Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

I too agree that the NIST model did not perfectly reflect the reality of FFA for 2.25 seconds. Did it "represent the collapse with enough accuracy"? Here I disagree and say yes, it is enough accuracy

"Not perfectly" is a understatement. Their model does not fall at FFA. The draft report confirms this. Sunder admitted that "there was resistance in this case" and that free fall means "no supporting structure"/no resistance. You cannot change what he said or change the draft report.

This is critical because FFA means all the supporting structure had to have been removed in a very synchronized manner. That is the point and you know it. That is why you and the JREFers try to talk around it or say "that's close enough".

The NIST model is a progressive collapse and by definition it does not fall at FFA.

As to my stick analogy

Despite the fact that you have no data to justify it and no legitimate reason to say it. You persist in ignoring the NIST collapse model with columns bending [not snapping like sticks] during the period of FFA.

Bazant confirms that bending steel columns provide significant resistance. He doesn't include fracturing but until he does and demonstrates that H beams weighing 500 pounds per foot can snap like sticks, saying or implying that the columns snapped like sticks is knowingly making a baseless, incorrect statement.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8209081&postcount=1050

If you are rebutting NIST and Chandler then you cannot use baseless, incorrect analogies.

Making claims that NIST does not make does not help the NIST report. It passes or fails on what they said and their draft report said, not what you or anybody here says. You may think you can explain the FFA or lack of it but that means diddly squat. We are debating whether or not the NIST report explains the FFA.

 

[Sunstealer]

Oh, no, not again. Ergo, Szamboti and now Moore. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

Mass does not vary with fragmentation. At all. Being loose might cushion the impacts somewhat, at best, but the rubble would still be able to crush floors because even with the cushioning, the increase of load would not be slow enough for it to be absorbed. [ETA: Less so if the structural elements the rubble lands on are not designed to withstand such mass. Like floors.] Just as a snow avalanche crushes a house, for example.

According to the above truthers this


is impossible.

It's hilarious, they probably think a tonne of feathers is lighter than a tonne of steel.

 

[ozeco41]

Yet another at #40, sorry I forgot the separator before the (**) and your text came in the wrong column.

Oops.

Too late to edit - we can live with it.

If the comment is wrong and someone criticises you for it I will 'fess up.

 

[GlennB]

He doesn't include fracturing but until he does and demonstrates that H beams weighing 500 pounds per foot can snap like sticks, saying or implying that the columns snapped like sticks is knowingly making a baseless, incorrect statement.

They will "break like sticks" at the welds/bolts. Virtually every column at GZ clearly exhibited this effect. Those that bent were freak exceptions.

 

[Sunstealer]

C7 - what is the effect of strain rate on toughness in steels?

 

[Animal]

You may have worked with steel but your experience and knowledge of it is close to zero.

I can take a piece of steel and heat treat it so that it snaps like a stick. I can take the exact same piece and heat treat it so that it's ductile and doesn't.

Infact I can take a piece of steel and under certain conditions it will fracture in a brittle manner like a stick and in others it will bend and absorb the same force without breaking. See "ductile to brittle transition" in steels.

Stop talking out of your behind.

Agreed on all points.

Steel will bend if loading gradually exceeds it yield point, on the other hand if the loading instantaneously exceeds its ultimate failure point, it will snap.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I work with A LOT of steel and I can assure you, yes, sometimes it does. (think work hardening)

It also can snap if it is over hardened whilst heat treating.

 

[chrismohr]

Wow I'm overwhelmed by the responses here. Thanks so much to everyone who has answers to the chrismohr911 re-rebuttals. I will comb through it all, research a bit, etc. If anyone wants to add YouTube video links or even links to JREF posts etc., the links give people a chance to look more deeply. Alienentity and Dave Thomas and other video producers especially, if you can give me links to your videos that would be great. Let's stay with these first few dozen re-rebuttals for a week or so till I compile enough info.

 

[Animal]

Wow I'm overwhelmed by the responses here. Thanks so much to everyone who has answers to the chrismohr911 re-rebuttals. I will comb through it all, research a bit, etc. If anyone wants to add YouTube video links or even links to JREF posts etc., the links give people a chance to look more deeply. Alienentity and Dave Thomas and other video producers especially, if you can give me links to your videos that would be great. Let's stay with these first few dozen re-rebuttals for a week or so till I compile enough info.

Another point against their rebuttals.......the claims about the glass breakage. The glass breakage would have occurred not only because of the explosion from the fuel, but also from the warping of the building structure by the impact of the plane. I forget how much they said the building swayed, up it could have easily overstress the glass and cause it to fracture.

 

[chrismohr]

According to the above truthers this


is impossible.

It's hilarious, they probably think a tonne of feathers is lighter than a tonne of steel.

This video clip you brought up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo&feature=player_embedded is a good example of a clear simple link to answer such objections. I'll use it in my re-re-rebuttals. Thank you.

Both my radio debate and my in-person debate with Richard Gage involved me arguing against his assertion that a building that had broken up into pieces does not lose its mass (except for the parts that are completely pulverized and float away in a dust cloud). The example I used was that I would hate to have a ton of brick pieces falling on me! I couldn't believe I even had to argue such a point. It was indeed on the level of feathers vs bricks.

 

[Clayton Moore]

This video clip you brought up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo&feature=player_embedded is a good example of a clear simple link to answer such objections. I'll use it in my re-re-rebuttals. Thank you.

Both my radio debate and my in-person debate with Richard Gage involved me arguing against his assertion that a building that had broken up into pieces does not lose its mass (except for the parts that are completely pulverized and float away in a dust cloud). The example I used was that I would hate to have a ton of brick pieces falling on me! I couldn't believe I even had to argue such a point. It was indeed on the level of feathers vs bricks.

If a ton of bricks fell on you 1/4 inch bits of you wouldn't strewn all over the place. You'd be squashed as if by Mr. Squash It All Flat.

 

[chrismohr]

They will "break like sticks" at the welds/bolts. Virtually every column at GZ clearly exhibited this effect. Those that bent were freak exceptions.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail-1.jpg[/qimg]

I am tired of this debate with Chris7 but here we go again. I do want to be clear: am I mistaken in my belief that in Building 7 many columns actually buckled according to the NIST Report? I kind of thought the columns snapping like sticks at the welded points was more common in the Twin Towers and that there were in fact many buckled columns from Building 7. Do correct me if I am wrong.

More importantly, when I used the breaking stick analogy in my video 18 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0), as I have said before, I knew and I stated in the video that the buckling columns were not identical to a breaking stick in reality. But repeated answers to my inquiries here and elsewhere make it clear that the results of breaking and buckling columns are very similar. Euler's formulae, TFK's graph, etc. all show that a buckling column loses something like 98% of its strength. Whatever vestigal resistance a fully-buckled column provides to as building's collapse can be overcome by local torquing and leveraging of the undergoing chaotic collapse and still attached in places to one another.

I ain't budging on this Chris7 because all evidence points to what I am saying as being true. And BTW we aren't even agreeing on what we are debating here. I'm debating controlled demolition vs. natural collapse. Go ahead and debate against NIST, I'm not their apologist even though I agree with most of their technical conclusions. The breaking stick analogy in my video was properly identified as such. No baseless falsehoods here. If someone could prove to me that a fully buckled column would still hold up, say, 35% of its designed load capacity, that would get my attention and we could reopen this discussion. But I look at the "buckled" column in MM's picture in the post below and there ain't much of it left at the buckling point. Much of it has snapped apart and only a small part is still holding together at all. This is just an initial observation, but I wonder if this is the case with many of the other buckled columns. Am I observing correctly that most of the column has actually snapped and not just buckled?

 

[chrismohr]

If a ton of bricks fell on you 1/4 inch bits of you wouldn't strewn all over the place. You'd be squashed as if by Mr. Squash It All Flat.

Thank you for agreeing with me! Now please explain this to Richard Gage.

 

[Miragememories]

"...Bazant confirms that bending steel columns provide significant resistance. He doesn't include fracturing but until he does and demonstrates that H beams weighing 500 pounds per foot can snap like sticks, saying or implying that the columns snapped like sticks is knowingly making a baseless, incorrect statement.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8209081&postcount=1050..."

