Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Sunstealer]

Ad hominem

It amazes me, but time and time again truthers will call someone or some organisation liars. The never think that someone can be mistaken. They never think that a typo could have occurred. They never think that something can be misread or miscopied. They will always attribute malice first rather than wonder whether a simple mistake has been made. All truthers seem to do it, they appear to live in a very black and white world. They make mistakes all the time, but they never attribute their own mistakes to lying. Everyone will make mistakes, it's human nature, but truthers seem to require that a lie has taken place and that they are the one's exposing the lie.

Instead of actually asking the NIST in order to receive clarification they refuse to do so in order to keep their belief alive. If there is no clarification they can spout the mantra that xyz lied indefinitely and this allows them to raise the topic again and again and again ad infinitum on whatever internet board they like. Truthers don't want clarification, answers or an end to this, they want to be able to drag it out forever.

 

[000063]

Source?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buckle
http://www.answers.com/topic/buckle
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buckle

Plus, you know, Mohr explicitly saying that's what he meant.

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

And you argue that those are incorrect. What you have never explained is the reasoning that leads you from "NIST said something false" to "NIST deliberately lied".

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.

Poisoning the well.

Simple question; is the east penthouse and the area underneath it part of the building? Because the only way the "entire building" (above the buckled portion, IIRC) could've moved down would be if they are speaking in extremely broad terms. You, by contrast, have been saying the entire upper portion fell down, no qualifiers whatsoever. In fact, you have just claimed that no qualifiers were necessary based on absolutely no logic which you were willing to present.

I also like how you're hiding behind NIST after you claimed that they were lying, and made the claim yourself that the upper portion of the building fell down. I have no problem saying NIST, on that point, may have used inaccurate language. However, they also say in that same report that the East Penthouse had already collapsed. You, by contrast, have been making the claim yourself, using it to mean "the entire upper portion of the building, no qualifiers".

If you have been using it to mean "the entire upper portion of the building except for that which had already collapsed", say so. Don't make mealy-mouthed claims about what NIST meant.

If I prove that NIST was wrong, would you stop making the claim that the entire upper portion fell at free fall as an entire unit?

He is attempting to defame Mr. Gage and he used a false statement in a rebuttal video. I'm calling him on it.

Strange how you deleted my questions asking you whether Mohr's "misleading statements" were the same as lies. Oh well, I'm sure no one will notice your intellectual dishonesty, Sarns.

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."

Except for the fact that it's true. Only one wall was measured. The others were attached to it, but that does not mean they were all falling at free-fall acceleration. In fact, even the North wall doesn't fall all at the same speed.

That's strange, I'm sure I posted more than four paragraphs.

Yep, I did. You're quote-mining even more.

 

[tsig]

Source?

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

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."

So 12" = CD, 11" = official story true?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

I do. Wanna know why?

Because EVERY SINGLE TIME you post this, you FORGET to put the ENTIRE quite there.

The entire building ABOVE the buckled column region, moved downward as a single unit.

Why is it that you INTENTIONALLY leave this out EVERY SINGLE TIME I have seen you post this quote?

WTF? Seriously? It's a lie in my book. You've intentionally quotemined the statement to change it's meaning.

Now, if someone is above something, but it is also to the east or west, is it still above? Or, would a more accurate statement be "Above and to the left/right"?

But you will keep squawking like a petulant child about some nitpick that you want to be so important.

Stop quotemining. It changes the meaning of the sentence.

 

[chrismohr]

A reminder that the NIST quote, if I remember correctly, is "The entire building ABOVE the buckled column region, moved downward as a single unit, as observed."

That's two qualifiers C7 cuts out. Now I'll say it: this is not a terribly clear statement, says the English major. Nor can it be taken as 100% accurate for these reasons:

1) The kink in the roofline proves non 100% moving downward
2) What does "as observed" mean? My guess: "eyeballing the collapse, I observe that it comes down as one unit above the buckled-column region." That implies less precision than falling 100% as one unit.
3) The collapse rate of the roofline of the north face was measured, so we can't say with precision that everything came down at exactly the same speed.
4) There are no videos of the south face collapse, so NIST can't say ANYTHING about the single-unit collapse of that face. So if you want to be insanely precise, NIST's statement is wrong. That last wall may well have partially collapsed along with the east penthouse. We know that once the building collapsed for a short time, it collapsed dramatically into the most-damaged face of the building... a phenomenon that also occurred in both of the Towers.
5) NIST studied the cause of the collapse carefully but was much less careful in the explanation of the collapse itself. Once collapse was inevitable, their analysis was minimal by comparison.

 

[tmd2_1]

A reminder that the NIST quote, if I remember correctly, is "The entire building ABOVE the buckled column region, moved downward as a single unit, as observed."

That's two qualifiers C7 cuts out. Now I'll say it: this is not a terribly clear statement, says the English major. Nor can it be taken as 100% accurate for these reasons:

1) The kink in the roofline proves non 100% moving downward
2) What does "as observed" mean? My guess: "eyeballing the collapse, I observe that it comes down as one unit above the buckled-column region." That implies less precision than falling 100% as one unit.
3) The collapse rate of the roofline of the north face was measured, so we can't say with precision that everything came down at exactly the same speed.
4) There are no videos of the south face collapse, so NIST can't say ANYTHING about the single-unit collapse of that face. So if you want to be insanely precise, NIST's statement is wrong. That last wall may well have partially collapsed along with the east penthouse. We know that once the building collapsed for a short time, it collapsed dramatically into the most-damaged face of the building... a phenomenon that also occurred in both of the Towers.
5) NIST studied the cause of the collapse carefully but was much less careful in the explanation of the collapse itself. Once collapse was inevitable, their analysis was minimal by comparison.

The statement is perfectly clear. You just don't like what it says. Since you seem to know what NIST really means, perhaps you can explain this quote. "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html They didn't really mean that right? If they did really mean what they said (and of course they did) how come you seem to be able to provide full explanations, while NIST admits they can't? Also you being an English major, I'm sure will note that they make no qualifier. As in At this time we are.....Which would indicate they don't plan to ever have a full explanation.

 

[DGM]

The statement is perfectly clear. You just don't like what it says. Since you seem to know what NIST really means, perhaps you can explain this quote. "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html They didn't really mean that right? If they did really mean what they said (and of course they did) how come you seem to be able to provide full explanations, while NIST admits they can't. Also you being an English major, I'm sure will note that they make no qualifier. As in At this time we are.....Which would indicate they don't plan to ever have a full explanation.

What was the date of the final report?

 

[tmd2_1]

What was the date of the final report?

This was a response to the twin towers themselves. If they can't explain fully why the buildings that were actually hit by planes came down, you can be pretty sure they can't explain 7 either.

 

[cjnewson88]

 

[TJM]

perhaps you can explain this quote <snip>

It doesn't contain a lot of big words, so truthers only read that part.

You're welcome.

 

[Clayton Moore]

This was a response to the twin towers themselves. If they can't explain fully why the buildings that were actually hit by planes came down, you can be pretty sure they can't explain 7 either.

http://townhall.com/columnists/john..._scientific_achievements_of_the_last_50_years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries

And the US Government can't figure out how 3 HUGE buildings essentially demolished themselves without explosives.

Yeah sure.

 

[ozeco41]

http://townhall.com/columnists/john..._scientific_achievements_of_the_last_50_years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries

And the US Government can't figure out how 3 HUGE buildings essentially demolished themselves without explosives.

Yeah sure.

Who cares whether your claim about the US Government is correct or not....it isn't.

Any number of engineers - including me - can explain why those buildings collapsed.

They did demolish themselves without explosives. But with a lot of assistance from differing combinations of damage and unfought fires.

Anyone who has been around these issues must be aware of the simple facts.

The real problem you face CM is that you will not accept simple facts.

 

[Christopher7]

A reminder that the NIST quote, if I remember correctly, is "The entire building ABOVE the buckled column region, moved downward as a single unit, as observed."

This is a column filler question that I have answered dozens of times.

The "buckled column region" is SUPPOSITION. It was NOT observed.

Furthermore, that has nothing to do with the point which is: The entire upper part of the building [minus the part that had already fallen inside] came down as a SINGLE UNIT.

1) The kink in the roofline proves non 100% moving downward

??? There's a kink, so what? It's all coming down together at FFA. This is one of the few things NIST and the TM agree on. Why do you try to double talk around it?

2) What does "as observed" mean? My guess: "eyeballing the collapse, I observe that it comes down as one unit above the buckled-column region." That implies less precision than falling 100% as one unit.

It means looking at the videos.

3) The collapse rate of the roofline of the north face was measured, so we can't say with precision that everything came down at exactly the same speed.

Moment frames assure that for the exterior and the interior was tied to the exterior by the floor beams. A steel frame building is essentially one piece. It's all bolted and welded together.

4) There are no videos of the south face collapse, so NIST can't say ANYTHING about the single-unit collapse of that face.

This is another place where you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot grasp the idea that the moment frames are steel belts that go all the way around the building on every floor and make the exterior walls ONE PIECE of grid work.

So if you want to be insanely precise, NIST's statement is wrong.

Correct, if you want to be insanely precise. But that is nitpicking to deny the fact. The upper portion came down as a single unit. This is understood by any reasonable person. The qualifier "except the part that had already fallen inside" is understood by a reasonable person.

That last wall may well have partially collapsed along with the east penthouse.

It could not because of the moment frames.

We know that once the building collapsed for a short time,

at FFA

it collapsed dramatically into the most-damaged face of the building.

when it hit resistance and there was nothing phenomenon about it.

5) NIST studied the cause of the collapse carefully but was much less careful in the explanation of the collapse itself. Once collapse was inevitable, their analysis was minimal by comparison.

The "collapse" was never inevitable. It never began because the fire that supposedly triggered it had burned out over an hour earlier.
Furthermore,
They falsified the data and their model still does not fall at FFA.

You have already said that NIST did not explain the collapse.

 

[000063]

Weird how things are supposition or needless to say depending on whether they would refute or support Chris7's claims. And how he has no problem spending pages quibbling over a few words, but when people point out he's been consistently omitting words it's "nitpicking". If the statement is essentially the same with the omitted words, wouldn't it make sense to quote the whole thing?

??? There's a kink, so what? It's all coming down together at FFA. This is one of the few things NIST and the TM agree on. Why do you try to double talk around it?

You are still asserting this? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are either ignoring the fact that this was impossible or lying.

Correct, if you want to be insanely precise. But that is nitpicking to deny the fact. The upper portion came down as a single unit. This is understood by any reasonable person. The qualifier "except the part that had already fallen inside" is understood by a reasonable person.

No. If there's a qualifier to a statement, it has to be explicitly stated. I've already pointed out that NIST's statement is unclear enough already.

Simple question; is the east penthouse and the area underneath it part of the building? Because the only way the "entire building" (above the buckled portion, IIRC) could've moved down would be if they are speaking in extremely broad terms. You, by contrast, have been saying the entire upper portion fell down, no qualifiers whatsoever. In fact, you have just claimed that no qualifiers were necessary based on absolutely no logic which you were willing to present.

I also like how you're hiding behind NIST after you claimed that they were lying, and made the claim yourself that the upper portion of the building fell down. I have no problem saying NIST, on that point, may have used inaccurate language. However, they also say in that same report that the East Penthouse had already collapsed. You, by contrast, have been making the claim yourself, using it to mean "the entire upper portion of the building, no qualifiers".

If you have been using it to mean "the entire upper portion of the building except for that which had already collapsed", say so. Don't make mealy-mouthed claims about what NIST meant.

If I prove that NIST was wrong, would you stop making the claim that the entire upper portion fell at free fall as an entire unit?

This was a response to the twin towers themselves. If they can't explain fully why the buildings that were actually hit by planes came down, you can be pretty sure they can't explain 7 either.

We can see that you're not answering the question.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Chris7,
I just want to be sure I understand your position. If there is anything I am misstating here please tell me:
1) You have called the NIST Report "fraudulent" and "deceptive." ...
2) Except when it comes to their freefall statement. You assert that NIST's admission of 2.25 seconds of "at freefall" applies not only to the north roofline, which was carefully measured, but also to the entire upper portion of the building, all four sides, 100% of freefall plus or minus about 0.1%. This is because moment frames, those steel belts that go all the way around the building, will hold it together 100% as a single unit without exception even as it is undergoing total collapse after seven hours of unfought fires.
3) As further proof of 100% freefall on all four sides, you again quote the "fraudulent" and "deceptive" NIST Report saying it fell as one unit, as observed. "As observed" to you means watching all the available videos, where, as everyone agrees, we can observe three sides going down at around the same speed. But no, you say that just by eyeballing a video we can assert 100% of freefall on all four sides, including the unobserved side which also had the most damage. In addition, you assert that the NIST Report's claim that the building fell as a single unit, as observed, includes the unobserved wall, and that NIST has therefore proven by this single line that the unobserved wall was observed to have fallen at 100% of freefall.
4) If I say that maybe the other walls (whose rate of descent was unmeasured) may have been going slightly slower or faster, or that the kink shows that even parts of the roofline of the north face were going down at ever so slightly varying rates, you say I'm wrong to even consider this.
5) Moment frames and the one-piece explanation of Building 7's construction means that this single-unit welded-together frame where everything is attached will be unaffected when major parts of the interior undergo catastrophic collapse. This, plus the statement by the otherwise-fraudulent NIST, are proof that all four perimeter walls fell at 100% of freefall, with no stresses or resistance or torquing happening anywhere around the building perimeter during those 2.25 seconds to cause the slightest variation in freefall on any of the four perimeter walls.

Finally, you say, "The "collapse" was never inevitable. It never began because the fire that supposedly triggered it had burned out over an hour earlier. Furthermore, They falsified the data and their model still does not fall at FFA. You have already said that NIST did not explain the collapse."

If I remember correctly, I said that NIST's explanations of the collapses were minimal by comparison to their study of what happened up to collapse inevitability.
So let me be sure I understand. You say the collapse never began? Uh, the building collapsed, as observed. I saw it on a video. And I could have sworn that their revised calculations show freefall collapse. You know, the freefall line and all that? Or are you saying that they added the graph showing freefall but didn't make any other changes? I literally don't know what you are talking about in your last paragraph.

 

[000063]

...
Finally, you say, "The "collapse" was never inevitable. It never began because the fire that supposedly triggered it had burned out over an hour earlier. Furthermore, They falsified the data and their model still does not fall at FFA. You have already said that NIST did not explain the collapse."...

I really do have to marvel at this. If I break my leg and it heals, then several years later it rebreaks along the fault line because it was weakened, does that mean it was never damaged in the first place? Sarns seems to be asserting that because the relevant column may not have been on or near fire when it snapped, the fire could not have caused it to snap.

 

[tsig]

This is a column filler question that I have answered dozens of times.

The "buckled column region" is SUPPOSITION. It was NOT observed.

Furthermore, that has nothing to do with the point which is: The entire upper part of the building [minus the part that had already fallen inside] came down as a SINGLE UNIT.

??? There's a kink, so what? It's all coming down together at FFA. This is one of the few things NIST and the TM agree on. Why do you try to double talk around it?

It means looking at the videos.

Moment frames assure that for the exterior and the interior was tied to the exterior by the floor beams. A steel frame building is essentially one piece. It's all bolted and welded together.

This is another place where you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot grasp the idea that the moment frames are steel belts that go all the way around the building on every floor and make the exterior walls ONE PIECE of grid work.
Correct, if you want to be insanely precise. But that is nitpicking to deny the fact. The upper portion came down as a single unit. This is understood by any reasonable person. The qualifier "except the part that had already fallen inside" is understood by a reasonable person.

It could not because of the moment frames.

at FFA when it hit resistance and there was nothing phenomenon about it.

The "collapse" was never inevitable. It never began because the fire that supposedly triggered it had burned out over an hour earlier.
Furthermore,
They falsified the data and their model still does not fall at FFA.

You have already said that NIST did not explain the collapse.

Do you know what moment frames are?

 

[Christopher7]

Hi Chris7,
I just want to be sure I understand your position. If there is anything I am misstating here please tell me:
1) You have called the NIST Report "fraudulent" and "deceptive." ...

Correct

2) Except when it comes to their freefall statement.

There are things that NIST said that can be confirmed. FFA is one of them

You assert that NIST's admission of 2.25 seconds of "at freefall" applies not only to the north roofline, which was carefully measured, but also to the entire upper portion of the building

Correct. I don't bother to include the caveat "except for the part that had already fallen inside" and neither does NIST, because it is isn't necessary and just makes for a cumbersome sentence.

all four sides, 100% of freefall plus or minus about 0.1%.

Incorrect. The plus or minus 0.1% is within the expected range of error when taking measurements from a video.

This is because moment frames, those steel belts that go all the way around the building, will hold it together 100% as a single unit without exception even as it is undergoing total collapse after seven hours of unfought fires.

Correct. The fires did not damage the exterior frame.

As further proof of 100% freefall on all four sides, you again quote the "fraudulent" and "deceptive" NIST Report saying it fell as one unit, as observed. "As observed" to you means watching all the available videos, where, as everyone agrees, we can observe three sides going down at around the same speed.

Correct. That can be independently verified.

But no, you say that just by eyeballing a video we can assert 100% of freefall on all four sides, including the unobserved side which also had the most damage.

We can see most of the building is falling as a single unit and know that the south exterior wall was falling at the same acceleration the north and east and west exterior walls because of the moment frames.

you assert that the NIST Report's claim that the building fell as a single unit, as observed, includes the unobserved wall, and that NIST has therefore proven by this single line that the unobserved wall was observed to have fallen at 100% of freefall.

NIST saying it does not prove it but NIST knows that the moment frames make the exterior walls a single continuous grid work.

If I say that maybe the other walls (whose rate of descent was unmeasured) may have been going slightly slower or faster

That might be possible for the first split second but once everything was in motion, no.

or that the kink shows that even parts of the roofline of the north face were going down at ever so slightly varying rates, you say I'm wrong to even consider this.

The kink in the roof line is the north wall moving inward. Note that there is no kink in the videos taken at eye level. The east end is slightly ahead of the west end but remains the same thru the FFA. The clip at 1:11 of this video is the best example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUIEA7bi4_g&feature=player_embedded

Moment frames and the one-piece explanation of Building 7's construction means that this single-unit welded-together frame where everything is attached will be unaffected when major parts of the interior undergo catastrophic collapse.

Not unaffected but not torn apart.

This, plus the statement by the otherwise-fraudulent NIST, are proof that all four perimeter walls fell at 100% of freefall, with no stresses or resistance or torquing happening anywhere around the building perimeter during those 2.25 seconds to cause the slightest variation in freefall on any of the four perimeter walls.

There were stresses for that split second when the interior columns started down before the exterior walls but once everything was in motion there was no stress within the system.

Finally, you say, "The "collapse" was never inevitable. It never began because the fire that supposedly triggered it had burned out over an hour earlier.

Correct

Furthermore, They falsified the data and their model still does not fall at FFA.

Correct

You have already said that NIST did not explain the collapse."

If I remember correctly, I said that NIST's explanations of the collapses were minimal by comparison to their study of what happened up to collapse inevitability.

Here is what you said:

The NIST Theory does not explain how Building 7 collapsed, says Chris7.
He's right.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8114716&postcount=3680

So let me be sure I understand. You say the collapse never began

the way NIST proposes it began.

Uh, the building collapsed, as observed. I saw it on a video.

And I could have sworn that their revised calculations show freefall collapse. You know, the freefall line and all that? Or are you saying that they added the graph showing freefall but didn't make any other changes?

Correct. In the draft report NIST said that the building fell at 40% greater than a free fall time. Shyam Sunder explained that a free fall time means an object that has NO structure components below it but there was resistance in this case. i.e. their computer model.
In the final report they admitted FFA but ignored the fact that their model did not fall at FFA because there were structural components that provided resistance.

 

[Christopher7]

Do you know what moment frames are?

http://www.propertyrisk.com/refcentr/steel-side.htm

 

[pgimeno]

In the final report they admitted FFA but ignored the fact that their model did not fall at FFA because there were structural components that provided resistance.

Provided resistance as modeled by them. Remember that in their model they had to make some concessions for speed and convergence. Remember that the fact their model provided resistance doesn't mean the real building would in the same circumstances. Remember the crane failure video.