IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 25th February 2011, 04:04 PM   #41
Grassy Knowlington
Muse
 
Grassy Knowlington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 527
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
I think the problem is that Gage (and the rest of the truthers) prefer debates that give them some kind of publicity or notoriety. The last thing they want is a written, technical debate because they do not have a prayer in the world.

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

If truthers had any real arguments they would be publishing in journals, presenting at technical conferences, and convincing more engineers/scientists then just a handful out of thousands and thousands.
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!
Grassy Knowlington 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 25th February 2011, 04:49 PM   #42
grandmastershek
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.
grandmastershek 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 27th February 2011, 10:45 AM   #43
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Grassy Knowlington View Post

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

Mr.Herbert 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 27th February 2011, 10:54 AM   #44
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
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."

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o...Fox/gage-2.jpg
Don't forget, "he's been busy". Still waiting for his reply to Greg Uhrich he promised also.

__________________
"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
DGM 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 27th February 2011, 10:55 AM   #45
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
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."

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o...Fox/gage-2.jpg

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%
newton3376 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 27th February 2011, 10:56 AM   #46
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Don't forget, "he's been busy". Still waiting for his reply to Greg Uhrich he promised also.

What is this in reference to?

I'm VERY late to this 9/11 issue compared to some of you, so I don't always know the history like you guys do....
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 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 27th February 2011, 11:03 AM   #47
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
What is this in reference to?

I'm VERY late to this 9/11 issue compared to some of you, so I don't always know the history like you guys do....
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
DGM 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 27th February 2011, 11:15 AM   #48
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Gregory's "open letter".

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/91...ichardGage.pdf
__________________
"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
DGM 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 27th February 2011, 01:51 PM   #49
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Don't forget, "he's been busy". Still waiting for his reply to Greg Uhrich he promised also.
Also still waiting for his promised reply to my whitepaper.

Been over a year.

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

These people aren't even frauds. A fraud has to put some effort into it.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 27th February 2011 at 02:12 PM. Reason: Added links
R.Mackey 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 27th February 2011, 02:38 PM   #50
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Also still waiting for his promised reply to my whitepaper.

Been over a year.
Does Mohr seem ready and prepped for this?

Rev. if you are still reading this why not open up by telling Richard all these people are still waiting for his response?
grandmastershek 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 4th March 2011, 11:57 AM   #51
grandmastershek
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.
grandmastershek 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 7th March 2011, 02:28 AM   #52
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,570
Audio of the debate is up.

Listening to it now. Gage is an idiot.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 7th March 2011, 05:25 PM   #53
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Audio of the debate is up.

Listening to it now. Gage is an idiot.
Holy ****!!! Did Gage just pull the oxygen starved fire card?
grandmastershek 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 7th March 2011, 06:06 PM   #54
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
New message from Chris Mohr:
Quote:
Hi Randi threaders,

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Mohr
He apparently is still having trouble registering. I would like to take credit for the tire blowout. A true honor to know I played a tiny part in putting Gage in his place.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 7th March 2011 at 06:10 PM.
grandmastershek 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 7th March 2011, 08:25 PM   #55
R.Mackey
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.
R.Mackey 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 7th March 2011, 08:47 PM   #56
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
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-
JamesB 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 7th March 2011, 08:53 PM   #57
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
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-
JamesB 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 7th March 2011, 08:55 PM   #58
Telltale Tom
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!
Telltale Tom 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 7th March 2011, 09:15 PM   #59
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
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-
JamesB 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 7th March 2011, 10:53 PM   #60
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
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.
Brainster 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 7th March 2011, 11:01 PM   #61
R.Mackey
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.
R.Mackey 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 8th March 2011, 03:02 PM   #62
Telltale Tom
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
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.!
Telltale Tom 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 9th March 2011, 10:28 PM   #63
LightningTeg
Scholar
 
LightningTeg's Avatar
 
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
LightningTeg 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 10th March 2011, 03:50 PM   #64
riptowtan
Thinker
 
riptowtan's Avatar
 
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.
riptowtan 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 March 2011, 06:47 AM   #65
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
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.
WilliamSeger 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 March 2011, 08:42 AM   #66
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
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-
JamesB 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 14th March 2011, 09:16 PM   #67
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
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
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 14th March 2011, 09:34 PM   #68
HannibalGroup
Thinker
 
HannibalGroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 153
Off topic - but has Gage shaved his head?
HannibalGroup 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 15th March 2011, 01:06 AM   #69
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
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
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)

Last edited by ozeco41; 15th March 2011 at 01:07 AM.
ozeco41 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 15th March 2011, 07:17 AM   #70
Telltale Tom
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
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
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
Telltale Tom 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 15th March 2011, 07:17 AM   #71
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

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)
In Gage's case, he is deliberately committed to earning a paycheck from the gullible, willfully ignorant, and terminally stupid.
Animal 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 15th March 2011, 07:58 AM   #72
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

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.

How so? I've never heard this claim before.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 15th March 2011, 10:44 AM   #73
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Yes, it's just his "new look." Theory still the same tho.
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 15th March 2011, 11:06 AM   #74
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Quote:
Gage retorted "They are engineers and we are engineers...
Gage is an engineer now? And of course there is money to be made.

Quote:
A DVD will be created in the coming months of the event from the high-definition video footage shot by a three-camera film crew led by Ken Jenkins, video director for the AE911Truth DVD’s 9/11: Blueprint for Truth and the SF Press Conference. We hope to air the WTC 7 show on local PBS-TV stations. Stand by to order your copy from our online store in April or May.
Some of my favorite buffoon moments.

Quote:
Gage noted that the scale provided a significant “jolt” to the weight and slowed it down quite significantly as the weight met structural resistance – something that didn’t happen in the North or South towers since they accelerated down nearly at free-fall – without slowing at all
Yeah 66%...no resistance.

Quote:
Gage also wondered why the scale didn’t pulverize to powder or issue patterned explosive ejections of pulverized pieces in a symmetrical arrangement sending 98% of the scale’s fragmented components outside of its perimeter.
Funny how AE911Truth unwittingly showed just prior to that that Gage was playing strawman.

Quote:
Mohr: “It was a simple demonstration of the power of gravitational momentum and it would be impossible to replicate the actual conditions that existed on 9/11.”

Last edited by grandmastershek; 15th March 2011 at 11:11 AM.
grandmastershek 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 15th March 2011, 12:56 PM   #75
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Telltale Tom View Post
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
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.
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 15th March 2011, 04:38 PM   #76
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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...
How so? I've never heard this claim before.
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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 15th March 2011 at 04:46 PM.
ozeco41 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 15th March 2011, 04:45 PM   #77
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...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.
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.
ozeco41 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 15th March 2011, 06:47 PM   #78
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
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.
ergo 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 15th March 2011, 06:52 PM   #79
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
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.
ergo 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 15th March 2011, 07:02 PM   #80
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Free fall of a portion of building through another portion of building indicates that the latter presents no resistance....
Even this "truism" could be misinterpreted by a determined truther....
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...In a structure where the damage has occurred above where the free fall occurs this means that resistance has been removed in some way....
...you are already building your strawman.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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...
Strawman fully active...

Meanwhile, back on the topic I raised:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So, no, I haven't heard anyone ever say that it's "expected" and is a "non-issue"....
I still don't believe you but will allow that you are probably trying a bit of narrow pedantry...
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...In fact, I believe 9/11 bedunkers spent the first eight years of debate trying to argue that free fall never occurred....
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...
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Now, according to ozeco, it's a "non-issue". Why the change?
...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.
ozeco41 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
Reply

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

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 10:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.