Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismoh Richard Gage has also gotten some truly bizarre criticisms. The "dark side" has reared its head against both of us. Part Seven re Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions has just been posted. Cheers all![/QUOTE said:
Excellent work.:cool:
 
So how do I get my YouTube videos promoted on the "Resources for Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" thread here on JREF?
 
Richard Gage has also gotten some truly bizarre criticisms. The "dark side" has reared its head against both of us.

Gage has some* pretty bizarre theories, so it's all good.




*Meaning everything he says or does.
 
Classic. They're attacking it because it agrees with the conclusions of a group of people who disagree with them and who contributed to the content. Welcome to the dark side, Chris (we have cookies!) - you've now been branded a disinformation agent and an Enemy Of The Truth.

Doubt it. While I haven't looked at Chris's videos yet, it became apparent early on in his forum participation that he was quite willing to ignore the same difficult questions that every other bedunker here ignores, and that he was simply looking to rehash stale bedunker talking points. While it's refreshing to see someone attempt to argue without insult or condescension, I have to agree with dude cited herehttp://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-mohrs-respectful-rebuttal-smells.html the content is not fresh, not original, and as a result, likely not correct. I'm not sure much has been accomplished here, except perhaps to present the standard bedunker argument in a more coherent form. Kudos to that. It will also make it easier to debunk should need be.
 
Doubt it. While I haven't looked at Chris's videos yet, it became apparent early on in his forum participation that he was quite willing to ignore the same difficult questions that every other bedunker here ignores, and that he was simply looking to rehash stale bedunker talking points. While it's refreshing to see someone attempt to argue without insult or condescension, I have to agree with dude cited herehttp://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-mohrs-respectful-rebuttal-smells.html the content is not fresh, not original, and as a result, likely not correct. I'm not sure much has been accomplished here, except perhaps to present the standard bedunker argument in a more coherent form. Kudos to that. It will also make it easier to debunk should need be.

Wow, you have not watched the video, and yet you are here posting about them? Are you freaking kidding me

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comments
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignore the same difficult questions? There hasn't been ONE "question" on your side that's gone unanswered.

And not one answer from the TRUTH side that goes ignored by you people.

Say Ergo - why not make a whole new thread with bullet-ed questions that have gone "ignored" by rational people so I can answer them all for you? Go ahead! It'll be fun.


ScootleRoyale? What an idiot.
 
Last edited:
'Tis nothing new that truthers base their critique of things solely based upon what someone else told them it said and meant rather than actually look at what they are critiquing and then at least trying to understand it themselves. what's really funny about that is that they end up becoming the very same type of people that they routinely mock as "Sheeple"...

...and they never see the irony in that.
 
Are you getting alot of flack from the idiots that you are not allowing comments on your videos?
 
Doubt it. While I haven't looked at Chris's videos yet, it became apparent early on in his forum participation that he was quite willing to ignore the same difficult questions that every other bedunker here ignores, and that he was simply looking to rehash stale bedunker talking points. While it's refreshing to see someone attempt to argue without insult or condescension, I have to agree with dude cited herehttp://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-mohrs-respectful-rebuttal-smells.html the content is not fresh, not original, and as a result, likely not correct. I'm not sure much has been accomplished here, except perhaps to present the standard bedunker argument in a more coherent form. Kudos to that. It will also make it easier to debunk should need be.
Wow, you haven't looked at what I've said and you condemn it already? Please watch my introduction and try to take it to heart before you get into the actual rebuttals. I actually made that unifying statement for everyone, on both sides. And BTW 2+2=4, and the fact that it's not new or fresh doesn't make it false. There are a few new things, mostly a compendium of the best rebuttals I have.

And BTW Tri, I have been stunned by the silence of the 911 Truth people so far. I emailed many of the top 9/11 Truth researchers personally and invited them to look at it and see if they want to respond to my 235 reasons/rebuttals. Not a peep. There have also been very few responses on 9/11 Truth blogs. And BTW the only reason I don't allow responses on YouTube is that I'd have to slog through 21 separate sets of responses! I welcome honest responses, I hope ae911 Truth or someone will set up another thread besides this one, and I'm enjoying staying "in the loop" on all this.
 
Wow, you have not watched the video, and yet you are here posting about them? Are you freaking kidding me

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed previously moderated content
.

I tend to find truthers i know haven't watched any debunking videos so i doubt they will watch this. It's strange, you'd think being a truth seeker you'd look at all the angles in your quest for answers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...the content is not fresh, not original...

...and no one would expect it to be fresh and original: The arguments Chris tackles - Richard Gage's arguments - are neither fresh nor original, and all of them were debunked a day after they first saw the light of day, on average. That would have been around 2004 or 2005, on average.

Chris however does an excellent job of summarizing the many reasons, no matter how unfresh and unoriginal, why Gage is spewing falsehoods and lies.
 
Part 8 of Rebuttal Videos Up: My Best Yet!

Hi all,

Here is some powerful BRAND NEW testimony about the temperatures of the debris pile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQXuMPs4

I spent a lot of time secretly searching on several blogs etc to find an FDNY hero who would testify directly about the temperatures of the debris pile he worked in every day for several months. His testimony is very powerful, and it adds something truly new to the discussion. Nothing theoretical here, this guy's life depended on getting these temperatures right. I also brought up the old "Demolition Dave" video of cutting the candlesticks in the debris. Two "boots on the ground" direct testimony that flatly contradicts Gage's claims.

Thanks to the brave firefighters who gave us so much on and after 9/11!
 
Chris, watching now.

While I generally think you have done a great job and made some great points and found some good quotes from experts, but being a picky **** I have a few problems with some minor things you have said and a few points you make. One thing in this particular video is you said that John Gross was wrong for saying there was no molten metal, but Gross never said that. He was asked about pools of molten STEEL, he was probably so pissed off by belligerent conspiracy theorists he didn't bother to explain it any further.

I would have also pointed out a really critical point against these molten steel/metal claims. The entire point is based upon eye witness' who talked about it.

However ....

1. We KNOW that molten metal is EXPECTED in fires and you can find professional fire resources that describe how that can happen and even in rare cases how you can get melted steel.

2. We KNOW that in other fires that people have described to the news media molten metal and molten steel in EXACTLY the same way as they did on 911. EXACTLY the same.

The entire claim is made on the basis that these reports are strange and unexpected in a fire, yet like the arguments they make of witness' to explosions, these are not strange at all and in fact completely expected. I find this the strongest case to make against these molten metal/steel claims. Its just not at all strange.

PS: Some truthers claim that molten aluminium is always silvery no matter what temperature you heat it to, this amusing video shows glowing aluminium.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A796N_YZTm8 I think this would have been usefull to refer to as they will continue to make that point.

*Maybe I missed it, but did you make the point that no one sustained any blast injuries? (injuries associated with explosives) Despite truthers knowing the names and identities of people that they claim not only experienced an explosion but in some cases "thrown around" by one on 911 we see absolutely no one with these injuries even though its common in every other bombing, yet truthers claim bombs are going off all other the place.

Regarding the column cut, you should have also shown the picture of the worker cutting a beam at the same angle with the same molten slag dripping off the side. A final nail in the coffin of that claim as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/nogod/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/cut.jpg

One guy told me after that they obviously they were TOLD to cut them that way to make it look less like a demolition to presumably cover up the "real" thermite cuts. Really thats the only responce they can have, bescides agonising over whether "the" columnb cut pictrue is really different despite it looking exactly like a thermal lance cut, and theres pictures of people cutting steel with lances and it looks just like that which I would have also included.
 
Last edited:
Hi EDX,

Well I watched the John Gross/NIST video and he was wrong to deny eyewitness accounts of molten steel/iron, accounts did exist. The 9/11 activist was challenging but respectful and John's answer was not... and he misstated the fact that people had testified to molten metal.

I didn't include the two visuals you mentioned, but they would have been good. The whole thing is over 3 hours long so I had to cut something!

I didn't say fire-induced explosions are common exactly. I did list all the things that explode in fire, and I also said I've seen explosions in a fire I witnessed once.

Glad you like it; I'll be interested to hear more as these come out. Chris
 
Wow, you haven't looked at what I've said and you condemn it already? Please watch my introduction and try to take it to heart before you get into the actual rebuttals. I actually made that unifying statement for everyone, on both sides. And BTW 2+2=4, and the fact that it's not new or fresh doesn't make it false. There are a few new things, mostly a compendium of the best rebuttals I have.

I would rather see in text form somewhere your alleged 103 reasons why controlled demolition was improbable/not possible.

Your answers in the first thread, such as below, do not inspire me to want to spend long hours sifting through your videos.

There are things unique to the structures of these buildings that caused their natural collapse due to fire. And most importantly, as soon as the collapse began, gravity took over, increasing the momentum of the collapse by a factor of almost ten in the first second alone. Gravity, gravity, gravity.

and,

CHRIS COMMENT: ...when you consider that an object in free fall has almost ten times more "weight" after only one second, I agree with them that gravity is one mighty force and deserves less attention than the probable collapse sequence itself

Most buildings have things "unique" to their structures. And "gravity, gravity, gravity" has never demolished steel-framed towers in under 15 seconds due to localized upper floor damage. Or even localized lower floor damage. Ever. Why? Because it doesn't.

The fact that you completely miss your own circular argument (Bolded above: What caused the building to free fall? Its free fall! :rolleyes:) and your far too ready willingness to invoke "gravity, gravity, gravity" as some kind of supernatural force that had the capacity, on just this one day in history, to not just overwhelm but negate standard designed and engineered building resistance doesn't give much hope for the rest of your arguments.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you completely miss your own circular argument (Bolded above: What caused the building to free fall? Its free fall! :rolleyes:) and your far too ready willingness to invoke "gravity, gravity, gravity" as some kind of supernatural force that had the capacity, on just this one day in history, to not just overwhelm but negate standard designed and engineered building resistance doesn't give much hope for the rest of your arguments.

Where did you study engineering?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom