Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[LSSBB]

LSSBB, One thing I'm uncertain of is Chris7's claim that if the entire interior has already collapsed, then there's nothing inside to create the necessary fulcrum effect to cause near-freefall collapse rates. I can conjecture about an answer to this but would rather hear it from someone who understands physics and buiildings better than I.

Ok, and please note this:

The "fulcrum effect" is not occuring after the entire interior has collapsed, it's while the collapse is in progress. The part directly under the east penthouse was the start of a chain that eventually reached the perimiter and yanked it down. Since we cannot see what happened inside the building, we cannot know precisely how the interior collapsed.

 

[ozeco41]

LSSBB, One thing I'm uncertain of is Chris7's claim that if the entire interior has already collapsed, then there's nothing inside to create the necessary fulcrum effect to cause near-freefall collapse rates. I can conjecture about an answer to this but would rather hear it from someone who understands physics and buiildings better than I.

Why respond?

He is merely jerking your chain and has never revealed an interest in working through matters in a way which progresses towards solutions.

The physics involved is relatively basic. I will acknowledge that free body falling problems of this type often confuse those qualified to comment on the physics. So could well be beyond the competence of those whose incompetence is already known. I recall some weeks past posting a bit of a mental challenge of an hypothetical free body falling scenario. My aim was to assist our trolls and counter-trolling members improve their understanding of this type of free body falling problem...

...IIRC no-one from either side took up the challenge.

...also IIRC it pointed to the common error of "wrongly defined system boundary"

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7, to say I have a total lack of understanding of the laws of physics is both wrong and mean-spirited.

You insist that the data points show greater than FFA. That is wrong. NIST and Chandler know what they are talking about and you do not, nor do the anonymous "experts" on this forum. That is not mean spirited, it's just a fact. Both NIST and Chandler used software designed for this specific purpose because they know what they are doing. They both said it was FFA. The outrageous arrogance by you and others here, claiming that you know better, is insulting to them.

 

[newton3376]

You insist that the data points show greater than FFA. That is wrong. NIST and Chandler know what they are talking about and you do not, nor do the anonymous "experts" on this forum. That is not mean spirited, it's just a fact. Both NIST and Chandler used software designed for this specific purpose because they know what they are doing. They both said it was FFA. The outrageous arrogance by you and others here, claiming that you know better, is insulting to them.

See?

NIST is correct but only when they agree with a HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER and a CARPENTER....

And when they disagree we, of course, should take the word of a HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER and a CARPENTER over the ENGINEERS AT NIST AND THE MAJORITY OF THE ENGINEERS IN THE WORLD THAT AGREE WITH NIST.

Yeah........Ill take the High school teacher and the carpenter over them

Puuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhlease spare us this nonsense.

Either publish or stop talking already.....it's just embarrassing.

 

[Christopher7]

LSSBB, One thing I'm uncertain of is Chris7's claim that if the entire interior has already collapsed, then there's nothing inside to create the necessary fulcrum effect to cause near-freefall collapse rates. I can conjecture about an answer to this but would rather hear it from someone who understands physics and buiildings better than I.

I don't make any "claims" about the interior columns. We can see in the videos that columns 79, 80 and 81 were taken out and about 6 seconds later the rest of the core columns were taken out, east to west, in about 1 second. [I say taken out because steel framework cannot fall apart that fast IMnsHO.]

In the NIST model, the east to west "collapse" takes several seconds and they admit that their model does not match the actual collapse in this regard.

It appears that the east end started down a small fraction of a second before the west end but there is no kink in the level view. Perhaps a slight bow but the east end is very fuzzy.

The entire upper portion of the building starts descending during the 1 second when the interior columns under the screenwall and west penthouse start to descend [east to west]. This is not a claim, it's an observation of the collapse.

The interior columns, thru the floor beams, are pulling in and down on the exterior columns causing the building to implode [fall in on itself].

These 3 screen captures are about one half second apart. Using the greyish building on the right, it can be seen that the roofline has started down in the third frame, before the screenwall and west penthouse fall inside the building.

*

 

[Christopher7]

NIST is correct but only when they agree with a HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER and a CARPENTER.

No, I agree that NIST is correct when what they say can be verified by photos and videos. Their data is mostly correct but their fire sim and their model do not match the photos and videos.

NIST verified Chandlers analysis of FFA. That is scientific conformation. Y'all reject this scientific conformation because you can't accept the implications.

 

[DGM]

NIST verified Chandlers analysis of FFA. That is scientific conformation. Y'all reject this scientific conformation because you can't accept the implications.

And what did NIST have to say about these "implications"? You accept their expert opinion there too, right?

 

[LSSBB]

No, I agree that NIST is correct when what they say can be verified by photos and videos. Their data is mostly correct but their fire sim and their model do not match the photos and videos.

NIST verified Chandlers analysis of FFA. That is scientific conformation. Y'all reject this scientific conformation because you can't accept the implications.

But femr2 showed the NIST analysis doesn't match the photos well enough. Why don't you accept that?

 

[pgimeno]

I don't make any "claims" about the interior columns. We can see in the videos that columns 79, 80 and 81 were taken out buckled and about 6 seconds later the rest of the core columns were taken out buckled, east to west, in about 1 second.

Let's talk in proper terms.

[I say taken out because steel framework cannot fall apart that fast IMnsHO.]

Your not so honest (thanks for the admission) opinion is not of relevance here. Actually it's kind of surprising that it wasn't faster. Load redistribution is a very quick phenomenon (in the range of milliseconds), and when the load exceeds the capacity of the remaining columns, every attempt at load redistribution causes a new failure. That's practically instant, and is the reason why building collapses are sudden, and the reason why the "all columns failed at the same time means demolition" canard is hogwash.


The video still can't represent the reality of big buildings, because the huge mass of a building, which translates to big inertia opposing lateral and toppling movement and therefore causes more columns to fail simultaneously, can't be reproduced easily at these scales.

Of course, that's an oversimplification, as there are other effects to consider (remember the four-legged chair where a leg was cut, for example, that can cause the columns to fail even when their total capacity is enough). But hopefully useful for explanatory purposes.

The interior columns, thru the floor beams, are pulling in and down on the exterior columns causing the building to implode [fall in on itself].

It seems you're starting to catch up. That's the most likely reason for over-g.

These 3 screen captures are about one half second apart. Using the greyish building on the right, it can be seen that the roofline has started down in the third frame, before the screenwall and west penthouse fall inside the building.

[qimg]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7323/380s.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2535/485s.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5913/590sg.jpg[/qimg]

*

Interesting. The NW corner stays at about the same place in the meantime, while the NE corner has already fallen a few pixels. A trace of that side might be interesting, if it were doable. It might be doable for the first few frames.

 

[GlennB]

Interesting. The NW corner stays at about the same place in the meantime, while the NE corner has already fallen a few pixels. A trace of that side might be interesting, if it were doable. It might be doable for the first few frames.

There's something even more interesting in C7-land, but he hasn't thought it out.

C7 believes there was no <g phase and that the apparent (from his p.o.v.)<g phase was due to the building leaning/bowing southwards initially, with the resultant perspective issues from a street-level camera merely giving the impression of a <g phase.

Any analysis from this kind of angle, i.e. essentially roof-level, cannot be subject to the same perspective issues that allows C7 to support his "no <g phase" delusion. So he should be rejecting this whole caboodle as, er, dunno .... 'faked' or something

 

[pgimeno]

I said:

The video still can't represent the reality of big buildings, because the huge mass of a building, which translates to big inertia opposing lateral and toppling movement and therefore causes more columns to fail simultaneously, can't be reproduced easily at these scales.

Found a better one:


In this other example, the mass is much bigger and the mentioned effect can be somewhat appreciated: the tower fails almost straight down, with little lateral movement.

ETA: Incidentally, the table, which was able to support the weight, also gives way under the dynamic load. I'm liking this example more and more.

There's something even more interesting in C7-land, but he hasn't thought it out.

C7 believes there was no <g phase and that the apparent (from his p.o.v.)<g phase was due to the building leaning/bowing southwards initially, with the resultant perspective issues from a street-level camera merely giving the impression of a <g phase.

Any analysis from this kind of angle, i.e. essentially roof-level, cannot be subject to the same perspective issues that allows C7 to support his "no <g phase" delusion. So he should be rejecting this whole caboodle as, er, dunno .... 'faked' or something

I'd like to think that he's starting to catch up.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Found a better one:


In this other example, the mass is much bigger and the mentioned effect can be somewhat appreciated: the tower fails almost straight down, with little lateral movement.

ETA: Incidentally, the table, which was able to support the weight, also gives way under the dynamic load. I'm liking this example more and more.

The table didn't just give way at the connections, either; the dynamic load of the falling weight took a big chunk off the end of the table-top. That's an impressive example of the difference between static and dynamic loads.

Dave

 

[pgimeno]

Not to mention that, by ergo's standards, that's just loose rubble.

(true Scotsman fallacy in 3... 2... 1...)

 

[LSSBB]

It seems you're starting to catch up. That's the most likely reason for over-g.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe Chris7s "implosion" fails to happen as the exterior begins to fall is because of his beloved "moment frame".

 

[Major_Tom]

But femr2 showed the NIST analysis doesn't match the photos well enough. Why don't you accept that?

Strange. Weren't some of the regulars here attacking Femr2 earlier about this same thing?

Why not apologize to him for your own misconceptions earlier? Why not explain these same features to TFK, who seems to lag far behind the group? Why not to W.D. Clinger, who made the same mistakes? (Think kink! Think kink!)

And not just for WTC7, but for the more intricate data provided on WTC1.

The WTC1 measurements are much more damning to the NIST than the WTC7 measurements, taken by the same people who the peanut gallery was complaining about earlier.


We've got a lot of correcting to do!

 

[Clayton Moore]

THE MAJORITY OF THE ENGINEERS IN THE WORLD THAT AGREE WITH NIST.

Evidence?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I said:

Found a better one:


In this other example, the mass is much bigger and the mentioned effect can be somewhat appreciated: the tower fails almost straight down, with little lateral movement.

ETA: Incidentally, the table, which was able to support the weight, also gives way under the dynamic load. I'm liking this example more and more.

Yeah that's an excellent example. The wooden tower probably weighed 2 or 3 pounds.

 

[Christopher7]

But femr2 showed the NIST analysis doesn't match the photos well enough. Why don't you accept that?

FEMR is an anonymous poster and his analysis is crap. He used a program not designed to do what he used it for. To take the word of an anonymous poster over professionals from opposing sides who used the correct software is folly. This is just an attempt to muddy the waters by people desperate to deny the confirmed scientific proof of FFA.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Let's talk in proper terms.


Your not so honest (thanks for the admission) opinion is not of relevance here. Actually it's kind of surprising that it wasn't faster. Load redistribution is a very quick phenomenon (in the range of milliseconds), and when the load exceeds the capacity of the remaining columns, every attempt at load redistribution causes a new failure. That's practically instant, and is the reason why building collapses are sudden, and the reason why the "all columns failed at the same time means demolition" canard is hogwash.


The video still can't represent the reality of big buildings, because the huge mass of a building, which translates to big inertia opposing lateral and toppling movement and therefore causes more columns to fail simultaneously, can't be reproduced easily at these scales.

Of course, that's an oversimplification, as there are other effects to consider (remember the four-legged chair where a leg was cut, for example, that can cause the columns to fail even when their total capacity is enough). But hopefully useful for explanatory purposes.


It seems you're starting to catch up. That's the most likely reason for over-g.


Interesting. The NW corner stays at about the same place in the meantime, while the NE corner has already fallen a few pixels. A trace of that side might be interesting, if it were doable. It might be doable for the first few frames.

Good work. You proved a structure of an ounce or so of spaghetti could support a pound of spaghetti indefinitely.

 

[triforcharity]

FEMR is an anonymous poster

Why should that matter? You're Christopher7, correct? An anonymous poster, right?

and his analysis is crap.

As is yours.

He used a program not designed to do what he used it for.

Kinda like how you use MS Paint to try to illustrate how NIST was wrong, but yet, in the meantime, showed your own ignorance?

To take the word of an anonymous poster over professionals from opposing sides who used the correct software is folly.

I couldn't agree more. Kinda like when you used MS Paint to try to show that NIST got something wrong, when in fact, THEY were using the CORRECT software, with actual data, fed into a complex computer system, to show CEILING HEIGHT TEMPERATURES, but you claimed it should show something else.....

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Of course, minus the anonymous part.

This is just an attempt to muddy the waters by people desperate to deny the confirmed scientific proof of FFA fire is capable of bringing down a steel framed structure.

I fixed that for you, since we all see what is going on in reality.