Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[LSSBB]

Hogwash

Only at the east end of the building. The rest of the core fell a split second before the exterior walls. The upper part of WTC 7 descended as a single unit, as observed. You are beyond denial and FEMR has delusions of grandeur.

Yes there was. Both NIST and Chandler agree. They are qualified and FEMR is NOT.

More hogwash

All you are stating is a set of flat out assertions. You are not presenting engineering or scientific responses to my argument, you are still just appealing to authority. What TECHNICAL issues are there with femr2's analysis? Mark L. had some. Did you read what he said? What Engineering or Science limitations are there to what I said? Note this is much harder than you think it is.

I recommend you get yourself out of knee-jerk response mode. To prove me wrong you will have to dig deep into the strength of materials, the connections from the exterior to the interior at every point, the actual physical pattern to how the columns break, in fact you would have to really do your own collapse simulation. My point is a basic one, and as I see it not falsifiable by a hand wave or bald assertion.

 

[MarkLindeman]

The curved line superimposed on the NIST graph does NOT follow the data points going into or out of Stage 2. It ignores the data point at 1.75s. Here is the graph without the erroneous curved line. The building fell at FFA for 2.25s. NIST and Chandler understand that the data points are not exact and the line drawn by the software gives the best overall match.

[qimg]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/4716/nistfreefallgraphe.jpg[/qimg]

You'd be better off not posting the graphic, since it tends to expose the hollowness of your non sequiturs.

It's not nearly good enough to say that "the data points are not exact." At the very least -- not to rebut femr2, but just to fend off the NIST data -- you need to show something about the magnitude of the measurement error.

 

[chrismohr]

Baloney.
There is not one shred of visual evidence that you can point to.

Tell you what -
You find a video of a controlled demolition. Put it side-by-side with the collapse of WTC 7 and tell me exactly what's the same.

Find me a silent controlled demolition. Just one'll do. Find me one controlled demo where you can't see explosions immediately prior to, and during collapse. Find me a controlled demo that is virtually indistinguishable from WTC 7.


And.....

GO

I could imagine verinage might be able to do this (explosion-free quiet demolition) but no one on the 9/11 truth side is arguing that.

 

[alienentity]

The building fell at FFA for 2.25s. NIST and Chandler understand that the data points are not exact and the line drawn by the software gives the best overall match.

Dude, get a grip. Everybody is forced to take the data points and try to 'fit' them as an approximation. Fact is, there is a substantial margin of error because of the paucity of data points.

But the concept of 'faster than G due to gravity' is not a theory, it's a simple fact. And the internal collapse does account for Femr2's observations that about 1 sec of the collapse was probably faster than G.



Physics does not require that some kind of demolition explosive be used to create the collapses. In fact real demolitions don't happen at freefall, I challenge you to find one that does - and if you attempt to narrow the field down to demolitions with freefall midway thru the collapse, you'll find exactly ZERO examples.
Think about that. There is simply no precedent for this in the history of demolition. Forget about the complete lack of explosions at the time of collapse if you wish, just for a thought experiment: demolition still doesn't fit, nor is it required by physics.

 

[alienentity]

I could imagine verinage might be able to do this (explosion-free quiet demolition) but no one on the 9/11 truth side is arguing that.

True, but verinage sure ain't going to get close to freefall acceleration, either. In fact you'll see a nice big bump and deceleration as the first collisions take place uniformly - something which certainly did not happen in any of the collapses on 9/11.

A few years ago truthers used to swear up and down that an upper block couldn't crush down a lower block; or that a tall building could collapse completely without explosives. But verinage techniques have invalidated those claims, so truthers have moved the goalposts - and dug themselves ever deeper into an illogical position.

Now they argue about the speed of collapse as some kind of 'proof' of CD, but again this is not a correct technical argument. It also fails.

 

[pgimeno]

A split second before the exterior walls.

Wrong. The core was falling for a while. The first sign of the fall of the core visible from the outside was the east penthouse collapse.

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.

You have said that but that doesn't make it correct.

If the exterior columns were buckling as in the NIST model, then the exterior wall would not be falling at FFA.

They most likely didn't. You've been explained that ad nauseam. That's too far into the chaos of the collapse to be a reliable representation of reality.

The added weight from the core pulling the exterior walls down would cause buckling but not FFA, much less greater than FFA.

That's a flat out assertion that can be dismissed outright. You're wrong. The core had a dynamic effect on the columns added to the static weight, just as in the example of the crane.

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.

Where is the strength of the moment frame that you claimed would make the building fall as an unit? Or is that only when it interests you and not the rest of the time?

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.

You're still not getting it. In LSSBB's diagram, the resistance of the exterior columns is not zero. It's simply countered by a bigger force, the core pulling down. Just as in the video of the crane, the tip starts to fall faster than FFA because the down force exerted by the pulling object is greater than the resistance of the arm.

It's actually simple if you're willing to be educated, but you are too stubbornly trying to remain ignorant without letting even basic physics concepts get to you because they contradict your holy beliefs.

The curved line superimposed on the NIST graph does NOT follow the data points going into or out of Stage 2.

The straight line superimposed on the NIST graph shows AVERAGE acceleration.

NIST's curve fit shows greater-than-g INSTANT acceleration.

You keep willing to mix average acceleration and instant acceleration. And you keep lying about what NIST data shows, pretending the average acceleration is instant. It is not.

 

[alienentity]

Yes, the transition to FFA was instantaneous and lasted for ~2.25 seconds.

NIST and Chandler agree on this fact. Anonymous pseudo-scientists try to say they know better - they don't.

That is incorrect. NIST specifically charts the buckling of the exterior columns as Stage 1 of collapse.

Once they buckled NIST states that they provided 'negligible' resistance.

You're not even supporting your argument correctly. That's kindofa double-fail.

 

[pgimeno]

Hi again gang,

I've just finished boiling down and submitting our re-re-rebuttals of points 1-44 on the chrismohr911.com site being put together for AE911Truth. They've re-rebutted many of my 238 YouTube rebuttals of Gage's Blueprint for Truth video there.

Now I'd like to ask if we can work on rebuttals for #45-86. People can also give me links for other YouTube videos from the likes of Dave Thomas and Alienentity etc. for ANY of the AE9/11 rebuttals (by number so I know where to link them up).

Thanks in advance again for all your help,
Chris Mohr

My take on the part corresponding to video 3, #55-65:

# | Chris Mohr's argument | Response by AE911Truth | P.Gimeno's take
- | Part 3 of Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage's 9/11 video Blueprint for Truth looks at the assertion that "no tall steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire," but the 2008 Delft University Tower fire-induced, fast collapse mostly into its own footprint proves "it ain't necessarily so." CORRECTION and CLARIFICATION: The Delft University Building was a steel-reinforced concrete building, not a steel-framed building. As the initial report stated, "The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so." Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings, but buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials. | Yes as you said: "Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings." But it does not follow logically that: "buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials." The stronger the materials, the more resistant they are to collapse.| I don't think that's a logical conclusion, just a statement of fact. The Kader toy factory is an example of a steel building collapsed totally. The Windsor tower in Madrid is an example of the unprotected steel structure of the building collapsing totally. In Windsor, the core was steel-reinforced concrete and the perimeter was steel. It was being added fireproofing, and the work was almost complete in the lower half. Only the top half of the perimeter collapsed. Ref: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm It collapsed basically onto its footprint, see http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/slide0008_image013.jpg The WTC7 case has to be analyzed separately because the fireproofing was not initially damaged.
55 | There has never been a tall building where a large jet with 98,500 liters of exploding fuel hit at over 500 mph creating massive fires where softened steel has had to hold up 180,000,000 pounds above it. | On 9/11 two jets crashed into the two World Trade Center towers, and stood for nearly an hour with no problem holding the weight above. The fires were only "massive" for a few seconds. They cooled off enough for people (such as Edna Cinton) to stand in the very places the fires started. | Yes, they stood for nearly an hour until the fire softened the steel. The point where Edna Cintron was standing was the entry point; at that point the materials were displaced by the crashing plane to other parts of the building. Near the same hole there are visible raging fires. The fires got worse as time progressed, as expected.
56 | The World Trade Center Towers dispensed with heavy concrete reinforcement because its weight would have made a 110 story skyscraper unsound. Instead the builders used a spray on fire retardant. | |
***57 | Tall Steel Framed Building's Very Fast, Almost Symmetrical, Collapse into its Own Footprint after coffee maker fire | |
58 | Steel Frame Structures Collapse in Fire: In 1997 the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed in 1997 The Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, completely collapsed after burning for two hours Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes Sofa SuperStore Charleston SC, long span roof trusses WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911. | |
59 | People Surprised By Steel Building Collapses Since 1900 (Unsinkable Titanic)! | Yes, people can be surprised by any major collapse or structural failure. There were technical design flaws in the Titanic which made it susceptible to sinking. However, the World Trade Centers were designed to be extra strong, since they had never built such a tall building. Indeed WTC 1 and 2 held up just fine for about an hour. | Again, they stood fine for about an hour until the fire softened the steel enough as to not be able to bear the weight of the buildings.
60 | Traditional buildings : steel-reinforced concrete. In fires, steel bends and concrete holds it together. | |
61 | Intentionally left blank | Yes, the 9/11 Commission intentionally did not cover WTC 7. What about the redacted blanked pages in the report about Saudi Arabia? | The 9/11 commission talks about WTC7, it just doesn't mention its collapse because it wasn't part of their task or objectives. (The part about Saudi Arabia I don't know much about. It is probably worth looking into, but probably not related to an inside job.) But point #61 was about a picture showing bent steel beams during a fire.
62 | Vincent Dunn has "seen twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. Steel tries to expand at both ends, when it can no longer expand, it sags..." | |
63 | Barehanded Guys Bending Steel Around a Tree (Sherman's Necktie) | |
64 | Robert Berhinig, 1967: "steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of... fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." | |
65 | If Steel Can't Be Brought Down By Fire, Why Bother With Concrete Reinforcement or Fireproofing of Steel Frames? | |

And a possible counter-response to the new response to #1, still pending to see the mentioned video:

#1 | The buildings did withstand the impacts, despite being calculated for a lower speed impact. The buildings were approximately the width of a runway, so it didn't need a lot of skill to hit them by people who knew how to land; one of the hits was sloppy. | Planes do not land near 500 mph. It is difficult to hit a building first time at such speeds. You can try it yourself with Google's Flight Simulator. (new video in progress) | Pilots that have airliner training can. It's not easy to handle an airliner for a non-pilot because of its size and inertia. The terrorists probably practiced with simulators.

 

[carlitos]

Dude, they didn't just practice with simulators, they went to flight school. (where they presumably flew simulators)

 

[pgimeno]

Dude, they didn't just practice with simulators, they went to flight school. (where they presumably flew simulators)

Of course. Maybe that should be stated more clearly. I left it implicit when I said "Pilots that have airliner training can [hit a building the size of a runway]. These pilots with airliner training being the terrorist pilots, of course.

 

[Christopher7]

All you are stating is a set of flat out assertions. You are not presenting engineering or scientific responses to my argument, you are still just appealing to authority. What TECHNICAL issues are there with femr2's analysis? Mark L. had some. Did you read what he said? What Engineering or Science limitations are there to what I said? Note this is much harder than you think it is.

You are spewing a lot of techno-babble trying to snow people. I'm not buying it. This is actually very simple. The graph that Chandler used is the one he has his students use to determine speed and/or acceleration. NIST used the same method because it is an excepted scientific way to get the job done.

FEMR's graphs show something different, something that did not happen. They are worthless insipid, techno-babble. But you can buy that crap if you want.

FEMR does NOT know better than Chandler and NIST and yes, that is an appeal to authority, as is your insistence that FEMR knows what he is talking about. He doesn't. I know BS when I hear it and this is Texas prime.

To prove me wrong you will have to dig deep into the strength of materials, the connections from the exterior to the interior at every point, the actual physical pattern to how the columns break, in fact you would have to really do your own collapse simulation.

Yea, right

 

[LSSBB]

You are spewing a lot of techno-babble trying to snow people. I'm not buying it. This is actually very simple. The graph that Chandler used is the one he has his students use to determine speed and/or acceleration. NIST used the same method because it is an excepted scientific way to get the job done.

FEMR's graphs show something different, something that did not happen. They are worthless insipid, techno-babble. But you can buy that crap if you want.

FEMR does NOT know better than Chandler and NIST and yes, that is an appeal to authority, as is your insistence that FEMR knows what he is talking about. He doesn't. I know BS when I hear it and this is Texas prime.

Yea, right

Lack of counter-argument noted.

 

[Christopher7]

Dude, they didn't just practice with simulators, they went to flight school. (where they presumably flew simulators)

Well there you go. Anyone who can get a simulator to fly would have no problem hitting the S tower at 530mph.

 

[Christopher7]

Lack of counter-argument noted.

The counter argument is:

NIST and Chandler know what are doing and FEMR is blowing smoke.

 

[LSSBB]

The counter argument is:

NIST and Chandler know what are doing and FEMR is blowing smoke.

Funny, such selective agreeing with NIST. Only you are arbiter of what they are right and wrong on, eh? Never had I seen such an attacker of authority turn tail and hide behind it so much.

Can part of a building fall faster than freefall? Yes or no?

 

[Major_Tom]

The counter argument is:

NIST and Chandler know what are doing and FEMR is blowing smoke.

and from earlier,

C7:

How many times do I have to repeat this? I believe NIST when what they say can be verified by photos or in this case, by an independent researcher.

from this post


In the case of WTC7 the acceleration profile provided by Femr2 is quite different than those presented by both the NIST and Chandler.

But a much more extreme case of differing measurements is the case of WTC1.

Christopher7, do you hold the same views with respect to WTC 1? Do you accept the Chandler description of collapse initiation via his third law argument?

Christopher7, do you agree with the NIST description of motion during the collapse initiation of WTC 1? Do you hold the same views as those expressed in the quotes with respect to WTC 1?

 

[Christopher7]

I could imagine verinage might be able to do this (explosion-free quiet demolition) but no one on the 9/11 truth side is arguing that.

You all have been informed that nano-thermite can be made explosive that is a lot quieter because the 4500^oF molten iron does most of the cutting.

 

[Christopher7]

In the case of WTC7 the acceleration profile provided by Femr2 is quite different than those presented by both the NIST and Chandler.

But a much more extreme case of differing measurements is the case of WTC1.

Christopher7, do you hold the same views with respect to WTC 1? Do you accept the Chandler description of collapse initiation via his third law argument?

Christopher7, do you agree with the NIST description of motion during the collapse initiation of WTC 1? Do you hold the same views as those expressed in the quotes with respect to WTC 1?

I am not that familiar with the details of the TT. I have focused on WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

Dude, get a grip. Everybody is forced to take the data points and try to 'fit' them as an approximation. Fact is, there is a substantial margin of error because of the paucity of data points.

Incorrect. Mr Chandler and NIST used every 5th or 6th frame because any more that that does not increase the accuracy, it just adds "noise".

But the concept of 'faster than G due to gravity' is not a theory, it's a simple fact. And the internal collapse does account for Femr2's observations that about 1 sec of the collapse was probably faster than G.

No, wishful thinking.

Physics does not require that some kind of demolition explosive be used to create the collapses.

FFA for ~100 feet can only occur when there is NO supporting structure.

In fact real demolitions don't happen at freefall,

So what? That does not mean that this was not a CD any more that the damage to surrounding buildings. No two demolitions are exactly alike because no to buildings are exactly alike. Like Chris Mohr, you are searching for reasons to deny the evidence of CD. Chris has 238. He has a very good imagination but it only works in one direction - coming up with reasons why it can't be a CD.

 

[GlennB]

You all have been informed that nano-thermite can be made explosive that is a lot quieter because the 4500^oF molten iron does most of the cutting.

An explosive that creates plenty of molten iron in the vicinity to melt the columns? Clever stuff indeed.

Hmmmm, lemme see now ...... mass of steel to melt is .... specific heat of steel .... melting point .... thermal conductivity ..... rate of heat loss ....

Nope, you're talking bollocks.