Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[tsig]

Do you believe the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg? As far as I know, no ship that size ever sank after hitting an iceberg before 1912.

You really don't see how ridiculous this "never before" argument is?

Until they were built no buildings had ever been built that tall.

 

[tsig]

Enough of this. You said what I wrote made no sense, I wrote people should have faith in themselves. You asked me to explain demolition. You are simply trying to add more posts.

What does faith have to do with engineering?

 

[Christopher7]

You are the one that said it is impossible. Back up what you say.

Stop playing games. You are the one that claims it is possible that the interior columns could pull the exterior columns faster than FFA for a full second. It is not up to me to disprove it, it's up to you to show that it can happen. I will not respond to this game again.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, this should help put things into perspective. Think about the force the interior collapse is putting on the perimeter, and then what happens when the perimeter columns fail near the base (probably assisted by interior debris spreading) and the resistance drops down to much less than g force.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=824&pictureid=6030

Columns are considered to "fail" when they start to buckle and as the engineers told Chris, the column only looses a small amount of its ability to support its load at that point. In other words, it still has most of its ability to resist the g force. As it buckles more, it progressively looses more of its ability to resist the g force.

Your theory fails to recognize this fact. It requires that the column loose all its ability to resist the force of g but that can only happen if the column is removed. The NIST model shows the exterior columns buckling and providing resistance well into the FFA of stage 2.

 

[femr2]

Stop playing games. You are the one that claims it is possible that the interior columns could pull the exterior columns faster than FFA for a full second. It is not up to me to disprove it, it's up to you to show that it can happen. I will not respond to this game again.

Faster Than Freefall







Do you require explanation of the "magical and impossible" reason that the end of the ruler (ruler #4 in the trace graph) can move faster than the free-falling ball sat upon it ?

Over-g is not mystical.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Enough of this. You said what I wrote made no sense, I wrote people should have faith in themselves. You asked me to explain demolition. You are simply trying to add more posts.

That's what is done here. The childlike "cause why" routine.

 

[pgimeno]

Stop playing games. You are the one that claims it is possible that the interior columns could pull the exterior columns faster than FFA for a full second. It is not up to me to disprove it, it's up to you to show that it can happen. I will not respond to this game again.

You know how the core fell first, right? Just as the big piece in the video. So of course it is possible. The duration depends on the elasticity of the attachments and the advantage of the falling piece, and the cable of the hook in the video is not very elastic compared to the horizontal beams and girders.

By the way, the core did not even need to reach free fall acceleration to see that effect, as LSSBB's graph shows.

 

[Christopher7]

Faster Than Freefall



http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/2/783280521.jpg

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/2/423782847.jpg

Do you require explanation of the "magical and impossible" reason that the end of the ruler (ruler #4 in the trace graph) can move faster than the free-falling ball sat upon it ?

Over-g is not mystical.

Clever trick. The end of the stick falls faster than FFA but it requires one end be fixed and the other to have no support whatsoever. In WTC 7, that would require explosives to remove all support from the exterior wall like the hand removing the supporting stick.

You can't attain FFA, much less greater than FFA, if the exterior wall is providing resistance.

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

 

[Christopher7]

You know how the core fell first, right?

A split second before the exterior walls.

Just as the big piece in the video.

Very clever but that has no relation to WTC 7. I have stated that the core fell a split second before the exterior walls and could pull them down at slightly greater than FFA for an instant - provided that all the supporting structure has been removed from the exterior walls with explosives allowing them to fall at FFA.

If the exterior columns were buckling as in the NIST model, then the exterior wall would not be falling at FFA. The added weight from the core pulling the exterior walls down would cause buckling but not FFA, much less greater than FFA.

 

[LSSBB]

Clever trick. The end of the stick falls faster than FFA but it requires one end be fixed and the other to have no support whatsoever. In WTC 7, that would require explosives to remove all support from the exterior wall like the hand removing the supporting stick.

You can't attain FFA, much less greater than FFA, if the exterior wall is providing resistance.

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

You are simply quoting a maxim and not analyzing my diagram. A force is already being applied to the external columns. When their support gives way, the reistance to the weight of the columns goes down, so the weight of the column plus the applied force from the collapsing interior, minus the remaining resistance, can cause acceleration greater than g. The wall is not in a vacuum, it is being pushed down already.

This is not magic, or word games.

This is basic physics.

 

[Animal]

That's what is done here. The childlike "cause why" routine.

It is a reasonable response to the troofer claims of "because I said so" or "I can't believe that"....................

 

[Christopher7]

You are simply quoting a maxim and not analyzing my diagram. A force is already being applied to the external columns.

The structure above, about one third the weight they were designed to carry.

When their support gives way the reistance to the weight of the columns goes down

How does the support of the exterior columns "give way" if not by explosives?

so the weight of the column plus the applied force from the collapsing interior, minus the remaining resistance

"minus the remaining resistance" ???
That doesn't make any sense. The weight of the columns and floors above plus the weight of the core pulling down would cause the exterior columns to buckle. The loss of ability to hold up the structure above would be small at first as the engineers told Chris.

can cause acceleration greater than g.

No!
Buckling columns provide resistance and there would not be anything close to FFA.

This is not magic, or word games.

This is basic physics.

That IS word games and bull pucky. It ignores the fact that buckling columns provide resistance.

 

[femr2]

Clever trick.

It is not a "trick". It demonstrates a simple physical principal, which it would appear you do not understand.

As you have stated greater than FFA "is not possible", the reason I have provided you with the simple example of greater than freefall motion is to help you understand why over-g descent is physically possible, and requires no force not already present in even the simplest of physical systems.

The end of the stick falls faster than FFA

Why does it "fall faster than FFA" ?

but it requires one end be fixed

Neither end is fixed. The only effective restriction on movement of the ruler is that, in the example shown, the left end of the ruler is constrained from moving to the left, thus creating a "pivot". Hint.

In WTC 7, that would require explosives to remove all support from the exterior wall like the hand removing the supporting stick.

A hand in one instance, but explosives only in the other !?

Can you think of no other action or process which would reduce resistance ? Explosives or hand of god only ?

You can't attain FFA, much less greater than FFA, if the exterior wall is providing resistance.

Incorrect. You can achieve over-g of a point on the building if the downward force exceeds "g" for that point. That does not require the resistance to be zero. You were shown a diagram earlier which, regardless of your position, you must accept nullifies your statement above.

You can achieve FFA, and greater than FFA, even if the exterior wall is providing resistance.

Again, regardless of your position, or whether you are prepared to accept such as the real-world cause of momentary over-g descent of the NW corner, you must stop making such silly statements. It is basic physics. You must change your stance. You have no choice. If you do not, you will simply receive ridicule from others here.

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Again, no. Take the blinkers off.

First, understand... The end of the ruler exceeds FFA. Why ?

 

[triforcharity]

No matter how much you do this to C7 with facts, logic, and science, he will never change. But, it is entertaining watching you do this with facts over and over, while he tries to shift and duck.

 

[LSSBB]

The structure above, about one third the weight they were designed to carry.

How does the support of the exterior columns "give way" if not by explosives?

"minus the remaining resistance" ???
That doesn't make any sense. The weight of the columns and floors above plus the weight of the core pulling down would cause the exterior columns to buckle. The loss of ability to hold up the structure above would be small at first as the engineers told Chris.

No!
Buckling columns provide resistance and there would not be anything close to FFA.

That IS word games and bull pucky. It ignores the fact that buckling columns provide resistance.

The exterior columns can collapse from two different means beyond explosives: one is when the applied force of the interior collapse exceeds the strength of the columns, the other is when the falling debris of the interior knocks out the columns from the bottom.

Please note my example stands regardless of how the columns were taken out. Collapse from fire or explosives, either way, the acceleration can be greater than g due to the applied force of the interior collapse on the exterior walls. The point is the interior is collapsing first and adding force.

As far as the resistance, look again at my diagram, I include resistance.

Re-read both what I and femr2 wrote. First, you may have to intentionally clear your mind of "FFA" or the building falling as a unit. Forget all the politics and who is right or wrong, and just read the diagram and femr2's analysis.

 

[tmd2_1]

"Making conclusions"?

As I read your previous post: You jumped to a conclusion, you're trying to coach other people that they shouldn't even acknowledge the possibility that there is any alternative, that is your story and you're sticking to it....



I think that is an irreducibly nasty thing to say. And that's why I think you shouldn't.

No I am trying to coach others to rely more on their own abilities and not completely on someone else. To have faith in themselves. Above all, to do the unimaginable, and actually think for themselves. Which is exactly what the people who did this are hoping no one does.

I'll also note this goes for both sides of this issue, don't just believe everything you're told.

In terms of WTC 7 (and really everything involved on that day) I always like to look at things from a higher level. So I encourage people to think of a complete reconstruction of that building, or a similar building (we've all been in or near buildings like it) imagine lighting some fires, and think what would happen? It is completely and utterly ridiculous to think we'll see anything like what happened on that day. You could even lite fires in strategic locations and you'll get nothing like what we saw, let alone fires that were suppose to be "random".

 

[NoahFence]

The structure above, about one third the weight they were designed to carry.

How does the support of the exterior columns "give way" if not by explosives?

"minus the remaining resistance" ???
That doesn't make any sense. The weight of the columns and floors above plus the weight of the core pulling down would cause the exterior columns to buckle. The loss of ability to hold up the structure above would be small at first as the engineers told Chris.

No!
Buckling columns provide resistance and there would not be anything close to FFA.

That IS word games and bull pucky. It ignores the fact that buckling columns provide resistance.

Why are you even asking questions when you'll just ignore the answers?

What's the point?

 

[tsig]

No I am trying to coach others to rely more on their own abilities and not completely on someone else. To have faith in themselves. Above all, to do the unimaginable, and actually think for themselves. Which is exactly what the people who did this are hoping no one does.

I'll also note this goes for both sides of this issue, don't just believe everything you're told.

In terms of WTC 7 (and really everything involved on that day) I always like to look at things from a higher level. So I encourage people to think of a complete reconstruction of that building, or a similar building (we've all been in or near buildings like it) imagine lighting some fires, and think what would happen? It is completely and utterly ridiculous to think we'll see anything like what happened on that day. You could even lite fires in strategic locations and you'll get nothing like what we saw, let alone fires that were suppose to be "random".

I did that.

 

[Christopher7]

The exterior columns can collapse from two different means beyond explosives: one is when the applied force of the interior collapse exceeds the strength of the columns, the other is when the falling debris of the interior knocks out the columns from the bottom.

That might happen at the east end but not the rest of the building where the core started down a split second before the exterior columns. You are grasping at straws.

Please note my example stands regardless of how the columns were taken out. Collapse from fire or explosives, either way, the acceleration can be greater than g due to the applied force of the interior collapse on the exterior walls. The point is the interior is collapsing first and adding force.

In the NIST model, the exterior columns were intact until the core started pulling them down, then they buckled. i.e. no FFA.

As far as the resistance, look again at my diagram, I include resistance.

Hogwash. The core could not make the resistance of the exterior columns go to zero instantly. As the engineering forum told Chris, the resistance reduction would be small at first.

Re-read both what I and femr2 wrote. First, you may have to intentionally clear your mind of "FFA" or the building falling as a unit. Forget all the politics and who is right or wrong, and just read the diagram and femr2's analysis.

I have read all the double talk.

The exterior columns are buckling in the NIST model and providing resistance as Sunder said. The NIST model does not fall at FFA. You refuse to deal with this fact.

 

[carlitos]

You are simply trying to muddy the waters and you know this. Two completely different things. But yes I doubt anyone would get on a plane they don't feel is safe, and in some way shape or form, it was researched.

No. Many of the same engineers, physicists and scientists that you trust to design, build, maintain and fly that airplane are the ones who wrote and signed off on the NIST reports on the World Trade Center. You implicitly accuse them of complicity to murder on one hand, while you "feel safe" on a 757 to Miami.

I am really sorry that you haven't thought this through, but that's what you are doing.

No I am trying to coach others to rely more on their own abilities and not completely on someone else. To have faith in themselves. Above all, to do the unimaginable, and actually think for themselves. Which is exactly what the people who did this are hoping no one does.

I'll also note this goes for both sides of this issue, don't just believe everything you're told.

In terms of WTC 7 (and really everything involved on that day) I always like to look at things from a higher level. So I encourage people to think of a complete reconstruction of that building, or a similar building (we've all been in or near buildings like it) imagine lighting some fires, and think what would happen? It is completely and utterly ridiculous to think we'll see anything like what happened on that day. You could even lite fires in strategic locations and you'll get nothing like what we saw, let alone fires that were suppose to be "random".

The highlighted sentence is not true. You are not looking at things from a "higher level," you are merely expressing some muddy incredulity and thinking that it passes for "higher level" thought. It does not. Your incredulity is not even interesting.