Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
- Status
Animal
Master Poster
A perfect example of objects falling through the path of "most resistance"
Gotta love it when a troofer provides his own evidence of his failures
I can't hear you over the sound of backpedalling.
And it did.
It's adorable watching you try to look smart and be patronizing.
Chris Mohr,
If you want to know on which aisle the materials for building a doghouse are stocked in the store where Christopher7 works, then he is your man.
If you want someone to build a doghouse, then he MIGHT be your man. (It depends on how much you like your dog.)
If you want informed opinions on structural mechanics, velocity & acceleration analyses, reading for comprehension or objectivity, you'd be better served by consulting your dog.
Note: Remarkably, astonishingly, all of the above applies … EVEN IF YOU DON'T OWN A DOG!!
You can safely, reliably ignore all of his baseless assertions. "Repetition" is not an argument.
In fact, I would use Chris7 exactly as I used my old stockbroker. Man, if I could have figured out how to keep him happy, I'd have gotten rich...!
You see, most people are reliably inconsistent in providing correct answers to questions: occasionally right & occasionally wrong. And you never know which at any given moment.
A tiny number are pretty near always right.
And a slightly larger number are pretty near always wrong.
My old stockbroker was in the 3rd category. As reliable as the sun rises in the east, if he advised me to jump into this "can't lose stock opportunity", then it'd tank within a week.
He adamantly steered me away from Apple stock. "Never going to go anywhere."
Once you identify them, there are two really terrific things about people that are always wrong: 1. they are just as reliable as those that are always right and 2. they come a lot cheaper.
The difficulty with someone like a stock broker, you've got to keep coming up with excuses as to why you are always asking them for advice & then doing the exact opposite. I could only sustain that for about a year before he caught on, & his ego forced him to resign.
But I gotta tell ya, it was one GREAT year for tk's retirement fund. I never would have let him go if I could have figured out at that time how to manage it. (It occurred to me later: 2 stock brokers in 2 separate companies. One for advice, one for investments.)
Chris7 is to mechanics as my old stockbroker was to a stock portfolio.
You can, with a high degree of assurance, arrive at a correct conclusion thru the simple mechanism of inserting into or removing from the word "not" in his sentences.
Wrong.
The analyses for load bearing, stress, stability, buckling, etc. are applicable for all materials.
Factors are tabulated within the analyses compensate for different materials, different shapes, etc.
This is the very essence of engineering: finding the analytical rules that apply to all materials, all shapes, all temperatures, etc. etc. etc.
Your assertion is gloriously wrong.
"like the sun rising in the east …"
Wrong.
The column ASSEMBLIES buckled, not the individual columns members.
Just like in the towers, they snapped (very suddenly) at their weak points: the connections between components. The columns lying in the rubble were, to all intents, straight 2 story segments. Just like they were manufactured.
The outer wall ASSEMBLIES did not all snap simultaneously. They snapped over a brief interval after the whole assembly buckled.
This had two effects:
1) the resisting force did not instantly go to zero, it gradually but quickly decreased. Then there were some oscillations as the some internal members of the core that detached earlier collided with horizontal members that were still attached to the outer walls.
2) And as a direct result of the above, that downward acceleration of the outer wall did not instantly go to "G", as something that was truly in free fall would. It gradually but quickly increased, oscillated above & below G, and then gradually decreased as the top of the buckled segment hit the ground.
But the individual columns? Well, they snapped like, uh, well, like sticks.
How about that?
Chris7 is gloriously wrong again.
"… like the sun rising in the east …"
tom
If you want to know on which aisle the materials for building a doghouse are stocked in the store where Christopher7 works, then he is your man.
If you want someone to build a doghouse, then he MIGHT be your man. (It depends on how much you like your dog.)
If you want informed opinions on structural mechanics, velocity & acceleration analyses, reading for comprehension or objectivity, you'd be better served by consulting your dog.
Note: Remarkably, astonishingly, all of the above applies … EVEN IF YOU DON'T OWN A DOG!!
You can safely, reliably ignore all of his baseless assertions. "Repetition" is not an argument.
In fact, I would use Chris7 exactly as I used my old stockbroker. Man, if I could have figured out how to keep him happy, I'd have gotten rich...!
You see, most people are reliably inconsistent in providing correct answers to questions: occasionally right & occasionally wrong. And you never know which at any given moment.
A tiny number are pretty near always right.
And a slightly larger number are pretty near always wrong.
My old stockbroker was in the 3rd category. As reliable as the sun rises in the east, if he advised me to jump into this "can't lose stock opportunity", then it'd tank within a week.
He adamantly steered me away from Apple stock. "Never going to go anywhere."
Once you identify them, there are two really terrific things about people that are always wrong: 1. they are just as reliable as those that are always right and 2. they come a lot cheaper.
The difficulty with someone like a stock broker, you've got to keep coming up with excuses as to why you are always asking them for advice & then doing the exact opposite. I could only sustain that for about a year before he caught on, & his ego forced him to resign.
But I gotta tell ya, it was one GREAT year for tk's retirement fund. I never would have let him go if I could have figured out at that time how to manage it. (It occurred to me later: 2 stock brokers in 2 separate companies. One for advice, one for investments.)
Chris7 is to mechanics as my old stockbroker was to a stock portfolio.
You can, with a high degree of assurance, arrive at a correct conclusion thru the simple mechanism of inserting into or removing from the word "not" in his sentences.
Wrong.
The analyses for load bearing, stress, stability, buckling, etc. are applicable for all materials.
Factors are tabulated within the analyses compensate for different materials, different shapes, etc.
This is the very essence of engineering: finding the analytical rules that apply to all materials, all shapes, all temperatures, etc. etc. etc.
Your assertion is gloriously wrong.
"like the sun rising in the east …"
Wrong.
The column ASSEMBLIES buckled, not the individual columns members.
Just like in the towers, they snapped (very suddenly) at their weak points: the connections between components. The columns lying in the rubble were, to all intents, straight 2 story segments. Just like they were manufactured.
The outer wall ASSEMBLIES did not all snap simultaneously. They snapped over a brief interval after the whole assembly buckled.
This had two effects:
1) the resisting force did not instantly go to zero, it gradually but quickly decreased. Then there were some oscillations as the some internal members of the core that detached earlier collided with horizontal members that were still attached to the outer walls.
2) And as a direct result of the above, that downward acceleration of the outer wall did not instantly go to "G", as something that was truly in free fall would. It gradually but quickly increased, oscillated above & below G, and then gradually decreased as the top of the buckled segment hit the ground.
But the individual columns? Well, they snapped like, uh, well, like sticks.
How about that?
Chris7 is gloriously wrong again.
"… like the sun rising in the east …"
tom
Last edited:
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
I'm honest.
I cannot believe that nobody has jumped on this nugget yet.
Like taking candy from babies, girls & boys.
"STUNDIE!!"
Guys, how do I do that laughing dog GIF?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Maybe you should watch again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX7N6tKSIjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zZbfI5JKI
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Oh no, guys, DOMINOES! That means controlled demolition! The jig is up!
Seriously, though, how exactly is a failed run of dominoes supposed to compare in any reasonable way to a highly complex building collapse due to fire?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
The failed demonstrations reminds me of the gaps in the various so called 9/11 investigations.
The gaps are your delusion. The gaps are due to the fact you don't understand 911, and all the 911 investigations. The gaps are in your knowledge.
Big one = colon dl colon (no spaces)
Small one = colon sdl colon (no spaces)
For future reference, if you can't figure out how someone posts something, just quote the post and see what appears. You don't have to actually post a reply, just take a look.
Animal
Master Poster
The dominoes falling down through the path of "most resistance" instead of "toppling like a tree" should have been a clue to troofers. But instead, troofers think it reinforces their claims.
i know, but my post was the equivalent of a 4chaner going "[filename].jpg" instead of actually posting the image. That, and i couldn't be arsed to go find a post with the dog, even if i had thought to do so.
hth - hand!
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Request for Help with Re-Re-Rebuttals: Start With Reasons 1-44
Hi all,
Rick "Truth Makes Peace" is a 9/11 Truth activist who also actively supported the WTC dust study of Jim Millette (with both money and publicity in the 9/11 Truth movement). Now he is working with Richard Gage, Chris Sarns and others to put together a re-rebuttal of my 238 reasons for Natural Collapse listed in my YouTube video series (see my signatures below for links).
It's not completed yet, but here is a link to their responses to my rebuttals so far:
http://911theories.org/ChrisMohr or just chrismohr911.com
My 238 reasons are in the left column. Their responses are in the right column. People are encouraged to watch my video first (one at a time), then my reasons are rebutted by the 9/11 Truth side. This will be a big project, but I'd like to take this slowly and work on it one section at a time. For the re-re-rebuttal, I need to boil it down to one or two-liners, preferably with links. This is where some of alienentity and dave thomas and other YouTube videos could be linked, for example. So, for example, reason #1 I list the jets hitting at 450-550 mph and he has responded with Frank De Martini's claim of the building's strength. I might write in response, DeMartini died on 9/11 so we'll never know what he would say: [link] The link could be to a discussion of deMartini's claims, either YouTube or text.
In other words, very succinct. Respectful (tho some YouTube videos could be linked that are less than respectful if the info is good).
I'd love help with this. Please headline your suggestions with #1 Rebuttal or whatever and suggest a one-line response and links. In some ways I've already started this in the written Description part of each of my YouTube videos, where I now have a pretty good collection of links for more info.
For now I request that we work together on reasons 1-44 for awhile.
Thank you,
Chris
Hi all,
Rick "Truth Makes Peace" is a 9/11 Truth activist who also actively supported the WTC dust study of Jim Millette (with both money and publicity in the 9/11 Truth movement). Now he is working with Richard Gage, Chris Sarns and others to put together a re-rebuttal of my 238 reasons for Natural Collapse listed in my YouTube video series (see my signatures below for links).
It's not completed yet, but here is a link to their responses to my rebuttals so far:
http://911theories.org/ChrisMohr or just chrismohr911.com
My 238 reasons are in the left column. Their responses are in the right column. People are encouraged to watch my video first (one at a time), then my reasons are rebutted by the 9/11 Truth side. This will be a big project, but I'd like to take this slowly and work on it one section at a time. For the re-re-rebuttal, I need to boil it down to one or two-liners, preferably with links. This is where some of alienentity and dave thomas and other YouTube videos could be linked, for example. So, for example, reason #1 I list the jets hitting at 450-550 mph and he has responded with Frank De Martini's claim of the building's strength. I might write in response, DeMartini died on 9/11 so we'll never know what he would say: [link] The link could be to a discussion of deMartini's claims, either YouTube or text.
In other words, very succinct. Respectful (tho some YouTube videos could be linked that are less than respectful if the info is good).
I'd love help with this. Please headline your suggestions with #1 Rebuttal or whatever and suggest a one-line response and links. In some ways I've already started this in the written Description part of each of my YouTube videos, where I now have a pretty good collection of links for more info.
For now I request that we work together on reasons 1-44 for awhile.
Thank you,
Chris
Chris, is there a transcript of your videos? I have not watched them because my understanding of spoken English is, by far, much worse than my written English (I learned English almost exclusively in written form).
Judging by the rebuttals, I have the impression that you made some points that I don't agree with. Specifically, about #2 I don't see how the tilting could maximize the damage (unless it refers to the spread of fires due to jet fuel burning). Anyway this is what I have come up with so far, more to come:
#1|Planes Hitting at 450-550 mph|Frank DiMartini, Construction Manager of the WTC, said it was designed to withstand a fully loaded plane impacting, even several.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pvEge5HPJU
Planes hitting their targets so accurately, at such speeds, by beginner alleged pilots, suggest computer assisted remote control should be investigated. | The buildings
did withstand
the impacts, despite being calculated for a lower speed impact. The buildings were approximately the width of a runway, so it didn't need a lot of skill to hit them by people who knew how to land, yet one of the hits was sloppy.
#2 | | | (I don't think that the tilt was a factor anyway)
#3 | | | See #1.
#4 | 60% of columns on crash side destroyed | Only the exterior walls. The inner core was not damaged significantly, which bore most of the weight. | Damage to the core's fireproofing due to the impact had to be necessarily significant.
#5 | Fire Insulation Stripped Off | Steel pans don't melt, even with no insulation It is debatable whether or not the insulation was stripped of significantly. The towers fell, obfuscating the evidence. No one knows for sure. | Steel didn't need to melt in order to be weakened to the point of being unable to bear the building. NIST conducted conservative simulations to determine the damage to the core insulation.
#6 | Cutoff of Water Sprinklers | The cutoff of the water sprinklers is suspicious, considering that the WTCs were carefully designed so they would work. Regardless, the fires went out, even without water. We see people, including Edna Cinton, standing where the fires started. | No sprinkler system is designed against loss of pressure due to a plane cutting the pipes. The fires didn't start at the point of the impact; the fireball was immense and covered a big part of each building, so they started in many places at the same time. The planes moved the burning materials towards the opposite side of the building, that's why the fires didn't last long at the hole where Edna was seen.
Judging by the rebuttals, I have the impression that you made some points that I don't agree with. Specifically, about #2 I don't see how the tilting could maximize the damage (unless it refers to the spread of fires due to jet fuel burning). Anyway this is what I have come up with so far, more to come:
#2 | | | (I don't think that the tilt was a factor anyway)
#3 | | | See #1.
#4 | 60% of columns on crash side destroyed | Only the exterior walls. The inner core was not damaged significantly, which bore most of the weight. | Damage to the core's fireproofing due to the impact had to be necessarily significant.
#5 | Fire Insulation Stripped Off | Steel pans don't melt, even with no insulation It is debatable whether or not the insulation was stripped of significantly. The towers fell, obfuscating the evidence. No one knows for sure. | Steel didn't need to melt in order to be weakened to the point of being unable to bear the building. NIST conducted conservative simulations to determine the damage to the core insulation.
#6 | Cutoff of Water Sprinklers | The cutoff of the water sprinklers is suspicious, considering that the WTCs were carefully designed so they would work. Regardless, the fires went out, even without water. We see people, including Edna Cinton, standing where the fires started. | No sprinkler system is designed against loss of pressure due to a plane cutting the pipes. The fires didn't start at the point of the impact; the fireball was immense and covered a big part of each building, so they started in many places at the same time. The planes moved the burning materials towards the opposite side of the building, that's why the fires didn't last long at the hole where Edna was seen.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Chris,
Thank you for your acknowledgement of Rick's efforts.
Rick has been banned here and would like to be allowed to post here again. Perhaps you could ask the mods to reinstate his posting privileges. (I don't have a lot if influence around here ;-)
BTW: This is Rick's project, I'm just contributing things from the debates we have had.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Did Ron ever hear back from Dr. Lee? I have not.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Rick won't be allowed back. Just FYI.
- Status