1 to 1 comparison

Cheers!

 

[ergo]

Well then that aint much.

It's nothing at all. The videos show the collapsing portion to be pushed outside the perimeter of the building, away from the building below it, the way matter in our universe does when it meets matter of greater resistance or structural integrity. It does not collapse "through itself" in any fashion, let alone "progressively". A portion sloughed off. That is all.

 

[chrismohr]

Sorry for the clumsy formatting above. Maybe this is better:

Clearly, the delft building did not go "down pretty much all at once". At best you can say that a small percentage of the bldg collapsed, but even that did not collapse to the ground.

Yes the part of the building that collapsed is what i am talking about of course.


None of the building collapsed all the way to the ground and most of it was still standing. The part that did collapse, i would agree collapsed "sort of straight down, pretty darn fast, sort of toward its own footprints" but to compare it to anything that happened on 9/11 you would have to adjust for scale.

It is not unusual for a collapsing building to slow down because of debris piling up at the end. That's what happened with Building 7 too.

And do you actually have data that compares the rate of descent between the two buildings to determine how "fast" this collapse actually was?


No. David Chandler could help you with that, and recommends a simple program you can use to do this if you want to know. I never claimed almost freefall, i just said very fast.

But even the collapse of the delft portion was arrested by the lowest floors, sort of proving gage's point about resistance. Whereas it appears to weaken your point since the very partial collapse was in fact arrested.

Not true. It was probably the debris pile at the bottom that slowed the collapse at the end.

If you really wanted to make delft a fair comparison you would have to account for the materials, the length and heat of the respective fires, etc etc.

Huh? It was a concrete-reinforced steel frame building, the fires lasted 7 hours (like Building 7 did), and you can get lots of architectural info on Delft from the internet. That's your baby. I'm staying focused on the very fast global collapse mostly straight down of that part of the building, which tells us volumes about natural collapses.

As for Ergo:

When you're trying to explain free fall of a building through itself, you can't say "gravity done it." Gravity pulls things through air at free fall acceleration. It doesn't pull building through building at that rate. The answer from that quote of yours I pulled was supposed to address how the building could be falling at free fall for that portion of time when there is building underneath it.

So far I am talking only about the Twin Towers, which fell at around 2/3 freefall. Honestly, I did a poor job of explaining Building 7's freefall. That will be in part 20. And you're right, I didn't explain it well in the debate. With the help I've gotten from my friends here I undertstand it much better now, as my explanation will show.

F=ma does not describe an upper building assembly sinking through a lower building assembly at free fall acceleration. At least not due to gravity. The 'm' in that equation must represent the entire mass of the system: all the mass involved in the collision, not just the upper part. The 'f' in the equation is experienced by both portions equally, not just the lower portion. F=ma must describe the force applied to both portions of building: the descending portion and the lower, stationary portion. You cannot "overwhelm" a body equal or greater in mass in any collision without the first part being destroyed equally or correspondingly.

I guess that happened to the Twin Towers, but even so, the destruction of the building tops did not eliminate the mass, which continued to push down on the building.

This is Newton's Third Law. And the alleged collapse mechanism in WTC 7 did not present remotely enough opportunity for free fall to have occurred naturally.

I'll get to that... bet you can't wait!

I'm really not sure what part of this bedunkers don't understand, or seem to think they can sweep under the rug. Gravity does not cause matter to "overwhelm" other matter of equal or greater mass, area and density. You can have local or partial failures due to eccentric loading, but not smooth, symmetrical descent of something through itself without resistance having been removed evenly and globally. If you disagree with this, please present your equation that proves this--that also accounts for all the mass in the system, i.e., Newton's Third Law.

I'm feeling lazy tonight. I'll just invite you to look at the Delft collapse again, because that's what happened.

The major point of the Delft collapse to me is this: however 9/11 Truth people try to deconstruct it or make it seem different from the WTC buildings, it's a tall steel frame building tower (with more concrete reinforcement than the WTC buildings), the part that came down collapsed very fast, mostly straight down, sort of all at once, rebutting in one fell swoop several of Gage's claims about how it should have tipped over or be stopped dead in its tracks.

 

[chrismohr]

Ooooh, an equation, eh? But you might even need two or three!

Dave I want a copy of Skeptical Inquirer, this 9/11 issue. Can;t find it on the newsstands and they are not returning my inquiries at the magazine. Do you have an inside track to helping me buy a copy?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave I want a copy of Skeptical Inquirer, this 9/11 issue. Can;t find it on the newsstands and they are not returning my inquiries at the magazine. Do you have an inside track to helping me buy a copy?

If you PM me your info, I can send along a copy via snail mail.

Cheers, Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Yes the part of the building that collapsed is what i am talking about of course.

Of course? Then you should say, part of the building, portion of the bldg etc. To say "building" you are suggested there was total, global collapse, and for Delft there was not.

Not true. It was probably the debris pile at the bottom that slowed the collapse at the end.

Check the next day pictures and you will see you are incorrect about this. It was the lower portion of the bldg, not the debris pile.

 

[Carlos]

RedIbis

So, do you agree fire alone can cause structural failures and one or several floors collapse?

Well, the fact of the collapse have been arrested had nothing to do with fire, but with the capacity of the structure below to absorb the impact.

 

[grandmastershek]

the way matter in our universe does when it meets matter of greater resistance or structural integrity.

Ergo at odds with reality again.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"You cannot "overwhelm" a body equal or greater in mass in any collision without the first part being destroyed equally or correspondingly. "

LOl, another Truther that does not understand that mass is not equal to strength. Imagine if the bottom half of the tower had most of the bolts removed from its structure....do you think it would resist being crushed as well as if all the bolts were there? The mass is essentially the same but the strength is much less.......so clearly the mass of an object has no relation to how strong it is. A steel ball bearing will resist crushing far better than a much heavier lead ball of the same size.......

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ergo at odds with reality again.

And look at that Pyroclastic flow! oops no it was just concrete dust.

 

[WildCat]

Hello Chris,
I appreciate your call for respectful debate on your youtube presentations.

Aww, look at RedIbis pretending he wishes to actually debate anything about 9/11!

Still waiting for your evidence that Silverstein "made out like a bandit". Or for you to acknowledge the huge anounts of airplane debris at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

 

[TruthersLie]

Doubt it. While I haven't looked at Chris's videos yet, it became apparent early on in his forum participation that he was quite willing to ignore the same difficult questions that every other bedunker here ignores, and that he was simply looking to rehash stale bedunker talking points. While it's refreshing to see someone attempt to argue without insult or condescension, I have to agree with dude cited herehttp://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-mohrs-respectful-rebuttal-smells.html the content is not fresh, not original, and as a result, likely not correct. I'm not sure much has been accomplished here, except perhaps to present the standard bedunker argument in a more coherent form. Kudos to that. It will also make it easier to debunk should need be.

How would you know about what Chris has stated if you haven't bothered to even attempt to watch his videos? This is like your hypocrisy about Scott Summers article (did you ever get to the library to read that study?).

Just as soon as you watch his videos, or read the research you can then comment. k-thx-bye

 

[000063]

Most buildings have things "unique" to their structures. And "gravity, gravity, gravity" has never demolished steel-framed towers in under 15 seconds due to localized upper floor damage. Or even localized lower floor damage. Ever. Why? Because it doesn't.

Well, I'm convinced.

The fact that you completely miss your own circular argument (Bolded above: What caused the building to free fall? Its free fall! ) and your far too ready willingness to invoke "gravity, gravity, gravity" as some kind of supernatural force that had the capacity, on just this one day in history, to not just overwhelm but negate standard designed and engineered building resistance doesn't give much hope for the rest of your arguments.

Gravity, plus a plane impact, plus fire. Or, in 7's case, gravity and mostly fire. Your strawmanning is really transparent.

I'm really not sure what part of this bedunkers don't understand, or seem to think they can sweep under the rug. Gravity does not cause matter to "overwhelm" other matter of equal or greater mass, area and density. You can have local or partial failures due to eccentric loading, but not smooth, symmetrical descent of something through itself without resistance having been removed evenly and globally. If you disagree with this, please present your equation that proves this--that also accounts for all the mass in the system, i.e., Newton's Third Law.

1. Not symmetrical.
2. Not freefall. Even explosives could not remove resistance, unless they somehow launched the building's components downward at freefall speed(and I'm pretty sure you're conflating acceleration and speed) the instant the falling debris above hit them. If you hit something that is not moving the same speed as you, even if it's moving in the same direction, you slow down. This is not "bedunker logic", this is ninth-grade physics.

Freefall speed--not acceleration--is literally impossible without some sort of rocket explosives and the ability to monitor every structural component which fell at freefall and the ability to detonate it with split-second precision, which would require even more equipment and wiring to be smuggled in on top of the tons of boom-boom, for absolutely no benefit to the bad guys. In fact, it would be, more risk on top of an already astronomical amount just smuggling it in, much less keeping the thousands of people who handled the cleanup from finding something suspicious.

There is a reason Truthers clam up when asked for an explanation of how explosives and/or thermite can cause freefall. They take it as an article of faith that it can, without ever questioning their sources as much as they question the OS.

And if you can't respond without some snide wisecrack that's only funny to you, relying on presenting actual facts, please don't respond at all.

 

[ozeco41]

...There is a reason Truthers clam up when asked for an explanation of how explosives and/or thermite can cause freefall. They take it as an article of faith that it can, without ever questioning their sources as much as they question the OS.....

A related issue is the truther belief that explosives can throw large, heavy lumps of steel over significant distances and will do so as a side effect of demolition.

For some years at intervals I have asked the question "How do you throw a large lump of steel using explosives?"

Sure little bits broken off will fly but getting the big lumps launched into trajectories is a difficult thing to achieve. Not impossible but difficult. And not something that just happens as a side effect of cutting steel for demolition.

 

[ergo]

And yet, air pressure can do it.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Your incredulity means nothing to anyone at all. Please try harder.

 

[000063]

And yet, air pressure can do it.

Compression and physics.



I like how you ignore my freefall point.

Oh, and don't actually answer the question of how the explosives threw beams laterally, nor what benefit including that feature would've had to the conspirators. I know I would want all my potential incriminating evidence in as small an area I can get away with. As well as finding some way to keep thousands of investigators, cops, and firefighters from crawling all over my big pile of evidence, and to keep thousands of hours of film and tons of pictures of it being shot.

Oh, wait, that would be impossible.