Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

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.

More unsupported assertions.

 

[Christopher7]

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".

That is what they did say because it is not necessary to give all the details.

I am not "playing semantics" to avoid anything.

#000063bookmark

Yes you are.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Lets see your calculations on that.........

 

[Sabretooth]

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

lol wut?

This is the entire premise of your (and AE911T) stupid campaign. Of course it matters.

That is one of the more bass-ackward reasoning lines I've ever heard. How can you claims FFA=CD if you can't show a CD in FFA?

Good gawd, I need to drink more.

 

[tfk]

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.

Amazing the subtleties that emerge when you stop doing science (frictionless, vacuums, spherical cows, etc.) & start doing engineering, no?!!



You were on exactly the right track.

As to which will turn further or faster, think about the final boundary condition (arrow stuck in ground) for any reasonable arrow shot.

Next issue: the dropped arrow will rotate fairly quickly (probably 2 - 5x its length) to tip down. It takes work to rotate the arrow. What does that do to the arrows rate of fall during the rotation?

Gots to be careful in the details, guys. There are only two of the cases where the vertical drag forces are equivalent in both the shot & dropped case.

Which 2?

Ain't this fun?

 

[GlennB]

Gots to be careful in the details, guys. There are only two of the cases where the vertical drag forces are equivalent in both the shot & dropped case.

Which 2?

Ain't this fun?

Yes it is. Damn your eyes! I've already had a couple of glasses and this will torment me for the rest of the evening

eta already: the tip of the fired arrow creates a 'wake' which reduces the friction on the feathers (flight)? Then the fired arrow will rotate slower and the dropped arrow will hit the deck sooner? <hic>

 

[tfk]

eta already: the tip of the fired arrow creates a 'wake' which reduces the friction on the feathers (flight)?

Possibly true. But I bet that, at arrow flight speed, you're still operating in laminar flow regions (low Reynolds numbers).

I don't think that the wake will have much affect.

I think that most feathers are pretty darn low drag (not zero drag, just low drag) AS LONG AS they are aligned to flight.

I also believe that some (not all) feathers are slightly helical to the arrow's shaft axis, imparting a spin to the arrow, giving gyroscopic stability.

Then the fired arrow will rotate slower and the dropped arrow will hit the deck sooner? <hic>

Correct.

The CG of the dropped arrow will fall (slightly) SLOWER while it is rotating. The work to rotate the arrow has to come out of the potential energy budget.

Notice also that the tip of the arrow drops slightly more than 1/2 the arrow length BELOW the CG of the arrow, which should overwhelm the slight decrease in vertical acceleration due to the work of rotating the arrow.

But once the arrow is rotated, the vertical drag forces of the dropped arrow will be substantially less than the vertical component of the drag force of the arrow that is shot, and the dropped arrow ought to land first.

Lots of dynamics in the oscillations of the arrow in flight, tho. (Old guys can think of limp wristed javelin throw in "Animal House". Or was that "Revenge of the Nerds"??)

Ahhh, there it is...

 

[000063]

That is what they did say because it is not necessary to give all the details.

No. Your position is logically untenable. NIST did not say the entire upper block fell at free fall during the period measured. In fact, they said things which directly contradict such a claim, such as saying that part of the upper block (E. Penthouse) had already fallen by that point. You can keep whining about what they really meant all you like, no one is going to believe you. I mean, this is a report that's part of the coverup, right? According to you? Why, then, do you care what it says?

If I am so dishonest, why is half my post missing without so much as a "..."?

Yes you are.

And now you're quote mining. Congratulations, you are now a liar or crazy. I just addressed it in the very post you're responding to selectively, plus another which you ignored, and you are trying to hide that you ignored.

 

[tfk]

Also, 2 cases where the vertical component of drag is the same in the dropped and shot case:

1. the spinning bullet & shot bullet. Spinning stabilizes orientation, effectively making side profile of bullet push its way thru the air in vertical direction. Same shape should give (very close to) same drag coefficient.

Shot & spinning dropped bullets ought to land at same time.

2. Shot & dropped spherical cannon ball: ball has all axis symmetry, therefore it has to project same area to apparent wind, and have same drag coefficient.

NOTE: no top spin or under-spin on shot cannon ball, of course.

Ergo, cannon ball lands at same time, even in air. The only effect of drag is to shorten the horizontal range of shot.

Last one is stationary dropped bullet.

I'll check back...

 

[pgimeno]

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.

It proves how little resistance a bent steel element offers. It is unable to hold its own weight; imagine if it has ~30 floors above it. Granted, there were many more elements in WTC7 and more robust, but after they buckle, their resistance can get pretty insignificant as that video shows, and as NIST acknowledges in their description of stage 2: "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below".

Lets look at the NIST computer model.

Why? It doesn't represent the collapse with enough accuracy. Anything you try to deduce based solely on the computer model is therefore a straw man argument.

The NIST model is NOT falling at free fall acceleration as stated in the draft report.

To me, that only means that maybe the buckling behavior of their simulation was not accurate enough. It doesn't give any insight on the causes of the free fall.

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.

Can you explain how the last sentence follows from the rest?

NIST did explain how WTC7 collapsed.

 

[tfk]

0063,

It's pointless to argue with C7.

He understands essentially nothing.
And thinks he knows everything.

Simply a waste of time, except for the occasional nose twist...



tom

 

[000063]

Exactly.

 

[tfk]

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

Yes, we do know.

Is there any destruction of any components during a typical CD?

Yes, there is. And it does not matter if the CD is top down or bottom up. The destruction of components slows the structure down below FFA.

HOW MUCH it slows down depends on the work done breaking up components compared to the PE of the building. This value can be very small (very near, but not equal to FFA) to somewhat larger (lower than FFA), to large enough to stop collapse of building (as we've all seen in some failed demolitions).

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.

Meaningless word salad.

NIST modeled & described in detail the progressive failure mode of that particular design building.

While I think that there may have been a slightly different failure mode than they described, it changes nothing about the ultimate result.

And it changes nothing about there being precisely zero possibility of this having been done with explosives or thermite (of any type).

 

[Myriad]

If the two arrows are high enough, then both of them will rotate to vertical or near vertical before they hit the ground. The initially stationary one will do so sooner, though, so that would slow its drop more than the fired one.

However, the initially stationary arrow, by rotating to a vertical attitude sooner, will experience less vertical air resistance for the remainder of its fall. I think that will more than compensate for the potential energy lost earlier in doing the work to rotate it, so the stationary arrow will likely hit the ground sooner in most cases.

Hmm, both arrows will also develop spin (if they're fletched in the usual way), the fired arrow losing horizontal kinetic energy and the stationary one losing (primarily) vertical kinetic energy in the process. So this could get complicated...

If the non-spinning stationary rifle bullet has the aerodynamics to adopt a stable point-down attitude when falling, then as with the arrow, that should help it fall faster than the non-spinning fired rifle bullet.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[fourtoe]

The NIST theory does not explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

Slow down everyone, he wrote it in bold. This thread is over, well played Mr 7, well played.


Testing.

 

[tfk]

If the two arrows are high enough, then both of them will rotate to vertical or near vertical before they hit the ground. The initially stationary one will do so sooner, though, so that would slow its drop more than the fired one.

However, the initially stationary arrow, by rotating to a vertical attitude sooner, will experience less vertical air resistance for the remainder of its fall. I think that will more than compensate for the potential energy lost earlier in doing the work to rotate it, so the stationary arrow will likely hit the ground sooner in most cases.

Hmm, both arrows will also develop spin (if they're fletched in the usual way), the fired arrow losing horizontal kinetic energy and the stationary one losing (primarily) vertical kinetic energy in the process. So this could get complicated...

If the non-spinning stationary rifle bullet has the aerodynamics to adopt a stable point-down attitude when falling, then as with the arrow, that should help it fall faster than the non-spinning fired rifle bullet.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Our thought experiments come out virtually identical.

Except that I don't think that the falling stationary bullet will have sufficient dampening in the aerodynamics to catch it in a nose up or nose down position. I think that it'll just tumble.

I believe that tumbling will have it oscillate between equal drag (when horizontal) and less drag (any other orientation) than the fired bullet, and that it will land ever so slightly sooner than the fired bullet.

I could be wrong about this. Hadn't ever thought about it before posting this.
____

BTW, does anyone here shoot?

It occurred to me while thinking about this that a spinning bullet might produce a slight "curve ball" lateral trajectory.

I'd guess that, if the sides of a spinning object produce the lateral force, then the bullet would curve.

But if it is the front or rear surface that produces the lateral force, it might be too small an effect to notice.

Anyone got some practical experience in this?
(1 experiment is worth 1000 theories...)


tom

 

[Christopher7]

It proves how little resistance a bent steel element offers. It is unable to hold its own weight; imagine if it has ~30 floors above it. Granted, there were many more elements in WTC7 and more robust, but after they buckle, their resistance can get pretty insignificant as that video shows, and as NIST acknowledges in their description of stage 2: "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below".

That was a box beam and WTC 7 had W14x500 H beams.
19.6" x 17" withe a flange thickness of 3.5 inches.

Find a W14x500 H beam buckling for comparison.

Lets look at the NIST computer model.

Why? It doesn't represent the collapse with enough accuracy. Anything you try to deduce based solely on the computer model is therefore a straw man argument.

No, the NIST model does not look like anything like the collapse.

When the results of an analysis don't match the event then you haven't explained the event and you must formulate a new hypothesis. That is the scientific process.

The NIST model is NOT falling at free fall acceleration as stated in the draft report.

To me, that only means that maybe the buckling behavior of their simulation was not accurate enough.

Only because you cannot grasp the concept that FFA means NO structure to resist as Sunder clearly stated. "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.
He is talking about their model.

It doesn't give any insight on the causes of the free fall.

Only to the willfully blind.

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.

Can you explain how the last sentence follows from the rest?

NIST did explain how WTC7 collapsed.

I did but you are blind to it.

 

[chrismohr]

I’m pretty sure that many, many steel columns and/or beams snapped like sticks at the welded connections. In fact, I once heard Richard Gage say that they were broken apart every 30 feet or so for convenient removal, a claim that greatly offended the two debris-removal first responders I talked with personally, who said there was nothing “convenient” about the debris removal process. So I may be mistaken, but it seems that some columns snapped at the welded connections and others buckled as described by NIST. In both cases, the columns lost most strength very quickly as they shifted loads at almost the speed of sound to surviving columns, overloading them as well in rapid fire succession. So my stick analogy may yet have at least some value. It’s an analogy anyway, to show how a column can very suddenly lose strength. Whether I’m right or wrong about the snapped vs. buckled steel columns or frames, Euler would say it makes little difference. In either case, almost all structural strength is lost.

Almost… More importantly for me in my research was the question, wouldn’t even a buckled column show SOME resistance and prevent any significant part of the Building to come down AT FREE FALL? I dealt with this question for a couple months until I finally understood that I was trapped in Richard Gage’s unchallenged assertion that there are only two forces at work: gravity and resistance, and that free fall means NO RESISTANCE. It took awhile to realize that 1) there can be other forces like leveraging and torqueing working to bring down one part of a building faster than just gravity minus residual resistance, and

2) therefore, freefall acceletation rates can also be created with a situation of NO NET RESISTANCE. Three or more forces could be at work to cancel each other out and create the rate of freefall acceleration, even if such a rate is not defined as freefall (no resistance at all). It’s like saying a car can have the gas pedal and friction as the only two forces determining speed, when a driver could also be going uphill, pushing on the gas and brake at the same time, etc. I definitely looked long and hard at this issue and have not ignored the freefall acceleration rate of the roofline of the north face of Building 7 for 2.25 seconds at all. I confronted it head on in my controversial YouTube video #18, thank you very much. I still consider it the best layman’s explanation out there of the Building 7 freefall question.

 

[tsig]

Hi TFK,

If I make any changes on your little quiz, it would be to say that every pair of objects (arrows, bullets, cannonballs) falls to the ground at the same rate. I know that if you dropped a piloted glider plane off a cliff and also towed another piloted glider plane up to 70 mph with an airplane out over the cliff and released it at the same altitude as cliff's edge, the pilot of the plane-towed glider could convert some of the horizontal momentum into lift, which would give that pilot an advantage over the guy who just went over the cliff in HIS glider.

But with a bullet, or an arrow, I'm thinking maybe there is some lift that comes from the feather or the spinning bullet, but I can't see it in any obvious way. That's why I might just consider defaulting back to every pair of objects falling at an identical rate to each other.

And this is why I'm an empiricist... these thought experiments are good learning tools, and they generate interesting hypotheses, but really now, until you shoot/drop two ARROWS etc. you can't really know, can you? Logic and thought can be better used to interpret and analyze data from actual experiments. Make your conclusion first and then try to fit the facts, and you get reverse scientific method. That's why Aristotle said a spider has six legs, and why... oh, never mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wQVIEdKh8

There you go.

 

[chrismohr]

The NIST Theory does not explain how Building 7 collapsed, says Chris7.

He's right. I asked Michael Newman at NIST about it and he said the main thrust of both studies was understanding what caused the collapse. After that, "gravity took care of the rest." So the minute detail of the NIST report gives way to very short explanations once the onset of collapse occurs. I had to do a lot of research independent of NIST once I tried understanding the collapse itself.