Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[dafydd]

Feel free...

You are one making the CD claim. The onus is on you. Feel free to tell us what you think happened on 911.

 

[mrkinnies]

You are one making the CD claim. The onus is on you. Feel free to tell us what you think happened on 911.

Nice try but I'm not here to discuss that. I am here to discuss the science behind chrismohr's presentations and why it is not a conclusive rebuttal of Richard Gage's work.

I see that you have many posts to your name so I'm not going to waste my life discussing with yourself when you clearly have nothing better to do than lurk on here.

 

[Edx]

Wake up. There was, to hear Mohr explain it, two collapses going on.

The internal collapse that caused the penthouse to disappear and the external collapse where frame/walls that sink evenly from view. How can the two coexist?

You dont understand what Chris is saying, but for the sake of argument lets say he is wrong lets imagine NIST is wrong too.

My question to you is, is it reasonable to think WTC7 2.25 second period of free fall was caused by buckling of internal floors, or that some kind of explosives VAPORISED several floors INSTANTLY like star trek that was so QUIET it wasn't picked up on any videos of the collapse?

 

[dafydd]

Nice try but I'm not here to discuss that. I am here to discuss the science behind chrismohr's presentations and why it is not a conclusive rebuttal of Richard Gage's work.

I see that you have many posts to your name so I'm not going to waste my life discussing with yourself when you clearly have nothing better to do than lurk on here.

I've been lurking for years waiting in vain for a truther to present a full theory. Truthers always dodge that question. I'll leave the technical points to those who know about these things.

 

[DGM]

Feel free...

You made this statement that "the NIST report was based on pseudo science" and you want me to start to explain? Are you high or very young?

 

[dafydd]

You made this statement that "the NIST report was based on pseudo science" and you want me to start to explain? Are you high or very young?

Perhaps mrkinnies could explain some of this 'pseudo science' to us? I go with very young.

 

[DGM]

mrkinnies:

So how is it "pseudo science"? Do we need a "pseudo education" to understand?

 

[bill smith]

Nice try but I'm not here to discuss that. I am here to discuss the science behind chrismohr's presentations and why it is not a conclusive rebuttal of Richard Gage's work.

I see that you have many posts to your name so I'm not going to waste my life discussing with yourself when you clearly have nothing better to do than lurk on here.

Welcome to the fray. Nice well thought out initial post. I'll be very interested ín Chris Mohr's rebuttal.

 

[DGM]

Welcome to the fray. Nice well thought out initial post. I'll be very interested ín Chris Mohr's rebuttal.

What part was "well thought out".?

 

[bill smith]

What part was "well thought out".?

Basically all of it. But let's wait to see what Chris makes of it.

 

[bill smith]

Nice try but I'm not here to discuss that. I am here to discuss the science behind chrismohr's presentations and why it is not a conclusive rebuttal of Richard Gage's work.

I see that you have many posts to your name so I'm not going to waste my life discussing with yourself when you clearly have nothing better to do than lurk on here.

I suggest that you do not let these debunkers draw you out. Best to wait for Chris and leave them to snap at your heels in the meantime. Hope you don't mind me saying this.

 

[DGM]

Basically all of it. But let's wait to see what Chris makes of it.

Should we file this with your understanding of air traffic on 9/11?

 

[Edx]

Therefore to suggest that the building’s failure was purely asymmetrical is wrong,

You can clearly see floors on the east side collapsed in an upward progression as evidenced by the breaking windows going up and then the penthouse collapses inside it. How is that not asymmetrical?

It then manages to fall across a 4-lane street and critcally damage 30-West Broadway. How is that not asymmetrical?

Truthers like yourself always use words like symmetrical and free fall, but keep talking to you and you'll soon have to expand your definition of these terms to such a degree its laughable. So the WTC1 and 2 towers collapsed at free fall... except they didn't, it was nearly twice free fall... well its still too fast they'll say. One guy insisted it was free fall until he eventually admitted that even if the collapse took 30 seconds it would still be too long. Truthers have even called WTC1 and 2 symmetrical collapses, that is until they want to contradict themselves and say tons of heavy debris was ejected hundreds of feet away from the towers ... but it was still you know... symmetrical ...

not just the north wall, but at least three walls as seen in the available CBS and NBC videos. You need to be more honest here.

Again how can it fall accross a 4 lane street while also fall neatly symmetrically all in its own footprint?

Either its symmetrical or it isn't, why dont YOU be more honest and use words properly? If you were a demolition company and you were tasked with making sure the building came down "symmetrically and neatly all in its own footprint", after the collapse do you think you could use that excuse for causing all that damage to neighbouring buildings?

. In fact they couldn’t even get their own models to fit very well as their simulations clearly show the outer walls starting to deform where as in practice they never did.

You can see the building visbly twist, I'd say thats close enough. Its a massively complex system, you're going to see some differences.

What has the truth movement ever come up with? They claim an explosive was used so secret it can VAPORISE - like Star trek - 8 floors worth of building INSTANTLY without making a sound. And you wonder why real experts dont take you seriously? NIST and others interested in the collapses dont care that it collapsed from fire, they already knew that, they wanted to know exactly why and how in order to best know how to help prevent collapses and structural failiures in the future. What exactly do you bring to the table?

This makes your claim that WTC7 followed the ‘classic’ form of progressive destruction a gross distortion since no high-rise steel building has ever fully collapsed due to fire or damage prior to or since 9/11 making such comparison impossible.

If fire can cause a progressive collapse in a building and verinage shows that given the right circumstances even without weakening lower floors a smaller part of a building at the top can pancake collapse right to the bottom through the building, since we have also historical examples of complete progressive pancake collapses without fire, then what reason do you give for why a building cannot fully collapse from fire?

I would argue that the simple fact the ‘global collapse’ occurred as it did; symmetrically, straight down at free-fall or near free-fall speed and with little or no deformation to the outer walls was because every supporting member of the lower floors had been removed of structural integrity at exactly the same time.

Yes, like Star Trek. They used some kind of phaser that VAPORISED all the floors all at the same time right? How else can you explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall without buckling? Even demolitions arent trying to VAPORISE the contents of the building, yet you think it happened on 911 and not just that happened so quiet that at least 5 or 6 different cameras surrounding it couldn't pick up any sound of such an extreme amount of energy being released.

Had this not happened, the bulk of the building would have rotated and toppled over

Like some kind of loony toons sketch yes...

Only controlled demolition can cause such structural failure across the entire plan of such a massive building so quickly.

Interesting, because I've heard you truthers claim a lot over the years (not exhaustive)...

Pancake collapses cant happen - they can.
That steel floors are practically impervious to fire - they arent
That steel doesnt collapse in a fire - it does
That steel cant warp or bend in a fire - it can
That steel floors cant pancake collapse in a fire - they can and have
Rapid onset collapses only happen in demolitons - They don't.
Free fall proves demolition - 1. demolitions are not free fall. 2. The towers did not fall in free fall anyway
That no one would believe that WTC7 would collapse - Everyone relevant (like firefighters on the scene) knew it would collapse
That no one was conserned about progressive collapse or pancake collapses from fire before 911 - they have.
That reports of molten metal and molten steel are suspicious - its actually completely unremarkable and there's plenty of other similar reports in other fires.
That people reporting explosions is uncommon in fires - Actually its not just common in fires, but even when its not regarding a fire and even when they use words like "blast" and "sounding like bombs" and even when they already know the sounds they are talking about aren't bombs.

By the way, steel I-sections do not snap like sticks.

So under sudden great pressure what do you think they will do? Bend like silly putty? They can bend if exposed to heat of course which is the point, as Chris also tried to explain if the fire then moves away from the location it can then cool but in a less stable condition and also liable to collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

To focus more on the latter part of your video first I will start by looking at the symmetry of collapse, something that you do mention but you too distort to favour your own agenda. As is often the case with debunkers like yourself, you try to tie the collapse of the penthouse with any statements about the symmetry of destruction and clearly this is not fair or correct. What the ‘truth’ movement refers to when discussing the symmetry of collapse is the latter stage of the building’s failure when the main bulk of the building falls vertically to the ground. This is a clear and obvious stage and even NIST discusses this as being a distinct phase in the process of destruction referring to it as the ‘global collapse’. Therefore to suggest that the building’s failure was purely asymmetrical is wrong, especially when the evidence shows very clearly that after the fall of the penthouse, the remaining building, and that means most of it, fell straight down into its own footprint;

Just a few pictures prove this entire paragraph incorrect.

These first two show 7WTC with a distinct lean during the collapse.

Do you see the very noticable lean? Good.

Secondly, in regards to this bull **** about footprint (again). Please feel free to explain how Fitterman Hall was damaged on it's ROOF by the collapse of 7WTC? Did someone relocate Fitterman into the footprint of 7WTC without anyone noticing?


Here is Fitteman Hall.

Yeah, you're entire conclusion is based on lies and distortions.

no high-rise steel building has ever fully collapsed due to fire or damage prior to or since 9/11 making such comparison impossible. Again, you make it sound to the watcher that it is a common, everyday sort of event, when it is not.

You're correct. No steel framed high-rise has ever been allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours without a single firefighter ever attempting to extinguish it.

But, I suspect you'll be doing some of this

in the very near future.

symmetrically, straight down at free-fall or near free-fall speed and with little or no deformation to the outer walls was because every supporting member of the lower floors had been removed of structural integrity at exactly the same time.

See above. You're entire conclusion is based on lies. What is that old expression? Oh, right, garbage in, garbage out.

In short, I’m sorry to say that your video is an extremely lame rebuttal of the argument by Richard Gage and certainly does not put an end to the controlled demolition theory. By the way, steel I-sections do not snap like sticks.

I'm sorry to say that your entire post here is ******* retarded. Good luck to you.

 

[Edx]

But, I suspect you'll be doing some of this

in the very near future.
.

Man it took me ages to figure out what you meant I thought it was tuning forks for a second haha

 

[alienentity]

Wake up. There was, to hear Mohr explain it, two collapses going on.

The internal collapse that caused the penthouse to disappear and the external collapse where frame/walls that sink evenly from view. How can the two coexist?

The internal collapse preceded the external collapse by a few seconds. They were not simultaneous. In fact, the first lead to the second. How else could it be?

 

[triforcharity]

Man it took me ages to figure out what you meant I thought it was tuning forks for a second haha

Me too. I couldn't find this one.

I like this one better.

 

[alienentity]

To chrismohr,

Thanks for posting your final video, number 18, which looks at the collapse of WTC7. You have asked for opinions about this so I’ll offer my input.
//

You admit right off the top that you're not an engineer, but an architect. That's cool, and that makes you about as qualified as any other layman to understand the collapses.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 demonstrates,using standard engineering, precisely how WTC
7 COULD have collapsed due to fire. It proves the mechanism, but cannot precisely mimic every feature of the actual collapse.
You don't seem to appreciate that nobody is going to be able to exactly model the collapse, because there are too many variables - random variables - at play. You misinterpret NIST's admission of this limitation as an invalidation of their model. It is not. The mechanism is established and has not been invalidated by any recognized engineering body, nor has a single peer-reviewed paper been published in an engineering journal with even a meaningful criticism of it.

If you were able to present such a rigorous and recognized criticism of the report, your views would carry some weight. As presented, they do not, since you are not qualified to make them yourself.

You have also, as all other truthers who follow this line of thought, completely omitted the complete absence - fatal to your theory - of any evidence of high explosives/explosions necessary to 'demo' the columns of WTC 7 at the required time; that is, the time the building began to descend.

There is simply NO plausible scenario whereby explosives could 'cut' the many columns, as claimed by 9/11 truthers, without being recorded visually and audibly by any number of professional and amateur devices near the scene.

Never in history has a CD behaved the way your theory requires, and I submit that it is actually impossible based on the physics associated with high explosives and cutter charges. A number of leading demolition specialists have stated this without hesitation, and they've added a list of further conditions which were simply NOT met by the WTC 7 collapse.

So truthers would need to produce some kind of coherent, scientifically verifiable theory as to how this is even possible, let alone PROBABLE.
Guess what? None have managed to do so.

Your ideas are superficial, do not stand up to careful scrutiny, and are not in accord with the leading experts in the relevant fields nor their published works. You have a lot of 'splainin to do b4 credibility comes your way.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Bill... is that you?

 

[chrismohr]

Mr Kinnies: Response to Building 7

you try to tie the collapse of the penthouse with any statements about the symmetry of destruction and clearly this is not fair or correct. What the ‘truth’ movement refers to when discussing the symmetry of collapse is the latter stage of the building’s failure when the main bulk of the building falls vertically to the ground.

In my video about symmetrical freefall collapse of Building 7 I suggest Richard Gage would have been more precise had he said the final seconds of the collapse look pretty clean from this video. I stand by my claim that a collapse that begins internally, drops the east penthouse, tilts six degrees and rotates on its way down is not symmetrical. To a gross order it does collapse mostly straight down, because gravity is pulling it one direction... down. Other lateral and rotational forces come into play to cause it to fall less than symmetrically. But since gravitational momentum going straight down is by far the greatest force, that's what is most obvious to the eye.

NIST could not account for much of the physics in the latter stage claiming it to be uncertain, random and less precise. In fact they couldn’t even get their own models to fit very well as their simulations clearly show the outer walls starting to deform where as in practice they never did.

I talked personally to four NIST people, and on this matter they reminded me that NIST was using cutting-edge computer technology to get their models even this close, and that they were being honest about the limitations of even these models.

Buildings, especially steel ones, put up enormous resistance to being broken apart in such conditions because all those elements have been acting as a homogenous unit since construction and therefore never allow complete progressive collapse to occur. This makes your claim that WTC7 followed the ‘classic’ form of progressive destruction a gross distortion since no high-rise steel building has ever fully collapsed due to fire or damage prior to or since 9/11 making such comparison impossible. Again, you make it sound to the watcher that it is a common, everyday sort of event, when it is not.

In video rebuttal #3 I say that collapse of steel frame structures due to fire is rare but it does happen. The formula f=ma, force=mass x acceleration, means that when one floor collapses 12 feet in freefall through a single vertical floor, its force increases 30-fold. And by the way, now that a huge part of the Delft Tower collapsed in 2008, a new word has been added to the collapse statement: "no high-rise steel building has ever fully collapsed due to fire..." Three years ago I was arguing with a friend about the claim that no steel structure had ever collapsed, and the modifiers keep getting more and more complex. There is much for all of us to learn from the rare examples of collapses of steel-framed structures, but only if you are willing to glean general principles from them instead of erecting walls to separate these events from the collapses of 9/11.

a more logical and probable reason for the outer walls remaining vertical and almost fully intact while the building fell is because the inner floors and columns were intact also.

That contradicts the observed pattern of window breakage and sunlight shining through the upper windows as the east penthouse collapsed internally and the breaking columns began displacing the load at the speed of sound to the perimeter columns while simultaneously yanking them down and inwards.

...assumptions you make about buildings falling to pieces from the inside out or the north facade falling faster than free-fall due to a pivoting action! I would argue that ... every supporting member of the lower floors had been removed of structural integrity at exactly the same time.

Not quite... when a column breaks it shifts its load to other columns at almost the speed of sound, which is why so many can break almost simultaneously if dozens of columns are all near the breaking point. Our "JREF leveraging theory" (so called because several JREFers helped in its development; I just organized and explained the science once I finally understood it) is a valid hypothesis. Your claim that leveraging forces are impossible in a chaotic collapse contradicts Archimedes. I'll go with the Greek guy in this argument.

Only controlled demolition can cause such structural failure across the entire plan of such a massive building so quickly.

ONLY controlled demolition? What about Delft? What about the verinage videos I've shown, of nonexplolsive controlled demolition where a couple floors are yanked away and gravity does the rest... mostly straight down, very fast???

In short, I’m sorry to say that your video is an extremely lame rebuttal of the argument by Richard Gage and certainly does not put an end to the controlled demolition theory. By the way, steel I-sections do not snap like sticks.

They break at the welded connections, mostly, which are their weakest points.

Thanks for the feedback. However, I didn't like the "lame" crack at the end, I'll try not to respond to you in like fashion ( a rare thing in this rough playground that is JREF, I know!)

You and Richard Gage have common sense on your side with the freefall of part of Building 7. Freefall = no resistance, right? Not quite. Again, it's no net resistance, and if you allow leveraging as a possible cause of further downward momentum you have a viable hypothesis. I do believe force can be leveraged. Do you deny it? If so, why? Please don't just write it off as stupid or ludicrous or pseudoscience. Just explain why leveraging can't magnify a downward force in part of a collapsing building. Has Archimedes been wrong all these millenia?