Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

Hi Chris7,
I am in minutiae burnout. The fire has now migrated away from parts of my brain, causing thermal shrinkage as explained by CTBUH which will soon cause the final collapse of my entire head. ...

Heh.

 

[ozeco41]

Hi Chris7,
I am in minutiae burnout. The fire has now migrated away from parts of my brain, causing thermal shrinkage as explained by CTBUH which will soon cause the final collapse of my entire head. It shows itself in the following ways:
1) Last month I asked Michael Newman about moment frames (remember that argument?). A week ago, I asked him if he was going to reply and he said believe it or not, NIST has other things on their plate and the scientists there will and get back to me when they can.
2) I will not be asking Michael Newman any more questions that deal with minutiae. The question you request I put forth to him here about FFA as a single unit and FEMR's sub-pixel program vs NIST's program etc. is probably beyond the level of testing or research they even did, and rightfully so. Michael and NIST are not very interested in the mechanics of the collapse itself. Once it hits collapse inevitability, "gravity takes care of it," as he has repeatedly told me. Their simulation of what a bomb in Building 7 would look like and their measurement of the collapse rate of Building 7 were not part of their core study, they were add-ons. NIST-picking such details is of zero interest to me.
3.) You continue to go after me for my "ignoring" discrepancies you have found in the NIST Report around the precise moments when collapse rates were when, when flames had exited certain floors, etc etc etc. I responded repeatedly that the NIST model is a means to explain the mechanism, not a precise second-by-second match for the videos. I'm not interested in further discussion....

Good for you ChrisMohr.

As you know I have respected and supported your willingness to go way beyond either necessity or the "call of duty" in attempting to assist C7 and others of his ilk. Whilst my own position has been different - I don't engage in counter trolling and long ago decided that discussion with C7 would merely go round in circles. My decision validated by the history of this and similar threads.

I am pleased also to see signs that NIST is backing away from answering unsupportable claims. Including the nit picking details from truthers who lack the ability and/or willingness to set those details in the context of a legitimate claim.

I am not a US citizen and do not think it appropriate that I bother NIST with technical questions. However if I was US citizen (OR NIST was Australian in a different setting) I would still oppose asking them to waste time and therefore public funds responding to false and misleading claims. Especially since those claims are made by persons who as a group and after more than ten years have failed to make a coherent claim worthy of a response. I cannot stop C7 and such minded people wasting the time of NIST. However there is no way that I would act as their agent in the time wasting pursuit of idiocies by forwarding their nonsense under my name. Whether those idiocies are made up to look like genuine questions or not.

...4.) Remember the questions I put forth to the engineering chat room? You know, about bending vs snapping columns, and how much resistance a bending column would have etc? A couple engineers on the thread I created asked, in essence, why are you so interested in the behavior of collapse after it has become inevitable anyway? I told them it was a question regarding Building 7 and my thread was immediately taken down, I was banned from the website without explanation, and three emails from me to the threadmasters have been unanswered. It gives me an appreciation of what you go through, my friend...

It must have been like a brief visit to the dark side.

...5.) Emotionally, I just get no juice any more going way above and beyond to try to get answers to your NIST-picking, getting negative responses from the people outside this forum whom I ask, feeling like a fool for wasting their time on this crap, and then having you tell me I'm ignoring you. I expect you will declare victory to your lurker friends on the basis of the fact that you have simply worn me out with your minutiae...

My repeated commendation for your willingness to go "above and beyond" but I am pleased that you seem to be switching metaphors to "enough is enough".

 

[Clayton Moore]

Hi Chris7,
I am in minutiae burnout. The fire has now migrated away from parts of my brain, causing thermal shrinkage as explained by CTBUH which will soon cause the final collapse of my entire head. It shows itself in the following ways:
1) Last month I asked Michael Newman about moment frames (remember that argument?). A week ago, I asked him if he was going to reply and he said believe it or not, NIST has other things on their plate and the scientists there will and get back to me when they can.
2) I will not be asking Michael Newman any more questions that deal with minutiae. The question you request I put forth to him here about FFA as a single unit and FEMR's sub-pixel program vs NIST's program etc. is probably beyond the level of testing or research they even did, and rightfully so. Michael and NIST are not very interested in the mechanics of the collapse itself. Once it hits collapse inevitability, "gravity takes care of it," as he has repeatedly told me. Their simulation of what a bomb in Building 7 would look like and their measurement of the collapse rate of Building 7 were not part of their core study, they were add-ons. NIST-picking such details is of zero interest to me.
3.) You continue to go after me for my "ignoring" discrepancies you have found in the NIST Report around the precise moments when collapse rates were when, when flames had exited certain floors, etc etc etc. I responded repeatedly that the NIST model is a means to explain the mechanism, not a precise second-by-second match for the videos. I'm not interested in further discussion.
4.) Remember the questions I put forth to the engineering chat room? You know, about bending vs snapping columns, and how much resistance a bending column would have etc? A couple engineers on the thread I created asked, in essence, why are you so interested in the behavior of collapse after it has become inevitable anyway? I told them it was a question regarding Building 7 and my thread was immediately taken down, I was banned from the website without explanation, and three emails from me to the threadmasters have been unanswered. It gives me an appreciation of what you go through, my friend.
5.) Emotionally, I just get no juice any more going way above and beyond to try to get answers to your NIST-picking, getting negative responses from the people outside this forum whom I ask, feeling like a fool for wasting their time on this crap, and then having you tell me I'm ignoring you. I expect you will declare victory to your lurker friends on the basis of the fact that you have simply worn me out with your minutiae.
A mind is a terrible thing to burn out. I think I'll go back to my composing now.
PS Jim Millette's research is being delayed but he still plans to publish his WTC dust paper. I'm still hoping he will also look into the source of the red-grey chips and the iron microspheres. No date set for any of this though, and he may go straight to publication without more preliminary reports along the way.

I lose, America loses, and the world loses every time somebody swears up and down some type of explosives were not used to pulverize and demolish the three WTC skyscrapers.

I told them it was a question regarding Building 7 and my thread was immediately taken down, I was banned from the website without explanation, and three emails from me to the threadmasters have been unanswered.

There have been dire consequences befalling mere employees discovered discussing the truth and reality of 9/11. People don't want they're careers to curl up and die. You should know that.

 

[Christopher7]

Hi Chris7,
I am in minutiae burnout.

No, you are in denial.

I will not be asking Michael Newman any more questions that deal with minutiae.

FFA is not minutiae and you know it.

NIST said WTC 7 fell at FFA and you know it.

FFA means there was no resistance and that means the supporting structure was removed but you deny it.

If you are contending that NIST wrong and WTC 7 did not fall at FFA for 2.25 seconds then you should show them FEMR's graphs and ask them about it.

Otherweise, STOP making the claim or inferring that WTC 7 did not all at FFA as NIST has stated until you hear their take on FEMR's graphs.

You continue to go after me for my "ignoring" discrepancies you have found in the NIST Report around the precise moments when collapse rates were when, when flames had exited certain floors

Precise moment? Come on Chris, the fire burned out in the area of the collapse an hour and a half before the collapse. Therefore, it did not start the collapse as NIST says it did.

Remember the questions I put forth to the engineering chat room? You know, about bending vs snapping columns, and how much resistance a bending column would have etc? A couple engineers on the thread I created asked, in essence, why are you so interested in the behavior of collapse after it has become inevitable anyway? I told them it was a question regarding Building 7 and my thread was immediately taken down, I was banned from the website without explanation, and three emails from me to the threadmasters have been unanswered. It gives me an appreciation of what you go through, my friend.

The first casualty of the war on terror was our 1st Amendment right to question the events of 9/11. The extreme action taken against you for daring to mention WTC 7 is typical.

you have simply worn me out with your minutiae

Please
The fire on floor 12 burned out and FFA are NOT minutiae!

One proves that the NIST collapse theory does not happen and the other proves the supporting structure was removed.

PS Jim Millette's research is being delayed but he still plans to publish his WTC dust paper.

Please email me and the usual suspects when he does.

 

[grandmastershek]

FFA are NOT minutiae

How much of the total collapse time of WTC 7 &/or the Towers was in FFA? By that very calculation its minutiae. If your contention is that FFA can only be the result of explosives (which no one has ever demonstrated in any way), then I guess only a minute portion of 1 building's collapse was due to explosives.

The fact is that FFA is unremarkable. If the entire building just entered FFA with no signs of collapse, let alone the collapse already being underway, maybe it would be worth something. But, the building had been showing signs of collapse for hours, and had already been collapsing.

I already know you know this C7 and no doubt will handwave it away, but its just here as a reminder of the reality of the situation.

One proves that the NIST collapse theory does not happen and the other proves the supporting structure was removed

Cool, lets us know when you're being published. Try here so the gubmint, NWO, Illuminati, Freemasons, etc don't force the publishers to ignore it. Because we all know every reputable publisher on the planet is covering up the truth.

 

[chrismohr]

No, you are in denial.

FFA is not minutiae and you know it.

NIST said WTC 7 fell at FFA and you know it.

FFA means there was no resistance and that means the supporting structure was removed but you deny it.

If you are contending that NIST wrong and WTC 7 did not fall at FFA for 2.25 seconds then you should show them FEMR's graphs and ask them about it.

Otherweise, STOP making the claim or inferring that WTC 7 did not all at FFA as NIST has stated until you hear their take on FEMR's graphs.

Precise moment? Come on Chris, the fire burned out in the area of the collapse an hour and a half before the collapse. Therefore, it did not start the collapse as NIST says it did.

The first casualty of the war on terror was our 1st Amendment right to question the events of 9/11. The extreme action taken against you for daring to mention WTC 7 is typical.


Please
The fire on floor 12 burned out and FFA are NOT minutiae!

One proves that the NIST collapse theory does not happen and the other proves the supporting structure was removed.


Please email me and the usual suspects when he does.

Hey Chris7,

I was hinting that I deserve credit for asking NIST what I've already asked, setting up a thread on an engineer's chat room, setting up the Millette dust study, etc etc etc. I honestly believe I have confronted the major technical claims of 9/11 Truth and found them all to be wanting. Ozeco's right... asking NIST about moment frames and other minutiae is a waste of taxpayer money. Now we're down to minutiae and I'm just not getting juice from the discussion any more. I got my juice from really looking at these issues so hard that I risked being converted. That risk, that Millette would actually find thermite, or that Building 7's fast descent could be explained only with CD, etc etc etc, was exciting to me. It isn't exciting to scientists and experts on this blog who know too much to believe there is any real possibility of CD. And for me it's not exciting to be NISTpicking with you. You say FFA and the pattern of the Bldg7 fires are important, but they just aren't to me. They are to you but not to me. You know why? Because I don't see them as trails that could lead me to change my mind. No one I know of on this side of the fence has worked so hard to try to be open to your claims, no one has organized the Millette dust study, etc. Your response: I'm in denial. Oh well. We disagree on this too, what a surprise. I'm just burned out. There aren't a lot of joules of energy left in me for this project. I look forward to finishing the whole Millete dust thing and moving on, joining the Ryan Mackey JREF Lurk Club.

 

[OCaptain]

Says the guy pretending he does.

I understand the when you mix hot and cold together, you get warm.

I also understand that the fire on floor 12, that supposedly triggered the collapse, had burned out in the NE corner over an hour before the collapse, so the NIST hypothesis is impossible.

Chris, you're really good at jumping to conclusions, despite your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to be educated.

 

[carlitos]

As if you didn't know.

The "data" is the input to the collapse model - the actual numbers.
Ron Brookman SE, filed a FOIA request and NIST said no.

Ron Brookman, SE, is completely ignorant about what happened to 7 World Trade Center.

I would really like to know why complete collapse of the twin towers "became inevitable" as expressed by NIST without any scientific analysis to substantiate it. Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified - and necessary - for all three collapses.

If he's not even aware that WTC7 was engulfed in fire, who cares what else he thinks, licensed engineer or not. He should at least research the subject before he opines on stuff like this.

I'm not interested in further discussion....

 

[000063]

I lose, America loses, and the world loses every time somebody swears up and down some type of explosives were not used to pulverize and demolish the three WTC skyscrapers.

It's already been explained how that's physically impossible. Multiple times. No barotrauma, no windows in or out of the building blown out, no wiring or casings found, difficulty in planting, etc. In fact, I explained it to you earlier this week, IIRC. You never responded. To those points, only to deny being a Holocaust denier.

...

Of course, even the usage of explosives would require several firsts as well, as you have also been informed.

1. First time explosives were planted in an occupied building.
1a. Same, but without detection despite millions of people moving through the buildings in question each week
2. Detonation of explosives without causing barotrauma, even to people inside the buildings
3. Detonation of explosives without blown out windows for blocks around.
4. Detonation of explosives without audio/visual evidence consistent with such.
5. Explosives without being able to knock down walls to weaken structural members.
6. Survival of explosives in two buildings hit by planes, without the plane impact disrupting the explosives or knocking any of them out of the building.
6a. Ability to predict the plane's impact and effects exactly, despite that being dependent on wind speed, turbulence, angle of attack, yaw, and several other entirely random factors it would be impossible to predict.
7. Survival of explosives in areas which had been on fire for an hour or more.
8. Survival of explosives in building which had been on fire for, oh, seven hours.
9. Making the miles of distinctive wiring and casings vanish from all witnesses or visual evidence, despite the thousands of people on site and the fact that the crime scene was the most witnessed and documented in history.

And so on.
...

There have been dire consequences befalling mere employees discovered discussing the truth and reality of 9/11. People don't want they're careers to curl up and die. You should know that.

Please, provide examples of these people who have suffered.

Weird how you claim over in the Holocaust forum that the Jews would've revolted had they been aware of the atrocities, but are here claiming people wouldn't speak up about the murder of thousands of people. Both are wrong, of course; the Jews did, occasionally and with little success, rise up, and how many people would trade immunity and witness protection for their testimony? Heck, if they bad guys are so powerful as to instantly identify and silence those who can expose them, why did they need 9/11?

 

[grandmastershek]

He should at least research the subject before he opines on stuff like this.

Would it matter if he did? Like many truthers he seems to be pretty detached from reality.

Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash

ANyone who investigated 9/11 for even 5 secs knows that all 110 stories did not go straight down, nor were most of the contents pulverized to dust. It says at least 1 of 2 things about he person:

1. detached from reality.

2. can't figure out how to search google image.

 

[000063]

I've seen Ergo move the goalposts to say that the way the buildings collapsed is different from where the debris came to rest. He does not respond to queries about whether he's saying the debris bounced.

 

[chrismohr]

Oh one other thing. I am working on the re-re-rebuttal of the 238 reasons for the chrismohr911 site. Thanks to all who contributed to that! I just sent the first 15 off. That's a part of summarizing my 9/11 work and is very different from continuing to explore the question of CD vs natural collapse through focusing on ever more minute and detailed stuff. On the question of CD vs natural collapse, I am as certain as anyone can be that natural collapse explains best how the WTC buildings were destroyed. Nothing short of radical new information can change my conclusion at this point. Last year, Gregg Roberts, another 9/11 Truth researcher, expressed his dislike of my intro to my 9/11 debate and YouTube video, the part about being open to what both sides have to say. He said, "You can't be an agnostic about 9/11 forever!" He's right. For awhile I was a doubting agnostic. Now I am a 9/11 CD atheist. --Rev Chris Mohr

 

[Clayton Moore]

Oh one other thing. I am working on the re-re-rebuttal of the 238 reasons for the chrismohr911 site. Thanks to all who contributed to that! I just sent the first 15 off. That's a part of summarizing my 9/11 work and is very different from continuing to explore the question of CD vs natural collapse through focusing on ever more minute and detailed stuff. On the question of CD vs natural collapse, I am as certain as anyone can be that natural collapse explains best how the WTC buildings were destroyed. Nothing short of radical new information can change my conclusion at this point. Last year, Gregg Roberts, another 9/11 Truth researcher, expressed his dislike of my intro to my 9/11 debate and YouTube video, the part about being open to what both sides have to say. He said, "You can't be an agnostic about 9/11 forever!" He's right. For awhile I was a doubting agnostic. Now I am a 9/11 CD atheist. --Rev Chris Mohr

Where are the scripts for your videos?

 

[chrismohr]

Where are the scripts for your videos?

I told you I'm not making them available. I want people to see the videos with the pictures and videoclips, not just read the text out of context.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I told you I'm not making them available. I want people to see the videos with the pictures and videoclips, not just read the text out of context.

Nothing like viewing a video sequentially to determine what points were made.
Kinda squelches any possibility of debate.

 

[beachnut]

Nothing like viewing a video sequentially to determine what points were made.
Kinda squelches any possibility of debate.

Doing research might vaporize your fantasy claims about 911; don't watch, don't listen, don't learn, don't try. That could be the motto for 911 truth believers.

You lost, explosives were not used to destroy the WTC complex. All it takes is knowledge, logic, and research to debunk your failed claims of explosives.

 

[chrismohr]

Nothing like viewing a video sequentially to determine what points were made.
Kinda squelches any possibility of debate.

Did you happen to notice that you were post #4435 on this thread? I think there has been more real debate on this thread than any 9/11 Truth thread. Are you saying you don't want to watch the videos and see the pictures and images that are inherent in the arguments I present? Would you rather just read quote-mines? And by the way, if you really want a capsule version of my videos with re-rebuttals and re-re-rebuttals, it's being created by me and 9/11 Truth people: under construction now at
chrismohr911.com.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Self promotion 101

 

[NoahFence]

Self promotion 101

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 0.

 

[ozeco41]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Yes.

Ignores the old bit of advice "When you have nothing to say --- say nothing!!"