Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

You know, Chris7, for a little while there you got away with lying to me about what I said in my own video. I'm pretty angry at myself and you for letting you get away with a lie about what you call my ignorance.

A lie is saying something that one knows is false. Where did I do that?

You said, among other things,

"A stick [or 2x4] breaks loosing all its strength suddenly. As a carpenter I have experience with this. On the other hand, a steel H beam [a more accurate term than I beam] does not break or loose almost all its strength suddenly like a piece of wood and the comparison does show a lack of understanding of the physical properties of both."

First of all, your statement is wrong wrong wrong, because in both a broken piece of wood and a buckling column, there is a near-instantaneous loss of support,

You have NO data to support that claim so please stop making definitive statements when you don't know what you are talking about.

I now have the formula for determining the resistance of a buckling H beam and I will post the results of a W14x500 when I do the calculations and check them with a structural engineer.

as has now been pointed out to you many times (keyword Euler). I don't know how you can be proven wrong over and over again about subject after subject and have the gall to call me ignorant!

When making a claim you must give the actual source and quote, not a name for someone to go research to find the relevant quote.

And in my video 18 (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?video_id=2MER5PhIDt0&ns=1&feature=mhsn), after using the "stick" analogy to demonstrate how columns could bend very slowly and then collapse very quickly, I actually said, "Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength." This was an acknowledgement that my stick analogy was just that, an analogy. I just now clarified this further in my video just to make all this even more painfully clear (and unnecessarily clear, except to you and other nitpickers).

Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.

The whole Euler discussion was an expansion of my knowledge base, but I knew from the start that there is a difference between a clean break and buckling... BUT that both cause a sudden and drastic termination of structural support. AND I SAID THAT!!!

Again, you must give the actual quote and its relevance to the WTC 7 exterior columns.

I also know (and you deny) that buckling Building 7 columns were shifting their loads at almost the speed of sound as they buckled

False. I acknowledged that the loads may transfer at almost the speed of sound but the columns would not buckle at the speed of sound.

and that as a result, the first couple seconds of the collapse went down way slower

I noticed when looking at the NIST graph that they added 0.5 seconds to the actual time. The first dot at 0.5 seconds is ON the line with a little more above the line than below. This is the first barely detectable movement and that is where the time should start.
Furthermore, NIST used a camera on the ground. Their method would record any inward movement as a downward movement so their Stage 1 is 1.25 seconds or less.

as some of the supporting columns were not all fully buckled and others were bending but not yet buckling. You have no explanation for the slower-than-freefall beginning of the outer perimeter collapse.

A slower than free fall decent means that columns were bending and possibly buckling.

Thermate would not cause way-slower-than-freefall collapse initiation followed by a couple seconds of freefall, nor would it bring down the east penthouse first. I can explain stage one of the perimeter collapse, you can't.

Now you are talking thru your hat. You know little or nothing about the various forms of thermite, thermate and nano-thermite or how they could be used in a controlled demolition.

 

[beachnut]

... Now you are talking thru your hat. You know little or nothing about the various forms of thermite, thermate and nano-thermite or how they could be used in a controlled demolition.

And you know less about themite, or you would explain how it is used in controlled demolition. But you can't, you can't do the math, you can't do the chemistry. No numbers for the amount needed to do 911, zero effort to explain the amount of heat the office fires had, or how much thermite would be required to equal the heat of the office fires.

Why does 911 truth avoid the numbers?
Wait, here they are! Numbers... and insanity.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

The jet fuel had the heat energy of 315 tons of thermite, in each tower. NIST says that is insignificant, so to speak, compared to the office fires. Means your thermite fantasy is nuts. Gage does not do the numbers, why would you?

 

[tsig]

A lie is saying something that one knows is false. Where did I do that?
You have NO data to support that claim so please stop making definitive statements when you don't know what you are talking about.
I now have the formula for determining the resistance of a buckling H beam and I will post the results of a W14x500 when I do the calculations and check them with a structural engineer.

When making a claim you must give the actual source and quote, not a name for someone to go research to find the relevant quote.

Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.

Again, you must give the actual quote and its relevance to the WTC 7 exterior columns.

False. I acknowledged that the loads may transfer at almost the speed of sound but the columns would not buckle at the speed of sound.

I noticed when looking at the NIST graph that they added 0.5 seconds to the actual time. The first dot at 0.5 seconds is ON the line with a little more above the line than below. This is the first barely detectable movement and that is where the time should start.
Furthermore, NIST used a camera on the ground. Their method would record any inward movement as a downward movement so their Stage 1 is 1.25 seconds or less.

A slower than free fall decent means that columns were bending and possibly buckling.

Now you are talking thru your hat. You know little or nothing about the various forms of thermite, thermate and nano-thermite or how they could be used in a controlled demolition.

There.

 

[chrismohr]

A lie is saying something that one knows is false. Where did I do that?

You have NO data to support that claim so please stop making definitive statements when you don't know what you are talking about.

I now have the formula for determining the resistance of a buckling H beam and I will post the results of a W14x500 when I do the calculations and check them with a structural engineer.

When making a claim you must give the actual source and quote, not a name for someone to go research to find the relevant quote.

Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.

Again, you must give the actual quote and its relevance to the WTC 7 exterior columns.

False. I acknowledged that the loads may transfer at almost the speed of sound but the columns would not buckle at the speed of sound.

I noticed when looking at the NIST graph that they added 0.5 seconds to the actual time. The first dot at 0.5 seconds is ON the line with a little more above the line than below. This is the first barely detectable movement and that is where the time should start.
Furthermore, NIST used a camera on the ground. Their method would record any inward movement as a downward movement so their Stage 1 is 1.25 seconds or less.

A slower than free fall decent means that columns were bending and possibly buckling.

Now you are talking thru your hat. You know little or nothing about the various forms of thermite, thermate and nano-thermite or how they could be used in a controlled demolition.

This is where I believe you lied about me, as I said in a recent post: "And in my video 18 (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edi...1&feature=mhsn), after using the "stick" analogy to demonstrate how columns could bend very slowly and then collapse very quickly, I actually said, "Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength." This was an acknowledgement that my stick analogy was just that, an analogy."

I know you are a very careful nitpicker, looking for tiny details in the NIST Report, RJ Lee and other sources. It's been useful to me sometimes, because I am not as strong with details as you are and you are very quick to catch any mistakes I make. So I don't think it's an accident, I don't think you just accidentally missed the caveat I had right there in my video.

Maybe this time you didn't catch my caveat. I doubt it. You find minor flaws or statements out-of-context very quickly, and then assume either complete ignorance or willful lying in the people whose work you are nitpicking.

When it comes to me, you repeatedly accuse me of abysmal ignorance, avoiding the truth, etc., when in truth you are at most catching a minor mistake or taking what I say out of context. In this case, I believe you crossed the line and actually lied about me. You're too good at picking through details for me to believe this is accidental, Chris7. And I notice you didn't deny you were lying about me... you just demanded proof from ME. Were you really being truthful about me in the case of video 18 when youj accused me of being ignorant of the difference between a broken stick and a metal beam?

 

[chrismohr]

Ground Zero Museum Workshop

Hi all,

A brief visit to New York this weekend, where my wife and I soaked in a lot of opera but also spent a couple hours honoring the dead at the Ground Zero Museum Workshop. It features the photo collection (with some artifacts) of Gary Marion Suson, who for awhile was the only photographer to have access to Ground Zero. His tribute to the firefighters and other first responders brought me to tears. Yeah, I get all huffy and insulted by Chris7 and others, but nothing we say or do can come close to comparing to the grief of the families who lost loved ones, the heroism of the first responders, the emotional and physical exhaustion of those who were working day and night combing through the debris, etc.

I think about how truckloads of dirt and debris were brought up, and how first responders picked through every inch of it looking for human remains. I was blown away by the dogs, who would get depressed because they couldn't find people... so first responders would bury themselves under a few inches of dirt and let the dogs "find" them and get rewarded so they could carry on with their work... The look of exhaustion and numbness on the faces of some of the people who carried on day after day...

I am not much of a hero worshipper but the firefighters are my heroes. I ran into one at the St Patrick's Day parade and asked if I could shake his hand and just thank him for everything he did.

 

[Christopher7]

This is where I believe you lied about me, as I said in a recent post: "And in my video 18 (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edi...1&feature=mhsn), after using the "stick" analogy to demonstrate how columns could bend very slowly and then collapse very quickly, I actually said, "Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength." This was an acknowledgement that my stick analogy was just that, an analogy."

I have already responded to that:

A lie is saying something that one knows is false. Where did I do that?

My response to what you just repeated:

Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.

That is my opinion, not a lie. You have NO data to back up that analogy and it is inappropriate to use baseless comparisons to make a point in a rebuttal video.

I know you are a very careful nitpicker, looking for tiny details in the NIST Report, RJ Lee and other sources.

Nitpicking is arguing semantics or an irrelevant point. Pointing out a specific misstatement or misleading statement is not nitpicking. How else can one point out flaws but by pointing them out one at a time?

When it comes to me, you repeatedly accuse me of abysmal ignorance, avoiding the truth, etc., when in truth you are at most catching a minor mistake or taking what I say out of context.

I posted a statement that "ignorant" means "not knowing something" and we are all ignorant because none of us knows everything. The problem is that you made a video supposedly rebutting someone but made false and misleading statements due to your not knowing what you are talking about sometimes.

 

[Christopher7]

Hi all,

A brief visit to New York this weekend, where my wife and I soaked in a lot of opera but also spent a couple hours honoring the dead at the Ground Zero Museum Workshop. It features the photo collection (with some artifacts) of Gary Marion Suson, who for awhile was the only photographer to have access to Ground Zero. His tribute to the firefighters and other first responders brought me to tears. Yeah, I get all huffy and insulted by Chris7 and others, but nothing we say or do can come close to comparing to the grief of the families who lost loved ones, the heroism of the first responders, the emotional and physical exhaustion of those who were working day and night combing through the debris, etc.

Some family members support AE911Truth. Most notably the Jersey Girls, who forced Bush to investigate 9/11. They were not satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report. 70% of their questions were not answered.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...jersey-girlsq-support-ae911truth-efforts.html

Start at 12:12 to 12:40 and 13:23 to 13:50 of this video for 4 more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Some family members do not support AE911Truth and there is no way to know how many have an opinion one way or the other.

 

[000063]

I have already responded to that:


My response to what you just repeated:
That is my opinion, not a lie. You have NO data to back up that analogy and it is inappropriate to use baseless comparisons to make a point in a rebuttal video.

"You lied" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. If you're backpedalling now--and you are--to say it was "only" an opinion, that means you don't have any evidence to support the claim, especially when Mohr specifically explained the comparison in context.

Are you saying the comparison to a stick in the manner he mentioned ("Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength.") is invalid? No, of course you're not.

Nitpicking is arguing semantics or an irrelevant point. Pointing out a specific misstatement or misleading statement is not nitpicking. How else can one point out flaws but by pointing them out one at a time?

Is a "misleading statement" the same as a lie, Chris7?

I posted a statement that "ignorant" means "not knowing something" and we are all ignorant because none of us knows everything.

Yet you seem perfectly willing to say things like "NIST lied" without evidence.

The problem is that you made a video supposedly rebutting someone but made false and misleading statements due to your not knowing what you are talking about sometimes.

There were other statements besides you making salt water over a comparison to a stick which you took out of context?

I also like how you are very specifically avoiding stating things like whether you were aware of the context, and quote-mining.

It's been useful to me sometimes, because I am not as strong with details as you are and you are very quick to catch any mistakes I make. So I don't think it's an accident, I don't think you just accidentally missed the caveat I had right there in my video.

Maybe this time you didn't catch my caveat. I doubt it. You find minor flaws or statements out-of-context very quickly, and then assume either complete ignorance or willful lying in the people whose work you are nitpicking.

Why did you delete that from your response, Christopher7?

 

[chrismohr]

Picture of firefighter on St Patty's Day

Here's a picture of an FDNY guy and his family getting ready for the St Patrick's Day parade in New York last Saturday. Sorry I'm being just a little sentimental here, but I wanted to share this. Great guy.

 

[Christopher7]

"You lied" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. If you're backpedalling now--and you are--to say it was "only" an opinion, that means you don't have any evidence to support the claim, especially when Mohr specifically explained the comparison in context.

You have it backward. My opinion cannot be a lie because it is, by definition, my view.

Chris did not lie when he compared a steel column to a stick because he believes that is a reasonable comparison.

Are you saying the comparison to a stick in the manner he mentioned ("Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength.") is invalid? No, of course you're not.

Yes I am. Chris is expressing his opinion but he does not have any evidence or data to back it up.

Yet you seem perfectly willing to say things like "NIST lied" without evidence.

Incorrect. I present the evidence when I say they are lying.

The problem is that you made a video supposedly rebutting someone but made false and misleading statements due to your not knowing what you are talking about sometimes.

There were other statements besides you making salt water over a comparison to a stick ... ?

Yes. There are many. At 0:26 Chris says "So lets finally investigate one of Richard's central claims, that the free fall collapse of part of the north face of building 7 is the silver bullet ..."

That is a misrepresentation of Mr. Gage's position.

Chris does then give Richard Gage's position, but after he has inserted his version of what was in free fall.

"My opponent must resolve the symmetrical free fall collapse of building 7 or the debate is over."


Chris tries to obfuscate the significance of the free fall acceleration of the entire upper portion of WTC 7 by comparing the 8 stories of FFA to the total number of floors that collapsed including the trade towers which are irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 7.

He states that "only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration." He knows that is not true. We can see the north and west faces falling along with the screenwall and west penthouse which tells us that the majority of the interior falling is with them.

At 1:07 Chris says "Three buildings collapsed on 9/11. Each of the ten towers was 110 stories high ... Building 7 was 47 stories high and only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration. So out of the total of 267 floors collapsing, and 1 face of 8 of those floors coming down at free fall, engineers I've talked to say this is insignificant.

which you took out of context
I also like how you are very specifically avoiding stating things like whether you were aware of the context, and quote-mining.
Why did you delete that from your response, Christopher7?

I have already responded to that.

Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.

 

[NoahFence]

When in doubt, assasinate the character of an innocent person.


Truther tactic #17.

 

[Sabretooth]

Some family members support AE911Truth. Most notably the Jersey Girls, who forced Bush to investigate 9/11. They were not satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report. 70% of their questions were not answered.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...jersey-girlsq-support-ae911truth-efforts.html

Start at 12:12 to 12:40 and 13:23 to 13:50 of this video for 4 more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Some family members do not support AE911Truth and there is no way to know how many have an opinion one way or the other.

BFD.

Among the "Jersey Girls" questions:

- "Why had the U.S. military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?"
- "Why was there a lack of immediate response by the president and his secret service detail?"
- "Why did the buildings fall?"

So, a select few people who had trouble comprehending the 911CR and NCSTAR asked to have another investigation.

Color me surprised.

And WTF does this have to do with the post Chris made?

 

[Clayton Moore]

The speed with which the three buildings fell makes the Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube at most a fabrication of illusion and half truths. For some nefarious reason Mohr stands virtually alone sans any professional pilot, engineer, architect, etc., groups to rally against the obvious truth of 9/11. His latest tactic is heart string pulling.

I wonder how many innocent Americans in the proximity of NYC have died or are dying despite the EPA's all clear before dust had even settled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076626...t/anger-builds-over-epas-report/#.T2nxYtmwWC8

However, a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.

‘We were all lied to’
The EPA presented “an overriding message that there was no significant threat to human health” even though there was cause for caution, it concluded.

“When EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was ‘safe’ to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement,” said the OIG, adding that the agency was missing data on other pollutants, such as particulates and chemicals like PCBs. In addition, 25 percent of dust samples contained asbestos, a potent carcinogen.

Asked about why people are still suffering ill effects, Horinko said she can understand that rescue workers would still be affected but finds residents’ continued complaints to be “mystifying.”

Court Again Clears EPA in 9/11 Toxic Dust Ruling
"Legal remedies are not always available"


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that the EPA and former head Christine Todd Whitman cannot be held accountable for illnesses resulting from hazardous dust and debris from the three buildings destroyed on 9/11, despite the fact that the agency knowingly gave misleading information to residents and workers in the aftermath.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Whitman's comments reassuring people about the safety around the site apparently were based on conflicting information and reassurances by the White House, reports the AP.

Isn't the above how the USSR treated its citizens after Chernobyl?

What happened to our Woodwards and Bernsteins?

 

[000063]

You have it backward. My opinion cannot be a lie because it is, by definition, my view.

English is your first language, right? Because I really don't see how you could miss my point so badly.

Chris did not lie when he compared a steel column to a stick because he believes that is a reasonable comparison.

Yes I am. Chris is expressing his opinion but he does not have any evidence or data to back it up.

Gainsaying the claim of another is not the same as saying or proving said claim is incorrect. Mohr specifically described the basis by which he compared the buckling of a column to the snapping of a stick. Does a column buckling mean there is "a sudden release and loss of strength."? Yes. Does a stick snapping mean there is "a sudden release and loss of strength."? Yes. His comparison was valid.

You also cut out me asking you if a "misleading statement", which you have claimed/implied Mohr made, is the same as a lie. Odd.

The problem is that you made a video supposedly rebutting someone but made false and misleading statements due to your not knowing what you are talking about sometimes.

Incorrect. I present the evidence when I say they are lying.

No you haven't. People have asked you how, assuming that the point you were harping on about is incorrect, NIST could not simply have made a mistake. You keep talking about how it is "clearly" or "obviously" a mistake. I'm not sure you've ever acknowledged the possibility it was an honest error, even if only to dismiss it.

Yes. There are many. [insert examples]

Well, all right, those are certainly other claims.

...Chris tries to obfuscate the significance of the free fall acceleration of the entire upper portion of WTC 7 by comparing the 8 stories of FFA to the total number of floors that collapsed including the trade towers which are irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 7....

No. That did not happen. It is physically impossible for the "entire upper portion to collapse" since the E. Penthouse had already collapsed, as even the sources you have cited show. It's like someone getting their arm cut off, and then staggering around for a few minutes until they bleed out and collapse, and then saying their entire body hit the ground at once, under a very specific definition of "entire body" which excludes the severed arm.

...He states that "only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration." He knows that is not true....

So he made a claim which you think he knows was false. That's the definition of a lie. You are claiming Mohr lied, not merely made an incorrect claim. You are making a claim of fact, not of opinion.

The funny thing is that Mohr is correct. The upper portion of the building did not fall all at once except under a very loose definition of such.

I have already responded to that.

Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.

See? You deliberately and explicitly said he was attempting to convince viewers of something that was false, yet you are now claiming you were only referring to an "error" or an "opinion" or whatever word from the dictionary you choose to rewrite this week.

Plus the careful removal of the question of whether a "misleading statement" is the same as a lie.

 

[LSSBB]

Incorrect. I present the evidence when I say they are lying.

You are lying right here. You do not have evidence they were lying, only evidence of a possible discrepancy. The "lying" part is your conjecture.

 

[000063]

...
Isn't the above how the USSR treated its citizens after Chernobyl?

No.

What happened to our Woodwards and Bernsteins?

That requires some actual wrongdoing.

 

[Christopher7]

Does a column buckling mean there is "a sudden release and loss of strength."? Yes.

Source?

No you haven't. People have asked you how, assuming that the point you were harping on about is incorrect, NIST could not simply have made a mistake. You keep talking about how it is "clearly" or "obviously" a mistake. I'm not sure you've ever acknowledged the possibility it was an honest error, even if only to dismiss it.

The plans said 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches.

No. That did not happen. It is physically impossible for the "entire upper portion to collapse" since the E. Penthouse had already collapsed,

Please, you are playing with semantics.
NIST said "the entire building ... moved downward as a single unit".
It is not necessary to include the caveat "except for the east penthouse that had already collapsed". If you have a problem with that that then YOU have a problem. A reasonable person does not have a problem with that statement.

So he made a claim which you think he knows was false. That's the definition of a lie. You are claiming Mohr lied, not merely made an incorrect claim. You are making a claim of fact, not of opinion.

He is attempting to defame Mr. Gage and he used a false statement in a rebuttal video. I'm calling him on it. He has seen the video showing the north and west sides and the screenwall/west penthouse all falling together. There is no excuse for him to say "only one perimeter wall of eight of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration."

 

[Christopher7]

You are lying right here. You do not have evidence they were lying, only evidence of a possible discrepancy. The "lying" part is your conjecture.

You are so fanatically loyal to the government and their agency NIST, you can't admit that this is a lie:
"The plans say 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches."

 

[LSSBB]

The plans said 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches.

And....? Lets see, here is proof of lying:

Scientist A is on tape saying to Scientist B: "It won't work at 12 inches. We have to make it 11" and hope no one notices."

Engineer A sends an email to Engineer B: "Change it to 11 inches to make it work."

Manager A's fingerprints found on note directing change in measurements.

Testimony from employee A (with other corroboration): "Yes, it was 12" and that didn't work so Dick Cheney and Mr. Silverstein told me I had to make it 11"

Here is not proof of lying:

Says 12" here. Says 11" there.

Why? The above statement could have been a mistake. It could have been taken from a shop fabrication drawing. It could have been the as built.

What is your remedy? Go to NIST and ask for their response.

 

[LSSBB]

You are so fanatically loyal to the government and their agency NIST, you can't admit that this is a lie:
"The plans say 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches."

Ad hominem