|
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. |
25th February 2011, 04:04 PM | #41 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 527
|
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! |
25th February 2011, 04:49 PM | #42 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
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.
|
27th February 2011, 10:45 AM | #43 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
|
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." |
__________________
www.curedfoundation.org Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis |
|
27th February 2011, 10:54 AM | #44 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th February 2011, 10:55 AM | #45 |
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
|
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. |
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1% |
|
27th February 2011, 11:03 AM | #47 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
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).
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th February 2011, 11:15 AM | #48 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th February 2011, 01:51 PM | #49 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. |
27th February 2011, 02:38 PM | #50 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
4th March 2011, 11:57 AM | #51 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
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? And of course they are pimping it with the photoshopped 3 beams of light. |
7th March 2011, 02:28 AM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,570
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
7th March 2011, 05:25 PM | #53 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
7th March 2011, 06:06 PM | #54 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
New message from Chris Mohr:
Quote:
|
7th March 2011, 08:25 PM | #55 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. |
7th March 2011, 08:47 PM | #56 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
|
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.
|
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin- |
|
7th March 2011, 08:53 PM | #57 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
|
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.
|
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin- |
|
7th March 2011, 08:55 PM | #58 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
|
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! |
7th March 2011, 09:15 PM | #59 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
|
This moron keeps on talking about how the towers were "defragmented". What, it was a giant hard drive?
|
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin- |
|
7th March 2011, 10:53 PM | #60 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,570
|
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?
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
7th March 2011, 11:01 PM | #61 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
I ran such a calculation in my whitepaper, around page 100 if I recall correctly. I won't rule it out completely but I don't think this is likely. The "flying" beams start with velocities consistent with descending debris, suggesting they were bounced or toppled out of the stack instead of being blasted out by gas effects.
This is also consistent with the fact that big beams flew the farthest. If it was blast, we expect smaller (but not too small, think fist-sized) chunks to fly the farthest. Ultimately this kind of thing is mere trivia. Only lunatics with scare agendas would call attention to such a pointless detail. |
8th March 2011, 03:02 PM | #62 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
|
So what you are saying is that the squibs prove it was not a controlled demolition.
I was always suspicious of them because I couldnt see the point. If the plane impact demolished 80 perimeter and internal columns, the what was the point of demolishing a few columns down below. How do you explain the explosions at the upper half of the plant room level when a series of explosions, swept across the floor.? It was either air pressure in the ducts (the ducts only existed in the upper part of the floor) or a series of explosives cleverly placed in the ducts. Tell me, would you debate Richard if you had the opportunity? Did you notice that there was much more applause for Richard than there was for Chris. I am sure that will be featured prominently in the made for TV special. Doesn't that prove that Richard won.! |
9th March 2011, 10:28 PM | #63 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 101
|
Mohr was probably as good as someone not completley familiar with the details as can get. Gage was just a bunch of rambling BS. He had holes in his argument that he obviously handwaved away multiple times
|
10th March 2011, 03:50 PM | #64 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 186
|
Wow. So Gage is now claiming nanothermite can be engineered to result in "massive explosions." My understanding is that the nanothermite that was discussed in that scientific paper would be used as an igniter and that the actual explosion would have to be a conventional explosive like RDX. Is this correct? I thought Mohr did a great job with the debate.
|
11th March 2011, 06:47 AM | #65 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
I think Mohr did very well, but once again, the only thing really proved was that a debate format designed for debating subjective political opinions is totally inadequate for debating technical issues and claims of fact. Gage keeps counting how many "architects and engineers" have signed his petition, but it seems he has yet to sign up even one who can put together a valid scientific argument.
|
12th March 2011, 08:42 AM | #66 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
|
Oh nanothermite can do anything. One thing Gage kept on repeating during this debate was that because thermite has a high ignition temperature it could have survived the plane crash and the fires. He needs to actually read their nanothermite paper though, because the substance they supposedly found has an ignition point well below that of thermite, and easily within the range of normal office fires.
|
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin- |
|
14th March 2011, 09:16 PM | #67 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
OK gang I finally got into JREF. Did any of you see Richard Gage's take on my debate last week? Check out his website and see what you think. Chris Mohr
|
14th March 2011, 09:34 PM | #68 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 153
|
Off topic - but has Gage shaved his head?
|
15th March 2011, 01:06 AM | #69 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Greetings Chris.
I am a civil/structural engineer and a military (reserve service) engineer with training in demolition. I have followed the progress of your engagement with Gage but at a distance - after many years observing the idiocies of 9/11 truthers I lack the energy and patience to keep following the details. However I have read the AE911Truth report of the debate. It frustrates and angers me to see the gross distortions that the report spews. Take one example - that of "free fall'. To any competent engineer free fall as part of the collapse of a building such as WTC1, 2 & 7 is simply expected and a non-event. NIST was correct to ignore it but the report makes the usual snide digs etc. These people may be lacking some intelligence but even allowing for that the simple fact that free fall is a none event could not escape their limited consciousness. So they must be simply dishonest. I admire your patience and tolerance in the conduct of this exercise. Outright attacking will not persuade them But they are either stupid or deliberately committed to dishonesty. I do not accept the third alternate of "obsessed" however it is dressed up. So best wishes and commendation. I'm glad it was you not me. Eric C (ozeco41) |
15th March 2011, 07:17 AM | #70 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
|
Congratulations Chris !
I think you did well. But sadly for you, the official feedback from the truth movement is that you lost the debate and Richard won. More of the undecided went with Richard rather than you. Where did you think that you were strongest, and which part of Richard's argument did you think were strongest |
15th March 2011, 07:17 AM | #71 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
15th March 2011, 07:58 AM | #72 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
15th March 2011, 10:44 AM | #73 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
Yes, it's just his "new look." Theory still the same tho.
|
15th March 2011, 11:06 AM | #74 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th March 2011, 12:56 PM | #75 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
First, some of you may want to check out Richard's AE911Truth sites for his take on our March 6 debate.
I think I came across as more confident and calm. In the video you'll see that I also enumerated all 103 reasons why I believe natural collapse has the better science behind it my Powerpoint. That really helped hit it home. I didn't catch all the implications of Richard's assertions, and frankly I am weaker at chemistry than at physics. Unfortunately, in any debate among nonscientists like me 'n Gage in front of an audience of nonscientists, the debate is reduced to who has the best narrative. I had a hard time creating a simple narrative for the complex free-fall collapse of Bldg 7 for 2.25 seconds compared to Richard's "Only controlled demolition could possibly explain this!!" That's simple, strong, and compelling, even though it's flat out wrong. On the other hand, the scale demonstration is simple and powerful, as were some of my statements about gravity gravity gravity. |
15th March 2011, 04:38 PM | #76 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I find that hard to believe ergo.
However the simple fact is that "free fall" does not mean "demolition". Free fall can arise from many mechanism which can occur within a collapse scenario. The only reason "free fall" gets a lot of attention on forums such as this is that the truth movement tries to claim that "free fall" only occurs with demolition. That claim is false. |
15th March 2011, 04:45 PM | #77 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
You were taking on a committed liar in front of an audience committed to believing lies.
...and most of Gages lies are "lies by inference" where you would not "...catch all the implications of Richard's assertions..." I commend your courage in going into the lions den. also your generosity to Gage in statements such as "...even though it's flat out wrong." It is not only flat out wrong it must also be a deliberate lie given the number of times Gage has been exposed to the truth. |
15th March 2011, 06:47 PM | #78 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
Free fall of a portion of building through another portion of building indicates that the latter presents no resistance. In a structure where the damage has occurred above where the free fall occurs this means that resistance has been removed in some way. Since resistance cannot be globally removed in steel-framed structures by fires the existence of free fall is a serious problem in explaining a building's collapse. So, no, I haven't heard anyone ever say that it's "expected" and is a "non-issue". In fact, I believe 9/11 bedunkers spent the first eight years of debate trying to argue that free fall never occurred. Now, according to ozeco, it's a "non-issue". Why the change?
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
15th March 2011, 06:52 PM | #79 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
Fwiw, Chris, I thought you spoke very well. I have only listened to the first 30 minutes. Like many here, hearing the same arguments over and over gets tiresome. Unfortunately there was nothing in your presentation in that part of the debate that deviated from the standard bedunker canards, but you do have a good speaking voice, and it sounds like it was a very good effort.
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
15th March 2011, 07:02 PM | #80 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Even this "truism" could be misinterpreted by a determined truther....
...you are already building your strawman.
Strawman fully active...
Meanwhile, back on the topic I raised: I still don't believe you but will allow that you are probably trying a bit of narrow pedantry... Cannot be true seeing as the word "bedunker" did not exist in those early days of debate. You invented the word as an insult only recently and lost the play when people refused to be insulted and turned the tables on you when they took it as a label with some measure of pride... ...always has been a non issue. I haven't changed. And I don't fall for your switch of the alleged subject of change. Summary. "free fall" does not mean "demolition" and the fact that you don't accept it is your problem. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|