NoahFence
Banned
Chris7 just give it up man. You're sad to watch.
Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Actually, the only correction to your list was B) Vertical fire spread.
I noted that saying the fires lasted for 7 hours is misleading because they only burned for 20-30 minutes in any given area.
The other corrections were of your statements.
Your saying that "the entire façade collapsed" is misleading because the entire building above the buckled column region came down as a single unit. By saying "façade" you make it sound like it was just the façade as opposed to the entire upper part of the building coming down as a single unit.
There was 1, not 3 trusses holding up the atrium area. [unimportant detail]
NIST did NOT say there were extensive fires on the south face.
NIST said "at gravitational acceleration" not "approximately". Saying "approximately" is false and given the significance between the two, it qualifies as lying so please stop saying that.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the fire that NIST said started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.
You have no rebuttal, admit it.
What they proposed is ridiculous. A horizontal collapse could not happen. That's not the way framing works. You don't have to be a structural engineer to know that. Anyone who knows anything about framing knows that the failure of a single column cannot cause the total collapse of a modern steel framed skyscraper. You can believe what you want but you will look foolish saying that.
Furthermore
The NIST hypothesis has the core columns collapsing east to west over a period of about 5 seconds which would be reflected in the roof line. But the roof line started down, east to west in about 1 second. They admit that their model does NOT match the collapse observed.
1-9 Vol.2 pg 612[pdf pg 274]
"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse."
That is correct but it does not alter the fact that the NIST hypothesis is impossible because the fire they say started the collapse by causing the floor beams to thermally expand had burned out over an hour earlier.
NoahFence
Banned
C7 - if you ever stood up in a group of your peers in a debate you'd be so embarrassed I might actually feel sorry for you.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Peers? Other carpenters?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Introduction to Building 7 Version 2
Hi all,
I took many comments into account; here is version 2 of the Building 7 introduction. Richard Gage agreed with all of Chris7's suggested changes, many of which I have incorporated into this version. Then I added a little bit of material from the debate summarizing Richard's main objections to the NIST Report 2008 on Building 7.
Thanks
Chris
13. 5 minutes of facts we agree on about collapse of Building 7 plus Richard’s crituique
In Part 13 of my RESPECTFUL REBUTTAL OF Richard Gage’s 911 video Bluerint for Truth, we’re going to focus exclusively on a summary of the 2008 NIST Report on the collapse of Building 7. Richard and I hammered this brief summary out together prior to our March 6 debate, and a few small changes were added before I made this video. This is like a stipulation in a courtroom, where both sides agree to certain facts so they don’t have to waste time fighting them out in court. Here, we both stipulated to what NIST said regarding the collapse of Building 7 on 911, so everyone could better understand what we were debating about. Richard Gage disagrees with the NIST Report, but we’ll get back to that later.
SLIDE OF BUILDING 7 NEAR TOWERS STANDING
When NIST issued its final report on Building 7, they asserted there are both differences and similarities between the collapses of Building 7 and the two towers. Some differences:
A.) No plane hit bld 7 .
D.) The Towers suffered structural damage from the plane crash; Building Seven had very little structural damage from the debris hitting it.
E.) NIST Quote: “The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.”
F.). The Towers burned for under two hours each before going down; Building 7 got hit with burning debris at 10:28 am and collapsed at 5:20 pm after almost 7 hours of fires in various parts of the building.
SLIDE OF BUILDING DESIGN WITH COLUMN 79: NIST: Column 79 helped support the east penthouse of the building.
VIDEO OF TRUSSES
Building 7 had a large open atrium in the lobby and was held up by columns and three complex truss systems. One truss system held up part of the atrium area. The other two were in the northwest and northeast parts of the core area.
SLIDE OF TRUSSES PLUS COLUMN 79
SLIDE OF RICHARD’S PHOTO: Here is a photo of Column 79 and the nearby structure.
So now I will just paraphrase the NIST Report so we know what they claim:
that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire. Fires burned all afternoon. Shortly after noon there were fires at the southwest corners of the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors.
SLIDE OF DRAWING OF DAMAGE
Separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.
SLIDE OF DEBRIS HITTING BUILDING 7
Firefighters reported large gashes and fires in the south face of Building Seven but NIST says there was not much structural damage.
SLIDE OF FIRST FLOOR LOBBY.
Building 7 collapsed because heat expanded the floor beams and girders; and their unusual length magnified that effect. Also, connections between structural elements that could not resist the heated loads; and a structure not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
SLIDE OF MINOR FIRES ON NORTH PERIMETER
The north perimeter showed fires on only a few floors, but
SLIDE OF FIRE DAMAGE DRAWING NIST claims the fires were more extensive on the side which was hit with burning debris.
SLIDE OF LOWER BUCKLING FLOORS
NEW NIST: a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder caused Floor 13 to collapse, floor failures cascaded to the 5th floor. This collapse weakened Column 79 over nine stories.
Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse.
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81).
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Then, all of the columns east to west failed in the core of the building (58 through 78).
DETAIL SLIDE OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE that reached the building's east penthouse.
Finally, the entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward.
VIDEO SLIDE OF COLLAPSE OF NORTH FACE
That series of structural failures was mostly invisible, with east penthouses seen collapsing first, then around seven seconds of nothing visible on the north face.
SLIDE OF WINDOWS WITH SUNLIGHT THROUGH THEM
As evidence of the complete collapse of the penthouse and the structure during those seven seconds, NIST shows this picture of light shining through the windows right after the east penthouse disappeared from view.
FREE FALL COLLAPSE Diagram
Important to Richard Gage’s controlled demolition theory is NIST’s statement that the building's exterior facade fell slowly at first, then at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet).
SLIDE OF EXPLOSIVES SIMULATION
NIST also did one computer simulation of what an explosive demolition would have looked like. They say say it would have caused many more broken windows, much louder sounds, and a different pattern of destruction. This is an explosive scenario but is not a simulation of what a thermate burning of the columns might have looked like.
There are several other scientists who have proposed variations on the NIST Theory for Building 7: Arthur Scheuerman, and Ryan Mackey both focus on the long-span beams expanding, sagging and then contracting when the fire moved away and the long beams cooled; NIST focuses more on the building connections. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the University of Edinburg, and Arup have also issued their own scientific criticism of details of the NIST report.
NCSTAR1A (read it here: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-GB/Default.aspx)
R Critique of NIST explanation of single column failure/thermal expansion
Richard Gage considers the idea that the failure of a single column could bring about the global collapse of a 47-story steel frame building preposterous. He also talks about the “new” idea of thermal expansion. How can thermal expansion cause total collapse of a tall steel frame building when it has never happened before? He also asserts that the fires did not engulf Building 7 nearly as completely as fires have attacked other buildings which stood up. Most importantly in his mind, he asks how a building can collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance for even two seconds? And he challenges the NIST computer models and asserts they are impossible and even fraudulent.
MODERN COMPUTER SIMULATIONS ARE BETTER THAN TESTS OF 1960s or even of 90s. We’re just getting good enough to begin to account for the variables in a large building collapse, especially when the collapse begins behind a standing facade.
The NIST Report is one of six natural collapse theories for Bldg 7 I have found; three others have variations on NIST’s theories so I don’t take the specifics of NIST as gospel. Behavior of long struts in fires relatively new. These are long struts designed to allow for maximum open space to rent. Some scientists say NIST may not be taking into account the possibility that struts expand, then sag, then cool as the fire moves on, freezing into its sagged shape but also shrinking again as it cools, pulling in the exterior supports even more. The exact collapse sequence has been challenged by other reputable scientists, but they have not rejected the NIST findings outright.
NIST now advises against unsupported long-strut building design in the future, and their recommendations have been taken up by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association.
Richard completely disagrees with NIST’s findings. In our March 6 debate I asked him if he also opposes the building and fire safety recommendations NIST has released in their World Trade Center Reports? He said yes he does, that they are a waste of billions of dollars. I told him that really scares me, and that my life and the life of everyone in the room is worth the extra cost of creating safer buildings in the future.
In part fourteen we will look at just how bad the fires were, and the symmetrical destruction of Building 7. Not surprisingly, Richard Gage and I completely disagree on these questions.
Hi all,
I took many comments into account; here is version 2 of the Building 7 introduction. Richard Gage agreed with all of Chris7's suggested changes, many of which I have incorporated into this version. Then I added a little bit of material from the debate summarizing Richard's main objections to the NIST Report 2008 on Building 7.
Thanks
Chris
13. 5 minutes of facts we agree on about collapse of Building 7 plus Richard’s crituique
In Part 13 of my RESPECTFUL REBUTTAL OF Richard Gage’s 911 video Bluerint for Truth, we’re going to focus exclusively on a summary of the 2008 NIST Report on the collapse of Building 7. Richard and I hammered this brief summary out together prior to our March 6 debate, and a few small changes were added before I made this video. This is like a stipulation in a courtroom, where both sides agree to certain facts so they don’t have to waste time fighting them out in court. Here, we both stipulated to what NIST said regarding the collapse of Building 7 on 911, so everyone could better understand what we were debating about. Richard Gage disagrees with the NIST Report, but we’ll get back to that later.
SLIDE OF BUILDING 7 NEAR TOWERS STANDING
When NIST issued its final report on Building 7, they asserted there are both differences and similarities between the collapses of Building 7 and the two towers. Some differences:
A.) No plane hit bld 7 .
D.) The Towers suffered structural damage from the plane crash; Building Seven had very little structural damage from the debris hitting it.
E.) NIST Quote: “The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.”
F.). The Towers burned for under two hours each before going down; Building 7 got hit with burning debris at 10:28 am and collapsed at 5:20 pm after almost 7 hours of fires in various parts of the building.
SLIDE OF BUILDING DESIGN WITH COLUMN 79: NIST: Column 79 helped support the east penthouse of the building.
VIDEO OF TRUSSES
Building 7 had a large open atrium in the lobby and was held up by columns and three complex truss systems. One truss system held up part of the atrium area. The other two were in the northwest and northeast parts of the core area.
SLIDE OF TRUSSES PLUS COLUMN 79
SLIDE OF RICHARD’S PHOTO: Here is a photo of Column 79 and the nearby structure.
So now I will just paraphrase the NIST Report so we know what they claim:
that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire. Fires burned all afternoon. Shortly after noon there were fires at the southwest corners of the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors.
SLIDE OF DRAWING OF DAMAGE
Separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.
SLIDE OF DEBRIS HITTING BUILDING 7
Firefighters reported large gashes and fires in the south face of Building Seven but NIST says there was not much structural damage.
SLIDE OF FIRST FLOOR LOBBY.
Building 7 collapsed because heat expanded the floor beams and girders; and their unusual length magnified that effect. Also, connections between structural elements that could not resist the heated loads; and a structure not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
SLIDE OF MINOR FIRES ON NORTH PERIMETER
The north perimeter showed fires on only a few floors, but
SLIDE OF FIRE DAMAGE DRAWING NIST claims the fires were more extensive on the side which was hit with burning debris.
SLIDE OF LOWER BUCKLING FLOORS
NEW NIST: a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder caused Floor 13 to collapse, floor failures cascaded to the 5th floor. This collapse weakened Column 79 over nine stories.
Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse.
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81).
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Then, all of the columns east to west failed in the core of the building (58 through 78).
DETAIL SLIDE OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE that reached the building's east penthouse.
Finally, the entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward.
VIDEO SLIDE OF COLLAPSE OF NORTH FACE
That series of structural failures was mostly invisible, with east penthouses seen collapsing first, then around seven seconds of nothing visible on the north face.
SLIDE OF WINDOWS WITH SUNLIGHT THROUGH THEM
As evidence of the complete collapse of the penthouse and the structure during those seven seconds, NIST shows this picture of light shining through the windows right after the east penthouse disappeared from view.
FREE FALL COLLAPSE Diagram
Important to Richard Gage’s controlled demolition theory is NIST’s statement that the building's exterior facade fell slowly at first, then at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet).
SLIDE OF EXPLOSIVES SIMULATION
NIST also did one computer simulation of what an explosive demolition would have looked like. They say say it would have caused many more broken windows, much louder sounds, and a different pattern of destruction. This is an explosive scenario but is not a simulation of what a thermate burning of the columns might have looked like.
There are several other scientists who have proposed variations on the NIST Theory for Building 7: Arthur Scheuerman, and Ryan Mackey both focus on the long-span beams expanding, sagging and then contracting when the fire moved away and the long beams cooled; NIST focuses more on the building connections. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the University of Edinburg, and Arup have also issued their own scientific criticism of details of the NIST report.
NCSTAR1A (read it here: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-GB/Default.aspx)
R Critique of NIST explanation of single column failure/thermal expansion
Richard Gage considers the idea that the failure of a single column could bring about the global collapse of a 47-story steel frame building preposterous. He also talks about the “new” idea of thermal expansion. How can thermal expansion cause total collapse of a tall steel frame building when it has never happened before? He also asserts that the fires did not engulf Building 7 nearly as completely as fires have attacked other buildings which stood up. Most importantly in his mind, he asks how a building can collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance for even two seconds? And he challenges the NIST computer models and asserts they are impossible and even fraudulent.
MODERN COMPUTER SIMULATIONS ARE BETTER THAN TESTS OF 1960s or even of 90s. We’re just getting good enough to begin to account for the variables in a large building collapse, especially when the collapse begins behind a standing facade.
The NIST Report is one of six natural collapse theories for Bldg 7 I have found; three others have variations on NIST’s theories so I don’t take the specifics of NIST as gospel. Behavior of long struts in fires relatively new. These are long struts designed to allow for maximum open space to rent. Some scientists say NIST may not be taking into account the possibility that struts expand, then sag, then cool as the fire moves on, freezing into its sagged shape but also shrinking again as it cools, pulling in the exterior supports even more. The exact collapse sequence has been challenged by other reputable scientists, but they have not rejected the NIST findings outright.
NIST now advises against unsupported long-strut building design in the future, and their recommendations have been taken up by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association.
Richard completely disagrees with NIST’s findings. In our March 6 debate I asked him if he also opposes the building and fire safety recommendations NIST has released in their World Trade Center Reports? He said yes he does, that they are a waste of billions of dollars. I told him that really scares me, and that my life and the life of everyone in the room is worth the extra cost of creating safer buildings in the future.
In part fourteen we will look at just how bad the fires were, and the symmetrical destruction of Building 7. Not surprisingly, Richard Gage and I completely disagree on these questions.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
It the spirit of respectful rebuttal I submit the following.
WTC 7 suffered significant debris damage from WTC 1 but it played no part in the collapse initiation and had little effect on the collapse.
But these fires had burned out by about 1 p.m.
Same as above.
I corrected this but you missed it. See post #1336.
NIST did NOT say there were more extensive fires on the side.
This is an accurate summary of the NIST hypothesis.
This is not Richard Gage's theory, it is an educated opinion held by millions of people including numerous highly qualified experts.
Mr. Gage's choice of words was incorrect. Thermal expansion occurs in every fire but this is the first time it has been a problem as was noted by these qualified people in their response to the NIST 2008 final draft report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/davidProeandIanThomaswtc7comments.pdf
We agree here but you stop short of admitting that the NIST hypothesis does not explain the collapse.
They are trying to have it both ways. If the NIST hypothesis explained the collapse, these alternate theories would be unnecessary.
If lives were in danger, the suggested code changes would be adopted. But there is no proof that thermal expansion cause the collapse so suggested changes to the code regarding thermal expansion are not necessary.
But you disagree respectfully because you respect everyone's right to say what they think.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Evidence for "millions of people" believing, specifically, that WTC7 was demolished using explosives would be entertaining and novel to see [1], although somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether WTC7 really was demolished by explosives. However, we're well aware that the "highly qualified experts" are for the most part not as highly qualified as Richard Gage would like to think, and very few are experts in a relevant area. But, all that aside, insofar as Richard Gage admits to proposing any theory of what happened to WTC7, explosive demolition is the one he proposes in this debate, so it seems reasonable to refer to it as his for the purposes of the debate.
Dave
[1] Such evidence would not include, for example, an online poll that shows a significant number of people believing that the Government has not told them everything it knows about 9/11, or other such irrelevant trivia.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I disagree with your characterization. If Ryan Mackey is qualified to speak on this subject then so are the 1500 architects and engineers along with the numerous Phd's of different scientific disciplines.
It is neither true nor reasonable to call it Mr. Gage's theory. Your desire to do so is a ploy to tie it to him rather than the 1500 A&E's he represents. This is just a way of minimizing the CD theory.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Do you have proof that all of the 1500 hold that theory of controlled demolition to be true? At best we can say that at one point they all supported a new investigation, but we don't know which theories all of them belief to be most likely.
You have it the wrong way. Gage was first, the 1500 followed and signed a text that does not mention controlled demolition. They did not ask or authorize Gage to represent them. It is Mr. Gage's theory insofar as he promotes it. It is NOT the 1500's theory insofar as the 1500 never signed a document that promotes it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
As you're well aware, I never disputed that, so your argument is, as it so often turns out to be, a mere strawman. But describing them as "highly qualified experts" is, for the most part, inaccurate. Many of them are little more qualified to comment on the behaviour of high rise steel structures than - to pick an example at random - an itinerant carpenter.
Richard Gage started with his description of WTC7's collapse features. He then invited others to sign up to a website promoting his personal view of 9/11. The fact that others have expressed support for his theory doesn't make it any less his own. It would be interesting to see whether he himself prefers it not to be described as "his" theory.
The insistence of truthers that they be distanced from any association with their own beliefs never ceases to amuse me. They even do it now, it seems, on each other's behalf. Why is it so important never to be described as supporting any particular theory?
Dave
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
No-claimers can never be wrong. They are therefore always right
ETA: I am a non-Olympian. I always win the Olympic 100 meter dash.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The point was their qualifications. If Ryan Mackey is qualified to speak on this subject then so are the 1500 A&E's.
That's precisely what they did.
Mr. Gage was not the only person who says WTC 7 was a CD and those who signed the petition have seen the evidence. They agree with Mr. Gage or they would not have signed.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Except that they are by and large not speaking on the subject, beyond sometimes giving a reason why they filled out a form on the internet.
Say what?? At most, they authorized him to submit their name to Congress along with a text calling for a new investigation. That text does not say that the undersigned believe in controlled demolition.
By the way, Gage does not in fact represent the 1500, for he does not do the one thing that they authorized him to - submit the "petition" to Congress.
You merely assume that the 1500 "have seen the evidence". Many of them may only have seen some of gage's lies and misrepresentations. This becomes apparent when one reads some of the personal statements, which often repeat none of the facts, but some of the lies.
I am not doubting that a portion of the 1500 believes in Gage's theory of controlled demolition. However to say that all of them beklieve in Gage's theory is mere conjecture.
In our current context, of course, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether Gage's theory of controlled demolition is held by hundreds, 1500 or millions others. The context is Chris Mohr's debate with Gage. So only Mohr's and Gage's theories matter. Gage has been presenting his. That is a matter of clear and precise language.
Among the 1500, there is certainly more than one theory of controlled demolition. We should debate Gage's only here. For that is what Mohr has been debating.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Dave and Oystein
You are entitled to your opinions.
You are entitled to your opinions.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Hey, it was only us two. Nobody's said you're entitled to one too.
Now if C7 could only comment on what our opinions are, rather than what he'd rather they were...
Dave