Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[DGM]

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%

Have you been to one of his shows? I have. Are you familiar with the saying "preaching to the choir"?

 

[bill smith]

Have you been to one of his shows? I have. Are you familiar with the saying "preaching to the choir"?

Just an idea but do you think it would be a good idea for Chris Mohr to start giving presentations in the same way as Richard Gage does ? He would generate tremendous support among debunkers and all those other people who you say support the government story. A real field test that might pay off big time.

 

[TheRedWorm]

dick gage is an idiot. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[DGM]

Just an idea but do you think it would be a good idea for Chris Mohr to start giving presentations in the same way as Richard Gage does ? He would generate tremendous support among debunkers and all those other people who you say support the government story. A real field test that might pay off big time.

I don't see why he would need to. Support for 9/11 "truth" is so low, why bother? Outside of the internet, they are practically invisible. In fact I've only seen one sign in the past 10 years (outside of the Gage show I went to and they were ignored there) and that was years ago.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Don't be ridiculous....

Of course his statement is true....

This is still a critical thinking forum. You and the other "defenders" (in quotes because I didn't attack Chris) have some homework to do there, or stop your nonsensical partisanship.

 

[NoahFence]

Critical Thinking forum? Why are you here then?

 

[bill smith]

Have you been to one of his shows? I have. Are you familiar with the saying "preaching to the choir"?

Even if we remove what you call the the 'choir' of 898 people we are still left with 52 who believe that fire brought down the buildings and 209 who are unsure.

At the end of the presentation only 2 people of the 261 left positively believed that fire brought down the buildings. 0.76% in other words.

Even if you also exclude the 'unsure' contingent you are still left with 52 people who positively believed that fire brought down the buildings at the beginning of the lecture of whom only 2 were left at the end of the presentation. 3.84% in other words.

Therefore 96,16% who initially believed the government story completely changed their minds in the course of a single lecture by Richard Gage. No wonder you guys are scared stiff of him.

PS As I know that David Aaronovitch attended the London lecture and is a well known rabid debunker we can reasonably assume that he is one of the two who still believed that fire brought down the buildings. So it's not looking so good for you guys.

 

[DGM]

Even if we remove what you call the the 'choir' of 898 people we are still left with 52 who believe that fire brought down the buildings and 209 who are unsure.

At the end of the presentation only 2 people of the 261 left positively believed that fire brought down the buildings. 0.76% in other words.

Even if you also exclude the 'unsure' contingent you are still left with 52 people who positively believed that fire brought down the buildings at the beginning of the lecture of whom only 2 were left at the end of the presentation. 3.84% in other words.

Therefore 96,16% who initially believed the government story completely changed their minds in the course of a single lecture by Richard Gage. No wonder you guys are scared stiff of him.

PS As I know that David Aaronovitch attended the London lecture and is a well known rabid debunker we can reasonably assume that he is one of the two who still believed that fire brought down the buildings. So it's not looking so good for you guys.

You made the leap that these people " believed the government story completely changed their minds". If a certain group puts on a show, most likely it will be attended by people sympathetic to that group.

I asked if you've been to his show. you did not answer. Do you know how he makes these counts?

 

[Myriad]

Of course, anyone who believes that fire alone brought down the buildings is wrong.

So, at best, Gage has shown his ability to alter belief in one wrong idea into belief in a different wrong idea.

But, has anyone asked them again a week later? I'm reminded of all those sick and disabled people at faith healing revival meetings, who are 100% miraculously cured and throw away their wheelchairs and crutches. Then they go home and their families buy them new wheelchairs and crutches.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[mrkinnies]

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?

Chris, the leveraging debate is bunkum from what I understand of it as explained in your video.

Why not accept that the whole building fell as a single unit as the truthers and indeed NIST claim. What makes you believe that the south and/or east walls and all internal floors fell at a different time (bearing in mind that the west facade can be seen falling with the north wall depending on which video you look at)? Why instead are you seeking to answer this with very complicated theories and exaggerated assumptions?

And yes, I'm well aware that the penthouse fell first but that is not proof that the entire internal structure was disintegrating as NIST would have us believe.

 

[Oystein]

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?

Not sure if there was some kind of misunderstanding: I am not denying that the other walls fell, too, Of course they did, or else we would have seen them standing after north face and core had gone.
I am doubting that the rest of the building experienced free fall acceleration. This no one knows, simple as that. And of course one must point out that the core was already in the process of collapsing, as NIST explains, and so this "as a single unit" cannot be construed as a "solid" unit where all parts moved with the same velocity.

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.

The problem is that truthers keep introducing these stupid words with their intentionally misleading semantics. It's not us. Ask gage to finally remove those garbage bullets about "footprints" and "symmetric" etc. from his page. Ask all these "experts" to cut all talk about "footprints" and "symmetry" and what other nonsense they have from their redundant videos. Then we talk.

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

Fixed that for you

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

Strawman.

 

[beachnut]

This is still a critical thinking forum. You and the other "defenders" (in quotes because I didn't attack Chris) have some homework to do there, or stop your nonsensical partisanship.

Are you upset over 99 percent of all engineers don't support your inside job lies and delusions? Chris is right, you will never prove him wrong.
Gage found a way to make money, it works because there are a few fringe nuts who send money and can't think for themselves. If you study Gage for a few seconds, you find he and his petition signers lack substance, have no valid claims, and never will. When will Gage's donations peak?

Gage's work has failed to rise to the level where critical thinking is required to debunk his delusional claims. Gage has no point, except to get money from suckers. Have you donated to Gage?

 

[mrkinnies]

Not sure if there was some kind of misunderstanding: I am not denying that the other walls fell, too, Of course they did, or else we would have seen them standing after north face and core had gone.
I am doubting that the rest of the building experienced free fall acceleration. This no one knows, simple as that. And of course one must point out that the core was already in the process of collapsing, as NIST explains, and so this "as a single unit" cannot be construed as a "solid" unit where all parts moved with the same velocity.


The problem is that truthers keep introducing these stupid words with their intentionally misleading semantics. It's not us. Ask gage to finally remove those garbage bullets about "footprints" and "symmetric" etc. from his page. Ask all these "experts" to cut all talk about "footprints" and "symmetry" and what other nonsense they have from their redundant videos. Then we talk.


Fixed that for you


Strawman.

Why can you not construe that it fell as a solid unit?

 

[mrkinnies]

Are you upset over 99 percent of all engineers don't support your inside job lies and delusions? Chris is right, you will never prove him wrong.
Gage found a way to make money, it works because there are a few fringe nuts who send money and can't think for themselves. If you study Gage for a few seconds, you find he and his petition signers lack substance, have no valid claims, and never will. When will Gage's donations peak?

Gage's work has failed to rise to the level where critical thinking is required to debunk his delusional claims. Gage has no point, except to get money from suckers. Have you donated to Gage?

99%, where do you get that from? Proof is required.

 

[Oystein]

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

Hm I guess a search for the phrase "I stand corrected" in this subforum will show I was speaking correctly. It's hard to find a lot of examples in all the noise, but I have been corrected, and have acknowledged the correction, quite a number of times on this forum, sometimes by truthers, often by other debunkers. Oh or just read this very thread, and watch how debunkers point out the errors of other debunkers, and how those debunkers thank for having their errors pointed out.
In fact, this thread had a precuror which had the express purpose of correcting debunker mistakes: That's how Chris Mohr worked out and improved his presentation!

Have you ever seen a thread by a truther expressly asking other truthers to find his errors and correct them?

 

[beachnut]

Why can you not construe that it fell as a solid unit?

You mean after the Penthouse fell through the entire structure and the interior was collapsing, The interior came back together and fell as a "solid" unit? How did that happen? Explain this slowly so you look funnier.

What engineering school did you go to? You seem to have failed to comprehend much about WTC 7. Keep up the good work, failure is the only product of 911 truth, and you turning out loads of product.

 

[mrkinnies]

Hm I guess a search for the phrase "I stand corrected" in this subforum will show I was speaking correctly. It's hard to find a lot of examples in all the noise, but I have been corrected, and have acknowledged the correction, quite a number of times on this forum, sometimes by truthers, often by other debunkers. Oh or just read this very thread, and watch how debunkers point out the errors of other debunkers, and how those debunkers thank for having their errors pointed out.
In fact, this thread had a precuror which had the express purpose of correcting debunker mistakes: That's how Chris Mohr worked out and improved his presentation!

Have you ever seen a thread by a truther expressly asking other truthers to find his errors and correct them?

So what you are saying is I have great humility, ergo my theory is the only correct one.

How naive.

 

[mrkinnies]

You mean after the Penthouse fell through the entire structure and the interior was collapsing, The interior came back together and fell as a "solid" unit? How did that happen? Explain this slowly so you look funnier.

What engineering school did you go to? You seem to have failed to comprehend much about WTC 7. Keep up the good work, failure is the only product of 911 truth, and you turning out loads of product.

You have proof it fell through the entire structure do you or that it pulled everything else with it?

 

[mrkinnies]

You mean after the Penthouse fell through the entire structure and the interior was collapsing, The interior came back together and fell as a "solid" unit? How did that happen? Explain this slowly so you look funnier.

What engineering school did you go to? You seem to have failed to comprehend much about WTC 7. Keep up the good work, failure is the only product of 911 truth, and you turning out loads of product.

You have proof it fell through the entire structure do you or that it pulled everything else with it?

 

[Oystein]

...
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?

This.
For the north wall, the core columns and floor trusses, whose collapse preceded that of the walls, provided that leverage, and there is no good reason why that couldn't happen on the other sides as well, and simultaneously.

Why are you asking? This is pure speculation. As the slightly-over-g acceleration on the north wall does not shed any particular light on collapse progression, neither would the same elsewhere.