Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

You sure are quick to insist people who disagree with you or may have poorly phrased things are lying, MM.

Tell me, what sort of explosioves cut steel yet don't kill or harm even people who are still in the building, in an area that would be excellent at channeling the blast right onto them? How are they so quiet, unlike every known explosive capable of severing steel?

How do you reconcile the apparent fact that the three walls are collapsing at the same speed with the fact that the East penthouse had already collapsed, meaning the building's structure underneath was not supporting it? You are aware that three faces are not the same as the entire building, right?

 

[chrismohr]

The north perimeter wall was carefully measured by NIST and was shown to have come down at free-fall for 2.25 seconds. To a gross order, two of the other three walls are seen to have been coming down at the same speed at the same time. The fourth perimeter wall, where the damage was worst, was not seen or videotaped at all, to my knowledge, but after a few seconds, from a side view we see the whole building tilting dramatically into the direction of the south wall (into the most damaged part of the building).

At freefall (within a margin of error) has been fairly precisely measured on one perimeter wall. While that wall was going down at very slightly faster than freefall for a second (or maybe at freefall within the margin of error), we don't know with real precision the collapse speeds frame by frame of the other three walls. All we can say is that we observe it all came down at a similar speed for a short time. We can also observe that even on the north face of this wall, the kink proves that this face did not come down precisely at the same speed all at once.

So, to a gross order, three walls of the whole top of the building were observed to have come down pretty much at once. So MM, you make a good point, but I still say we don't have proof of 100% of freefall anywhere except where it was precisely measured. This is a point worthy of discussion. Does anyone know of a precise measurement of the collapse speeds frame by frame of all three visible walls?

"Deceptive... disingenious... denial"... I will not dignify those accusations with a response.

 

[Tezro]

IMO it is precise and necessary to qualify the NIST acceleration measurements with the distinction that they are measuring the rate of descent of the visible part of the north perimeter wall. That is, in fact, what they are measuring...not the rate of collapse of the entire building. Only a small part of the building is visible in the video in question.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the collapse of the building started well prior to any downward movement in the perimeter wall seen in the video, as evidenced by the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse.

Purporting to show a video of the collapse of the building, but editing out the collapse of the EMP, I would call both deceptive and disingenuous. Chris is being careful and precise in his wording, by talking about exactly what was measured by NIST.

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" ?

Because that is part of the north face, not the entire north face.

 

[grandmastershek]

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


MM

I would imagine that's because they were still connected as opposed to a controlled demolition in which the structural members are severed from eachother. Good job MM, you just proved it wasn't a CD.

 

[Oystein]

I would imagine that's because they were still connected as opposed to a controlled demolition in which the structural members are severed from eachother. Good job MM, you just proved it wasn't a CD.

There is no reason to assume that the engineered, but not controlled explosive demo of a building as part of a murderous plan would look in every detail like any 2 randomly selected actual controlled demos.

However it IS a necessary precondition that explosive charges large enough to sever significant structural elements go off before the collapse visibly commences with observed downward movement.
The two videos demonstrate that nicely: In both cases, a series of extrmely, awesomely, insanely loud explosion sounds starts about 9 or 10 seconds before the first bit of roofline drops. In the first video, more than 20 such explosions are heard, evenly spaced, in the second video at least 6 (harder to discern). I presume that each of the BANGs actually represents a larger number of simultaneously ignited explosions.

It would be conceivable that all these many explosions that are dragged out over the course of many seconds might get compressed into less than a second, or all going of at the same time. This would however increase the loudness and awesomeness of the sounds. The explosions are vastly louder than the sound of the the collapse itself.

The utter lack of MANY such awesomely, insanely loud explosions has not been explained by any proponent of explosive demo in the case of WTC 1, 2 or 7.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

There is nothing "gross" about the other walls coming down at the same rate as the two [Chandler and NIST] places measured on the north face. This is the part you have wrong because of your lack of knowledge of how the moment frames work on the external columns. As I reiterated, the moment frames would not allow one side to fall at a different rate. There may be a momentary difference given that steel does bend a little but not a significant amount.

Because of the moment frames, it is not necessary to measure more than one spot. 100 feet is enough to firmly establish that the entire upper part of the building is falling at free fall acceleration.

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.

There is no argument that it was "only" 2.25 seconds and about 100 feet of free fall acceleration but that is enough to conclusively establish the free fall acceleration of the entire upper portion of the building as NIST confirmed in this statement:
[FONT=&quot]"The entire building above the buckled-column [supposition] region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed"[/FONT]

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.

Your error is the assumption that the other walls did not fall at the same rate. The moment frames guarantee that they did. To correct your video you need to eliminate the inference that the entire upper portion of the building did not fall at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet, it did.

 

[tmd2_1]

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!

Yes that comment may have been a little over the top, but he was illustrating a point. Also as I said keep in mind you associate with people that do hurl vile insults his way and to the truth movement in general. I find it a little hypocritical that you seem to have no problem with that (again I am not saying you have said anything) but seem to take offense when it's the other way around.

Now on to the debate. Did any of these societies actually score the debate? I'd be interested in seeing that. Also I'm sure you'll admit your training as a journalist is very beneficial for such situations. Often it is not what we say but how we say it, that will have the greater affect on people.


Slightly off topic to what we are discussing, but similar enough that I think I can include it, is my belief that people in the truth movement are sometimes too nice. Sometimes I think Gage can fall into this. He is overly polite to people who want nothing more then to destroy his reputation and his organization. Now I do not include you in this, these are people that use vile names accuse him of being evil a charlatan....etc. It's my belief those of us in the movement, need to be a little more assertive, polite of course but not let people push us around

 

[sheeplesnshills]

formatting changes are mine

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

[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg529/scaled.php?server=529&filename=normalcbsb7montno3.jpg&res=medium[/qimg]

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

Wrong. there is an obvious sag in the middle of the north wall so you are obviously wrong The center of that wall is falling faster than either end or the east or west walls for some period of time.
But really I don't care if all three walls freefall for 8 floors......unless you can show us the math that shows this is impossible without a CD (and lets be honest, you can't) then all you have is an argument from incredulity.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Your error is the assumption that the other walls did not fall at the same rate. The moment frames guarantee that they did. To correct your video you need to eliminate the inference that the entire upper portion of the building did not fall at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet, it did.

So? even if you are right, show that this matters one iota.....if you can't, and you can't then why even mention it?

 

[Miragememories]

"...Slightly off topic to what we are discussing, but similar enough that I think I can include it, is my belief that people in the truth movement are sometimes too nice. Sometimes I think Gage can fall into this. He is overly polite to people who want nothing more then to destroy his reputation and his organization. Now I do not include you in this, these are people that use vile names accuse him of being evil a charlatan....etc. It's my belief those of us in the movement, need to be a little more assertive, polite of course. but let people push us around"

If one is not "too nice", one finds oneself suspended for being uncivil.

By merely responding to your statement, while civil, it still might result in a preponderance of reports that can initiate my re-suspension, or even banning, for not being sufficiently "on topic".

With such an unlevel playing field, you will never see people like Gage, Jones, Harrit et al ever posting in this thread, or this forum.

MM

 

[tmd2_1]

The north perimeter wall was carefully measured by NIST and was shown to have come down at free-fall for 2.25 seconds. To a gross order, two of the other three walls are seen to have been coming down at the same speed at the same time. The fourth perimeter wall, where the damage was worst, was not seen or videotaped at all, to my knowledge, but after a few seconds, from a side view we see the whole building tilting dramatically into the direction of the south wall (into the most damaged part of the building).

At freefall (within a margin of error) has been fairly precisely measured on one perimeter wall. While that wall was going down at very slightly faster than freefall for a second (or maybe at freefall within the margin of error), we don't know with real precision the collapse speeds frame by frame of the other three walls. All we can say is that we observe it all came down at a similar speed for a short time. We can also observe that even on the north face of this wall, the kink proves that this face did not come down precisely at the same speed all at once.

So, to a gross order, three walls of the whole top of the building were observed to have come down pretty much at once. So MM, you make a good point, but I still say we don't have proof of 100% of freefall anywhere except where it was precisely measured. This is a point worthy of discussion. Does anyone know of a precise measurement of the collapse speeds frame by frame of all three visible walls?

"Deceptive... disingenious... denial"... I will not dignify those accusations with a response.

So Chris, I'm curious, as Christopher7 pointed out NIST stated the building fell as a unit. So what is the explanation for this free fall acceleration? I'm curious as to how you think this is possible, given a natural collapse. Also what do you make of NIST not releasing their numbers that back up their models? I mean they stated is was for public safety, but that makes little sense, one would think this information would be good for future buildings.

 

[grandmastershek]

If one is not "too nice", one finds oneself suspended for being uncivil.

By merely responding to your statement, while civil, it still might result in a preponderance of reports that can initiate my re-suspension, or even banning, for not being sufficiently "on topic".

With such an unlevel playing field, you will never see people like Gage, Jones, Harrit et al ever posting in this thread, or this forum.

MM

Or posting their own debates. Funny huh?

 

[tmd2_1]

If one is not "too nice", one finds oneself suspended for being uncivil.

By merely responding to your statement, while civil, it still might result in a preponderance of reports that can initiate my re-suspension, or even banning, for not being sufficiently "on topic".

With such an unlevel playing field, you will never see people like Gage, Jones, Harrit et al ever posting in this thread, or this forum.

MM

Yes you are correct, in terms of this forum. But I was referring to the movement in general. For example take this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY
Gage is probably more polite than I would have been. Though I will admit this gentlemen in the video, certainly acted reasonably.

But here is an even more extreme example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EQiLLp6Ls There's no way I would have stayed as calm the man in this video did. I would be more or less civil, but not to the extent he was in the video.

 

[DGM]

Gage is probably more polite than I would have been. .

But here is an even more extreme example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EQiLLp6Ls There's no way I would have stayed as calm the man in this video did. I would be more or less civil, but not to the extent he was in the video.

My guess is you have never worked in retail (or own a public relations based company). Gage is a salesman (and I have actually met him).

 

[ozeco41]

My guess is you have never worked in retail (or own a public relations based company). Gage is a salesman (and I have actually met him).

When I was young - 1947-8-9-50 - in the north of England we had door to door salesmen who carried a suitcase of small gadgetry. It was hard for folk like my mum to turn them away without buying a left handed double ended thingamy doobie for which she had no earthly use.

Gage is of the tribe. He even shows occasionally that he knows it is all a game. And those rare admissions are telling for anyone who thinks he is honest.

 

[DGM]

.Gage is of the tribe. He even shows occasionally that he knows it is all a game. And those rare admissions are telling for anyone who thinks he is honest.

I (and Mr Herbert) was invited to go "to the bar after the show" a couple of years ago (in Boston) with Gage and his groupies. We declined, I wonder if we did, would there still be a AE 911.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The north perimeter wall was carefully measured by NIST and was shown to have come down at free-fall for 2.25 seconds. To a gross order, two of the other three walls are seen to have been coming down at the same speed at the same time. The fourth perimeter wall, where the damage was worst, was not seen or videotaped at all, to my knowledge, but after a few seconds, from a side view we see the whole building tilting dramatically into the direction of the south wall (into the most damaged part of the building).

At freefall (within a margin of error) has been fairly precisely measured on one perimeter wall. While that wall was going down at very slightly faster than freefall for a second (or maybe at freefall within the margin of error), we don't know with real precision the collapse speeds frame by frame of the other three walls. All we can say is that we observe it all came down at a similar speed for a short time. We can also observe that even on the north face of this wall, the kink proves that this face did not come down precisely at the same speed all at once.

So, to a gross order, three walls of the whole top of the building were observed to have come down pretty much at once. So MM, you make a good point, but I still say we don't have proof of 100% of freefall anywhere except where it was precisely measured. This is a point worthy of discussion. Does anyone know of a precise measurement of the collapse speeds frame by frame of all three visible walls?

"Deceptive... disingenious... denial"... I will not dignify those accusations with a response.

Freefall means no resistance. Period. No resistance means resistance has been eliminated. Case closed.

And the mention of faster than freefall?

 

[ozeco41]

Freefall means no resistance. Period. No resistance means resistance has been eliminated....

Actually CM you are nearly correct. It should read "...no net resistance acting on the sub system..." and "means net resistance acting on the sub system is zero" for your second bit.

...Case closed....

Correct again - but I see that you don't specify which case you refer to....and that makes a lot of difference.

...And the mention of faster than freefall?

Same issue as previous -- it is a question of getting the system (or sub system) boundaries correct. Then within a sub system you can readily have "faster than free-fall" if, by that ambiguous term you mean accelerations greater than G. Which is what seemed to happen in the WTC7 collapse.

 

[000063]

...And the mention of faster than freefall?

Nope. If the building falling at freefall means CD, and it did not fall at freefall, it had "negative resistance" by your logic. How does that gel with the CD theory?

 

[triforcharity]

[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]

I've taken the liberty to bring your attention to the part you keep forgetting about, and have for many years.

If you had READ the ENTIRE NIST report, you would know why you keep getting this wrong.