Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
There was no variety in the east end of the 12th floor. The east end of the 12th floor was offices with dropped ceilings except for the large [conference?] room around columns 73 to 78.
Click to expand...

I think you are looking at the office floor layout 180 degrees rotated from the column positioning. I am looking at pgimeno's picture post and column 79 is surrounded by offices, the large conference room is on the opposite side.
 
chrismohr said:
Chris7 this insultfest may be fun for you, but it's sure tiring for me. If you doubt that Tri is a firefighter with specialized knowledge, that's a serious accusation. It's pretty flip of you to blow off not only his credentials but his willingness to risk his life for strangers.
Click to expand...

I don't care. he can run his mouth all day long, it matter none. Because at the end of the day, his conclusions are still wrong, his analysis is still flawed, and I still laugh at his ignorance.

Cheers!
 
I said:
pgimeno said:
I don't think it means what you think it means.

I mean... I don't think it says what you claim it says, which is:
NIST said the fire on floor 12 had burned out because they knew it had started on the south side and burned around the core area to the NW corner, burning out all that area.​

Can you please either actually support that statement or take it back?
Click to expand...

Your response:

Christopher7 said:
The photos show the fire did burn around the core area. The NIST model shows that too, but progressively later than the actual fires, skipping areas and burning for widely varying amounts of time.
Click to expand...
I still don't see any citation of NIST saying that fire had burned out on floor 12 because they knew it had started on the south side and burned around the core area to the NW corner. And the photos don't show the core, therefore they don't show that the fire did burn (out or not) around the core area. If your pride doesn't let you take that statement back, at least stop making stuff up.


Christopher7 said:
You are incredibly slow on the uptake. I have been talking the visible parts [offices along the outer walls] but there are also anomalies in the interior fires that I will get to.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just incredibly incredulous that you've been making so much noise about the fires having burned out in floor 12 without any actual evidence, attempting to force everyone into accepting your premise, and now you admit that the evidence you have shown does not prove what you claim it proves because it only shows the outer walls.

Just, wow.
 
triforcharity said:
I don't care. he can run his mouth all day long, it matter none. Because at the end of the day, his conclusions are still wrong, his analysis is still flawed, and I still laugh at his ignorance.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
OK you two have fun with each other then, I'll stop playing moderator.
 
Chrismohr911.com re-Rebuttals in place from 9/11 Truth side

Hi gang,

A whole slew of new material has been added to the chrismohr911.com site. Rick has listed all 238+ of my reasons for natural collapse from my 22 YouTube videos in the left column. Responses from Chris Sarns, David Chandler, Rick Shaddick, Adam Taylor and others are there in the right column. They are notable for the near-absence of vitriol. It's going to be a huge project. Right now I'm going to start looking back over numbers 1-46 and try to get them up to speed with re-re-rebuttals (a space has been made for these). We've already been through these but I will review them in light of changes that have been made.

All help appreciated. I will look over responses and pare them down to the most concise and understandable ones. On my own I am going through and writing responses. After I do this I will look for links to YouTube videos, really great JREF pages, published papers, whatevera may be helpful. I hope to end up with hundreds of links for more researchers. Gravy, where are you?!

BTW I am happy to admit and acknowledge errors when found by either side.

Mille grazie friends!
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I think you are looking at the office floor layout 180 degrees rotated from the column positioning. I am looking at pgimeno's picture post and column 79 is surrounded by offices, the large conference room is on the opposite side.
Click to expand...
The large room on the east end of the core area has double double doors on the north side, suggesting a conference room. There is a single door on the south side that is covered by the fire sim insert.

floor12fireprogressiong.jpg
 
chrismohr said:
Chris7 this insultfest may be fun for you, but it's sure tiring for me. If you doubt that Tri is a firefighter with specialized knowledge, that's a serious accusation. It's pretty flip of you to blow off not only his credentials but his willingness to risk his life for strangers.
Click to expand...
Please, he has not presented any credentials. Like so many here he claims to be an authority and uses that to talk down to me. The truth is he is just another anonymous poster claiming to be an authority. I did not initiate the insult fest but eventually got tired of being insulted and got sarcastic.

I apologize to you for allowing myself to be sucked into an insult fest and derailing your thread. I will not respond to the insults and repeated questions any more so we can get back to your responses on Rick's webpage.
 
Christopher7 said:
My bad. Those are cabinets on the north side so with just one door it's is most likely data storage - drywall on the outside and gunite [sprayed on cement] on the inside.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was trying to puzzle that one out myself. I was beginning to think an open office bay was a possibility, but as you say it has one door, that would not meet code.
 
Christopher7 said:
Please, he has not presented any credentials. Like so many here he claims to be an authority and uses that to talk down to me. The truth is he is just another anonymous poster claiming to be an authority. I did not initiate the insult fest but eventually got tired of being insulted and got sarcastic.

I apologize to you for allowing myself to be sucked into an insult fest and derailing your thread. I will not respond to the insults and repeated questions any more so we can get back to your responses on Rick's webpage.
Click to expand...

:dl:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG...ikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Were_a_Carpenter_(song)
 
I'm combing through points 1-46 now on chrismohr911.com to get concise, clear, re-re-rebuttals (as well as abundant links for more information). Ozeco, any comments will be greatly appreciated, as would comments from others with relevant knowledge. Does anyone want to plow through Gravy's massive database for links etc?
 
LSSBB said:
Thanks, I was trying to puzzle that one out myself. I was beginning to think an open office bay was a possibility, but as you say it has one door, that would not meet code.
Click to expand...
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - Almost entirely walled offices. Library, file and supply rooms on west side of core on 12th floor. 1-9 pg 48 [pdf pg 92]

That leaves data storage.

floor12floorplansp.jpg
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Thanks, I was trying to puzzle that one out myself. I was beginning to think an open office bay was a possibility, but as you say it has one door, that would not meet code.
Click to expand...

It all depends......and C7 is just making stuff up (once again)
 
Hello Chris Mohr,

I noticed your article at eSkeptic here.

I wouldn't mind offering criticism as to what is wrong with the article point by point.

I'll do so using a book discussed in another thread. I have to do so anyway for another project so it may be interesting to do it here where you are free to respond.

Would that be fine with you?


In the introduction to your article it is written:

"In this week’s eSkeptic, we present Chris Mohr’s thorough analysis of the controlled demolition theory, based on his debate with Richard Gage earlier this year."

Do you agree with this statement about this thing the writer calls "the" controlled demolition theory?


1) What is "the" controlled demolition theory to you? What does that mean?

>>>>>>>>>

2) Are you aware there are a number of incorrect technical statements in the article?
 
Last edited:
From the introduction of the article:

"The architect Richard Gage is the founder of the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which focuses on the controlled demolition theory."

What do you mean by "the" controlled demolition theory in this sentence? Why choose the word "the"?
 
Last edited:
Major, do you think that focusing on the choice of a single three letter definite article will advance the discussion in any meaningful way whatsoever?
 
The entire article seems to be phrased around a false choice from the first sentences. Within this context, it is very easy to make technical blunders and then consider the mistakes to be unimportant relative to the "other side".


If the article is read from the point of view of accuracy rather than a limited either-or false choice, one may be in a position to verify that neither side understands their subject matter very well.
 
Major_Tom said:
From the introduction of the article:

"The architect Richard Gage is the founder of the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which focuses on the controlled demolition theory."

What do you mean by "the" controlled demolition theory in this sentence? Why choose the word "the"?
Click to expand...

Seriously....

whaaa??
If the article is read from the point of view of accuracy rather than a limited either-or false choice, one may be in a position to verify that neither side understands their subject matter very well.
Click to expand...

Maybe you've not been paying attention as well as you should. There are two arguments. One says terrorist activity, the other says controlled demoliton.

One is based in reality, the other nitpicking minutae so idiots don't need to draw a conclusion. Their (your) goal is creating a circular argument, a never ending "I'm right they're wrong" diatribe that accomplishes nothing.

It IS an either-or choice. Either you think terrorists hijacked 4 planes on 9/11, crashing them into three buildings and failing on the 4th, or you're an idiot. Those are the choices.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that display, noahfence.

From the article:

3 WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4
Click to expand...

Chris, where did you get this information? Do you believe it to be true?
........

The irony is this is a website to encourage skepticism. How is such information derived?
 
Major_Tom said:
Thanks for that display, noahfence.

From the article:



Chris, where did you get this information? Do you believe it to be true?
........

The irony is this is a website to encourage skepticism. How is such information derived?
Click to expand...

Which part of the information? The core dropping last? It's clear by looking at the collapse. You can see the core.


And you're welcome for the "display". I do notice that you don't refute my conclusion though. Thanks for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom