Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[chrismohr]

YouTube Video #19: A New Investigation?

Hi gang,

I may surprise people on both sides with this one. Those of you who call me a debunker might especially be surprised. See what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM

 

[mrkinnies]

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.

Can you explain the modelling in NCSTAR 1A? It's not that the modelling is imprecise, it doesn't fit at all or do you just ignore that?

Can you show me where NCSTAR 1A has been peer reviewed by an independent panel of engineers? Or does such review not apply to 'officials'. Don't forget, the data NIST used has been classed as secret.

The problem with NIST is that they test systems to develop codes of practice and so weren't actually qualified to study disaster situations. Here in the UK, the concept of using a research team to investigate a terrorist attack is implausible. FEMA for instance contradicts NIST on many issue to do with WTC.

Truthers have offered plenty of evidence concerning explosions yet you debunkers toss them aside with no counter evidence at all. I've lost count of how many times I read debunkers claiming that explosions happen all the time in building fires. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. The argument therefore becomes circular and pointless. How many firefighters and people who were in WTC7 such as Barry Jennings have to talk about hearing explosions before they are taken seriously. You have no proof that they are mistaken yet you assume it to be so.

As for visual evidence, WTC7 showed an increase in smoke rising from ground level prior to the collapse but then again there is no footage showing the ground floor at the time of collapse so why attempt to debunk using this argument. Larry Silverstein did of course say the building was pulled so how do you explain that? Demolition expert, Danny Jawenko, also stated that WTC7 was a controlled demolition on first seeing it probably because the nature of collapse was as clear as day a controlled demolition. Are you saying Mr Jawenko is wrong or are you a demolition expert as well?

 

[mrkinnies]

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.




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.



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.




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.




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? 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???



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?

Hi Chris, thank you for your comments and I apologise for my use of the word lame.

The collapse occurred in stages as we all agree. The bulk of the collapse happened in the last few seconds when global collapse started and most of the high rise structure fell straight down. For all intents and purposes the global collapse was symmetrical in that the building fell as a complete unit, regardless of any kinks or slight twists in the outer walls. To deny this would be non-sensical since any child would tell you the building fell down as a complete and intact block where the walls remained close to vertical and the roof close to horizontal. Compare that to the messy and PARTIAL destruction of the reinforced concrete building that was Delft architecture school and you'll see the two were entirely different.

The only way gravity could have done this is for the building to have lost ALL support across the entire floor plan at some point below the collapse area. This would needed to have have happened instantaneously since rotation or partial collapse would have occurred: this wasn't the case. The fact that the penthouse fell first is not an indication that the rest of the building fell into the hole left by its destruction. Look at buildings 5 & 6. They had huge holes scooped out of them yet stood firm (they also burned much longer and harder than any of the fires seen in WTC7). In other words, removing one set of columns does not mean all other columns will fall. They might fall into the hole but that would be due to rotation through lack of lateral stability, in which case the building would collapse inward. The bulk of WTC7 didn't collapse inward, it fell straight down so gravity acted equally on every column on every wall and inner structure simultaneously.

Your Verinage videos are great in that they prove very well that for buildings to fall straight down they need calculated human intervention, i.e. controlled demolition. The demolition team applies a fast acting lateral force to every supporting member on one floor thereby removing the supporting structure across the entire plan of the building in an instant. The building then falls as a block. This is exactly what happened in WTC7. There is no distinction. They are one and the same. Can you argue against this concept?

There is no proof for leveraging in the building and perhaps to develop such a theory proves how hard it is to explain the collapse without looking at the most obvious answer of controlled demolition. If NIST couldn't even produce a reliable model then what makes you so sure the leveraging principle is in action here? Besides, the fact that the east and west walls of WTC7 remained largely intact as the building fell is a clear sign that leveraging didn't occur since they would have had to have broken apart to allow for rotation of the north wall to occur.

 

[dafydd]

Hi Chris, thank you for your comments and I apologise for my use of the word lame.

The collapse occurred in stages as we all agree. The bulk of the collapse happened in the last few seconds when global collapse started and most of the high rise structure fell straight down. For all intents and purposes the global collapse was symmetrical in that the building fell as a complete unit, regardless of any kinks or slight twists in the outer walls. To deny this would be non-sensical since any child would tell you the building fell down as a complete and intact block where the walls remained close to vertical and the roof close to horizontal. Compare that to the messy and PARTIAL destruction of the reinforced concrete building that was Delft architecture school and you'll see the two were entirely different.

The only way gravity could have done this is for the building to have lost ALL support across the entire floor plan at some point below the collapse area. This would needed to have have happened instantaneously since rotation or partial collapse would have occurred: this wasn't the case. The fact that the penthouse fell first is not an indication that the rest of the building fell into the hole left by its destruction. Look at buildings 5 & 6. They had huge holes scooped out of them yet stood firm (they also burned much longer and harder than any of the fires seen in WTC7). In other words, removing one set of columns does not mean all other columns will fall. They might fall into the hole but that would be due to rotation through lack of lateral stability, in which case the building would collapse inward. The bulk of WTC7 didn't collapse inward, it fell straight down so gravity acted equally on every column on every wall and inner structure simultaneously.

Your Verinage videos are great in that they prove very well that for buildings to fall straight down they need calculated human intervention, i.e. controlled demolition. The demolition team applies a fast acting lateral force to every supporting member on one floor thereby removing the supporting structure across the entire plan of the building in an instant. The building then falls as a block. This is exactly what happened in WTC7. There is no distinction. They are one and the same. Can you argue against this concept?

There is no proof for leveraging in the building and perhaps to develop such a theory proves how hard it is to explain the collapse without looking at the most obvious answer of controlled demolition. If NIST couldn't even produce a reliable model then what makes you so sure the leveraging principle is in action here? Besides, the fact that the east and west walls of WTC7 remained largely intact as the building fell is a clear sign that leveraging didn't occur since they would have had to have broken apart to allow for rotation of the north wall to occur.

And the 'pseudo science'?

 

[mrkinnies]

And the 'pseudo science'?

Perhaps you'd care to comment on what I have written above rather than writing silly one liners in the hope of changing the subject and increasing your count tally.

Do you have any proof that progressive collapse caused the complete destruction of a high steel steel structure prior to 9/11? What is your opinion of the computer simulations NIST produced in NCSTAR 1A, particularly the deformation in the upper parts of the walls as the building collapses which contradicts what actually happened? You are aware of this are you not or is their model exact science in your book not to be challenged? Surely you can offer something more rational and constructive to this debate?

 

[Dave Rogers]

For all intents and purposes the global collapse was symmetrical in that the building fell as a complete unit, regardless of any kinks or slight twists in the outer walls. To deny this would be non-sensical since any child would tell you the building fell down as a complete and intact block where the walls remained close to vertical and the roof close to horizontal.

You are not using the correct meaning of the word "symmetrical", and you're even fudging your own definition by specifically stating that you are neglecting deviations from what you describe as symmetry. And all this is meaningless in any case, because you aren't demonstrating that symmetry is favoured by any particular means of collapse initiation.

The only way gravity could have done this is for the building to have lost ALL support across the entire floor plan at some point below the collapse area. This would needed to have have happened instantaneously since rotation or partial collapse would have occurred: this wasn't the case.

And here, by denying observed features of the collapse, you reach an erroneous conclusion. Firstly, rotation was observed; the building rotated to the south as it fell. Secondly, the kink in the north face, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore (see above), is irrefutable proof that the failure of columns happened sequentially rather than simultaneously. And thirdly, the prior collapse of the penthouses and screen wall, which incidentally is a partial collapse, is irrefutable proof that the core columns failed, not only prior to the perimeter columns, but sequentially across the building. So, yes, it was the case; rotation and partial collapse were both observed, refuting your conclusion.

Since, at that point, your chain of logic is broken, I see no need to address the remainder of your comments.

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

You are not using the correct meaning of the word "symmetrical", and you're even fudging your own definition by specifically stating that you are neglecting deviations from what you describe as symmetry. And all this is meaningless in any case, because you aren't demonstrating that symmetry is favoured by any particular means of collapse initiation.



And here, by denying observed features of the collapse, you reach an erroneous conclusion. Firstly, rotation was observed; the building rotated to the south as it fell. Secondly, the kink in the north face, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore (see above), is irrefutable proof that the failure of columns happened sequentially rather than simultaneously. And thirdly, the prior collapse of the penthouses and screen wall, which incidentally is a partial collapse, is irrefutable proof that the core columns failed, not only prior to the perimeter columns, but sequentially across the building. So, yes, it was the case; rotation and partial collapse were both observed, refuting your conclusion.

Since, at that point, your chain of logic is broken, I see no need to address the remainder of your comments.

Dave

Oh please!

The building fell as one block in its final stage of collapse and even NIST agrees with this. Perhaps you are not looking at the same videos as myself. I have mentioned the kink before and so does NIST but they couldn't get it to fit their own modelling so they simply said the physics in the model was different...amazing!! And maybe you should read what I have written....I use the phrase, 'for all intents and purposes'. Are you saying the building didn't fall as one block during what NIST called global collapse because that would be to contradict NIST also. To fall as one block means the symmetry of the building was largely retained as it fell. No wonder NIST took so long to produce an answer for this since it's impossible to explain by looking at standard perceived behaviour of high rise steel buildings on fire. Remember, no such building has ever done such a thing before or since 9/11. Care to explain that?

Tell me, what were the core columns? I assume you know.

And how did that rotation stop since the building ended up falling straight down in all the videos I've seen...I mean that goes against the laws of physics doesn't it? Or is it simply that what you call rotation was actually a split second failure in one part of the building causing movement before the rest of the building. That's totally in keeping with CD.

And just so you don't have to look any more stupid, you state you won't address me further. How cowardly and futile is that?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh please!

Good argument. That'll convince lots of people.

The building fell as one block in its final stage of collapse and even NIST agrees with this.

"Fell as one block" and "symmetrical" are not the same thing.

Perhaps you are not looking at the same videos as myself.

Quite possibly not. The ones I have looked at depict reality. This reality includes several asymmetric features of the collapse, including the lateral progression of the partial collapse leading to the disappearance of the penthouses and screenwalls, the kink in the north wall and the rotational asymmetry of the collapse - phenomena you also handwave away as irrelevant, despite (or possibly because of) the fact that they refute your conclusion.

I have mentioned the kink before and so does NIST but they couldn't get it to fit their own modelling so they simply said the physics in the model was different...amazing!!

I noted that you mentioned the kink. I also noted that you did so purely for the purposes of special pleading; you are choosing to regard it as irrelevant with no justification for doing so. This is, of course, the exact same fallacy you are accusing NIST of committing, so it would be instructive for you to post the exact passage in which they make this claim. I suspect it doesn't say what you choose to believe it says.

And maybe you should read what I have written....I use the phrase, 'for all intents and purposes'.

These are what are known as "weasel words", in this context indicating that you are choosing to ignore any details of the collapse incompatible with your conjectures. I have pointed out that these details are, in fact, relevant.

Are you saying the building didn't fall as one block during what NIST called global collapse because that would be to contradict NIST also.

No, I am saying no such think. I suggest you look up the term "strawman fallacy".

To fall as one block means the symmetry of the building was largely retained as it fell.

The argument of the truth movement has been that the collapse was symmetrical, not that the building retained its symmetry as it collapsed. In fact, of course, it did not do so; the north wall kink is an example of loss of symmetry, as is the lateral progression of the initial internal partial collapse. Sorry to keep on referring to these details, but your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that they never happened, when in fact they did. But the collapse, as a process, was most certainly not symmetrical, and at no point is NIST arguing that it was.

Remember, no such building has ever done such a thing before or since 9/11. Care to explain that?

No building of similar design to WTC7 has experienced a remotely comparable level of damage other than WTC1 and WTC2.

Tell me, what were the core columns? I assume you know.

Please, enlighten us all.

And how did that rotation stop since the building ended up falling straight down in all the videos I've seen...I mean that goes against the laws of physics doesn't it?

As I said, I've only seen the videos that depict reality, in which the building rotated southwards as it fell. I suspect you've only looked at the one taken from due south, in which the rotation isn't clearly visible because its axis is perpendicular to the line of sight. Could I suggest you scroll up to post #414 to see a video still which clearly shows the rotation you're busy denying?

Or is it simply that what you call rotation was actually a split second failure in one part of the building causing movement before the rest of the building. That's totally in keeping with CD.

And at this point you're trying to make your conjecture unfalsifiable by saying that partial prior failure is consistent with CD, despite the fact that up till now your argument has been that the absence of partial prior failure is your evidence of CD.

And just so you don't have to look any more stupid, you state you won't address me further. How cowardly and futile is that?

Well, it's futile to continue to address the reasoning of someone whose premises are incorrect beyond the point where his conclusions are shown to be fallacious. As for cowardice, get over yourself; you're just another random nobody on the Internet, like the rest of us.

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

Mr Rogers, this is what NIST says to conclude chapter 2 of NCSTAR 1A,

"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."

That buckling apparently occurred between floors 7 to 14 which means the upper 33 floors feel down with little change to the way the building was constructed.

Now admit you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mr Rogers, this is what NIST says to conclude chapter 2 of NCSTAR 1A,

"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."

Have you found the bit where they say "We can't get this to fit our own modelling, but the physics in the model was different"?

Now admit you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

"Collapse" is a process, not a building. It is complete and utter rubbish to argue, as you are clearly attempting to argue, that the collapse must have been symmetrical because a part of the building moved as a single unit.

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

Have you found the bit where they say "We can't get this to fit our own modelling, but the physics in the model was different"?



"Collapse" is a process, not a building. It is complete and utter rubbish to argue, as you are clearly attempting to argue, that the collapse must have been symmetrical because a part of the building moved as a single unit.

Dave

You're floundering!

NCSTAR 1A 3.5.2

"The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model."

I just hope NASA don't use the same physics as NIST, lol!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

NCSTAR 1A 3.5.2

"The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model."

This statement doesn't mean what you claim it means. Interestingly enough, you claimed that:

I have mentioned the kink before and so does NIST but they couldn't get it to fit their own modelling

Since you've just posted the quote stating that NIST could get their model to predict the kink, will you be admitting your rather obvious error?

As for the rest, I suggest you look up the word "reliability".

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

So what does that statement mean oh wise one? You have to excuse me, I write this with a big smile on my face because already it's obvious you haven't even looked at NCSTAR 1A

What physics could possibly be unreliable in a computer simulation based on physical principles? Perhaps it is that which goes on to show the kink doing something other than what it did do, therefore NIST quickly moves on.

And you believe these guys!

 

[bill smith]

This statement doesn't mean what you claim it means. Interestingly enough, you claimed that:



Since you've just posted the quote stating that NIST could get their model to predict the kink, will you be admitting your rather obvious error?

As for the rest, I suggest you look up the word "reliability".

Dave

Chris seemed to be implying that NIST was trying to get their model to fit the collapse when he said the following don't you think ?

' 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 t'his close, and that they were being honest about the limitations of even these models.'

 

[Dave Rogers]

So what does that statement mean oh wise one? You have to excuse me, I write this with a big smile on my face because already it's obvious you haven't even looked at NCSTAR 1A

You, on the other hand, clearly have looked at it, which makes your blatant misrepresentation of it rather inexcusable. Let's break it down, shall we?

The simulations do show the formation of the kink,

This does not mean that NIST couldn't get the kink to fit their own modelling. It means the exact opposite. Your misrepresentation of it was either a mistake or a lie.

but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model

This means that the model cannot accurately predict the movement of the structure after it begins to move as a single unit.

What physics could possible be unreliable in a computer simulation?

Quite specifically, the physics of chaotic events, in which the outcome is disproportionately sensitive to the starting conditions. A good example of a chaotic event would be the collapse of a large building. Small uncertainties in the starting conditions can lead to large errors in the predicted outcome, something anyone with any familiarity with numerical modelling would regard as not only familiar, but commonplace.

Perhaps it is that which goes on to show the kink doing something other than what it did do, therefore NIST quickly moves on.

Perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about, so you're just making things up to cast unwarranted suspicion wherever you can. It's called "mud-slinging."

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Chris seemed to be implying that NIST was trying to get their model to fit the collapse when he said the following don't you think ?

' 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 t'his close, and that they were being honest about the limitations of even these models.'

Try to keep up, bill. You're confusing the kink with the movement of the structure after the kink had formed.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hypotheticals do not make good debate topics.

Says who? source?

 

[mrkinnies]

You, on the other hand, clearly have looked at it, which makes your blatant misrepresentation of it rather inexcusable. Let's break it down, shall we?



This does not mean that NIST couldn't get the kink to fit their own modelling. It means the exact opposite. Your misrepresentation of it was either a mistake or a lie.



This means that the model cannot accurately predict the movement of the structure after it begins to move as a single unit.



Quite specifically, the physics of chaotic events, in which the outcome is disproportionately sensitive to the starting conditions. A good example of a chaotic event would be the collapse of a large building. Small uncertainties in the starting conditions can lead to large errors in the predicted outcome, something anyone with any familiarity with numerical modelling would regard as not only familiar, but commonplace.



Perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about, so you're just making things up to cast unwarranted suspicion wherever you can. It's called "mud-slinging."

Dave

Oh no mud-slinging I assure you.

I notice you now talk about the building having collapsed as a single unit. That's not what you said before so be careful what you accuse others of doing.

Let me remind you. NIST states that the building above floor 14 fell as a single unit. In other words, the top 33 storeys stayed intact and didn't break apart as it fell. So your words about rotations and the kink are pure nonsense. Now show me an example of a similar collapse that happened naturally.

 

[tsig]

Oh please!

The building fell as one block in its final stage of collapse and even NIST agrees with this. Perhaps you are not looking at the same videos as myself. I have mentioned the kink before and so does NIST but they couldn't get it to fit their own modelling so they simply said the physics in the model was different...amazing!! And maybe you should read what I have written....I use the phrase, 'for all intents and purposes'. Are you saying the building didn't fall as one block during what NIST called global collapse because that would be to contradict NIST also. To fall as one block means the symmetry of the building was largely retained as it fell. No wonder NIST took so long to produce an answer for this since it's impossible to explain by looking at standard perceived behaviour of high rise steel buildings on fire. Remember, no such building has ever done such a thing before or since 9/11. Care to explain that?

Tell me, what were the core columns? I assume you know.

And how did that rotation stop since the building ended up falling straight down in all the videos I've seen...I mean that goes against the laws of physics doesn't it? Or is it simply that what you call rotation was actually a split second failure in one part of the building causing movement before the rest of the building. That's totally in keeping with CD.

And just so you don't have to look any more stupid, you state you won't address me further. How cowardly and futile is that?

Name calling and insults. That's professional all right.

 

[NoahFence]

Perhaps you'd care to comment on what I have written above rather than writing silly one liners in the hope of changing the subject and increasing your count tally.

Perhaps you'd like to answer the question?

You think we're stupid here? You get caught in a lie, then later on change the subject hoping nobody remembers your lie. That's dishonest.

Answer the question about 'pseudo-science' please.