Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[carlitos]

The truthy people also don't understand the purpose of the model - to understand how the building failed. Modeling exactly how the pieces fell after it failed isn't really of any use, except for people playing pretend games on the internet.

 

[thedopefishlives]

The truthy people also don't understand the purpose of the model - to understand how the building failed. Modeling exactly how the pieces fell after it failed isn't really of any use, except for people playing pretend games on the internet.

Truthers seem to think that adjusting the parameters is a bad idea, like the inputs to a model are sacrosanct or something. They're not; the whole point of modeling is to validate that the inputs are correct. You don't just throw a handful of numbers at a computer, and when the building fails to fall, say, "Oh well, I guess thermite did it." Now, if it were impossible to come up with a set of reasonable inputs such that the building fell down, then maybe CD would be taken seriously; but the assumptions are reasonable, the building fell down, ergo, CD need not even enter the equation.

 

[LSSBB]

The truthy people also don't understand the purpose of the model - to understand how the building failed. Modeling exactly how the pieces fell after it failed isn't really of any use, except for people playing pretend games on the internet.

+1.

There are so many variables at play here, and so many unknowns as to what exactly happened inside the building where no one can see, and what the material state was of all the structural members, etc., that an exact reproduction would be nearly impossible even with today's computing. The important thing is, it shows a steel building CAN collapse the way observed, due to unfought fires.

 

[tfk]

The truthy people also don't understand the purpose of the model - to understand how the building failed. Modeling exactly how the pieces fell after it failed isn't really of any use, except for people playing pretend games on the internet.

+2.

There were only two really important questions for the model to answer:

1. Why did the collapse start? Could it start "just from fire"?

2. "Why did the collapse not arrest itself after only local failures? Why did it continue to progressive total failure? What took away the structural redundancy that one finds in most buildings which keeps most failures limited to local failures?

NIST found that the cause of both were a combination of a) the events of the day and b) features of the building's original design.

NIST described these factors in detail, so there is no reason to reiterate them here.

But, as for question 2 above, as soon as the horizontal progression of the collapse began, question 2 was answered ...

... along with a bunch of structural engineers commenting, "Sumbitch, look at that...!", I'd wager.

tom

PS. dopefish, I agree with your assessment of the lack of tweaking inputs.

For completeness I believe that the one feature that they did tweak was the breakage of the windows. IIRC, they artificially broke the windows to match as close as possible the pattern that they observed in the available videos in order to supply the right amount of oxygen to the modeled fires.

This was a completely reasonable thing to do.

PPS. Chris Mohr, I'll get to your question later tonite. It's pretty simple, but I've got a previous engagement that I've got to get to.

 

[tfk]

Christopher7,

For a long while now, "it fell as a complete unit" has been your mantra.

Now, with an opportunity to address the issue in detail ...

... nothing but silence...?

 

[chrismohr]

Tom,
When you get to answering my freefall question, here is another one: you said, "NIST says that the upper core collapsed BEFORE the outer shell (i.e., NOT as a unit), and not simultaneously with the outer shell." I think that is understood by everyone: that it's the outer perimeter walls that sort of fell as a single unit, not the core columns which went first in any analysis.

 

[ozeco41]

....along with a bunch of structural engineers commenting, "Sumbitch, look at that...!", I'd wager....

count me in provided I can change "Sumbitch" into Aussie slang...

....except I think I used up my surprise with the Twin Towers so 7 was sort of expected...

....and I didn't see it on the day - only years later

 

[thedopefishlives]

PS. dopefish, I agree with your assessment of the lack of tweaking inputs.

For completeness I believe that the one feature that they did tweak was the breakage of the windows. IIRC, they artificially broke the windows to match as close as possible the pattern that they observed in the available videos in order to supply the right amount of oxygen to the modeled fires.

This was a completely reasonable thing to do.

I know that the "set up predefined test cases and run them" methodology is for sure what they did on WTC1&2; I read the NIST report on the Towers several times. I'm not sure how they approached 7, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that they used a similar method. It's a pretty clever way to approach the problem of a long-running simulation.

 

[Justin39640]

... saying that Richard said the fires had gone out is incorrect and defamatory. It makes him look like a idiot right out of the gate.

To be fair, you only have to walk a few paces more to confirm he's an idiot.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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]

It is mind boggling that Rev. Mohr can view the overwhelmingly pristine WTC7 and defend his "Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals" on YouTube.

