Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
ergo said:
"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.
Click to expand...

And not just once on this one day, as some kind of freak occurrence, but three times.

Really, guys, how dumb can this get?
 
ergo said:
And not just once on this one day, as some kind of freak occurrence, but three times.

Really, guys, how dumb can this get?
Click to expand...

That would depend on the person involved, now wouldn't it ergo?

In your case, my guess would be "very."

But do continue to regale us with your analysis of not watching the videos.
 
chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...

He was asked about molten steel, not molten metal. You could also say he was referring to experts in metallurgy reporting molten steel, but the point is molten metal is different to molten steel and the basis of the truthers question was that there were "huge pools of molten steel" existed as a statement of fact. It had nothing to do with molten metal. Which witness' anywhere said there were "huge pools of molten steel"? Maybe Gross knew of some reports of melted steel, but did not feel they fit the sensationalist description from the conspiracy theorist telling him that they should check for explosives to explain molten steel pools.

If the question was phrased differently perhaps you could say he misspoke or misrepresented but as it stands it is a fair response to me and truthers interpretation of it misrepresentative. If they had asked him if he was aware of reports of molten metal at the scene and what that could mean, maybe he would have answered differently, we'll never know.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

Check out part three of my YouTube video series. A tall steel/concrete building collapsed very fast straight down into its own footprint in 2008 due to fire alone. These YouTube videos corrected many errors from my debate and added much new information, including 235 reasons not just 103.
 
Edx said:
He was asked about molten steel, not molten metal.
Click to expand...

I hate to keep arguing with an ally, but yes John Gross at NIST was asked about molten steel, and yes there were eyewitnesses who said they saw molten steel. We believe they were mistaken, but they did say that, and John Gross denied that anyone said it. My bigger point was to acknowledge that eyewitnesses said this about molten steel, and not to just blow off this claim but to investigate it seriously. It wasn't mainly about dissing John Gross.

I just want to acknowledge that eyewitnesses said they saw molten steel. We believe they were mistaken, but that's what they reported. 9/11 Truth presentations routinely show this John Gross video of him denying any eyewitness accounts of molten steel, then play the accounts. They also show WTC Engineer Leslie Robertson denying he said there was molten steel, then they show Robertson in a meeting publicly stating there was molten steel.

I think the best thing to do is acknowledge that these eyewitness statements are on record, so people don't continue to feel discounted, ignored and denied. Then we can look more deeply together at the question of molten steel or iron.

And Ergo, what is circular about arguing that gravity overcame structural resistance? Why is gravity a supernatural force? In my debate I supported my assertion with the formula f=ma, which shows that gravitational forces increase momentum exponentially and quickly. I backed up my claim with quotes from MIT professors Eduardo Kausel and Thomas Eagar. I didn't make this stuff up, you know. I try to be respectful, but lordy, if you don't think my videos are worth watching, then your critiques of them aren't worth reading either.
 
chrismohr said:
I hate to keep arguing with an ally, but yes John Gross at NIST was asked about molten steel, and yes there were eyewitnesses who said they saw molten steel. We believe they were mistaken, but they did say that, and John Gross denied that anyone said it. My bigger point was to acknowledge that eyewitnesses said this about molten steel, and not to just blow off this claim but to investigate it seriously. It wasn't mainly about dissing John Gross.
Click to expand...

The questioner told him that there were "huge pools of molten steel" and that explosives should have been considered to explain these "huge pools of molten steel."

I think Gross was being intentionally obtuse because he was being spoken to by such a ignorant conspiracy theorist he didn't have time for. Yes he should have given a better answer but maybe if the question was phrased different he would would have, but we'll never know now.

Was it a good response? No, but the most you can glean from it is that he says he knows of no one reporting molten steel, still wrong, but it says nothing about molten metal. It says nothing about whether he acknowledges other melted metals in the debris.


I think the best thing to do is acknowledge that these eyewitness statements are on record, so people don't continue to feel discounted, ignored and denied. Then we can look more deeply together at the question of molten steel or iron.
Click to expand...

Sure, I just don't like this leap from someone denying molten steel to them denying molten metal. That is not the question he was asked and that is not what he answered.

And as I said I think you missed a good opportunity to point out that the reports of molten metal and molten steel and entirely expected since we can see other fires in news reports with quotes from people that talk about this in the exact same way. To me thats a pretty big kick in the teeth since their entire argument is that these reports om 911 are strange and shouldn't be there in the first place since "fire can't melt steel", as they say. If you show that actually 911 was nowhere near the first time people have reported these things, in this way, in a fire, then it negates their entire argument.

That was the entire reason Jones had a basis to claim thermate/thermite was involved and where the red chip saga flows from. If it can be shown other fires contain these reports as well and obviously thermite hasn't been used there, then his argument was built on nothing to start with.
 
Last edited:
ergo

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.
Click to expand...

Yes it has, three times in one day on 9/11/2001
The same day two fuel laden Boeing 767s hit two steel framed towers at approximately 500mph....funnily enough that also had never happened before.
 
chrismohr said:
Check out part three of my YouTube video series. A tall steel/concrete building collapsed very fast straight down into its own footprint in 2008 due to fire alone. These YouTube videos corrected many errors from my debate and added much new information, including 235 reasons not just 103.
Click to expand...

Hello Chris,
I appreciate your call for respectful debate on your youtube presentations. I have a quick question. Why would you compare the Delft Univ. fire to WTC 7? You say that this bldg collapsed "all at once", pretty much into its own footprint.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a small section of it actually collapsed and that none of the collapsed portion even made it to ground level or its footprint?

I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that this qualifies as a steel framed high rise that completely collapses due to fire. Completely gutted, yes, collapsed, no.
 
RedIbis said:
Hello Chris,
I appreciate your call for respectful debate on your youtube presentations. I have a quick question. Why would you compare the Delft Univ. fire to WTC 7? You say that this bldg collapsed "all at once", pretty much into its own footprint.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a small section of it actually collapsed and that none of the collapsed portion even made it to ground level or its footprint?

I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that this qualifies as a steel framed high rise that completely collapses due to fire. Completely gutted, yes, collapsed, no.
Click to expand...


A section of it did collapse, similarly much of the Windsor tower also collapsed....was it exactly the same as the WTC towers? No but it does show that steel buildings do collapse due to fire alone.
 
RedIbis said:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a small section of it actually collapsed and that none of the collapsed portion even made it to ground level or its footprint?

I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that this qualifies as a steel framed high rise that completely collapses due to fire. Completely gutted, yes, collapsed, no.
Click to expand...

Gage's statements:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
Click to expand...
What was "rapid" about it? Isn't that a bit misleading? How come the link he provides has an emergency worker talking about the facade coming down only? Where was the description from the emergency worker about the east penthouse falling into the building first ? Wouldn't it be "more accurate" to say:
A rapid onset of collapse of the perimeter facade occurred 8 seconds after the east penthouse collapsed into the building
Click to expand...
---
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction
Click to expand...
Really? So no explosions for the "demolitions" used for the east and west penthouse, but only the perimeter facade? Interesting. Also, a second BEFORE the building's destruction? Wasn't it partially destroyed 8 seconds prior when the east penthouse caved in? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say:
Sounds of explosions at the ground floor where heard 8 Seconds after the intial collpase of the east penthouse, but a second before the remainder of WTC7 came down.
Click to expand...
---
3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say:
Symmetrical structural failure of the perimeter facade after the east and west penthouse already failed. The facade was the only portion of the entire WTC7 structure that fell at free fall acceleration, but only for 2.25 seconds of the total collapse time.
Click to expand...
 
Gamolon said:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say:

Symmetrical structural failure of the perimeter facade after the east and west penthouse already failed. The facade was the only portion of the entire WTC7 structure that fell at free fall acceleration, but only for 2.25 seconds of the total collapse time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, no, not really. Any use of the word "symmetrical" to describe WTC7's collapse is an outright lie, given that the north wall had an off-centre kink and the whole building rotated southwards as it fell.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
Hello Chris,
I appreciate your call for respectful debate on your youtube presentations. I have a quick question. Why would you compare the Delft Univ. fire to WTC 7? You say that this bldg collapsed "all at once", pretty much into its own footprint.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a small section of it actually collapsed and that none of the collapsed portion even made it to ground level or its footprint?

I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that this qualifies as a steel framed high rise that completely collapses due to fire. Completely gutted, yes, collapsed, no.
Click to expand...

I also think he overstated the comparison, I would still have used it as an example to show that fire damaged floors can progressive pancake collapse despite Gage's claims that this cannot happen because steel is somehow indestructible and pancake collapse is somehow impossible. This is also when I would have refered to verinage, Im surprised Chris hasn't pointed that out yet.
 
grandmastershek said:
Man I love Scootroyale. I have watched him run around in circles on youtube so many times. Similar to Ergo he admits he barely watched them but labels it as ad hom lite. Too bad he doesn't allow comments because then we could ask him to cite 1 example of ad hom in any of the videos. But then again he would have to know what it means.
Click to expand...

Having run into THE Stundie, they both remind me of him a lot.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, no, not really. Any use of the word "symmetrical" to describe WTC7's collapse is an outright lie, given that the north wall had an off-centre kink and the whole building rotated southwards as it fell.

Dave
Click to expand...

Good point.

:)
 
Parts 9 and 10 of Gage YouTube Rebuttals up and running

Hi all,

Part nine of my YouTube rebuttals is a loook at the iron micropsheres, and part 10 is about the sulfidized steel.

Here is a complete list of links as of today:

intro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQXuMPs4&feature=related
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ

Coming soon to finish this big section:
part 11 thermitics in the dust
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion

I hardly need to invite you to let me know what you think, do I?
 
RedIbis said:
Hello Chris,
I appreciate your call for respectful debate on your youtube presentations. I have a quick question. Why would you compare the Delft Univ. fire to WTC 7? You say that this bldg collapsed "all at once", pretty much into its own footprint.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a small section of it actually collapsed and that none of the collapsed portion even made it to ground level or its footprint?

I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that this qualifies as a steel framed high rise that completely collapses due to fire. Completely gutted, yes, collapsed, no.
Click to expand...
A few quick comments: yes there are differences between Delft and Building 7/Towers. What's important to me is that 1) the strong steel/concrete structure beneath the collapse initiation point was too weak to stop the collapse, NOT as Gage and others have claimed would have happened 2) It fell through what Gage calls "the path of greatest resistance," not sideways as Gage claims such a collapse should have been. 3) It was less symmetrical a collapse than the Building 7 collapse, but none of these buildings were symmetrical in their collapse. However, just eyeballing the collapse, Delft and the WTC buildings were all to a gross order sort of symmetrical, not a huge sideways collapse. 4.) The building didn't collapse in its entirety because the concrete stairwells to the right didn't burn as badly and retained a lot of structural strength, but even with that part standing and providing lateral resistance to the other part collapsing, what an amazing demonstration of the power of gravity, gravity, gravity, to pull things downward. 5.) The building went down pretty much all at once, which refutes the Gage theory that it would have to come down at a steep angle based on the irregular damage and collapse sequence of a natural fire. 6.) The building indeed didn't collapse all the way to the ground, and in the interests of honesty I purposely chose the least-symmetrical looking, least complete collapse looking video I could find. But for several floors it collapsed, sort of straight down, pretty darn fast, sort of towards its own footprint. Kind of like the three WTC buildings, wouldn't you agree? And completely differently from the many ways Gage asserts such buildings are supposed to collapse. And BTW, Gage would predict that if this building collapsed at all, it would topple irregularly because one side of the building was holding onto the concrete stairwells. But no, the building section that collapsed still went mostly straight down, even with those lateral forces resisting the collapse on one side only. Why? Gravity, gravity, gravity...

In a future Building 7 video I will have the verinage destruction, a form of controlled demolition with no explosives, which relies on natural collapse after some floors are yanked off to the side. Even with some lateral force being applied to the building to trigger the collapse, to a gross order it is still a more or less straight-down collapse. Gravity tends to pull things straight down, and strong steel/concrete structures can't survive an all-out collapse, there's just too much gravitational momentum and it overcomes the resistance of even the strongest steel supports, as you can see in the Delft video. The differences between Delft and WTC are real, but Delft nevertheless demonstrates some important principles that can be applied to the WTC buildings and our understanding of how we would expect them to fall: fast and mostly straight down.
 
Thanks for the thorough reply. I'll try to be brief about my points.

I don't disagree with much of your reply until I get to this:

chrismohr said:
5.) The building went down pretty much all at once, which refutes the Gage theory that it would have to come down at a steep angle based on the irregular damage and collapse sequence of a natural fire.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the Delft building did not go "down pretty much all at once". At best you can say that a small percentage of the bldg collapsed, but even that did not collapse to the ground.

6.) The building indeed didn't collapse all the way to the ground, and in the interests of honesty I purposely chose the least-symmetrical looking, least complete collapse looking video I could find. But for several floors it collapsed, sort of straight down, pretty darn fast, sort of towards its own footprint. Kind of like the three WTC buildings, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
None of the building collapsed all the way to the ground and most of it was still standing. The part that did collapse, I would agree collapsed "sort of straight down, pretty darn fast, sort of toward its own footprints" but to compare it to anything that happened on 9/11 you would have to adjust for scale.

And do you actually have data that compares the rate of descent between the two buildings to determine how "fast" this collapse actually was?


And completely differently from the many ways Gage asserts such buildings are supposed to collapse. And BTW, Gage would predict that if this building collapsed at all, it would topple irregularly because one side of the building was holding onto the concrete stairwells. But no, the building section that collapsed still went mostly straight down, even with those lateral forces resisting the collapse on one side only. Why? Gravity, gravity, gravity...
Click to expand...

But even the collapse of the Delft portion was arrested by the lowest floors, sort of proving Gage's point about resistance. Whereas it appears to weaken your point since the very partial collapse was in fact arrested.


In a future Building 7 video I will have the verinage destruction, a form of controlled demolition with no explosives, which relies on natural collapse after some floors are yanked off to the side. Even with some lateral force being applied to the building to trigger the collapse, to a gross order it is still a more or less straight-down collapse. Gravity tends to pull things straight down, and strong steel/concrete structures can't survive an all-out collapse, there's just too much gravitational momentum and it overcomes the resistance of even the strongest steel supports, as you can see in the Delft video. The differences between Delft and WTC are real, but Delft nevertheless demonstrates some important principles that can be applied to the WTC buildings and our understanding of how we would expect them to fall: fast and mostly straight down.
Click to expand...

If you really wanted to make Delft a fair comparison you would have to account for the materials, the length and heat of the respective fires, etc etc.
 
chrismohr said:
And Ergo, what is circular about arguing that gravity overcame structural resistance? Why is gravity a supernatural force?
Click to expand...

When you're trying to explain free fall of a building through itself, you can't say "gravity done it." Gravity pulls things through air at free fall acceleration. It doesn't pull building through building at that rate. The answer from that quote of yours I pulled was supposed to address how the building could be falling at free fall for that portion of time when there is building underneath it.

F=ma does not describe an upper building assembly sinking through a lower building assembly at free fall acceleration. At least not due to gravity. The 'm' in that equation must represent the entire mass of the system: all the mass involved in the collision, not just the upper part. The 'f' in the equation is experienced by both portions equally, not just the lower portion. F=ma must describe the force applied to both portions of building: the descending portion and the lower, stationary portion. You cannot "overwhelm" a body equal or greater in mass in any collision without the first part being destroyed equally or correspondingly. This is Newton's Third Law. And the alleged collapse mechanism in WTC 7 did not present remotely enough opportunity for free fall to have occurred naturally.

I'm really not sure what part of this bedunkers don't understand, or seem to think they can sweep under the rug. Gravity does not cause matter to "overwhelm" other matter of equal or greater mass, area and density. You can have local or partial failures due to eccentric loading, but not smooth, symmetrical descent of something through itself without resistance having been removed evenly and globally. If you disagree with this, please present your equation that proves this--that also accounts for all the mass in the system, i.e., Newton's Third Law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom