Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Marokkaan]

Some weird twists here, maybe mrkinnies and others will understand better with a little history. I decided to use my journalistic skills to investigate Richard Gage's CD theories. I got technical help from a physics chat room, 14 physicists I talked to personally as well as personal contacts with structural engineers, NIST people and other scientists. I also contacted CD advocates and got personal answers to my questions from Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, David Chandler, Tom Sullivan, and several lesser-known locals on the CD side. I got huge help from these jref threads, where you'll find direct help to me from engineers, physicists, general science folks, foundry workers, firefighters and fire safety experts, dust analysts, heavy equipment operators, chemists, you name it. I put together all the information into a coherent and respectful YouTube format with abundant visual examples so laypeople like myself could understand the arguments.

I was only talking about the people with the physical expertise...

Who are those 14 physicists? And why you didnt go with your journalistexpertise to a physicist personally and asked the questions.

And how is it possible, you made that mistakes in your presentation. When you had the help of physicists?

What's surreal is the belief that people on this thread believe me or that I carry some kind of authority. They believe me in part because they helped me formulate these YouTube videos. They corrected me dozens of times when my reportage was inaccurate. They're the experts, not me. Do you think Tri believes me because he thinks I'm an authority? HE'S the authority, not me!!

Uhh, first of all about Triforchari.... i have him on ignore, he insulted Mike laywer, by saying, he has more respect for murderers than Mike lawyer. So that person i really do not take serious. He is not the authority believe me.

No i never said you carry authority. We can also ignore you, but we didnt. At least, we take you serious, by talking about the video's. But we dont take the content serious, because you have not the expertise to judge.

But it does not say, you are not permitted to make this video's. I respect your video's, but the idea you have, is to show to everybody, how richard gage wrong is, while you dont have the expertise is a fallacy.

Just imagine, thousands of people like you, they will do the same and also make 20 video's. Should we take each individu serious?

Mrkinnies, you asked me a question and I tried to answer it. Other people on this thread are much, much more qualified to answer these questions.

As for David Chandler's attack video against me personally (you think "pearls before swine" is a rebuttal??), I most definitely watched very carefully and corrected the mistakes he uncovered. The new video 18 takes every single legitimate error he caught into account. I'm glad he caught them.

He could go further, just like he did with nist, But it would be a waste of time, to take all the points seriously when the person without expertise does not understand physics.

Thats why he used the pearls before swine. He is not insulting you, but only wants to explain, you cant talk about without expertise.

Here is an explanation:
Pearls before swine refers to a quotation from Matthew 7:6 in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, implying that things (such as pearls) should not be put in front of people (or in this case, swine) who do not appreciate their value.

I have no respect for Chandler personally however. The 9/11 Truth people by definition have no right to say that I am unqualified to even talk about this. That decision has been made by the many people who agree with the natural collapse theory. If any real scientists came to me and said look, Chris, you just don't get it, you're distorting our arguments and muddying the waters with your ignorance, I would have said OK, I won't put these out because it wouldn't help anyone. Some very harsh critical people have gone over my YouTubes and told me they are very good to excellent.

First of all, david chandler is talking about the video 18. Where you are talking about the physics issue.

You are unqualified, if you like it or not. You dont have a degree in the subject.

Its shocking i have to tell this to you.... This is the reason, why we can not take you serious, you really think you are qualified to tell about it and explain without a degree.

David Chandler found some mistakes on video 18 take one, which I corrected. He then concludes that no one should take anything I say seriously. All 235 reasons tossed out the window, worthless because Chris is a hopeless incompetent. I took his corrections and fixed my video, but don't talk to me any further about the great David Chandler. He adds nothing to the debate when he trashes me personally.

whoepss personal attack.

I do understand you are mad at david, because he refuted everything of yours, while you put a lot of energy at your youtube video's. But thats not his mistake, you made the mistake to think you can explain everything and refute people with expertise, while you dont have the expertise.

He is right, but it does not mean, you dont have the right to place the video's but dont expect people with expertise will take you serious.

As for NIST's explanation of the freefall collapse in stage two, I too was unsatisfied with what they said. I kept asking, can buckling columns really bring a collapsing building to 100% freefall? My video takes the question very, very seriously, and deals with it more thoroughly by bringing in the issue of leveraging/torquing. Unlike David Chandler, my "system" is the top of the north perimeter wall which was the only part whose collapse speed was measured, and anything happening outside that "system" can bring leveraging and torquing into the system. My hypothesis is that somewhere inside the building, something holding onto the outer perimeter wall was attached to something else inside the building or even on another side of the building for a couple seconds. Anything collapsing more slowly inside anywhere becomes the pivot to leverage a faster collapse on the north perimeter wall

THis is the reason, why i have respect for you, at least you are honest, and shows you are neutral.

And i m glad, you are saying its a hypothesis. We know, this hypothesis NIST didnt used. We know this hypothesis is not scientific, until we use experiments, to prove or at least to show its possible.

So what are you waiting for. Get some experts, and show the hypothesis of yours can turn into a theory.

 

[Myriad]

whoepss personal attack.

I do understand you are mad at chris, because he refuted everything of yours, while you put a lot of energy at your youtube video's. But thats not his mistake, you made the mistake to think you can explain everything and refute people with expertise, while you dont have the expertise.

He is right, but it does not mean, you dont have the right to place the video's but dont expect people with expertise will take you serious.

It sounds like we should definitely believe this "chris" guy, since he totally refuted all of chrismohr's arguments. No wonder chrismohr is so angry at chris. I hope chrismohr isn't so enraged by chris that he does something terrible, like murdering chris and taking over his identity.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Xero]

whoepss personal attack.

I do understand you are mad at david, because he refuted everything of yours, while you put a lot of energy at your youtube video's. But thats not his mistake, you made the mistake to think you can explain everything and refute people with expertise, while you dont have the expertise.

He is right, but it does not mean, you dont have the right to place the video's but dont expect people with expertise will take you serious.

Don't expect people to take you seriously when your comprehension is so poor. He was talking about David Chandler, then commenting on himself (chris). How hard is that to comprehend? Simple reading should have made it plain, but you appear to have looked for something to jump on, and simply shot yourself in the foot instead. Now, do you want to put both feet in your mouth, or just stop at the one?

 

[chrismohr]

As I said in video 18, I used my journalistic skills to uncover the fallacies in 9/11 CD reasoning. 235 reasons. Everything I say is backed by experts. Trust me, Ozeco and Tri and Ryan Mackey and Oystein and the two Daves and tfk and countless others would tell me if I was reporting their side so inaccurately as to be useless. And I would drop the whole project if I got that kind of feedback from the experts I used to develop these videos. To say my lack of a physics degree means I should not be taken seriously is like saying a journalist who uncovers financial fraud in a small-town mayor's office should be ignored because he doesn't have a CPA. I've uncovered 235 serious problems with CD and very few have been answered with scientifically meaningful responses, just more question and demands. I've made mistakes and corrected them but I have no respect for anyone who says I am unqualified to present these rebuttals. Even Richard Gage himself totally disagrees with me but has never gone down that road. I'm honest, I know my limits, I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be. Argue my points but I'm not budging on the question of my worthiness to discuss these things. I am more than worthy, I've done a great job, I'm patient with my opponents and have interviewed them as well as my allies, I started out skeptical but open and could have been convinced of CD if there were just any credible science there, and I'm proud as hell of my work.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris, You've done a wonderful job. Don't let the fools that inhabit the TM try to bring you down. They do it because they cannot actually refute anything you have said.

Cheers!!

~Tri

 

[newton3376]

Yes - but I disagree with your next comment:... he should be barred from teaching physics.

First rule of the teacher from way back in my youth:
"The teacher must know that which he would teach."
...that effectively disqualifies Chandler.

Actually you are right....

Since Chandler has had his errors pointed out to him and refuses to acknowledge or correct them......he is not fit to be an instructor in physics.

 

[bill smith]

What makes this video interesting is that the fires were much more massive than anything suffered by WTC7 . This lightly built structure took a lot ofphysical damage from the collapse of Tower 2 yet despite the raging fire and damage the building never collapsed and people were later able to walk on the roof taking pictures of aircraft wreckage that had come to rest there.
Another interesting point is that WTC7 fell in absolute freefall- without any internal support- for about the height of this building according to NIST..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5 collapse--No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A WTC7 collapse--Yes


PS I wonder how come the aircraft wreckage was so pristine with intact paint and no sign of any heat damage. The heat on the roof must have been enormous and the wreckage would have been lying there throughout the entire blaze.

 

[DGM]

PS I wonder how come the aircraft wreckage was so pristine with intact paint and no sign of any heat damage. The heat on the roof must have been enormous and the wreckage would have been lying there throughout the entire blaze.

Well, the perps are not as smart as you and hoped no one would notice. (i'd be careful opening your door from now on)

I'd bet you watched the "Adventures of Scoopy-Do" alot.

 

[bill smith]

Well, the perps are not as smart as you and hoped no one would notice. (i'd be careful opening your door from now on)

I'm just making simple observations DGM. Is what I say in that post not true ?

 

[DGM]

I'm just making simple observations DGM. Is what I say in that post not true ?

It was simple.

"The heat on the roof must have been enormous". And you know this how?

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, You've done a wonderful job. Don't let the fools that inhabit the TM try to bring you down. They do it because they cannot actually refute anything you have said.

Cheers!!

~Tri

Thanks Tri,

A little righteous indignation clears out the ol' carburetors sometimes so it feels great actually. And BTW, when Chandler was doing the whole "pearls before swine" thing on his attack video around my debate with Gage, he took it one step further when he concluded by saying if people think Chris Mohr trounced Gage, this is why. Yes I believe I won the debate (as a debater) but Gage fought hard for 4 1/2 hours and nobody trounced anybody. Chandler is a close ally of Gage's; why would he talk about me trouncing him when it wasn't even true? Truth actvists, I know I did a great job of investigative journalism, and unless you don't believe in journalism at all quit complaining about my quallifications and start doing some real rebutting!

 

[Edx]

Chris,

If you had wondered previously why this forum is so hostile to truthers I hope you are starting to see why. The best way to realise truthers have no case is to debate them.

Ed

Bill,

Before I respond to anything you say, you owe an apology for what you said about Firefighter Miller. I'll say it again, it was sickening. I've carried on respectful dialogues with a lot of people who oppose my theories. So far I have stopped talking to 6 neo-Nazis who have gone after me in extremely nasty ways, one truly insane religious person who has accused me of being a false prophet, one CD believer and engineer who saw my video #8 (see about 7:50 into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQXuMPs4&feature=related) and declared that the boots-on-the-ground FDNY firefighter I found through firefighters' blogs who directly testified about the temperatures in the debris pile was "either psy-op or deluded," and David Chandler for his "pearls before swine" attack. Many people have attacked me personally and I've not cut them off. I've been patient and respectful to people who have advocated mininukes, death rays, aliens, you name it. But tolerant as I am, I'm not going to sit still and let you personally trash Firefighter Miller unless you have proof he has committed espionage against his own firefighting brotherhood as well as the people of this country.

You might want to look at the rest of my video #8 and listen to what my FDNY eyewitness said a few minutes later about firefighters and how they would NEVER be afraid to speak out if they suspected bombs were secretly planted in the building. "Psy-op or deluded?" I'm not talking to the guy who said that any more.

I await your response, Bill.

 

[Edx]

Truth actvists, I know I did a great job of investigative journalism, and unless you don't believe in journalism at all quit complaining about my quallifications and start doing some real rebutting!

Truthrs don't sem to care about David Ray Griffins lack of any qualifications or experience in this, in fact Gage even said he become a truther after hearing David Ray Griffin.

 

[Animal]

What makes this video interesting is that the fires were much more massive than anything suffered by WTC7 . This lightly built structure took a lot ofphysical damage from the collapse of Tower 2 yet despite the raging fire and damage the building never collapsed and people were later able to walk on the roof taking pictures of aircraft wreckage that had come to rest there.
Another interesting point is that WTC7 fell in absolute freefall- without any internal support- for about the height of this building according to NIST..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5 collapse--No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A WTC7 collapse--Yes

Only troofers are surpirsed that a 35 additional stories of building load may have something to do with one building collapsing and one not.

PS I wonder how come the aircraft wreckage was so pristine with intact paint and no sign of any heat damage. The heat on the roof must have been enormous and the wreckage would have been lying there throughout the entire blaze.

Speculation via ignorance noted.

 

[chrismohr]

When I think of this leveraging scanario I am always reminded of Baron Munchausen who lifted himself and his horse out of a marsh by oulling his own hair upwards. Just in reverse.

Bill, you got the "system" wrong again, just like Chandler!

The "system" in the case of Building 7 is the roofline of Building 7, the only part of the Building whose collapse speed was precisely measured. In video 18 I suggested a hypothesis (which is unprovable because no one saw or videotaped the inside collapse sequence... which is why NIST calls it a likely collapse scenario): more than two forces acting on the collapsing building, not just gravity and resistance but ALSO localized leveraging from outside the north roofline "system." I tell you that is possible. Do you say leveraging is impossible?

I also tell you that CD is very very nearly impossible. As a few of my 235 reasons, after talking personally with Richard Gage, he believes nanothermites were used on the Twin Towers and thermate on Building 7.

Here are some reasons why thermate is impossible:
1) thermate burns very very bright for 45 seconds or so and hundreds of tons of it would have been blindlingly bright. Even if it could be covered at first, 20 seconds into the collapse the whole world would have seen a blindingly bright rubble pile for another 25 seconds or so. There is NO covering up that much burning thermate in an utterkly destroyed building.
2) The chemical signature for burned thermate is not there.
3) Thermate can burn through steel, as 9/11 truth researchers have proven on YouTube, but there is no way it can burn fast enough to create such a quick and relatively precise collapse.

Rebut these three points please. If you succeed, we can start going through the other 232 reasons I still have left for you. Rebut them all and I'll answer more of your questions.

 

[bill smith]

Bill, you got the "system" wrong again, just like Chandler!

The "system" in the case of Building 7 is the roofline of Building 7, the only part of the Building whose collapse speed was precisely measured. In video 18 I suggested a hypothesis (which is unprovable because no one saw or videotaped the inside collapse sequence... which is why NIST calls it a likely collapse scenario): more than two forces acting on the collapsing building, not just gravity and resistance but ALSO localized leveraging from outside the north roofline "system." I tell you that is possible. Do you say leveraging is impossible?

I also tell you that CD is very very nearly impossible. As a few of my 235 reasons, after talking personally with Richard Gage, he believes nanothermites were used on the Twin Towers and thermate on Building 7.

Here are some reasons why thermate is impossible:
1) thermate burns very very bright for 45 seconds or so and hundreds of tons of it would have been blindlingly bright. Even if it could be covered at first, 20 seconds into the collapse the whole world would have seen a blindingly bright rubble pile for another 25 seconds or so. There is NO covering up that much burning thermate in an utterkly destroyed building.
2) The chemical signature for burned thermate is not there.
3) Thermate can burn through steel, as 9/11 truth researchers have proven on YouTube, but there is no way it can burn fast enough to create such a quick and relatively precise collapse.

Rebut these three points please. If you succeed, we can start going through the other 232 reasons I still have left for you. Rebut them all and I'll answer more of your questions.

1. To lever something upwards you must depress the other end of the lever over a fulcrum or pivot point. To lever something downwards you must raise the other end of the lever. Where is the fulcrum for the downwards leverage ?

2. In WTC1 and WTC2 I think some selected hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite incendiary.In WTC7 I think that collars of thermate (which is just thermite with added sulphur for the enhanced burning of steel) were put on the core columns and thickly covered in fireproofing (which makes excellent lightproofing by the way)

3. Nanothermite ignites very quickly so I guess that nanothermate would not be much different.

FEMA statement. and other info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAndcg8MZaM

 

[Clayton Moore]

Bill, you got the "system" wrong again, just like Chandler!

The "system" in the case of Building 7 is the roofline of Building 7, the only part of the Building whose collapse speed was precisely measured. In video 18 I suggested a hypothesis (which is unprovable because no one saw or videotaped the inside collapse sequence... which is why NIST calls it a likely collapse scenario): more than two forces acting on the collapsing building, not just gravity and resistance but ALSO localized leveraging from outside the north roofline "system." I tell you that is possible. Do you say leveraging is impossible?

I also tell you that CD is very very nearly impossible. As a few of my 235 reasons, after talking personally with Richard Gage, he believes nanothermites were used on the Twin Towers and thermate on Building 7.

Here are some reasons why thermate is impossible:
1) thermate burns very very bright for 45 seconds or so and hundreds of tons of it would have been blindlingly bright. Even if it could be covered at first, 20 seconds into the collapse the whole world would have seen a blindingly bright rubble pile for another 25 seconds or so. There is NO covering up that much burning thermate in an utterkly destroyed building.
2) The chemical signature for burned thermate is not there.
3) Thermate can burn through steel, as 9/11 truth researchers have proven on YouTube, but there is no way it can burn fast enough to create such a quick and relatively precise collapse.

Rebut these three points please. If you succeed, we can start going through the other 232 reasons I still have left for you. Rebut them all and I'll answer more of your questions.

Do you have your 235 reasons listed somewhere?
Discussing CD based on what is publicly known about CD tech is to the detriment of both sides of the debate.

But CD adds energy to the equation while no CD relies on coincidence not unlike
http://www.break.com/index/awesomely-elaborate-supermarket-dominos.html

 

[chrismohr]

Updated list of YouTube videos

Hi all,

I made some corrections to video 8 (molten steel in debris) and video 15 (path of least resistance building 7). Coincidentally, both feature first-time-ever quotes from an FDNY firefighter giving firsthand rebuttals of some of the 9/11 Truth claims.

As a result of these improvements, unfortunately the old links to these videos are no longer. Here is the complete list now with updated links. I think this may well be the end of my changes, unless something really major comes along. Otherwise, minor corrections will appear in the Description sections:

part 0 introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 sulfidized steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2gW0jFA&feature=related
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q&feature=related
part 14 Size of Building 7 fires http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto
part 15 Path of Leasrt Resistance Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztbXRonnYw
part 16 Eyewitness Accounts re Building 7; Foreknowledge of Destruction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4
part 17 Size of Conspiracy, How Many People Would it Take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
part 18 Building 7 freefall collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0
part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM
part 20 Concluding Remarks: Waking Up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare of 9/11;" a heartflet appeal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l7j6h9elQ

 

[chrismohr]

Do you have your 235 reasons listed somewhere?
Discussing CD based on what is publicly known about CD tech is to the detriment of both sides of the debate.

But CD adds energy to the equation while no CD relies on coincidence not unlike
http://www.break.com/index/awesomely-elaborate-supermarket-dominos.html

Clayton,

I'm sorry I don't have the 235 reasons except in the PowerPoint presentation used for the YouTube videos. If you just say video #1 reason 20 and quote it, we can get the idea. It would take many hours otherwise.

I don't understand the grocery store dominoes youtube's purpose, nor do I understand why discussing CD tech based on what is known is to the detriment of both sides.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Well I'm glad you agree that your rebuttal is based on hypotheses.

What else could it be???? there is no other evidence available than for anyone to do anything else. All anyone is saying is that there are mechanism that would allow 1g or even higher acceleration for a short time so there is nothing particularly noteworthy that it occurred.

There's really no point in saying anything else.]

Indeed, but I doubt we are going to be that fortunate.