Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[tfk]

Moment frames are bolted and welded.

Wrong.

Not completely wrong. Not as wrong as you usually are.
Just mostly wrong.

Moment frames are exactly as I described them: a framing system where the connections must provide resisting moments in order to stabilize the frame against lateral forces.

Welding wasn't introduced into the fabrication of large buildings until the 1950s. And yet moment frame buildings got their reputations as strong & reliable because a bunch of buildings using them survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. There was zero welding, no bolting in those moment frame buildings. Rivets, flange plates & encased in masonry or concrete.

So it turns out that welded & bolted connections are moment frames.
But not all moment frames are welded & bolted.

Here's a moment frame whose principle advertised advantage is that it is bolted & not welded.

http://www.strongtie.com/products/strongframe/ordinary_mf/intro.asp?source=sfnav

"100% bolted connections … no field welding required."

And here's a definition that calls for the members to be welded, but not bolted:

Moment Frame
"Steel frame to support roof of building independent of exterior walls using steel columns on each of the four corners of module. The sheer stress is transferred to welded joists between vertical and horizontal frame members..."

Source: http://www.umodular.com/about/modular-building-dictionary/#moment-frame
___

Regardless, your assertion that any sort of connection (bolted, welded, bolted & welded, glued, sewn, duct taped, whatever ...) is strong enough to maintain its integrity during the collapse of a building is nothing short of laughable.

Bolted connections, welded connection, bolted & welded connections are typically 2 to 10 times stronger than they need to be.

And, in this case, "need to be" is defined as "when all the components are in their 'as designed' locations & orientations".

In the case of a collapsing building, the "as designed locations & orientations" have flown out the window. Taking with them "as strong as they need to be".

Unless, of course, one were to sprinkle a little nanothermite into the joints. Because, as we all know, nanothermite can do anything that truthers want it to do.

They are inflexible.

Nothing is inflexible.

Except, possibly, truther stupidity on some of these matters.

As for the fires on the south side: This diversion gets trotted out over and over again.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 196 [pdf pg 240]
Due to the wind direction, it was common for smoke to “bank up” against the south face. For this reason, it was usually not possible to differentiate different types of smoke or to identify smoke source locations on the south face.

This is an abjectly pathetic and a ludicrous misinterpretation of what NIST says. And it flies in the face of what all those videos show.

NIST is saying that it was "not possible to differentiate different types of smoke or to identify smoke source locations on the south face" OF WTC7. NIST couldn't use the smoke to tell about the fires IN WTC7.

There is not one mention by NIST of WTC 6 in this discussion.

Your assertion that the smoke is coming from WTC 6 is a joke.

tfk's analysis of the period of FFA is incorrect.

You are welcome to point out my error. (You won't, of course. You'll simply go on making baseless, unsupported assertions.)

There are detailed descriptions of the raw data used & my analytic methods in the threads that dealt with WTC7 exterior wall free fall.

He is in denial about FFA.

LMAO.

I'm not "in denial" of anything. There are few people here who put in more analysis of the free fall data than I did.

You put in zero original analysis, as I recall.

You attempted to participat in those discussions, but were frankly unable to follow the technical details. It appears that, like thermal expansion, it was "all Greek to you".

It was measured in two places and all the double talk in the world won't change this scientifically established fact.

You don't even know the proper field of study to bring to bear on the question.

No facts about the free fall can be established using "science".

You need "engineering".

I'm sure that the difference between those terms is also lost on you, most likely in some incomprehensible foreign language.

Probably English.

 

[tfk]

By the way, Chris7, there is an outstanding offer for you to prove your interpretation of NIST's statement that "the entire upper building began to fall as a single unit".

As opposed to NIST's other statement that "the remaining exterior structure began to fall as a single unit".

As detailed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8147309&postcount=3811

Are you going to show us your "scientific" acumen on this issue?

Or dodge the question and continue with baseless assertions?

Let me take a wild guess here...

 

[000063]

Hmm. 14 physicists and engineers, supposedly without bias, explaining their engineering beliefs about the 9/11 collapses with a writer holding no background in engineering.



Really? They didn't even know?

Of course in chat rooms, you cannot easily verify the credentials of your respondents.

And how did you manage to so subtlety ask useful scientific questions about the 9/11 collapses without biased respondents realizing?



So your "understanding" comes from a few physicists and engineers form a local university, possibly just one of each, combined with staff and customers from the Colorado School of Mines.

This is a grand total of 14 people to whom you personally asked questions about the 9/11 building collapses?



Could you please explain your understanding of what constitutes an "overwhelming array of physicists and engineers"?

And could you also please explain how your numerical concept of an "overwhelming array of physicists and engineers" represents greater credibility than the considered opinions represented by the 1,600+ engineering professionals who have joined AE911Truth?

MM

And the fact that the 1,600 represent less than a % of all of the people in their profession on earth is no concern to you?

And why are those folks so credible when the NIST report by the united States government after the largest criminal investigation in history that is endorsed by the ASCE--which has over 100,000 members--is not, even after it is openly published, and not only agreed with by a number of relevant colleges and university courses but actually used to make new buildings more fire-resistant? What distinguishes the scrappy underdogs from the no-hopers?

 

[000063]

They are. Don't listen to Chris Mohr, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Ah, the ergo tactic of insisting someone who says something you can't prove wrong doesn't know what they're talking about.

Speaking of Mohr, did you ever figure out whether a "misleading statement" is the same thing as a "lie"? You seemed to be having great difficulty with that earlier, and never responded to my request for clarification, IIRC.

 

[000063]

There are ZERO pictures of the Titanic sinking.

The same cannot be said for 9/11.

As shown by myself and Christopher7, that vast amount of smoke on the southface of WTC7 does not reveal an equally vast amount of WTC7 fire.

WTC7's canyon-like location, chimney-like south face damage pattern, updrafting convection currents, significant fire activity only on a small group of lower floors, heavy drifting nearby smoke from the WTC6 inferno, no remarkable winds...

WTC 6 was only a few stories tall, leaving plenty of room, and the "canyon" was on the south side. You can't have the canyon and chimney in the same place.

Of course WTC7's lower floor, migrating office furnishing's fires, produced a lot of smoke.

Migrating? What, did they hop in a wagon, ford rivers, and die of dysentry?

Given the updraft from WTC7's lower floor fires, and WTC7's cooperative damage pattern, the intense billowing smoke from across the street at WTC6, argues that smoke cupping up the WTC7 southface fails as proof of a conflagration.

Except that we've also provided evidence of smoke coming out of upper windows. Unless the smoke somehow exited the building, went up the south face, and was somehow sucked back in and "pumped" out again on the upper floors by absolutely nothing.

What you have is a lot of smoke.

Unlike WTC1, WTC2, WTC5, WTC6, the only significant fire activity in the WTC7, was visually recorded on a few lower floors of the eastface.

MM

We have smoke that appears to be coming out of the upper floors of the building, which you don't get with your mythical updraft.

 

[000063]

It's also ironic that one of the "inside jobbie" claims so fond of twoofers - the BBC newsclip with the premature report of the WTC7 collapse - shows large amounts of smoke issuing from said building.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

There are ZERO pictures of the Titanic sinking.

The same cannot be said for 9/11.

Well there were pictures of the ship before, the lifeboats after and possible one of the actual iceberg. The point is that one does not always get the photo that one would want.

As shown by myself and Christopher7, that vast amount of smoke on the southface of WTC7 does not reveal an equally vast amount of WTC7 fire.

LOL where there is smoke, there is fire and smoke tends to obscure things and flames are hard to see in bright sunlight (and since this was the south face....and it was sunny)

"WTC7's canyon-like location, chimney-like south face damage pattern,"

nothing like a chimney.

" updrafting convection currents, significant fire activity only on a small group of lower floors,"

baseless assertion.

" heavy drifting nearby smoke from the WTC6 inferno, no remarkable winds..."

so? If anything you need high winds to get the effect you want unless there are big fires in WTC7.......

"Of course WTC7's lower floor, migrating office furnishing's fires, produced a lot of smoke. "

and on the upper floors too....

"Given the updraft from WTC7's lower floor fires, and WTC7's cooperative damage pattern, the intense billowing smoke from across the street at WTC6, argues that smoke cupping up the WTC7 southface fails as proof of a conflagration."

I'm not trying to prove anything.....firemen said fully involved, smoke pattern looks like that.....its up to you to prove otherwise. you have failed.

What you have is a lot of smoke.

yep which means a lot of fire

Unlike WTC1, WTC2, WTC5, WTC6, the only significant fire activity in the WTC7, was visually recorded on a few lower floors of the eastface.

and back to the Titanic again. It didn't sink because there were no pictures of it doing so?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Late in the day WTC6 fires were all but extinguished/burnt out.
This is late in the day, and that smoke isn't coming from WTC5+6:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7lateafternoon.jpg[/qimg]

Thats a huge fire by any measure.....

 

[000063]

I'm betting MM never responds in any sort of substance to all the videos and photos we've just provided.

I also find it curious that MM doesn't respond to any of the posts with pictures and video showing 7 on fire, and basically dismisses Mohr with just "nuh-uh!"

Oh look, with the WTC6 fires more or less out, we have "a few upper floors" of WTC7 belching smoke:

I dunno, maybe you missed the multiple posts a few pages back. Here they are again;

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

Yeah, right.

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

Hmm?

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7horizontalsmoke.jpg[/qimg]

Bit late to the party.

Smoke from wtc7 (video supplied by NIST):



wtc7 leaning as it collapsed:

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?

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.

 

[LSSBB]

I also find it curious that MM doesn't respond to any of the posts with pictures and video showing 7 on fire, and basically dismisses Mohr with just "nuh-uh!"

C7 and MM are busy in the garage, working on their Dodge.

 

[deeper]

That photo should be the nail in the coffin for the whole stupid small localized fires meme. I fully expect evasive maneuvering in response.

I can't agree with this more. With the recent video and photographic evidence provided in this thread I have no idea why Truthers think there is anything suspicious about WTC7 collapsing.

This evidence coupled with the observations of fire fighters on the ground, people who understand fire best and were actually there as it happened, make NIST nit-picking completely irrelevant. As a non-technical type most of the physics involved in the report is beyond me though I do understand some of the concepts involved. I do not expect NIST to provide a perfect model, personally I think it would be impossible, what is going on behind the walls of WTC7 in those circumstances is absolute chaos, we will never know exactly which beam did something to what girder, etc. What's important is the building is, for want of a better word, ******.

I was someone who once believed the "small localized fires" meme. Why? Because when I heard/ read there were only "small localized fires" and believed it. I held that opinion until I saw evidence such as we have seen in this thread, I then realised this position was untenable and I moved on.

Do I think 9/11 was an inside job? Ultimately, I don't know but I certainly haven't seen any evidence which, when examined further makes a compelling case for it. With regard to WTC7, all the Truth Movement has, that when viewed from a particular point in time, from a certain angle, with the audio removed, it looks a bit like a controlled demolition. It's not enough, the TM needs to do much, much better, or better still, move on or at the very least move on from WTC7.

 

[000063]

But firefighter and eyewitness accounts are unreliable (unless they report explosions or molten steel), and are therefore dismissible out of hand! Everyone knows that!

 

[Christopher7]

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.

That's because you did not read the final report.

000063 responding the MM:

Here they are again; ...

You both should read the NIST report. They interviewed firefighters and studied the photos and videos. There was no inferno, just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors.

The fires on floors 19,21, 29 and 30 at the SW corner had burned out by 1 p.m. the only fire on the south side after that was floor 12. The fire on floor 8 was not seen until after 3 p.m. and the fire on floor 9 was first seen at about 4 p.m.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

 

[OCaptain]

oops

Sorry, yeah, I mean Chris7. I would have avoided confusion and potential insult where none was intended if I'd been more clear.

 

[OCaptain]

That's because you did not read the final report.

000063 responding the MM:
You both should read the NIST report. They interviewed firefighters and studied the photos and videos. There was no inferno, just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors.

The fires on floors 19,21, 29 and 30 at the SW corner had burned out by 1 p.m. the only fire on the south side after that was floor 12. The fire on floor 8 was not seen until after 3 p.m. and the fire on floor 9 was first seen at about 4 p.m.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

[qimg]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2303/353402.jpg[/qimg]

Sooo, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here.

Because the fires travelled from floor to floor as they burned up their fuel, WTC7 could not have collapsed naturally from fire damage? Is that correct?

 

[Christopher7]

Sooo, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here.

Because the fires travelled from floor to floor as they burned up their fuel, WTC7 could not have collapsed naturally from fire damage? Is that correct?

You have not read the report either.
NCSTAR 1A pg 52 [pdf pg 94]
There was no evidence that the fires spread from floor to floor, except, perhaps, just prior to the collapse of the building.

 

[LSSBB]

Interesting comments, Chris. Do you know, its possible you may be reading into the document what you want to hear? The section you quote here is concerning smoke obscuration and it's effect on imagery, and not the extent of the fires in the building.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

The following from page 621 is much better:

Fires were observed on multiple floors of WTC 7 following the collapse of WTC 1. The fires were likely to have started at locations facing WTC 1. caused by flaming debris, induced electrical failures, etc.
o Early fires were seen on the southwest comer of Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 shortly after noon. These were short-lived. Firefighters reported seeing fires on the south and west faces of WTC 7 as soon as visibility allowed (estimated to be 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.).
o Sustained fires occurred on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. The fires on these six floors were fed by combustibles (e.g., desks, chairs, papers, carpet) that were ordinary for commercial occupancies.
o Unlike the situation in the WTC towers, there was no widespread spraying of jet fuel to ignite numerous workstations simultaneously. Rather, in the earlier hours of the fires, the flames spread from one workstation to another, which is a much slower process.

Hilite is mine.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Leverage provides a force, Dave. (Not that this has anything to do with the fact that a building cannot fall through itself at anything near free fall acceleration. Which is why there is a controlled demolition industry. This has been repeated hundreds of times on this forum, but it still doesn't sink in with the, uh, "bedunkers for science and reason" here.)


How many people do you actually have attending your NMSR meetings?

The research probably comes from the Mother Ship Ms. Clinton so warmly embraces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I

 

[NoahFence]

The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

Um....

Is the image under that quote supposed to show fires only on floors 8 and 13??

 

[plague311]

Um....

Is the image under that quote supposed to show fires only on floors 8 and 13??

Even more ironic is that it shows smoke billowing out of the majority of the windows, and you can see the smoke streams near the windows. That photograph does nothing to support his position.