Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
@chrismohr. This may help.

Some very detailed analysis of which bits of perimeter broke where and landed where has been done by Major_Tom and posted in this thread:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc2-perimeter-action-recorded-t167-150.html

I am aware of the tendency to decry anything Major_Tom puts forward but his analysis of the falling of the sheets of perimeter columns is IMO commendable. It shows mechanisms in which large sheets of perimeter columns "rolled over" as they fell and thereby gained significant distance from the tower.

There could be a lot more detail than you need but it certainly supports how the "bowling over" of large perimeter sheets made it relatively easy for outlier bits of steel to fall at significant distance from tower base. Without the need for some "ejection" to impart horizontal motion and the resulting presumed parabolic trajectories etc
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
You telling me that doesn't look like a series of explosions?
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between "looking" like something and actually "being" that something.

My parents used to tell me when I was a kid that my room "LOOKED LIKE" a pigsty. Did that mean my room was an actual enclosed dirt area with pigs in it? I don't think so.

You didn't answer my question by the way. Are you telling me that it is impossible for 4 ton piece of steel that may have been 1100' feet in the air to fall sideways and land 600' feet away just with a little momentum from the inside? Being pushed outward by the falling mass of debris that was the upper upper floors above the impact zone?
 
ozeco41 said:
@chrismohr. This may help.

Some very detailed analysis of which bits of perimeter broke where and landed where has been done by Major_Tom and posted in this thread:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc2-perimeter-action-recorded-t167-150.html

I am aware of the tendency to decry anything Major_Tom puts forward but his analysis of the falling of the sheets of perimeter columns is IMO commendable. It shows mechanisms in which large sheets of perimeter columns "rolled over" as they fell and thereby gained significant distance from the tower.

There could be a lot more detail than you need but it certainly supports how the "bowling over" of large perimeter sheets made it relatively easy for outlier bits of steel to fall at significant distance from tower base. Without the need for some "ejection" to impart horizontal motion and the resulting presumed parabolic trajectories etc
Click to expand...
Thanks Ozeco,

I wrote a correction in the YouTube Part 5 description because I'm not going to haul out the video person and editor again, but I hope people go to the link to page 60 of this thread, where this whole lateral ejection discussion began. I am assuming, too, that I am correct when I say that now that I think about it, to my knowledge, none of the many videos of the collapsing towers shows any large steel beams shooting 600 feet horizontally? It would seem that something that big flying out by itself would be visible in a video somewhere.
 
chrismohr said:
Thanks Ozeco,

I wrote a correction in the YouTube Part 5 description because I'm not going to haul out the video person and editor again, but I hope people go to the link to page 60 of this thread, where this whole lateral ejection discussion began. I am assuming, too, that I am correct when I say that now that I think about it, to my knowledge, none of the many videos of the collapsing towers shows any large steel beams shooting 600 feet horizontally? It would seem that something that big flying out by itself would be visible in a video somewhere.
Click to expand...

Try this one, about 2:20 in:


I think Chandler might even be referring briefly to my slo-mo ejection video:
 
ozeco41 said:
@chrismohr. This may help.

Some very detailed analysis of which bits of perimeter broke where and landed where has been done by Major_Tom and posted in this thread:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc2-perimeter-action-recorded-t167-150.html

I am aware of the tendency to decry anything Major_Tom puts forward but his analysis of the falling of the sheets of perimeter columns is IMO commendable. It shows mechanisms in which large sheets of perimeter columns "rolled over" as they fell and thereby gained significant distance from the tower.

There could be a lot more detail than you need but it certainly supports how the "bowling over" of large perimeter sheets made it relatively easy for outlier bits of steel to fall at significant distance from tower base. Without the need for some "ejection" to impart horizontal motion and the resulting presumed parabolic trajectories etc
Click to expand...

I see in those images a bunch of colored lines & boxes added to a chaotic mess.

Gross patterns can emerge, even in the midst of chaos. So I think that, if someone were to put in a bunch of time, looking at lots of photos, then perhaps that effort might reveal some interesting patterns about how a building fell. (Not what caused it to fall, mind you...)

And then I see comments like these:

Major_Tom said:
By using this technique along the south side of WTC2 as seen in the post before this one, a 110 story wall can be dropped very short before hitting the buildings just across the street.

This way ones own insurance money can be collected while lessening the damage of the buildings across the street.

[and]


Not much room, so the whole WTC2 south wall needed to be dropped short.

One way to do that may involve destroying the 74-78 MER belt and allowing the middle perimeter to fragment into smaller parts down to the 44th floor.
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]

... and I think, "why bother?"

His whole effort is so laden with confirmation bias as to be utterly untrustworthy, and therefore worthless.

And, a significant point, even if he happens to be right about some aspect of it, he has cried "wolf" (or "inside job") so many times, that he's lost the minimal credibility it would take to convince me to waste the time.

Worse, it seems clear from some of his comments that he is going to back some of his "it was done deliberately for insurance & neighborliness reasons" into his analysis of how the building came apart. Thereby polluting those "observations" as well.

Funny that someone who "has come to no conclusions" & is "just looking at observables" has so blatantly concluded that the placement of this mess of debris was exquisitely, impossibly preplanned to "spare the neighbors any unnecessary discomfort".

Funny that the planning failed so miserably.
 
Interesting Dave... your video and my YouTube Part 5 rebuttal both have the same general drift. Both of us accept the 9/11 Truth assumption that there WERE lateral ejections and then explain it multiple possible ways (me with wind, "pinball effect" or ricochet and "bow and arrow effect" similar to yours). The fourth theory is that there were no lateral ejections, just parts of the buildings that fell outward up to 600 feet during the collapse. Wow. And BTW Chandler may have been referring to Ryan Mackey's white paper... or maybe your video. And you know, like Richard Gage's, watching Chandler's video is really compelling to a nonscientist.
 
BTW, could a single man with a hand tool provide "enough energy" to cause a 2 ton piece of wood to shoot laterally, landing 150' to the side?

This guy says "yes".

lumberjack-with-axe.jpg


It appears that he is right.

Spencers%20Butte%2007March2006.JPG


What is the source of the energy that he tapped which allowed that to happen?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
BTW, could a single man with a hand tool provide "enough energy" to cause a 2 ton piece of wood to shoot laterally, landing 150' to the side?

This guy says "yes".

[qimg]http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/17/1731/OM23D00Z/art-print/lumberjack-with-axe.jpg[/qimg]

It appears that he is right.

[qimg]http://www.obsidians.org/gallery/Zella_andreski/Spencers%20Butte%2007March2006.JPG[/qimg]

What is the source of the energy that he tapped which allowed that to happen?
Click to expand...
The source of the energy could only have been Luddite, a supersecret explosive invented by proto-CIA agents in the forests of Appalachia two hundred years ago!
 
tfk said:
BTW, could a single man with a hand tool provide "enough energy" to cause a 2 ton piece of wood to shoot laterally, landing 150' to the side?

This guy says "yes".

[qimg]http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/17/1731/OM23D00Z/art-print/lumberjack-with-axe.jpg[/qimg]

It appears that he is right.

[qimg]http://www.obsidians.org/gallery/Zella_andreski/Spencers%20Butte%2007March2006.JPG[/qimg]

What is the source of the energy that he tapped which allowed that to happen?
Click to expand...
Nano-termites (or maybe just regular ones)?


:D
 
chrismohr said:
Interesting Dave... your video and my YouTube Part 5 rebuttal both have the same general drift. Both of us accept the 9/11 Truth assumption that there WERE lateral ejections and then explain it multiple possible ways (me with wind, "pinball effect" or ricochet and "bow and arrow effect" similar to yours). The fourth theory is that there were no lateral ejections, just parts of the buildings that fell outward up to 600 feet during the collapse. Wow. And BTW Chandler may have been referring to Ryan Mackey's white paper... or maybe your video. And you know, like Richard Gage's, watching Chandler's video is really compelling to a nonscientist.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there were effects just as you've described. Obviously a lot of kinetic energy was directed in directions other than straight down. But I don't think that such random 'ejections' were responsible for the bits of steel which lodged in 3 WFC, for the reasons I gave.
 
chrismohr said:
Thanks Ozeco,

I wrote a correction in the YouTube Part 5 description because I'm not going to haul out the video person and editor again, but I hope people go to the link to page 60 of this thread, where this whole lateral ejection discussion began. I am assuming, too, that I am correct when I say that now that I think about it, to my knowledge, none of the many videos of the collapsing towers shows any large steel beams shooting 600 feet horizontally? It would seem that something that big flying out by itself would be visible in a video somewhere.
Click to expand...

Is that like a stick with a saucer on top falling over sideways and dropping the saucer the length of the stick away ? (roughly)
 
bill smith said:
Is that like a stick with a saucer on top falling over sideways and dropping the saucer the length of the stick away ? (roughly)
Click to expand...


Not really, it's more like a portion of a World Trade Center tower collapsing.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Chris Mohr,

The question about "the source of the energy" for the toppled tree was for you. it's instructive to understand where that energy came from when one gets into discussions of the energy required to "toss" large beams sideways.

It turns out that the source of the energy for the tree is ultimately the same: the energy required to lift heavy objects up high.

In the case of the tree, it was sunlight over hundreds of years.

For the WTC columns, oil for the generators that powered the hoists that built the buildings over the span of a couple of years in the 70s.

Once the objects have been lifted, then it takes very little energy for them to fall to the side by the amount that they were lifted.
 
tfk said:
Chris Mohr,

The question about "the source of the energy" for the toppled tree was for you. it's instructive to understand where that energy came from when one gets into discussions of the energy required to "toss" large beams sideways.

It turns out that the source of the energy for the tree is ultimately the same: the energy required to lift heavy objects up high.

In the case of the tree, it was sunlight over hundreds of years.

For the WTC columns, oil for the generators that powered the hoists that built the buildings over the span of a couple of years in the 70s.

Once the objects have been lifted, then it takes very little energy for them to fall to the side by the amount that they were lifted.
Click to expand...

Just curious.

How much energy/force would be needed to hurl a 4 ton component 600' horizontally? What would he mathematical equation even look like?
 
Gamolon said:
Just curious.

How much energy/force would be needed to hurl a 4 ton component 600' horizontally? What would he mathematical equation even look like?
Click to expand...

Just found information that people suggested that the 4 ton component/s was/were ejected at about 68 mph.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
And I rest my case. Clearly there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to convince you of just how wrong you are I didn't really expect any other outcome with you in particular but at least in the future other people can see a good example of just how mule headed truthers can be when faced with simple and basic facts that go against their delusions and fantasies.

Go eat your shoe like you promised you sad, sad excuse of a man.
Click to expand...

Yes show me the expertise about the pyrotechnic materials and the explosives. A Torpedoman's Mate is not the evidence... I could also show my drivers license, but it has nothing to do with it.

A typical debunker, they cant use a mirror, to see they are contradicting theirselves.. Its unbelievable
 
Gamolon said:
Just curious.

How much energy/force would be needed to hurl a 4 ton component 600' horizontally? What would he mathematical equation even look like?
Click to expand...

Depends on the height from which it started. Intuition will tell you that, in order to get something to travel 600', it has to be moving a lot faster if you throw it from 1 story off the ground than you do from the 100th story. (Limiting cases like this are useful when used like this.)

From the basics...

horizontal distance (d) = horizontal velocity (v) * time (t)

therefore t = d / v

In the same time, it falls from height (h) at acceleration (g)

h = 1/2 (g) (t2)

therefore t = (2 h / g)1/2
Equate the times:

t = d/v = (2h/g)1/2
The initial horizontal velocity for any given d is a function of h.

v = d/(2h/g)1/2
plug in your d & h, and calculate v.

Remember to use consistent units for height, velocity & acceleration (eg., ft, ft/sec & ft/sec2).

The energy to get a body moving from zero to some velocity v is given by:

E = 0.5 m v2
Plug in your mass (remember, in the US mass units are slugs, which equal weight / g), and you get the energy that you have to give it.

Relating force to energy: Energy is equivalent to work, which is defined as force acting thru a distance, or F*x. (Where x is the distance (horizontal, in this case) over which an average horizontal component of force F, acts on the column.)

You can immediately see that, if the distance (& time) over which the force acts is small (perhaps a couple of feet, as in an explosion), then the force needs to be very, very high to give a fixed amount of work (i.e., energy).

If the distance over which the force acts is very long (as in the "timber" case, the force is acting throughout the fall), then the force will be much, much lower for the same amount of work. Remember, if you're going to do any calculations, the columns will exert a force along their axis, but you only want to consider only the horizontal component of that force (and the horizontal component of distance travelled) during the fall.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom