View Single Post
Old 21st March 2012, 07:33 AM   #3730
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
"You lied" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. If you're backpedalling now--and you are--to say it was "only" an opinion, that means you don't have any evidence to support the claim, especially when Mohr specifically explained the comparison in context.
You have it backward. My opinion cannot be a lie because it is, by definition, my view.

Chris did not lie when he compared a steel column to a stick because he believes that is a reasonable comparison.

Quote:
Are you saying the comparison to a stick in the manner he mentioned ("Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength.") is invalid? No, of course you're not.
Yes I am. Chris is expressing his opinion but he does not have any evidence or data to back it up.

Quote:
Yet you seem perfectly willing to say things like "NIST lied" without evidence.
Incorrect. I present the evidence when I say they are lying.

Originally Posted by C7
The problem is that you made a video supposedly rebutting someone but made false and misleading statements due to your not knowing what you are talking about sometimes.
Quote:
There were other statements besides you making salt water over a comparison to a stick ... ?
Yes. There are many. At 0:26 Chris says "So lets finally investigate one of Richard's central claims, that the free fall collapse of part of the north face of building 7 is the silver bullet ..."

That is a misrepresentation of Mr. Gage's position.

Chris does then give Richard Gage's position, but after he has inserted his version of what was in free fall.

"My opponent must resolve the symmetrical free fall collapse of building 7 or the debate is over."


Chris tries to obfuscate the significance of the free fall acceleration of the entire upper portion of WTC 7 by comparing the 8 stories of FFA to the total number of floors that collapsed including the trade towers which are irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 7.

He states that "only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration." He knows that is not true. We can see the north and west faces falling along with the screenwall and west penthouse which tells us that the majority of the interior falling is with them.

At 1:07 Chris says "Three buildings collapsed on 9/11. Each of the ten towers was 110 stories high ... Building 7 was 47 stories high and only one perimeter wall of 8 of those stories is known to have collapsed at free fall acceleration. So out of the total of 267 floors collapsing, and 1 face of 8 of those floors coming down at free fall, engineers I've talked to say this is insignificant.

Quote:
which you took out of context
I also like how you are very specifically avoiding stating things like whether you were aware of the context, and quote-mining.
Why did you delete that from your response, Christopher7?
I have already responded to that.
Originally Posted by C7
Your later saying that the columns buckled does not change the fact that you compared them to a stick and suggested that they snapped like sticks, and that is erroneous. You were planting a false image in the viewers mind to help you case.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top