Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

Why should we show you proof for something that no one has ever claimed?

You debunkers claim that it was the time of the fire, being 7 hours, which caused failure in this building. But you have no proof that it burnt in one place for 7 hours. NIST doesn't seem to think so.

Every structural member did not fail simultaneously

So how did the main block of the building fall as a single unit? How do you answer structural engineer Kamal Obeid when he says its impossible to have the complete failure as observed due to one column breaking?

I'll ask you also, what was supporting the bulk of the building such that it came down as a single unit if the factor of simultaneous collapse is to be discounted as you assert.

 

[DGM]

You debunkers claim that it was the time of the fire, being 7 hours, which caused failure in this building. But you have no proof that it burnt in one place for 7 hours. NIST doesn't seem to think so.



So how did the main block of the building fall as a single unit? How do you answer structural engineer Kamal Obeid when he says its impossible to have the complete failure as observed due to one column breaking?

I'll ask you also, what was supporting the bulk of the building such that it came down as a single unit if the factor of simultaneous collapse is to be discounted as you assert.

These questions are a perfect example of why the "truth" movement is where they are today. For some reason I think you will have no clue I mean a failure.


My advice .....Stay in school!!!!!


BTW: No one said they had to burn in one place.,

 

[Oystein]

You debunkers claim that it was the time of the fire, being 7 hours, which caused failure in this building. But you have no proof that it burnt in one place for 7 hours. NIST doesn't seem to think so.

No. This is simply incorrect.
Yes, WTC7 burned for like 7 hours before it collapsed.
Yes, WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
But the fires lasting 7 hours (rather than, say 6 hours) is not part of anyone's theory.

So how did the main block of the building fall as a single unit?

The upper half of the north face is not the main block.

How do you answer structural engineer Kamal Obeid when he says its impossible to have the complete failure as observed due to one column breaking?

He is wrong.

I'll ask you also, what was supporting the bulk of the building such that it came down as a single unit if the factor of simultaneous collapse is to be discounted as you assert.

The north facade is not the bulk of the building.



mrkinnies, you need to educate yourself on the results of NIST report. You are debating strawmen.

 

[mrkinnies]

No. This is simply incorrect.
Yes, WTC7 burned for like 7 hours before it collapsed.
Yes, WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
But the fires lasting 7 hours (rather than, say 6 hours) is not part of anyone's theory.


The upper half of the north face is not the main block.


He is wrong.


The north facade is not the bulk of the building.



mrkinnies, you need to educate yourself on the results of NIST report. You are debating strawmen.

Let me correct you, all videos show at least the north and west face falling as one. NIST states it fell as a single unit. Don't follow Chris Mohr down that stupid path.

As for the fire times, go back and read what your fellow debunkers say. At least get that bit right.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Edit: Never mind, Oystein said it better.

 

[Oystein]

Let me correct you, all videos show at least the north and west face falling as one. NIST states it fell as a single unit.

But NIST did not say that was "the bulk of the building". The core has a better claim to being the "bulk" of the building, and it had been in the process of collapsing for several seconds before the north face followed.

You seem to have hinted that steel members failed simultaneously. This is not even true for the north face. It's columns failed progressively over a period of more than 1 second, before a brief periof of free fall was observed.

Don't follow Chris Mohr down that stupid path.

Chris has more been following me than the other way round (namely on the issue of "unreacted thermite" which really is paint).

As for the fire times, go back and read what your fellow debunkers say. At least get that bit right.

Teach me: Provide a link and a quote to a relevant expert saying that the 7 hour fire duration were a necessary condition for collapse!

 

[mrkinnies]

However, the penthouse failed much before the north face, so the building did not fall as a single unit. Do you dispute this?

NIST says that after the initial stage of collapse where the penthouse fell down, the rest of the building above floor 13 fell as a single unit. That implies the north, east, west and south faces and everything in between. It's in black and white; go and read it yourself.

 

[Oystein]

NIST says that after the initial stage of collapse where the penthouse fell down, the rest of the building above floor 13 fell as a single unit. That implies the north, east, west and south faces and everything in between. It's in black and white; go and read it yourself.

Citation?
How about the other false claims you made?

 

[mrkinnies]

But NIST did not say that was "the bulk of the building". The core has a better claim to being the "bulk" of the building, and it had been in the process of collapsing for several seconds before the north face followed.

You seem to have hinted that steel members failed simultaneously. This is not even true for the north face. It's columns failed progressively over a period of more than 1 second, before a brief periof of free fall was observed.


Chris has more been following me than the other way round (namely on the issue of "unreacted thermite" which really is paint).


Teach me: Provide a link and a quote to a relevant expert saying that the 7 hour fire duration were a necessary condition for collapse!

Core, core. What bleeding core? This was WTC7, not 1 or 2. The inner columns were attached to the outer columns by the same type of beams and structural members such that all acted as one. This is pathetic. No wonder Chris is confused if he's following your claptrap.

 

[mrkinnies]

Citation?
How about the other false claims you made?

What false claims?

Go and read NCSTAR1A. It's there. If you don't even know that simple fact then why are you even here. I'm not going to find it for you, why should I?

 

[Oystein]

Core, core. What bleeding core?

Okay. So you really know near to nothing about WTC7.
You shouldn't be debating that topic.

This was WTC7, not 1 or 2. The inner columns were attached to the outer columns by the same type of beams and structural members such that all acted as one. This is pathetic. No wonder Chris is confused if he's following your claptrap.

Do you feel how you have no clue what you are talking about?

 

[mrkinnies]

Okay. So you really know near to nothing about WTC7.
You shouldn't be debating that topic.


Do you feel how you have no clue what you are talking about?

Pathetic words.

 

[Oystein]

What false claims?

"The only way every structural member could have failed simultaneously is if every structural member was exposed to fire for the 7 hours you debunkers love to refer to. "
"expecting NIST to produce critical examination of the official story"
"claim that it was the time of the fire, being 7 hours, which caused failure in this building"
"the main block of the building fall as a single unit"
"the factor of simultaneous collapse"
"the rest of the building above floor 13 fell as a single unit. That implies the north, east, west and south faces and everything in between"

Go and read NCSTAR1A. It's there. If you don't even know that simple fact then why are you even here. I'm not going to find it for you, why should I?

Don't be silly. Yes I know the short name of the report.
I asked for a citation.
Citation would contain page numbers and quotes.

 

[Oystein]

Pathetic words.

Aren't you denying that WTC7 had a core?

 

[mrkinnies]

"The only way every structural member could have failed simultaneously is if every structural member was exposed to fire for the 7 hours you debunkers love to refer to. "
"expecting NIST to produce critical examination of the official story"
"claim that it was the time of the fire, being 7 hours, which caused failure in this building"
"the main block of the building fall as a single unit"
"the factor of simultaneous collapse"
"the rest of the building above floor 13 fell as a single unit. That implies the north, east, west and south faces and everything in between"


Don't be silly. Yes I know the short name of the report.
I asked for a citation.
Citation would contain page numbers and quotes.

NCSTAR 1A Page 22 Chapter 2 (page 64 of the entire report)

"The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."



NIST's use of the word core here is used to define the inner columns as opposed to the outer columns. But the inner and outer columns were inextricable linked and one has to wonder whether they were deliberately trying to confuse lay people such as yourself.

 

[triforcharity]

The video is clear. It doesn't include Ed Asner in the list of experts when it starts to ask them for their views. Why don't you go watch it again from 5.45.

And Chris Mohr doesn't claim any expertiese either. Nice backfire there champ. He cites other people's work. Including many posters here.

NIST is a federal agency. It's budget comes from the US government therefore expecting NIST to produce critical examination of the official story is unlikely.

And yet, non-federal agencies like ASCE, CTBUH, ICC, or any of the other engineering organizations and regulatory groups do not agree with AE911T, and support the recent building code changes following 911.

I have to assume NIST's experts are of equal distinction to those in AE911Truth but then again watching the video below makes that assumption questionable. It's embarrassing to watch, especially from 6 minutes in.

You think a fire protection engineer is the same as a landscape architect? **** yeah that's AWESOME!! FFS. You're joking, right? Right????

 

[chrismohr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#!

Do I believe a layman like Chris Mohr or the experts in this video? I go with the latter.

This is a compelling, well produced video. I had a respectful debate with Richard Gage last March 2011. Most of the things discussed in this video are respectfully rebutted on my YouTube series chrismohr911, parts 0 through 20, topic by topic. Take a look at a serious investigation of the "other side" and see what you think.

That's what I wrote on the YouTube video itself. It's true, it is compelling. I have dealt with almost every claim in my respectful rebuttals. I hope people watch and consider both sides.

 

[chrismohr]

A couple other comments. I have been offended by people who have rejected my Gage rebuttal videos without watching them. I think we should agree to watch the latest AE911 video or whatever is up for discussion before commenting on it.

Also there's been a lot of argument from authority re both sides of this argument. Yes, a large majority of scientists and engineers mostly agree with the NIST Report if they study it. But the Minority Opinion (Controlled Demolition) does have people versed in chemistry, physics, engineering, architecture, metallurgy, etc. More important than who has the best credentials is the question of where the best science lies. I believe the best science lies with natural collapse and explain why in my videos. The "authority" issue plays a relatively minor role in what I believe is true. Give me an explanation that makes sense and I'll accept it.

And yes, my job in this debate has been to present a layperson's narrative of what I've learned from talking with a lot of experts on BOTH sides. Watching the latest AE911 YouTube video, I realize that I have had personal contact with many of the people they quote there, as well as of course lots of JREFers and NIST people.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yes, a large majority of scientists and engineers mostly agree with the NIST Report if they study it.

You have no data to back that statement up, Chris, if I didn't miss a HUGE study done. It's your feeling and almost impossible to prove or disprove. Just a remark.

 

[Marokkaan]

A couple other comments. I have been offended by people who have rejected my Gage rebuttal videos without watching them. I think we should agree to watch the latest AE911 video or whatever is up for discussion before commenting on it.

Also there's been a lot of argument from authority re both sides of this argument. Yes, a large majority of scientists and engineers mostly agree with the NIST Report if they study it. But the Minority Opinion (Controlled Demolition) does have people versed in chemistry, physics, engineering, architecture, metallurgy, etc. More important than who has the best credentials is the question of where the best science lies. I believe the best science lies with natural collapse and explain why in my videos. The "authority" issue plays a relatively minor role in what I believe is true. Give me an explanation that makes sense and I'll accept it.

And yes, my job in this debate has been to present a layperson's narrative of what I've learned from talking with a lot of experts on BOTH sides. Watching the latest AE911 YouTube video, I realize that I have had personal contact with many of the people they quote there, as well as of course lots of JREFers and NIST people.

Chris mohr, this is a big mistake you made, you dont have the numbers or the proof.

This we call wishful thinking, you think its the truth the majority has read it or has the knowledge about 9/11 (like about wtc 7) but in reality you do not have the numbers, you really dont know how much .