Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[LSSBB]

Chris, you cannot claim as truth there was a sustained period of "free fall" for the same reason you state below: measurement uncertainty. And who is claiming "negligible resistance"?:

These measurements are not exact so NIST included some qualifying words. Deniers will try to slither around FFA by noting the "wiggle words" like "approximately constant" and "estimation" and "negligible resistance" in a effort to obfuscate the fact that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~100' as measured from two locations.

Since the exterior of WTC7 cannot be proved to be freely falling, the following statement cannot apply:

That is absolute BS. A system in free fall has no internal stresses. If the interior were to hit resistance it would slow the descent, not speed it up.

A period of g acceleration is from all the forces acting on the body. Think of two people holding hands. One person collapses. That person applies a force to the other person. That is the force the interior is applying to the exterior, so when the exterior columns finally give way the force of the interior adds to the weight of the exterior as it collapses, and this counterbalances any resistance to falling. You do not appear to be able to accept this simple fact of physics. I wonder why...

You have aligned your self with and become a spokesperson for a forum that denies all evidence that refutes the OCT and maliciously attacks anyone presenting it. You should expect the same in return. This is not subject for the faint of heart. There's a million people dead and counting, the Constitution has been trashed and we are rapidly becoming a police state, all because of the false flag event of 9/11.

Oh yes, ideological blindness, that would explain it.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris7,
I understand your frustration with me in some ways, but you are very wrong to assert that someone who doesn't believe in 9/11 CD is a government apologist. There are some hard-left people who think you are wrong. I for one oppose the Patriot Act, am deeply upset that our Constitiutional protections have eroded, that hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq, etc. The fallout from 9/11 has been terrible. But I am sincere in my belief that the science is not there to support your theory, and want people to see a respectful rebuttal to it before they put their energies into something I think is simply untrue.

Some people are being apologists for Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks against me. Other sincere and high-level 9/11 truth seekers are appalled at his blog post about me. I cringe when I read your justification of his behavior. It's "childish," as one 9/11 Truth activist told me.

 

[Major_Tom]

But I am sincere in my belief that the science is not there to support your theory, and want people to see a respectful rebuttal to it before they put their energies into something I think is simply untrue.

Then to be consistent, you should study the initiation movements of WTC1 and WTC2 carefully and admit that the science to support the NIST theory of the collapse initiation mechanism is not there also.

I have been using the more refined measurements and observations of Femr2 and others for a couple of years now. They show quite clearly that the NIST made a number of untrue claims within their reports to such a degree as to render their conclusions and proposed initiation mechanisms meaningless.

In these cases no belief is required. All claims are verifiable, all methods reproducible.


Presented in detail in the website linked at the bottom of my post.

 

[chrismohr]

Then to be consistent, you should study the initiation movements of WTC1 and WTC2 carefully and admit that the science to support the NIST theory of the collapse initiation mechanism is not there also.

I have been using the more refined measurements and observations of Femr2 and others for a couple of years now. They show quite clearly that the NIST made a number of untrue claims within their reports to such a degree as to render their conclusions and proposed initiation mechanisms meaningless.

In these cases no belief is required. All claims are verifiable, all methods reproducible.


Presented in detail in the website linked at the bottom of my post.

Sincere apologies Major Tom but I am experiencing burnout. I am committed to seeing through the Jim Millette dust study I organized and now the chrismohr911.com site with its re-re-re-rebuttals of the 238 reasons I gave for natural collapse, but when these are done I feel truly finished. I have at least glanced at countless other alternative theories, all of them far worse than the material on your site. But I look forward to just returning to my music composition (which I already am). I may have looked carefully at your material a year ago but now I say enough is enough. Apologies and due respect, Chris

 

[ozeco41]

Then to be consistent...

Sincere apologies Major Tom but I am experiencing burnout. I am committed to seeing through the Jim Millette dust study I organized and now the chrismohr911.com site with its re-re-re-rebuttals of the 238 reasons I gave for natural collapse, but when these are done I feel truly finished.

Chris your "burnout" understood.

The point Major_Tom makes about consistency is relevant. The required consistency for you is consistency in your re-re-re-re-re-reburttals on the web site.

I am sure that your quality assurance advisors will be sufficiently aware of Major_Tom's concerns and the extent to which they impact on your re^X-buttals

 

[Major_Tom]

In that case, the effective results of your efforts are just what C7 claims in the following quote:

You have aligned your self with and become a spokesperson for a forum that denies all evidence that refutes the OCT and maliciously attacks anyone presenting it. You should expect the same in return. This is not subject for the faint of heart.

In the end, you do not present the truth. Like so many others, you stop where it is subjectively convenient for you to do so. You lay just one more mess at the feet of those who come after us, misrepresenting your own work just as you accuse others of doing.


If you suffer from burnout, then state that clearly within the work you present to others and do not falsely misrepresent your efforts as complete when they are not.
..............

If the measurements of Femr2 and others are verifiably superior to those of the NIST, then you should state that in unambiguous terms within your presentations and allow your audience access to the entire body of superior measurements. This can easily be done and there is no excuse for not doing it.

Both you and Richard Gage should lay down your egos and present the clearest, best observations and measurements available to your audiences. History is not as he presents it and it is not as you present it. This is knowable. To avoid this uncomfortable truth is to misrepresent yourself to others, just as you accuse Richard Gage of doing.

 

[pgimeno]

In the end, you do not present the truth.

Do you have the truth?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7,
I understand your frustration with me in some ways, but you are very wrong to assert that someone who doesn't believe in 9/11 CD is a government apologist. There are some hard-left people who think you are wrong. I for one oppose the Patriot Act, am deeply upset that our Constitiutional protections have eroded, that hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq, etc. The fallout from 9/11 has been terrible. But I am sincere in my belief that the science is not there to support your theory, and want people to see a respectful rebuttal to it before they put their energies into something I think is simply untrue.

The science is there in FFA but you double talk around it. Even FERM's graph shows 2.5 s of absolute FFA [and momentarily more, if you want to believe that] FFA or >FFA is only possible if ALL the supporting structure is REMOVED.

Some people are being apologists for Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks against me.

What did he say?

Other sincere and high-level 9/11 truth seekers are appalled at his blog post about me. I cringe when I read your justification of his behavior. It's "childish," as one 9/11 Truth activist told me.

Why are you not appalled by the comments made about Richard Gage?

 

[ozeco41]

Do you have the truth?

The topic under consideration is the intention of ChrisMohr to finish the multi-staged rebuttal and follow up to Chris's debate with Richard Gage. The rebuttals being posted as 235 line items on the web page at www.ChrisMohr911.com

So if we filter out all the derogatory personal insults noise from Major_Tom's post the item of relevance is Major_Tom's claim that:
"History is... not as [Chris presents] it" because Chris has not made use of "the clearest, best observations and measurements available"

In order to make this statement honestly Major_Tom must have studied the 235 items.

So surely the easiest way forward would be if Major_Tom was to identify the items he must already have identified as inaccurate and where:
A) use of better measurements would be the relevant action to take; AND
B) better measurements would make a significant improvement to Chris's responses.

So why not save Chris the effort of guessing which ones you mean Major_Tom. Give him the list and the reason in each item why better measurements will make a significant improvement in historical accuracy.

 

[femr2]

Give him the list and the reason in each item why better measurements will make a significant improvement in historical accuracy.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[ozeco41]

Sounds reasonable.

Thanks.

I am dubious about the web site presentation layout that Chris has adopted. In my opinion many of the issues need more comprehensive explanations that the "few sentences both ways in little boxes" lends itself to.

Then again we need to remember that Chris's target for his videos was a relatively uninformed lay person demography. And many of his points made in the videos are made for that audience - not designed to stand nit picking by expert nit pickers like many of us here. Me included.

Still my concerns are way off the simple challenge involved in M_T's call for historical accuracy of measurements.

 

[tsig]

Your belief that the NIST data points show >g only demonstrates that you don't understand what you are looking at. The data points are not perfect as even FEMR has stated. For your >g to be valid, the building had to go from <g to >g to <g to >g. Even with the absurd "lever" theory, that would not happen.

This is how disinformation works. You create a doubt based on a false premise but give yourself wiggle room by saying "may" in the middle of several minutes of claiming that WTC 7 did not fall at FFA.

NIST realized that Chandler was right and repeated his analysis, getting the same result - ~100 feet of FFA. You refuse to accept their scientific analysis in favor of anonymous posters on a forum that rejects any evidence of controlled demolition and maliciously attacks anyone presenting it.

That is absolute BS. A system in free fall has no internal stresses. If the interior were to hit resistance it would slow the descent, not speed it up.

His graph shows only one period of >g.

Only because you want to deny FFA.

This is NOT minutiae and you know it. FFA for 100 feet proves CD and you know it.

The first casualty of this phony "War on Terror" was our right to question the official conspiracy theory on most public forums and journals. "Homeland Security" was Hitlers excuse to shut down descent.

Off topic: Do you think we need 30,000 armed drones flying over U.S. cities to protect us from terrorists? Do you want to live in a police state?

Really?

You have aligned your self with and become a spokesperson for a forum that denies all evidence that refutes the OCT and maliciously attacks anyone presenting it. You should expect the same in return. This is not subject for the faint of heart. There's a million people dead and counting, the Constitution has been trashed and we are rapidly becoming a police state, all because of the false flag event of 9/11.

I urge you to have a long heart to heart talk with Fran. She understands what you are going thru.

Is this the g-string theory of the collapse?

 

[Christopher7]

Is this the g-string theory of the collapse?

Make my day!

Mañana

 

[chrismohr]

Major Tom you have a good point, and I may acknowledge having decided to cut off my research at some arbitrary point (which would be true, there is no end to this debate). But it is also true that I am unwilling to go through an entire new line of research. As others have said here, while I am putting together my website re-re-rebuttals, I am happy to entertain a specific critique (I'm getting lots of those right now from friend and foe alike). Also, I am happy to link people to your site so people can go there to do more research. Much of what I am doing is providing abundant links for people who want to know more. Your site has some information that is useful to this debate. I didn't mean to shut you out completely, even if I am not willing to go down a long new complex research road!

 

[chrismohr]

The science is there in FFA but you double talk around it. Even FERM's graph shows 2.5 s of absolute FFA [and momentarily more, if you want to believe that] FFA or >FFA is only possible if ALL the supporting structure is REMOVED.

[qimg]http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2535/femr5e.jpg[/qimg]

What did he say?
Here's what he said about both me and Millette: http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/whe...n-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/
My responses are earlier on this thread if you want me to dig them up for you again.

Why are you not appalled by the comments made about Richard Gage?

This is stunning. I have repeatedly defended Gage against personal attacks on JREF, and people have called me an anarchist, an apologist for a fraud, etc. Look around, there are dozens and dozens of times I have corrected, cajoled, disagreed, etc. about Gage when he is personally attacked. This accusation so flies in the face of the facts that it makes me wonder if sometimes you may get your scientific facts wrong as well

 

[carlitos]

If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no Major_Tom to study its fall to sub-pixel accuracy, are the forest rangers "lying" if they say it was "chopped down?" Might it have levered itself so some branches and leaves fell at ">FFA" for some time therefore inside job?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Christopher7]

This is stunning. I have repeatedly defended Gage against personal attacks on JREF, and people have called me an anarchist, an apologist for a fraud, etc. Look around, there are dozens and dozens of times I have corrected, cajoled, disagreed, etc. about Gage when he is personally attacked. This accusation so flies in the face of the facts that it makes me wonder if sometimes you may get your scientific facts wrong as well

You ignored FEMR's graph shows FFA for 2.5 s.

FERM's graph shows 2.5 s of absolute FFA [and momentarily more, if you want to believe that] FFA or >FFA is only possible if ALL the supporting structure is REMOVED.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2535/femr5e.jpg

 

[chrismohr]

Chris7,
Heart-check time. My response to your accusations re Richard Gage were met, not with an acknowledgement of the truth of what I said, but another accusation of a completely different nature. I also responded to your accusation that because I don't believe in 911 CD, I must be supporting government policies I actually abhor. Both accusations are patently false. I know because I'm me and I know what I believe. As for you, no more responses to your buckshot accusations against me until you cool your jets and acknowledge the first two recent responses to your accusations.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7,
Heart-check time. My response to your accusations re Richard Gage were met, not with an acknowledgement of the truth of what I said, but another accusation of a completely different nature. I also responded to your accusation that because I don't believe in 911 CD, I must be supporting government policies I actually abhor. Both accusations are patently false. I know because I'm me and I know what I believe. As for you, no more responses to your buckshot accusations against me until you cool your jets and acknowledge the first two recent responses to your accusations.

Again you ignored the fact that FEMR's graph shows 2.5 s of FFA. This eliminates you basis for believing WTC 7 was going from >g to <g to >g to <g. It also confirms that NIST and Chandler were correct about FFA. The only difference is the length of time and the momentary [~0.1 s] >g.

 

[carlitos]

You ignored FEMR's graph shows FFA for 2.5 s.

FERM's graph shows 2.5 s of absolute FFA [and momentarily more, if you want to believe that] FFA or >FFA is only possible if ALL the supporting structure is REMOVED.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2535/femr5e.jpg

Did Christopher7 take someone else's work and scribble on it like he did with those fire diagrams?

FERM would not be happy with that.