Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[ergo]

So far I am talking only about the Twin Towers, which fell at around 2/3 freefall. Honestly, I did a poor job of explaining Building 7's freefall. That will be in part 20. And you're right, I didn't explain it well in the debate. With the help I've gotten from my friends here I undertstand it much better now, as my explanation will show.

If you followed the link to the quote of yours I pulled, you'll see you were actually discussing WTC 7.

I guess that happened to the Twin Towers, but even so, the destruction of the building tops did not eliminate the mass, which continued to push down on the building.

No, I was discussing WTC 7. For a building to descend at free fall for 2.5 seconds, it had to be moving through nothing or next to nothing. Since we know it was not, it was moving through building, unless you want to argue that the "fire" created a big hole underneath the building that it fell into.

The fact that you're misunderstanding this suggests to me that you still don't understand why free fall of WTC7 for any portion of time is problematic for the fire and gravity theory.

The major point of the Delft collapse to me is this: however 9/11 Truth people try to deconstruct it or make it seem different from the WTC buildings, it's a tall steel frame building tower (with more concrete reinforcement than the WTC buildings), the part that came down collapsed very fast, mostly straight down, sort of all at once, rebutting in one fell swoop several of Gage's claims about how it should have tipped over or be stopped dead in its tracks.

No, a portion of it sloughed off. That is all. There was no progressive collapse. The falling portion fell over the lower remaining structure, not through it.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Nope. Compression and physics.



I like how you ignore my freefall point.

Ignoring points is what truthers do....... a lot.

 

[000063]

No, I was discussing WTC 7. For a building to descend at free fall for 2.5 seconds, it had to be moving through nothing or next to nothing. Since we know it was not, it was moving through building, unless you want to argue that the "fire" created a big hole underneath the building that it fell into.

Aside from the fact that it was part of 7's exterior was moving at free fall acceleration, you're arguing that there was no resistance. None. Even without support, anything not moving at the same speed as the falling objects the exact instant they come into contact is going to provide resistance, or run into objects ahead and be slowed down.

The fact that you're misunderstanding this suggests to me that you still don't understand why free fall of WTC7 for any portion of time is problematic for the fire and gravity theory.

And absolutely disastrous for any thermite or explosives theory, without split-second rocket explosives, which you ignored, again.

No, a portion of it sloughed off. That is all. There was no progressive collapse. The falling portion fell over the lower remaining structure, not through it.

I get the feeling you've got something wrong again.

 

[ergo]

the destruction of the building tops did not eliminate the mass, which continued to push down on the building.

And this is just kindergarten-level silly, as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum before. But I know we'll be hearing the strenuous bedunker protests to the contrary. Still waiting for that model, little bee friends.

 

[ergo]

And absolutely disastrous for any thermite or explosives theory, without split-second rocket explosives, which you ignored, again.

Apparently our secret agent friend has not seen how buildings are CDed.

This is why I don't bother with your "points", 00063.

 

[TruthersLie]

And yet, air pressure can do it.

Not at all... the outer assembly rotating across the base and using it as a fulcrum will allow it to fall OUT several hundred feet...

but hey, from someone who doesn't understand prepositions, qualifying language, exponential and the list goes on and on ... go figure.

 

[TruthersLie]

And this is just kindergarten-level silly, as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum before. But I know we'll be hearing the strenuous bedunker protests to the contrary. Still waiting for that model, little bee friends.

from someone who claims that a debris field the "size of the moon" wouldn't do anything to the towers... Have you figured out what crushed that car yet? Center of mass... look it up...

Really?

HOnestly?

ROFLMAO...

 

[beachnut]

And this is just kindergarten-level silly, as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum before. But I know we'll be hearing the strenuous bedunker protests to the contrary. Still waiting for that model, little bee friends.

Wrong.

This is sub-kindergarten-level delusional.

I agree that Y tons of rubble may have the power to crush through or partially destroy a floor or floors below it.

I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.

moon-sized? this is a classic. A big reason why you don't understand Gage is a fraud, who take in 300k from dumb donors.

 

[000063]

Has ergo ever admitted that the "moon of rubble" thing was wrong, or does he just ignore it or throw out one-liners? He seems like the sort to ignore his failures rather than address them.

Apparently our secret agent friend has not seen how buildings are CDed.

I'm sorry, do buildings that are CDed have steel beams flung out of them as standard procedure? What law of physics, pray tell, says that an object that hits another object going in the same direction at the same speed won't decelerate?

You say that the debris fell with no resistance. Which means it hit nothing with more resistance than air. The only way for it to hit nothing is for the intact structure to be moving at the same speed or faster than the falling mass before even touching it. The only way to do so with explosives is impossibly complicated.

And your position is that is impossible without explosives, which I agree with. So if it's impossible with or without explosives, that means its just impossible.

Which means you're wrong.

This is why I don't bother with your "points", 00063.

Quote-mining! What a shock!

 

[TruthersLie]

Has ergo ever admitted that the "moon of rubble" thing was wrong, or does he just ignore it or throw out one-liners? He seems like the sort to ignore his failures rather than address them.

I'm sorry, do buildings that are CDed have steel beams flung out of them as standard procedure? What law of physics, pray tell, says that an object that hits another object going in the same direction at the same speed won't decelerate?

You say that the debris fell with no resistance. Which means it hit nothing with more resistance than air. The only way for it to hit nothing is for the intact structure to be moving at the same speed or faster than the falling mass before even touching it. The only way to do so with explosives is impossibly complicated.

And your position is that is impossible without explosives, which I agree with. So if it's impossible with or without explosives, that means its just impossible.

Which means you're wrong.

Quote-mining! What a shock!

Ergo admit that he is wrong? Never.
we have into vs onto
essentially vs actually
about
exponentially
center of mass vs debris field the "size of the moon."
His inability to understand the caracas towers
symmetrical

I've lost count of all the other massive **** ups he has committed (but there are about a dozen of them... that is why I am on ignore for him... I kept pointing them out)... admit he is wrong? Nope...

 

[chrismohr]

Addition of Three New YouTube Videos: Thermitics and Conclusion

Hi gang,

I just downloaded three more YouTube videos: Thermites in the Dust??? Parts one and two, and a conclusion to the Twin Towers portion of my rebuttals. There are a few technical glitches in these which may or may not be corrected but they are watchable now. I talked over my 15 minute YouTube limit so my tech guy had to break it into two parts.

The main thrust of my argument re thermites is: there are problems with the original Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al study, but if they would just submit their dust for affordable, independent lab tests and prove the thermites, they could bring the science of their claims into the mainstream... and so far they have not done this.

Here is the complete list of downloads so far.

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
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP8t45iGn8E
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1aWsQLqG54
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD6pTOnbKEU

 

[Carlos]

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.

No, the buildings were not designed to absorb dynamic loads. When I say "dynamic loads" i'm not referring to the wind and earthquakes but to a part of the structure falling over the rest of the structure.

You CANNOT say the structure below the impact would stop the collapse.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi all,

I have gotten some surprisingly friendly emails and reviews from some 9/11 Truth people who like my rebuttal videos. Here's a review one has written that is also on my YouTube page:

Chris Mohr's videos raise important points that the 9/11 Truth Movement has to deal with, in order to get the scientific community interested in a New Investigation, such as taking WTC dust to independent labs. I'll be happy to help donate towards the cost. Chris provides an excellent example of dignified, intelligent, mature and respectful debate about 9/11.

My call for a real independent private investigation of the 9/11 dust appears to have struck a nerve among some people who would really like to see the Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al study replicated... on both sides!

 

[RedIbis]

Hi all,

I have gotten some surprisingly friendly emails and reviews from some 9/11 Truth people who like my rebuttal videos. Here's a review one has written that is also on my YouTube page:

Chris Mohr's videos raise important points that the 9/11 Truth Movement has to deal with, in order to get the scientific community interested in a New Investigation, such as taking WTC dust to independent labs. I'll be happy to help donate towards the cost. Chris provides an excellent example of dignified, intelligent, mature and respectful debate about 9/11.

My call for a real independent private investigation of the 9/11 dust appears to have struck a nerve among some people who would really like to see the Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al study replicated... on both sides!

Chris,
I was going to write a comment that would echo what you post above. What makes your presentations effective is 1) you maintain a civil approach. Too much "debunking" is really character assassination, which isn't a necessary tactic when promoting a strong argument. 2) You refer to your work here as rebuttal instead of "debunking" which is also effective. Debunking appears to me to be (on this topic) a form of contrarianism that seeks only to tear down an argument regardless of validity. 3) You are raising legitimate points, such as the one mentioned above asking for Ryan et al to have their study replicated. I've only looked at the one video and expressed my disagreement with the Delft comparison and you responded reasonably. I'll take a look at your other videos. Good work. This type of approach will prove to be more persuasive than the ranting and raving that can often be passed off as "debunking."
-Red

 

[Oystein]

...
My call for a real independent private investigation of the 9/11 dust appears to have struck a nerve among some people who would really like to see the Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al study replicated... on both sides!

...legitimate points, such as the one mentioned above asking for Ryan et al to have their study replicated...

We should always reply to this that no one needs to replicate the Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al study - it is inconclusive because it uses incompetent methods, and its data is actually best interpreted as supporting a totally different conclusion than the one Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al came to, and any replication will yield similarly inconclusive data.
Instead, we can't stress enough that the study needs to be done right for once, if at all.

 

[chrismohr]

We should always reply to this that no one needs to replicate the Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al study - it is inconclusive because it uses incompetent methods, and its data is actually best interpreted as supporting a totally different conclusion than the one Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al came to, and any replication will yield similarly inconclusive data.
Instead, we can't stress enough that the study needs to be done right for once, if at all.

Oystein,

The information I got from many chemists and others convinces me you are probably right, but because of my lack of training as a chemist I am giving every benefit of the doubt. Kevin Ryan insists it's a good experiment with only a few things that could be improved upon, and he gave me reasons.

What's easy about this is that none of our opinions will much matter if the dust is submitted to RJ Lee. A good, standard lab test from a dust laboratory will yield an answer. If it's positive, then someone would have to get another dust sample with a strong chain of custody.

Honestly, I doubt the test will ever happen, and if it does, it will test negative for thermites. But again, my opinion is irrelevant. Either they test it right or they don't. I await a reply from them. Like the Grateful Dead said, Your cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein,

The information I got from many chemists and others convinces me you are probably right, but because of my lack of training as a chemist I am giving every benefit of the doubt. Kevin Ryan insists it's a good experiment with only a few things that could be improved upon, and he gave me reasons.

Kevin Ryan is one of the authors of the disputed paper, so he can't be its referee. Of course he will tell you everything that might help to cover his buttocks.

What's easy about this is that none of our opinions will much matter if the dust is submitted to RJ Lee. A good, standard lab test from a dust laboratory will yield an answer. If it's positive, then someone would have to get another dust sample with a strong chain of custody.

I have heard it more than once that Jones and Harrit will not release a sample to any lab or researcher before those have lined out exactly what tests they want to do, apparently in an attempt to control that only the tests they did in their own paper be replicated, and no conclusive tests be done. This could well be rumour, but could also be the reason why you are right with the following:

Honestly, I doubt the test will ever happen, and if it does, it will test negative for thermites. But again, my opinion is irrelevant. Either they test it right or they don't. I await a reply from them. Like the Grateful Dead said, Your cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down.

 

[chrismohr]

Video Part 13 just posted

Hi all,

We're on to Building 7, starting with a brief summary of the 2008n NIST Report, which Richard Gage and I hammered out together in anticipation of our March 6 2011 debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q

There are a few things at the end summarizing some things Gage and I disagree on as well.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Hi all,

We're on to Building 7, starting with a brief summary of the 2008n NIST Report, which Richard Gage and I hammered out together in anticipation of our March 6 2011 debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q

There are a few things at the end summarizing some things Gage and I disagree on as well.

You can create a script with Speech Recognition Software. I'm sure you're of acquaintance with someone who would has this software who would convert your videos.

It's been almost a decade since WTC 7 collapsed. What would be your guesstimate of when the next steel supported skyscraper will collapse due to fire?

 

[ozeco41]

...It's been almost a decade since WTC 7 collapsed. What would be your guesstimate of when the next steel supported skyscraper will collapse due to fire?

The first problem if you are looking for a comparison with WTC7 is getting an unfought fire.

Most office space fires are contained by the built in protection of so called fire proofing plus sprinkler systems which are intended to give and usually succeed at giving the fire fighters a couple of hours to get things under control.

So to get one subject to unfought fires almost mandates a bigger setting such as terrorism.

WTC7's big mistake was that it got itself built next to the twin towers. Had it been in (say) California it would almost certainly be still standing.