Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Edited to main points for brevity because I agree with the conclusion.
tfk said:
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".

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 vertical collapse happens between 14 & 16 seconds on this timeline. The horizontal progression of collapse happens between 16 & 21.5 seconds.

PROVES that the collapse progressed from the collapse floors to the roof AS IT HAPPENED.

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.
Click to expand...
Correct. NIST is describing their computer model which does not fall as a unit nor does it fall at FFA. They admit that their model does not match the observed collapse.*

The quote from page 55 of the final report that says the entire upper part of WTC 7 moved downward as a single unit is referring to the observed collapse.

*NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse.

In the NIST model, the horizontal collapse takes place over a period of about 5 seconds, but the observed collapse of the core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse takes about 1 second.

* * * * * * * * * *

In part 18, Chris Mohr said that "only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration*."
This statement is incorrect. At very least, the north and west wall fall together at FFA.
Furthermore
NIST clearly stated [and it can be seen] that the entire upper portion [minus the part that had already collapsed] fell as a single unit in the "observed" collapse.

*Chris Mohr acknowledges that north wall collapsed at FFA.

The camera 3 video and the "New footage" video clearly show the north and west faces falling as a single unit at the same rate - FFA.

Note that the SW corner, where the debris damage was, is falling with, not before the north wall.
 
Christopher7 said:
The final report does not include that darkened area as damage. There is no sign of frame damage and that is too perfect to be debris damage IMO.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8143236&postcount=3781
Click to expand...
Right, it's arguable that NIST didn't consider the whole damage to the building.

Does this look like "too perfect" to you as well?

http://imacleod.com/msa/images/image002.jpg

Note the perfect verticality of the right side of the façade.

That can't be done by a progressive collapse, right? Ronan Point was an inside job.
 
Christopher7 said:
Edited to main points for brevity because I agree with the conclusion.
Correct. NIST is describing their computer model which does not fall as a unit nor does it fall at FFA. They admit that their model does not match the observed collapse.*

The quote from page 55 of the final report that says the entire upper part of WTC 7 moved downward as a single unit is referring to the observed collapse.

*NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse.

In the NIST model, the horizontal collapse takes place over a period of about 5 seconds, but the observed collapse of the core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse takes about 1 second.

* * * * * * * * * *

In part 18, Chris Mohr said that "only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration*."
This statement is incorrect. At very least, the north and west wall fall together at FFA.
Furthermore
NIST clearly stated [and it can be seen] that the entire upper portion [minus the part that had already collapsed] fell as a single unit in the "observed" collapse.

*Chris Mohr acknowledges that north wall collapsed at FFA.

The camera 3 video and the "New footage" video clearly show the north and west faces falling as a single unit at the same rate - FFA.

Note that the SW corner, where the debris damage was, is falling with, not before the north wall.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom/TFK,

So if I understand Chris7 correctly, he is saying that the original computer model of the NIST Draft Report shows no freefall acceleration of any part of Building 7, but that in the final report, NIST acknowledges freefall of the top of Building 7 which fell as a single unit (he acknowledges internal collapse prior to this but still says freefall acceleration of the outer perimeter walls). I acknowledge freefall within NIST's margin of error as measured at one point along the roofline of of the north perimeter wall, for 2.25 seconds. Eyeballing the videos, I also agree with Chris7 that it looks like at least the north and west walls fell together, to a gross order, but there may be subtle variation in different parts of the walls' rate of descent (here C7 and I disagree). Looking at the graph in the NIST final report, I see slopes slightly exceeding freefall (but within the margin of error). Closer analyses show those slopes of greater than FFA may well represent momentary collapse rates for a total of one second of localized greater than freefall. (Here Chris7 and I also disagree).

So my question of last week to you points directly to this issue. I believe you are denying freefall in the NIST analysis. Chris7 says freefall was acknowledged in the final report but that NIST never went back to really explain the discrepancy between observed freefall and their original computer models which have no freefall in them. Is he correct in this analysis, which is also my understanding of this question as well (with my minor disagreements with Chris7 as noted above)?
 
Christopher7 said:
Edited to main points for brevity because I agree with the conclusion.
Correct. NIST is describing their computer model which does not fall as a unit nor does it fall at FFA. They admit that their model does not match the observed collapse.*
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Yes, we know. And you've typed this 300 times in multiple threads.

The point is, it doesn't matter. No matter how many variables NIST was able to enter into the model, it was never going to generate the same exact results as the real thing.

I know they do all that cool stuff on CSI and what not, but that's not how computer models work in real life.

So just stop with the nonsense already. WTF.
 
Chris,

Sorry, I started & stopped this several times, as i got interrupted by real life this weekend.


chrismohr said:
Hi Tom,
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.
Click to expand...

If you still have that, could you post it or PM me. Ryan usually had a solid basis for saying things & I'd like to see what he wrote.

chrismohr 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.
Click to expand...

After thinking it over for a bit, I gotta tell you, Chris, this is not a robust argument. It is too far into the collapse process, and the uncertainties in the model are far too great, at this point, to be pulling any reliable confirmation out of the model's predictions.

Besides, we don't need the model for this. We've got the video data.
____

Nonetheless, this is what I was thinking.

Chris, if something goes into free fall, that means that the only force acting on it is gravity. Which also requires that all external forces on it (except for gravity) go to zero.

Here is the graph of forces vs. time graph that NIST came up with for all four perimeter walls. The blue line represents the north wall. This is a resisting force (opposing gravity).

picture.php


Focus on the blue line within the area within the dashed box labelled "6. Global buckling extended to exterior columns". This is when the exterior walls collapsed.

If this model had shown that the north wall had really gone into free fall, then at the moment that free fall began, the blue line would have instantly dropped to zero. Not slowly dropped to zero. Not gradually dropped to zero. Instantly dropped to zero.

You can see that the blue line never drops instantly to zero. It decreases gradually. As does the force in all the other perimeter walls.

In fact, what the gradual decrease towards zero does reflect is the early portion of the acceleration vs. time graph that I derived from femr's raw data, shown here.

picture.php


The measured acceleration (green line) on this graph shows a gradual increase in acceleration, which corresponds to the gradual reduction in exterior wall force mentioned above.

The measured acceleration does not show a sudden, instantaneous increase in acceleration (red line), which would correspond to an instantaneous drop in exterior column force to zero. And would also correspond to a true drop "in free fall".

chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Chandler sees fraud. It's a reflection of his own personality & character.

Here is NIST's graph.

[Btw, Chris, I told you something that was incorrect earlier. I said that NIST measured the northwest corner roofline point. That was incorrect. Chandler measured this point. NIST measured "the vertical position of a point near the center of the roofline".]

picture.php


[Note that I've added short line segments that show when this raw data actually show accelerations greater than G (green lines) and less than G (blue lines). Chandler attributes these to data error. But the raw data shows that these are not just error, but are real excursions above & below G.]

When NIST first commented on the fall, they included both the Phase I & Phase II times in the time to fall 18 stories. This is not unreasonable. They measured the time interval over which it fell 18 stories from the time it started to descend.

This is not the slightest bit unreasonable thing to do. In no way does it constitute Chandler's portrayal as a "deception".

The point is that the wall did take 40% more time than FF from the start of its downward motion. And the wall did fall NEAR (not at) free fall acceleration for a short period.

But the acceleration did not have the shape of an object that is in free fall at any time.

chrismohr said:
Can you clarify how to reconcile Figure 12-61 with NIST's graph showing gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds?
Click to expand...

As I said at the beginning, the model (at this stage) not a really robust argument. The video data is a robust argument.

chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...

That may be understood by everyone other than Chris7. My impression of his repeated statements is that he really believes that the entire upper section of WTC7 (exterior walls & inner portions of the building, except for the volume under the east penthouse) fell as one single block. This is an erroneous interpretation of NIST's statement that I attempted to clarify.


Tom

PS. Sorry this took so long. :o
 
Clay? Making wild statements about things and ignoring when he's proven wrong to make one-liners off incidental statements? Why, that's Ergo's bit!
 
chrismohr said:
Hi Tom/TFK,

So if I understand Chris7 correctly, he is saying that the original computer model of the NIST Draft Report shows no freefall acceleration of any part of Building 7, but that in the final report, NIST acknowledges freefall of the top of Building 7 which fell as a single unit (he acknowledges internal collapse prior to this but still says freefall acceleration of the outer perimeter walls).
Click to expand...
You still don't have an accurate assessment of my position.

My position is: The "entire upper portion" includes all the exterior columns and most of the core columns [all but the 3 that were taken out ~6 seconds before the rest of the core].

I acknowledge freefall within NIST's margin of error
Click to expand...
"within the margin of error" implies that it was not FFA. That is wrong. The error was 1/10th of 1 % or a difference of 0.001. The difference is NEGLIGIBLE - TOO SMALL TO BE CONSIDERED. Anyone who understands the nature of this analysis knows that the negligible difference is due to the FACT that an exact measurement cannot be made from a video.

You have acknowledged FFA. Why are you hedging?

In part 18, you said that "only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration."


as measured at one point along the roofline of of the north perimeter wall, for 2.25 seconds. Eyeballing the videos, I also agree with Chris7 that it looks like at least the north and west walls fell together, to a gross order, but there may be subtle variation in different parts of the walls' rate of descent (here C7 and I disagree).
Click to expand...
There is no sign of variation. The moment frames would not allow different rates of fall. You are just injecting your unsupported desire to say they "may" be different.


Looking at the graph in the NIST final report, I see slopes slightly exceeding freefall (but within the margin of error). Closer analyses show those slopes of greater than FFA may well represent momentary collapse rates for a total of one second of localized greater than freefall. (Here Chris7 and I also disagree).
Click to expand...
Anyone who understands the process knows that the variation is because the measurements are being taken from a video and are not exact. That is why many dots are plotted, the software computes the average, gives a number (9.81 m/s2) and draws a line. NIST clearly said "at gravitational acceleration" because they understand this.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]tfk is wrong when he says the data points "actually show accelerations greater than G". He thinks he knows better than NIST and Chandler. He doesn't. He does not understand physics if he thinks the upper portion could fall faster than FFA, then slow a little, and then fall faster than FFA again.
 
Christopher7 said:
My position is: The "entire upper portion" includes all the exterior columns and most of the core columns [all but the 3 that were taken out ~6 seconds before the rest of the core].
Click to expand...

This is demonstrably wrong. The fall of the WMP overtook that of the roofline, beginning above it and disappearing below it. The core columns on that side had to have failed prior to the collapse of the N face.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
This is demonstrably wrong. The fall of the WMP overtook that of the roofline, beginning above it and disappearing below it. The core columns on that side had to have failed prior to the collapse of the N face.
Click to expand...

Now, now, if you just squint your eyes, that discrepacy goes away. The squinting also helps you imagine you see the therm*te flashes that aren't there.

Oh, and plug your ears so you can imagine you hear the loud booms that aren't there.

And suspend disbelief elsewhere, as necessary.

And click your heels 3 times.
 
Deleted and reposted, as the timing suggest that C7 missed this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom