Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[ozeco41]

Let me make sure I understand you. Your contention is that if a cannon ball is dropped, and one is shot out of a cannon at 90 degrees. They will hit the ground at the same time? Assuming this is from the same height dropped/shot at the same time?

Correct. Physics 101.

Bearing in mind that, for simplicity we are ignoring air resistance and all of us know that we are doing so.

(AND the air resistance wouldn't change the outcome - the timing is determined by the vertical vector of the motion.)


(beat you in a photo finish Oystein. I'll let you go first next time. )

 

[Oystein]

Let me make sure I understand you. Your contention is that if a cannon ball is dropped, and one is shot out of a cannon at 90 degrees. They will hit the ground at the same time? Assuming this is from the same height dropped/shot at the same time?

Yes, that is his contention. Assuming air resistance and aerodynamics play no role.

I guess there is a bit of an influence of the direction on the compass that you are shooting the cannon to, but we'll ignore that too, for the moment ^^

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes, that is his contention. Assuming air resistance and aerodynamics play no role.

I guess there is a bit of an influence of the direction on the compass that you are shooting the cannon to, but we'll ignore that too, for the moment ^^

Ok yes, assuming a few things like you said, it is true. Just wanted to make sure.

 

[chrismohr]

Yes tmd you understand my assumptions. Golly, I guess in this one instance maybe Chris7 is even more ignorant than I am? Is that possible? Does this mean I don't have to pull down my 22 YouTube rebuttal videos, including one where I correct Chandler's mistake (video 18)?

Chris7, pride cometh before a freefall...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Correct. Physics 101.

Bearing in mind that, for simplicity we are ignoring air resistance and all of us know that we are doing so.

(AND the air resistance wouldn't change the outcome - the timing is determined by the vertical vector of the motion.)


(beat you in a photo finish Oystein. I'll let you go first next time. )

Well again not quite true. If fired from a high enough altitude and at sufficient speed the cannon ball would go into a stable orbit. It would be in freefall but it would never get any nearer the ground.

 

[beachnut]

Let me make sure I understand you. Your contention is that if a cannon ball is dropped, and one is shot out of a cannon at 90 degrees. They will hit the ground at the same time? Assuming this is from the same height dropped/shot at the same time?

Called physics. The lack of physics is why 911 truth believers, like you support are unable to grasp the WTC collapse, it requires physics.

 

[tfk]

Doesn't get much juicier than this…

That might be true if it were only a few feet of freefall of part of the building but not when there is 100 feet of free fall.

Completely wrong.

Once everything was falling, nothing could be pulling on anything else.

Completely wrong.

You don't even know what free fall means.

Mr. Mohr seems to understand it far, far better than you. As proven below.

Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it

Correct.
You must have C&P'd this out of a textbook.
That's a good thing to do.

Do you know what is even better thing to do, C7?
To try to comprehend what the things that you C&P really mean.

Here's a couple of questions for ya, C7.
(I'll not bother waiting for you to oh-so-reliably not respond, so I'll supply the answers.)

1. After a cannon ball, fired horizontally, has left the muzzle of the cannon, what are the forces acting on it?
Answer: Ignoring air resistance, only gravity.
Ergo, it's acceleration is directly towards the center of the earth & it is in free fall.

2. Same as 1), except cannon fired at any angle, upwards or downwards?
Answer: same as above.
Ergo, it's acceleration is directly towards the center of the earth & it is in free fall.

3. What are the forces acting on any satellite in any orbit (circular or elliptical) around the earth, ignoring other celestial bodies?
Answer: Only gravity.
Ergo, it's acceleration is directly towards the center of the earth & it is in free fall.

4. What are the forces acting on a satellite like Galileo to Jupiter, that used the earth for a gravitational kick and swung by the earth in a parabola, leaving the earth at a much higher speed than they approached with?

Answer: only gravity.
Ergo, it's acceleration is directly towards the center of the earth & it is in free fall.

Yes, C7, all of those objects are in free fall.

You have supposition and double talk.

It is abundantly clear that ONE of the two of you doesn't understand the concept.

As your avatar might say, "I don't think that this person is who you think it is."

Actually, that is wrong. I KNOW that this person is not who you think it is.

Even NIST admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration when presented with the scientific proof, but you refuse to accept that.

No, NIST did not.

NIST said that A POINT ON THE ROOF LINE OF THE NORTH WEST CORNER fell at a value that AVERAGED to approximately G over 2.25 seconds.

It turns out that they were off slightly about that, as shown by the frame by frame analysis, instead of the "every nth frame" that they [& Chandler] did.

The reality is that the point, when examined in higher detail, fell "at free fall" for none of that interval. Instead, for most of the interval, it fell at less than g, and for two brief intervals, it fell at higher than g acceleration.

Scientists and any reasonable person know that the measurements from a video will not be exact and that the slight difference is negligible - too small to be worth considering.

Wrong.
ALL of the interesting details resided smack dab in the middle of the slight differences from perfect free fall.

Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the difference is within the margin of error and need not be considered.

Wrong again.
Professionals are exquisitely concerned with "margin of error" and know that these always need to be considered.

Amateurs (like Chandler & femr) fail to consider margins of error or don't comprehend how to do so.

Qualified professionals on both sides of this issue agree that the entire upper part of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

NIST spends hundreds of pages explaining EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. That the entire upper part of WTC7 began its fall at different times.

NIST explains clearly that its analysis applies to the north west corner roof line of the building, and describe the details of the fall of the "upper part of WTC7" that are utterly unrelated to the fall profile of the north exterior wall.

It is truthers that keep mis-stating this fact.

Of course, "mis-state" turns into "lie" when the error has been pointed out to you a few times.

And turns into "intentional FLICKING lie" when the error has been pointed out 100x or more.

But you disagree. You are pretending that you know better than the professional scientists at NIST and a man who teaches physics when you don't even know the definition of free fall acceleration.

You have no understanding the scientific process or even the terms used and you have no business presenting yourself as an authority in this matter.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Never once has such a scientist with specialized knowledge told me I'm too ignorant to even present this material. At most they have pointed out specific errors but gone on to praise the work as a whole.

Yet I've never seen a group of scientists stand tall to advocate your 9/11 stance or your "Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals" on YouTube.

 

[000063]

You'd just say they were in on it, or blind, like you do with individuals.

 

[Oystein]

... We'll also assume no air resistance gets in the way of this experiment. ...

Let me make sure I understand you. Your contention is that if a cannon ball is dropped, and one is shot out of a cannon at 90 degrees. They will hit the ground at the same time? Assuming this is from the same height dropped/shot at the same time?

Yes, that is his contention. Assuming air resistance and aerodynamics play no role.

I guess there is a bit of an influence of the direction on the compass that you are shooting the cannon to, but we'll ignore that too, for the moment ^^

Ok yes, assuming a few things like you said, it is true. Just wanted to make sure.

As hilited above, that much was already contained in chrismohr's postm, and you quoted it. Got trouble reading? Or are you suggesting that you actually missed the exclusion aerodynamics (as opposed to air resistance) and the shape and rotation of the planbet?? You are not that subtle, pal

 

[tfk]

Chris,

One slight adjustment...

So my cannonball has a lot of horizontal momentum velocity but of course it will eventually hit the ground, right? Yours has no horizontal momentum velocity and is in pure freefall according to your maxim that "free fall is always straight down."

Momentum is mass x velocity, of course. But in this case, it is only the velocity that matters.
___

Now, just for yucks & giggles, a couple of questions that illustrate some of the more subtle aspects of the issue.

1. Using spherical cannon balls, but including air resistance, which one lands first?
Now, the big question: "Why?"

2. Instead of cannon balls, use rifle bullets, where the dropped bullet starts out stationary & horizontal, just like the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

3. Rifle bullets again, where the dropped bullet starts out horizontal and spinning about its long axis at the same speed that the barrel's rifling imparts on the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

4. Instead of using cannon balls or bullets, use arrows, where the dropped arrow starts out horizontal, just like the shot arrow. Which one lands first?
Why?


tom

 

[BasqueArch]

Chris,

.......
1. Using spherical cannon balls, but including air resistance, which one lands first?
Now, the big question: "Why?" ......

tmd2_1:
The cannonballs land at the same time?
I Knew That ! … I was only testing you. Just wanted to make sure.

Christopher7:
What we need is a definitive statement from RJLee as to what the temperatures of the cannonballs are to resolve this issue.

ergo:
The heavier one.

SpringHallConvert:
You have no evidence the cannonballs have not been fired.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...

 

[chrismohr]

Chris,

One slight adjustment...



Momentum is mass x velocity, of course. But in this case, it is only the velocity that matters.
___

Now, just for yucks & giggles, a couple of questions that illustrate some of the more subtle aspects of the issue.

1. Using spherical cannon balls, but including air resistance, which one lands first?
Now, the big question: "Why?"

2. Instead of cannon balls, use rifle bullets, where the dropped bullet starts out stationary & horizontal, just like the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

3. Rifle bullets again, where the dropped bullet starts out horizontal and spinning about its long axis at the same speed that the barrel's rifling imparts on the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

4. Instead of using cannon balls or bullets, use arrows, where the dropped arrow starts out horizontal, just like the shot arrow. Which one lands first?
Why?


tom

OK TFK I'll bite this evening and try my hand at this...

 

[Oystein]

tmd2_1:
The cannonballs land at the same time?
I Knew That ! … I was only testing you. Just wanted to make sure.

Christopher7:
What we need is a definitive statement from RJLee as to what the temperatures of the cannonballs are to resolve this issue.

ergo:
The heavier one.

SpringHallConvert:
You have no evidence the cannonballs have not been fired.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...

Java Man: I'll tell you tomorrow

RedIbis: I answered that long ago, if you can't search for it, that's not my problem

JihadJane: It's bad enough that cannons do get fired in Iraq all because of 9/11!

Miragememories: I asked Dr. Harrit and he said you must do a DSC test on the cannonballs as that would be the only admissible proof they are actually the same and can be fired

 

[Christopher7]

So my cannonball has a lot of horizontal momentum but of course it will eventually hit the ground, right? Yours has no horizontal momentum and is in pure freefall according to your maxim that "free fall is always straight down."

It's not "my maxim" it's the definition of free fall

My limited understanding of Newtonian physics tells me that our two cannonballs will hit the ground at the same instant. Both are falling without any resistance (even air in this exercise), but my cannonball has strong horizontal momentum. BOTH ARE IN FREEFALL AND DROPPING AT FREEFALL ACCELERATION

Both are dropping at free fall acceleration but the one shot out of a cannon does not fit the definition of free fall because it has another force acting on it.

The cannonball analogy has no relevance to the free fall acceleration of the entire upper part of WTC 7 for 100 feet. The part you don't understand is that once in free fall, everything within the system is falling at free fall acceleration and cannot cause any other part of the system to alter its rate of decent as you try to say it did.

As I noted: There could have been a very minute lever effect at the beginning of the free fall acceleration but not after everything was in motion.

If I am right, then your statement is wrong: "You don't seem to understand that free fall is always straight down." No, I definitely don't understand that free fall is always straight down BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

What part of "only" don't you understand?

And obviously I agree with pgimeno when he says that

"Free fall implies an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
The building is falling with an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
Therefore, the building is falling in free fall, i.e. unimpeded.

That deduction is erroneous. When A implies B and B is true, it doesn't say anything about the truth of A, because that doesn't mean that B implies A."

I DID take logic in school, and he is right about your logic.

That twisted logic is trying to say that the free fall acceleration of the entire upper part of WTC 7 was not free fall acceleration.
"Free fall implies an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²"

Free fall does not "imply" an acceleration value of 9.8 m/s²
It is the scientific definition. [emphasis mine]

free fall, in physics, the state of a body moving solely under the influence of gravitational forces (see gravitation). A body falling freely toward the surface of the earth undergoes an acceleration due to gravity of 32 ft/sec² (9.8 m/sec²)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/free+fall

 

[ozeco41]

Well again not quite true. If fired from a high enough altitude and at sufficient speed the cannon ball would go into a stable orbit. It would be in freefall but it would never get any nearer the ground.

Sure. Remember we are writing for a lay audience. I agree that mention of the orbit example would be an interesting addition for such an audience.

...and I am unaware of any "in orbit launching capability" that existed in the age of cannonballs.

 

[ozeco41]

It's not "my maxim" it's the definition of free fall...

Hogwash -- yet again.

...Both are dropping at free fall acceleration...

Correct (so far...but)

.... but the one shot out of a cannon does not fit the definition of free fall because it has another force acting on it....

WRONG. what other force??? When you have dug yourself into a hole the best advice is stop digging.

...The cannonball analogy has no relevance to the free fall acceleration of the entire upper part of WTC 7 for 100 feet. The part you don't understand is that once in free fall, everything within the system is falling at free fall acceleration and cannot cause any other part of the system to alter its rate of decent as you try to say it did....

totally wrong. Yet again. however you have advanced one step - you have identified the system. note also that we are discussing accelerations NOT rate of descent. And IIRC ChrisMohr did not get velocity and acceleration confused.

Now please read this example from my earlier post - It allows you to consider the principles free of the WTC complications and emotive pre-commitments.

...Let me illustrate two points by a simple example. I put you inside an enclosed box say one metre square and 1.8 metres high. As you stand in the box your head is in contact with the top and your feet naturally in contact with the bottom. (I need the head to top contact to eliminate some second order effects which may be raised by third party sceptics at a later stage -- if we get that far. ) I give you a tennis ball which you hold in your right hand. I then drop the box including you and the ball from the top of a tall building.

The box with you and the ball inside it will enter free fall minus the effect of air resistance.
You inside the box throw the ball down so it travels to and strikes the floor.
Point One: Whilst you are engaged in the throwing motion which is accelerating the ball up to throwing speed the ball is accelerating downwards faster than free fall.
You extend you arms sideways and press on the side walls of the box.
Point Two: You have exerted internal forces despite the (alleged) Chandler claim that there are no internal forces.

Test Question for the lurkers: When you release the ball and whilst it is travelling downwards towards the bottom of the box what is its acceleration?

The box and contents comprises a discrete system. What happens inside that system has no effect on the motion of the system relative to its external context and the rapidly approaching ground below.....

So the ball, the hand holding it and the arm it is attached to are "inside the system". You can throw the ball. (You can press on the outer walls) Both presuming that the state of your underwear and your nervous system will allow those actions. More to the point of this WTC discussion this example is an accurate analog of the explantion ChrisMohr gave in Video #18 when he corrected Chandler's error. Chandler is wrong on basic premises in most of his claims.

And your claim, C7, "everything within the system is falling at free fall acceleration and cannot cause any other part of the system to alter its rate of decent" is clearly wrong. ChrisMohr's explantions are correct (in the first order and suited to the intended lay person audience - and those disclaimers don't change the basic facts.)

 

[BasqueArch]

Chris,

One slight adjustment...



Momentum is mass x velocity, of course. But in this case, it is only the velocity that matters.
___

Now, just for yucks & giggles, a couple of questions that illustrate some of the more subtle aspects of the issue.

1. Using spherical cannon balls, but including air resistance, which one lands first?
Now, the big question: "Why?"

2. Instead of cannon balls, use rifle bullets, where the dropped bullet starts out stationary & horizontal, just like the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

3. Rifle bullets again, where the dropped bullet starts out horizontal and spinning about its long axis at the same speed that the barrel's rifling imparts on the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

4. Instead of using cannon balls or bullets, use arrows, where the dropped arrow starts out horizontal, just like the shot arrow. Which one lands first?
Why?


tom

I would say for all of them the projectiles and the dropped same objects will land at different times. Some faster, some slower. The projectiles will experience an airflow around the object, depending partially on the nature of the spin, that is chaotic, sometimes pushing up, sometimes down (or pulling up pulling down) The more aerodynamic the projectile, the less net forces on the projectile's vertical path and both (dropped/projectile) times will have a narrower spread.

Depending on the measuring margin of error, some matched paired times will be "the same".

 

[chrismohr]

Chris,

One slight adjustment...



Momentum is mass x velocity, of course. But in this case, it is only the velocity that matters.
___

Now, just for yucks & giggles, a couple of questions that illustrate some of the more subtle aspects of the issue.

1. Using spherical cannon balls, but including air resistance, which one lands first?
Now, the big question: "Why?"

2. Instead of cannon balls, use rifle bullets, where the dropped bullet starts out stationary & horizontal, just like the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

3. Rifle bullets again, where the dropped bullet starts out horizontal and spinning about its long axis at the same speed that the barrel's rifling imparts on the shot bullet. Which one lands first?

4. Instead of using cannon balls or bullets, use arrows, where the dropped arrow starts out horizontal, just like the shot arrow. Which one lands first?
Why?


tom

OK Tom, I'm out of my knowledge base but here goes...

1.) I don't know. I can't figure out if a cannonball has aerodynamic properties that could hold it in the air a little bit (though I doubt it), or how air wraps around a horizontally traveling sphere. It seems like the changed air pressure from the ball flying through the air would affect top and bottom equally. On the other hand, the dropping ball would have more air pressure on the bottom as it pushes straight down on the air, which would seem to be why air slows a fall. I'll guess "the same time."

2.) Without air resistance, even a bullet and a cannonball would fall at the same rate. Two bullets facing air resistance would be different. A bullet definitely has aerodynamic properties and I would guess it is designed to keep going as straight as possible. So I'd guess the fired bullet would land later.

3.) A nice thought exercise: WHY would a bullet spin? Three possibilities: 1) It just comes out that way, no reason. 2) Because the energy of the spinning, as it is released during the bullet's trajectory, somehow gives it more stability or aerodynamic efficiency to keep it traveling in as straight a line as possible 3) to dig deeper into its target. If 2) is the case, then, again, it would be at its maximum aerodynamic advantage traveling at bullet-speed, so I would guess that the dropped spinning bullet would land faster while the speeding bullet would stay more on course and thereby drop later.

4.) Again, an arrow has unmistakable aerodynamic qualities. The feathers are there to stabilize the arrow in flight and creates resistance, thereby slowing it down faster than a bullet would be slowed down. The question is, do the feathers help prop up an arrow like plane wings do? I'm guessing not but I could be wrong. If not, then they'd fall to earth at the same time.

Sheeples, cannonballs don't go into orbit unless there is no atmosphere and they get shot out at 17,000 mph or so. But to compensate for earth's curvature, let's posit that for 20 miles the land starting at the base of the cliff curves upward with the same curvature that the Earth curves down. THEN the frigging cannonballs hit ground at the same time, yes?

These are the kinds of mind exercises I did when first confronting Gage's 9/11 assertions. I would ask: Is this true? What do I know, what guesses do I have? But being an empiricist, I know that mental and logical processes alone can't get me where I want to go. So I would take my various hypotheses to specialists. Often I was right, sometimes wrong. But I NEVER made an assertion in my videos without first checking in with someone who had the base of knowledge I don't have.

TFK are you a science teacher?

 

[chrismohr]

Posted twice, edited out