Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Oystein]

...Having a CD where collapse begins slowly and gradually builds up to freefall makes no sense. Had it been a CD going at freefall at any point, it should have been at the beginning to maximize gravitational momentum in the building's destruction.
If anyone in addition to C7 or MM wants to correct any of these observations, please do so. Tri? Shek? Oystein? You know me; I'll make corrections when I'm shown to be wrong.

I'd advise against any prescription of what characteristics of movement a building "should" display when it is being CDed. Such statements imply knowledge of the perpetratots' objectives, which we can't have.

Here is why:

A structure collapses if and when a sufficient number of its structural support elements fail.
The exact timing and dynamics of the collapse, as observed from the outside, are the result of structural members failing in a paricular temporal order.
This is true (a truism) for any kind of collapse, no matter what it's cause. For example, it is true when a structure collapses due to fire: Some elements fail first, and in sequence, other element failures follow.
A structure could be rigged with explosives such that they fail structural elements in the exact same chronological sequence as would happen if fire were the cause.

For example, imagine NIST had done their simulations before 9/11 already, and given the details of the FEA model to terrorists. These terrorists now go ahead and place explosive charges at all the elements that caused the collapse to start according to the NIST model (column 79, and the beams in its vicinity, etc.), and then perhaps also at all the elements that failed in the ensuing collapse propagation as per simulation. And then set them off in a times fasion precisely following the simulation. The result would be a collapse that looks exactly like the real thing: e.g. with <g onset during the 1st second of north wall release, 2.25 seconds of ~g, followed by decreasing acceleration.


In other words: It is, in theory, possible to make any CD look like any possible "natural" collapse scenario.^(*)Which has this corrollary: The visually measurable dynamics of a building collapse do not allow us to rule out CD, ever.

(This doesn't go both ways however: It would be possible to CD a building such that the enduing collapse dynamics could not be attained by any "natural" causes. In the easiest case, just kill every joint (all the many thousands there are) from top to bottom at the same instance: everything will fall at freefall immediately to the ground, with no collapse progression)

Instead, to rule out CD, one has to look at other properties of it: For example, you can't have a chiefly explosive CD without there being insanely loud BANGs. You can't have it without the buckeled members in the debris pile showing particular failure modes. etc.



(*): Ok, not quite. Explosives sever steel members instantly, without any shortening before breaking, and that influences the dynamics. To account for that, the genius CD master would probably have to fiddle with ignition times and perhaps employ a few methods other than shaped explosive charges. My assertion still stands however: In principle, CD can, in principle, simulate a very wide range of natural collapses.

 

[GlennB]

(*): Ok, not quite. Explosives sever steel members instantly, without any shortening before breaking, and that influences the dynamics. To account for that, the genius CD master would probably have to fiddle with ignition times and perhaps employ a few methods other than shaped explosive charges. My assertion still stands however: In principle, CD can, in principle, simulate a very wide range of natural collapses.

I agree. A CD could be arranged such that enough columns were taken out that the remaining support would enter a period of deformation followed by failure. This collapse could resemble what was observed at WTC7, for a short while*.

However, the results would be highly unpredictable apart from the many BANGS and FLASHES that would be required.

Additionally, if only one storey were CD'd this way, then there would only be a one-storey drop (see * above) before resistance was encountered. The C7-type theory requires many storeys to offer zero resistance simultaneously, hence the insane implication of C7's theory - that the CD devices were planted over every column on many floors. I once did the calculation and it ran to > 2000 devices, minimum.

 

[Oystein]

I agree. A CD could be arranged such that enough columns were taken out that the remaining support would enter a period of deformation followed by failure. This collapse could resemble what was observed at WTC7, for a short while*.

However, the results would be highly unpredictable apart from the many BANGS and FLASHES that would be required.

Additionally, if only one storey were CD'd this way, then there would only be a one-storey drop (see * above) before resistance was encountered. The C7-type theory requires many storeys to offer zero resistance simultaneously, hence the insane implication of C7's theory - that the CD devices were planted over every column on many floors. I once did the calculation and it ran to > 2000 devices, minimum.

No need to conflate the truism that CDs could in theory resemble any natural collapse with the false ideas that truthers offers up. I was not addressing the false truther claim that WTC7 entered into free fall immediately, or that simulateneous removal of all members over 8 floors would be required.
I addressed Chris Mohr's assertion that a CD should have entered into freefall more immediately.

No.

According to NIST, the collapse sequence started when a girder walked off its seat, after some bolts and studs were already broken (and other, not yet fatal conenctions broken). You could simulate the actual collapse from fires in a replica of WTC7 without fire if you first take out the non-fatal bolts, studs and connections with, say, explosives. and then destroyed the column 79 girder seat. A collapse progression would follow that looks exactly as if fires had destroyed said connections. Why? Because all the other connections don't know why the girder started falling from column 79.

And that's why we can't logically rule out CD based on the actual collapse sequence as observed from the outside.

You are right of course that it would be difficult to predict a total collapse. And difficult to hide the flashes and bangs. Difficult, too, to protect charges fronm the severe fires. Etc.

That's why everyone who wants to claim CD must provide positive evidence, and must be specific enough to allow for falsifiable predictions. After all, we KNOW that there fires, and we KNOW that fires are no good for structural steel. But we DON'T know that there were explosives.

 

[GlennB]

No need to conflate the truism that CDs could in theory resemble any natural collapse with the false ideas that truthers offers up. I was not addressing the false truther claim that WTC7 entered into free fall immediately, or that simulateneous removal of all members over 8 floors would be required.
I addressed Chris Mohr's assertion that a CD should have entered into freefall more immediately.

So was I Oystein. Try to be less acidic.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Any identification of a freefall event by NIST means that there was a gap/separation within the perimeter of the building thereby eliminating the possibility of a push/force down collapse.

 

[grandmastershek]

Any identification of a freefall event by NIST means that there was a gap/separation within the perimeter of the building thereby eliminating the possibility of a push/force down collapse.

Thanks for that Clayton. Be sure to submit your study to any of the reputable journals on the subject

 

[ozeco41]

Any identification of a freefall event by NIST...

Why complicate it by introducing NIST? "Any identification of a freefall event..." covers it whether by NIST, by femr2 to name another researcher or by Santa Claus? Surely the interest is in whether or not there was free-fall? Not whether NIST was right or wrong - that objective can be pursued elsewhere.

...means that there was a gap/separation within the perimeter of the building thereby eliminating the possibility of a push/force down collapse.

Interesting bit of circular logic in the "thereby eliminating". Let's split the two parts:
1) "...thereby eliminating the possibility of a push/force down collapse."
Yes, push down is one option BUT highly unlikely at the system level of "all the north face of WTC7". Any "hand of God" coming down from the sky would have been visible. So we can probably eliminate push down at that level of system. (Note: same does not apply to lesser parts of system.)

So your circular relationship matters not. AND:
2) "...means that there was a gap/separation within the perimeter of the building."
It is still missing (at least) one option which is best stated explicitly to avoid accusations of "lying by inference". That additional to "gap/separation" is "members reduced to effectively zero strength". e.g. buckled or buckling columns which quickly convert to a real gap or separation as downwards collapse motion progresses. And that happens to be the most likely scenario.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks Ozeco, I didn't mean to exclude you! My belief about myself is that
1) I have a good layman's understanding of the technical issues around 9/11 and sometimes either make mistakes or could explain things better
2) When I make a mistake I correct it
I appreciate your validation of that "self-image," one which has been confirmed repeatedly by everyone on the "natural collapse" side whose scientific knowledge far surpasses mine. Never once has such a scientist with specialized knowledge told me I'm too ignorant to even present this material. At most they have pointed out specific errors but gone on to praise the work as a whole.

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks Ozeco, I didn't mean to exclude you! ...

My comment was meant to be light hearted.

...My belief about myself is that
1) I have a good layman's understanding of the technical issues around 9/11 and sometimes either make mistakes or could explain things better
2) When I make a mistake I correct it
I appreciate your validation of that "self-image," one which has been confirmed repeatedly by everyone on the "natural collapse" side whose scientific knowledge far surpasses mine. Never once has such a scientist with specialized knowledge told me I'm too ignorant to even present this material. At most they have pointed out specific errors but gone on to praise the work as a whole.

I understand and agree. Thank you for the comments and appreciation. Your work is an outstanding achievement and you are already seeing some benefits which I am sure you find rewarding.

 

[beachnut]

Any identification of a freefall event by NIST means that there was a gap/separation within the perimeter of the building thereby eliminating the possibility of a push/force down collapse.

Clayton, you don't know what you are talking about.

The core beams were huge, huger, and much huger yet they offered little resistance, about 4 or 5 seconds over free fall speed, to the alleged "collapse" to pulverization.

...

Please explain what free-fall speed is.

 

[Christopher7]

The rate of free-fall acceleration can be attained by … no NET resistance, where multiple forces act against each other and cancel each other out

That might be true if it were only a few feet of freefall of part of the building but not when there is 100 feet of free fall. Once everything was falling, nothing could be pulling on anything else.

And freefall is not always straight down. If I shoot a cannonball, it is traveling mostly horizontally but still dropping at freefall acceleration (minus air resistance).

You don't even know what free fall means.
Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it

Steel belt or no, we have proof that the building did not fall at 100% of free fall and 100% straight down

You have supposition and double talk.
Even NIST admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration when presented with the scientific proof, but you refuse to accept that.

We have no proof of any precise rate of descent except that of the roofline of the north perimeter face, which came down at 100% + or - a small amount for 2.25 seconds

Scientists and any reasonable person know that the measurements from a video will not be exact and that the slight difference is negligible - too small to be worth considering. Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the difference is within the margin of error and need not be considered. Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the entire upper part of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

But you disagree. You are pretending that you know better than the professional scientists at NIST and a man who teaches physics when you don't even know the definition of free fall acceleration.

You have no understanding the scientific process or even the terms used and you have no business presenting yourself as an authority in this matter.

 

[ozeco41]

That might be true if it were only a few feet of freefall of part of the building but not when there is 100 feet of free fall. Once everything was falling, nothing could be pulling on anything else...

Hogwash.

You don't even know what free fall means.
Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it

Lies by use of partial truth.

You have supposition and double talk.
Even NIST admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration when presented with the scientific proof, but you refuse to accept that.

Emotively loaded distortion. The free-fall and probable over free-fall motion was of no engineering significance. NIST possible made a PR misjudgement by detailing the free-fall bit when asked to do so. We have since seen the truth movement distort this PR move into an "admission". The only reason for truthers to focus on it is because they have created a myth that free-fall = CD. More hogwash.

...Scientists and any reasonable person know that the measurements from a video will not be exact and that the slight difference is negligible - too small to be worth considering. Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the difference is within the margin of error and need not be considered. Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the entire upper part of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. ...

So what? Where are you going with these partial truth apparent truisms?? Mendacity does you no credit C7 - especially when it is so obvious and transparent.

But you disagree. You are pretending that you know better than the professional scientists at NIST...

I will let ChrisMohr defend this misrepresentation - if he wishes to credit your nonsense with any response.

...and a man who teaches physics when you don't even know the definition of free fall acceleration.

A man who has published claims where his errors in physics have been put on public display. The man is untruthful and a failure at physics.

...You have no understanding the scientific process or even the terms used and you have no business presenting yourself as an authority in this matter.

More misrepresentation - see previous comment.

 

[pgimeno]

You don't even know what free fall means.
Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it

That's what free fall is, indeed.

Now, free fall acceleration is the value of acceleration that a free falling body experiments.

It is a value. It is defined in terms of a free falling body.

BUT (big BUT) it does not mean that you can walk in the opposite direction and claim that an object that experiments a value of acceleration that matches free fall acceleration is itself falling unimpeded.

That's a logical fallacy known as "Affirming the consequent^WP" and when adapted to this case, it goes like this:

Free fall implies an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
The building is falling with an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
Therefore, the building is falling in free fall, i.e. unimpeded.

That deduction is erroneous. When A implies B and B is true, it doesn't say anything about the truth of A, because that doesn't mean that B implies A.

You affirm that if something falls with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s² then it is falling in free fall, i.e. unimpeded. That's not the case, as there are other possible explanations for that acceleration. Indeed it can NOT be the case, since the building was (according to femr2's WTC7 acceleration trace) at that acceleration only for less than one second; before that it was above free fall acceleration, proving that there were other forces acting upon the building.

Your conclusion does not follow.

You have no understanding the scientific process or even the terms used and you have no business presenting yourself as an authority in this matter.

Ironic that you say that, given your understanding of logic.

 

[chrismohr]

That might be true if it were only a few feet of freefall of part of the building but not when there is 100 feet of free fall. Once everything was falling, nothing could be pulling on anything else.

You don't even know what free fall means.
Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it

You have supposition and double talk.
Even NIST admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration when presented with the scientific proof, but you refuse to accept that.

Scientists and any reasonable person know that the measurements from a video will not be exact and that the slight difference is negligible - too small to be worth considering. Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the difference is within the margin of error and need not be considered. Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the entire upper part of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

But you disagree. You are pretending that you know better than the professional scientists at NIST and a man who teaches physics when you don't even know the definition of free fall acceleration.

You have no understanding the scientific process or even the terms used and you have no business presenting yourself as an authority in this matter.

Your meanspirited response is unworthy of you Chris7, and so transparently false that I feel no need to bother defending myself against such an attack.

However, in your rants against me you made a scientific claim I want to check out here with others to see whose understanding of freefall is correct. Before the rant above you also wrote in an earlier post, "You don't seem to understand that free fall is always straight down." And then above you assert my ignorance similarly by saying "You don't even know what free fall means. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it." You continue to assert my ignorance in this matter so let me expand on my little mind exercise.

You and I are standing on top of an overhang over a 1000' sheer cliff with twenty miles of 100% level ground below the cliff. Instead of trying to throw each other off, we agree that 1) I will shoot off a cannonball 100% horizontally and 2) at the same instant, you will drop an identical sized cannonball straight down. We'll also assume no air resistance gets in the way of this experiment.

So my cannonball has a lot of horizontal momentum but of course it will eventually hit the ground, right? Yours has no horizontal momentum and is in pure freefall according to your maxim that "free fall is always straight down."

My limited understanding of Newtonian physics tells me that our two cannonballs will hit the ground at the same instant. Both are falling without any resistance (even air in this exercise), but my cannonball has strong horizontal momentum. BOTH ARE IN FREEFALL AND DROPPING AT FREEFALL ACCELERATION, even though mine has a strong horizontal trajectory. As long as I shoot my cannonball at 90 degrees straight across, it will fall downward in exactly the same amount of time as the cannonball you drop. The horizontal momentum will have no effect on the fact that it is dropping at freefall acceleration.

If I am right, then your statement is wrong: "You don't seem to understand that free fall is always straight down." No, I definitely don't understand that free fall is always straight down BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

Please everyone, reveal my ignorance in this matter if I am wrong. I am eager to be corrected and move forward.

Oh, and one more thing I'll assert: Let's say I shot another cannonball straight up (and helped you get out of the way because I am such a gentleman you know). I believe that the instant that cannonball leaves the cannon, even though its trajectory is straight up, it too is in freefall, and its rate of ascent is dropping at 9.8 meters/second/second. Then it continues to fall downwards at the same rate.

Wow, maybe I'm showing total ignorance now! Freefall acceleration of a cannonball going straight up at 500 mph?

Which Chris is ignorant here? Anyone?

And obviously I agree with pgimeno when he says that


"Free fall implies an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
The building is falling with an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
Therefore, the building is falling in free fall, i.e. unimpeded.

That deduction is erroneous. When A implies B and B is true, it doesn't say anything about the truth of A, because that doesn't mean that B implies A."

I DID take logic in school, and he is right about your logic.

 

[Oystein]

... Indeed it can NOT be the case, since the building was (according to femr2's WTC7 acceleration trace) at that acceleration only for less than one second; before that it was above free fall acceleration, proving that there were other forces acting upon the building.
...

Minor correction: forces not acting upon "the" building (i.e. as a whole) but upon the part of the building that femr2 (or Chandler, or NIST) observed and measured.

 

[Oystein]

...
If I am right, then your statement is wrong: "You don't seem to understand that free fall is always straight down." No, I definitely don't understand that free fall is always straight down BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

Please everyone, reveal my ignorance in this matter if I am wrong. I am eager to be corrected and move forward.
...

Sorry, Chris Mohr, can't help you there.


















There is no ignorance to be revealed on your part in this matter. Of course you are totally right, and Christopher7 was wrong

 

[chrismohr]

Sorry, Chris Mohr, can't help you there.


















There is no ignorance to be revealed on your part in this matter. Of course you are totally right, and Christopher7 was wrong

WHAT???

But Christopher7 said very clearly to me, "You have no understanding the scientific process [sic] or even the terms used and you have no business presenting yourself as an authority in this matter." Are you saying that I, with NO understanding of scientific process, understand a basic principle of physics better than Christopher7? You could have knocked me over with a free-falling feather!

 

[ozeco41]

@ChrisMohr
C7 is playing word games with you Chris.

He correctly states "Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it" THEN continues with his false accusations both explicitly stated and and by implication. Hence my brief comment "lies by partial truth".

And both your examples of cannonballs - one dropped, the other launched horizontally and then subject only to gravitation - both are free-fall.

When discussing these "free body" mechanics topics with people who are not scientists (physicists, engineers) it can be helpful to separately consider the horizontal and the vertical vectors of the cannonball trajectory. BUT the horizontal forces are zero and gravity is the only force acting - vertically down. Conversely splitting the motion into vectors may be confusing for a lay audience. So it is a case of judging your audience which is the situation you handled very well in your series of respectful videos.

 

[tmd2_1]

Your meanspirited response is unworthy of you Chris7, and so transparently false that I feel no need to bother defending myself against such an attack.

However, in your rants against me you made a scientific claim I want to check out here with others to see whose understanding of freefall is correct. Before the rant above you also wrote in an earlier post, "You don't seem to understand that free fall is always straight down." And then above you assert my ignorance similarly by saying "You don't even know what free fall means. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it." You continue to assert my ignorance in this matter so let me expand on my little mind exercise.

You and I are standing on top of an overhang over a 1000' sheer cliff with twenty miles of 100% level ground below the cliff. Instead of trying to throw each other off, we agree that 1) I will shoot off a cannonball 100% horizontally and 2) at the same instant, you will drop an identical sized cannonball straight down. We'll also assume no air resistance gets in the way of this experiment.

So my cannonball has a lot of horizontal momentum but of course it will eventually hit the ground, right? Yours has no horizontal momentum and is in pure freefall according to your maxim that "free fall is always straight down."

My limited understanding of Newtonian physics tells me that our two cannonballs will hit the ground at the same instant. Both are falling without any resistance (even air in this exercise), but my cannonball has strong horizontal momentum. BOTH ARE IN FREEFALL AND DROPPING AT FREEFALL ACCELERATION, even though mine has a strong horizontal trajectory. As long as I shoot my cannonball at 90 degrees straight across, it will fall downward in exactly the same amount of time as the cannonball you drop. The horizontal momentum will have no effect on the fact that it is dropping at freefall acceleration.

If I am right, then your statement is wrong: "You don't seem to understand that free fall is always straight down." No, I definitely don't understand that free fall is always straight down BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

Please everyone, reveal my ignorance in this matter if I am wrong. I am eager to be corrected and move forward.

Oh, and one more thing I'll assert: Let's say I shot another cannonball straight up (and helped you get out of the way because I am such a gentleman you know). I believe that the instant that cannonball leaves the cannon, even though its trajectory is straight up, it too is in freefall, and its rate of ascent is dropping at 9.8 meters/second/second. Then it continues to fall downwards at the same rate.

Wow, maybe I'm showing total ignorance now! Freefall acceleration of a cannonball going straight up at 500 mph?

Which Chris is ignorant here? Anyone?

And obviously I agree with pgimeno when he says that


"Free fall implies an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
The building is falling with an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
Therefore, the building is falling in free fall, i.e. unimpeded.

That deduction is erroneous. When A implies B and B is true, it doesn't say anything about the truth of A, because that doesn't mean that B implies A."

I DID take logic in school, and he is right about your logic.

Let me make sure I understand you. Your contention is that if a cannon ball is dropped, and one is shot out of a cannon at 90 degrees. They will hit the ground at the same time? Assuming this is from the same height dropped/shot at the same time?

 

[ozeco41]

.... Indeed it can NOT be the case, since the building was (according to femr2's WTC7 acceleration trace) at that acceleration only for less than one second; before that it was above free fall acceleration, proving that there were other forces acting upon the building.

Minor correction: forces not acting upon "the" building (i.e. as a whole) but upon the part of the building that femr2 (or Chandler, or NIST) observed and measured.

CORRECT.

Hence my several times repeated explanations about the need to be sure as to which "system" you are considering. In the WTC7 example whether it is the whole building or just a part of the building - a "sub-system" in that style of jargon.

This being one aspect where ChrisMohr correctly identified an error on Chandler's part and corrected it in his Video #18. Including an explanation as to how a smaller part of a building could fall with acceleration greater than free fall whilst the larger part of building of which that smaller part is a "sub-system falls at near free fall. (I think it was Chandler - he certainly gets his free body physics wrong)

In understanding free-fall of "free bodies" the important aspect is getting the system boundary correct. Hence my example in this recent post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8103018#post8103018