Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
dafydd said:
I have a nagging doubt. What planet were the truthers on when 911 happened?
Click to expand...

I regret not going into psychiatry. The mental processes of truthers is utterly fascinating. The ability, desire even, to believe things in spite of, perhaps because of, the lack of evidence is so diametrically opposed to my science based thought process and education that its truly mind boggling:boggled:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
I regret not going into psychiatry. The mental processes of truthers is utterly fascinating. The ability, desire even, to believe things in spite of, perhaps because of, the lack of evidence is so diametrically opposed to my science based thought process and education that its truly mind boggling:boggled:
Click to expand...

I was wondering if there was a name for this truther malady. Have any psychologists or psychiatrists come up with one?
 
tfk said:
Sure.

Answer my post above, then then I'll give this one a shot.
Click to expand...

We know bedunkers have serious control issues, but in the world outside of JREF 9/11 bedunkery, it's not only polite, but makes you appear more credible if you can answer a question posed before you ask (and demand have answered) your own. Just sayin'.
 
ergo said:
We know bedunkers have serious control issues, but in the world outside of JREF 9/11 bedunkery, it's not only polite, but makes you appear more credible if you can answer a question posed before you ask (and demand have answered) your own. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

You have never answered a straight question here. Stop using bedunker,it just makes you look even more foolish. It's not clever,no matter what you may think.
 
mrkinnies said:
I've done a lot of recording in studios although as a drummer, not a recording engineer - I first recorded in 1986. I agree with you that noise bleed is a perpetual problem although in studio conditions that is always magnified because the aim is to have none. I'm not an expert with mics since I've only ever needed to take advice from other people but I do know the Shure mics for my kit are of several technical varieties to capture the frequencies correctly and limit bleed and that the overheads will pick up the sounds of the cymbals and not so much the drums even though they are as close and a snare drum can be way over 110 dB.

The reason you stated I was a troll is because I asked you what the dB level of a collapsing steel building is and why the noise of WTC7 collapsing during the Ashleigh Banfield interview is so faint considering the close proximity of the building? I can only assume you took it that I was attempting to distort the argument but I was asking a reasonable and rational question. I do know that mics have directional qualities and that ambient noise conditions change the way a mic picks up sound, even loud sounds like hitting a drum. A mic's reach is dependent on the background noise.
Click to expand...



Doesn't matter what the DB level was. ANY explosive devices would have created a seismic signature one all of the various monitoring stations.
 
Important: David Chandler responds to my YouTube #18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

David Chandler catches a glaring error of mine when I accidentally said Stage 1 of the Building 7 collapse is at freefall. That was a simple misread of my text and I just didn't catch it so I will have to correct it.

A simple question tho: looking at the NIST graph, it looks to me like Stage Two had over a second where collapse speeds were either slightly faster than freefall or within the margin of error of freefall. As I said in my YouTube, my explanation accounts for either possibility.

Although I may not have used the exact right terminology, I do not believe I misinterpreted the graph in any significant way. I certainly didn't misunderstand it as deeply as he accused me of. Except for my obvious mistake re Stage 1 = freefall, was there anything about my explanation that is screamingly inaccurate as he claims?
 
chrismohr said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

David Chandler catches a glaring error of mine when I accidentally said Stage 1 of the Building 7 collapse is at freefall. That was a simple misread of my text and I just didn't catch it so I will have to correct it.

A simple question tho: looking at the NIST graph, it looks to me like Stage Two had over a second where collapse speeds were either slightly faster than freefall or within the margin of error of freefall. As I said in my YouTube, my explanation accounts for either possibility.

Although I may not have used the exact right terminology, I do not believe I misinterpreted the graph in any significant way. I certainly didn't misunderstand it as deeply as he accused me of. Except for my obvious mistake re Stage 1 = freefall, was there anything about my explanation that is screamingly inaccurate as he claims?
Click to expand...

No. he is nit picking and disingenuous. You never pretended to be an expert and with all due respect he is little better qualified on paper than you are.
He is making a simple appeal to authority without having the education or speaking honestly, the sanity to back that up.

I am confident you will correct the errors you made, I doubt that he will ever do the same with his.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
No. he is nit picking and disingenuous. You never pretended to be an expert and with all due respect he is little better qualified on paper than you are.
Click to expand...

And I have never seen him criticise someone like David Ray Griffin, who has no physics training whatsoever, or Loose Change, Alex Jones or any of these other famous 911 CTists

I also liked the part when he said Chris just makes things up, I didn't see where he gave a single example. Chandler is pretty funny generally as he claims thermite rockets and and ridiculously huge explosives going off when the WTC collapses.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
And I have never seen him criticise someone like David Ray Griffin, who has no physics training whatsoever, or Loose Change, Alex Jones or any of these other famous 911 CTists

I also liked the part when he said Chris just makes things up, I didn't see where he gave a single example. Chandler is pretty funny generally as he claims thermite rockets and and ridiculously huge explosives going off when the WTC collapses.
Click to expand...

Thermite rockets,that's a new one on me. These truthers really are inventive,it's a pity they can't devote their time to something useful.
 
chrismohr said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

David Chandler catches a glaring error of mine when I accidentally said Stage 1 of the Building 7 collapse is at freefall. That was a simple misread of my text and I just didn't catch it so I will have to correct it.

A simple question tho: looking at the NIST graph, it looks to me like Stage Two had over a second where collapse speeds were either slightly faster than freefall or within the margin of error of freefall. As I said in my YouTube, my explanation accounts for either possibility.

Although I may not have used the exact right terminology, I do not believe I misinterpreted the graph in any significant way. I certainly didn't misunderstand it as deeply as he accused me of. Except for my obvious mistake re Stage 1 = freefall, was there anything about my explanation that is screamingly inaccurate as he claims?
Click to expand...

Does it actually make any difference whether it's faster than freefall or at freefall ?
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
No. he is nit picking and disingenuous. You never pretended to be an expert and with all due respect he is little better qualified on paper than you are.
He is making a simple appeal to authority without having the education or speaking honestly, the sanity to back that up.

I am confident you will correct the errors you made, I doubt that he will ever do the same with his.
Click to expand...
Hi all,

Does anyone have a response to what David Chandler said specifically about my misunderstanding of the NIST graph? I think I understand it reasonably well, and may have failed to use certain correct scientific terms, but that the narrative is sensible. Apart from that one reading error about Phase I when I meant Phase II, are there other major glitches in my terminology or understanding?
 
Oh, and just to be sure...

My understanding of the NIST graph in David Chandler's video is that the dots represent actual velocity measurements over time, and the straight line is put in to show that in Stage Two, the north perimeter wall fell at freefall within the margin of error. So the straight ascending line is a freefall "marker". But the dots above that straight ascending line show slightly faster than freefall, and the dots below slightly less than freefall. All are within the margin of error of their measurements, but the series of dots above the line COULD also show slightly faster than freefall.

If I am wrong in my reading of this please correct. I doubt I am. And Bill, freefall or slightly faster than freefall is no big deal in my leveraging explanation, but how could a building fall at slightly faster than freefall with CDs?
 
chrismohr said:
If I am wrong in my reading of this please correct. I doubt I am. And Bill, freefall or slightly faster than freefall is no big deal in my leveraging explanation, but how could a building fall at slightly faster than freefall with CDs?
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. There is inaccuracy in any reading and hence one uses several data points to smooth out that error and get a more accurate answer.

How could a building fall slightly faster than freefall with CDs? (or without CDs for that matter) well overall it can't but areas of the building which are under tension may spring back when released and give extra downward impetus to say the top edge (and have the opposite effect lower down. similarly a point horizontally remote from, but rigidly attached to, the centre of mass may experience higher accelerations as it is dragged down by that mass if the mass is pivoting around a point on the opposite side from the point in question.

In somethings as flexible as a steel framed building any such affect would be small, if present at all, and likely fall within the error of any measurements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom