Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...
Delft, 2008, not the wehole building but much of one part of a steel-reinforced concrete building collapsed (see history of fires, YouTube Part 3 of mine I think). Straight down. Fast. Fire alone.
 
chrismohr said:
Delft, 2008, not the wehole building but much of one part of a steel-reinforced concrete building collapsed (see history of fires, YouTube Part 3 of mine I think). Straight down. Fast. Fire alone.
Click to expand...

Clayton forgot to include all his goal posts manuevers before he wrote that. He meant to say "total collapse"
 
ozeco41 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, we need to find two 110 story steel framed buildings, have them hit by fuel-heavy jumbo jets, wait for them to collapse* after an hour of fire, wait for the debris to crush and damage several buildings in the area, and then wait for one of those buildings to be a 47-story one that is set on fire by the debris.

No problem.

/sarcasm

It's odd how Truther's will switch from General claims ("steel supported skyscraper collapsing due to fire"), when asking for proof of debunkers' claims*, but their own claims tend to be very specific. ("total steel-framed skyscraper collapse from fire alone into its own footprint") I assume they need the wiggle room.
 
I just started checking your videos, Chris. Thanks for doing this.

I notice your audio is not very good quality on the first 2 videos, hoping you've corrected it in subsequent works. It sounds as though you used the built-in mic on the video camera, and for that reason the sound is too indirect.
 
000063 said:
It's odd how Truther's will switch from General claims ("steel supported skyscraper collapsing due to fire"), when asking for proof of debunkers' claims*, but their own claims tend to be very specific. ("total steel-framed skyscraper collapse from fire alone into its own footprint") I assume they need the wiggle room.
Click to expand...

PFFFT! I remember when it was just "no steel framed building". Then when the laundry list of examples came out they had to quickly move the goal posts.
 
chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...
But regardless of a test's outcome, the Truthers will:
  • Continue to repeat the false claim
  • Claim that the test was biased, wrong or "bought out"
  • Call for still more tests
  • Claim that negative tests prove a conspiracy
  • Never change their accusations beyond a little goalpost shifting.
 
alienentity said:
I notice your audio is not very good quality on the first 2 videos, hoping you've corrected it in subsequent works. It sounds as though you used the built-in mic on the video camera, and for that reason the sound is too indirect.
Click to expand...
I noticed this, too. Chris Mohr, I work with audio/video on a semi-pro basis. If you would like some hints on how to improve your work, please PM me.
 
Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...

Probably a while, as most of them are probably designed with such a circumstance in mind nowadays. If there was only an example of that.

Oh wait - there is. Mandarin Oriental Bejing.

Anything else?
 
chrismohr said:
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!
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some points, Chris, and the first one is a longer treatment of what Oystein said:
  1. It is correct that replication should not be the goal. Rather, tests which properly characterize the material should be done. Simply doing tests that reveal certain properties but do not reveal the actual chemical bonding would be next to useless, as the Jones/Harrit et. al. paper already describes some of those properties. What needs to be done are spectrographies that reveal bonding. That way, you can determine very directly whether the aluminum is bound or not, as well as tell what molecules are present. Recall: The EDX results only give presence of individual atoms (carbon, iron, etc.), not their bonding. Replicating that is useless. I'm glad that Oystein brought that up and that you agree, but for the lurkers out there, it should be emphasized over and over again so that it's clear.
  2. The point should be emphasized that none of the data stands alone, but it's the convergence of it that tells us what we need to know. Speaking towards the dust chips alone: The current photomicrographs already argue very much against the material being thermite; Sunstealer established this quite well using Harrit's/Jones's own data.
  3. The further point should be emphasized that the test results must be taken in context will everything that is known, above and beyond the details of the dust chips. Recall: No hardened pools of steel were recovered; recovered steel components did not show signs of having been attacked by an incendiary (and those recovered components are indeed critical, given that they're recovered from the areas where collapse started. The argument they're not representative of the entirety of the steel components fails in the light of the fact that that's the entire point of homing in on those: They represent the state of the steel on the floors where the collapse began). In a hypothetical case where truthers dreams are realized and the test does indeed confirm thermite/thermate, the further question remains of why the bulk signs if its use are missing. If an incendiary is present, then it follows that the results of its use would also be present, yet that is missing in the case of the recovered components, as well as other effects (such as stairwell B survivors, again the lack of hardened pools of iron, etc.).
The entire problem of just concentrating on the narrow point about testing the dust is that it leaves the door open to allowing the narrative to be framed around just the individual leaves on a tree. Nevermind that the ultimate goal is to characterize the entire forest. Subjecting the dust to further testing is only part of building a case; whatever the results of those further tests would be, they'd only be one of the pieces of evidence in the overall narrative. That shouldn't be forgotten.
 
Last edited:
Sherman Bay said:
I noticed this, too. Chris Mohr, I work with audio/video on a semi-pro basis. If you would like some hints on how to improve your work, please PM me.
Click to expand...
Sorry all, the recording's been made, and while the sound isn't great, I spoke clearly and audibly so it will have to do. The recording is all done, just a few more being edited.
 
El Mondo Hummus, you are right, these other questions would be part of a bigger picture IF thermites were found in the dust. If it were found in an independent lab test, those next steps would have to be taken. Plus the chain of custody issue etc etc etc. My belief is that 1) the lab tests will not happen and 2) if they do, they will come up negative. Remember, the RJ Lee study already failed to find thermitic materials anyway.

If by some incredible miracle we are all wrong, so be it. Science will demand that we take it to the next step. Right now I am calling them out, and it's having an impact among some of the more honest 911 Truth folks who agree with me.
 
ozeco41 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yah, just like 3, 4, 5, 6.... and all the other highrises right next to 1 and 2 that plummeted to the ground because they were too damn close. Big mistake for them, too. :rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
Yah, just like 3, 4, 5, 6.... and all the other highrises right next to 1 and 2 that plummeted to the ground because they were too damn close. Big mistake for them, too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like

Hoist with your own petard, "ergo"?
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Yeah, just like
Click to expand...

Yes, we know, Dave. None of these buildings plummeted to the ground. They were demolished. Do you know what the difference is?

WTC3, Marriott Hotel, had a vast circular chunk missing from its middle after WTC2 collapsed. It did not collapse. Major structural damage, and fires. Why didn't WTC 3 progressively collapse??
 
ergo said:
Yes, we know, Dave. None of these buildings plummeted to the ground. They were demolished. Do you know what the difference is?

WTC3, Marriott Hotel, had a vast circular chunk missing from its middle after WTC2 collapsed. It did not collapse. Major structural damage, and fires. Why didn't WTC 3 progressively collapse??
Click to expand...

Maybe because ... the situation wasn't the same as for WTC 1 and 2, and also wasn't the same as for WTC 7. WTC3 was 22 stories, not 110, or 47. The debris from the towers didn't fall on WTC3 the same way that tower 1's debris fell on WTC7. And on, and on, and on. These are complicated events, different conditions, different buildings (was WTC3 a "tube within a tube" design? Don't think so!), etc.

Perhaps that's why WTC 3 didn't progressively collapse. Structural damage and fires can cause collapse, but their presence doesn't automatically mean that collapse is inevitable.
 
chrismohr said:
El Mondo Hummus, you are right, these other questions would be part of a bigger picture IF thermites were found in the dust. If it were found in an independent lab test, those next steps would have to be taken. Plus the chain of custody issue etc etc etc. My belief is that 1) the lab tests will not happen and 2) if they do, they will come up negative. Remember, the RJ Lee study already failed to find thermitic materials anyway.

If by some incredible miracle we are all wrong, so be it. Science will demand that we take it to the next step. Right now I am calling them out, and it's having an impact among some of the more honest 911 Truth folks who agree with me.
Click to expand...

i believe this was from an ae911truth presentation. this might be what your looking for:


remember what the professor said:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

why dont ya interview Professor Astaneh. He even sent steel samples to one of his fellow professors at Berkeley. Are ya interested in what those samples showed? I am. He hasnt released the data yet??
 
Senenmut said:
i believe this was from an ae911truth presentation. this might be what your looking for:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_285444e1f9c81a853c.jpg[/qimg]

remember what the professor said:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

why dont ya interview Professor Astaneh. He even sent steel samples to one of his fellow professors at Berkeley. Are ya interested in what those samples showed? I am. He hasnt released the data yet??
Click to expand...


INteresting but off-topic. Jones/Harrit et al. have not sent their dust samples to any independent labs for testing to clarify any questions.

We're talking about WTC Dust here, right? There was never any evidence of molten steel, ie not a single piece of steel out of 100's of thousands of tons was melted. So why keep bringing it up as if it has any relevance to Jones' claim of nanothermite??? :eek:

You're going to use a quotemine from Dr. Astaneh as what, a nonsensical rhetorical device to distract from Jones' claim and the lack of any physical evidence of melting?
 
Last edited:
Ah, found this for you:

'Originally Posted by Dr. Astaneh-Asl
All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .

But will they listen?
Originally Posted by Dr. Astaneh-Asl
Please also feel free to bring to their attention that they find results of our findings by simply searching Google for "Astaneh WTC". There is a Design Magazine article that is freely accessible on the internet and provides good coverage of my work. It is at:
http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=218785.

Again, please plead with these conspiracy theorists to stop using my name in any context what so ever regarding conspiracy theories. It causes quite a lot of pain for me to have my work abused in this way

Thank you.'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5538611#post5538611
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom