Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

That's because you did not read the final report.

000063 responding the MM:
You both should read the NIST report. They interviewed firefighters and studied the photos and videos. There was no inferno, just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors.

The fires on floors 19,21, 29 and 30 at the SW corner had burned out by 1 p.m. the only fire on the south side after that was floor 12. The fire on floor 8 was not seen until after 3 p.m. and the fire on floor 9 was first seen at about 4 p.m.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

[qimg]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2303/353402.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, we know. You keep asserting that the fires had burned out, therefore they could not have caused 7's collapse. This is illogical, prima facie, because the fires don't have to actively be heating the steel in order to have weakened it enough to fail, anymore than someone needs to actively have bullets entering their body to bleed out from a gunshot wound.

I like how you just dismiss all the evidence of fires being throughout the building with "NIST says-" As others have observed, what you think NIST says and what it actually says aren't always the same. I myself have observed that these are the same people you insist were actively lying about certain things--and you've never explained why they could not be wrong, other than insisting that it's "obvious"--yet you are perfectly willing to say they're right when you think they support your case.

The ironic thing is that your picture clearly shows smoke streaming out of the upper floors in the shot.

Say, ready to say whether a "misleading statement = lie" yet?

 

[OCaptain]

You have not read the report either.
NCSTAR 1A pg 52 [pdf pg 94]
There was no evidence that the fires spread from floor to floor, except, perhaps, just prior to the collapse of the building.

So, the answer is no.

 

[tfk]

In all of these cases, "the fires that can be seen adjacent to windows" != "all the fires that exist in the building".

Talking to Chris7 about any of these issues is, uh, ... well, Omar al-Farouq said it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0&t=2m15s



tk

 

[NoahFence]

Even more ironic is that it shows smoke billowing out of the majority of the windows, and you can see the smoke streams near the windows. That photograph does nothing to support his position.

Not only does it do nothing to support it, but it completely destroys his position.
Hell, we don't have to do anything to debunk them. They do it to themselves!

 

[slowsmile]

Not only does it do nothing to support it, but it completely destroys his position.
Hell, we don't have to do anything to debunk them. They do it to themselves!

I do love how he uses narrative from the position at around 11am (the page 118 stuff) to go with a photo taken about 5 hours later.

What is there in the middle of a truthers brain that separates what they can see, read and hear from what they type? A whole mess of stupid?

 

[Christopher7]

The section you quote here is concerning smoke obscuration and it's effect on imagery, and not the extent of the fires in the building.

I am well aware of what the statement refers to. There were no fires on the upper floors [above floor 30] at any time.

I used Chris7's little spat with me as an opportunity to to look more carefully at your two videos. In the first, not only is smoke obviously pouring straight out from windows on most floors

If Chris Mohr had read the report he would know that was smoke being pulled into a low pressure area. If the corner offices were on fire, the windows on the west side would have broken like the ones on the floors that did have fires [19, 22, 29 and 30]. The only fire reported on the south side after 1 p.m. was in floor 12.

I'm just bad at learning things that aren't true.

Actually, you are very good at learning things that are not true.


No need to post fire quotes. I have read them all many times. I know where and when the fires occurred. They were normal office fires and they did not spread from floor to floor as in the Meridian Plaza.

The fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45, leaving fires on 5 floors and some of those were dying down.

 

[Christopher7]

Even more ironic is that it shows smoke billowing out of the majority of the windows, and you can see the smoke streams near the windows. That photograph does nothing to support his position.

That is a NIST photo and quote. The only floors on fire in that photo are 8 and 13. If you were to take the time to study all the photos you would know that. The smoke is being drawn up the side because the breeze from the SW created a low pressure area just like the opposite corner. There's a photo of the same thing happening to the north tower just after the south tower collapsed.

NoahFence: [SNIP] if you take the time to read the report you will learn that there were no fires above the 13th floor at the NE corner of the building.

Edited by kmortis : 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, we know. You keep asserting that the fires had burned out, therefore they could not have caused 7's collapse. This is illogical, prima facie, because the fires don't have to actively be heating the steel in order to have weakened it enough to fail, anymore than someone needs to actively have bullets entering their body to bleed out from a gunshot wound.

The NIST theory is that the victim died of the gunshot wound [thermal expansion] within about 22 seconds. The victim did not bleed out an hour and a half later.

I like how you just dismiss all the evidence of fires being throughout the building with "NIST says-" As others have observed, what you think NIST says and what it actually says aren't always the same.

I studied the fire progression the same way NIST did, I looked at all the photos and videos. I agree with their analysis of when and where the fires were except for the fire on floor 12. They have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m., so the one supposedly showing the west end of floor 12 on fire at 5 p.m., based on shadows, is incorrect as to the time.

 

[GlennB]

I am well aware of what the statement refers to. There were no fires on the upper floors [above floor 30] at any time.

We don't know that. What we know is that according to the standards of evidence applied by NIST (visible flames at windows, smoke issuing from broken windows etc, standards with which you are very familiar) there is no visual evidence of fire above floor 30. And they proceeded on that basis.

But - if you're happy to accept those standards then you must also accept that there is no evidence of the flashes and explosions that are necessary to "simultaneously remove all vertical support over several floors". i.e. by accepting NIST regarding the extent of fires you must also abandon your pet theory.

Consistency can be such a bitch, eh Chris? Ah wait ... you wouldn't know. You've never tried it.

 

[Christopher7]

We don't know that. What we know is that according to the standards of evidence applied by NIST (visible flames at windows, smoke issuing from broken windows etc, standards with which you are very familiar) there is no visual evidence of fire above floor 30. And they proceeded on that basis.

But - if you're happy to accept those standards then you must also accept that there is no evidence of the flashes and explosions that are necessary to "simultaneously remove all vertical support over several floors". i.e. by accepting NIST regarding the extent of fires you must also abandon your pet theory.

No

There was a smoke screen covering the bottom floors in the videos.
You don't know what can be done with nano-thermite.
But that is a treadmill because you will argue ad nauseam about it.

You are subject shifting away from the fact that the NIST report does NOT explain the collapse.

And that Chris Mohr still thinks that there was fire on nearly every floor at the SW corner of WTC 7.

 

[GlennB]

You don't know what can be done with nano-thermite.

Lol. So you put your trust in something you know precisely zero about, and about which there is no evidence, and that's OK. Understood.

 

[000063]

The NIST theory is that the victim died of the gunshot wound [thermal expansion] within about 22 seconds. The victim did not bleed out an hour and a half later.

Chapter and verse, Sarns.

I studied the fire progression the same way NIST did,

Unlikely, seeing as you're a carpenter, not an engineer or a government agency.

I looked at all the photos and videos.

I am fairly certain they did more than that.

I agree with their analysis of when and where the fires were except for the fire on floor 12. They have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m., so the one supposedly showing the west end of floor 12 on fire at 5 p.m., based on shadows, is incorrect as to the time.

Wait, what image? Where is it? How do the shadows prove the time?

You seem to have cut out certain portions of my post, including the question of whether a "misleading statement = lie", me pointing out smoke is coming out of the windows, and that you have actively claimed that NIST is lying (with no evidence) on multiple occasions, but suddenly when they support you they're holy writ.

 

[slowsmile]

That is a NIST photo and quote. The only floors on fire in that photo are 8 and 13. If you were to take the time to study all the photos you would know that. The smoke is being drawn up the side because the breeze from the SW created a low pressure area just like the opposite corner. There's a photo of the same thing happening to the north tower just after the south tower collapsed.

The wind / breeze on 9/11 was from the north - which is why all the smoke is blown south in every photo / video you see - so no "low pressure" area on the east side - the proximity of the Post Office building to the east would more likely act as a funnel.

 

[LSSBB]

Lol. So you put your trust in something you know precisely zero about, and about which there is no evidence, and that's OK. Understood.

I think C7 is trying to shift the burden of proof here.

 

[chrismohr]

Major fires in Building 7? What will NIST say?

Here is a letter I just emailed off to Michael Newman at NIST, along with a couple of the photos recently posted in this thread. I'm sick of Chris7 and Richard Gage quoting NIST on this and using these quotes to assert light fires in Building 7. Let's see what NIST says about whether they considered the fires "scattered" or "major":

Hi Michael,

I do have another 9/11 question, this time about the fires in Building 7. As you may know, there is still debate going on about the severity of the fires in that building. Several 9/11 Truth people, including Richard Gage whom I debated, believe the fires were relatively small and had burned out well before the collapse. They also say that much of the smoke around Building 7 was being sucked in due to low pressure from other buildings such as Building 6.

Based on photographic and video evidence, I see smoke pouring out of most floors except for perhaps a few of the top floors, smoke obviously streaming out of the building and not just bunching up against the walls. In the attached photos and in videos I have seen, it looks like the this was a major fire attacking most floors of the building.

However, the 9/11 Truth activists cite the NIST Report as evidence of scattered fires. Here is what they cite:

You both should read the NIST report. They interviewed firefighters and studied the photos and videos. There was no inferno, just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors. The fires on floors 19,21, 29 and 30 at the SW corner had burned out by 1 p.m. the only fire on the south side after that was floor 12. The fire on floor 8 was not seen until after 3 p.m. and the fire on floor 9 was first seen at about 4 p.m.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

There were no fires on the upper floors [above floor 30] at any time.

The fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45, leaving fires on 5 floors and some of those were dying down.

So here are my questions:

1.) I believe that according to the standards of evidence applied by NIST (visible flames at windows, smoke issuing from broken windows etc, standards with which you are very familiar) there is no visual evidence of fire above floor 30 or on many floors below this for that matter. And you proceeded on that basis. Is this true?

2.) From your report is it proper for 9/11 Truth activists to conclude that Building 7 had there was no major fire, "just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors"? Or is it reasonable to look at the photos and videos and conclude that the fires in Building 7 were extensive and that this could be categorized as a "major fire"?

Thank you,
Chris Mohr

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Here is a letter I just emailed off to Michael Newman at NIST, along with a couple of the photos recently posted in this thread. I'm sick of Chris7 and Richard Gage quoting NIST on this and using these quotes to assert light fires in Building 7. Let's see what NIST says about whether they considered the fires "scattered" or "major":

Hi Michael,

I do have another 9/11 question, this time about the fires in Building 7. As you may know, there is still debate going on about the severity of the fires in that building. Several 9/11 Truth people, including Richard Gage whom I debated, believe the fires were relatively small and had burned out well before the collapse. They also say that much of the smoke around Building 7 was being sucked in due to low pressure from other buildings such as Building 6.

Based on photographic and video evidence, I see smoke pouring out of most floors except for perhaps a few of the top floors, smoke obviously streaming out of the building and not just bunching up against the walls. In the attached photos and in videos I have seen, it looks like the this was a major fire attacking most floors of the building.

However, the 9/11 Truth activists cite the NIST Report as evidence of scattered fires. Here is what they cite:

You both should read the NIST report. They interviewed firefighters and studied the photos and videos. There was no inferno, just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors. The fires on floors 19,21, 29 and 30 at the SW corner had burned out by 1 p.m. the only fire on the south side after that was floor 12. The fire on floor 8 was not seen until after 3 p.m. and the fire on floor 9 was first seen at about 4 p.m.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building. (Similar effects of the wind caused partial obscuration of the east and south faces of WTC 1 prior to its collapse, as discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.)

The same phenomenon can be seen at the NE corner of WTC 7. The only fires at this time at the NE corner were on floor 8 and floor 13.

There were no fires on the upper floors [above floor 30] at any time.

The fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45, leaving fires on 5 floors and some of those were dying down.

So here are my questions:

1.) I believe that according to the standards of evidence applied by NIST (visible flames at windows, smoke issuing from broken windows etc, standards with which you are very familiar) there is no visual evidence of fire above floor 30 or on many floors below this for that matter. And you proceeded on that basis. Is this true?

2.) From your report is it proper for 9/11 Truth activists to conclude that Building 7 had there was no major fire, "just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors"? Or is it reasonable to look at the photos and videos and conclude that the fires in Building 7 were extensive and that this could be categorized as a "major fire"?

Thank you,
Chris Mohr

Again Chris Mohr does more in one post that the twoof movement has in 10 years. Instead of idly speculating what an person meant when they said or wrote something, he writes and asks them......

 

[deeper]

Again Chris Mohr does more in one post that the twoof movement has in 10 years. Instead of idly speculating what an person meant when they said or wrote something, he writes and asks them......

I agree, well done Chris.

The inertia displayed by the Truth Movement beggars belief. Only yesterday, I was thinking about the Is There Any Chance of Unity Between the Truthers and Debunkers? thread, and was toying with the notion of everyone switching sides for a week. I saw the flaw immediately, if I thought I had proof of 9/11 being an inside-job, I would not have the time to argue the toss on a skeptics forum, why would I care what they think and what would it matter if they disagreed with me? Because I knew I was right, I would be far too busy trying to get in touch with people who matter, in an attempt to get them to both support the technical details and publicise the case.

 

[LSSBB]

I agree, well done Chris.

The inertia displayed by the Truth Movement beggars belief. Only yesterday, I was thinking about the Is There Any Chance of Unity Between the Truthers and Debunkers? thread, and was toying with the notion of everyone switching sides for a week. I saw the flaw immediately, if I thought I had proof of 9/11 being an inside-job, I would not have the time to argue the toss on a skeptics forum, why would I care what they think and what would it matter if they disagreed with me? Because I knew I was right, I would be far too busy trying to get in touch with people who matter, in an attempt to get them to both support the technical details and publicise the case.

+1

 

[Christopher7]

Several 9/11 Truth people, including Richard Gage whom I debated, believe the fires were relatively small and had burned out well before the collapse.

You left out the word "some". It should read:
Several 9/11 Truth people, including Richard Gage whom I debated, believe the fires were relatively small and had some had burned out well before the collapse.

The statement as you wrote it is false and defamatory. Please send a correction.

* * * * *

Thank you for quoting me correctly. He will confirm that all I have said is true.
Correction: floor 22 not 21.

2.) From your report is it proper for 9/11 Truth activists to conclude that Building 7 had there was no major fire, "just a few fires that burned at different times on a few floors"? Or is it reasonable to look at the photos and videos and conclude that the fires in Building 7 were extensive and that this could be categorized as a "major fire"?

Thank you,
Chris Mohr

A "major fire" is a subjective call. Of course he will say it was a "major fire".

 

[Christopher7]

The NIST theory is that the victim died of the gunshot wound [thermal expansion] within about 22 seconds.

Chapter and verse, Sarns.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247][/FONT]
12.8 seconds from girder failure to all core columns collapsed
[FONT=&quot]
1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250][/FONT]
2 seconds for exterior columns to fail.

Best known estimate for roof line to ground:
6.6 seconds

Total 21.4 seconds

I studied the fire progression the same way NIST did,

Unlikely, seeing as you're a carpenter, not an engineer or a government agency.

Like you need a PhD to look at photos and see where the fires are.

I am fairly certain they did more than that.

They interviewed firefighters. However, all the fires that they listed could be confirmed by the photos.

I agree with their analysis of when and where the fires were except for the fire on floor 12. They have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m., so the one supposedly showing the west end of floor 12 on fire at 5 p.m., based on shadows, is incorrect as to the time.

Wait, what image? Where is it? How do the shadows prove the time?

Shadows are very inaccurate and NIST did not say what their methodology was.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 327 [pdf pg 281]

NIST appendix L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

You seem to have cut out certain portions of my post, including the question of whether a "misleading statement = lie", me pointing out smoke is coming out of the windows, and that you have actively claimed that NIST is lying (with no evidence) on multiple occasions, but suddenly when they support you they're holy writ.

I delete insults and things don't need/deserve a response. You write what you want and I will respond as I choose.