Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoahFence said:
Before the penthouse, actually - since the building below it needs to get gone before the penthouse.
Click to expand...

At least you admit that for a building to fall through itself, the lower part needs to be removed first! :D

I generally add at least 5 seconds for that.
Click to expand...

:D:D:D As a kind of 'ballpark' guess?

I gather that's what the video author done too!
 
ergo said:
Not to answer Bill's questions for him, but do you have some other video that shows a part of the building remaining standing as the rest falls? :boggled:
Click to expand...
How about a photo? I'm pretty sure there's a helicopter shot of the core standing up after the building started to collapse on someone's hard drive. Or maybe it was faked, I dunno. I never saw a source for it.

What is not rapid about it? What is it that bedunkers are imagining about building 7's collapse??
Click to expand...
AE911T's assertion is that 7 fell at freefall speed*--wildly misquoting NIST in the process, I add--therefore CD. Except that unless you somehow pretend that the E. Penthouse is not part of the building, and thus not part of the building's collapse, then the collapse was both asymmetrical and took much longer than freefall.

*Or "close to" freefall speed, when called out on it. Then you ask them how long it would have to take for it not to be freefall, and they clam up.

ergo said:
No, it isn't. You don't what a strawman is, nor what shifting the goalposts is. Which is why you do it all the time yourself.
Click to expand...
Said ergo, hypocritically.

'Onset' is referring to the time it began collapse to the time it completed it. :eye-poppi 8 seconds.
Click to expand...
Only if you ignore the penthouse. Why does the penthouse collapsing not count as the start of the building's collapse for you, ergo?

ergo said:
At least you admit that for a building to fall through itself, the lower part needs to be removed first! :D
Click to expand...
Yes. By collapsing internally mostly from fire.

So, do you admit you were wrong on the timespan?

:D:D:D As a kind of 'ballpark' guess?

I gather that's what the video author done too!
Click to expand...
Oh no, ergo, the numbers are substantially more than your claimed 8 secs even without NoahFence's five seconds added.

Please, give us the timestamps of the visible start of the collapse in either or both of the two videos, and the time of the end of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds
 
bill smith said:
Hi Chris,
I was just looking at some information about Richard Gage's recent presentations in several European countries. When I put the results together they give the undeniable impression that your debunking series has come too late.

Do you really think that this trend/tide can be reversed ?

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951


http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, twice as many people switched towards natural collapse as towards Controlled Demolition during my debate March 6 with Richard. I think these rebuttal YouTubes of mine can show people both sides and honestly, if people really look at both sides and have my respectful rebuttals in hand after watching Richrd Gage, I think the same proportion would hold.

Most people held onto their opinions in the debate, of course. Thanks everyone for your kind words about me. I really am trying to be respectful. Some 9/11 Truth folks appreciate my efforts, some do not.

Chris Mohr
 
Gamolon said:
Question Bill. Richard's site is selling signs that state the following:

"WTC7 - Free fall collapse". Is this an accurate representation of what happened or should that sign say "WTC7 - Partial free fall collapse"?
Click to expand...
It should say WTC7: Free fall collapse of north perimeter wall for 2.25 seconds.
 
chrismohr said:
Some 9/11 Truth folks appreciate my efforts, some do not.
Click to expand...
I (who thinks WTC7 was a CD) certainly do appreciate the effort you've put in and the manner in which you present your arguments. It would be great if we could have a thread in which only you and Chris Sarns were allowed to post and perhaps focussing solely on WTC7. That doesn't mean there couldn't be other threads discussing what was being talked about. Too often I find threads hijacked by sarcastic noise or nonsensical truther science whereas you and Chris remain humble, polite and realistic and neither of you are afraid to retract if corrected.
 
Finchie said:
I (who thinks WTC7 was a CD) certainly do appreciate the effort you've put in and the manner in which you present your arguments. It would be great if we could have a thread in which only you and Chris Sarns were allowed to post and perhaps focussing solely on WTC7. That doesn't mean there couldn't be other threads discussing what was being talked about. Too often I find threads hijacked by sarcastic noise or nonsensical truther science whereas you and Chris remain humble, polite and realistic and neither of you are afraid to retract if corrected.
Click to expand...

The two Chrises did already debate, in the precursor thread to this one here, called Gage's next debate

The most recent post by Chris Sarns there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7302803&postcount=1497 (Edited by mod for breach of rules)

And the most recent post by Chris Mohr that addresses Chris Sarns directly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7277091&postcount=1457 ("We've reached a dead end here.")

Otherwise, the debate between the two Chris' has taken place there already, you can read it if you just ignore all the others for a bit, and Chris Mohr probably has already picked up for his videos whatever he deemed valuable contributions by Chris Sarns.
 
Fair enough, Oystein. Like I said though the decent arguments are often drowned by irritating noise!
 
ergo said:
At least you admit that for a building to fall through itself, the lower part needs to be removed first! :D



:D:D:D As a kind of 'ballpark' guess?

I gather that's what the video author done too!
Click to expand...

Actually - this is the part where you admit that I was right and the collapse took a lot longer than your supposed 6 or 7 seconds. Come on. You asked for proof, and you got it. You're not going to be that blatant, are you?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Here's a better video of the WTC 7 controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Click to expand...
Total dog poo like everything else that that sociopathic drongo smears onto You Tube.

If that is taken from the footage that I suspect it is from, his idiotic sound track drowns out somebody saying "Whoa! Whoa!" as the building starts to cave in without the slightest sound of any series of FREAKING LOUD "BOOMS" such as one would hear at that distance from a controlled demolition.
 
Nope. That video is a LIE as well.

You know it.
I know it.
The WORLD knows it.

Yet you use it as evidence. Why? Why ignore the ENTIRE collapse?

I'll tell you why. Because liars need to keep their story straight - that's why. You think you're being clever, but you're not. You and your kind do not fool anybody..

NOBODY.
 
Gamolon said:
Can you explain why none of the clips show WTC7's east penthouse collapsing? Why do you and your ilk keep leaving this out?
Click to expand...

'all the building's vertical supports must have given way at almost exactly the same time'


Sounds logical to me.

What's wrong with the the video?

Please provide links to WTC7 videos that are 'valid.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom