Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
Was that some sort of attempt at humor?
Click to expand...

Clayton - nothing on 9/11 can be even imagined into a "pyroclastic cloud". The only people who think the dust cloud resembled a pyroclastic cloud are either mistaken for a split second, or idiots for going beyond a split second and still believing that.

Human beings were enveloped in that dust cloud. They all survived.

That is IMPOSSIBLE under the conditions of a pyroclastic cloud.
 
Im sure the idea of pyroclastic flows originally came from Judy Woods and her super duper top secrete city smashing space beam..

Star-Wars-911-Death-Star.JPG
 
Last edited:
Well done on sorting the research chris, I am correct in thinking its all been published now, right? Links would be great.

As well as your opinion on them Clayton, as you seem to be the main person keeping the opposing side of the debate alive and kicking.
 
cjnewson88 said:
Im sure the idea of pyroclastic flows originally came from Judy Woods and her super duper top secrete city smashing space beam..

[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RccTLu6UaMc/TIozSkDH3LI/AAAAAAAACBM/puvJ7ozXmjY/s1600/Star-Wars-911-Death-Star.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Judy dismissed the idea of a pyroclastic flow when specifically asked about it. Probably because a pyroclastic flow goes downward and she thinks all the mass that 'can't be accounted for' went up. :rolleyes:
 
Hi again,

The links above don't work. This has been a consistent problem with these particular links on JREF. The "..." 's in the middle of a long-winded link name don't work sometimes. Just go to my signature below and use that link. That'll work. I just tested it.
 
Yeah, links with URLs that include "..." in the middle don't work. Kind of for the same reason that writing "yadda yadda yadda" instead of the middle 10 pages of a term paper doesn't get a good grade.

That is to say, you need the entire URL in the link itself. The text that is displayed for a link can be an abbreviated URL (which the forum will automatically do, if it considers the actual URL too long to display) and the link will still work if the URL in the link (which is not displayed in the text) is complete and correct. Or the text that is displayed might be completely different: this is a link to Google and the link will still work if the URL in the link is complete and correct. But copying and pasting the displayed text in those cases, and putting [url] tags around it to use it as the URL for a new link, won't work: this is a link to Google. <-- Not.

Here's a working link to the high-res version of the paper that's independent of chrismohr's sig. The displayed url is (automatically by the forum software) abbreviated from the actual URL in the link, which is http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
When the Millette paper or anything I have a hand in re 9/11 is being discussed on blogs everywhere, it doesn't take long for someone in 9/11 Truth to pull out this YouTube "Pearls Before Swine" attack video against me from David Chandler and herald it as the last word on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

People also email this to me personally at least one a month. In essence, Chandler corrects some mistakes in my original youtube video (chrismohr911 #18 freefall collapse of Building 7), uses those mistakes as evidence that I don't know what I am talking about, tells viewers that with mistakes like these no one can take anything I say seriously, and then ends with a not-so-cryptic biblical quote about casting pearls before swine.

I corrected the mistakes in my first video and re-recorded a new version with my response to David Chandler here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0

No one who triumphantly spreads this poison around comments on the fact that Chandler's link to my old YouTube no longer works now that I have made these corrections on a revised version. Chandler has told them it is not necessary to even think about what I say so why should they care that the piece Chandler is attacking with such withering contempt is no longer even there to be viewed?

This video achieves its intended purpose for the most prejudiced and close-minded 9/11 "Truth" devotees: people declare me incompetent and decide they can completely ignore all 238 of my respectful rebuttals to Gage's assertions in Blueprint for Truth. The people blindly follow Chandler to that conclusion are not worthy of the respect I have shown them, nor is David Chandler's behavior worthy of a leader. Thankfully not everyone in 9/11 Truth agrees that ad hominem attacks are an appropriate response to my rebuttals.
 
chrismohr said:
People also email this to me personally at least one a month. In essence, Chandler corrects some mistakes in my original youtube video (chrismohr911 #18 freefall collapse of Building 7), uses those mistakes as evidence that I don't know what I am talking about, tells viewers that with mistakes like these no one can take anything I say seriously, and then ends with a not-so-cryptic biblical quote about casting pearls before swine.

I corrected the mistakes in my first video and re-recorded a new version with my response to David Chandler here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0

No one who triumphantly spreads this poison around comments on the fact that Chandler's link to my old YouTube no longer works now that I have made these corrections on a revised version. Chandler has told them it is not necessary to even think about what I say so why should they care that the piece Chandler is attacking with such withering contempt is no longer even there to be viewed?

This video achieves its intended purpose for the most prejudiced and close-minded 9/11 "Truth" devotees: people declare me incompetent and decide they can completely ignore all 238 of my respectful rebuttals to Gage's assertions in Blueprint for Truth. The people blindly follow Chandler to that conclusion are not worthy of the respect I have shown them, nor is David Chandler's behavior worthy of a leader. Thankfully not everyone in 9/11 Truth agrees that ad hominem attacks are an appropriate response to my rebuttals.
Click to expand...

Quantity assertions and false assumptions do not equal quality arguments.

The video evidence, the evidence used to originally make the determination of freefall, does not show just a single perimeter wall falling at freefall.

As usual Chris, you see that which you choose to see.

MM
 
The video evidence, the evidence used to originally make the determination of freefall, does not show just a single perimeter wall falling at freefall.
Click to expand...

Correct. It shows the entire building falling at less than freefall.

Round about 18-20 seconds.
 
Miragememories said:
Quantity assertions and false assumptions do not equal quality arguments.

The video evidence, the evidence used to originally make the determination of freefall, does not show just a single perimeter wall falling at freefall.

As usual Chris, you see that which you choose to see.

MM
Click to expand...

Can I take your lack of response to my earlier question, originally addressed to clayton, as meaning you have no direct rebuttal of any data chirsmohr links to?
 
chrismohr said:
When the Millette paper or anything I have a hand in re 9/11 is being discussed on blogs everywhere, it doesn't take long for someone in 9/11 Truth to pull out this YouTube "Pearls Before Swine" attack video against me from David Chandler and herald it as the last word on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

People also email this to me personally at least one a month. In essence, Chandler corrects some mistakes in my original youtube video (chrismohr911 #18 freefall collapse of Building 7), uses those mistakes as evidence that I don't know what I am talking about, tells viewers that with mistakes like these no one can take anything I say seriously, and then ends with a not-so-cryptic biblical quote about casting pearls before swine.

I corrected the mistakes in my first video and re-recorded a new version with my response to David Chandler here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0

No one who triumphantly spreads this poison around comments on the fact that Chandler's link to my old YouTube no longer works now that I have made these corrections on a revised version. Chandler has told them it is not necessary to even think about what I say so why should they care that the piece Chandler is attacking with such withering contempt is no longer even there to be viewed?

This video achieves its intended purpose for the most prejudiced and close-minded 9/11 "Truth" devotees: people declare me incompetent and decide they can completely ignore all 238 of my respectful rebuttals to Gage's assertions in Blueprint for Truth. The people blindly follow Chandler to that conclusion are not worthy of the respect I have shown them, nor is David Chandler's behavior worthy of a leader. Thankfully not everyone in 9/11 Truth agrees that ad hominem attacks are an appropriate response to my rebuttals.
Click to expand...
Your saying "part of the north face" is misleading, it was the entire north face above the 7 floors that had been removed. NIST said the north face, not part of the north face. So why did you add "part of" ?

CM said:
Only one perimeter wall ... is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration.
Click to expand...
That statement is false. I corrected you on this point and provided the following:

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed[/FONT] [in the videos]

To say that only one face was known to have fallen at free fall acceleration is deliberately misstating the facts. If you don't know that isn't true at this point, you should not be making videos about WTC 7.

Furthermore, you know nothing about structure or you would not make such an impossible claim. WTC 7 had moment frames. In layman's terms, a 3 foot high steel I beam belt on every floor wrapped around the entire building making the exterior frame essentially one piece of grid work. The moment frames were bolted thru the columns [or welded] making the wall very rigid in the horizontal and vertical planes. One wall or a portion of a wall could not fall without all the other walls falling with it. The exterior walls were effectively one piece.

Don't try to say I'm attacking you. I'm just pointing out the fact that you made a misleading statement and then a false statement.

The entire upper portion of the building fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. This can be seen in the videos and it has been conformed by NIST. This is not in despite by anyone who understands the information provided.
 
Chris7,

My understanding is that NIST's actual measurements of the free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds was done on only the north perimeter wall. A second wall is visible and, to a gross order, is coming down at the same time. That is what is observed, but not precisely measured, unlike the one perimeter where precise measurements were taken.

My use of the term "part of the north face" refers, perhaps unclearly, to the fact that freefall acceleration is measurably proven to have taken place on that perimeter wall for only 2.25 seconds, or around 8 stories, not for the entire period of the collapse.

If I am wrong and NIST precisely measured the acceleration of more than just the north face, I will certainly correct that error, as I have corrected others. As for your "non-attack" statement: "To say that only one face was known to have fallen at free fall acceleration is deliberately misstating the facts. If you don't know that isn't true at this point, you should not be making videos about WTC 7..." I am not interested in debating my worthiness to weigh in on 9/11.
 
Fair enough. I will move the post here (without the references to being off track) if you wish to respond.



Chandler's "attack" was not "mean-spirited" it was factual. If reporting of facts, stating facts...etc makes you mean, I'd like to think I'm the meanest person around. Chandler's video IS a response to what you said, is it necessary for me to re-write what is already in it?

I also find your little boast of "winning" the debate somewhat strange (for lack of a better word) For one thing debating isn't like a football game, who "wins" is somewhat subjective. It's a little odd you used that term, perhaps something like I handled myself well or something to that affect, would have sounded better. In my opinion, Gage did quite well, but it is my opinion.

Lastly, if you really do consider Chandler's video "nasty" (this is again subjective) try putting yourself in his situation. You associate yourself with people who do nothing but call him crazy, insult him and the whole movement. These insults are on a personal level. Now I have not seen you do that, but you certainly associate with people who do, one only has to look through threads on this board to see that. Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?
Click to expand...

Many of us consider that Chris is overly kind to people who associate with people who do nothing but insult him (for approximately the same value of "nothing" as you use here). I try to be patient with such people myself, but sometimes I wonder why.

Who won a debate may be subjective in practice, but if you seriously think that Gage made better points, it's up to you to explain why.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Fair enough. I will move the post here (without the references to being off track) if you wish to respond.



Chandler's "attack" was not "mean-spirited" it was factual. If reporting of facts, stating facts...etc makes you mean, I'd like to think I'm the meanest person around. Chandler's video IS a response to what you said, is it necessary for me to re-write what is already in it?

I also find your little boast of "winning" the debate somewhat strange (for lack of a better word) For one thing debating isn't like a football game, who "wins" is somewhat subjective. It's a little odd you used that term, perhaps something like I handled myself well or something to that affect, would have sounded better. In my opinion, Gage did quite well, but it is my opinion.

Lastly, if you really do consider Chandler's video "nasty" (this is again subjective) try putting yourself in his situation. You associate yourself with people who do nothing but call him crazy, insult him and the whole movement. These insults are on a personal level. Now I have not seen you do that, but you certainly associate with people who do, one only has to look through threads on this board to see that. Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?
Click to expand...
In answer to your two points:
1.) If Chandler's "Pearls Before Swine" remark isn't nasty, what is? The only truthful part of that video is the factual correction of specific errors. To grossly overmagnify the significane of these errors and conclude that these errors mean that no one needs to take anything I say seriously, all 238 points, is mean-spirited ad hominem unworthy of debate.
2.) Debating societies worldwide have winners. By the standards of such associations, I won the debate. But you're right, if I said "I handled myself well" or more to the point, "I was able to effectively debate Richard Gage on his own terms and did a good job even with him choosing all the debate topics" would have been more gentlemanly (and accurate). And Richard Gage did very well, by the way, and the 4 hour debate was no walk in the park for either of us!
 
chrismohr said:
"Chris7,

My understanding is that NIST's actual measurements of the free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds was done on only the north perimeter wall. A second wall is visible and, to a gross order, is coming down at the same time. That is what is observed, but not precisely measured, unlike the one perimeter where precise measurements were taken.

My use of the term "part of the north face" refers, perhaps unclearly, to the fact that freefall acceleration is measurably proven to have taken place on that perimeter wall for only 2.25 seconds, or around 8 stories, not for the entire period of the collapse.

If I am wrong and NIST precisely measured the acceleration of more than just the north face, I will certainly correct that error, as I have corrected others. As for your "non-attack" statement: "To say that only one face was known to have fallen at free fall acceleration is deliberately misstating the facts. If you don't know that isn't true at this point, you should not be making videos about WTC 7..." I am not interested in debating my worthiness to weigh in on 9/11."
Click to expand...
formatting changes are mine

This is not being just deceptive, it is being disingenuous.

set3sccompositeua1.png


scaled.php


As the still images taken from the videos of the collapsing WTC7 clearly show, at least 3 of the 4 perimeter walls are visibly collapsing in unison (EAST, NORTH & WEST).

None of those 3 perimeter walls show "lag" or any form of "out-of-sync" resistance to each other.

When the north perimeter wall was in freefall, so were the connected east and west perimeter walls.

Only someone suffering from a serious case of denial could claim otherwise.

MM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom