NoahFence
Banned
Man,I sure do love the ”pyroclastic like” dust cloud bit.
A sandstorm is closer to that than the dust cloud.....
A sandstorm is closer to that than the dust cloud.....
Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
- Status
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Richard Gage is completely wrong about controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. That's my best discernment about the content of what he says. Judgment of him as a delusional psycho or sociopathic liar is literally against my religion. As I posted on another thread yesterday, I try to live by the ideal of loving all, no matter what, it will win all battles.
NoahFence
Banned
Love him all you want. He's still a liar.
plague311
Great minds think...
Chris, as much as I admire your patience and your love for peace. People are judged on their beliefs, it's a fact. If you don't do that, that's fine, but it's tough to expect others to agree.
Richard Gage is a form of scum that willfully bleeds the lesser educated of their money by distributing lies HE KNOWS ARE FALSE. He tours around on other peoples dime in order to spread these lies because he doesn't want do real work. I don't know what religion you are, and I am not here to judge ones religion. However, I wouldn't join one that allows me to embrace someone that disgraces the deaths of 3,000 innocents.
Chris,
It's not only "not fair" to interpret the NIST report ... etc.
It is absolutely, 100% wrong to say that.
NIST doesn't say much directly, but it is easy to interpret from their data. If you know a bit about structures.
The proof is buried in the data regarding the loads held up by the peripheral columns during the progression of collapse.
___
There is no doubt that NIST describes the multiple phases of the collapse, and gives time references to each. It describes the horizontal progression of the collapse, and refers to it occurring on the "middle floors". (See note shown below in the middle of Fig 12-68, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 593, pdf pg 255)
The fundamental question is: when a group of columns fails at a lower floor, can the floors & columns above be held up & supported by their lateral connections? Or will the collapse of lower columns progress to the roof?
If, and only if, the columns & floors above a lower collapse can be supported by their lateral connections, can the remaining portion of the upper block "fall as a unit".
If the columns & floors above a lower collapse can not be supported by their lateral connections, but instead collapse as the lower columns collapse, then the upper block will NOT collapse as a single unit. But will instead collapse sequentially as the lower sections' collapse progressed. This will leave a hollowed out shell throughout the upper floors, with the upper floors.
There are two unequivocal proofs that NIST says that the upper core collapsed BEFORE the outer shell (i.e., NOT as a unit), and not simultaneously with the outer shell.
The first proof (and the place where I first realized that this had to be the case) is shown in Fig 12-61 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2, pg. 587, pdf pg. 249. This drawing shows the loads on the outer columns (in groups).
IF the lower internal columns collapsed, but the lateral supports sustained the upper inner core, then the loads on the north & south outer columns would HAVE TO increase dramatically (about 50%), because these columns would be supporting not only their share of the upper block, but also the share that had been shed by the core.
Fig 12-61 shows that this is absolutely not the case.
The vertical collapse happens between 14 & 16 seconds on this timeline. The horizontal progression of collapse happens between 16 & 21.5 seconds.
It is clear from this graph that the south outer wall's loads (black line) stay approximately constant, while the north wall's load (blue line) actually decreases.
The simple fact that neither of these walls' loads increase by approximately 50% (south wall from ~30 to ~45 MN & north wall from ~36 to ~54 MN) PROVES that the collapse progressed from the collapse floors to the roof AS IT HAPPENED.
One might also note comment 3 in Fig 12-61: "Unloading due to interior structure falling away from external columns." This is a clear give-away as to NIST's thoughts on the matter, although they are explicitly talking about "falling away from" the north & east wall in this comment. Regardless, the structure of the building was the same on the south & west walls as it was on the north & east walls. The structural response to internal collapse would be the same as well.
As a further note, it can be seen from this chart that NIST says that the east outer wall buckled partially first, then the north wall began to buckle slowly (phase I) about 2 seconds later. About one second after that, the south & west wall buckled together (the south wall completely & the southern portion of the west wall). About a second after this, the north wall started its global collapse (phase II) along with the remaining northern half of the west wall. Finally, the remaining portion of the east wall collapsed.
Here again, NIST explicitly shows that their models do NOT show all external walls collapsing simultaneously, but rather collapsing in a complex sequence, each releasing (in 1 or 2 steps) over a period of about 5 seconds.
One last thing to note: These graphs also show that NIST's structural modelers do NOT believe that the external walls went "into free fall". If they did, these load vs. time graphs would have an infinite (straight up) slope as the load reduced instantly to zero. The slopes are steep, but they are not anything close to vertical. Especially for the north wall.
These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall.
___
The second proof is the drawings of the "collapse of the core", Figures 12-66 thru 12-69. In these drawings, one can watch the horizontal progression of the core collapse, at each interval progressively taking down with it the internal upper core above the collapse zone right to the roof.
These drawings confirm completely the conclusions reached above.
It should be noted that these images do NOT show the outer shell. This is proven by the various beams & columns that continue to hang motionless, in free space, to the right of the collapse front throughout the collapse. These graphs are derived from a "physics based" program. Beams, girders & columns do not hang motionless in space unless they are attached to something. They are attached to the outer frame of the building.
Examine this drawing carefully, and compare the circled elements in the sequence below to see components that are "hanging in air".
Core Collapse sequence:
In these images, the collapse of the entire structure, floor to ceiling, under the east penthouse is complete at 2.3 seconds. (Note that these times are offset from the times noted in the graphs above. The number in parentheses above each graph corresponds to the time scale above.)
The global collapse has not yet begun at 13.5 seconds. (At 15.5 seconds, it is "underway".) So there is a stretch of 13.5 - 2.3 = 11.2 seconds during which the interior core, right to the roof, is collapsing.
This IS "what NIST says".
Regardless of Chris7's, or anyone else's, attempts to quote mine a single sentence.
Chris Mohr, I hope that this is clear and understandable. If you need any elaboration on any point, let me know.
tom
PS. Chris7, I note well that, as expected, you simple ran from the opportunity to back up your assertions. What a non-surprise.
It's not only "not fair" to interpret the NIST report ... etc.
It is absolutely, 100% wrong to say that.
NIST doesn't say much directly, but it is easy to interpret from their data. If you know a bit about structures.
The proof is buried in the data regarding the loads held up by the peripheral columns during the progression of collapse.
___
There is no doubt that NIST describes the multiple phases of the collapse, and gives time references to each. It describes the horizontal progression of the collapse, and refers to it occurring on the "middle floors". (See note shown below in the middle of Fig 12-68, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 593, pdf pg 255)
The fundamental question is: when a group of columns fails at a lower floor, can the floors & columns above be held up & supported by their lateral connections? Or will the collapse of lower columns progress to the roof?
If, and only if, the columns & floors above a lower collapse can be supported by their lateral connections, can the remaining portion of the upper block "fall as a unit".
If the columns & floors above a lower collapse can not be supported by their lateral connections, but instead collapse as the lower columns collapse, then the upper block will NOT collapse as a single unit. But will instead collapse sequentially as the lower sections' collapse progressed. This will leave a hollowed out shell throughout the upper floors, with the upper floors.
There are two unequivocal proofs that NIST says that the upper core collapsed BEFORE the outer shell (i.e., NOT as a unit), and not simultaneously with the outer shell.
The first proof (and the place where I first realized that this had to be the case) is shown in Fig 12-61 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2, pg. 587, pdf pg. 249. This drawing shows the loads on the outer columns (in groups).
IF the lower internal columns collapsed, but the lateral supports sustained the upper inner core, then the loads on the north & south outer columns would HAVE TO increase dramatically (about 50%), because these columns would be supporting not only their share of the upper block, but also the share that had been shed by the core.
Fig 12-61 shows that this is absolutely not the case.
The vertical collapse happens between 14 & 16 seconds on this timeline. The horizontal progression of collapse happens between 16 & 21.5 seconds.
It is clear from this graph that the south outer wall's loads (black line) stay approximately constant, while the north wall's load (blue line) actually decreases.
The simple fact that neither of these walls' loads increase by approximately 50% (south wall from ~30 to ~45 MN & north wall from ~36 to ~54 MN) PROVES that the collapse progressed from the collapse floors to the roof AS IT HAPPENED.
One might also note comment 3 in Fig 12-61: "Unloading due to interior structure falling away from external columns." This is a clear give-away as to NIST's thoughts on the matter, although they are explicitly talking about "falling away from" the north & east wall in this comment. Regardless, the structure of the building was the same on the south & west walls as it was on the north & east walls. The structural response to internal collapse would be the same as well.
As a further note, it can be seen from this chart that NIST says that the east outer wall buckled partially first, then the north wall began to buckle slowly (phase I) about 2 seconds later. About one second after that, the south & west wall buckled together (the south wall completely & the southern portion of the west wall). About a second after this, the north wall started its global collapse (phase II) along with the remaining northern half of the west wall. Finally, the remaining portion of the east wall collapsed.
Here again, NIST explicitly shows that their models do NOT show all external walls collapsing simultaneously, but rather collapsing in a complex sequence, each releasing (in 1 or 2 steps) over a period of about 5 seconds.
One last thing to note: These graphs also show that NIST's structural modelers do NOT believe that the external walls went "into free fall". If they did, these load vs. time graphs would have an infinite (straight up) slope as the load reduced instantly to zero. The slopes are steep, but they are not anything close to vertical. Especially for the north wall.
These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall.
___
The second proof is the drawings of the "collapse of the core", Figures 12-66 thru 12-69. In these drawings, one can watch the horizontal progression of the core collapse, at each interval progressively taking down with it the internal upper core above the collapse zone right to the roof.
These drawings confirm completely the conclusions reached above.
It should be noted that these images do NOT show the outer shell. This is proven by the various beams & columns that continue to hang motionless, in free space, to the right of the collapse front throughout the collapse. These graphs are derived from a "physics based" program. Beams, girders & columns do not hang motionless in space unless they are attached to something. They are attached to the outer frame of the building.
Examine this drawing carefully, and compare the circled elements in the sequence below to see components that are "hanging in air".
Core Collapse sequence:
In these images, the collapse of the entire structure, floor to ceiling, under the east penthouse is complete at 2.3 seconds. (Note that these times are offset from the times noted in the graphs above. The number in parentheses above each graph corresponds to the time scale above.)
The global collapse has not yet begun at 13.5 seconds. (At 15.5 seconds, it is "underway".) So there is a stretch of 13.5 - 2.3 = 11.2 seconds during which the interior core, right to the roof, is collapsing.
This IS "what NIST says".
Regardless of Chris7's, or anyone else's, attempts to quote mine a single sentence.
Chris Mohr, I hope that this is clear and understandable. If you need any elaboration on any point, let me know.
tom
PS. Chris7, I note well that, as expected, you simple ran from the opportunity to back up your assertions. What a non-surprise.
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Tom,
I wrote again to Michael Newman at NIST with a link to your post 3946 above, asking if this is a good summary of NIST's actual position re the collapse of Building 7. I've read it twice so far and am digesting it. It seems like a very good explanation, and I will ask more about it as I understand it better. Thanks for your time on this.
I wrote again to Michael Newman at NIST with a link to your post 3946 above, asking if this is a good summary of NIST's actual position re the collapse of Building 7. I've read it twice so far and am digesting it. It seems like a very good explanation, and I will ask more about it as I understand it better. Thanks for your time on this.
ozeco41
Philosopher
To avoid confusing some of us who are watching this excursion into greater detail can you be careful to be explicit as to when you are discussing the NIST model and when you are discussing the real collapse?
Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
To avoid confusing some of us who are watching this excursion into greater detail can you be careful to be explicit as to when you are discussing the NIST model and when you are discussing the real collapse?
Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
I am explicitly talking about what NIST's models say. NIST engineers' conclusions were informed by their models.
They are sophisticated enough to know, and to express explicitly, that the models aren't exact, and that the further in time that one travels into the collapse, the greater the probable divergence between the model & reality.
Nonetheless, I stand by what I've written here.
NIST wrote two mutually exclusive statements about their opinions about the collapse. I cited them earlier.
One statement said:
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, pg. 588 (vol 2, pdf pg 250), emphasis addedNIST said:
The second statement said:
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, pg. 586 (vol 2, pdf pg 248), emphasis addedNIST said:
Taken literally, these two statements (only 2 pages apart) are mutually exclusive.
I contend that the observations made in that long post settles beyond doubt NIST's true interpretation of the events.
I contend that the first statement "... the entire building ..." is entirely inconsistent with all of the evidence that I presented and is therefore wrong.
I contend that the second statement "... the remaining exterior structure ..." is entirely consistent with all of the evidence that I presented and is therefore correct.
I contend that the above is true reflection of NIST's opinion about both the model & their opinion of reality.
tom
Last edited:
C7,No deal. Your misquote was defamatory. That "one word" made all the difference in the world and you know it. It's like leaving a "not" out of the 10 commandments, it changes the meaning completely.
But thank you for making the correction. You have my respect for being willing to do that.
Inferring that Chris Mohr meant to defame you is nonsensical, unless you had a reputation among engineering professionals to maintain, which you don't.
You know that, right?
I see and respect where Chris M is coming from. One judgment is factual and can be done by analysis of the data (CD at WTC), while the other is more subjective and dubious unless you involve mental health professionals ( personality disorder and mental illness)
Last edited:
I love how he's still dancing around the question of whether a "misleading statement" = "lie". And the hypocrisy of complaining about the misquotes of others when he admits he doesn't respond to points he doesn't want to.
Maybe he's worried the other carpenters at the hardware store are gonna laugh at him.
Maybe he's worried the other carpenters at the hardware store are gonna laugh at him.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Correct. Where did you get that? Go back and read my post again.
Okay, fine, so are you Gage's lawyer? You're not doing a good job, if so.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi Tom,
Looking at Figure 12-69 (the inside of Building 7) from the south, it is pretty easy to see a catastrophic collapse progressing under the east penthouse, with abundant columns holding on to the perimeter walls. Ryan Mackey once claimed in an email to me that 8 floors held on at one point inside Building 7 during this period, but I don't see evidence of this in the NIST Report.
It seems to me like a general buckling of columns east to west, which would cause first the visible collapse of the east penthouse, then the west penthouse as the rest of the building comes down immediately after the west penthouse disappears.
Michael Newman at NIST told me this is the most complex collapse sequence ever modeled, and that new computer programs and very fast computers had to be used to input all the data. When you see how all of this is modeled from an event that happened behind mostly-intact perimeter walls, it is pretty amazing, and easy to see why the model would not always reflect reality 100%, as NIST itself said.
A question: I can't reconcile your statement that "These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall." How does that statement, and the graph 12-61, reconcile with NIST's measurement of part of the roofline of the north face descending "at gravitational acceleration" for 2.25 seconds? Your statement seems to contradict that. David Chandler seemed to explain the discrepancy in terms of fraud on NIST's part. If I understand his claim, it's that NIST at first averaged out the collapse speed of the perimeter walls over a longer time in order to gloss over the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Their acknowledgement of 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration of the roofline of part of the north face came after the public comment period and appeared in the final report, but not the draft report.
Can you clarify how to reconcile Figure 12-61 with NIST's graph showing gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds?
Looking at Figure 12-69 (the inside of Building 7) from the south, it is pretty easy to see a catastrophic collapse progressing under the east penthouse, with abundant columns holding on to the perimeter walls. Ryan Mackey once claimed in an email to me that 8 floors held on at one point inside Building 7 during this period, but I don't see evidence of this in the NIST Report.
It seems to me like a general buckling of columns east to west, which would cause first the visible collapse of the east penthouse, then the west penthouse as the rest of the building comes down immediately after the west penthouse disappears.
Michael Newman at NIST told me this is the most complex collapse sequence ever modeled, and that new computer programs and very fast computers had to be used to input all the data. When you see how all of this is modeled from an event that happened behind mostly-intact perimeter walls, it is pretty amazing, and easy to see why the model would not always reflect reality 100%, as NIST itself said.
A question: I can't reconcile your statement that "These graphs show exactly what the accurate analysis of the fall data of the north wall show: they did not fall "at free fall", but rather at an acceleration substantially less than free fall." How does that statement, and the graph 12-61, reconcile with NIST's measurement of part of the roofline of the north face descending "at gravitational acceleration" for 2.25 seconds? Your statement seems to contradict that. David Chandler seemed to explain the discrepancy in terms of fraud on NIST's part. If I understand his claim, it's that NIST at first averaged out the collapse speed of the perimeter walls over a longer time in order to gloss over the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Their acknowledgement of 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration of the roofline of part of the north face came after the public comment period and appeared in the final report, but not the draft report.
Can you clarify how to reconcile Figure 12-61 with NIST's graph showing gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds?
Miragememories
Banned
"To avoid confusing some of us who are watching this excursion into greater detail can you be careful to be explicit as to when you are discussing the NIST model and when you are discussing the real collapse?
Otherwise we risk changing horses in mid-stream.
Computer Models are certainly useful tools, but their usefulness faces serious challenges when asked to create an accurate collapse portrait of WTC7, which was a huge, modern, 47-story office tower.
As with WTC1 and WTC2, the NIST were pioneering in their attempts to usefully model the collapse of WTC7.
Prior to 9/11, the NIST did not have any gainful knowledge from a previous steel-structured, highrise, total building failure, or from a previous successful modeling of a steel-structured, highrise, building failure--from fire.
Render times.
The more realistic the model, the longer the rendering time.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
"A single computer simulation of the structural response to fires took about eight months to complete on powerful computing workstations and clusters [slaved workstations]."
Hmm...Given that each tweak to the model was so enormously costly in computer resources, I wonder how many different scenarios of those 8-month computer renders the NIST decided they had time and/or interest to run?
The time and computer cost of producing this extremely slow-rendering complex 'building failure' model does not make it a very useful, or neutral, tool.
And the knowledge that every time new-scenario data failed to conclude with a total collapse of WTC7, they had to re-adjust their input data and wait another 8 months.
I wonder if the NIST made note of how many of those 8-month computer renders they had time and/or interest to run, before they decided to use current results to base their conclusions?
Certainly the external model images that the NIST provided of the WTC7 collapse, fail to compare with what was actually observed.
MM
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Now you're in my area of expertise, and as usual, you're in way over your head. First of all, NIST did not "tweak" the model; they used an entirely different method of modeling wherein several sets of assumptions were made beforehand, and each set of assumptions were input into the model and run to completion, regardless of the results. They then compared the results against the real world results to determine if their input parameters were correct. They selected the closest model that matched the real-world results, and studied the response of the building during the simulation run to see if it matched the responses indicated by other external evidence. In other words, the evidence proved the model, not the other way around. This is a very respectable method of using computer modeling, and it also saves a great deal of modeling time - at 8 months a run, you're absolutely right, there are only a few runs that they can afford to do in the interests of a timely investigation.
Last edited:
- Status