True Faction Has Had it With Controlled Demolition Bullshit!

gretavo's picture

Dang... the best thing about prosecuting these creeps as accessories will be that their best defense is going to be "no, we swear--we really are as stupid as we look!"


 Colo. Boulder Debate: 9/11 WTC Destruction – Gage Vs. Mohr

Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index
-> News and Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:24 pm    Post subject: Colo. Boulder Debate: 9/11 WTC Destruction – Gage Vs. Mohr Reply with quote

The debate can be listened to here:-

In my opinion, I think Mr.Mohr sounded more confident and posed a serious challenge to Richard Gage's theory.

Chris Mohr could've done with mentioning the following facts:-

The RJ Lee Report expects iron microspheres:-

"Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of

the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be

expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics

• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials"

Dr. Jones found volatilized lead in the dust and claims that it is evidence of 1,470C vaporisation. However, RJ Lee discovered:-

"The presence of lead oxides on the surface of

mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead
would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the
surface of mineral wool."

(source of this quote is in the above link)

Molten lead does actually release vapours with increases in temperature:-

?"When lead is molten, it releases minute amounts of vapors at a progressive rate as temperatures are increased"

To his credit, Mr.Mohr does mention how sulfidation of steel could've occurred.

Heating of the internal drywall in the WTC could have yielded sulfate
fumes that corroded steel and also lowered melting points. An example of
one manifestation of sulfate corrosion:-

Regardless, there is no evidence of widespread sulfidation or widespread
molten steel from these buildings - so such sulfidation or melting
could well have been from localised drywall problems.

Gage couldn't convincingly rebutt gravitational-arguments that Mr.Mohr
sourced from engineers. His explanations basically tried to create
conclusions from conflicting eye-witness accounts and anamolies that
have not been conclusively explained.

Controlled demolition may sound compelling to some people, but really it
is a quagmire - and should never be sold as 100% fact or as a main
selling point to the public.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2053
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

demolition may sound compelling to some people, but really it is a
quagmire - and should never be sold as 100% fact or as a main selling
point to the public.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website    

Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 1006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We're always on shaky ground
when we assert theories, because then we are by definition conspiracy
theorists. Everybody loves to poke holes in theories, so the discussion
shifts immediately to the assumptions, inferences, holes,
contradictions, and most doubtful evidence in the theory--and to the
behavior of its least credible proponents.

The unsophisticated will be much impressed by the argument that we have
not proven our theory--and they can not be expected to recognize that a)
science does not prove theories, but only establishes that they better
fit the evidence than do the competing theories and b) NIST and the 9/11
Co'n don't prove their theories either (though that doesn't stop the
credulous from regarding those as established facts).

When we assert theories we are immediately on the defensive; we shift
the battleground to our weakest evidence and the fact that we can't
prove our case.

If we stick with the argument that we need new investigations because
the old ones were incomplete and corrupt, because new information has
surfaced, and specific questions need answers then we argue from our
strongest points and their weakest ones, we stick to facts, and we shoot
them in the foot instead of ourselves. It's a 9/11 Truth movement,
not a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement or a 9/11 Fight the NWO movement
or a We've Proven 9/11 Inside Job movement.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 59

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ah, so Gage lost the debate?

just asking, as I've yet to hear it for myself... Shocked

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 1244

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



My opinion:

Gage lost in the first section where they debated the collapse of the towers.

Gage won in the 2nd section where they debated the collapse of Building 7.

as some of you know - i'm a tough critic - so Gage's victory on Building 7 should not be taken lightly.

a couple of things stuck out in my mind on the discussion of Building 7:

- the discussion opened with the moderator announcing that BOTH parties in the debate agree that Building 7 was not significantly damaged by the collapse of the towers.

the implications of this cannot be understated.

for a long time it was claimed that Building 7 was seriously damaged by
the collapse of the towers - with a huge gash in the front of the
building seldom seen in the videos shot from the rear. I can remember
the claims that building 7 was virtually "scooped out" by falling

Mohr conceding the point that Building 7 was NOT damaged by the
collapsing towers gave Gage a decidedly significant advantage since the
only conclusion now possible was that the collapse was the result of

Mohr failed to mention the 6000-gal fuel tanks cited by Popular
Mechanics alleged to have fueled the fires (point Gage) - but, i am
unsure this is relevant. Again - catastrophic fires of the WORST kind
have occurred in both the real world - and in tests - resulting in steel
frames SAGGING. No example can be given of a complete systemic
collapse - even with the presence of fire accelerants.

Gage's repeated admonishments on the SYMMETRICAL nature of the collapse
were also very effective. While Mohr repeatedly cited the alleged
collapse of internal infrastructure - Gage makes a significant point
that the external structure (visible to observers) was intact and the
steel beams failed symmetrically at near free fall speed. It is hard to
understand how all of these external beams all failed simultaneously -
pulling the building straight down.

another significant consensus was reached on the NIST acknowledged existence of liquid steel/iron present in the debris. (Appendix C?) Mohr acknowledges its existence and refers to it as a 'mystery.'

this is direct forensic evidence that is virtually impossible to explain
occurring in the natural world without incorporating the possibility of
either intentional deception by NIST or an alternative physical
catalyst. But why would NIST intentionally incorporate this evidence
into their report when it clearly supports the alternative narrative?
Speculation on this would be irresponsible.

This may be an over dramatic analogy - but how would one explain the
existence of 'one extra bullet' in JFK's limousine in Dallas - if such a
thing were found? It would have been a piece of physical evidence -
the existence of which is impossible to simply dismiss - with the
POSSIBLE nefarious implications strongly supporting an alternative

i did find many of the absolute terms Gage used as exaggerated - such as
the evidence of CD that he claimed were 'impossible to explain' in any
other way - which Mohr took him to task on. I also view the evidence of
iron microspheres to have been weak on Gage's part - and i am
continually frustrated by the absolute terms Gage and others use in
making this claim - when so much more could and SHOULD be done to verify
the work of Jones.

But - bottom line - Building 7 remains a significant open question - and with Gage stating openly that his INTENTIONALITY is to spur a new investigation into the collapses
- he sufficiently demonstrated that his opponent in this debate was
sorely lacking in explaining many of the anomalies - and the forensic
evidence - associated with Building 7 - and he succeeded in making his

so i do give the match point to Gage

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Building 7 didn't collapse
symmetrically (the East Penthouse fell first...and then the rest of the
building was pulled down). It also didn't collapse into it's own
footprint - because the debris significantly damaged 2 other buildings

As far as technical complexities, here is what the NIST report concluded about WTC7: -

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse
sequence was the buckling of Column 79. … When steel (or any other
metal) is heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is
resisted by columns or other steel members, forces develop in the
structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of
connections. (p. 21)

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79
led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor
failures … down to the 5th floor (which … was much thicker and
stronger). … This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and
as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial
local failure for collapse initiation. (p. 22)

There are arguments made that the debris from WTC1 and WTC2 was a factor
in the collapse of building 7 (along with the fires). However, this is
countered by the fact that other buildings in the same (or closer)
distance from towers 1&2 were equally hit with debris (or more so).
NIST's analysis deals with this by their discussion of Column 79 and how
the debris initiated fires that initiated collapse.

The claims about an apparent symmettry in the collapse of the building
(by "controlled demolition" theorists) are also addressed by NIST: -

There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the
downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse
fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face
at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the
downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness
and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST does not say that the debris was the main factor. The structural
design of the building is emphasised as the main flaw (which does give
some legitimacy to some claims that there should be further
investigation into WHY such structural flaws existed).

The collapse of the East Penthouse (before the rest of the building)
also complicates the argument. It means that after the East Penthouse,
we have the vast majority of the building still standing - BUT, the
collapse is still not technically a global or total collapse. It is
assymmetric. In this video of a steel-framed university building
partially collapsing from fire; we can see it looks rapid and almost
explosive: -

Now, some may respond by saying it looks different to how Building 7
fell. That is true, but both buildings are differently designed on the
exterior frame (albeit both are steel-framed high-rise buildings) and
the fire-dynamics and nature of partial ASSYMETRIC collapse are
obviously different.

Claims of molten steel in building 7? NIST has this to say on the molten steel issues: -

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in
the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten
steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature
resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short
exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

If people wish to refute NIST's position on molten steel causality, then
they have to get into technical arguments regarding certain conditions.
There are a lot of debates on the internet (albeit mostly by
unqualified people) as to the authenticity of the molten steel citings
and whether what was seen was actually molten steel. Things like
eutectic melting and sulfidation (as observed in WTC7) have also been
discussed and debated with certain people claiming that thermite-based
controlled demolition is not the only hypothesis ( e.g. the length of
time that heat was sustained in the rubble may not neccessarily be from
thermite according to some). The nano-thermite paper that was published
by Harrit et al has its shortcomings. There has not been enough
independent analysis of the dust samples, and there are problems with
the chain of custody regarding the acquisition of the samples. There are
problems with the fact that some of the people who wrote the paper,
know how to make nano-thermite themselves (e.g. Kevin Ryan). The paper
may have been peer-reviewed, but it was published in a journal in which
the editor famously resigned out of indignation over the publication. No
conventional explosive residue has been found, and some people (namely
on forums like JREF and SCIFORUMS) have questionned whether
nano-thermite was used as an explosive or an incendiary/trigger.

Other "explosive" claims have been rebutted by physicists like Dave Thomas at NMSR. His analysis can be found here: -

I hope those points make it clear that the WTC7 argument is NOT the
"smoking gun" of 9/11 Truth. This is because it is hard to keep the
argument simple. While my points are just for the sake of argument; they
do actually illustrate the COMPLEX implications of pursuing the
physical-evidence argument. This then puts off a lot of people, and
makes the argument weaker in the light of counter-claims or other

Last edited by PersianPaladin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 1244

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

none of your points were voiced in the debate.

Mohr seemed ill-equipped to counter Gage's claims - and so seemed to
lose the debate on Building 7. Keep in mind that winning or losing a
debate does not necessarily have anything to do with 'ultimate truth.'
In this particular case 'grasp' of the pertinent material was the key
to winning the debate - and although Mohr did well on the towers - he
failed on Building 7 because he seemed to not have that grasp on the

you make a lot of good points about Building 7 persianPaladin - but i am hardly the person who should counter your points.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    
Jon Gold

Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 1415

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the debate goes merrily on.

I'll say it again. You shouldn't have to be a scholar, a scientist, a
physicist, an architect, an engineer, etc... to understand the need for
9/11 Justice. The majority of the public is not (the people we are
trying to reach), so in my opinion, it is better to keep the message

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jon Gold, this point is
getting clearer. They can make jokes about some of the main CD points
on south park episodes for cryin' out loud. The idea is out there and
look where it takes us now. Many folks in this fight for justice have
spent way to much time ignoring the PRIMARY AUDIENCE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website    

Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 1006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll comment after I've listened to the recording, and address points raised by Paladin and JohnA then.

In the meantime let me point out that originally the idea of organizing
around the CD evidence was that we could engage a whole group of people
who were otherwise unlikely to be interested in 9/11 Truth--engineers,
physicists, chemists--who might be inspired by their scientific
curiosity and scientific integrity to look into questions raised about
the NIST report. And thus it wasn't meant to reach out to the public at

Somewhere along the line, a bunch of not very well qualified people
glommed onto CD and decided that if Dr. Jones said he found
nanothermite, then that must be ironclad proof of inside job. In my
experience, few of the people who attend a Richard Gage presentation are
scientists or engineers, and I suspect he slants his presentation
toward a more general audience.

David Chandler's approach presents another opportunity to present the
technical issues to an elite audience: those who understand high school
physics. Seriously, in today's USA that is, sadly, an elite group.

All I can say is, do a better job of getting the non-CD stuff out there.
Get the widows screaming bloody murder about Behrooz Sarshar. More
power to ya!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message    

Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Sol III

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Mohr talks about material coming down at 100 mph. But what has to happen for falling material to reach that velocity?

In Earth’s gravitational field near the surface it takes a mass a little
more than 4.5 seconds to reach 100 mph. But that is assuming no air
resistance to significantly affect the speed. In that time the mass
would travel 324 feet. That would be 27 stories of height of the WTC.
Now how much mass, in steel and concrete, would there be in 27 stories
of the WTC? I didn’t notice any mention of the conservation of momentum
in that so called DEBATE.

Wouldn’t any mass trying to accelerate through 27 stories of steel and
concrete encounter just a little bit of resistance even if it was 90%
air? So if the top of the north tower fell one story how did it ever get
up to 100 mph? Mohr is shooting himself in the foot and depending on
the audience not thinking.

You have to waste time listening to this so called debate and think
about it just a little bit to figure out that it is a stupid waste of


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message