Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[pgimeno]

This is utter claptrap. If you insist that every data point is accurate then WTC 7 was moving up and down according to femr2's graph.

Not WTC7, but the analyzed corner probably was moving as the internal collapse progressed. And the points are somewhat accurate within a margin of error. There is some noise to consider. The estimation of the error due to noise is one of the main points where femr2 failed, though.

ETA: But don't miss the fact that the graphs (for clarity, I mean the ones below) show acceleration, not velocity. If acceleration goes above zero, as it does, it just means that the fall velocity decreases, not that the building moves up.

The 0.1% error is the line representing the average, not the individual data points. It is negligible - too small to be considered.

I'm not considering only the average. I'm considering the whole acceleration profile, something that NIST only did very roughly.

It is possible that the core could momentarily pull the north face down at slightly more than FFA at the very beginning of the FFA but the data does not reflect that.

Once the core and north wall have equalized their common FFA, neither can speed up or slow down the other because there are no stresses within the system. The entire upper part of the building [minus the part that had already collapsed] was falling at FFA.

It's interesting that you admit that, even if you get some details wrong.

The whole block did NOT need to fall at g for over-g to be reached by the façade at a couple of points. Remember that the core collapsed progressively, so one part was falling in advance to another part and could have pulled the façade earlier, then the rest might have pulled it again. That's consistent with the observations.

I think that you will at least understand that if the core is pulling the perimeter down, then the extra load induced by that pull would overload the bottom columns and therefore cause them to buckle all at the same time. That explains what we saw. You have not explained it satisfactorily at any moment.

There was a period of over-g acceleration. That is a fact you can't deny. No matter what data you use, the over-g is there, and as you note, it's there at the beginning of the fall.

Here's tfk's graph again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=553&pictureid=3555

Here's NIST's as annotated by tfk (it shows velocity rather than acceleration but it illustrates over-g too):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5807

Here is one of the smoothed graphs of the acceleration that femr2 got:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/82136974.png

Here's another:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/82136974.png

They all use data extracted from the evidence (the video), just with different obtention techniques and different smoothing (and axes scaling and labeling).

There you go again comparing a heavy steel H beam and moment frame to a stick. You have no knowledge of steel structures and no reference to back up that absurd statement. Look at the NIST model! The frame is NOT snapping like a stick, it is folding and bending but hanging together.

[...]

Again you are talking thru your hat. You have no idea how much resistance buckling columns will provide. Provide a source or stop making that claim.

I happen to have a reference.

The high-strength steel has a much lower ductility, which must have caused fractures with a drop of axial force to zero very early during buckling, [...]​

Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Le, Jia-Liang; Greening, Frank R.; Benson, David B. (October 2008). What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York? Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (10) p. 896.

Bolding mine. Change "zero" to "negligible" for a more accurate statement though (Again, remember the crane...)

 

[chrismohr]

Eight floors? So Mackey has x-ray vision? You would assail me for making such a wild assumption but you believe Ryan without question.

There you go again comparing a heavy steel H beam and moment frame to a stick. You have no knowledge of steel structures and no reference to back up that absurd statement. Look at the NIST model! The frame is NOT snapping like a stick, it is folding and bending but hanging together.

Wrong. Most of the core columns fell with the exterior walls.

Again you are talking thru your hat. You have no idea how much resistance buckling columns will provide. Provide a source or stop making that claim.

There were NO fires on the upper floors at the time of the collapse.

Hi Chris7,
You mistakenly assumed that was me talking. I actually cut and pasted an old email from Ryan Mackey he sent me a year ago. I should have put quotes around the whole thing. The breaking stick analogy was his way of explaining to me what happens to a support when it buckles. I knew at the time it was an analogy, I made it clear it was an analogy in my video, I know it now, and you know I know it too.

 

[chrismohr]

Here is an email I got from Ryan Mackey yesterday answering the question about 8 floors hanging on. I count five nonburning floors in his source, not eight. From this I can glean "several floors hanging on," without being sure if it's five or eight floors specifically:

Anyway, the factoid you're looking for comes straight from NIST. From NCSTAR1-9, volume 2, pg. 599:

"As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior collumns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the west side of Floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward."

That's what their sim suggests, and that's consistent with the "free fall" of the perimeter as seen at the roofline level.
I'm quoting from the Review for Comments version, incidentally, in case there are some discrepancies. Frankly the number of Truthers who even read the WTC 7 report is nearly zero -- evinced by the fact that they all seem surprised to hear the above -- so I wasn't motivated to thrash it out in detail. Yet they seem surprised that the "free fall" is already explained, and has nothing to do with silent explosives.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris7 writes, "This is utter claptrap. If you insist that every data point is accurate then WTC 7 was moving up and down according to femr2's graph."

Do you not understand that changes in acceleration just mean that the fall rate is slowing down and speeding up? Are you actually suggesting that the data from femr2 must be wrong because it would show that building moves up and down during collapse?

 

[carlitos]

Add knowing the difference between speed and acceleration to the long, long list of subjects that Chris7 opines on without having any knowledge.

 

[chrismohr]

fires at building 7

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!"



I dunno, maybe you missed the multiple posts a few pages back. Here they are again; {see post #3889 if you forgot these; the full post isn't copying over}

Thanks again 000063 for this compilation of evidence that the fires in Building 7 were large and out of control. We'll see what NIST says.

In the meantime, my heart was warmed when I read Chris7's agreement that "It is possible that the core could momentarily pull the north face down at slightly more than FFA at the very beginning of the FFA but the data does not reflect that." Both the NIST graph and the more detailed data from femr2 show at least the possibility of two brief intervals of greater than freefall acceleration during the [I]freefall[/I] period. But much more importantly, here chris7 admits that there can be more than the two forces of gravity and resistance acting on a collapsing building. Richard Gage's presentation deals with only gravity and resistance and says freefall = no resistance. I say that other forces can enter into the equation to create near-zero net resistance, or even net negative resistance and therefore near-freefall or even slightly faster than freefall acceleration. I'm glad Chris7 agrees!

 

[chrismohr]

Sure...
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks...''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''


Uh huh... more objectivity from "the truth".
[qimg]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/WTC7StraightDown.png[/qimg]
Gee imagine that...were the building was. Oh well a few years back it was, and still for many is, fell perfectly, neatly etc within its own footprint. I give to you Chris that you move along with some of the facts...though your conclusions stay the same.

Hi Grandmaster,
A reminder that this picture makes me, uh, doubtful that moment frames can hold Building 7 together 100% during a catastrophic collapse. Still waiting for NIST's response to that question. But since Chris7 brought this up again, I thought I'd revive this picture with its reference lines to show what a flawless job the moment frames did in Building 7's last moments.

 

[GlennB]

This is utter claptrap. If you insist that every data point is accurate then WTC 7 was moving up and down according to femr2's graph.

As chrismohr has suggested, this comment displays an astonishing level of ignorance.

C7 sees a graph going up+down and assumes it means the building was going up +down?

 

[pgimeno]

Add knowing the difference between speed and acceleration to the long, long list of subjects that Chris7 opines on without having any knowledge.

In all fairness, I leave room for him to mean graphs such as this one (from the first page of the thread I linked to):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=553&pictureid=3537

which indeed shows the building moving up and down (though by a very little amount). That movement can be explained by CCD noise, heat turbulence, compression artifacts, small camera movements, or by the undergoing internal collapse.

 

[carlitos]

Ah, femr2's graphs. No axes labels, no legend, no scale. Good Times.

 

[tfk]

C7,

This is utter nonsense at this point. You had every opportunity to enter into that long & torturous discussion back in the "Discussion of femr's video data analysis" thread. I just checked. Your contributions: zero.

You stayed out of it because the whole thing was over your head.

This is utter claptrap. If you insist that every data point is accurate then WTC 7 was moving up and down according to femr2's graph.

You, Chris7, don't understand pretty much any of this stuff.

I presume that you're talking about the pre-collapse jitter in the data.

The calculated point in the image was moving up & down, not the building.

Causes: diffraction from smoke & particulates in air, schlerien from hot rising air along edge of building, video compression artifacts, etc.

There is not the slightest bit of surprise in these artifacts. The amount of pre-collapse motion was less than one pixel.

This is as rudimentary as it gets, and still you don't understand…??!1

The 0.1% error is the line representing the average, not the individual data points. It is negligible - too small to be considered.

And you have pulled "0.1% error" right out of your keister.

Prove me wrong. Provide the analytical basis for your claimed "0.1% error".

Silence shall ensue on this subject.

Once the core and north wall have equalized their common FFA, neither can speed up or slow down the other because there are no stresses within the system.

You know, Chris, that sounded all tech-y. Almost like it really means something.

Almost.

But really not.

Why don't you try to give some argument that the core & outer wall will "equalize their common FFA".

Why are you considering only two objects falling: the core & the north wall? NIST seems to think that there were many, many objects falling. That the whole core did not fall as a single unit.

Why are you considering the north wall to be an infinitely rigid structure? Which breaks. Why do you think that the frame could not store energy in deformation & give a dynamic (i.e., oscillating, ringing) response to a single large impact?

The entire upper part of the building [minus the part that had already collapsed] was falling at FFA.

Just to clarify your opinion for some of us who are confused, please identify - as completely as possible - which parts of the building you believe have already collapsed at the moment the external north wall begins its "global collapse".

NIST was correct when they said that it was FFA. All this double talk and playing with semantics is a lot of hogwash to deny this established scientific fact.

Chris, I empathize. I really do. I know that it all sounds like hogwash & double talk & semantics to you.

But just because "it is all Greek to you" does not mean that it is all double-talk, or hogwash, or semantics to everyone else, Chris.

I don't expect you to understand it. You seem to have little aptitude for this. More important, you have even less inclination to try to understand.

Those are your problems. Not ours.
___

Alternatively, you can try to prove me wrong, Chris. About my conclusions about FFA AND about my conclusion regarding your lack of understanding.

After all, you are holding yourself up as an authority here, asserting that you understand the issues.

With both femr & NIST's data, you have all the info that you need to prove that it was, or was not, FFA.

The one thing that you can NOT do is ignore femr's data, Chris.

Go ahead. Give it a shot.

I'll be fascinated to see what you come up with.

 

[tfk]

Chris Mohr,

Thanks for digging Ryan's comments up for me.

Tom

 

[tfk]

Ah, femr2's graphs. No axes labels, no legend, no scale. Good Times.

I'm laughing pretty hard, because I recognize that graph & I'm pretty certain it's one of mine.

femr & I were discussing (arguing? ing?) about whether the jitter was due to upper field to lower field misregistration. I said "no", and posted his data points coded by frame (blue = upper, red = lower), showing no consistent offset attributable to field.

Yeah, I didn't label those axis as I should have...

Busted!


tom

PS. you got some serious (percussion instruments you sit on) bringing my graphs into this.

BTW, how do you get the accent over the "o" in cojones?

 

[carlitos]

LOL, sorry Tom.

In windows, you hold ALT and type 0243 on the number keypad (not the keys above the qwerty keyboard). é is 0233, í is 0237, ñ is 0241 ó is 0243 and ú is 0250 (I usually have to hunt for that one; it's not so common). From the ASCII codes and memorized long ago for typing in Spanish on old technology.

On a Mac, much easier - Option e, then whatever letter.

iPhone is pretty intuitive, you just hold the letter and it gives you options. And the new one with siri understands spoken spanish pretty well.

 

[ozeco41]

...BTW, how do you get the accent over the "o" in cojones?

A trick I employ to get accents is simply to Google the word and you can (usually*) guarantee that some of the references will have the accent - cut and paste and there you are.

For some words e.g. "facade" the spell check dictionary of Firefox marks it as a spelling error and gives you the accented version "façade" ' without the fuss of Googling.

* And, just to prove me wrong, the Google trick doesn't work with "cojones".

Balls!

 

[Christopher7]

Hi Chris7,
You mistakenly assumed that was me talking. I actually cut and pasted an old email from Ryan Mackey he sent me a year ago. I should have put quotes around the whole thing. The breaking stick analogy was his way of explaining to me what happens to a support when it buckles. I knew at the time it was an analogy, I made it clear it was an analogy in my video, I know it now, and you know I know it too.

I know you know I know it and you know I know you know it too.

You cannot realistically compare a heavy H beam and moment frame to a stick. It is an inappropriate analogy.

The NIST model shows the columns buckling, not breaking like sticks, DURING the free fall acceleration period. This is conformation that their model is NOT falling at FFA as Sunder stated at the Technical Briefing.

 

[MarkLindeman]

A trick I employ to get accents is simply to Google the word and you can (usually*) guarantee that some of the references will have the accent - cut and paste and there you are.

For some words e.g. "facade" the spell check dictionary of Firefox marks it as a spelling error and gives you the accented version "façade" ' without the fuss of Googling.

* And, just to prove me wrong, the Google trick doesn't work with "cojones".

Balls!

I'm thinking that's because "cojones" doesn't need an accent, although "cojón" does. Did I learn that rule right?

ETA: The rule is, in pertinent part, that words ending in "s" have the stress on the next-to-last syllable unless accented otherwise -- so it would be redundant to put an accent there. The same rule applies to "n," so "cojon" would be pronounced something like "COE-hone."

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7 writes, "This is utter claptrap. If you insist that every data point is accurate then WTC 7 was moving up and down according to femr2's graph."

Do you not understand that changes in acceleration just mean that the fall rate is slowing down and speeding up? Are you actually suggesting that the data from femr2 must be wrong because it would show that building moves up and down during collapse?

I understand that taking data points from a video is imperfect. That's why many data points are used. The software computes the average and draws a line. This is the method used by Chandler and NIST and they agree that the upper part of WTC 7 fell at FFA for over two seconds.

Even if you were right about minute >FFA/<FFA/>FFA, it does not change the fact that the upper part of WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet and the NIST model does not.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I understand that taking data points from a video is imperfect. That's why many data points are used. The software computes the average and draws a line. This is the method used by Chandler and NIST and they agree that the upper part of WTC 7 fell at FFA for over two seconds.

Even if you were right about minute >FFA/<FFA/>FFA, it does not change the fact that the upper part of WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet and the NIST model does not.

Here's the thing about computer models: They're not perfect. They represent the statistical likelihood of what occurred, but it is impossible for them to describe perfectly what occurred, because the real world is too chaotic and random and the initial conditions are impossible to describe with perfect accuracy. The collapse model represents the statistical likelihood of what happened, and it provides a good starting point to identify the cause of failure, but it should not be taken as a literal descriptor of the sequence of events.

 

[LSSBB]

I understand that taking data points from a video is imperfect. That's why many data points are used. The software computes the average and draws a line. This is the method used by Chandler and NIST and they agree that the upper part of WTC 7 fell at FFA for over two seconds.

Even if you were right about minute >FFA/<FFA/>FFA, it does not change the fact that the upper part of WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet and the NIST model does not.

The problem here is the word "at". The femr acceleration curve passed through g to greater than g then back down below g. It was not a step function.