"They will "break like sticks" at the welds/bolts. Virtually every column at GZ clearly exhibited this effect. Those that bent were freak exceptions."

Freak exceptions?

A freaky heat source and a freaky power source no doubt?

MM

 

[GlennB]

I am tired of this debate with Chris7 but here we go again. I do want to be clear: am I mistaken in my belief that in Building 7 many columns actually buckled according to the NIST Report? I kind of thought the columns snapping like sticks at the welded points was more common in the Twin Towers and that there were in fact many buckled columns from Building 7. Do correct me if I am wrong.

It depends what you mean by "buckled".

Elastic or plastic buckling? And the entire column length or just each single unit within the column, given that each "column" was constructed from many separate sections? Whole columns certainly buckled but whether their elements were plastically deformed or ruptured is another matter.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol II, searched for "failure mode", yields no reference to fracturing or bending of the bulk steel of the columns (there is probably a technical term for this, but I'm not aware of it). afaics every failure mode relates to connections.

Intuitively at least, it would seem perverse for the body of a column section to fracture when there is a weaker link such as a weld available. But you might want to get one of the heavyweight engineering types here onto that question.

I must admit I've never seen a WTC photo of any broken column section (though they might exist), just a few bent ones.

 

[GlennB]

Freak exceptions?

A freaky heat source and a freaky power source no doubt?

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

 

[000063]

If a ton of bricks fell on you 1/4 inch bits of you wouldn't strewn all over the place. You'd be squashed as if by Mr. Squash It All Flat.

What do cement mixer trucks have to do with bone fragments found as a result of the total destruction of the three buildings on 9/11?

A crushing blow does not chop its recipient into tiny pieces.

WTC7 basically globally collapses into its own footprint and the discussion waddles in squirting hoses.

...
The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed...

Jumping rope and 9/11 truth - how the sheeple have been trained to avoid unpopular truth about WTC 7

Sunday, September 25, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

http://www.naturalnews.com/033684_911_truth_WTC_7.html

1059Share
[Share this Article]

...To watch the WTC 7 building fall into its own footprint,...

...Rather, it is a question of how did all the support columns for the entire building simultaneously shatter and bring the building down at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint?...

The morons thrive on coincidence and buildings destroying themselves.

If buildings could be weakened as the 9/11 buildings were said to have been on 9/11 with a total destruction into a basic footprint there would be no need for controlled demolitions.

...

​

First it's "in its own footprint", then its "mostly within its footprint", now it's "all over the place". I wonder if "all over the place" is "within its footprint" or "within its basic footprint". We all know that the debris field for all three buildings covered several times more ground than the building's footprint. Heck, WTC 1's collapse hit WTC 6 on its way to WTC 7. Not one, but two buildings are within its "basic footprint"?

 

[000063]

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

Including himself.

He's just nitpicking at the stick analogy, much like truthers pick at apparent "anomalies" in the Official Story because that's all they can understand. The funny thing is that the analogy is perfectly correct; when something fractures, it is a sudden loss of most of its strength. All the fancy calculations and such go right over his head, but likening a steel beam to a stick? That's clearly ludicrous.

 

[pgimeno]

This video clip you brought up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo&feature=player_embedded is a good example of a clear simple link to answer such objections. I'll use it in my re-re-rebuttals. Thank you.

Note it's also used in my #16 response as a hint on how the jet fuel descending down the elevator shaft could break the elevator doors open. Maybe I should have included an explanation as well.

 

[pgimeno]

[qimg]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5320/wtcrelic1bt5.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks MM. Here it is again in all its glory:

Bazant confirms that bending steel columns provide significant resistance. He doesn't include fracturing but until he does and demonstrates that H beams weighing 500 pounds per foot can snap like sticks, saying or implying that the columns snapped like sticks is knowingly making a baseless, incorrect statement.

Given the above image, I'm entitled to call you a liar if you keep claiming it is a baseless incorrect statement. That column clearly shows fracture. The crane video clearly shows steel losing its strength after failure. The Bazant book is a study on steel behavior. A materials scientist is also pointing you to the mistakes in your assumptions.

Your only response:

ETA: This image shows clear fracture as well, most notably near the top: