ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , richard gage

Reply
Old 11th September 2014, 10:24 AM   #1
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Adam Taylor's Long Rebuttals to Chris Mohr's 9/11 YouTube Videos

My 22 YouTube videos rebutting Richard Gage's Blueprint for Truth and Experts Speak Out have just received a very thorough and respectful rebuttal from Adam Taylor:
http://citizenfor911truth.files.word...rismohr4-1.pdf
It's hundreds of pages long, it catches some errors of mine, I disagree with his conclusion obviously but here is a very detailed response with much to scour over. I'm so relieved that the tone of the work is as respectful as it is.
At first glance it looks like I have already made corrections on some of the errors he points out. And obviously, many of the "errors" he points out I don't think are errors at all. And a critique like saying "Mohr is just repeating what NIST says here" is not a critique at all. And very importantly, my videos predate the Millette dust study, and in general I have learned much since I made these videos!
This was the first email I got when I opened up my computer on this 11th day of September. May we all have a few moments of peaceful contemplation on this day.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 11th September 2014 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Added sentence plus spellchek
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 10:56 AM   #2
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
I glanced through it... preparing for a flight tomorrow morning so I likely won't have time to read it all in one shot anyway. I saw quite a few rehashes though on the whole, while his claims are largely still crazy his attitude is at least better than can be said of my encounters with people on that fence.

As I've said before when responding to others posters after 5 years this is old stuff that I don't feel is worth spending a day rebutting with a new essay... I'll see what I already have typed up in various threads if there's anything worth responding to. Just curious, what were some of the things you said that you thought he nailed as errors? I ask mostly because I'm not the most familiar person with the specifics of what you've written on this topic.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 10:59 AM   #3
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,682
I skimmed this very quickly and see the same errors of fact and logic that we've seen for years. I can't imagine who will waste the time to read 200+ pages.

Of course if not one bothers to take this apart the truthers will claim they have set the record straight and it has not been *debunked*.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 11:11 AM   #4
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 481
Quote:
In this paper, I will demonstrate why Mr. Mohr’s videos, while presenting some legitimate concerns of the controlled demolition theory, do not ultimately disprove the theory and do not support the theory of “natural collapse.”
Once again, seeking to put the burden on the wrong shoe. Chris does no need to disprove anything.
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 01:29 PM   #5
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Wow, how much life Part
11: Thermites in WTC Dust?can people waste on this nonsense? 235 pages of response - I never even ever watched all of Chris' videos, never had that much time to spend!

I will certainly not read the entire book, so I skipped forward to the technical topic relating to 9/11 CTs that I feel most competent about: Part 11: Thermites in WTC Dust?, starting on page 106.

And lo and behold, Adam makes a bold claim here:

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
The eleventh installment of Mohr’s videos series tackles what is undoubtedly the strongest evidence the Truth Movement has for controlled demolition of the WTC; the chips of unreacted nanothermite found in dust from the WTC.
Cool! I have this little blog that no one ever paid attention to, and that I have not posted in for quite some time:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com

I originally had this intention for the blog, which is still stated on top:
Originally Posted by me
Debates between me and anybody who doubts the common narrative of the events of 9/11. If you think the "official story" is wrong, and you can prove it, do it! What is your one (1) single most convincing argument? Your strongest evidence? Your most damning fact? State it as precisely as you can, and convince me!
Alright then, Adam thinks the "official story" is wrong, and he has stated what he thinks is his strongest evidence, his most damning fact: "chips of unreacted nanothermite found in dust from the WTC".

I think I shall contact Adam and have him state precisely what he considers fact here, and why he thinks it is strong evidence for CD - and defend this position against me in a 1-on-1 debate.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 02:14 PM   #6
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I think I shall contact Adam and have him state precisely what he considers fact here, and why he thinks it is strong evidence for CD - and defend this position against me in a 1-on-1 debate.
Well done, Oystein. I hope he takes you up on it - I would look forward to reading that debate.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 03:03 PM   #7
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Brief commnents on Adam's arguments about NT, in the order he brings them up:

1. "It would therefore not be log ical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition ... so Mohr’s point would seem to be insignificant"
-> I agree. From the assertion that by 2001, research into nanothermitic formulations may only have been in very early stages only does not follow logically that there cannot have been NT in WTC dust. It's an insignificant argument.

2. On the issue IF NTs can be "explosive", and if yes, how "explosive", or how "powerful", Adam follows Steven Jones' suggestions to simply not bother with definitions of "high" or "low" explosives etc.
-> This is of course an easy sneak out. If CTers claim that NT was used as an explosive to demolish a steel structure, they MUST explain how exactly NT does it, and that explanation must take care of issues such as brisance of the charges, and which other properties of an explosive are needed to actually break steel explosibely. It is a necessary part of their proof of CD by NT!

3. About ATM Fig. 29 and a comparison of Harrit's DSC traces with Tillotson'w where Chris pointed out that the curves don't match, Adam focuses on this: "[Harrit e.al.] actually pointed out that both of the samples “show completion of reaction at temperatures below 560 °C.”"
Evasion. The curves still don't match; shape, location of peaks etc. differ. Adam must explain why only one common feature of the curves is significant, and all the differences are not.
Also, everybody know that most NT-truthers, including authors of ATM thelselves, keep pointing out how their reaction happened / started at 425 °C or thereabouts - never any mention of the 560 °C figure.

4. "Mohr also argues that because the heat output of the four samples is low in comparison to other substances"
Does Mohr?? The heat output of thermite is low in comparison to other substances, and, more significantly, in comparison to the four samples! Or, conversely, the heat output of the four samples is HIGH in comparison to thermite.

5. Into the same paragraph as 4. Adam mixes in a separate argument: " [Mohr:] “Harrit’s samples had some carbon based material in them that simply burned in the surrounding air, and that was not a thermite reaction.” However, Niels Harrit disagrees with this assertion, noting that when the chips were ignited, “elemental iron was formed, clearly indicating a thermitic reaction.”"
-> Adam misses the fact that even Harrit the ATM paper itself pointed out that Harrit’s samples had some carbon based material in them that simply burned in the surrounding air! So Harrit disagrees with Harrit?

6. Indeed, the formation of molten iron and iron spheres is a very strong indication that these chips are some sort of thermite. ...the spheres are very important in determining if the chips are thermitic, as noted by the ATM
authors."
The authors never provided any reasons why existence of spheres are "very important" there - they never provided any reference that this is how NT experts identify NT. Fact is: They don't. The proof that a certain reaction was a thermite reaction would be to find in the residue both elemental iron (which they arguably did not) and aluminum oxide (which they most definitely did not at all). The references the ATM authors provide in their paper are quite clear on this: Even if you know for a certain fact that your reactive mix is made of 90% nanothermite, and they burn it, they look for Al-oxide in the residue to prove it was actually the thermite reacion. No one looks for spheres! Spheres with iron are a ubiquous byproduct of many combustion events and not at all specific for thermite.

7. "Mohr brings up at 1:54 is that if unignited thermite was found in the dust, the triggering devices used should also have been found as well. However, we previously discussed that the devices could very well have been made to be very small and disguised so as not to be found in the debris."
-> I agree with Adam here: Not finding such devices is not proof of their absence.

8. "Mohr does not provide an adequate explanation as to why using the PXRD method would have produced more accurate results"
-> That's because Tillotson and Gash, in a paper referenced and used by Harrit et al, that's what they do. Harrit et al use the DSC chart provided by Tillotson and Gash and pretend the chart is indicative of the thermite reaction - but it is not: Tillotson and Gash don't conclude "thermite reaction took place" from the DSC, they conclude it from the subsequent PXRD testing.

9. "as explained by Gregg Roberts:
We ran the test the way we did because the literature described a previous test of nanothermite that was run in an ordinary atmosphere. If we had run it in an inert atmosphere, we would not have been able to compare apples to apples in terms of the energy released"
Roberts and Taylor are in error. It's actually the other way round: The DSC trace by Tillotson and Gash that Harrit et al compare theirs to was done under inert gas. It had to: Both the Tillotson and Gash probe and the Harrit chips had significant organic matrix which will react under air and spoil results. T&G had ca. 10%, ATM had much more organics. Doing DSC under air is stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

10. "we have already established that aluminum oxide would not be expected to be found due to its dispersal in the air."
-> What?? Where? The NT cultists have only asserted this without evidence to weasel their way out of a very uncomfortable position. Tillotson and Gash of course found Al oxide in their residue, easily! It doesn't just disperse into air in a competently done experiment!

11. Adam then tries a convoluted second argument for why there should be no Al-oxide in the residue, and he quotes Harrit. Harrit himself is obviously confused, or making stuff up. Here's the catch:
Harrit: "So we cannot see, determine if there are fluorine in there or not. Now, the presence of fluorine is interesting, because "
-> What? "We can not determine the presence of F, but we know it's there"? Is Harrit using magick here?? I say: Wishful thinking. If they claim there is F, they should prove it! They never did! Isn't Harrit a chemist?

12. "As for Mohr’s claim that barium nitrate should have been found..."
-> I agree with Adam that this claim is uncertain, and I am sure Chris agrees by now, too.

13. A longer discussion of Mohr saying something like "since all chemical elements were somewhere in the towers, their coincidence could be coincidence", Adam quotes Jim Hofmann: "Although these elements - aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon - were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers"
-> I agree with Hofmann and Taylor. The red-gray chips are not a chance assembly of dustcomponents, they are rather a man-made stuff:
Paint on steel.

14. "The composition of the WTC paint and the red/gray chips are extremely different."
-> WRONG. The composition of chips a-d matches the paint specified for LaClede steel company to be painted on WTC floor trusses almost perfectly, and the MEK-soaked chip has a composition very similar to the Tnemec Red 99 paint that Steven Jones himself analysed from a paint sample from a WTC exterior steel column.

15. "The WTC paint was found to be stable beyond temperatures of 800
°C, whereas the chips ignite at temperatures below 500 °C"
-> Wrong in three ways:
First, the assumption that all WTC paint was the same and had the same properties is obviously false: Adam Taylor should already know that there were at least 2 different primers painted on WTC steels. Only the Tnemec paint on the exterior columns is known to behave as described.
Secondly, we already know that the chips that most of the chips that Harrit et al present in their paper wasn't tnemec; much of it was most likely LaClede paint, which isn't expected to be stable the way Tnemec paint is
Thirdly, "paint was found to be stable beyond temperatures of 800
°C" does not necessary mean that it didn't react - that the organic matrix didn't oxidize. It merely means that there remained some matrix, so the red pigment wouldn't readily spall off. In fact, it is virtually certain that Tnemec would react well below 800 °C, given that it contains linseed oil in its organic vehicle.

16. "The chips did not dissolve in a MEK paint solvent."
-> a) So what? Why is this significant?
b) Adam should know already that the chip they could not dissolve in MEK was chemically different from other chips in their paper. Also, does he know how Tnemec paint or LaCLede paint would react to MEK? I am certain that LaClede would not dissolve, as it is an epoxy-based paint.

17. "[Mohr] cites two reasons why he feels the validity of the journal is questionable: that a hoax paper was accepted by Bentham and that the journal’s editor resigned in protest after the ATM paper was published. Both of these points, however, are totally insignificant."
-> I agree with Adam that these points are insignificant. It suffices to show that the paper's conclusions are simply wrong (do not follow from, and in fact are contradicted by, the paper's data).


Midnight. Time to finish my beer and hug the pillows.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 03:06 PM   #8
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Well done, Oystein. I hope he takes you up on it - I would look forward to reading that debate.
I can't find in Taylor's paper an email address where I can contact him

Chris, could you provide me with his email?
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 03:29 PM   #9
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
I glanced through it... preparing for a flight tomorrow morning so I likely won't have time to read it all in one shot anyway. I saw quite a few rehashes though on the whole, while his claims are largely still crazy his attitude is at least better than can be said of my encounters with people on that fence.

As I've said before when responding to others posters after 5 years this is old stuff that I don't feel is worth spending a day rebutting with a new essay... I'll see what I already have typed up in various threads if there's anything worth responding to. Just curious, what were some of the things you said that you thought he nailed as errors? I ask mostly because I'm not the most familiar person with the specifics of what you've written on this topic.
So far I consider most of the errors minor. For example, he writes, "Mohr states at 1:00 that the buildings were built to handle three times the static weight, “but not
five times as Richard Gage asserts.” This claim is somewhat misleading. While it is true that there was a safety factor of 3 to 1 for the core columns in the Towers, there was actually a safety factor of 5 to 1 for the perimeter columns." Gage does now say "3 to 5 times" but since a collapsing floor creates momentum some 31x the force of static weight, it matters little. Adam also calls me out on the quantity of jet fuel I claimed burned that day. I think he's right there.

As for "burden of proof," I chose to take it on. Gage would say "where are the pancaked floors?" in his lecture and I would find photos and accounts by firefighters of pancaked floors. I did this hundreds of times. Adam Taylor certainly has the burden of proof re CD, but I thought it would be an interesting challenge to try to explain possible natural scenarios for the phenomena we saw that day in the collapses.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 03:45 PM   #10
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,682
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
So far I consider most of the errors minor. For example, he writes, "Mohr states at 1:00 that the buildings were built to handle three times the static weight, “but not
five times as Richard Gage asserts.” This claim is somewhat misleading. While it is true that there was a safety factor of 3 to 1 for the core columns in the Towers, there was actually a safety factor of 5 to 1 for the perimeter columns." Gage does now say "3 to 5 times" but since a collapsing floor creates momentum some 31x the force of static weight, it matters little. Adam also calls me out on the quantity of jet fuel I claimed burned that day. I think he's right there.

As for "burden of proof," I chose to take it on. Gage would say "where are the pancaked floors?" in his lecture and I would find photos and accounts by firefighters of pancaked floors. I did this hundreds of times. Adam Taylor certainly has the burden of proof re CD, but I thought it would be an interesting challenge to try to explain possible natural scenarios for the phenomena we saw that day in the collapses.
The factor of safety argument is stupid. I did a study of the FOS for ALL the columns at floor one and it is not 3 to 5. Of course FOS is not the same for all structural members because each section cannot be precisely matched to the anticipated loads.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf FOS Study 2013.pdf (206.3 KB, 8 views)
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 11th September 2014 at 03:47 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 06:38 PM   #11
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Adam also calls me out on the quantity of jet fuel I claimed burned that day. I think he's right there.
Not really.

The NIST report states, in the same page where the tables presented by Taylor are:
Of the total amount of fuel distributed to each floor, only 40 percent was used in the simulations. The reasoning behind this estimate followed that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study (McAllister 2002). It has been estimated by various forms of analysis (Zalosh 1995; Baum and Rehm 2002) that roughly 20 percent of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs that were observed outside of the buildings within seconds of impact. The authors of the FEMA report suggested that half of the fuel not consumed in the fireballs could have flowed away, presumably down the elevator shafts and stairwells based on eyewitness accounts.
(NCSTAR 1-5F, p.56, PDF p.90)

Therefore, that 20% that burned in the fireballs is not included in the tables, but I'd say it made a significant contribution to igniting fires. Since the quantity that Taylor points to is 40% of the total, you have to add half that quantity to the amount of fuel burned. That's (32,868 + 28,067) * 1.5 = 91,402.5, i.e. pretty close to your 90,850 liter estimation (for both planes combined).

ETA: Your video, however, seems to suggest that a single plane would carry 98500 liters. That is indeed incorrect.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 11th September 2014 at 06:43 PM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 08:08 PM   #12
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Oystein,

Adam Taylor has no interest in a debate. I think that, like me, he'll be moving on. He invited me to post this response to your request for an email:

Hi Chris. Personally, I'd prefer if you didn't. I've been browsing the JREF forum today since I was sure you'd mention my paper over there, and I wanted to see some of the reactions. No surprise, insults galore from several of them. But I'm aware of Oystein's remarks, and while some of them are just petty and silly (i.e. "Wow, how much life can people waste on this nonsense? 235 pages of response..." Right. Because no one has EVER written something book-length and led a normal day-to-day life), he seems reasonable for a lot of what he says.

He wants a debate, but I'm honestly just not interested. Of the points he's raised so far (some of which I can see he agrees with me on), most of them seem to have been addressed be JM Talboo and Ziggi Zugam in their essay http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/ which I do reference in my paper. Ziggi has also written at length on this topic at the 911debunkers blog as well. I suppose it's possible that some of what I say in my paper may have been addressed elsewhere on JREF, but then again I haven't spent morning and night looking through every single thread on JREF (if I did, well then I'd really have no life ). Any debate with him or anyone else on JREF doesn't interest me. Given that it's JREF we're talking about, I'm sure I'd never get the last word in no matter what. Addressing every single point of their's would probably require another 230 pages from me, and nowadays I'm not involved in nearly as much 9/11-related business as I have been in the past. I released my paper since I didn't want my work to go to waste, and it's free for anyone to read and come to their own conclusions.

Presently I just have other things taking up my life right now. I'm close to graduating from my university, and I'm actually planning on writing a book on topics unrelated to the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I still don't buy the official explanations, and I will probably always support 9/11 Truth, but it's not something I want ruling me for the rest of my life. I suppose some debunkers will see this as a backing down from a challenge on my part. Let them think what they may. I see it as just taking my life in a different direction at the moment.

Best regards,

-Adam

PS Feel free to post this email at JREF so that they know my current stance on the matter.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 08:14 PM   #13
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Pgimeno, I Don't remember what I said, but I meant to use 90,000-98,000 litres of jet fuel as an estimate of the total amount of fuel in both planes. I used two figures, and perhaps did not take into account the fuel that did not burn INSIDE the Towers. But still, that does not really help their case if it's somewhat less fuel: those jet crashes still triggered the fastest-moving office fire in history!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 08:23 PM   #14
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Chris,

Well I wish Adam all the best. He sounds like a good kid. Good to hear he is about to graduate from college. Reading just part of his 235 pages, I can tell he is intelligent, but just badly misguided. I have hope for him, maybe in a few years he will turn things around and finally understand just how misguided the 9/11 truth movement is. We can only hope.

MHM
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 12:36 AM   #15
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Oystein,

Adam Taylor has no interest in a debate. I think that, like me, he'll be moving on. He invited me to post this response to your request for an email:
Thanks for inquiring, and posting the response!

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
...while some of [Oystein's remarks] are just petty and silly (i.e. "Wow, how much life can people waste on this nonsense? 235 pages of response..." Right. Because no one has EVER written something book-length and led a normal day-to-day life), ... I haven't spent morning and night looking through every single thread on JREF (if I did, well then I'd really have no life ).
I've been there myself, wasting too much time of my days and weeks on this stuff. Good for Adam if he manages to move on.

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
he seems reasonable for a lot of what he says.

He wants a debate, but I'm honestly just not interested.
...unfortunate, though, that he moves on with lots of false ideas in his head and thus all the wrong conclusions!

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
Of the points he's raised so far (some of which I can see he agrees with me on), most of them seem to have been addressed be JM Talboo and Ziggi Zugam in their essay http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/ which I do reference in my paper. Ziggi has also written at length on this topic at the 911debunkers blog as well.
JM and Ziggi have a poor grip on the NT issue - I wonder if Adam doesn't have a hunch that this is so. Very little systematic thinking. I have emailed with JM for a short while, very respectfully, but Ziggi has always ranted and has been noticed as a very unpleasant person when he comments on what "the other side" (from his position) has to say.

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
Any debate with him or anyone else on JREF doesn't interest me. Given that it's JREF we're talking about, I'm sure I'd never get the last word in no matter what. Addressing every single point of their's would probably require another 230 pages from me
But that's the point: I am inviting him to step outside of the mumble-jumble, focus on one narrowly defined line of evidence, namely that which he identifies as his "undoubtedly the strongest evidence the Truth Movement has", and come to a last word on it!

By lumping me in with JREF at large and assuming I am like everybody else here is an obvious fallacy. He is right, I already agree with some of his points, and indeed I am "reasonable for a lot of what [I say]". In fact, I'd suggest that the first step in a debate with Adam would be to identify all the relevant facts that we already agree upon, and also identify all the things we agree are irrlevant, so as not to bother about them.

And then think for ourselves, rather than relying on the opinions of others.

My challenge is: Let us cut away all the insignificant detail of the NT issue and carve out precisely what the evidence is, and what it means.
I have hope that, in the end, Adam will come to understand that "the strongest evidence the Truth Movement has" isn't really evidence for CD at all, and perhaps that will tip him off to reconsidering the validity of the overall claims! If the strongest evidence fails, what faith can one have in the weaker?

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
...I suppose some debunkers will see this as a backing down from a challenge on my part.
I for one, while somewhat disappointed, won't hold this against him. I myself stepped out of the debate for more than a year, and that wasn't due to "backing down".

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
Let them think what they may. I see it as just taking my life in a different direction at the moment.
I wish him all the best for his future!


Chris, perhaps you could mail him a link to this post.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 02:16 AM   #16
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
What a failed human. He publishes support for insane claims and runs away. What a fake human, who support lies which mock the murder of thousands, and fails to follow up with evidence. He quote-mines failed nuts from 911 truth producing a paper full of BS.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 03:39 AM   #17
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,682
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
What a failed human. He publishes support for insane claims and runs away. What a fake human, who support lies which mock the murder of thousands, and fails to follow up with evidence. He quote-mines failed nuts from 911 truth producing a paper full of BS.
This is an excellent characterization...
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 07:51 AM   #18
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 463
Mr. Taylor - I really think you should take Oystein up on this. There is no point in writing and publishing a book length treatise if you are not willing to engage in debate about it with someone offering to do so in a polite and respectful manner.

However, I sympathize with your reservations if, for whatever reason, you are under the impression that everyone on JREF is as rabid as certain users who seem to post on here simply in order to spew out the same insults and shallow observations over and over again like one of those automatic air-fresheners.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 11:40 AM   #19
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Mr. Taylor - I really think you should take Oystein up on this. There is no point in writing and publishing a book length treatise if you are not willing to engage in debate about it with someone offering to do so in a polite and respectful manner.

However, I sympathize with your reservations if, for whatever reason, you are under the impression that everyone on JREF is as rabid as certain users who seem to post on here simply in order to spew out the same insults and shallow observations over and over again like one of those automatic air-fresheners.

Yes, I do so hate it when a poster spews out the same insults and shallow observations over and over again like one of those automatic air-fresheners.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 12:07 PM   #20
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
He quote-mines failed nuts from 911 truth producing a paper full of BS.
They truely are a self perpetuating agency -- an amazing ability to circle cite any failed argument. Once a lie is uttered by a truther, it will forever be quoted by another truther!
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 12:20 PM   #21
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Yes, I do so hate it when a poster spews out the same insults and shallow observations over and over again like one of those automatic air-fresheners.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who hates it when a poster spews out the same insults and shallow observations over and over again like one of those automatic air-fresheners.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 01:02 PM   #22
1stClassAlan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 145
Speaking as someone who has worked on controlled demolition and construction sites here in the U.K. - sometimes, in charge of them - I challenge anyone who thinks that any 911 building collapse was caused by ANY kind of explosive or pyrotechnic chemicals to - produce the burnt ends! Show us the results for chrissakes!

There are countless photographs and video images of G.Z. both immediately after the outrage and during the clear up and I haven't seen one that raises the hair on the back of my neck! I see hundreds of building components broken at their bolted connections to release them intact or beams with the bolts broken from their connectors and some with the connectors intact but torn from their affixed place and the tear displaying the characteristic overstressed failure. But in all those thousands of pieces - not one burnt end! What happened to them? Who took them away and how was the spiriting accomplished under the glare of 24 hr web cams.

The only photo I've seen put up for evidence of explosives was a section of standing column pictured with a fireman - which was obviously cut with oxy-propane (or similar torch) during the clear up. Whoever posed this scenario has clearly no idea of what explosively cut steel looks like.

People who talk about thermite as a demolition tool are stupid and annoy me - folk who add in the nano word as if to lend their argument super power are quite deluded - guys that go looking for supposed thermitic evidence in the ashes of a building constructed from steel and aluminium are clearly barking mad!

Last edited by 1stClassAlan; 12th September 2014 at 01:04 PM.
1stClassAlan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 01:53 PM   #23
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Alright then, Adam thinks the "official story" is wrong, and he has stated what he thinks is his strongest evidence, his most damning fact: "chips of unreacted nanothermite found in dust from the WTC".

I think I shall contact Adam and have him state precisely what he considers fact here, and why he thinks it is strong evidence for CD - and defend this position against me in a 1-on-1 debate.
Good luck with that. Adam started a 911 blog/web page in which he invited people to post comments. I politely wrote and suggested some errors he made in his blog commentary.

He never posted my text. He wasn't looking for dialog. He was looking to encounter other Truthers with whom there were differences for discussion.
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 02:53 PM   #24
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I for one, while somewhat disappointed, won't hold this against him. I myself stepped out of the debate for more than a year, and that wasn't due to "backing down".
If you are looking to debate, Kevin Barritt and Rick Shaddock have challenged me to debate on Kevin Barrett's radio show, and challenged me to find somebody willing to debate Dr. David Griscom on the issues in the Bentham Journal paper. At one point I had David Griscom writing with his arguments, and Kevin Barrett writing me offering to sponsor a debate.

I think it would be interesting to take them up on it with Chris Mohr's comprehensive knowledge. Until 911 Truth comes up with independent verification for the claims they make (i.e., evidence), there is really is nothing to debate.

Griscom, a geologist, is the guy who "peer reviewed" the Bentham paper, which is about chemistry and explosives. It never occurred to Griscom to insist that the authors of that paper (Harrit, Jones) take their samples to an independent lab for verification or that the paper document exactly how thermite splits steel beams apart since it is not explosive. (They claim it converts to an explosive in the process of becoming "nano" but don't explain how that could be). My personal belief if that Griscom has early stage dementia.

Oystein: I'd enjoy reading your analysis of the Bentham paper if you have written about it and have a link.
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2014, 03:55 PM   #25
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by frank3373 View Post
If you are looking to debate, Kevin Barritt and Rick Shaddock have challenged me to debate on Kevin Barrett's radio show, and challenged me to find somebody willing to debate Dr. David Griscom on the issues in the Bentham Journal paper. ...
...
Griscom, a geologist, is the guy who "peer reviewed" the Bentham paper, which is about chemistry and explosives. It never occurred to Griscom to insist that the authors of that paper (Harrit, Jones) take their samples to an independent lab for verification or that the paper document exactly how thermite splits steel beams apart since it is not explosive. (They claim it converts to an explosive in the process of becoming "nano" but don't explain how that could be). My personal belief if that Griscom has early stage dementia.
I had a lengthy email exchange with Griscom early last year. Unfortunately I think I lost the entire exchange when my PC's hard drive died. He didn't appear to me as demented, however I found his arguments sometimes puzzling. Not the coherent, critical stuff one would expect from a first class scientist.
He has a blog, which is mostly politics but hardly, if ever, on 9/11:
Cherchez la Verité ("Search truth!").
Griscom is your typical CTist of all trades.

Originally Posted by frank3373 View Post
Oystein: I'd enjoy reading your analysis of the Bentham paper if you have written about it and have a link.
Here is my blog with a smallish collection of articles on details of the WTC-NT issue:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2014, 06:51 AM   #26
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Looking at Chapter 1, Adam takes me to task for the speed of the planes. I can believe that the Towers were designed to withstand a 600mph plane crash, but as Leslie Robertson said, no design could also withstand the ensuing fires from the fuel. And that is what we saw on 9/11. Plane banking did, I believe, weaken the structure and cause more damage, but in and of itself that was not enough to topple them. The crash weakened the buildings and the fires finally brought them down.

Damage to the sprinklers may well have only marginally increased the speed of the fires' growth, and the same may be argued for the fireproofing that got torn away. But to deny that a plane crashing into a building did not tear off any fireproofing seems to stretch my credulity too far. Same with the argument of the structural safety factor reduction: 3 to 2, or 3 to 2.6?

My quote of Leslie Robertson re not being able to stop the fuel fires from destroying the WTC buildings is contradicted by a Skilling quote. What does Skilling say now about the fact that the Towers DID collapse after fires further weakened them? Would he not say that the building survived long enough for a lot of people to escape, as it was designed to? Or would he say CD!

And my fuel estimates indeed were unclear, inaccurate.

None of this proves CD, so far. More to come.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2014, 02:46 PM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Looking at Chapter 1, Adam takes me to task for the speed of the planes. I can believe that the Towers were designed to withstand a 600mph plane crash, but as Leslie Robertson said, no design could also withstand the ensuing fires from the fuel. And that is what we saw on 9/11. Plane banking did, I believe, weaken the structure and cause more damage, but in and of itself that was not enough to topple them. The crash weakened the buildings and the fires finally brought them down.

Damage to the sprinklers may well have only marginally increased the speed of the fires' growth, and the same may be argued for the fireproofing that got torn away. But to deny that a plane crashing into a building did not tear off any fireproofing seems to stretch my credulity too far. Same with the argument of the structural safety factor reduction: 3 to 2, or 3 to 2.6?

My quote of Leslie Robertson re not being able to stop the fuel fires from destroying the WTC buildings is contradicted by a Skilling quote. What does Skilling say now about the fact that the Towers DID collapse after fires further weakened them? Would he not say that the building survived long enough for a lot of people to escape, as it was designed to? Or would he say CD!

And my fuel estimates indeed were unclear, inaccurate.

None of this proves CD, so far. More to come.
Why would a jet be going 600 mph in an accdent when the airspeed at 700 feet would be below 250 knots, more like 200 or less knots configured for landing? Where does the 600 mph come from except in a "bragging" rights white paper not from the WTC tower engineers.

https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bri...adeCenter.aspx
Why not go to the source. This is why Adam Taylor failed, he stopped when he googled 911 truth BS, he may be finding errors in your work, but he replaces them with more BS.
https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345
Robertson clearly shows he was using 180 mph as a design point; Adam Taylor ignores first person evidence, and fails.
13 years and Adam Taylor is going to let the big inside job slide, and he will not do anything.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2014, 10:28 PM   #28
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Thanks for the link Beachnut to the Leslie Robertson article, which I knew about but had not read. I hear him speak on a local radio station here once too. He's a brilliant man with a good heart, really cares about the lives that were lost on that day. I could see why he would be really haunted by the horrible events of that day, but if indeed his team designed the building to withstand a plane hitting the Towers at 180- mph, then his buildings outperformed their specs and saved 25,000 lives by holding up long enough for most people to escape. That's why Adam's arguments about the design specs are secondary to the question of WHAT HAPPENED to the Towers on 9/11. The basic narrative, planes + fires = eventual collapse initiation, remains the same whether the 1970 design specs called for the buildings surviving a 600mph crash or a 180 mph one. And as for Gregg Roberts and his claim that of course they MUST have accounted for the jet fuel and fires in their design, well, that's not what Leslie Robertson said in his first-person account (see Beachnut's link). Thousands of people died, but tens of thousands of people survioved because the buildings managed to stay standing long enough for a mass evacuation.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2014, 11:54 PM   #29
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
... , remains the same whether the 1970 design specs called for the buildings surviving a 600mph crash or a 180 mph one. ...
The white paper from the Port Authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCSTAR1 pg. 55
A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited.
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
The existence of a design-time high-speed impact study -- not a requirement -- is a persistent rumour. NIST investigated and could find no evidence of its existence:

I'll go one further. The study referred to was probably a simple calculation of aircraft momentum versus overturning moment of the building. It is unlikely that the structure was considered at any level of granularity. It is absolutely inconceivable that the fires were considered at all.

Robertson's comments are the standard to beat. As indicated previously, he knew better than anyone what the design requirements were. That's because it was his job. If he says they weren't designed to absorb such a ridiculous amount of punishment, we should believe him, unless we have extraordinary evidence to the contrary. We do not.
I look at the White Paper as bragging, and agree with Mackey. Robertson does not support the 600 mph statement of the white paper, by the Port Authority.

Robertson was looking to protect people from an accident, a plane lost in the fog, like the B-25 ESB crash.
The speed limit below 10,000 feet is 250 knots, FAA limit so planes have time to see and avoid. This is why when you fly, in 2 or 3 minutes after takeoff your pilots lower the nose and speed up to cruise speeds at 10,000 feet.

There would be no reason an accident aircraft would be doing 600 mph at 700 feet in NYC. Even if the throttles were stuck full open, the pilot would climb to keep speeds under-control.

I can't figure out why a plane would be going 600 mph at 700 feet, except for crime; and then 600 mph for an airliner is pushing the limits; above 580 mph the 767 might have control issues with flutter - as would a 707, which might have issues at lower speeds. Planes built today have lower limits, lower standards than the 767 was built for.

The people who did the White Paper with 600 mph, found in the NIST report, did not do the structural engineering for the WTC.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2014, 03:31 AM   #30
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
tfk wrote the ultimate post on the "600 mph" issue back in 2011 - complete with sources, context and engineering analysis:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...09#post6993609

Required reading before you post on.


The short version is: The Towers were designed to withstand the lateral force of a certain hurricane-wind speed; this means a wind shear load of 13 million pounds (+ some safety margin implied). If you go too far beyond this, the building is in danger of tipping over (typically at the base).
In 1964, some engineers then calculated what load the biggest plane at the time - the 707 - would exert at full speed - 600 mph - laterally on the facade, result was 17 million pounds, and decided this was probably within the margin of safety, and that the building would thus not tip over at the base. This calculation did NOT take into account the local damage to columns etc at the impact point! Just the lateral "push" equivalent to a strong wind.

Seperately, the calculated if the building would hold up if you removed all perimeter columns along the width of the 707 wingspan (like cut them out surgically), and found it would. This calculation did NOT take into account lateral forces, and also did NOT account for any damage other than to the perimeter columns - and most certainly NOT for fires.



Send this link to Adam Taylor.

Last edited by Oystein; 20th September 2014 at 03:33 AM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2014, 03:41 AM   #31
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...Adam Taylor ... may be finding errors in your work, but he replaces them with more BS ...
This, absolutely this.
We all are in error some of the time. I certainly can find error's in Chris' work, I find errors in beachnut's posts, I even find errors in my own thinking.

So being in error is a prerogative I will grant Taylor without hesitation.

The point is: Does he employ some epistemology that allows him to systematically identify and correct his errors? I don't pretend to know Taylor well enough to answer this question, but I find again and again that Truthers lack such an epistemology, and that is why they are, and remain to be, Truthers,
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2014, 01:11 PM   #32
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Not me, I nevr make errirs
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2014, 01:13 PM   #33
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
So NT is the greatest evidence of demolition. Odd that it would be so extremely inefficient as to result in tons of it being "leftover" from the demolition.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2014, 02:10 PM   #34
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Moving further through Chapter 1, Adam claims the Purdue Study (where the researchers spent years inputting data to create the simulation) is deeply flawed, and contradicts the NIST Report in important ways. Here is some info about the Purdue Study and its animation of the plane crash: http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/07...ffmannWTC.html
Shyam Sunder of NIST praised the study however: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/simulati...g-key-on-9-11/
The simulation helped emphasize the importance of fireproofing and other new safety measures which are now in place in the new Freedom Tower (safety improvements Richard Gage called a waste of money when I debated him). While there are differences between NIST and Purdue, they both agree that the central findings of each others' work leads to the same inevitable conclusion. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ype=blogs&_r=0
The idea that the Purdue Study and its alleged fraud is being covered up by all of the media, including every major scientific and engineering publication in the country, is more than I can believe.

I have already admitted that I didn't get the fuel loads correct, but Adam doesn't talk about my assertion that the fuel we see shooting backwards out of the hole in the building is the only direction of the explosion we can see. That means that the building had to absorb the force and the heat generated by the explosion up, down, left, right and forward!

I suggested higher fire temperatures than that of NIST, but the colors of the flames and other evidence suggests that 1400F was common, as was possibly even higher temperatures. NIST tended to be conservative in their estimates of the temperatures and locations of the fires (which they recorded mostly based on fires actually observable from the outside).

And I completely disagree that inward bowing can be evidence of nanothermite or thermate. It went on for minutes, with no blinding lights visible as the supposed nanothermite burned and burned. No, it was a gradual distortion called by heating the long-span trusses, and as the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat reported, further shrinking of the bowed trusses after the fires moved on and the now-frozen and distorted trusses shrank even more. And Hoffman's explanation of how thermate could have done all this ignores the fact that very little eutectic steel was found in the debris pile.

Adam takes me to task on page 17 for claiming 14 floors were burning, and yes, I intended that to mean the total for both Towers. We talking a lot of acreage of burning here, and spreading fast, maybe 100 feet up in an hour! But no, Adam quotes someone saying the fires were suffocating, just some black smoke and no flames. And hey, the fact that the plume of smoke was easily visible from outer space and covered an area about the size of Manahattan is not evidence that there was a lot of burning going on???

I don't go too deeply into the peer-reviewed issue, but on page 18 I did mention the absence of peer-reviewed papers. I would have to change that to "paucity," and am reluctant to count a Steven Jones paper published in a 9/11 Truth publication among them. And as for NIST Report's lack of peer review, I believe five engineering firms signed off on it, maybe someone can correct me on this?

On page 20-21, Adam talks about how NIST "admits" that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse.” I asked NIST about this myself, and they said that no computer model can possibly take into account the chaotic nature of a collapse. Once collapse initiation happens, they told me, "Gravity takes care of it," and it descent mostly downward due to gravity is inevitable.

So that takes us through page 21 and the end of that chapter. Whew! What I find is that Adam found some mistakes, and others in the Movement have found what I consider to be minor discrepancies between NIST and Purdue, which are then greatly magnified way beyond their significance. While most engineers looking at this focused on how to make tall buildings safer in the future, Gage has said all their efforts are a waste of money. And as I said in my debate with him, that really scares me, because I consider human life to be worth investing in keeping safe.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 20th September 2014 at 02:15 PM. Reason: spelling
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2014, 09:47 PM   #35
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Adam Taylor recently wrote to me and said this (I've chosen to edit it):

I've recently had a look through the thread on my paper, and I've see some of the remarks by you and others. All I can say is that I still think my paper holds up in spite of the comments posted so far, but that's not what I want to focus on right now.

Rather, I want to address comments made about me by someone posting as "frank3373" who says:

Good luck with that. Adam started a 911 blog/web page in which he invited people to post comments. I politely wrote and suggested some errors he made in his blog commentary.

He never posted my text. He wasn't looking for dialog. He was looking to encounter other Truthers with whom there were differences for discussion.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4&postcount=23

There's no other way to say it: I have no idea what he's talking about. As far as I know, I haven't censored any comments like his anywhere I've written. If he's talking about the 911debunkers blog (which I write for), it's true comments aren't allowed there, but I'm not in charge of that decision. I have my own blog here:

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/ where I discuss (among other things) 9/11-related issues. I do moderate my comments, but aside from the occasional spam product promotion comment, I've only censored and/or deleted comments on two posts. One where I was getting flooded with comments by a complete nutjob (literally, someone with schizophrenia) who went off topic and started posting personal information about me. So I ended up deleting his comments. The other was a post where I was getting endlessly pestered by Pentagon no-planers to the point that they started posting pure insults, so I closed comments on the post. And these were comments made by (supposed) truthers, not debunkers. Other than that, I have never not approved a comment posted at my blog.

Unless this person specifies where I'm supposed to have censored his comments, I'm forced to conclude that he's lying about me. People can criticize my work all they want, but I'm not going to be accused of censoring my critics who have legitimate comments to make. Anyway, just wanted to clear that up.

I will also offer a slight mea culpa regarding comments made by Oytsein. I certainly did not mean to lump him in with everyone else at JREF, and have maintained that he is clearly one of the more reasonable folks there. Looking through the thread, it actually seems that only a select few have decided to act like immature mean-spirited children.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 04:14 AM   #36
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,682
Perhaps this comment is off topic.... I occasionally receive emails from the truth community containing articles or papers or videos presenting a truther POV naturally. At times I write a respectful, polite email to the person who wrote the paper, article or video. I usually challenge some of their statements on fact or perhaps *logic*... Frances Shure would be one example. But none of them respond or seem to want to discuss the issues raised.

It makes me think these people are very insular... only want to appeal to people who are open to their thinking or already are on board... preaching to the choir.

I had a few emails with Daniele Ganser who simply essentially stated we disagree on the facts. And of course if you can agree on the facts... you have no real basis to have a dialog. At least he did reply. Most simply don't and it leads me to think they are really no interested in what happened as much as confirming their on bias... and adding what they believe is weight by writing or producing something which appears rigorous and scholarly. This has led to the idea that this work needs peer review to give it an imprimatur and to taken very seriously.

But when looks at say the 911 Consensus panel... whether you accept their delphi method or not (I don't)... it's comprised of all committed truthers who all clearly have a bias. How can anyone accept their findings as even having a modicum of impartiality?

I see 911Truther as more and more resembling a cult... a cult which purports to be based on rational thinking and science... but is not. It's nothing but a clever illusion and is meant to fool people... which they would call informing or enlightening. And this is exactly what a *snake oil* salesmen does... make you think it's legit.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 06:14 AM   #37
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Part Two Page 22

Part Two (page 22) of Adam Taylor's rebuttal of my rebuttal videos deals with the ten features of a traditional controlled demolition, and indeed this slide of Gage's is confusing. As Adam pointed out, there are ways Gage believes the CD on 9/11 was UNconventional, in other words, not in alignment with these ten traditional features. So why does Gage organize it like this, instead of having two columns, one for the ways he thinks this "CD" was traditional, and one for ways it was nontraditional?

Adam does indeed list 13 ways HE sees CD in the collapses, and this is muh more clear.

Adam agrees that both Towers began their collapse at their weakest point but denies this for Building 7. But I took a frame from the a video of the Building 7 collapse which clearly shows it tipping into its weakest point, the side where the fires were strongest.

On page 26, I acknowledge that huge clouds of dust are created in both CDs and natural collapses, as we;ll as verinage where no explosives are used BTW). My point was that the dust clouds can't be used as evidence one way or another, it just means air is being pushed out a collapsing building.

Adam contests my assertion that explosions have to be loud, a rebuttal that I imagine could hold water if there were proof of thermitic destruction.

Adam holds back on other rebuttals, as I will here. Comments anyone on these technical issues?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 06:31 AM   #38
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 463
@Adam Taylor, given that you have acknowledged Oystein's reasonable posting style

Originally Posted by Adam Taylor
I will also offer a slight mea culpa regarding comments made by Oytsein. I certainly did not mean to lump him in with everyone else at JREF, and have maintained that he is clearly one of the more reasonable folks there.
I really can't see any good reason why you wouldn't take him up on his offer of a one-on-one debate about the nano-thermite evidence. I'm assuming it would be a thread here or on Oystein's blog where only you and he would be able to post.

Please agree to do this debate Adam. It would be great to have two respectful, informed opposing views on this topic debating without having to dread the next '13 years of failure...why can't 911Truth do science?...etc, etc...' type posts from popping up.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 06:51 AM   #39
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Part Two (page 22) of Adam Taylor's rebuttal of my rebuttal videos deals with the ten features of a traditional controlled demolition, and indeed this slide of Gage's is confusing. As Adam pointed out, there are ways Gage believes the CD on 9/11 was UNconventional, in other words, not in alignment with these ten traditional features. So why does Gage organize it like this, instead of having two columns, one for the ways he thinks this "CD" was traditional, and one for ways it was nontraditional?

Adam does indeed list 13 ways HE sees CD in the collapses, and this is muh more clear.

Adam agrees that both Towers began their collapse at their weakest point but denies this for Building 7. But I took a frame from the a video of the Building 7 collapse which clearly shows it tipping into its weakest point, the side where the fires were strongest.

On page 26, I acknowledge that huge clouds of dust are created in both CDs and natural collapses, as we;ll as verinage where no explosives are used BTW). My point was that the dust clouds can't be used as evidence one way or another, it just means air is being pushed out a collapsing building.

Adam contests my assertion that explosions have to be loud, a rebuttal that I imagine could hold water if there were proof of thermitic destruction.

Adam holds back on other rebuttals, as I will here. Comments anyone on these technical issues?
By and by I've been able rationalize and understand how the CT's come to the conclusions they do. There are "similarities" that both have.... however, that is if you take things from a very, very cursory perspective. That's usually where I stop comparing them.

There are prerequisites required for CD to be viable and I've discussed at length in the past what's missing. I've basically looked at three things as a "base" requirement for "CD":

1) Physical remnants of "CD": None found
2) Damage to structural connections with clearly identifiable damage: No photographic or physical documentation exists showing damage connections (failure methods) that can be attributed to change cuts or blasts.
3) No effort made to corroborate witness accounts of explosions with the physical and documented evidence: IE they take witness testimony at their literal words without context or corroborating details that removed doubt about what they are alleged to point out.

Without those, there is very little than can advance...

- Clouds of debris: he might not expect it.... I tend not to be surprised by it in contrast. It doesn't tell me what caused the collapse. Much of the concrete was flooring, rather than structural support. And more fragile components like drywall, furniture, and similar... those tend to create a lot of dust on their own.

- Speed of collapse: Not informative to the cause. when you have a failure that is critical to the overal stability of the building, it's much harder to stop after it's begun.

.... I could go on... but Mr. Adam seems to be a bit less of the stereo type than I usually see. I need more information about his points (which I'll read and determine on the whole if this assessment stands).
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 07:00 AM   #40
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
... But I took a frame from the a video of the Building 7 collapse which clearly shows it tipping into its weakest point, the side where the fires were strongest.
I see this as a weak argument and wouldn't use it.
  • It is difficult to say and come to an agreement on "where the fires were strongest"
  • It is not necessarily so that the "strongest" fires turn the region where they rage into the "weakest point". It might be that there is already a very weak spot somewhere else, that only a small fire might render "the weakest" overall.
  • It seems to make common sense that visible collapse occurs early at the "weakest point", but that isn't necessarily so. Remember, according to NIST, global collapse started when one of the strongest columns failed (after having lost lateral support), and that collapse progressed from there, with the outer facade following only several seconds later. It kinking towards column 79 might just be a coincidence, albeit a plausibly probable one, and the visible part of the collapse might as well have happened differently. Remember, pretty much all of the first seconds of progressive collapse was invisible!

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
On page 26, I acknowledge that huge clouds of dust are created in both CDs and natural collapses, as we;ll as verinage where no explosives are used BTW). My point was that the dust clouds can't be used as evidence one way or another, it just means air is being pushed out a collapsing building.
Correct. Perhaps it helps to remember that the towers were effectively all-steel structures (the concrete floor played a minor structural role by having connections to the floor trusses, stiffening them, but that shouldn't detract), and any CD would thus attack steel members. Neither detonations nor incendiaries to cut steel would generate any dust to speak of, as steel doesn't shatter to dust.

All the dust came from non-structural building materials and would be entirely collateral to any building collapes, no matter what the course (explosives or thermites or fire fires or space beams or earthquakes or space beams...). The amount of dust proves that the towers collapsed - something all sides agree on.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Adam contests my assertion that explosions have to be loud, a rebuttal that I imagine could hold water if there were proof of thermitic destruction.
You should demand of Taylor to commit to one theory of nano-thermite use or the other: Either the NT was configured as a high explosive, capable of breaking steel; then there have to be explosion sounds. OR it was configured to melt through steel members; then he needs to present evidence to that effectl, or explain the lack of such evidence. (Of course he could claim that both kinds of NT attack were employed, in which case he needs both loud sounds and evidence of steel cut by melting).
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.