Gage's next debate

[Christopher7]

I saw your web site and your picture claims are wrong. The final report says the fires were heavy at 12 th floor and have pictures of 12th floor fires after 4pm

I know that you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be. This is what it says on my page at the Truth Phalanx website. [emphasis added]
"The east end had burned out by about 4 p.m., over an hour before the collapse."

The photos in the final report confirm this. Figure 5-140 shows that the fire on floor 12 had burned out between columns 45 and 51. Figure 5-141 shows that the fire on floor 12 had burned out from the NE corner to column 46.

Your quote is from the preliminary 4 years before the final report

What part of "A photograph showed . . . . . Floor 12 was burned out by this time." don't you understand?

NIST's final report shows fires on the 12th floor upt ot collapse which they report but you don't quote. They have more pictures up to after 5pm showing fires on the 12th floor that you don't mention since they contradict what you wish to believe.

There are NO pictures of the fire on floor 12 after 4:45 p.m. NIST tried to obfuscate the fact that they have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by showing a photo they say was taken about 5 p.m. but the time was estimated using shadows and the time uncertainty is PLUS OR MINUS AT LEAST 10 MINUTES.

I have posted this FACT several times but one denier after another tries to say there are photos of a fire on floor 12 after 4:45 p.m. At this point it is clear that the denial tactic of this denial tag-team is to keep repeating the same denial crap until LashL shuts it down allowing the denial crap to have the last word.

Your web site is wrong, actually the NIST pictures match pretty closely with their graphics,

Now you are making obviously false statements. It can be clearly seen in this side by side comparison, the graphic at 4 p.m. does not match the photographs.

 

[beachnut]

I know that you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be. ...

You show pictures of a building which the fires were not fought, no water, no firemen. Then the building collapsed. This expected when fires are not fought.

What is your point, what caused the collapse of WTC 7? I know it was caused by fire, what is your claim, and why are you and I SPAMMING this thread with nonsense?

The topic is Gage, how to debate Gage, and you are not helping, you are spreading nonsense. If you have something, Publish it. If you have something to help counter the delusions Gage has, then help out, otherwise you are off topic; can you get on topic, or are you unable to adapt? Do you support the lies of Gage?

 

[funk de fino]

There are NO pictures of the fire on floor 12 after 4:45 p.m. NIST tried to obfuscate the fact that they have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by showing a photo they say was taken about 5 p.m. but the time was estimated using shadows and the time uncertainty is PLUS OR MINUS AT LEAST 10 MINUTES.

It could be 5.10 pm. It could be 4.50pm.

It is after 4.45 pm though.

What part of "A photograph showed . . . . . Floor 12 was burned out by this time." don't you understand?

What part of Final report do you not understand? Remember you were the one who used shadows previously in your claims of photo fakery by NIST. Remember that belter?

 

[Christopher7]

It could be 5.10 pm. It could be 4.50pm.

It is after 4.45 pm though.

What part of "at least" don't you understand?

Remember you were the one who used shadows previously in your claims of photo fakery by NIST. Remember that belter?

Unlike you and the rest of the folks here, I admit when I am wrong. I did learn that using shadows is very inaccurate and there is an error factor of at least one half hour. The "plus or minus AT LEAST 10 minutes" is a BS way of saying "plus or minus 30 minutes". That photo does not change the fact that NIST has a photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m. Photos don't change.

But the fire in Figure 5-152 is irrelevant and you know it. You are just arguing to argue. That fire, whatever time it happened, was at the other end of the building from where the collapse began. It had nothing to do with the collapse.

 

[beijingyank]

Edited by LashL: 

To remove breach.

Regarding the dust, the pulverization of the concrete Gov. Pataki referred to in an interview covered NY "4-6 inches deep."

Some of the particulate matter reached sizes less than a micron.

The abundance of the iron spheres in the dust, a marker for the 911 dust according to the Lee study, knocks the debunkers claim of office fires causing the collapse off the map.

The debunkers story keeps changing. "There was no molten steel in the towers. It was aluminum...no it was glass...no it was lead from the batteries..."

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=9841974

Brian Williams’ quotes from: www.msnbc.msn com/id/14789146

9/11: Remains of the day
In a hangar at JFK, World Trade Center artifacts are treated as sacred

NEW YORK — We have a special look tonight at all of the wreckage [actually just a tiny portion of the wreckage – ed.] that was taken from ground zero. All of it is sacred and it’s all awaiting a home — a permanent memorial. For now, it’s all being cared for in a hangar at New York’s JFK airport. …

We next enter a room containing a form that’s difficult to describe. In any other museum, it could be passed off as a meteorite. And while this was born of intense heat, this is altogether different. This formation is really four separate stories of the World Trade Center, compressed, compacted, incinerated — exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Regarding the dust, the pulverization of the concrete Gov. Pataki referred to in an interview covered NY "4-6 inches deep."

Yes, collapsing buildings produce dust. Truthers like to lie about them by saying that they collapsed entirely to dust, but those of us who are honest can see the large pieces of debris that were left all over Ground Zero.

Some of the particulate matter reached sizes less than a micron.

Hardly surprising. If you knock against a plasterboard wall hard enough with an office chair, you'll probably produce particulate matter with sizes less than a micron.

The abundance of the iron spheres in the dust, a marker for the 911 dust according to the Lee study, knocks the debunkers claim of office fires causing the collapse off the map.

Microspheres rich in iron are an expected product of a normal fire. It's only truthers who think they can only come from thermite.

The debunkers story keeps changing.

No, the general conclusion is the same. However, when we find new evidence, we accept that some details may be incorrect, rather than proclaiming that the evidence was faked.

"There was no molten steel in the towers.

Well, we've been pretty consistent on that one.

"It was aluminum...no it was glass...no it was lead from the batteries..."

We don't know for certain what it was, but aluminium, glass and lead are all perfectly innocent possibilities. Yet truthers just know that it was molten steel, even though that's one thing it can't possibly have been. Who were the clowns again?

Brian Williams’ quotes from: www.msnbc.msn com/id/14789146

Because journalists never exaggerate, and every word of an MSNBC report is undeniable truth (except when truthers want it to be deliberate disinformation).

We next enter a room containing a form that’s difficult to describe. In any other museum, it could be passed off as a meteorite. And while this was born of intense heat, this is altogether different. This formation is really four separate stories of the World Trade Center, compressed, compacted, incinerated — exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth.

This is a large chunk of debris from the building that collapsed entirely into dust, right?

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ahh, yes, the "meteorite"... the one described as:

... several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible...

Guess those temperatures as hot as the inner earth are simply not sufficient to wipe out paper with legible type, huh?

 

[aggle-rithm]

It is not necessary to do the math on that but you can if you want to.

It is if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[beachnut]

The circle jerk debunker squads here are incorrigible.

Argumentum ad Hominem
... — exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth.

Irony, followed by delusional statements. What did you call the sub-forum? Your claims are delusional. You are such a nice person, a critical thinking, thanks for finding some of the dumbest claims on 911, you could be a consultant for Gage.

Where did the NWO find paper and steel that can hold up to 9000 degrees? You got us now!

 

[Animal]

Yes, collapsing buildings produce dust.
No, the general conclusion is the same. However, when we find new evidence, we accept that some details may be incorrect, rather than proclaiming that the evidence was faked.

"or fatally flawed"

 

[funk de fino]

What part of "at least" don't you understand?

What part of plus and minus do you not understand? Reading and maths fail.

Unlike you and the rest of the folks here, I admit when I am wrong. I did learn that using shadows is very inaccurate and there is an error factor of at least one half hour. The "plus or minus AT LEAST 10 minutes" is a BS way of saying "plus or minus 30 minutes". That photo does not change the fact that NIST has a photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m. Photos don't change.

You used shadow evidence to say NIST were faking photographs. Do you now admit you were incorrect?

But the fire in Figure 5-152 is irrelevant and you know it. You are just arguing to argue. That fire, whatever time it happened, was at the other end of the building from where the collapse began. It had nothing to do with the collapse.

It is not irrelevant. Also Mike Catalano proves your claims wrong yet you have to call him a liar. Figure that out. I have seen many forests hit by huge storms and winds but then some trees do not collapse until days later. This is impossible according to your logic.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ahh, yes, the "meteorite"... the one described as:


Guess those temperatures as hot as the inner earth are simply not sufficient to wipe out paper with legible type, huh?

A special feature of super nano thermite; Selective burning!!!!

 

[Christopher7]

You used shadow evidence to say NIST were faking photographs.

Incorrect. I used shadows to establish the approximate times.

But the fire in Figure 5-152 is irrelevant and you know it. You are just arguing to argue. That fire, whatever time it happened, was at the other end of the building from where the collapse began. It had nothing to do with the collapse.

It is not irrelevant.

Also Mike Catalano proves your claims wrong

Now you are being silly. Mike Catalano talks about a fire on floor 4. This is in conflict with NIST and has nothing to do with the fire on floor 12.

 

[funk de fino]

Incorrect. I used shadows to establish the approximate times.

This is incorrect. You said they were lying and that photos were faked in the NIST L

Tell me what plus or minus means.

Now you are being silly. Mike Catalano talks about a fire on floor 4. This is in conflict with NIST and has nothing to do with the fire on floor 12.

Yet you said he was lying because seemingly NIST is now correct in everything it claims. Which is it C7? Why do you cherry pick what you want to believe?

As usual you are dishonestly missing parts of my posts you cannot answer. Or to do so makes your claims look like the nonsense they are. Surely you are not too cowardly to make an attempt?

 

[Christopher7]

This is incorrect. You said they were lying and that photos were faked in the NIST L

I abandoned that hypothesis. Something deniers will never do.

Yet you said he was lying because seemingly NIST is now correct in everything it claims.

This is a strawman.
I have always said that the data of the fire progression is correct because it is confirmed by the photographs but their conclusions are incorrect. You know this but you keep repeating the same denial BS over and over.

As usual you are dishonestly missing parts of my posts you cannot answer.

You call not responding to a sarcastic question "dishonest and cowardly". Get serious.
Kindly take your accusations of dishonesty and cowardice, and return them to that dark recess from whence they came.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I abandoned that hypothesis. Something deniers will never do.

Bolded part is demonstrably untrue.

I and most of the skeptics in these forums would happily abandon the "official story" if a more plausible scenario, backed by evidence, were put on the table.

It's beside the point that the chances of this happening are extremely close to zero.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I abandoned that hypothesis. Something deniers will never do.

And meanwhile, in another thread, Clayton Moore is complaining that debunkers keep changing their story.

Dave

 

[chrismohr]

The Mohr/Gage Debate Videotape Will Not Be Released

Hi all,

There has been considerable discussion between me and Richard Gage's AE911 Truth organization about the debate video. As you may know, when the debate happened on 3/6/11, they recorded it with three video cameras. The hope was to put out a high-level professional video that could be used on PBS or at least community TV stations and cable outlets.

Ultimately, they decided not to edit and release this debate video after all. They are moving on to other projects.

I knew this was a possibility but had hoped they would go forward, and my arguments in favor of having a respectful debate on the record for people to look at both sides had some force for awhile.

So now I am moving forward with a respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage's arguments for release on YouTube or whatever. I'll be contacting some people for help with this, but I have a friend who can do a professional-level one camera shoot for almost free. I'm working on coming up with an easy way of editing in the 200 or so video clips, photos and designs I plan to insert. I promise you the results will be something we can all be proud of, and neither my efforts nor your incredibly valuable help will be wasted.

Let's keep this thread alive... I have asked most of my questions but I am considering making available the text of my upcoming video presentation as I complete each section for your comments. Not totally clear how this will go but it WILL happen.

Mille grazie, thanks, gracias etc for all your support,
Chris Mohr

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ultimately, they decided not to edit and release this debate video after all. They are moving on to other projects.

So their 'revolution' will not be televised?

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Hey chrismohr,

too bad this debate will remain off-record for the public. Honi soit qui mal y pense...

Doing a video to get many messages across is a great effort, but many of us here are often complaining that "proof by youtube" isn't the holy grail of internet arguments. Videos aren't easily searched; you often have to sit through the entire length to find the information you might be looking for - or not find it.
A paper, or a guide to the video, or even transcript, with a good link list would probably be a better tool for many of us here.

Do you plan on releasing something in lengthy writing along with the video, that contains links to the clips, images and sources you mention there?