Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[newton3376]

Where is the video of the Chris Mohr/Richard gage debate?

I can't find it on the AE911 website.......I also can't find the results of the usual "poll" that Gage likes to take at the beginning and end of his "presentations"?

Does anyone know if Gage has provided a link to the debate anywhere or given the poll numbers?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Where is the video of the Chris Mohr/Richard gage debate?

I can't find it on the AE911 website.......I also can't find the results of the usual "poll" that Gage likes to take at the beginning and end of his "presentations"?

Does anyone know if Gage has provided a link to the debate anywhere or given the poll numbers?

IIRC There is only audio..........Chris mention it in his eSkeptics article

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

by Chris Mohr

With the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks upon us, a group of 9/11 conspiracists are working hard to publicize their claims of scientific validity to the conjecture that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The architect Richard Gage is the founder of the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which focuses on the controlled demolition theory. So outraged was I by the Bush administration’s justification for the war in Iraq based on faulty WMD intelligence information that I initially thought that Gage might be on to something, until I examined his science carefully and engaged him in a spirited debate on March 6, 2011 in front of 250 people in Boulder, Colorado. (Listen to the debate audio.) The video of that debate is not being released (his own website admitted that twice as many people changed their minds in my direction as his during the debate), so I created 20 short videos on YouTube that present detailed rebuttals of each of Gage’s claims.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

 

[newton3376]

IIRC There is only audio..........Chris mention it in his eSkeptics article

Oh I know skeeplesnshills....

I just want to bring up the point that...

The video of that debate is not being released (his own website admitted that twice as many people changed their minds in my direction as his during the debate), so I created 20 short videos on YouTube that present detailed rebuttals of each of Gage’s claims.

What do the truthers think of this?

Gage has numbers for every major speaking event.....why not this one? Where is the video?

Why does Gage also have a long disclaimer to explain the poll results when he debated Dave Thomas?

Don't you truthers find this just a little bit odd?

Disclaimer for the debate with Dave Thomas....when the poll results did not go in Gage's direction.....and NO video or poll results for the Mohr debate.....strange indeed!

Interesting that the poll numbers are much better when Gage can present a one sided presentation to an audience (totaling 75% truther and 19% "unsure" for every listed event).

Conspiracy? I think we might have one here.....

 

[chrismohr]

Oh I know skeeplesnshills....

I just want to bring up the point that...



What do the truthers think of this?

Gage has numbers for every major speaking event.....why not this one? Where is the video?

Why does Gage also have a long disclaimer to explain the poll results when he debated Dave Thomas?

Don't you truthers find this just a little bit odd?

Disclaimer for the debate with Dave Thomas....when the poll results did not go in Gage's direction.....and NO video or poll results for the Mohr debate.....strange indeed!

Interesting that the poll numbers are much better when Gage can present a one sided presentation to an audience (totaling 75% truther and 19% "unsure" for every listed event).

Conspiracy? I think we might have one here.....

Actually, there was a poll taken and published on the AE 911 site. Six people changed towards me and three changed towards Richard Gage out of 92 who took the poll. Three possible positions: for CD, for natural collapse, and unsure. Most of the movement was from "for CD" to "unsure" in my direction (with on "for CD" going all the way over to "natural collapse." For the 3 people going Richard's way, it was "unsure" to "for CD". They did report this openly.

 

[ergo]

In these debates it tends to be 9/11 truth theories on the hot seat. My guess is Gage does not want to spend his time getting the likes of Dave Thomas to credibly explain the NIST reports or the government OCT, however amusing that would be to watch. Bedunker points tend to align themselves with the government OCT. People feel safe with that explanation. If the OCT became the subject under scrutiny (as I think it will be at the Toronto Hearings) doubters in the audience would be better informed, rather than simply rhetorically persuaded.

 

[Sabretooth]

In these debates it tends to be 9/11 truth theories on the hot seat. My guess is Gage does not want to spend his time getting the likes of Dave Thomas to credibly explain the NIST reports or the government OCT, however amusing that would be to watch. Bedunker points tend to align themselves with the government OCT. People feel safe with that explanation. If the OCT became the subject under scrutiny (as I think it will be at the Toronto Hearings) doubters in the audience would be better informed, rather than simply rhetorically persuaded his ass handed to him in a sling and jeopardize losing some of that free donation money he gets from AE911T.

ftfy

 

[chrismohr]

The 600,000 pound figure for the metal smashed into the building may be correct; it comes from a picture in the FEMA library with this caption under it:

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

 

[newton3376]

Actually, there was a poll taken and published on the AE 911 site. Six people changed towards me and three changed towards Richard Gage out of 92 who took the poll. Three possible positions: for CD, for natural collapse, and unsure. Most of the movement was from "for CD" to "unsure" in my direction (with on "for CD" going all the way over to "natural collapse." For the 3 people going Richard's way, it was "unsure" to "for CD". They did report this openly.

Is this information still available?

I have not seen it on Gage's website....it IS curious that the video is not posted....and only the audio....of course I don't find a link to Gage's debate with Roberts either \

Maybe I missed it...


Anyway...I've heard the debate and watched all of your youtube videos Chris....including the correction after Chandler pointed out some (very basic and inconsequential) errors that were made.

So good job on the correction and great job overall.....a fantastic addition to the side of reality against those who would dishonor the memories of those that died and labored on that day.

 

[chrismohr]

In these debates it tends to be 9/11 truth theories on the hot seat. My guess is Gage does not want to spend his time getting the likes of Dave Thomas to credibly explain the NIST reports or the government OCT, however amusing that would be to watch. Bedunker points tend to align themselves with the government OCT. People feel safe with that explanation. If the OCT became the subject under scrutiny (as I think it will be at the Toronto Hearings) doubters in the audience would be better informed, rather than simply rhetorically persuaded.

Putting aside who was right, I am an excellent speaker and I was very well prepared, better than Richard. Of course I was right, but in addition I was just the stronger debater. What does "government OTC" mean? Maybe I could understand your point but frankly I don't.

 

[DGM]

The 600,000 pound figure for the metal smashed into the building may be correct; it comes from a picture in the FEMA library with this caption under it:

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

I would seriously doubt it. It looks like half a section from the perimeter. That would make it about 60' long by about 10' wide. I can work up the weight tomorrow when I get to my office but, I'd be surprised if it works out to be more than 20,000 lbs. It was a typo in the FEMA report.

 

[bill smith]

The 600,000 pound figure for the metal smashed into the building may be correct; it comes from a picture in the FEMA library with this caption under it:

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

Column 79 in WTC7 weighed about 300 tons from top to bottom so I doubt that this beam weighed the same. If it did we will definitely want to know how a 300-ton beam was ejected across the road to spear another building.

 

[DGM]

The 600,000 pound figure for the metal smashed into the building may be correct; it comes from a picture in the FEMA library with this caption under it:

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

It looks like roughly half of this.

It's silly to think they were building with 1 million pound sections.

FEMA made a typo.

 

[Oystein]

Let's see. One such wall panel is 3 columns, 3 floors.
WTC had 110 floors, 236 perimeter columns. So one such panel is (3x3)/(110x236) of the exterior steel. Or 1/4461th.

Total mass of one tower was about 600,000,000 pounds. Let's say half of that is steel, let's say 1/3 to 1/2 of the steel is perimeter wall. So perimeter is 1/5th of 600,000,000 pounds = 120,000,000 pound
Then one panel weighs approx 120,000,000lb/4461 or about 27,000 pounds.

 

[bill smith]

Putting aside who was right, I am an excellent speaker and I was very well prepared, better than Richard. Of course I was right, but in addition I was just the stronger debater. What does "government OTC" mean? Maybe I could understand your point but frankly I don't.

Have you got a link to the audio Chris ?

 

[Animal]

The 600,000 pound figure for the metal smashed into the building may be correct; it comes from a picture in the FEMA library with this caption under it:

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

Wrong on two counts.......it wasn't a "beam" and it certainly did not weigh 600,000 lbs.

 

[newton3376]

Putting aside who was right, I am an excellent speaker and I was very well prepared, better than Richard. Of course I was right, but in addition I was just the stronger debater. What does "government OTC" mean? Maybe I could understand your point but frankly I don't.

There is another issue as well...in my opinion...

When Gage says "NIST did such and such...."

And then you say "Well I spoke to NIST and here is what they said about that..."

Arguments like that hold a lot of weight...it's one thing to say something about someone...it's another thing to actually TALK to people and get their position/opinion. Gage only talks to fellow "truthers"....a very small group indeed. Consulting experts froma various fields and actually talking to them and asking questions holds weight in the average persons mind.

Another funny point in the debate was when Gage used the quote from Kevin Mcpadden not long after you pointed out how his story had changed...I'm sure that one struck a nerve with people...I only wished you had been able to interrupt him and call him out on that one on the spot.

Gage just follows a script...which why he repeats the phrase "let's take a look" in the debate....he is not very good at actually responding to points.

 

[Animal]

I would seriously doubt it. It looks like half a section from the perimeter. That would make it about 60' long by about 10' wide. I can work up the weight tomorrow when I get to my office but, I'd be surprised if it works out to be more than 20,000 lbs. It was a typo in the FEMA report.

Depending on wher in the building the section came from, it could be as light as 8k lb at the top where the steel was 1/4" thk and over 50k lb where the steel was 3" thick

 

[Marokkaan]

Putting aside who was right, I am an excellent speaker and I was very well prepared, better than Richard. Of course I was right, but in addition I was just the stronger debater. What does "government OTC" mean? Maybe I could understand your point but frankly I don't.

lol

 

[newton3376]

Have you got a link to the audio Chris ?

LOL all this time and Bill still hasn't heard the debate?

Clueless...I tell ya....

 

[newton3376]

lol

Have you guys hit 1% yet?