• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gage's next debate

newton3376 said:
I think the problem is that Gage (and the rest of the truthers) prefer debates that give them some kind of publicity or notoriety. The last thing they want is a written, technical debate because they do not have a prayer in the world.

It's much more difficult to use certain debating strategies in a technical debate, especially if it's a written one.

If truthers had any real arguments they would be publishing in journals, presenting at technical conferences, and convincing more engineers/scientists then just a handful out of thousands and thousands.
Click to expand...

I attended a Richard Gage lecture at MIT. He talked about 'superthermite' (apparently an expolsive), showed the video footage of glowing stuff flowing out of one of the Towers and also showed a video demonstration of real Thermite on a car bonnet/hood. I emailed, via a 3rd party, the question to Gage about how the absolute need for an expolsive 'thermite' was in any way supported by videos/arguments based on the molten stuff flowing out of the Tower and the car bonnet/hood demonstration, both obviously not explosives.

Guess what?

No reply other than something to the effect of 'our technical team will look into it'....

And the cardboard box demonstration of how a multistorey tower couldn't possibly collapse was pathetic; but the devotees in the audience reacted with whoops of joy.

Give me strength!
 
Of course Gage will only "debate" in live presentations. Online you can break down his arguments word for word and keep posting points he has dodged. In a live debate he can just ignore what he wants and if the timing is right in whose side it is to go he will never challenged about having to adequately respond. When its in print its a little more difficult to hide that. After all Szamboti can't do it, what hope would a know-nothing like Gage have? A man who simply repeats talking points and offers no analysis nor has produced anything himself other than a collection which encompasses only quote mining & parroting other peoples' BS.
 
Grassy Knowlington said:
No reply other than something to the effect of 'our technical team will look into it'....
Click to expand...

Hi Grassy ~

Gage will not answer technical questions. I was in attendance at one of his presentations in Cambridge about a year and a half ago. I presented him with Ryan Mackey's white paper debunking Gages mentor Dr. Griffin. His response was: "but this is a technical paper" and he said he would have his Engineers look into it.

After several e-mails back and forth...he NEVER looked into it and clamed to have sent it to Dr. Griffin.

The douche bag is a charlatan. He is making a living off of idiots.

- Mr. H

This is me explaining the paper to Gage.... (he shook my hand and thanked me for being a "good sport."

gage-2.jpg
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Hi Grassy ~

Gage will not answer technical questions. I was in attendance at one of his presentations in Cambridge about a year and a half ago. I presented him with Ryan Mackey's white paper debunking Gages mentor Dr. Griffin. His response was: "but this is a technical paper" and he said he would have his Engineers look into it.

After several e-mails back and forth...he NEVER looked into it and clamed to have sent it to Dr. Griffin.

The douche bag is a charlatan. He is making a living off of idiots.

- Mr. H

This is me explaining the paper to Gage.... (he shook my hand and thanked me for being a "good sport."

[qimg]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/gage-2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Don't forget, "he's been busy". Still waiting for his reply to Greg Uhrich he promised also.

;)
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Hi Grassy ~

Gage will not answer technical questions. I was in attendance at one of his presentations in Cambridge about a year and a half ago. I presented him with Ryan Mackey's white paper debunking Gages mentor Dr. Griffin. His response was: "but this is a technical paper" and he said he would have his Engineers look into it.

After several e-mails back and forth...he NEVER looked into it and clamed to have sent it to Dr. Griffin.

The douche bag is a charlatan. He is making a living off of idiots.

- Mr. H

This is me explaining the paper to Gage.... (he shook my hand and thanked me for being a "good sport."

[qimg]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/gage-2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


That is unfortunate.....if Gage ever "presents" or "debates" somewhere reasonably close to where I live I will likely attend and also attempt to explain to him in a friendly way why his movements "theories" are incorrect...

Sadly he will likely have the same reaction....but maybe people listening will be encouraged not to blindly accept his theories.

Oh and BTW....your signature is freaking hilarious.
 
DGM said:
Don't forget, "he's been busy". Still waiting for his reply to Greg Uhrich he promised also.

;)
Click to expand...

What is this in reference to?

I'm VERY late to this 9/11 issue compared to some of you, so I don't always know the history like you guys do....
 
newton3376 said:
What is this in reference to?

I'm VERY late to this 9/11 issue compared to some of you, so I don't always know the history like you guys do....
Click to expand...
Mr Herbert and I went to Gages "show" last year. Gregory Uhrich (9/11 forums) requested that his name be removed from the "petition" and wrote Gage a long list of criticisms (I'll see if I can find it later). Gage told us that night that he planned to respond and will do so soon (a year and a half ago).
 
DGM said:
Don't forget, "he's been busy". Still waiting for his reply to Greg Uhrich he promised also.
Click to expand...

Also still waiting for his promised reply to my whitepaper.

Been over a year.

So far the only response was "yeah, well, we dare you debate our 'rocket scientist,' " or at least I think that was intended for me -- they've never even tried to contact me, except to invite me to their stupid press conference last year that never actually happened. And that 'rocket scientist' is presumably Dwain Deets, who sided with PfT, and Gage just threw PfT under the bus after realizing they're too crazy even for his folks.

These people aren't even frauds. A fraud has to put some effort into it.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Also still waiting for his promised reply to my whitepaper.

Been over a year.
Click to expand...

Does Mohr seem ready and prepped for this?

Rev. if you are still reading this why not open up by telling Richard all these people are still waiting for his response?
 
A new promo for the debate. With the wonderful smoke n mirrors we have come to love and enjoy from AE911Truth.

came down in pure free-fall acceleration for at least 100 feet—per NIST, and in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition

So FFA of 100 feet from a total 610 is the exact manner of a CD? :boggled:

And of course they are pimping it with the photoshopped 3 beams of light.
 
New message from Chris Mohr:
Hi Randi threaders,

I just finished the 4 1/2 hour long debate with Richard Gage last night. It was respectful but brutal. I confronted him on an incredible number of scientific distortions, and the help I got from Ryan Mackey and others was invaluable. I must have talked for four hours with NIST people, and their scientists did indeed email me answers to the tough questions I asked them. I also had many email exchanges with chemist Kevin Ryan, and a former controlled demolition employee who believes that CD brought down the WTC buildings. Nobody has ever made so many personal contacts in preparation for a debate.

My brain blew out a few times, and as a result I missed a few things. Yes, Richard did say NIST has a new thing called thermal expansion, and yes, I was so exhausted by that time I forgot to call him on it. But generally I am proud of all I did. I gave 103 reasons why controlled demolition's science is flawed and natural collapse makes sense, and then I asked, if these 103 reasons aren't enough, what would satisfy you? I repeatedly challenged him on his attacks on NIST, and he actually said he considered the NIST post 911 safety recommendations a waste of money! I quickly retorted that those recommendations may well save lives, and that my life is worth some safety modifications.

He also said every window should blow out if the squibs were air pressure. Who was it now who suggested I used the blown out tire analogy (you know, when my bike tire blows out it blows in its weakest spot, not everywhere)? Anyway, I used it. And countless rebuttals and explanations from Ryan Mackey.

Oh yes, and I used boxes for some demonstrations and HE DIDN'T! Now there's a switch.

Many thanks to Ryan especially and everyone who helped me with ideas. This may be available on some kind of podcast soon, I'll let you all know,

Chris Mohr
Click to expand...

He apparently is still having trouble registering. I would like to take credit for the tire blowout. A true honor to know I played a tiny part in putting Gage in his place.
 
Last edited:
Well, the tire blowout isn't quite a correct analogy, because in that case the air is static, and it's a static pressure straining the tire until it bursts.

In the case of the towers, there's a combination of static and dynamic pressure. The collapsing tower is not a very good container and will only support a static pressure of a fraction of a PSI. There are also "winds," in some cases equivalent in terms of dynamic pressure to winds of hurricane strength.

Just like wind doesn't all blow the same direction, we don't expect all the windows in the tower to experience the same force from static + dynamic pressure. Also some windows are stronger than others. Some are weakened from the impact and fires, some had people trying to open them. Some will get hit by heavy chunks of debris.

In contrast, an explosive or series of explosives triggers a pressure wave. Different phenomenon. Speed > Mach 1. The strength of this wave at any point depends on distance and on whether the wave reflects off of hard surfaces (like columns) to get there. Explosives would cause many windows to fail, and preferentially close to the site of the explosive.

This is not what we saw, and Gage is an idiot.

I brought this up a few times in the past, dealing with complaints from such luminaries as Truthseeker1234 and Turbofan. It's amazing how few Truthers, even those who claim to be pilots, understand the concept of pressure.
 
Gage actually speculates that the floor sagging was caused by charges which went off on the core columns in the minutes before the collapse started. So he is simultaneously arguing free fall, and the world's slowest controlled demolition.
 
Pfft, now he is arguing that the conspirators would use thermite, because it does "provide bright flashes". What? Has he ever seen thermite go off? It can blind you at close distances.
 
So what a strange debate.!
Poor Richard sounds as if he was going to a coronary.

I was surprised when he said that 6% of the dust was thermite iron spheres.! Wow that means that there was 6,000 tons of unexploded spheres.

Bit surprised when Chris said that he loved Richard, but it was that type of debate!
 
This moron keeps on talking about how the towers were "defragmented". What, it was a giant hard drive?
 
I thought it was interesting that Mohr claimed that air pressure hurtled the beams through the air; I've always assumed that they were sprung by the weight of the material above. Any thoughts on that, Ryan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom