Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Grizzly Bear]

Wiki isn't the great authority....

To avoid further derail of this thread I put my response here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7418284&postcount=9427

 

[Clayton Moore]

And yet with a complete absence of any of the audio, visual or physical evidence consistent with explosives.

Do you have anything besides old, false, truther memes?

Common sense told us the sun revolved the earth. Common sense tells us that people were burned at the stake in the Salem Witch Trials. Common sense tells us apes are the same as monkeys.

All of those "common sense" facts are wrong.

I note the conspicuous lack of "evidence" and "research" and "reason" in there.

Ahh. A person who disagrees with smooth and even being
pretty much polar opposites to fire and damage.

Evidence? My eyes saw fire and damage, twice, and fire, once, result in smooth and even so called "natural collapses."

Save your misdirection and triple butterfly effect collapse double talk.

 

[tfk]

Chris Mohr,

While I appreciate the effort that you've put into your videos, I believe that you've done a grave injustice to John Gross in your portrayal of his comments.

You choose in your profession to be conciliatory, accommodating & sensitive to people's feelings & self-esteem.

Engineers don't have time for that crap.

Gross was 100% correct in his statements.

The punk asking (what he thought were) ambush questions was full of nonsense.

Your portrayal that Gross was dishonest or uninformed is utterly wrong.

You do know, at this late date, that there was little (& very likely, no) molten steel in that rubble, don't you?

Well, Gross knew that back then.

For an engineer's response to a stupid question, based upon a steaming pile of misinformation, Gross' response was a veritable model of decorum & restraint.

The only important consideration: he was right.

He doesn't need, I'm sure he doesn't give two flying farts, about your (or anybody else's) innuendo, or accusations or rationalizations of his words.

Engineers don't have time for that crap, neither...

(How does Myriad end his posts again...? Oh yeah...)

Respectfully,

tom k

 

[Childlike Empress]

Chris Mohr,

While I appreciate the effort that you've put into your videos, I believe that you've done a grave injustice to John Gross in your portrayal of his comments.

You choose in your profession to be conciliatory, accommodating & sensitive to people's feelings & self-esteem.

Engineers don't have time for that crap.

Gross was 100% correct in his statements.

The punk asking (what he thought were) ambush questions was full of nonsense.

Your portrayal that Gross was dishonest or uninformed is utterly wrong.

You do know, at this late date, that there was little (& very likely, no) molten steel in that rubble, don't you?

Well, Gross knew that back then.

For an engineer's response to a stupid question, based upon a steaming pile of misinformation, Gross' response was a veritable model of decorum & restraint.

The only important consideration: he was right.

He doesn't need, I'm sure he doesn't give two flying farts, about your (or anybody else's) innuendo, or accusations or rationalizations of his words.

Engineers don't have time for that crap, neither...

(How does Myriad end his posts again...? Oh yeah...)

Respectfully,

tom k

 

[tfk]

Ahh. A person who disagrees with smooth and even being
pretty much polar opposites to fire and damage.

Evidence? My eyes saw fire and damage, twice, and fire, once, result in smooth and even so called "natural collapses."

Save your misdirection and triple butterfly effect collapse double talk.

A car drives into a bunch of trees, its motion is likely to be extremely abrupt & "un-smooth".

The same car drives into a field of corn, its motion will be very smooth. You'd be hard pressed to detect the sudden jolts, even tho each cornstalk is hitting the car very abruptly.

Let's see if you can figure out the difference between these two scenarios & what it says about the "smooth descent" of the 3 buildings.

But that's a foolish request on my part, Clayton. I know you. You're not the slightest bit inclined to even try to understand the effects.

But others might...

tk

 

[tfk]

Lacking anything of substance to offer...

 

[Clayton Moore]

A car drives into a bunch of trees, its motion is likely to be extremely abrupt & "un-smooth".

The same car drives into a field of corn, its motion will be very smooth. You'd be hard pressed to detect the sudden jolts, even tho each cornstalk is hitting the car very abruptly.

Let's see if you can figure out the difference between these two scenarios & what it says about the "smooth descent" of the 3 buildings.

But that's a foolish request on my part, Clayton. I know you. You're not the slightest bit inclined to even try to understand the effects.

But others might...

tk

A 2,000 pound car vs 2 or 3 adjacent 20 pound corn stalks at a time.

 

[tfk]

A 2,000 pound car vs 2 or 3 adjacent 20 pound corn stalks at a time.

Bingo.

Now that you've been led to the answer, figure out how it applies to the collapsing buildings.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Chris, I have added the rest of your vids to my playlist devoted to them.

I was checking part 16, and noticed you mentioned there is a video of Barry Jennings waving out of a window. I wonder if anyone can link me to it, because all I recall seeing is a recent video with Michael Hess waving and shouting out of it. But not Jennings!

Thx

I believe Chris7 (Chris Sarns) told me this. Maybe I misquoted him or he accidentally misstated the video. It's somewhere on the Gage's Next Debate thread/

 

[chrismohr]

Chris Mohr,

While I appreciate the effort that you've put into your videos, I believe that you've done a grave injustice to John Gross in your portrayal of his comments.

You choose in your profession to be conciliatory, accommodating & sensitive to people's feelings & self-esteem.

Engineers don't have time for that crap.

Gross was 100% correct in his statements.

The punk asking (what he thought were) ambush questions was full of nonsense.

Your portrayal that Gross was dishonest or uninformed is utterly wrong.

You do know, at this late date, that there was little (& very likely, no) molten steel in that rubble, don't you?

Well, Gross knew that back then.

For an engineer's response to a stupid question, based upon a steaming pile of misinformation, Gross' response was a veritable model of decorum & restraint.

The only important consideration: he was right.

He doesn't need, I'm sure he doesn't give two flying farts, about your (or anybody else's) innuendo, or accusations or rationalizations of his words.

Engineers don't have time for that crap, neither...

(How does Myriad end his posts again...? Oh yeah...)

Respectfully,

tom k

Dang!

I misspoke. I watched my video again, and there's a bad edit in there. Bad because I originally said John Gross denied that there were eyewitnesses who claimed there was molten iron or steel. And indeed, Gross did say in that video which Gage and others play, "There are no eyewitnesses who've said so."

What came out was that I said John Gross denied there was molten steel, and he was wrong. I do go on to explain that the eyewitness accounts of molten steel are undeniable, and I was intending only to acknowledge that Gross was wrong to deny those ACCOUNTS of molten steel.

I am pretty certain that John gross knew that there was probably no molten steel or iron in the debris, and I spend much of the rest of YouTube video #8 explaining why John Gross was RIGHT to assert there was no molten steel or iron. On that one point though I am correct: John Gross was wrong to say there were no eyewitnesses who SAID that. But of course I believe strongly that he was RIGHT to assert no molten steel/iron.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[beachnut]

--- [delete] ---

This is too stupid to engage. There's no polite way of engaging this.

Any ***** video you might want to google on it will show you. If you're not a moron.





So, yes, it is now confirmed. 9/11 beetards claim that WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman Hall.


What is the point of having any discussion here?

Why are you off topic? Is it because you have no clue what happen on 911?

Chris debunks you decisively and you call him a beetard? Are you being nice or what?

See, I told you you don't understand. Read up about redundancy in steel framed buildings.

Is it necessary to wrap linear charges around all four sides of a column when 3 will do? Only one side held the cladding.

You are the one pushing delusional nonsense, and moronic lies.
Darn, only one side is use, and the column is precut. What you don't know about the science needed to understand 911 would fill volumes; the sad part is only a grade school education is need to understand 911.

Do you know what the topic is?

 

[chrismohr]

Mr Kinnies Reply

Man how did we get up to over 1000 posts so fast?

I want to say a few words about explosive sounds and their causes (see my video #7). I'm neither a scientist nor a firefighter, so let me just put in what Triforcharity gave as causes of explosions or explosive sounds in fires:


—HVAC equipment including condensers and compressors
—Cleaning supplies
—CRT type TV's and computer monitors.
—Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube. (Elevator lift motors)
—Hydraulic pistons found in office chairs.
—Tires in vehicles
—Steam explosions when water hits a hot fire or molten aluminum
—Propane tanks

Now let me add two more things that can generate explosions or explosive sounds:

-- Bombs
-- Crashing sounds of metal smashing against metal in a 100+ mph collapse

So putting on my journalist's hat, I acknowledge that the totality of the evidence I have found so far overwhelmingly opposes the "bombs" proposal. My tendency, then, would be to reject bombs as the source of explosions and explosive sounds.

But if we look at all of theses causes equally at first, we realize that Tri's list above is based on years of experience as a firefighter with special training in these matters, an FDNY first responder, etc. So I can't think of a single reason to eliminate any of these. Some have inherent limitations (tires in vehicles would be less abundant on the 87th floor than in the basement garage, for example). But I can't eliminate a single one as a possibility. And the explosive sounds inherent in these huge building collapses has logic to it as well.

Well, what about bombs? They can certainly create explosive sounds. Do they belong on this list of possibilities? Not if you consider that no one suffered from the kinds of traumas associated with major explosions, the volume of the explosions was way under the 140db of a typical explosive bomb used in demolitions, no demoliton cables or receivers or any other evidence was ever found by the hundreds of people with specialized knowledge of controlled demolition who were combing through the debris pile, etc etc etc.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." To prove such an extraordinary claim as bombing a building in secret, you need first to prove that Tri's list could NOT explain the phemonena, and then find positive proof that bombs were used.

 

[alienentity]

Dang!

I misspoke. I watched my video again, and there's a bad edit in there. Bad because I originally said John Gross denied that there were eyewitnesses who claimed there was molten iron or steel. And indeed, Gross did say in that video which Gage and others play, "There are no eyewitnesses who've said so."

What came out was that I said John Gross denied there was molten steel, and he was wrong. I do go on to explain that the eyewitness accounts of molten steel are undeniable, and I was intending only to acknowledge that Gross was wrong to deny those ACCOUNTS of molten steel.

I am pretty certain that John gross knew that there was probably no molten steel or iron in the debris, and I spend much of the rest of YouTube video #8 explaining why John Gross was RIGHT to assert there was no molten steel or iron. On that one point though I am correct: John Gross was wrong to say there were no eyewitnesses who SAID that. But of course I believe strongly that he was RIGHT to assert no molten steel/iron.

Hope this helps a little.

Hey Chris, thanks for the reply about Jennings vs Hess at the window. I think C7 may have gotten mixed up and confused Jennings with Hess. The video I've seen shows Hess shouting out the window. I can link you to it when I locate it.

But on the topic of Gross, I believe you are incorrect. If we are referring to the same video that is:

The video is misleading. The allegation was 'Eyewitnesses found huge pools of molten steel.' The video then cuts to a fireman who doesn't report 'huge pools', as alleged. What he actually says is 'You'd get down below and you'd see.. molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails.'

So John Gross is ironically supported by the video. Gross refers specifically to the allegation of 'huge pools' - When he says 'I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness who said so' he is as accurate as can be.

I see no mistake in his statement, but I charge that the video in which he is shown is very misleading. I guess I'm with TFK on this one.

 

[tfk]

...
On that one point though I am correct: John Gross was wrong to say there were no eyewitnesses who SAID that. But of course I believe strongly that he was RIGHT to assert no molten steel/iron.

No, I believe that you are wrong. Significantly wrong.

John Gross never said that "there are no eyewitnesses to molten steel."

He said "I know of no eyewitnesses to molten steel."

Those are two completely different statements.

tk

 

[mrkinnies]

Hey Chris, thanks for the reply about Jennings vs Hess at the window. I think C7 may have gotten mixed up and confused Jennings with Hess. The video I've seen shows Hess shouting out the window. I can link you to it when I locate it.

But on the topic of Gross, I believe you are incorrect. If we are referring to the same video that is:

The video is misleading. The allegation was 'Eyewitnesses found huge pools of molten steel.' The video then cuts to a fireman who doesn't report 'huge pools', as alleged. What he actually says is 'You'd get down below and you'd see.. molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails.'

So John Gross is ironically supported by the video. Gross refers specifically to the allegation of 'huge pools' - When he says 'I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness who said so' he is as accurate as can be.

I see no mistake in his statement, but I charge that the video in which he is shown is very misleading. I guess I'm with TFK on this one.

So there is evidence of molten steel then?

The debunkers argument is based entirely on semantics.

 

[Animal]

So there is evidence of molten steel then?

The debunkers argument is based entirely on semantics.

Molten steel only exists in troofer delusions.

 

[mrkinnies]

Ok, enough of this. You're probably new enough here to where you haven't seen this brought up over the course of the years, but you need to realize that you're arguing from a false premise and stating an invalid conclusion. First of all, the fact that it's never happened before doesn't mean it is impossible to happen. Second, the one actual controlled experiment - the Cardington tests - did indeed demonstrate what happens to steel when exposed to intense fires. The distortions evident from the Cardington test inform our understanding of the WTC collapses, and demonstrate clearly that the sorts of failure modes either observed in the steel (the main towers) or modeled (WTC 7) can and indeed will occur. Creep, severe distortion of a structure, expansion, etc. were observed in the test rig, and when you apply the principles of behavior established in those tests to the specifics of how either the Twin Towers or 7 World Trade were constructed, you can clearly demonstrate that the fires effects could and indeed did collapse the towers.

There were multiple factors in each towers collapse. For the main towers, the design led to the unfortunate fact that debris impacting the floors sever lateral supports, leading to unstable exterior columns. For 7 World Trade, there's the design that left it vulnerable to thermal expansion of the long-span trusses. Until and unless those are taken into account in analyses, as well as the other unique issues at work that day - not the least of which was the severe damage from the impacts to the main towers, nor the extreme length of time the fire affected 7 World Trade - then blithe write-offs of the notion of steel structures not collapsing under fire are nothing more than demonstrations of ignorance. All the details apply, not simply the gross comparison of steel framed structures.

Furthermore, remember that while there are zero cases of high-rise buildings that are entirely steel framed collapsing, there are indeed cases of steel structures doing so. Take the Kader Toy factory as an example: The only part of the building that remained standing was the non-steel part. The steel part of the structure suffered total failure.

There are other examples I cannot recall off the top of my head. But this argument has been tried before, and has failed. See past threads, such as this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133271

The point is that you're attempting to claim that steel structures do not collapse when subjected to fire. All the research that has been done by engineers such as the Arup and University of Edinburgh ones, by the various fire and structural engineering researchers in the US, such as Astaneh-Asl and James Quintiere, and so on all point to the fact that steel can indeed collapse in fires. The fact that no skyscraper has done so yet is a canard: Few suffered the same sorts of fires, none suffered jet impact damage, and among the biggest fires in history, only two or three (Beijing CCTV and Andrus Bank fire in Brazil) were even remotely as large, and I can't think of any off the top of my head where not only no fire retardation systems (i.e. sprinklers, firewalls, etc.) rendered ineffective, but no active firefighting was conducted. The point is, saying that no steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire is like saying no human has ever been killed by supernova or stellar phenomena: The principle is demonstrated very clearly; the fact that it hasn't happened before is not a demonstration that it cannot ever happen.

------

And last: Take care in trying to critique Grizzly Bear's choice of citations. Wiki is to be avoided as a sole and ultimate authority, but when it's used simply as a description of details (such as the structural categorizations that GB was showing), the information is verifiable. You risk writing it off and thus demonstrating ignorance at your own peril; the real critique of a Wikipedia source is whether it's accurate. In too many cases, it's not, but that doesn't extrapolate to all, and you've not demonstrated that it's inaccurate in this specific case to begin with. So don't write it off; address his point, not his source. Your text following your write off does neither; it merely makes an unsupported assertion that professional surprise at the collapses means that the collapses couldn't have happened. As demonstrated by not just the NIST conclusions, but also the Arup findings, the Purdue ones, and other organizations, it's accepted that it indeed occurred. Regardless of surprise.

Steel buckles and expands in heat, the Cardington trials proved that beyond a shadow of doubt as do all the steel building fires which have ever been. The steel in the Windsor Tower failed because much of the steel wasn't fireproofed (the steel fireproofing was in the process of being updated at the time) unlike the First Interstate bank fire where it was and the steel survived undamaged except for one secondary beam and some floor decking.

There is really no point in you claiming I am suggesting steel isn't affected by fire. That is not what I said in my post.

The problem for you is how a building can fall downward as a single unit with such symmetry when the initial collapse started internally and to one side of the building. So not only was there complete collapse but it was symmetrical and precise. NIST relied on their models and models only to explain it yet those produced poor results. Unlike the Cardington Tests, the data relevant to NIST's models isn't available for anyone else to examine. I wonder why?

 

[bill smith]

So there is evidence of molten steel then?

The debunkers argument is based entirely on semantics.

This is the video he's talking about I think.


http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/7/ZduP7HTM3cg

 

[ozeco41]

So there is evidence of molten steel then?...

Nope. There is evidence that some people claimed that there was molten steel. Then you knew that already didn't you. But so what if there was molten steel? The whole issue is an irrelevant truther side track - originally intended to support claims of demolition. No truther has ever explained how it could support demolition so......

...The debunkers argument is based entirely on semantics.

...it isn't a debunkers argument.

 

[bill smith]

Man how did we get up to over 1000 posts so fast?

I want to say a few words about explosive sounds and their causes (see my video #7). I'm neither a scientist nor a firefighter, so let me just put in what Triforcharity gave as causes of explosions or explosive sounds in fires:


—HVAC equipment including condensers and compressors
—Cleaning supplies
—CRT type TV's and computer monitors.
—Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube. (Elevator lift motors)
—Hydraulic pistons found in office chairs.
—Tires in vehicles
—Steam explosions when water hits a hot fire or molten aluminum
—Propane tanks

Now let me add two more things that can generate explosions or explosive sounds:

-- Bombs
-- Crashing sounds of metal smashing against metal in a 100+ mph collapse

So putting on my journalist's hat, I acknowledge that the totality of the evidence I have found so far overwhelmingly opposes the "bombs" proposal. My tendency, then, would be to reject bombs as the source of explosions and explosive sounds.

But if we look at all of theses causes equally at first, we realize that Tri's list above is based on years of experience as a firefighter with special training in these matters, an FDNY first responder, etc. So I can't think of a single reason to eliminate any of these. Some have inherent limitations (tires in vehicles would be less abundant on the 87th floor than in the basement garage, for example). But I can't eliminate a single one as a possibility. And the explosive sounds inherent in these huge building collapses has logic to it as well.

Well, what about bombs? They can certainly create explosive sounds. Do they belong on this list of possibilities? Not if you consider that no one suffered from the kinds of traumas associated with major explosions, the volume of the explosions was way under the 140db of a typical explosive bomb used in demolitions, no demoliton cables or receivers or any other evidence was ever found by the hundreds of people with specialized knowledge of controlled demolition who were combing through the debris pile, etc etc etc.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." To prove such an extraordinary claim as bombing a building in secret, you need first to prove that Tri's list could NOT explain the phemonena, and then find positive proof that bombs were used.

Which of your your definitions of explosions would apply to these firefighter statements ?

Deputy Fire C ommissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick. [Source: City of New York]Numerous witnesses to the collapse of the south WTC tower think it resembles a demolition using explosives. Some initially believe this is what is occurring:

Reporter John Bussey watches the collapse from the Wall Street Journal’s offices across the street from the WTC. He say s, “I… looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor, spewing glass and metal outward. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2001]

Deputy Fire Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick: “I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.… Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.” [City of New York, 10/1/2001]

Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory: “I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista… he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him… I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.… You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.” [City of New York, 10/3/2001]

Firefighter Richard Banaciski: “It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” [City of New York, 12/6/2001]

Firefighter Joseph Meola: “As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.… You thought it was just blowing out.” [City of New York, 12/11/2001]

Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: “[T]here was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.” [City of New York, 10/31/2001]

Firefighter Timothy Burke: “Then the building popped, lower than the fire… I was going oh, my god, there is secondary device because the way the building popped I thought it was an explosion.” [City of New York, 1/22/2002]

Firefighter Edward Cachia: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” [City of New York, 12/6/2001]

Firefighter Kenneth Rogers: “[T]here was an explosion in the South Tower… I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.” [City of New York, 12/10/2001]

Reporter Beth Fertig: “The tower went down perfectly straight, as if a demolition crew had imploded it. I wondered if it was being brought down deliberately.” [Gilbert et al., 2002, pp. 78]