chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi TMD et al,
Let's see if I can remember all the comments here above to reply to:
1.) I have been told I should be more assertive in confronting "debunkers" who attack 9/11 Truth people. I have done this, gently, repeatedly, in thread after thread, correcting people and challenging their assumptions about the motives and intelligence of our opponents. But I looked at the issue and asked myself, "Whose business is it when someone gets attacked?" Bottom line: not mine. JREF was a rough playground when I jumped in and it still is. I'm not here to change the culture, just to get information and get to know people I wouldn't meet otherwise. If someone attacks me that is my business. If I attack someone that is my business. The rest is meddling and a waste of time. There is nothing hypocritical about me being respectful to my opponents and then insisting on a minimum level of respect in return without playing the role of rescuer every time a debunker says twoofer twoofer nyah nyah nyah.
2.) I understand that David Chandler and Kevin Ryan have taken an enormous amount of flack for standing up for what they believe in. If they develop a siege mentality as a result, I am sorry to see that. But I hold them responsible for their personal attacks against me nevertheless and I will call them on it.
3.) Richard Gage is indeed a gentleman, and in our debate I thought he was overly considerate with me. In other words, we agreed we wanted to model respectful disagreement. I respectfully but aggressively made my points, over 100 of them in a row. He allowed me to make statements I expected him to challenge, and I was even ready to be challenged, but he often let my assertions just go by. Obviously no one was keeping formal score from some debate society, but some of the things they WOULD keep score on would include: responsiveness to opponents' points, thinking on your feet, clear explanations, efficiency in use of words, confidence, modulating your voice to be sometimes calm, sometimes impassioned instead of monotonously forceful, mixing anecdotal and statistical arguments, etc. On all these points I did somewhat better, but Gage did well too. And obviously presentation style does not make you right.
4.) I explained freefall collapse of Building 7 and the "no NET resistance" concept in my YouTube video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0
I don't see need for any major revisions or corrections. No one has corrected my understsnding that NIST measured only the collapse speed of the north perimeter face, but I can correct that to say even more precisely: NIST measured the collapse speed of the ROOFLINE of the north perimeter face and discovered 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration of the roofline (and for 1 second the measured something like 100.1 % freefall acceleration, though that was within the margin of error of their measurements). The kink alone proves that even this roofline wasn't 100% uniform in this fall, as well as some subtle corkscrewing as the building came down, and we know generally that the building collapsed (to a gross order) as a unit for the first few seconds before toppling dramatically into the more damaged south face. How NIST could have measured freefall and not called it controlled demolition is explained in my video.
When NIST says "the entire north face above the 7 floors that had been removed," my paraphrase that this is "part of the north face" is accurate. And I like Grandmastershek's observation that the various structural elements of the perimetr walls "were still connected as opposed to a controlled demolition in which the structural members are severed from each other." I never thought to explain it that way, thanks.
5.) I asked Michael Newman at NIST why some information about their collapse sequences was withheld and he said that it's because some of their information could be used as a blueprint for building destruction by future terrorist groups. Giving enough information to help develop the new building code templates was adequate. He also said that even with this limitation, this is one of the most open investigations ever. Not everyone agrees. obviously, but there is NIST's answer to me directly.
6.) Gage is a salesman, but both Gage and I have in common a strong desire to treat people we interact with one-on-one with respect. It's not a front. It's a part of who we are, something we like about each other.
Did I mop up all the questions and comments here?
Let's see if I can remember all the comments here above to reply to:
1.) I have been told I should be more assertive in confronting "debunkers" who attack 9/11 Truth people. I have done this, gently, repeatedly, in thread after thread, correcting people and challenging their assumptions about the motives and intelligence of our opponents. But I looked at the issue and asked myself, "Whose business is it when someone gets attacked?" Bottom line: not mine. JREF was a rough playground when I jumped in and it still is. I'm not here to change the culture, just to get information and get to know people I wouldn't meet otherwise. If someone attacks me that is my business. If I attack someone that is my business. The rest is meddling and a waste of time. There is nothing hypocritical about me being respectful to my opponents and then insisting on a minimum level of respect in return without playing the role of rescuer every time a debunker says twoofer twoofer nyah nyah nyah.
2.) I understand that David Chandler and Kevin Ryan have taken an enormous amount of flack for standing up for what they believe in. If they develop a siege mentality as a result, I am sorry to see that. But I hold them responsible for their personal attacks against me nevertheless and I will call them on it.
3.) Richard Gage is indeed a gentleman, and in our debate I thought he was overly considerate with me. In other words, we agreed we wanted to model respectful disagreement. I respectfully but aggressively made my points, over 100 of them in a row. He allowed me to make statements I expected him to challenge, and I was even ready to be challenged, but he often let my assertions just go by. Obviously no one was keeping formal score from some debate society, but some of the things they WOULD keep score on would include: responsiveness to opponents' points, thinking on your feet, clear explanations, efficiency in use of words, confidence, modulating your voice to be sometimes calm, sometimes impassioned instead of monotonously forceful, mixing anecdotal and statistical arguments, etc. On all these points I did somewhat better, but Gage did well too. And obviously presentation style does not make you right.
4.) I explained freefall collapse of Building 7 and the "no NET resistance" concept in my YouTube video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MER5PhIDt0
I don't see need for any major revisions or corrections. No one has corrected my understsnding that NIST measured only the collapse speed of the north perimeter face, but I can correct that to say even more precisely: NIST measured the collapse speed of the ROOFLINE of the north perimeter face and discovered 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration of the roofline (and for 1 second the measured something like 100.1 % freefall acceleration, though that was within the margin of error of their measurements). The kink alone proves that even this roofline wasn't 100% uniform in this fall, as well as some subtle corkscrewing as the building came down, and we know generally that the building collapsed (to a gross order) as a unit for the first few seconds before toppling dramatically into the more damaged south face. How NIST could have measured freefall and not called it controlled demolition is explained in my video.
When NIST says "the entire north face above the 7 floors that had been removed," my paraphrase that this is "part of the north face" is accurate. And I like Grandmastershek's observation that the various structural elements of the perimetr walls "were still connected as opposed to a controlled demolition in which the structural members are severed from each other." I never thought to explain it that way, thanks.
5.) I asked Michael Newman at NIST why some information about their collapse sequences was withheld and he said that it's because some of their information could be used as a blueprint for building destruction by future terrorist groups. Giving enough information to help develop the new building code templates was adequate. He also said that even with this limitation, this is one of the most open investigations ever. Not everyone agrees. obviously, but there is NIST's answer to me directly.
6.) Gage is a salesman, but both Gage and I have in common a strong desire to treat people we interact with one-on-one with respect. It's not a front. It's a part of who we are, something we like about each other.
Did I mop up all the questions and comments here?
