Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Good point. The columns under the screenwall and west penthouse fell from east to west in about 1 second. They are connected to the north face by the floor beams and they pulled the north wall in as they went down. We cannot tell if they tore lose from the exterior walls on the east end of the screenwall but they were still connected with girders to the columns at the west end of the west penthouse which remained above the roofline thru the period of FFA.
 
"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.
This is also wrong (mostly). In a sense, an exact measurement cannot be made from any source whatsoever, because every instrument has a measurement error. BUT you can extract quite precise measurements from a video, see this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182833

The acceleration profile obtained by tfk is derived from the data gathered by femr2 using the means described in that thread. The acceleration is not within 0.1% of FFA for more than a few milliseconds, as the acceleration curve crosses the zero line.


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, for the reasons stated in that thread. Mind you, tracing techniques have improved since 2005. NIST had to make their own by that time, and I think it was quite state-of-the-art by then.

Despite being in the 'truther' side of the debate, femr2's raw trace data has been praised here as very high quality, and tfk's graph is derived from it.


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.
You don't understand physics if you think that's impossible. Remember the failing crane video? The cable could easily tighten twice during the fall, especially if the arm provided resistance. That could cause the acceleration of the tip of the crane to raise above g more than once.

Same with the WTC7 façade. The core was pulling the façade down through the girders. That's how over-g is explained. Your theory can't explain it, but it's now pretty well established as a fact that there was over-g acceleration at some moments during the descent of the WTC7 façade.
 
Thanks Tom,

So if I understand correctly then, Figure 12-61 comes from the NIST computer model, which by its nature is not going to be as accurate as actual measurements from the video. Your use of NIST's velocity/time measurements of the actual collapse is almost identical to how I used that graph in my video 18 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0. I, too, drew lines to show steeper than freefall slopes at those two pairs of points. Your graph based on femr's raw data shows the perimeter wall collapsing at around freefall for awhile, as NIST did, but you are saying never it was actually precisely at freefall for any measurable period of time. That would imply that there is not simply the force of gravity meeting zero resistance but other forces at work at work as well (torquing, leveraging). I think you're saying that these measurements are NOT within the margin of error of the measuring tools used, but in fact show faster than freefall for two short bursts of time due to the interaction of more than just the two forces of gravity and zero resistance. I also interpret you saying that NIST did not need to revise their model after acknowledging this short period of faster descent than the models showed, because the chaotic random elements of the collapse that far into the sequence would make modeling exactly what happened as thousands of objects collapsed at once impossible anyway.

I'm feeding this all back to you to make sure I understand it, so do correct any inaccuracies. For example, I inaccurately interpreted Chris7 to be asserting that there had been an extensive internal collapse and that the falling-as-one-unit claim applied only to the outer perimeter walls. Turns out I was wrong because I couldn't imagine he actually believed that most of the internal structure of Building 7 remained intact until the global collapse of the outer perimeter walls (after BOTH east and west penthouses disappear and descend internally into the building faster than the exterior).

So I can stand by my assertion in video 18 that we are looking at faster-than-freefall at some moments, caused by the interaction of multiple forces, not just the 100% freefall caused by gravity encountering zero resistance. Those 2.25 seconds show small variations in the actual collapse rate, not just margin-of-error measurements.

Sorry, I went back and realized that I accidentally erased Ryan Mackey's explanation of the internal collapse of Building 7 and the 8 tories of floors hanging on. Ryan, if you're there can you confirm or correct this?
 
Chris,

Thanks Tom,



So if I understand correctly then, Figure 12-61 comes from the NIST computer model, which by its nature is not going to be as accurate as actual measurements from the video.



Your graph based on femr's raw data shows the perimeter wall collapsing at around freefall for awhile, as NIST did, but you are saying never it was actually precisely at freefall for any measurable period of time. That would imply that there is not simply the force of gravity meeting zero resistance but other forces at work at work as well (torquing, leveraging).

Exactly.

I think you're saying that these measurements are NOT within the margin of error of the measuring tools used, but in fact show faster than freefall for two short bursts of time due to the interaction of more than just the two forces of gravity and zero resistance.

femr plotted every point from every field (60 fields/second). NIST plotted approximately every 7th frame (or every 14th field). This higher temporal resolution allows one to make a better judgment as to whether any particular excursion from a constant acceleration is part of a pattern, or just a single point error.

My judgment is that the excursions from "G" are not just data errors, but are part of patterns.

I also interpret you saying that NIST did not need to revise their model after acknowledging this short period of faster descent than the models showed, because the chaotic random elements of the collapse that far into the sequence would make modeling exactly what happened as thousands of objects collapsed at once impossible anyway.

[emphasis added]

Not quite.

Look at Fig 12-76.

They followed the point near the center on the roof (in the low view, looking up, Camera No. 3, Figure 5-183) while it fell for 242 feet (= 18 stories). Including Stages I, II & III, it took 5.4 seconds to fall this far.

If something were in freefall, it would have taken only t = (2d / g)1/2 = (2*242/32.3)1/2 = 3.9 seconds.

1.40 x 3.9 = 5.4

Therefore 5.4 seconds is 40% longer than 3.9 seconds.

It's 40% longer OVER THE WHOLE OBSERVED FALL because NIST counted all three stages of fall, not just Stage II where it averaged near free fall acceleration.

I'm feeding this all back to you to make sure I understand it, so do correct any inaccuracies.

You're doing fine.

So I can stand by my assertion in video 18 that we are looking at faster-than-freefall at some moments, caused by the interaction of multiple forces, not just the 100% freefall caused by gravity encountering zero resistance. Those 2.25 seconds show small variations in the actual collapse rate, not just margin-of-error measurements.

Correct.


Tom
 
Chris,

Thanks Tom,

You're welcome

So if I understand correctly then, Figure 12-61 comes from the NIST computer model, which by its nature is not going to be as accurate as actual measurements from the video.

Exactly.

Your graph based on femr's raw data shows the perimeter wall collapsing at around freefall for awhile, as NIST did, but you are saying never it was actually precisely at freefall for any measurable period of time. That would imply that there is not simply the force of gravity meeting zero resistance but other forces at work at work as well (torquing, leveraging).

Exactly.

I think you're saying that these measurements are NOT within the margin of error of the measuring tools used, but in fact show faster than freefall for two short bursts of time due to the interaction of more than just the two forces of gravity and zero resistance.

femr plotted every point from every field (60 fields/second). NIST plotted approximately every 7th frame (or every 14th field). This higher temporal resolution allows one to make a better judgment as to whether any particular excursion from the local average acceleration is part of a pattern, or just a single point error.

My judgment is that the excursions from "G" are not just data errors, but are part of real patterns.

I also interpret you saying that NIST did not need to revise their model after acknowledging this short period of faster descent than the models showed, because the chaotic random elements of the collapse that far into the sequence would make modeling exactly what happened as thousands of objects collapsed at once impossible anyway.
[emphasis added]

Not quite.

Look at Fig 12-76.

They followed the point near the center on the roof (in the low view, looking up, Camera No. 3, Figure 5-183) while it fell for 242 feet (= 18 stories). Including Stages I, II & III, it took 5.4 seconds to fall this far.

If something were in freefall, it would have taken only t = (2d / g)1/2 = (2*242/32.3)1/2 = 3.9 seconds.

1.40 x 3.9 = 5.4

Therefore 5.4 seconds is 40% longer than 3.9 seconds.

It's 40% longer OVER THE WHOLE OBSERVED FALL because NIST counted all three stages of fall, not just Stage II where it averaged near free fall acceleration.

They didn't need to revise their "40% longer than freefall" statement because that statement is correct.

And it is simultaneously correct that, for a short period within that time frame, the outer walls fell at near free fall acceleration.

Both statements are correct.

I'm feeding this all back to you to make sure I understand it, so do correct any inaccuracies.

You're doing fine.

So I can stand by my assertion in video 18 that we are looking at faster-than-freefall at some moments, caused by the interaction of multiple forces, not just the 100% freefall caused by gravity encountering zero resistance. Those 2.25 seconds show small variations in the actual collapse rate, not just margin-of-error measurements.

Correct.


Tom
 
Last edited:
"And now, a public service announcement from The Department of Redundancy Department ..."

Not exactly sure how that happened...
:o
 
Tom/TFK, I found Ryan Mackey's old email in a different location. This is the one that talks about the eight floors hanging on inside Building 7:

"Really focus on the full video starting with east penthouse at the top left. Notice how one second before the global collapse, there is little kink in the building.
after east penthouse falls, no movement. I say structural resistance to the collapse IS happening during that 8 seconds.

The strong exterior framing failed only during the final stages. The bracing failed on multiple floors, and this buckling resulted in an almost invisible collapse over many floors. This collapse loaded the next column, and it fails next. Then the next columns. And so on until the entire core is destabilized and falls in on itself. When the east penthouse fell downward into the building, you could see sunlight through the windows because there was nothing back there. Other windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core as the perimeter wall was being damaged.

When the perimeter goes, it is literally pulled down by an eight-story section of the interior that didn't detach during the core collapse.

in the second before the big collapse, the roofline moves down a bit, and then it starts descending at free fall. The previous second is consistent with large-scale buckling. Think of pushing down on a long stick -- you can push it down just a little as it bends, and then it snaps, and you fall on the ground.



The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf).

Ryan
In WTC 7 our best guess is that a major internal column buckled after its
The part of WTC 7 that the conspiracy peddlers focus on starts AFTER the core has already gone -- they focus on the part they can see in YouTube videos, namely the perimeter. The perimeter was carrying little weight other than its own. The core collapse sheared off the floor connections and the majority of the structure's weight. So the perimeter collapsed last.
When the columns buckle, they don't "shrink" very much but they lose practically all of their structural strength. Thus, after buckling, the entire perimeter comes down, and there's really nothing to slow it down. There's no momentum transfer like there was in WTC 1 and 2 (because there's nothing to hit), and there's no strength left to oppose the weight.
We know the core failed before perimeter collapse for several reasons. The penthouse collapses are one of them -- as the conspiracy folks already know, there wasn't much fire on the upper floors of WTC 7, so for them to sink into the structure means there is nothing at all left underneath them. Another way we know this is from the windows in the perimeter -- as detailed in NIST's report, you can actually see into the structure and tell there's nothing left inside, if you examine the video carefully.
We also know the perimeter buckled because of it's behavior. The conspiracists focus on the "free fall" portion. They ignore what happens Same thing. Just much larger."
 
No it hasn't been trumped, and source who you quote properly (thedopefishlives). You are vastly underestimating what is required in a building collapse simulation.

No I'm not.

The support structure, the dimensions of the support structure, the physical properties/makeup of the support structure, the strength of the support structure are all known.

The physical force needed to damage any part of the support structure can be easily applied in a simulation.


All the force and damage instances have to be applied and linked in sequence to occur in about 10 seconds.

The problem is that the source of a physical force is not available without some sort of explosives.
 
No I'm not.

The support structure, the dimensions of the support structure, the physical properties/makeup of the support structure, the strength of the support structure are all known.

The physical force needed to damage any part of the support structure can be easily applied in a simulation.


All the force and damage instances have to be applied and linked in sequence to occur in about 10 seconds.

The problem is that the source of a physical force is not available without some sort of explosives.

You have absolutely no understanding of what goes into a computer simulation, do you? Let me clue you in on something: Computers are not magic devices that can perform any task instantaneously. There are a lot of variables that go into the calculation of exactly what the state of the whole building is at any given instant in time. And the computers had to generate this massive state for the entire period leading up to collapse initiation. That is a massive amount of data for the computer to process - or if you think otherwise, why don't you go ahead and do the calculations yourself, by hand? Give us a spreadsheet that shows us the exact state of every steel member in WTC7 at every instant of time during the entire 8 hours the building was on fire. Go ahead. I'll wait.
 
The problem is that the source of a physical force is not available without some sort of explosives.

That's interesting.

So if I load a stick of spaghetti with a cinder block it will only fail if I apply explosives?

Fascinating. I'll fax that info to Science and Nature and The Royal Society pdq.
 
You have absolutely no understanding of what goes into a computer simulation, do you? Let me clue you in on something: Computers are not magic devices that can perform any task instantaneously. There are a lot of variables that go into the calculation of exactly what the state of the whole building is at any given instant in time. And the computers had to generate this massive state for the entire period leading up to collapse initiation. That is a massive amount of data for the computer to process - or if you think otherwise, why don't you go ahead and do the calculations yourself, by hand? Give us a spreadsheet that shows us the exact state of every steel member in WTC7 at every instant of time during the entire 8 hours the building was on fire. Go ahead. I'll wait.

I do know that A has to get damaged and have the physical force to damage B....................... and CC has the physical force to damage CD............
LL has the physical force to damage LM.......................RV has the physical force to damage RW................................ZZZZY has the physical force to damage ZZZZZ.


You are ignoring the fact that period leading up to the so called "collapse" is of no consequence in developing a simulation.

All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage.



All the lead up data/effects are merely fluff.

After you get the building to fail in the simulation you then determine the source(s) of the force(s) on 9/11.
 
I do know that A has to get damaged and have the physical force to damage B....................... and CC has the physical force to damage CD............
LL has the physical force to damage LM.......................RV has the physical force to damage RW................................ZZZZY has the physical force to damage ZZZZZ.


You are ignoring the fact that period leading up to the so called "collapse" is of no consequence in developing a simulation.
All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage.


All the lead up data/effects are merely fluff.
After you get the building to fail in the simulation you then determine the source(s) of the force(s) on 9/11.


And we have another Stundie! Really this is is taking cluelessness to a new level. Who knew that everything up to the point of actual collapse was irrelevent! Its like ignoring everything in an air disaster that happened before it hit the ground.:boggled:
 
All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage.



All the lead up data/effects are merely fluff.

After you get the building to fail in the simulation you then determine the source(s) of the force(s) on 9/11.

Got your force right here.

It's called gravity.

Works with a house of cards too.
 
And we have another Stundie! Really this is is taking cluelessness to a new level. Who knew that everything up to the point of actual collapse was irrelevent! Its like ignoring everything in an air disaster that happened before it hit the ground.:boggled:

That was breathtaking. Wow.
 
And we have another Stundie! Really this is is taking cluelessness to a new level. Who knew that everything up to the point of actual collapse was irrelevent! Its like ignoring everything in an air disaster that happened before it hit the ground.:boggled:

I'm stunned, truly. For the first time in my professional career, I don't know what to say. I know that it's tough for non-techies to understand the underlying concepts of modeling and simulation, but this... This is completely beyond the pale.
 
I do know that A has to get damaged and have the physical force to damage B....................... and CC has the physical force to damage CD............
LL has the physical force to damage LM.......................RV has the physical force to damage RW................................ZZZZY has the physical force to damage ZZZZZ.


You are ignoring the fact that period leading up to the so called "collapse" is of no consequence in developing a simulation.

All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage.



All the lead up data/effects are merely fluff.

After you get the building to fail in the simulation you then determine the source(s) of the force(s) on 9/11.
Much as I try to be respectful, I have to admit that I too am breathless. I'm not a techie, and I've made mistakes, but this post leaves me stammering. Ironically, a couple years ago Michael Newman at NIST told me that modeling the 9/11 collapses UP TO collapse inevitability was important, then, "Gravity takes care of it!" Clayton is asserting exactly the opposite. I think. Is he saying that what brings a building to the point of collapse is irrelevant? Is it possible I am misinterpreting this?

I can't even understand this last sentence: "All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage." Do you mean the computer simulation has to show the building completely falling in ten seconds? And what do you mean, if anything, by "unlimited applications of force"?


Clayton, you need to change your "I See Dumb People" Avatar before someone tells you you are looking in a mirror!
 
Last edited:
Much as I try to be respectful, I have to admit that I too am breathless. I'm not a techie, and I've made mistakes, but this post leaves me stammering. Ironically, a couple years ago Michael Newman at NIST told me that modeling the 9/11 collapses UP TO collapse inevitability was important, then, "Gravity takes care of it!" Clayton is asserting exactly the opposite. I think. Is he saying that what brings a building to the point of collapse is irrelevant? Is it possible I am misinterpreting this?

I can't even understand this last sentence: "All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage." Do you mean the computer simulation has to show the building completely falling in ten seconds? And what do you mean, if anything, by "unlimited applications of force"?


Clayton, you need to change your "I See Dumb People" Avatar before someone tells you you are looking in a mirror!

If I put on my stupid hat for a minute, I think what he's trying to say is that you would build a network representing the building's structure, then you would apply as much force as necessary to some member or members to cause the building to collapse in 10 seconds. Apparently, this is supposed to prove that no such force could have come from natural causes, thus, super-magic-nano-thermite. However, to do so is to violate every principle of computer simulation by completely discarding reality. Of course, discarding reality is exactly what the Truthers do on a regular basis, so I shouldn't really be surprised.
 
WOW, just WOW!

I do know that A has to get damaged and have the physical force to damage B....................... and CC has the physical force to damage CD............
LL has the physical force to damage LM.......................RV has the physical force to damage RW................................ZZZZY has the physical force to damage ZZZZZ.


You are ignoring the fact that period leading up to the so called "collapse" is of no consequence in developing a simulation.

All that has to be done is to get the building to completely fail in about 10 seconds using unlimited application(s) of FORCE that causes damage.



All the lead up data/effects are merely fluff.

After you get the building to fail in the simulation you then determine the source(s) of the force(s) on 9/11.
Your medicine cabinet mirror avatar is PERFECT for you Clayton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom