Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post






Notice how the chrismohr comment ignores what he posts that I said.

Notice how what? Don't understand. You never asked me specifically to answer your question. I didn't read your mind. I think you wished I would deal with your question of how four planes were hijacked in one day when there had been no hijackings of planes in the US in 20 years? Is that your question?

I don't have an answer for your question. As I said, I haven't researched this aspect of 9/11. I'd be a fool to try to answer a question in an area outside my research. I did decide to share what I knew about Gary Hart's repeated warnings. It's worth mentioning something that caused me to immediately believe that the 9/11 Truth movement is out of alignment with the facts.

 

[Christopher7]

Notice how what? Don't understand. You never asked me specifically to answer your question. I didn't read your mind. I think you wished I would deal with your question of how four planes were hijacked in one day when there had been no hijackings of planes in the US in 20 years? Is that your question?

I don't have an answer for your question. As I said, I haven't researched this aspect of 9/11. I'd be a fool to try to answer a question in an area outside my research. I did decide to share what I knew about Gary Hart's repeated warnings. It's worth mentioning something that caused me to immediately believe that the 9/11 Truth movement is out of alignment with the facts.

You responded to the thread derail but not the critical point I made.

Please address the FACT that the exterior columns in Figure 12-62 and the simulation video had buckled ~20-25 feet and had not broken, which means they were still providing resistance beyond the 7 feet (?) of descent in Stage 1 and well into the FFA of Stage 2.

Previously you sidestepped the distance and talked about the NIST claim that it took 2 seconds for the collapse of the exterior columns to propagate around the building starting at column 14 [next to SW corner]. That clearly did not happen because the west wall did not start falling before the north face.

 

[carlitos]

Critical point. That's funny.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Please address the FACT that the exterior columns in Figure 12-62 and the simulation video had buckled ~20-25 feet and had not broken, which means they were still providing resistance beyond the 7 feet (?) of descent in Stage 1 and well into the FFA of Stage 2.

The "FACT" that columns haven't broken in a figure and a simulation video doesn't demonstrate anything about the resistance they are providing -- even in the simulation, never mind in real life.

Still less does it demonstrate that any deviation between the simulation and the observables evinces a fundamental failure of the NIST model to explain the events.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, and you don't have a rebuttal.

Call me a cynic, but I strongly suspect that if NIST had spent however long it would have taken to produce models that fit the observables to even your satisfaction, you would complain -- with exactly the same degree of intensity -- that NIST cooked the models to produce predetermined results. And in fact, that would pretty much be true.

So, as far as I can tell, there is no set of model results that you would construe as evidence that WTC 7 fell because of fire damage. What we have here is basically a closed loop of incredulity. You might as well be arguing, "The evolutionists' models simply can't explain the existence of the vermiform appendix."

If you are actually right that fire damage doesn't account for the collapse of WTC 7 (which, based on debates like this one, I don't believe for a minute), you should be dismayed that you can't come up with a better argument. I suppose that if it is as "obvious" to you as it is to Tony that WTC 7 was brought down through controlled demolition, then you don't actually have to be convinced by your own argument, and that impairs your capacity to judge its strength. (This fits nicely with Ryan Mackey's analysis of irreducible delusion.)

 

[Christopher7]

The "FACT" that columns haven't broken in a figure and a simulation video doesn't demonstrate anything about the resistance they are providing -- even in the simulation, never mind in real life.

Denial.

It is axiomatic that bending steel framework provides resistance and free fall means no supporting structure. Sunder stated this at the Tech Briefing.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Denial.

It is axiomatic that bending steel framework provides resistance and free fall means no supporting structure. Sunder stated this at the Tech Briefing.

You keep going back to this whole free fall thing. We keep pointing out that the acceleration value was fluctuating both above and below g during the supposed "free fall" period, meaning that it was anything but free fall. Are you ever going to understand that the building was not truly in free fall, but that this is an approximate AVERAGE of the acceleration of the building during this period of the collapse? I suspect not, since you are also incapable of comprehending the idea of an approximate "typical range" of the duration of the fires that burned in the building.

 

[lexicon008]

Personally i think they should just release the input data and end the arguments. If their sims are valid and the data is good then lets see it and move on.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Denial.

It is axiomatic that bending steel framework provides resistance and free fall means no supporting structure. Sunder stated this at the Tech Briefing.

"Bending"?

It takes some chutzpah to credit this argument to Sunder.

 

[Christopher7]

You keep going back to this whole free fall thing. We keep pointing out that the acceleration value was fluctuating both above and below g during the supposed "free fall" period, meaning that it was anything but free fall.

That asinine interpretation of the data is refuted by NIST and Chandler. Measurements taken from a video are not exact so many are taken and the software computes the average.

Are you ever going to understand that the building was not truly in free fall, but that this is an approximate AVERAGE of the acceleration of the building during this period of the collapse?

Approximate? NIST measured the descent to within 1/10th of 1%. That is not "approximately" FFA. The difference is so tiny that it is considered negligible [too small to be considered] by scientists.

Even NIST has acknowledged that WTC 7 fell at FFA but y'all persist in trying to double talk around this scientifically confirmed fact.

 

[Christopher7]

"Bending"?

It takes some chutzpah to credit this argument to Sunder.

What part of:

"There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case"

don't you understand?

 

[thedopefishlives]

That asinine interpretation of the data is refuted by NIST and Chandler. Measurements taken from a video are not exact so many are taken and the software computes the average.

Approximate? NIST measured the descent to within 1/10th of 1%. That is not "approximately" FFA. The difference is so tiny that it is considered negligible [too small to be considered] by scientists.

Even NIST has acknowledged that WTC 7 fell at FFA but y'all persist in trying to double talk around this scientifically confirmed fact.

Chandler, really? You're going to the guy who confuses average with instantaneous and completely embarrasses himself when discussing the collapse of the Towers? I can see now why you keep making that same mistake over and over and over again.

 

[LSSBB]

That asinine interpretation of the data is refuted by NIST and Chandler. Measurements taken from a video are not exact so many are taken and the software computes the average.

Approximate? NIST measured the descent to within 1/10th of 1%. That is not "approximately" FFA. The difference is so tiny that it is considered negligible [too small to be considered] by scientists.

Even NIST has acknowledged that WTC 7 fell at FFA but y'all persist in trying to double talk around this scientifically confirmed fact.

"Asinine" and "this scientifically confirmed fact" apparently = "Chris cannot or will not refute the methodology used by FEMR2 so he will resort to a blanket statement."

 

[beachnut]

Personally i think they should just release the input data and end the arguments. If their sims are valid and the data is good then lets see it and move on.

Have you found any engineers who need the data who are not in 911 truth, or fallen for the idiotic claims of CD or an inside job? No.

Engineers can do their own work. Do you plagiarize all your work? Why do engineers checking NIST need NIST's work? We know fire did it, and we know there were no explosives or the insane claim of thermite. Explain why engineers can't understand 911 without NIST? Why do you defend insane claims of 911 truth and ask for the same failed junk 911 truth wants. 911 truth can't do the models anyway, the data would be of no use to them.

Only a few fringe nuts badger NIST, and fail to do their own work.


The full scale model on 911 failed in fire. The study by NIST was done not to satisfy nuts in 911 truth; look up the NIST goals - they don't include sending the idiots in 911 truth to school so they can understand fire destroys buildings.

 

[lexicon008]

Do you plagiarize all your work? Why do engineers checking NIST need NIST's work?

What an odd statement. Everyone uses other peoples information all the time. The whole basis of schooling is learning and using what someone else has discovered.
NISTs conclusions are relevant since they affect future safety regulations. If they are unwilling to release the data that they used to come up with their theory how can it be confirmed or corrected as necessary? Ever heard of the term..right answer..wrong reason?
Would you be willing to take a drug that no one but the company has had a chance to test?
Hence the whole idea of the peer review process..you show your data and let others make sure it's sound. If your hiding your data how can it be verified that it's correct?
Yes another engineer might be able to come up with a comparable collapse scenario but that isn't the point here is it. NISTs report is supposed to be the final word on this and its data need to be verified just like any other scientific discipline.

 

[Christopher7]

Chandler, really? You're going to the guy who confuses average with instantaneous and completely embarrasses himself when discussing the collapse of the Towers?

Ego gone wild.
Chandler has masters degrees in math and teaching. No one here is qualified to say Chandler doesn't know what he is talking about.

Children play word games to discredit those anyone who questions the official explanation of how the buildings were destroyed. Y'all are very consistent in your one sided skepticism.

Here you also refuse to believe NIST despite the fact that they show the graph confirming FFA and state that it was FFA. That's pure denial.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Ego gone wild.
Chandler has masters degrees in math and teaching. No one here is qualified to say Chandler doesn't know what he is talking about.

Children play word games to discredit those anyone who questions the official explanation of how the buildings were destroyed. Y'all are very consistent in your one sided skepticism.

Here you also refuse to believe NIST despite the fact that they show the graph confirming FFA and state that it was FFA. That's pure denial.

Chandler has a master's degree in math. That does not qualify him to be a structural engineer or physicist. Appeal to authority denied.

ETA: If you think the difference between "average" and "instantaneous" is just a word game, well, that says a lot about why you don't understand the real truth of 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

What an odd statement. Everyone uses other peoples information all the time. The whole basis of schooling is learning and using what someone else has discovered.
NISTs conclusions are relevant since they affect future safety regulations. If they are unwilling to release the data that they used to come up with their theory how can it be confirmed or corrected as necessary? Ever heard of the term..right answer..wrong reason?
Would you be willing to take a drug that no one but the company has had a chance to test?
Hence the whole idea of the peer review process..you show your data and let others make sure it's sound. If your hiding your data how can it be verified that it's correct?
Yes another engineer might be able to come up with a comparable collapse scenario but that isn't the point here is it. NISTs report is supposed to be the final word on this and its data need to be verified just like any other scientific discipline.

The NIST report is open! Anyone can look at it. Engineers don't need NIST work to do their own investigation.

You believe 911 truth has a side, you are wrong. Fire did it, do you disagree? Why? Can you do any engineering? Physics? Why do you need the data, or what ever you want? What do you want? Be specific.

NIST is peer reviewed, and not all engineers agree with the specific things NIST says happened, but they all agree fire was the a part of the cause.

You never studied what other rational engineers have said about NIST and only bring to the table the weak 911 truth arguments based on ignorance and the fantasy of CD and an inside job. You have not researched this top very well, and it shows as you regurgitate standard 911 truth nonsense.

 

[lexicon008]

Chandler has a master's degree in math. That does not qualify him to be a structural engineer or physicist. Appeal to authority denied. ETA: If you think the difference between "average" and "instantaneous" is just a word game, well, that says a lot about why you don't understand the real truth of 9/11.

Actually...
BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major--independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona. Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy educator at K-12 and Jr. college levels. Formerly on editorial board of The Physics Teacher (AAPT journal).
He teaches physics and holds a bach degree so i think he can speak about physics..unless his bio is also a lie..lol

 

[beachnut]

Actually...
BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major--independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona. Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy educator at K-12 and Jr. college levels. Formerly on editorial board of The Physics Teacher (AAPT journal).
He teaches physics and holds a bach degree so i think he can speak about physics..unless his bio is also a lie..lol

But he is a paranoid conspiracy theories on 911 issues, no physics required. He does not use physics to prove his inside job claims, he uses physics to fool people into agreeing with him. You have been fooled by 911 truth into thinking they have evidence, you call anomalies. When we study the anomalies we find they are formed due to the ignorance of the 911 truther who made up the claims.


Better yet, get on topic, stop defending people who spread lies.
The OP, the opening post...

This is a thread for my twenty respectful rebuttal YouTube videos of Richard Gage's 911 video Blueprint for Truth, which are getting posted in late June of 2011. They can be found on YouTube by going to my account, chrismohr911, or typing in keywords such as Richard Gage Chris Mohr Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal. My videos are arranged by subject (such as freefall collapse of Building 7, iron microspheres, history of collapse of tall steel framed buildings, etc.) and explore most of Richard Gage's assertions of controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11.

Richard Gage and I debated this subject for over four hours on March 6, 2011. AE911Truth videotaped it for general distribution but decided against releasing it, so the information I have compiled for the debate is available in this format only. I lay out 235 reasons why I believe the science doesn't support controlled demolition. I have well over 200 photos and videos to illustrate my points.

When discussing all these YouTube videos, you might want to start with "Reason #.... says ..... but I think ........" so everyone knows what you're responding to. I tried to be totally respectful in my rebuttals. I'll be respectful on this thread as well when I choose to respond.

For more information, you can also look at the jref thread, Gage's Next Debate, which has some 1500 posts on it from metallurgists, physicists, foundry workers, heavy equipment operators, chemists, engineers, an FDNY firefighter and many more, whose answers to my questions were invaluable. Here's to a lively discussion!

The topic; what do you have?

 

[LSSBB]

Ego gone wild.
Chandler has masters degrees in math and teaching. No one here is qualified to say Chandler doesn't know what he is talking about.

Children play word games to discredit those anyone who questions the official explanation of how the buildings were destroyed. Y'all are very consistent in your one sided skepticism.

Here you also refuse to believe NIST despite the fact that they show the graph confirming FFA and state that it was FFA. That's pure denial.

If you are just talking degrees, I have a MS in Mech E, a Bachelors in Physics and a Bachelors in Astrophysics, plus 23 years of experience and a Six Sigma Black Belt. Chandler is wrong and so are you.