Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

Chris,

I would like to be sure that I understand your position. Are the following correct?

1) The north, west and east walls were falling together.
2) You understand that the moment frames held these three walls together making them a single unit.
3) The 21 columns holding up the screenwall and west penthouse were falling with them.

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

The damage was not that severe - floors 5 thru 17 and floor 44 to the roof. Floors 18 thru 43 were not 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?

The fires on floors 19, 21, 29 and 30 had burned our by 1 p.m. The only other fire reported on the south side was floor 12 around noon to 1 p.m. There was no damage to any columns due to fire.

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?

It did not tip over badly. The debris was contained mostly within the footprint.

 

[ozeco41]

^ 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....

Yes...an architect with a lot of relevant experience would trump a structural engineer who has little direct experience (me ) and has to rely on the basics. That admitted C7 is way out in cloud cuckoo land as he tries to mislead ChrisMohr.

...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.

Sure. His tactics are to keep it down in the detail so no-one gets to show where the bigger picture is wrong. Standard Trolling Technique #1 or 2 or 3.

There was no CD no matter how many claims are made about "magic super strength moment frames".

 

[Christopher7]

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

You are talking about yourself.

2) There is nothing magic about moment frames despite C7's attempt to paint that picture.

They hold the exterior columns together.

The rest of your post is more of the same playing with words.

GlennB,
The "kink" was the exterior frame bending inward, not breaking.

 

[LSSBB]

You are talking about yourself.

They hold the exterior columns together.

The rest of your post is more of the same playing with words.

GlennB,
The "kink" was the exterior frame bending inward, not breaking.

It bent inward because the structure behind it was already collapsing and dragging the exterior down with it. Someone had already shown a still just priot to the exterior collapse when you can see daylight through the top windows, plus the penthouse had already gone. Your "moment frame" is not monolithic.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris,

I would like to be sure that I understand your position. Are the following correct?

1) The north, west and east walls were falling together.
2) You understand that the moment frames held these three walls together making them a single unit.
3) The 21 columns holding up the screenwall and west penthouse were falling with them.

Originally Posted by chrismohr
1) Is it true that moment frames actually hold an entire building together, even if one side is badly damaged?
The damage was not that severe - floors 5 thru 17 and floor 44 to the roof. Floors 18 thru 43 were not damaged.

How moment frames work is what I'm learning now, so as for your questions of me:
1) The videos show that the north, west and east perimeter walls were falling approximately together.
2) I don't understand the interaction of the moment frames of these three walls during a catastrophic collapse. How strong are these things anyway? Did they actually cause the building to hold together as well as it did during the collapse, or were there other factors?
3) I don't know exactly how the interior columns were falling during the collapse.

The damage to the south face was severe, and videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top. I am aware of the NIST Report's listing of only specific floors but I do not for a minute buy into your claim that the fires weren't so bad. Eyewitness reports of firefighters and the few videos of the south face show something very different from your claims of minimal damage.

 

[Miragememories]

"...The damage to the south face was severe, and videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top. I am aware of the NIST Report's listing of only specific floors but I do not for a minute buy into your claim that the fires weren't so bad. Eyewitness reports of firefighters and the few videos of the south face show something very different from your claims of minimal damage."

The damage to parts of the WTC7 south face was severe only in that had the building not collapsed, the cost of repairs would have been severe.

Structurally, it has not been established that the WTC7 south face damage was severe enough to have factored into the global collapse initiation.

The videos DO NOT show smoke pouring out of almost every floor, and the NIST, in spite of years of trying, never found sufficient evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support your chosen belief that; "videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top."

What the videos show is a wall of smoke moving up the south face of WTC7. A great deal of that smoke was contributed by WTC 6 which was showing far more intense fire activity.

MM

 

[Sabretooth]

Chris,

I would like to be sure that I understand your position. Are the following correct?

1) The north, west and east walls were falling together.
2) You understand that the moment frames held these three walls together making them a single unit.
3) The 21 columns holding up the screenwall and west penthouse were falling with them.

The damage was not that severe - floors 5 thru 17 and floor 44 to the roof. Floors 18 thru 43 were not damaged.

[qimg]http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7796/fig1233debrisdamagecomp.jpg[/qimg]

The fires on floors 19, 21, 29 and 30 had burned our by 1 p.m. The only other fire reported on the south side was floor 12 around noon to 1 p.m. There was no damage to any columns due to fire.

It did not tip over badly. The debris was contained mostly within the footprint.

You know, C7, you keep harping on that damage to 7 as not-a-big-deal.

I don't recall if NIST touched on this, but:

Are you aware that such large gash would greatly increase ventilation from below the fires...essentially this damage was a big air-sucking wound.

Basically, this damaged may not be a direct cause of the collapse, but it still provided for a whole lot of air to get to those fires that you truthers think weren't a big deal. Air that isn't normally available in a typically office building fire.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

I would like to be sure that I understand your position. Are the following correct?

1) The north, west and east walls were falling together.
2) You understand that the moment frames held these three walls together making them a single unit.
3) The 21 columns holding up the screenwall and west penthouse were falling with them.

Originally Posted by chrismohr
1) Is it true that moment frames actually hold an entire building together, even if one side is badly damaged?
The damage was not that severe - floors 5 thru 17 and floor 44 to the roof. Floors 18 thru 43 were not damaged.

How moment frames work is what I'm learning now, so as for your questions of me:
1) The videos show that the north, west and east perimeter walls were falling approximately together.

Approximately?
You are slithering around using qualifiers in an attempt to not accept what that the north and west walls fell together.

2) I don't understand the interaction of the moment frames of these three walls during a catastrophic collapse. How strong are these things anyway? Did they actually cause the building to hold together as well as it did during the collapse, or were there other factors?

You have read that they are bolted and welded.

3) I don't know exactly how the interior columns were falling during the collapse.

You just won't admit that the entire upper portion fell as a single unit at FFA despite NIST confirming what we can both see in the videos.

The damage to the south face was severe,

It had NO effect on the moment frames holding the exterior walls together.

and videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top.

That is false and I have told you why before. The smoke was from WTC 6 caught in a low pressure zone and drawn up the side of WTC 7.

I am aware of the NIST Report's listing of only specific floors but I do not for a minute buy into your claim that the fires weren't so bad. Eyewitness reports of firefighters and the few videos of the south face show something very different from your claims of minimal damage.

Some of the firefighters overstated the fires and damage. The actual fires and damage are in the final report.

You are just playing like you don't remember anything and repeat the same crap over and over again. You are being disingenuous.

Getting back to the point:
Your saying "part of the north face" is misleading.
Furthermore
To say that only one face was known to have fallen at free fall acceleration is deliberately misstating the facts.

Like everyone here, you will never give an inch or admit you are wrong. I will continue to point out your misrepresentations but I won't play your merry-go-round games any more.

Have a nice day Mr. Mohr

 

[Sabretooth]

Just so I'm clear, C7...are you saying that it's basically impossible for a steel structure to fail due to fire?

 

[000063]

The damage to parts of the WTC7 south face was severe only in that had the building not collapsed, the cost of repairs would have been severe....

Said MM, which he followed with pictures which, conveniently, don't show the joint engulfed in flames.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

And here's one of those videos you think doesn't exist.

Note the smoke coming directly from the rip and not building 6 as conspiracy theorists suggest. At 1:33 Min into the video someone says (Firefighters and police were the only ones allowed in the area so it is most likely a firefighter or policeman) "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down".

And another from AlienENtity

Pay special attention at 3:20.

Structurally, it has not been established that the WTC7 south face damage was severe enough to have factored into the global collapse initiation.

The videos DO NOT show smoke pouring out of almost every floor, and the NIST, in spite of years of trying, never found sufficient evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support your chosen belief that; "videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top."

It's so cute how you think no one notices you dismissing out of hand the eyewitness testimony.

What the videos show is a wall of smoke moving up the south face of WTC7. A great deal of that smoke was contributed by WTC 6 which was showing far more intense fire activity.

The funny thing is that you have offered nothing to actually back up your claim that the fires in WTC 7 were not really severe.

 

[deeper]

The videos DO NOT show smoke pouring out of almost every floor, and the NIST, in spite of years of trying, never found sufficient evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support your chosen belief that; "videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top."

Said MM, which he followed with pictures which, conveniently, don't show the joint engulfed in flames.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

And here's one of those videos you think doesn't exist.



And another from AlienENtity

Pay special attention at 3:20.

It's so cute how you think no one notices you dismissing out of hand the eyewitness testimony.

The funny thing is that you have offered nothing to actually back up your claim that the fires in WTC 7 were not really severe.

I think this is different footage to that which 000063 linked to but I could be wrong, and here we find further conclusive evidence of smoke pouring out of WTC7. Mirage Memories, do you think this smoke is from WTC6, as Richard Gage has claimed?

 

[NoahFence]

That is false and I have told you why before. The smoke was from WTC 6 caught in a low pressure zone and drawn up the side of WTC 7.

Lie.

Clearly, images of WTC 7s South face show the smoke coming from WTC 7 and billowing out from it.

The smoke is sharper close to the building - as if it's coming from a small opening (a window!) then it billows out.

The actual fires and damage are in the final report.

Citation needed, not expected.

 

[grandmastershek]

There was no damage to any columns due to fire.

Sure...
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks...''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

It did not tip over badly. The debris was contained mostly within the footprint.

Uh huh... more objectivity from "the truth".

Gee imagine that...were the building was. Oh well a few years back it was, and still for many is, fell perfectly, neatly etc within its own footprint. I give to you Chris that you move along with some of the facts...though your conclusions stay the same.

 

[tfk]

MM,

This reply is shameful. Even for you.

The damage to parts of the WTC7 south face was severe only in that had the building not collapsed, the cost of repairs would have been severe.

Something that you are wholly unqualified to conclude.

Other buildings had far less evident damage to them & had to be demolished.

Structurally, it has not been established that the WTC7 south face damage was severe enough to have factored into the global collapse initiation.

And yet, a bunch of Structural Engineers from NIST, from academia & from industry all studied the collapse in great detail and concluded the opposite.

Your credentials for asserting that they were wrong are …?

The videos DO NOT show smoke pouring out of almost every floor, and the NIST, in spite of years of trying, never found sufficient evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support your chosen belief that; "videos show smoke pouring out of almost every floor except a few at the top."

Your one redeeming feature in this is the phrase "almost every".

It is not clear that smoke was pouring out of "almost every" floor.
It's not clear that smoke was pouring out of most floors.

The above is not clear because of the massive amount of smoke pouring out of the building obscured the windows behind the smoke.

It is plainly clear that there were massive fires in that building.

What the videos show is a wall of smoke moving up the south face of WTC7. A great deal of that smoke was contributed by WTC 6 which was showing far more intense fire activity.

Absolutely, 100% false.

You are repeated Gage's incompetent, outright lie.

NONE of the smoke that was moving up the side of WTC7 was from WTC6. The extremely hot smoke from WTC6 moved straight up vertically in the air above WTC6 on a day that had very little wind.

It is provable, for anyone with half a brain & a willingness to look at the videos, that the smoke adjacent to WTC7 came from WTC7.

This is a simple lie that is supported ONLY by a refusal to look at the videos. Or to look at the photographs carefully.

 

[chrismohr]

Approximately?
You are slithering around using qualifiers in an attempt to not accept what that the north and west walls fell together.

You have read that they are bolted and welded.

You just won't admit that the entire upper portion fell as a single unit at FFA despite NIST confirming what we can both see in the videos.

It had NO effect on the moment frames holding the exterior walls together.

That is false and I have told you why before. The smoke was from WTC 6 caught in a low pressure zone and drawn up the side of WTC 7.

Some of the firefighters overstated the fires and damage. The actual fires and damage are in the final report.

You are just playing like you don't remember anything and repeat the same crap over and over again. You are being disingenuous.

Getting back to the point:
Your saying "part of the north face" is misleading.
Furthermore
To say that only one face was known to have fallen at free fall acceleration is deliberately misstating the facts.

Like everyone here, you will never give an inch or admit you are wrong. I will continue to point out your misrepresentations but I won't play your merry-go-round games any more.

Have a nice day Mr. Mohr

"Apporoximately" is a valid qualifier when the collapse rate of the roofline of the north perimeter face was the only measured part. Eyeballing the rest of the building from a distant video can give you only an approximation. Period. No slithering there.

I have read that they were bolted and welded, and that moment frames are flexible to absorb stresses.

You know perfectly well that I repeatedly deny your claim of outside smoke from other buildings causing smoke to pour out from windows on most floors of the south face. We disagree, I'm not ignoring you, you're right that there was smoke from Building six too but you are wrong when you attribute smoke coming directly out of Building 7 windows to any outside forces like low pressure. Smoke IS POURING OUT THE WINDOWS on most floors and anyone can see that, many architects and experts have also said the same.

And I'll say it again: due to the limited measurements NIST did, only the roofline of one face was known to have fallen at free fall acceleration. The flexible moment frames, on first impression, seem to allow for the possibility of slight variations in the collapse rates of different parts of the building.

"Like everyone here, you will never give an inch or admit you are wrong. I will continue to point out your misrepresentations but I won't play your merry-go-round games any more.

Have a nice day Mr. Mohr"

Wrong. You and I have both corrected our own mistakes, and you and I have thanked each other. This is a nasty mischaracterization, don't you think?

 

[chrismohr]

Hey, does anyone have the video from the side view of Building 7 collapsing? It falls very strongly into the damaged south face. Is it true that in the beginning of the collapse, Building 7 went straight down until after phase 2 (freefall of the north perimeter roofline)? Or did it start tilting backwards earlier? We know there was a big tilt to the side (see grandmastershek's photo and lines above).

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Hey, does anyone have the video from the side view of Building 7 collapsing? It falls very strongly into the damaged south face. Is it true that in the beginning of the collapse, Building 7 went straight down until after phase 2 (freefall of the north perimeter roofline)? Or did it start tilting backwards earlier? We know there was a big tilt to the side (see grandmastershek's photo and lines above).

Perhaps this is the one? (disregard the propaganda; the good clips are at 15-21 seconds, and 44-54 sec.).



Perhaps this one too?



G'luck, Dave

 

[GlennB]

What the videos show is a wall of smoke moving up the south face of WTC7.

Yeah, right.

So why is it issuing almost horizontally in line with individual storeys of broken windows?

Hmm?

 

[cjnewson88]

Bit late to the party.

Smoke from wtc7 (video supplied by NIST):



wtc7 leaning as it collapsed:

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks CJ,

You're not too late! I used Chris7's little spat with me as an opportunity to to look more carefully at your two videos. In the first, not only is smoke obviously pouring straight out from windows on most floors, but there is a lot of different-colored smoke in the bottom right quadrant of the video. I wonder if that distinctly different smoke came from Building 6 or elsewhere. Instead of blowing out of the building, this smoke near the bottom right is just hanging in the air. How anyone could say the smoke pouring OUT of Building 7 from most floors is just smoke hanging around and floating towards it due to low pressure is beyond me.

Much more interesting to me: the Building 7 collapse from this diagonal angle. I've seen this before, but I didn't look at it 1/4 second at a time. Eyeballing it carefully, it looks like it is falling straight down for around the first two seconds of the outer perimeter wall collapse (seconds 0:03-0:04). You can tell because a vertical line of windows matches up perfectly against the silhouette of the building in front of it and to its right. At 0:05, if you pause right there, you can see that the windows are no longer in alignment with the vertical reference point of the silhouetted building. The southward tilt of the collapse has already begun. So around the time that NIST measured the beginning of the 2.25 seconds of "at freefall" drop for the north perimeter roofline, the building itself was tilting noticeably southwards!

Which brings up a question: did NIST measure the rate of collapse of the north perimeter roofline from the better-known straight on view of the north face? Or did they use THIS video, kind of from the side? Because if they used the famous north-face-straight-on view, would the "at freefall" measurement have been an illusion as the building was also falling backwards? I don't know; this is an open question.

Another question: is Chris7 right when he says that moment frames helped hold at least the three visible walls of the building together during its collapse (I'm guessing yes)? What about his claim that these moment frames hold everything together rigidly in 100% alignment with no part moving even a centimeter up down left or right or in or out as long as the moment frames are there (I'm guessing no way Jose)?