Adam Taylor's Long Rebuttals to Chris Mohr's 9/11 YouTube Videos

Georgio said:

@Adam Taylor, given that you have acknowledged Oystein's reasonable posting style



I really can't see any good reason why you wouldn't take him up on his offer of a one-on-one debate about the nano-thermite evidence. I'm assuming it would be a thread here or on Oystein's blog where only you and he would be able to post.

Please agree to do this debate Adam. It would be great to have two respectful, informed opposing views on this topic debating without having to dread the next '13 years of failure...why can't 911Truth do science?...etc, etc...' type posts from popping up.

Click to expand...

Adam has no defined claims, and how do you debate lies and fantasy? Explain what rational claims 911 truth has; then you can debate. There was no thermite, no explosives; What is Adam's claim? What has happened, Adam realized 911 truth is based on ignorance and opinions based on ignorance. This is 911 truth's evidence, BS. Now Adam will post his final work and run away, doing nothing for CD, thermite and high explosives, fantasy born in ignorance.

Poor Adam can't do thorough rational research, and recycles failed claims born in ignorance. Adam's paper only help's Chris's debunking of 911 truth, and Adam has no clue, or he figured out 911 after 13 yeas of nonsense and is moving on. If 911 was an inside job it would have been people like Chris who blew the story wide open months after 911, not making lies and support idiots like Adam does after 13 years. What will Adam do about Flight 93, and Flight 77; what far out lies and BS will he spew on those topic; or is the rest of 911 too much to tie to a Single Integrated Operations Plan? Adam failed, he picked woo to support and can't debate, he can only Gish Gallop. Like the BS you present. When will you post your next idiot from Richard Gage's failed nuts video BS parade of woo? 13 years

Since no one in 911 truth has acted on the "overwhelming evidence" 911 truth claims to have; Adam is clear to team with a newspaper and break the story by and apply for the Pulitzer Prize, the one like Watergate. Where is the action in 911 truth, limited to idiots like the Boston bombers, 911 truth followers peers in woo? Adam's big chance to get the Pulitzer, are you going to help him break the big story.

How do you debate fantasy? How would you debate fantasy? Bigfoot?

Part Three: History of Collapses in Steel Buildings

Before I start, a couple comments. Beachnut, while I disagree with Adam, I don’t think he has no point at all. It’s pretty clear he believes in contro0lled demolition of the WTC Buildings and gives reasons, so I think there is indeed something to debate there. But Michael Newman at NIST agrees with you and says about Gage that “there is nothing to debate.” And Oystein, my point that all three buildings collapsed into their weakest points was an observation made by a real scientist in response to Gage’s claim that the buildings fell symmetrically. In and of itself it’s not a strong argument, but I consider it a fair rebuttal to Gage’s claim.

Starting on page 30, Adam tries to pick apart my arguments that steel framed structures do indeed collapse in fires. Remember that Richard Gage, in my debate, said that steel is “indestructible” in fire. So while Adam may agree with me that steel can bend, distort and even collapse in fire, Gage denied it in my debate. Some of my points I could not make in a debate with Adam.

Adam quotes Scootle as saying my comparison of the TU Delft Building is invalid: “Mohr characterized the TU Delft collapse as “very fast, almost symmetrical, and into its
own footprint”. Really? It was about 1/4 of the height of WTC7, and 1/8 the height of the
twin towers, and collapsed nowhere near a free fall rate, and it was only one wing of the
building ... how exactly is this proof that a massive skyscraper can undergo a progressive,
global collapse at basically free fall?” I said “fast,” not freefall. Since Gage said that a mostly symmetrical collapse would be impossible without CD, this natural collapse proves it IS possible. The fact that the Towers were vastly heavier meant that the collapse would be faster, as would the fact that TU’s building had lots of steel-reinforced concrete unlike the lighter steel structure of the WTC buildings And though it was shorter, it still demonstrated that floor after floor could collapse and not be stopped, as 9/11 Truth people claim would happen. And so what that only one module of a modular building collapsed? How does that invalidate a comparison between TU and WTC? The part that DID collapse, uh, collapsed!

Any building fire is going to be different from WTC. For example, Building 7 was an unfought fire for seven hours, with long span trusses that expanded, sagged, then shrank, etc. Other fires, aggressively fought in buildings with different construction, stood. So we can reject all comparisons or see what we can learn from each one. But we can see sagging in One Meridian Plaza, even if it wasn’t as extensive as the sagging of the longer-span trusses in the WTC Buildings. (page 37). And Jim Hoffman’s “plausible scenario” for sagging via thermite is NOT plausible because no thermite was found (see Jim Millette).

As for the issue of conductivity of steel, Gage said the WTC was a giant heat sink that distributed the heat evenly across the building very quickly. Steel conducts heat, but not as fast as Gage would have us believe. The “Sherman’s Nectie” YouTube video I play shows guys putting a piece of railroad track in a campfire, pulling it out from the ends with their bare hands, and wrapping it around a tree! This shows that 1) the heat conductivity was not high enough to burn their hands and 2) a regular campfire can heat steel hot enough to make it easy to bend around a tree.

Yes, the global collapse of the WTC buildings was unique, but so were the conditions that preceded that collapse! Things that have never happened before happen all the time.

I do want to say that my responses here are much more “quick” than Adam’s long, detailed re-rebuttals. You can look at the chrismohr911.blog for more detailed responses to some of these objections.

chrismohr said:

...And Oystein, my point that all three buildings collapsed into their weakest points was an observation made by a real scientist in response to Gage’s claim that the buildings fell symmetrically. In and of itself it’s not a strong argument, but I consider it a fair rebuttal to Gage’s claim.

...
Remember that Richard Gage, in my debate, said that steel is “indestructible” in fire. So while Adam may agree with me that steel can bend, distort and even collapse in fire, Gage denied it in my debate. Some of my points I could not make in a debate with Adam.
...
Since Gage said that a mostly symmetrical collapse would be impossible without CD, this natural collapse [Delft] proves it IS possible.
...

Click to expand...

I am impressed by how you keep your mind on the context the arguments and counter-arguments are raised in. Great job!

beachnut said:

Adam has no defined claims, and how do you debate lies and fantasy? Explain what rational claims 911 truth has; then you can debate. Adam realized 911 truth is based on ignorance and opinions based on ignorance. This is 911 truth's evidence, BS. Now Adam will post his final work and run away, doing nothing for CD, thermite and high explosives, fantasy born in ignorance.

Poor Adam can't do thorough rational research, and recycles failed claims born in ignorance. Adam's paper only help's Chris's debunking of 911 truth, and Adam has no clue, or he figured out 911 after 13 yeas of nonsense and is moving on....not making lies and support idiots like Adam does after 13 years. What will Adam do about Flight 93, and Flight 77; what far out lies and BS will he spew on those topic; or is the rest of 911 too much to tie to a Single Integrated Operations Plan? Adam failed, he picked woo to support and can't debate, he can only Gish Gallop. Like the BS you present. When will you post your next idiot from Richard Gage's failed nuts video BS parade of woo? 13 years

Since no one in 911 truth has acted on the "overwhelming evidence" 911 truth claims to have; Adam is clear to team with a newspaper and break the story by and apply for the Pulitzer Prize, the one like Watergate. Where is the action in 911 truth, limited to idiots like the Boston bombers, 911 truth followers peers in woo? Adam's big chance to get the Pulitzer, are you going to help him break the big story.

How do you debate fantasy? How would you debate fantasy? Bigfoot?

Click to expand...

Could you please stop ranting in every post you write? You write the same basic text sans substance in every post in every forum. "...limited to idiots like the Boston bombers?" Where do you get off with this comparison?

I don't understand how the same Moderators who admonish and bounce Truthers for ad hominens and being "off topic" allow this sort of verbage to go on.

frank3373 said:

Could you please stop ranting in every post you write? You write the same basic text sans substance in every post in every forum. "...limited to idiots like the Boston bombers?" Where do you get off with this comparison?

I don't understand how the same Moderators who admonish and bounce Truthers for ad hominens and being "off topic" allow this sort of verbage to go on.

Click to expand...

... like this?

... young kids living with Mom and people walking around with an unaudited list pretending they have professional support.

Click to expand...

or is this okay too

... Griscom sounds senile to me.

Click to expand...

is that ad hominens...

Gage's two core bat-**** ideas:

Click to expand...

Is he John McCain stupid?

Click to expand...

I have learned my lesson, ad hominems are okay if based on political biases. Adam, don't run for president.

The mods do remind me to behave. Is that rant about my rant ...

The Boston bombers are/were the peers of people like Adam, fooled by 911 truth. Do you think Adam is one of those living with Mom.

What is Adam's complete plot, how does he handle Flight 77 and 93; with the idiotic claim of CD, thermite and high explosives in his box of woo overflowing with Gish Gallop, how do you debate fantasy?

Adam spews lies about 911 and has no clue he is spewing lies about 911. Or did he wake up, dump his final paper on Chris and run away hoping his internet BS will fade.

Adam is supplying lies to idiots like the Boston bombers, ideas which add to the BS in failed minds. Adam is able to collect 911 truth BS which sounds good to him and make cute statements about 911 that sound good to him, as he and his fellow 911 truth cult members publish what amounts to the new wave of yellow journalism. Maybe Adam will wake up and pull a Pulitzer.

Adam's work, like he is giving pep talks to idiots like the Boston bombers, inspiring new levels of BS in the minds of people like him; gullible people.

Adams work has new laws of physics; why would a kid get help with the physics part from physics majors?

Collapse progression straight down through the path of greatest resistance.

Click to expand...

This kind of stupidity, making up a law of least resistance for objects in motion, ignoring physics, puts Adam in a level of covert ignorance. His peers understand this is truth, and don't question the fact Adam plagiarized the idea from nuts in 911 truth. Where do they get this law of physics from? Who was the first to say, "path of greatest resistance", and fail to acknowledge gravity.

And Adam lies about 911 making silly dumbed down statements.

The debris from the building ended up in a fairly small pile almost entirely within its footprint.

Click to expand...

95 percent air structure would collapse into a small pile, like 5 percent theoretically of the 100 percent... did he try?
Footprint of two one acre footprint buildings becomes a 19 acre footprint for Adam's failed statement he plagiarized from idiots in 911 truth.
Adam failed to see 5 percent is small compared to 100 percent, and has no clue what the debris field looked like. But he is a perfect parrot for 911 truth BS.

To use Adam's own outline...
Based on Adam's body of work, Adam provides nothing more than less than half-baked arguments (aka fantasy bs and lies). His work does nothing to support the fuzzy claims of 911 truth. Ultimately, I would say Adam Taylor wasted time putting his work online, and that this misguided student should really try to rethink his position. (Adam Taylor's projects his best traits on others) What are Adam's claims? How do you debate his fantasy?

beachnut said:

... like this?

or is this okay too

is that ad hominens...


I have learned my lesson, ad hominems are okay if based on political biases. Adam, don't run for president.

The mods do remind me to behave. Is that rant about my rant ...

The Boston bombers are/were the peers of people like Adam, fooled by 911 truth. Do you think Adam is one of those living with Mom.

Click to expand...

You are not getting it. I don't care about an occasional ad hominem. If you think Adam is nuts and you want to say that once, have at it. Sometimes that's the best way to express incredulity. I believe Dr. Griscom has early stage dementia, and I have said that, but I don't repeat it in every post. Who cares if Adam lives with his Mom? Address what he writes and stop name calling, stop saying the same thing over and over. Stop making fantasy claims of woo that compare the Boston murderers to "people like Adam." There is no evidence 911 Truth had any effect on the Boston bombers.

Your writing consists of one insult after another which is not conducive to discussion.

frank3373 said:

You are not getting it. I don't care about an occasional ad hominem. If you think Adam is nuts and you want to say that once, have at it. Sometimes that's the best way to express incredulity. I believe Dr. Griscom has early stage dementia, and I have said that, but I don't repeat it in every post. Who cares if Adam lives with his Mom? Address what he writes and stop name calling, stop saying the same thing over and over. Stop making fantasy claims of woo that compare the Boston murderers to "people like Adam." There is no evidence 911 Truth had any effect on the Boston bombers.

Your writing consists of one insult after another which is not conducive to discussion.

Click to expand...

I have myself on ignore, that way I don't see the constant insults... there is a button for that...

Oh, when you make insults, it is okay, but if I say Adam is "... John McCain stupid", not okay. Got it, do as you say, not as you do. I will work no that.

I can't help it if the Boston bombers believed 911 truth lies like Adam does, those are his peer who believe lies from 911 truth. Adam repeats the lies from a failed movement. So, "kids living with Mom" is discussion, not a weak insult? One insult is okay, repeating it, not okay. Where is the rule book? Source?

beachnut said:

I have myself on ignore, that way I don't see the constant insults... there is a button for that...

Oh, when you make insults, it is okay, but if I say Adam is "...

Click to expand...

To repeat myself: An insult here and there is not the problem. An ad hominem here and there is not the problem.

The problem is that you rant and say nothing, repeating nothing over and over, which makes discussion impossible, because no one with a different point of view will post only to receive your name-calling responses.

And you often create your own bucket of woo in criticizing the Truthers.

Respond respectfully to people. If a Truther attacks you personally, and you need to respond in kind, go for it, but what you do is over the top.

Part 4 Page 40: Symmetrical free fall collapse

Here Adam makes the standard 9/11 Truth claim that there was not enough force to keep the buildings collapsing floor after floor after collapse initiation: " the acceleration of the Towers’ collapses has actually shown
that they did not provide sufficient force to destroy the rest of the structures." We've debated that endlessly on various JREF forums, and Tony has actually stepped forward as the principal 9/11 Truth advocate of that position here, an unusually courageous act. When in doubt, I often take such debates away from JREF, where both sides can be biased. In this case, over a period of two years I asked many dozens of physicists (with Masters and PhDs) if there would be enough momentum to bring down the Towers. 14 physicists were willing to take the time to answer that question, and all 14 said there was more than enough momentum in the collapsing structures to make total collapse inevitable after initiation. The range was 20-30x static weight for the force of the collapsing structure!

Adam quotes Jim Hoffmn's critique of NIST's assertion by saying " It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more
resistance to falling rubble than air.
 It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers’ footprints, and hence
could not contribute to crushing.
 It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument."
False on all three counts. The steel frames provided some resistance whih is why we see 2/3 of freefall acceleration. Plenty of rubble, including the core, stayed within the footprint. No calculation? They also sid that gravity pulls things downward. some things are so obvious they need no calculation. Many of the physicists told me the momentum of the collapse was so great that they needed to make no calculations to give me their answer either: it wasnt even close!

On the next page, Adam denies that the core remained standing by saying onl;y the central part of the core was standing. But it would make no sense to destroy the outer perimeter of the core in a CD while leaving the central part of the core without any CD rigging!

I am no physicist, but David Chandler's claim on page 43 that because the building's collapse was 36% less than freefall, that means it exerted only 36% of the force of its own static weight is beyond "counterintuitive." It's apples and oranges! I hope people here with greater scientific skills can offer their take on this.

My little bathroom scale demonstrsation shows the power of momentum to destroy the weighing device after only a half floor, but no one has really rebutted it! And to say that "the upper section of the North Tower fell through the lower section, and not only did the upper section not
slow down, it sped up" is using the fact of acceleration as evidence of CD?? And that my weight-on-the-scale was stopped so it's not a proper analogy to a building that didn't stop?? Oh and BTW, didn't someone here demonstrated jolts? femr2 perhaps? Can anyone here talk more about my little bathroom scale demonstration, which is similar to Dave Thomas's little demonstration with a bag of rice?

Beachnut is the only one willing to always treat the truthers with respect they deserve. Stay on message beach.

chrismohr said:

On the next page, Adam denies that the core remained standing by saying onl;y the central part of the core was standing. But it would make no sense to destroy the outer perimeter of the core in a CD while leaving the central part of the core without any CD rigging!

Click to expand...

Anyway, the claim is wrong. A substantial part of the core (more than half) was visible for WTC1, and it wasn't from the center. The highest part was quite close to a corner. One problem he has is that the analyses he shows only consider the part that stood standing up high, without paying attention at the lower parts.

Here are some posts analyzing the location:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-remnant-motion-t185-45.html#p6521

The whole thread goes into many details. This post shows there was at least half the core standing:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-remnant-motion-t185-135.html#p14452

For WTC2, there was a huge section visible that wasn't part of the center either:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=230

chrismohr said:

My little bathroom scale demonstrsation shows the power of momentum to destroy the weighing device after only a half floor, but no one has really rebutted it! And to say that "the upper section of the North Tower fell through the lower section, and not only did the upper section not
slow down, it sped up" is using the fact of acceleration as evidence of CD?? And that my weight-on-the-scale was stopped so it's not a proper analogy to a building that didn't stop?? Oh and BTW, didn't someone here demonstrated jolts? femr2 perhaps? Can anyone here talk more about my little bathroom scale demonstration, which is similar to Dave Thomas's little demonstration with a bag of rice?

Click to expand...

A scale used this way acts quite much like a dynamometer. It measures force. It's a perfectly valid demonstrative tool to show that the force an object exerts on another is bigger when dropped from a height than when resting statically.

chrismohr said:

...
I am no physicist, but David Chandler's claim on page 43 that because the building's collapse was 36% less than freefall, that means it exerted only 36% of the force of its own static weight is beyond "counterintuitive." It's apples and oranges! I hope people here with greater scientific skills can offer their take on this.

My little bathroom scale demonstrsation shows the power of momentum to destroy the weighing device after only a half floor, but no one has really rebutted it! And to say that "the upper section of the North Tower fell through the lower section, and not only did the upper section not
slow down, it sped up" is using the fact of acceleration as evidence of CD?? And that my weight-on-the-scale was stopped so it's not a proper analogy to a building that didn't stop?? Oh and BTW, didn't someone here demonstrated jolts? femr2 perhaps? Can anyone here talk more about my little bathroom scale demonstration, which is similar to Dave Thomas's little demonstration with a bag of rice?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it helps to think anbout this is you remember from basic high school physics that force (physical symbol "f") is proportional to mass (m) and acceleration (a):

f = m*a

If, to keep things simple, you look at constant mass, you can reduce the "force" argument to an "acceleration" argument.

In the static case, gravity pulls at the mass that a certain structural member currently bears with an acceleration of a=g=9.805 m/s². Forget about the number. Just say "g" - down.
The reason the mass is not accelerating is of course that the structural member is pushing the other way, accelerating the mass up by the exact amount: g - up. g down and g up cancel each other - mass stays at rest.

When someone says that a structural element has a "safety factor" of 3 (for example), this means that the member could accelerate the same mass up by a value of 3*g - but no more, without experiencing damage or destruction.
You see, "damage or destruction" in the world of structural members is basically the same as "plastic deformation", as opposed to "elastic deformation". The latter means that, when force/acceleration increases, the member changes shape (bends, gets compressed or elongated, ...), but springs back into its former shape when force goes back to normal. Plastic deformation means member stays out of shape (or broken) for good, even if the increased load is gone.

Now here's the important thing about you and your bathroom scale as well as falling floors: The distance and time they are falling freely (at g) is much greater than the distance and time a structural member has to respond elastically.

In the case of the scale: Say you jump on it from a height of 1 ft, but the surface of the scale can flex down no more than an inch; then the distance that you are accelerated down at g is 12* the distance the scale has at its disposal to stop you. This means it must accelerate you up by at least (the square-root of 12) * g, or roughly factor 3.5. Add to that 1g, as gravity is still pulling you down, then the scale would have to be able to bear and show 4.5 times your mass, or it breaks or bends.

In the case of a floor falling: At the WTC, the distance from upper floor to lower floor, through which a loose floor can fall at g, is, say, 10 to 12 feet, but the floor-to-column connector can react elastically no more than a few inches before it breaks. Thus it would have to bear many many times its normal load if it were to stop the falling mass, but with a safety factor of only 3, it will break long before the mass has been decelerated by much.

Thanks pgimeno and oystein. Your simple statement, "It's a perfectly valid demonstrative tool to show that the force an object exerts on another is bigger when dropped from a height than when resting statically," plus Oystein's more detailed response are quite the opposite of what I heard for years from 9/11 Truth people. I did this demo in both public debates, and in my YouTube video. It has been roundly mocked as useless. It's always seemed like a valid demo to me!

chrismohr said:

I did this demo in both public debates, and in my YouTube video. It has been roundly mocked as useless. It's always seemed like a valid demo to me!

Click to expand...

You need to remember that it's mocked by people that support a cause asking nothing other than keeping the cause alive. They hold no one accountable for results (or cost of the failures) and expect nothing other that a continuation of their believes from the leaders.

I just want to thank the International Skeptics Forum and everyone involved (the mods and others) for making this transition almost seamless. For a data transfer of this complexity and magnitude, that must have been a real accomplishment!

chrismohr said:

I just want to thank the International Skeptics Forum and everyone involved (the mods and others) for making this transition almost seamless. For a data transfer of this complexity and magnitude, that must have been a real accomplishment!

Click to expand...

It's easy when you use thermite.

Why did they change the name? Any other changes?

JSanderO said:

Why did they change the name? Any other changes?

Click to expand...

Because JREF didn't want us. It's been all over the Forum for months that the change was coming.