How can he possibly think that those huge spaces of undisturbed office building ceded their massive presence to a force that the NIST report cannot explain?

 

[chrismohr]

It is mind boggling that Rev. Mohr can view the overwhelmingly pristine WTC7 and defend his "Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals" on YouTube.

How can he possibly think that those huge spaces of undisturbed office building ceded their massive presence to a force that the NIST report cannot explain?

Tri and others have already posted abundant pictures and videos rebutting the "pristine" claim of Building 7. It's mind-boggling how Clayton and others can ignore the evidence of massive damage from hours and hours of unfought fires and call Building 7 "pristine."

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

Really?

Then you should understand simplicity of the task. All that is required is to apply force in the model sufficient to defeat the support structure properties of building the over and over and over and and over, as if in a dominoes mode display, until the buildings became rubble.

In 10 or so seconds. Each failure had to cause a subsequent failure until the buildings became mostly pulverized rubble.

The inability to do that simple task is one the many glaring inconsistencies of the official version of what took place on 9/11.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Tri and others have already posted abundant pictures and videos rebutting the "pristine" claim of Building 7. It's mind-boggling how Clayton and others can ignore the evidence of massive damage from hours and hours of unfought fires and call Building 7 "pristine."

Seems to me that most of WTC7 was in pristine condition. How do you explain the picture Reverend Mohr?

 

[NoahFence]

Christopher7,

For a long while now, "it fell as a complete unit" has been your mantra.

Now, with an opportunity to address the issue in detail ...

... nothing but silence...?

You're not surprised, are you?

 

[NoahFence]

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

Seems to me that most of WTC7 was in pristine condition. How do you explain the picture Reverend Mohr?

The picture is a snapshot of time in an event lasting over seven hours, keying in on a small portion of the building. its both silly and expected that you'd imply otherwise.

 

[000063]

Christopher7,

For a long while now, "it fell as a complete unit" has been your mantra.

Now, with an opportunity to address the issue in detail ...

... nothing but silence...?

The funny thing is that every time I've pointed out that the E.Penthouse had collapsed, he's retreated to his fallback position that it's NIST which claims that the entire upper portion had collapsed, and he's just repeating what they say, and that they don't need to explicitly say "minus the penthouse and its support". I then point out that he has claimed that the exact same report was actively lying, and asked why it's suddenly so trustworthy.

Of course, the logical answer would be that since that one statement contradicts portions of the report where the E. Penthouse collapse is explicitly described, then that one bit is merely poorly phrased. But that would mean admitting the parts that he thinks supports him aren't holy writ, and that it's possible for the report to be wrong but not be actively lying.

 

[000063]

it is mind boggling that rev. Mohr can view the overwhelmingly pristine wtc7 and defend his "richard gage blueprint for truth rebuttals" on youtube.

How can he possibly think that those huge spaces of undisturbed office building ceded their massive presence to a force that the nist report cannot explain?

Ahahahahhaha.

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

Seems to me that most of WTC7 was in pristine condition. How do you explain the picture Reverend Mohr?

As I recall, there was no one going inside to check. All we have is a few photos of smoke pouring out of the upper floors, consistent with fire. Even in the one you posted, smoke can clearly be seen pouting out of multiple floors. In fact, it looks like nearly half the building was on fire.

Your lack of self awareness does you in again.

 

[chrismohr]

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

Seems to me that most of WTC7 was in pristine condition. How do you explain the picture Reverend Mohr?

Hi Clayton,

Please look at your own picture, which shows the north perimeter face with less damage but not pristine. And oh my, what's that smoke on the entire left side? Oh, and before you respond to me, please look at posts 3790, 3799, 3810, 3875, 3880, and especially the post summarizing all of this, post 3889:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8155668&postcount=3889
Please look at every single photo and video, inlcuding your own, and tell me with a straight face Building 7 as a whole was pristine.
Why do have this feeling my time is being wasted here? Please prove me wrong!

 

[GlennB]

Here's a composite of the "pristine" SW face, showing the gash resulting from WTC1 debris impact

(on another forum, MM once tried to tell me this was a "shadow" cast by a nearby building )

 

[pgimeno]

Here's a composite of the "pristine" SW face, showing the gash resulting from WTC1 debris impact

(on another forum, MM once tried to tell me this was a "shadow" cast by a nearby building )

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, what happened to the indestructible moment frame?