Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Nit picking at this level demonstrates the paucity of your argument...
Are you also going to query the placement of commas, periods and question marks ??
 
Info Request

Hi gang,

I once saw an incredibly long list of Engineering Societies worldwide who had officially declared their agreement with the major findings of the NIST Report. Now I've lost that list. 20 minutes of googling did not help. Anyone have that list?

Mille grazie
 
Major_Tom said:
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...

ROFL.........It's so difficlut to take you seriously Tom...........especially when you ask questions like this.

I mean the normal stuff you say makes it difficult enough.....but then you come out with a question like the one above....

Why do you do this to yourself?

ROFL
 
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...

With a pair of Mark II eyeballs, and a stopwatch?
 
Think so? I am guessing it is copied and pasted. I already know the measurements for that and they are misrepresented in the article.

Let's see what Chris says.
 
pgimeno said:
Maybe you mean this? http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
The first two sentences are incomplete and do not make any sense.

"I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened."

The author did not finish the sentence. It should read: "... what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened without explosives."

"This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did." Again the author fails to include "without explosives".


Then he says: "You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong."

David Chandler pointed out that NIST was incorrect in asserting that WTC 7 did not fall at FFA. His calculations, later duplicated by NIST, showed that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~2.25 seconds.

Tony Szamboti calculated the sag of the floor beams. He produced a spreadsheet and a graph that showed that the loss in length due to sagging would exceed the length increase due to thermal expansion about 650oC and the maximum net expansion would be about 4.75 inches. [no one has produced a data set that says otherwise]


The author fraudulently claims that 123,000 members of the ASCE, the 80,000 members of the AIA, the 120,000 members of the ASME, the 370.000 members of the IEEE, the 40.000 members of the AIChE and the 35,000 members of the AIAA, do not question the NIST report.

In fact, the author has no idea what all those people think.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The first two sentences are incomplete and do not make any sense.

"I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened."

The author did not finish the sentence. It should read: "... what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened without explosives/thermite/nano-thermite/space beams/mini nukes/missiles."
Click to expand...
FTFY - delete for your own personal brand of insanity.
 
Christopher7 said:
David Chandler pointed out that NIST was incorrect in asserting that WTC 7 did not fall at FFA. His calculations, later duplicated by NIST, showed that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~2.25 seconds.

Tony Szamboti calculated the sag of the floor beams. He produced a spreadsheet and a graph that showed that the loss in length due to sagging would exceed the length increase due to thermal expansion about 650oC and the maximum net expansion would be about 4.75 inches. [no one has produced a data set that says otherwise]
Click to expand...
If you take Tony Szamboti's claim, why can't you take FEMR2s (and NIST's own) graphs showing the building fell at OVER freefall acceleration? Or is it a religious faith in Chandler? And why does FFA mean anything? I showed you with basic physics how g (and above) acceleration could be from the dynamics of the fall.
 
newton3376 said:
ROFL.........It's so difficlut to take you seriously Tom...........especially when you ask questions like this.

I mean the normal stuff you say makes it difficult enough.....but then you come out with a question like the one above....

Why do you do this to yourself?

ROFL
Click to expand...

I never take Tom seriously, he is one of the more accomplished trolls.
 
LSSBB said:
If you take Tony Szamboti's claim, why can't you take FEMR2s (and NIST's own) graphs showing the building fell at OVER freefall acceleration? Or is it a religious faith in Chandler? And why does FFA mean anything? I showed you with basic physics how g (and above) acceleration could be from the dynamics of the fall.
Click to expand...

Because FFA only occurs in controlled demolitions, didn't you know that? Back to the re-education camps with you. :rolleyes:
 
Major_Tom said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
thedopefishlives said:
Because FFA only occurs in controlled demolitions, didn't you know that? Back to the re-education camps with you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It does appear to be one of the basic tenets of the Truther faith, like the Catholic eternal virginity of Mary even when the Bible says Jesus had a brother.

ETA: apologies to Chris Mohr for the apparent derailing of his thread, I really just want to reinforce the work he is doing to combat this pernicious misinformation campaign by Gage, et al.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
It does appear to be one of the basic tenets of the Truther faith, like the Catholic eternal virginity of Mary even when the Bible says Jesus had a brother.

ETA: apologies to Chris Mohr for the apparent derailing of his thread, I really just want to reinforce the work he is doing to combat this pernicious misinformation campaign by Gage, et al.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize. My requests for people to work with me on the re-re-rebuttals on the chrismohr911.com website are being answered offline. Three guys are offering help, anyone here who wants to add to it is welcome, the rest of the posts here I'm just skimming through. Some material will be posted here and other material is being sent to me privately.
 
Christopher7 said:
The first two sentences are incomplete and do not make any sense.

"I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened."

The author did not finish the sentence. It should read: "... what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened without explosives."

"This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did." Again the author fails to include "without explosives".
.
Click to expand...
Explosives? Explosives?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Explosives explode. Boom. The above assertions are completely at odds with reality.

:crazy:
 
A local Denver connection to 9/11: we mourn the death of Sandy Dahl, age 52, widow of UA pilot Jason Dahl, who died here in Colorado of natural causes in her sleep last weekend. She channeled the tragedy of her husband's 9/11 death into a campaign to honor his memory and the memory of other victims of 9/11. RIP Sandy.
 
David Chandler pointed out that NIST was incorrect in asserting that WTC 7 did not fall at FFA. His calculations, later duplicated by NIST, showed that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~2.25 seconds.

Tony Szamboti calculated the sag of the floor beams. He produced a spreadsheet and a graph that showed that the loss in length due to sagging would exceed the length increase due to thermal expansion about 650oC and the maximum net expansion would be about 4.75 inches. [no one has produced a data set that says otherwise]
Click to expand...
LSSBB said:
If you take Tony Szamboti's claim, why can't you take FEMR2s (and NIST's own) graphs showing the building fell at OVER freefall acceleration?
Click to expand...
Several reasons:

1) Both Chandler and NIST used two different software programs specifically designed to measure velocity and got the same result. FEMR used a method that is not applicable to measuring velocity and got an impossible result.

2) WTC 7 could not possibly fall at greater than FFA for a full second. That's pure silliness.

3) Tony is a professional mechanical engineer and FEMR is an anonymous poster claiming to be an expert.

ETA: NIST's graph does not show WTC 7 falling at greater than FFA. They said their graph shows FFA. The "faster than FFA" interpretation is made by people who don't understand how to interpret the data.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom