Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[pgimeno]

The 98% loss occurs when the column has bent almost completely [fully formed hinge]. It does not go from 100% to 2% strength instantly, it decreases as the bending becomes more pronounced.

Indeed, that's what happened during Stage 1.

 

[triforcharity]

Structural engineers tell me that connections are made strong enough so that the member will bend before the connection fails. The philosophy is to have a failure be gradual to give the occupants time to exit.

Your SE friend is wrong. Oh so very wrong.

The weakest part of ANY connection between two pieces of material, is in fact, the connection.

Want proof?

Those are columns where.....guess what.......the splices failed first.

Imagine that......

 

[chrismohr]

Tri glad you are here. Did YOU see lotsa evenly-bent columns like C7 describes? I'm guessing you saw lots of columns broken at the welded/bolted connections. In any event, I will be talking to a structural engineer I find who is out of this debate. And BTW MM, when I'm at a party and I find out someone is a structural engineer or physicist, they are happy to answer my questions, and often they don't even know the question relates to 9/11. It's a great icebreaker and a great way to get unbiased nontechnical answers from technical people. Try it sometime.

 

[triforcharity]

No. The photos like you see above, are very common. I have literally hundreds of them. They can be found here.

http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC Attack/

 

[GlennB]

Structural engineers tell me that connections are made strong enough so that the member will bend before the connection fails. The philosophy is to have a failure be gradual to give the occupants time to exit.

Seriously, C7. Seriously .....

What possessed you to make up this dreadful crap??

 

[Christopher7]

OK gang, here's where my own confirmation bias can be a problem. Do I believe TFK Tom and Glenn, who are guys who agree with me, even though my original understanding of the meaning of "buckling" was closer to that of Chris7's?

Where I definitely disagree with Chris7 is in his timing. in post 4121 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8209690&postcount=4121
he copies off some NIST diagrams that take us only up to one second into the global collapse. Since FFA commences another second later, these diagrams tell me nothing about what was happening according to NIST DURING freefall.

The camera angle erroneously saw inward movement as downward movement. In any case, the 7 foot (?) decent in Stage 1 is undetectable without close examination. My estimate of 1 second into the collapse is based on when the decent becomes clear in the model video. Using in Figure 12-62, measure 7 stories and then measure the fold in the west face. The building has descended about 20 to 25 feet. That puts it well into the FFA.

As for chris7's assertion, "Structural engineers tell me that connections are made strong enough so that the member will bend before the connection fails. The philosophy is to have a failure be gradual to give the occupants time to exit." Well, I didn't just laugh, being the layperson

You were correct not to laugh. As it turns out, that precaution only applies in earthquake zones and not likely to apply to WTC 7. Those who did laugh don't know what they are talking about or they would have known that.

 

[NoahFence]

Gradual failure, Sarns?

Seven hours not gradual enough for you?

 

[GlennB]

The camera angle erroneously saw inward movement as downward movement. In any case, the 7 foot (?) decent in Stage 1 is undetectable without close examination.

Close examination is exactly what it got, so that's OK then , eh?

At a 45° camera angle, 7' perceived down would equate to about 7' actual back.

So, your new rationalisation theory is that the initlal motion was ~7' back?

And what might have caused that, exactly?

*crickets*

Chris, you really should stop pulling random stuff out of your butt-end.

 

[leftysergeant]

What you are saying is true but the buckling columns provide resistance from 100% to 2% as they buckle until they have fully buckled. But by that time the building has fallen ~70 to 80 feet. The NIST model is not falling at FFA.

So the NIST model is wrong in that aspect.

Still doesn't prove CD.

The important point is that the building shows a clear waist involving about eight floors, which corresponds to the distance of near-FFA. The columns either snapped at their connections or buckled so quickly that it had no different outward effect.

 

[Christopher7]

At a 45° camera angle, 7' perceived down would equate to about 7' actual back.

So, your new rationalisation theory is that the initlal motion was ~7' back?

This is just another red herring to direct attention away from the fact that the buckling was during the FFA and therefore the NIST computer model is NOT falling at FFA.

Chris, you really should stop pulling random stuff out of your butt-end.

You should grow up and stop the childish insults.

 

[GlennB]

This is just another red herring to direct attention away from the fact that the buckling was during the FFA and therefore the NIST computer model is NOT falling at FFA.

No, stick to the point. It's precisely what you are claiming - that the initial motion was 7' back (southwards).

You want to stay with that or retract your claim?

 

[Christopher7]

So the NIST model is wrong in that aspect.

Thank you for acknowledging that the NIST model is not falling at FFA.

Still doesn't prove CD.

Correct, it only proves that the NIST model does not match the actual collapse.

The important point is that the building shows a clear waist involving about eight floors, which corresponds to the distance of near-FFA. The columns either snapped at their connections or buckled so quickly that it had no different outward effect.

Now you try to double talk around FFA. It was not near-FFA and you know it. That is a misrepresentation of the fact that it was measured to within 1/10th of 1 percent. That's as close as can be measured. NIST knows that and said it was "at gravitational acceleration" because it was.

The columns in Fig 12-62 are providing resistance as Sunder stated at the Tech Briefing and all your double talk cannot alter that.

This fact cannot penetrate your denial filter:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Not buckling components, NO components.

 

[GlennB]

Not buckling components, NO components.

So ... open a new thread and tell us how this could have been achieved. Also why and when.

 

[leftysergeant]

This fact cannot penetrate your denial filter:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Not buckling components, NO components.

Well, DUH! Then the columns either broke suddenly because they exceded the degree to which they could buckle without fracturing or they were blown well after global collapse had been initiated, right?

Can you prove that they were blown, rather than having snapped?

 

[GlennB]

Well, DUH! Then the columns either broke suddenly because they exceded the degree to which they could buckle without fracturing or they were blown well after global collapse had been initiated, right?

Keep up with the pace here, lefty

The C7 theory is that the < g phase wasn't real, just an optical illusion. He claims WTC7 began with a 7' southerly lean, followed immediately by freefall. This is no mere everyday CD, it's a miracle of a CD.

 

[000063]

At a party?

Of course that would be an improvement over wallowing in the false praise and support from anonymous Official Story zealots.

You might also like to talk with a few lawyers while you are embibing. Try asking them about how much fun and easy it is to argue a lie when the judge permits dishonest testimony.

MM

Incredulity, personal attacks, unbacked claims, and, oh yes, absolutely no evidence.

In fact, I've noticed that you almost never respond to posts that directly refute you, preferring to swoop in and snipe at posts addressed at someone else. Did you learn that from Ergo?

 

[000063]

Gradual failure, Sarns?

Seven hours not gradual enough for you?

Just like NIST's mendacity, the failure is gradual or not depending on whether he wants it to be.

 

[DGM]

This is just another red herring to direct attention away from the fact that the buckling was during the FFA and therefore the NIST computer model is NOT falling at FFA.

Do you think there was any buckling at the start of the collapse? You seem to like to start looking at the collapse about half way in, am I right?

 

[Carlos]

Structural engineers tell me that connections are made strong enough so that the member will bend before the connection fails.

Wrooooong, do it again!

Connections exist to transmit forces (sometimes moments too) from a structural element to another as if they were a single element.

The philosophy is to have a failure be gradual to give the occupants time to exit.

This is what happens when there is a total plastification of the cross-secction of a beam, forming a plastic hinge and an excessive bending/deformation so the occupants have time to exit. Nothing to do with connections.

 

[pgimeno]

Keep up with the pace here, lefty

The C7 theory is that the < g phase wasn't real, just an optical illusion. He claims WTC7 began with a 7' southerly lean, followed immediately by freefall. This is no mere everyday CD, it's a miracle of a CD.

Hell yeah! Is C7 a no-planer? Because he's certainly a no-columner! There are no videos of the lower columns buckling during the collapse therefore they weren't there.