Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[beachnut]

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 .

Chris is right, no one in my engineering class supports your moronic claims.
No engineer from my masters program supports your moronic claims on 911.
No engineer from my work at AFWAL supports your moronic claims.
Feel free to list all your engineers you have on your side, not one of them is one I worked with, or went to school with. Makes you thousands of engineers behind.

If you poll 1,000,000 engineers, you will find about 0.01 percent support for your crazy claims, a rate less than insanity. You have a subset of insane engineers. No wonder you have not broken through to reality, or earned a Pulitzer Prize for your failed claims. Where are all the engineering papers to support your claims? Exactly. The cool part of you making this post, you can't prove Chris wrong, because you and 911 truth don't do anything of substance to prove anything, you think Chris is just talk, but his claim, his talk is based on reality, your talk is based on fantasy; your fantasy of 911.

Gage makes 300k plus by selling lies on 911. You were fooled. Maybe you need to talk to some engineers and find out why you failed. What engineering school did you go to?

 

[Oystein]

CE, Marokkaan, you make the same mistakes creationists make when they flount counted lists of signers: The number means nothing. The other side not having a number likewise means nothing.

So maybe we cannot prove that a vast - vast! - majority of real scientists an engineers hailing from the relevant fields rejects trutherism or creationism, but that nearly goes without saying. Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down - they devote a lot of their professional time thinking hard about what they can do to avoid just that. Creationism has been around longer, and a lot more pervasive, so there is more of a reaction from the real science community, and it turns out that the closer you move to fields of science that are relevant to the questions creationism purports to answer (astrophysics, geology, biology), the less support for creationism is found. The same is most definitely true for trutherism. I found that, for example, among the licensed engineers who signed the AE911"truth" "petition", civil and structural engineers are under-represented, compared to their proportions of all licensed engineers. There is even a regional bias: An inordinate number of their engineers hail from western states, with California and Colorade being over-represented. The closer you move to New York, the less support you find. In fact, there is not a single licensed and active civil or structural engineer from NY state that supports this nonsense, from more than 10,000 such engineers in that state.

 

[little grey rabbit]

To be honest I don't think the vast majority of scientists have ever considered the question of Trutherism. Whereas all biologists and geologists have at least considered creationism.

There is a vast body of science which creates a paradigm which eliminates creationism, so when the question is put there are a 100 things a biologist or geologist can point to to refute it.

In my opinion the same can not be said for physics or engineering and the collapse of WTC7.

 

[Oystein]

To be honest I don't think the vast majority of scientists have ever considered the question of Trutherism. Whereas all biologists and geologists have at least considered creationism.

There is a vast body of science which creates a paradigm which eliminates creationism, so when the question is put there are a 100 things a biologist or geologist can point to to refute it.

In my opinion the same can not be said for physics or engineering and the collapse of WTC7.

You explained well how trutherism is in fact irrelevant.

Yet my point stands: Nearly all professionals and scientists with the relevant expertise will quickly reject trutherism, and many already do.

 

[little grey rabbit]

You explained well how trutherism is in fact irrelevant.

Yet my point stands: Nearly all professionals and scientists with the relevant expertise will quickly reject trutherism, and many already do.

Of course it is irrelevant.

It may well be that the vast majority of engineers and physicists would reject critiques of WTC7 spontaneous collapse, but we will never know because the vast majority never read them or consider them.

This is not the case with creationism, the rejection of which is implicit in many scientific disciplines.

 

[Marokkaan]

You explained well how trutherism is in fact irrelevant.

Yet my point stands: Nearly all professionals and scientists with the relevant expertise will quickly reject trutherism, and many already do.

Wishful thinking, one of the biggest problems of humankind.

 

[Sunstealer]

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

ftfy

 

[newton3376]

Of course it is irrelevant.

It may well be that the vast majority of engineers and physicists would reject critiques of WTC7 spontaneous collapse, but we will never know because the vast majority never read them or consider them.

This is not the case with creationism, the rejection of which is implicit in many scientific disciplines.

The vast majority of the engineers and physicists who have considered truther arguments have rejected them.

Your arguments have been weighed and measured and have been found wanting.

 

[newton3376]

[/B]

Wishful thinking, one of the biggest problems of humankind.

Delusion, one of the biggest problems of trutherkind.

 

[Marokkaan]

Delusion, one of the biggest problems of trutherkind.

And the debunkers are never deluded

Why?, because the debunkers know that

 

[newton3376]

And the debunkers are never deluded

Why?, because the debunkers know that

There are no "911 debunkers".....that's a term "truthers" made up.

There are no "911 debunker" organizations...there are no members...no meetings...no fund raisers..nothing

There are simply a handful of people who take the time to expose the lies and errors of the self proclaimed "truth" movement.....

The fact is that most Engineers, Scientists, and just PEOPLE in general do something far worse than debate with "truthers"....

They just IGNORE them....that is much worse then debating or mocking them....when a position is IGNORED by most people in every relevant field and by the worlds population in general.....that should tell you how weak the evidence is and how insignificant the position is.

No matter how many youtube videos you make....how many "truther" events you have....most people will simply ignore you.

THATS how effective and convincing your arguments are.

ROFL

 

[Oystein]

And the debunkers are never deluded

Why?, because the debunkers know that

If you read around this forum, you will find some peculiar things:

- Some debunkers sometimes point out that some other debunker is wrong about something (you never find truthers correcting other truthers' mistakes)
- usually, the debunker who has been corrected, thanks for the correction and acknowledged his or her mistake (in trutherdom, when one truther criticises another, war and schisms follow)

The principal difference between most truthers and most debunkers is that the latter are willing and able to learn, and develop their position to where evidence leads them.

 

[mrkinnies]

The principal difference between most truthers and most debunkers is that the latter are willing and able to learn, and develop their position to where evidence leads them.

Yes, the debunkers have to do that because they are ignorant of what the investigations are actually saying - like you Oystein when I pointed out your basic error about WTC7 falling as a single unit.

So are you and Chris Mohr going to update your erroneous claim that only the north face was falling? We can then move on and talk about the collapses from a common framework without all that stupid, pointless debunking banter which seeks to debate semantics about what symmetry or footprint or core means.

That's all you debunkers have - words without fact.

Do you have proof that all scientists and engineers disagree with the truthers when they learn the arguments......no, I thought not.

 

[mrkinnies]

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

Heaven help Mr Mohr. From what I've read there are no experts in the debunking camp here.

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

You haven't watched the video then? I don't see a landscape architect but I do see a forensic fire protection engineer so maybe the landscape architect you are referring to worked for NIST. Either way, you're talking rubbish.

 

[bill smith]

CE, Marokkaan, you make the same mistakes creationists make when they flount counted lists of signers: The number means nothing. The other side not having a number likewise means nothing.

So maybe we cannot prove that a vast - vast! - majority of real scientists an engineers hailing from the relevant fields rejects trutherism or creationism, but that nearly goes without saying. Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down - they devote a lot of their professional time thinking hard about what they can do to avoid just that. Creationism has been around longer, and a lot more pervasive, so there is more of a reaction from the real science community, and it turns out that the closer you move to fields of science that are relevant to the questions creationism purports to answer (astrophysics, geology, biology), the less support for creationism is found. The same is most definitely true for trutherism. I found that, for example, among the licensed engineers who signed the AE911"truth" "petition", civil and structural engineers are under-represented, compared to their proportions of all licensed engineers. There is even a regional bias: An inordinate number of their engineers hail from western states, with California and Colorade being over-represented. The closer you move to New York, the less support you find. In fact, there is not a single licensed and active civil or structural engineer from NY state that supports this nonsense, from more than 10,000 such engineers in that state.

'' Among my friends, the environmental and the mechanical engineer are prepared to consider the claim that fires could not make a building collapse, while the structural and metallurgical engineers immediately know that of course fires can bring buildings down''

You are being devious Oystein. Your engineering friends mentioned here of course do not know that fire can bring down a steel framed hi-rise building (which is the only kind of building that matters for this conversation). For the simple reason that no hi-rise steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in the recorded history of the Planet Earth. (Apart from at the WTC on 9/11 of course)

 

[Marokkaan]

If you read around this forum, you will find some peculiar things:

- Some debunkers sometimes point out that some other debunker is wrong about something (you never find truthers correcting other truthers' mistakes)
- usually, the debunker who has been corrected, thanks for the correction and acknowledged his or her mistake (in trutherdom, when one truther criticises another, war and schisms follow)

The principal difference between most truthers and most debunkers is that the latter are willing and able to learn, and develop their position to where evidence leads them.

I like this wishful thinking of the debunkers, it seems its a normal thing they always use

How funny is that to speak as an individu about the rest of the debunkers.

More naive than this is impossible

 

[chrismohr]

Yes, the debunkers have to do that because they are ignorant of what the investigations are actually saying - like you Oystein when I pointed out your basic error about WTC7 falling as a single unit.

So are you and Chris Mohr going to update your erroneous claim that only the north face was falling? We can then move on and talk about the collapses from a common framework without all that stupid, pointless debunking banter which seeks to debate semantics about what symmetry or footprint or core means.

That's all you debunkers have - words without fact.

Do you have proof that all scientists and engineers disagree with the truthers when they learn the arguments......no, I thought not.

"Heaven help Mr. Mohr?" That's always nice help to get, but the help I've gotten from Sunstealer, Oystein, Ryan Mackey, NIST, Triforcharity, several Daves and Erics, countless physicists and other scientists on other science chat rooms and in personal meetings, and so many others like foundry workers and feet-on-the-ground first responders, has done me pretty well.

A couple more comments: I thought I was being generous by saying CD is the Minority Opinion with some specialists in metallurgy, chemistry, engineering etc. agreeing with the CD theory. Yes, this is my opinion, I don't have statistical proof. All I have is the fact that among dozens and dozens of experts I have talked with personally who know this field, not one has agreed with the Cd theory. Even a virulently anti-government structural engineer from New York City I talked to who believes the government LET 9/11 happen still believes in natural collapse. Every major structural engineering body in the world, every fire and building safety organization, even scientists with quibbles with minor aspects of the NIST Report, all support the main of NIST. Having a minority opinion does not make you wrong. I opposed the Vietnam War when a majority of Americans supported it. I've voted for candidates who have lost their election. My bigger point is this: let's not fight too much over who has the most badges and credentials... I followed the evidence (and sometimes considered that the CD side might be right), and the evidence repeatedly leads me to natural collapse. And I have been wrong on the details countless times and have indeed thanked people on both sides for correcting me.

Oh, and mrkinnies, I never claimed that only the north face was falling. Sorry if my explanation led you to believe I was saying that. Obviously, there is a video in my own YouTube rebuttal #18 that shows two faces collapsing simultaneously. What I am trying to say is that the only NIST measurement of collapse speed of Building 7 was the roofline of the north perimeter wall, which in Stage Two fell at freefall or perhaps slightly faster than freefall for two seconds. I then went on to explain that there were THREE forces at work on the north face of the building: the constant downward force of gravity, and two variable forces: the slight upward force of residual structural resistance and the occasional localized downward force of torquing/leveraging of collapsing floors yanking the north perimeter wall around as the collapse progressed. At least two walls came down pretty much together, that is observable for sure.

A question for people on both sides: If it were possible to measure precisely the collapse speeds of all four perimeter walls from videos of all four sides collapsing, and if all four walls showed 100.1% freefall collapse all at the same time, would that weaken our hypothesis that torquing/leveraging could have canceled out or even slightly overcome residual resistance on the north perimeter wall? I ask because I am assuming that if leveraging happened on the north perimeter wall to bring it up to 100.1% freefall for a brief time, than something else was falling more slowly to "even it out." Maybe another perimeter wall, maybe some part of the internal structure?

 

[newton3376]

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.

Don't be ridiculous....

Of course his statement is true....

Truthers HATE this point because of what it implies....your theory is no more respected in the scientific and engineering world as Bigfoot, Alien abductions, HAARP, Scalar waves, Time Travel, Free Energy, etc...the list goes on and on with pseudo scientific claptrap.

Do you guys even have 1% of the worlds experts in ANY relevant field on your side?

Notice I'm not even bothering with a significant number like 30%.....because I know that is a waste of time

 

[DC]

Don't be ridiculous....

Of course his statement is true....

Truthers HATE this point because of what it implies....your theory is no more respected in the scientific and engineering world as Bigfoot, Alien abductions, HAARP, Scalar waves, Time Travel, Free Energy, etc...the list goes on and on with pseudo scientific claptrap.

Do you guys even have 1% of the worlds experts in ANY relevant field on your side?

Notice I'm not even bothering with a significant number like 30%.....because I know that is a waste of time

what evidence is ther to support the claim?

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

 

[bill smith]

It's not a problem to see what happens when people, including architects and engineers are educated in the facts instead of still being taken in by the conditioning induced by the shock and awe of 9/11 and the blanket 24/7 coverage of talking heads saying that terrorists in planes brought down the buildings. Like a kind of hypnosis many never questioned how the buildings were brought down again. Until Richard Gage and his 1,500 patriotic architects and engineers that is..

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1,159 attendees total.
Totals: before after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 52 : 2
I am Unsure 209 : 65
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 898 : 1092
http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php

Only 2 people of 1159 who attended believe the Government tall tale .That's less than 0.02%