Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

Chris7, if NIST said and literally meant that the entire upper portion collapsed, they were wrong. If they chose their words poorly, they screwed up.

Correct. I don't bother to include the caveat "except for the part that had already fallen inside" and neither does NIST, because it is isn't necessary and just makes for a cumbersome sentence.

So when they say something possibly incorrect you want to think is false, they're lying, but when they say something incorrect that you want to think is true, they're just leaving out unnecessary words so it'll scan better. This is a scientific report from government agency, not Vanity Fair. If there's anything such reports are generally not concerned with, it's how well their ideas flow, as long as they're clearly expressed. You're arguing they deliberately made their report less clear.

That might be possible for the first split second but once everything was in motion, no.

Uh, why? Would they hurry to catch up? If said wall was already falling at FFA, then how could the other walls catch up?

I like how you are now pretending your position all along was that the east penthouse (and supports) were not included when you said the upper portion collapsed. I also note how loath you are to say what you mean by it, not NIST.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Provided resistance as modeled by them. Remember that in their model they had to make some concessions for speed and convergence. Remember that the fact their model provided resistance doesn't mean the real building would in the same circumstances. Remember the crane failure video.

 

[000063]

Ah, yes, scoffing without any actual evidence. The Ergo method.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Chris7,

I think I understand your position now, including the corrections you made to my summary of what you are saying. And since I didn't know the definition of moment frames, I pulled this off a website I googled:

"Steel moment frames consist of beams and columns joined by a combination of welding and bolting. They resist lateral loads through bending of the frame elements as illustrated in the top figure. In the case of wind loads and moderate earthquakes, steel frames designed using the current building code are intended to remain elastic. In other words, when the loading ceases, all of the steel beams and columns constituting the frame are expected to return to their original position without any permanent deformation. This is not the case for a major earthquake, however. During strong ground motion, the steel members are expected to behave in a ductile manner: stretching and absorbing energy. After the earthquake, permanent deformation of the steel-frame members is expected."

This definition is not enough for me to have a real understanding of moment frames, but it's a start. With low to moderate lateral stresses the moment frames allow the building to move sideways with a certain elasticity and then return to their original shape. Plus, they are designed to deal with lateral stresses. And, they are designed to permanently deform in a severe earthquake so at least they absorb the heavy lateral forces of a major quake and thus hold the building together to avoid catastrophic collapse.

So I don't understand. The image I got from you is that moment frames rigidly hold everything together, vertically and horizontally, so that it is 100% stable. The image I get from the explanation I pulled up here gives me the idea that 1) moment frames are not really designed to hold everything together vertically. They primarily deal with lateral forces; so what do they do during a catastrophic vertical collapse? 2) they are by their nature elastic, thus allowing different parts of the "unit" to move at noticeably different rates and 3) they are designed to be permanently deformed when subject to major stresses.

I see evidence of roughly freefall acceleration of building 7 on three walls based on video evidence, and it certainly looks like the moment frames did their jobs holding the building together as roughly a unit on those three walls for the first few seconds of the collapse. I acknowledge freefall within the margin or error of NIST's measurements for 2.25 seconds along the north roofline, not counting the kink (which also demonstrates that the moment frames were holding everything together flexibly, not rigidly). Nothing you have said shows evidence of all four walls falling at 100% of freefall.

 

[Sabretooth]

Here. I found some silent explosives.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Reverend Mohr, why do your rebuttals ignore the reports of explosions?


The only thing silent about the 9/11 explosions is the MSM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgHuguywUg

9/11 Eyewitness to Twin Towers Basement Explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY&feature=player_embedded#!

9/11 Evidence of Bomb's in Basement of WTC by Witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&NR=1&feature=endscreen

9/11 News report-"something ignited ...tremendous explosion...could have been a bomb"

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

 

[NoahFence]

reverend mohr, why do your rebuttals ignore the reports of explosions?


The only thing silent about the 9/11 explosions is the msm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wughuguywug

9/11 eyewitness to twin towers basement explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egirvym3fgy&feature=player_embedded#!

9/11 evidence of bomb's in basement of wtc by witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnnhnov-eoo&nr=1&feature=endscreen

9/11 news report-"something ignited ...tremendous explosion...could have been a bomb"

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

^^^

ha ha

 

[chrismohr]

Reverend Mohr, why do your rebuttals ignore the reports of explosions?


The only thing silent about the 9/11 explosions is the MSM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgHuguywUg

9/11 Eyewitness to Twin Towers Basement Explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY&feature=player_embedded#!

9/11 Evidence of Bomb's in Basement of WTC by Witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&NR=1&feature=endscreen

9/11 News report-"something ignited ...tremendous explosion...could have been a bomb"

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

Uh...

the first video has a drum track and NO explosive sounds. Why did you waste my time with a link to a video that shows no sounds of explosions at all?
There were eyewitness accounts of explosions, of course, and I deal with this very thoroughly in my video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
A real good example of how 9/11 Truth distorts this question: Philip Morrell said he heard and explosion that shook the ground in the basement. His video appears in 9/11 Mysteries. But the unedited video shows him immediately saying that he went to the elevator shaft and discovered a freight elevator had crashed to the basement! Fraudulent editing!

Go to around 3:10 in my video for a long list of some of the things that naturally explode in fires without bombs. Yes there were explosions. No there were no bombs.

 

[tsig]

Three dog Knight

 

[tsig]

Reverend Mohr, why do your rebuttals ignore the reports of explosions?


The only thing silent about the 9/11 explosions is the MSM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgHuguywUg

9/11 Eyewitness to Twin Towers Basement Explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY&feature=player_embedded#!

9/11 Evidence of Bomb's in Basement of WTC by Witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&NR=1&feature=endscreen

9/11 News report-"something ignited ...tremendous explosion...could have been a bomb"

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

A silent video to prove explosions?

 

[Edx]

Reverend Mohr, why do your rebuttals ignore the reports of explosions?


The only thing silent about the 9/11 explosions is the MSM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgHuguywUg

9/11 Eyewitness to Twin Towers Basement Explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY&feature=player_embedded#!

9/11 Evidence of Bomb's in Basement of WTC by Witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&NR=1&feature=endscreen

9/11 News report-"something ignited ...tremendous explosion...could have been a bomb"

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

For the millionth time...

Where are the explosions when all this steel flinging truthers say happened, was occurring?

These would need to be absurdly loud and unmistakable.

"Explosions" being reported however are expected, and can be easily found in a hundreds of other examples of fires and even when there is no fire.

 

[Clayton Moore]

For the millionth time...

Where are the explosions when all this steel flinging truthers say happened, was occurring?

These would need to be absurdly loud and unmistakable.

"Explosions" being reported however are expected, and can be easily found in a hundreds of other examples of fires and even when there is no fire.

9/11 Absolute Evidence Of Massive Explosions in Basement of WTC Long Before Collapse MUST SEE!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGcBxONSvc&feature=relmfu

 

[ozeco41]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGcBxONSvc&feature=relmfu

Those clips are a string of snippets which are all true statements.

Not one of those true statements does anything to support your implied but not stated false claim that explosives were used to cause demolition.



*(Sorry folks - I broke my self imposed rule about not responding to trolls. But this one is a classic - CM posts videos which add zero support to whatever dishonest claim he is not prepared to put into words....

"Witnesses reported noise of explosions...." Yes! so what? We know that is true. Witnesses did report noise of explosions. And........???
A fire-fighter reports "It sounded like bombs going off" Yes. It is true that a fire-fighter reported that it sounded like bombs going off. Did it sound like bombs? Probably not. Was it a bomb or bombs? No - there were no sounds caused by bombs or steel cutting explosives which is the "lie by inference". Gawd why did S Jones have to invent thermXte use? Because there were no steel cutting explosive type bangs.....sheesh....
etc
etc
etc)

 

[Christopher7]

Hi Chris7,

Steel moment frames consist of beams and columns joined by a combination of welding and bolting.

They primarily deal with lateral forces; so what do they do during a catastrophic vertical collapse?

They hold the exterior frame together until it is destroyed by collision with undamaged floors below.

2) they are by their nature elastic, thus allowing different parts of the "unit" to move at noticeably different rates

No, they will allow distortions but not different rates of fall. No wall could fall without the others because the moment frames held the walls together. Once the upper portion was in free fall, there were no stresses within the system and everything was falling at free fall acceleration.

I see evidence of roughly freefall acceleration of building 7 on three walls based on video evidence, and it certainly looks like the moment frames did their jobs holding the building together as roughly a unit on those three walls for the first few seconds of the collapse.

We can tell by looking at the videos, the 21 core columns that held up the screenwall and west penthouse were removed allowing the screenwall and west penthouse to fall at free fall acceleration along with the 3 exterior walls.

I acknowledge freefall within the margin or error of NIST's measurements for 2.25 seconds along the north roofline, not counting the kink (which also demonstrates that the moment frames were holding everything together flexibly, not rigidly). Nothing you have said shows evidence of all four walls falling at 100% of freefall.

Incorrect. I have repeatedly said the the moment frames would not allow the south wall to fall without the other walls, most notably the east and west walls, because they tie the walls together.

Twisting and bending m1ght allow for some variation at the beginning of the decent but not different rates of decent.

 

[000063]

...
Incorrect. I have repeatedly said the the moment frames would not allow the south wall to fall without the other walls, most notably the east and west walls, because they tie the walls together...

Much like a rug ties a room together, I assume.

Here's an idea; maybe the frames failed when subjected to stresses they were never designed for.

And what did you mean when you claimed that the entire upper portion collapsed? Was that including the E. Penthouse and the portion under it which collapsed? Were you just paraphrasing NIST, who clearly said that the E. Penthouse had collapsed elsewhere in their report?

 

[GlennB]

Much like a rug ties a room together, I assume.

Here's an idea; maybe the frames failed when subjected to stresses they were never designed for.

What a shocking concept!

Of course, they were also so strong that when the upper section hit the deck it just, like, sat there. Gotta get me some moment frames, and whatever it is that holds them together

 

[000063]

Nanothermite.

It really does do everything!

 

[chrismohr]

Does anyone with architectural savvy have an opinion on Chris7's assertion that moment frames "will allow distortions but not different rates of fall. No wall could fall without the others because the moment frames held the walls together. Once the upper portion was in free fall, there were no stresses within the system and everything was falling at free fall acceleration."

There is much I don't know here.

1) Is it true that moment frames actually hold an entire building together, even if one side is badly damaged?

2) Let's say the south perimeter wall was so badly damaged from seven hours of fire that parts of it started to collapse along with the east penthouse (this is an unproven hypothesis). Is Chris7 right in saying that the other three sides would hold up a mostly-destroyed perimeter wall? Do they HAVE to come down together even if there is a huge difference in the damage done?

3) Does the fact that after the 2.25 seconds of freefall the whole building tipped over into the badly damaged south face have anything to do with the moment frames? How would moment frames hold everything together 100% and then completely fall apart and be useless during stage three of the collapse?

 

[ozeco41]

Does anyone with architectural savvy have an opinion on Chris7's assertion that moment frames "will allow distortions but not different rates of fall. No wall could fall without the others because the moment frames held the walls together. Once the upper portion was in free fall, there were no stresses within the system and everything was falling at free fall acceleration."...

Sorry but I don't meet the qualification of having "architectural savvy" however here are a few brief comments.
1)C7 as usual is playing with words in the hope that he will fool you;
2) There is nothing magic about moment frames despite C7's attempt to paint that picture.

BUT:
3) I have not analysed the WTC7 structure in detail - neither has C7 and I am better qualified to do so. So with those comments and the disclaimer:

...There is much I don't know here.

1) Is it true that moment frames actually hold an entire building together, even if one side is badly damaged?...

That is a global question implying "always". As such it must be false. Then at the lower level of practical probabilities the answer is "No!". Moment frames is merely the identification of members in a structure which serve a purpose. No magic.

...2) Let's say the south perimeter wall was so badly damaged from seven hours of fire that parts of it started to collapse along with the east penthouse (this is an unproven hypothesis). Is Chris7 right in saying that the other three sides would hold up a mostly-destroyed perimeter wall?...

No.

Do they HAVE to come down together even if there is a huge difference in the damage done?...

No. Simply put C7 has taken himself into a corner hoping that no one will see where he is wrong. The real answer as to "what can the moment frames achieve for WTC7?" is "it depends" (on the specific design - and I haven't seen that design nor would I attempt to calculate values if I had but the same applies to C7 however it is his claim and his burden of proof.)

...3) Does the fact that after the 2.25 seconds of freefall the whole building tipped over into the badly damaged south face have anything to do with the moment frames?...

Cannot say other than "probably". The situation is that the so called moment frames are simply members of the structural framework which have been provided to do a specific job. No magic. No super human powers. And when it comes to analysing the collapse they are simply bits of steel which will do a job depending on their own physical properties and where they are in the structure.

...How would moment frames hold everything together 100% and then completely fall apart and be useless during stage three of the collapse?

That hits the nail on the head - they wouldn't for any reason related to them being designated as 'moment frames' - even if neither you nor I know exactly why.

 

[GlennB]

^ well put. Poster Architect would probably have a lot to offer on the subject but I think he has given up on this sub-forum.

Meanwhile C7 has, of course, already contradicted himself. He previously claimed that the Stage 1 (<g ) phase was an optical illusion caused by the building leaning backwards several feet around the point of the 'kink' but less elsewhere. This differential can only occur if the magical mystery moment frames have disconnected.