Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[brazenlilraisin]

Either this portion of the building was "eliminated" silently and by a mechanism that left no trace of itself . . . or your understanding of the collapse is flawed.

Which possibility seems more likely?

 

[000063]

The WTC7 free fall means a large portion of the building immediately beneath the falling portion had been eliminated.

You can't say the entire upper portion was in free-fall if a large portion of it, under the E. Penthouse, had already collapsed by the point it was supposed to be in free-fall.

 

[GlennB]

I believe the correct answer is all will fall at the same rate except for the dropped arrow (the entire arrow that is).

The dropped arrow would rotate (due to the drag of the flights) causing the tip of the arrow to exceed the acceleration of G (while the center of mass will not). This will give the arrow (tip) a slight advantage. (it's why a dropped arrow will stick in the ground if given enough distance).

I was thinking this but then thought again. It seemed to me the dropped arrow would rotate downwards quicker than the fired arrow. If true, the dropped arrow would then present less surface area - therefore experiencing less friction - to the air and so accelerate at a greater rate.

Then I thought again I can't see one reason why the dropped arrow would rotate faster, barring aerodynamic effects - lift and stuff - that ChrisM has already mentioned.

If I had to bet I'd go for all 4 being the same, but it would have to be a small bet.

 

[triforcharity]

When someone points out that your comparing steel columns to a stick demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about, you call it an attack and use that as an excuse not to admit that you don't know the physical properties of steel and wood.

It was not an attack but rather a statement of fact. When someone is so wrong, as you are on this point, it is fitting to note the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Kinda like yourself when it comes to the following subjects?

Fire science
Firefighter operations
Flame progression

Controlled demolition
Physics

etc....etc......etc.......

(I could do this for about 20 more subjects you've commented on, been shown that you're in fact incorrect, yet you continue to run your trap......amazing that eh? )

 

[triforcharity]

Incorrect on a couple counts. A stick [or 2x4] breaks loosing all its strength suddenly. As a carpenter I have experience with this. On the other hand, a steel H beam [a more accurate term than I beam] does not break or loose almost all its strength suddenly like a piece of wood and the comparison does show a lack of understanding of the physical properties of both.

I do contend that you are unqualified to speculate on the mechanics of the collapse because of your stick comparison and other statements you have made that I will discuss later but I have other work to do right now.

Ever heard the expression "Pot calling the kettle black"? Yeah, you're guilty of it.

BTW, steel can and will fail suddenly like a piece of wood will.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Either this portion of the building was "eliminated" silently and by a mechanism that left no trace of itself . . . or your understanding of the collapse is flawed.

Which possibility seems more likely?

There were plenty of explosions at WTC7 before it collapsed.

What do you think those military scientists are doing?


Free fall would not take place without the elimination of a portion of the building for the duration of the free fall.

The eliminated portion of the building was an OBSTACLE to free fall.

How did free fall occur?


It doesn't freaking matter how, as you proclaim, a silent elimination was managed. All that means anything is that a portion of the building had to el scrammo in order for the free fall acknowledged by NIST and Chris Mohr to take place.

 

[000063]

There were plenty of explosions at WTC7 before it collapsed.

What do you think those military scientists are doing?


Free fall would not take place without the elimination of a portion of the building for the duration of the free fall.

The eliminated portion of the building was an OBSTACLE to free fall.

How did free fall occur?


It doesn't freaking matter how, as you proclaim, a silent elimination was managed. All that means anything is that a portion of the building had to el scrammo in order for the free fall acknowledged by NIST and Chris Mohr to take place.

So the entire building fell at free fall, except for the bits that had to be collapsed first so they could make the entire building free fall.

Okay.

 

[pgimeno]

BTW, steel can and will fail suddenly like a piece of wood will.

Thanks. I've found this one which I think emphasizes the point better:

Observe the arm. Once it buckles, it offers zero negligible resistance. It can't even slow down its own movement!

And guess what... I think the tip starts to fall at an acceleration over g. I can't confirm it but judging by the fact that the cable was not tightened when the held piece starts to fall, it's just logical that the cable pulls the crane tip down at >g.

And that was, probably, the same mechanism that happened for WTC7 to reach over-g, when the core fell and the girders pulled the façade down.

 

[Christopher7]

Thanks. I've found this one which I think emphasizes the point better:

Observe the arm. Once it buckles, it offers zero negligible resistance. It can't even slow down its own movement!

And guess what... I think the tip starts to fall at an acceleration over g. I can't confirm it but judging by the fact that the cable was not tightened when the held piece starts to fall, it's just logical that the cable pulls the crane tip down at >g.

And that was, probably, the same mechanism that happened for WTC7 to reach over-g, when the core fell and the girders pulled the façade down.

That is no comparison to the vertical framework of WTC 7. A single box beam at an angle with a huge load pulling down on the end, not pushing down in axial compression.

Lets look at the NIST computer model.

This is about 1 second into the free fall acceleration. The columns are bending and buckling but not breaking like sticks as Chris Mohr says they would.

Here is a graphic at about the same moment.

The columns are bending and buckling in a random manner and they are providing resistance as they do. When the NIST theory was that WTC 7 did NOT fall at free fall acceleration, Sham Sunder said that "a free fall time would be an object that has NO structural components below it. ... there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case." Sunder is describing what we see in the graphics above.

Sunder used the term "time" because they used only 2 data points, measuring the time but not the acceleration. They used the first sign of movement and when the parapet went behind the building in front. This time was 40% more than an object in free fall would take to fall the same distance.

The NIST model is NOT falling at free fall acceleration as stated in the draft report.
1-9 Vol.2 pg 596
The actual collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This was consistent with physical principles.

 

[GlennB]

That is no comparison to the vertical framework of WTC 7. A single box beam at an angle with a huge load pulling down on the end, not pushing down in axial compression.

Lets look at the NIST computer model.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8929/nistgif16.png

This is about 1 second into the free fall acceleration. The columns are bending and buckling but not breaking like sticks as Chris Mohr says they would.

Here is a graphic at about the same moment.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9343/nistmodelfigure1263.jpg

The columns are bending and buckling in a random manner and they are providing resistance as they do.

You're saying here that the buckled column sections in the NIST diagrams are in axial compression ?

eta: you keep ignoring the question about how your CD theory explains NISTS's Stage 1.

 

[Christopher7]

You're saying here that the buckled column sections in the NIST diagrams are in axial compression ?

NIST says that they are buckling due to a force pushing down. Call it what you like.

eta: you keep ignoring the question about how your CD theory explains NISTS's Stage 1.

NIST used a video from a camera on the ground. From that angle any inward movement of the point they were measuring would be recorded as a downward movement so their Stage 1 is questionable. The point they were measuring did start down a about a second before the east end as is evidenced by the bow in the roof line and kink that developed.

Now for what you are ignoring.

The NIST model is NOT falling at free fall acceleration. The draft report says so.

 

[dc1971]

The NIST model is NOT falling at free fall acceleration. The draft report says so.

And?

 

[Christopher7]

And?

The NIST theory does not explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

It does not explain the free fall acceleration and their collapse model doesn't look anything like the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The NIST theory does not explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

It does not explain the free fall acceleration and their collapse model doesn't look anything like the collapse of WTC 7.

They don't care a whit what you say. They're readying another inane cause why response.


Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post

There were plenty of explosions at WTC7 before it collapsed.

What do you think those military scientists are doing?


Free fall would not take place without the elimination of a portion of the building for the duration of the free fall.

The eliminated portion of the building was an OBSTACLE to free fall.

How did free fall occur?


It doesn't freaking matter how, as you proclaim, a silent elimination was managed. All that means anything is that a portion of the building had to el scrammo in order for the free fall acknowledged by NIST and Chris Mohr to take place.

000063

So the entire building fell at free fall, except for the bits that had to be collapsed first so they could make the entire building free fall.

Okay.

No one in this thread, NIST, or Chris Mohr's videos said or hinted that WTC7, the entire building, fell at free fall.

 

[000063]

...

000063

No one in this thread, NIST, or Chris Mohr's videos said or hinted that WTC7, the entire building, fell at free fall.

So the entire upper portion of the building fell at free fall, except for the bits that had to be collapsed first so they could make the entire upper portion of the building free fall.

Okay. Are you sure that if I go back through the 90+ pages I won't find a single example of someone saying WTC 7 went down at free fall?

...

His insistence that the entire upper portion was not falling at free fall acceleration is another example [that Chris Mohr doesn't know what he's talking about].

The north face descended at gravitational acceleration for about 100 feet.

The entire building above the buckled-column* region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed

The north face is part of the entire upper portion.

Therefore, the entire upper portion moved downward in a single unit at free fall acceleration.
To assert otherwise is saying that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4.

Note how Chris7 never responded to 3633, where I pointed out he was trying to equate part of the north face to the entire upper portion of the building.

 

[000063]

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.
....

...
No, I was discussing WTC 7. For a building to descend at free fall for 2.5 seconds, it had to be moving through nothing or next to nothing. Since we know it was not, it was moving through building, unless you want to argue that the "fire" created a big hole underneath the building that it fell into.

The fact that you're misunderstanding this suggests to me that you still don't understand why free fall of WTC7 for any portion of time is problematic for the fire and gravity theory.
....

200 technical experts, to explain the collapse of wtc 7.

And no one has noticed the free fall LOL

But a highschool teacher can...

Strange debunkers ignoring this.... Very strange....

Clay, you're wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

So the entire upper portion of the building fell at free fall, except for the bits that had to be collapsed first so they could make the entire upper portion of the building free fall.

Correct. But it is not necessary to mention all that because it is a given - we all know that. You are playing with semantics to avoid the fact that:

NIST said the entire upper portion of the building fell as a single unit and at the point they measured it was at free fall acceleration.

This is a simple as 2 + 2 = 4

To say the entire upper portion did not fall at free fall is denial.



The NIST theory does not explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So the entire building fell at free fall, except for the bits that had to be collapsed first so they could make the entire building free fall.

Okay.

I always thought that was curious.......no other CD is at free fall so why did they try so hard to make WTC7 perform like no other CD?????

 

[000063]

Correct. But it is not necessary to mention all that because it is a given - we all know that. You are playing with semantics to avoid the fact that:

NIST said the entire upper portion of the building fell as a single unit and at the point they measured it was at free fall acceleration.

This is a simple as 2 + 2 = 4

To say the entire upper portion did not fall at free fall is denial.



The NIST theory does not explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

You are either incorrect or lying.

NIST did not say the entire upper portion fell at free fall. They said the part they measured fell at free fall acceleration for a portion of its descent. You used a composition fallacy to claim they were referring to the entire upper portion.

Even in the simulation you provided screenshots for, the area under the east penthouse has already collapsed, including parts of the upper structure. Your own evidence proves that it was literally impossible for the entire upper structure to have collapsed at Freefall when NIST measured the north face, because a portion of it had already collapsed.

Whatever you try to read into NIST's report won't change that. "Entire" means "the whole thing". NIST even specifically mentions the penthouse collapse, so they could not say that the entire upper portion collapsed. Unless the penthouse and the bits under it aren't the "upper portion".

I am not "playing semantics" to avoid anything. I specifically addressed these claims in 3633, and you never responded. Perhaps you missed it. Perhaps you will ignore this post too.

#000063bookmark

 

[Christopher7]

I always thought that was curious.......no other CD is at free fall so why did they try so hard to make WTC7 perform like no other CD?????

We don't know if other CDs are at free fall or not, but it doesn't matter.

WTC 7 was built "robust" and because it was so tall the lower floor supports were massive. They had to get it going fast enough to destroy itself.