Discussion: Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal

This thread will discuss the series of rebuttal videos uploaded by Chris Mohr recently.



I will post my own views on the videos as I watch them in the midst of the thread so as to move the discussion along.

First, on a point of order, I would like to commend Mohr for taking the plunge to drop the word "debunk". This rationalistic nonsense word has no place in a scientific discussion as far as I am concerned. Rebuttal is only marginally better though, what we really should be looking at is falsification by repeatable experiment, but that is a minor quibble.

Second, I don't think that Gage's argument is flawless by any stretch of the imagination, so even though I may focus on giving a critique of Mohr (presumably) this should not be seen as tacit support for Gage. Both may be wrong in my eyes on any given issue.

The introduction itself is good up to the Eiger quote at 5:55, he seems to lose the plot here. Eiger's statement is is inherently wrong and misleading, we have never been given a coherent and full account of the evidence leading up to the conviction of Al-Queda in this matter and all the evidence is badly tainted (notably by fiddling and torture). There does not seem to me a rational basis for choosing the government position as the a priori started position which must be falsified. Bush and his cronies were known liars and quite likely war-criminals, so it at least makes sense to start with the default position of neutral observation.

The idea that simply "following the evidence" is a valid approach to questions of fact is deplorable. Theory building is core to the scientific method, it is not some shriveled appendage to be discarded at a whim. If you do not look for explosives you are acting on the theory that there were none, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As such the reverse scientific method is the one being followed by the OS contingent, THEY are the ones with a theory (Al-Queda did it blahdiblah and so forth) and THEY are the ones who construct their arguments on that the basis that this is true.

If we simply follow our OBSERVATION and build our theory around that, blocking everything we have been told one way or another I believe that at the very least the two competing hypothesis have equal weight. If this was not WTC but some building in some country, I doubt that we would so strongly and forcefully jump to either conclusion as the starting hypothesis, and for the case of WTC7 the rational initial hypothesis would almost certainly be demolition. So simply by "following the evidence" of a type which is not likely to yield evidence of demolition and ignoring lines of evidence which is the official story inverts the scientific method, because if we had no prior prejudice we would have almost certainly looked for falsification of the evidence for explosives, rather than reject it on the basis of not finding any.

Mohr ends with an appeal to good manners, but not before dropping in a casual appeal to authority which I suppose is par for the course (since Gage is not above doing the same with his however many architects and engineers).

WTC Debate Chris Mohr vs. Richard Gage.wmv
www.youtube.com...

psik

I gave an s&f because of the way you presented the post, well done sir. I am not going to join in the argument at this point but I cannot accept his rebuttal. I suppose some comment is in order, I do not believe the structural integrity could be lost in the way he claims.

reply to post by Darkwing01


PART 1a



This video starts of with what amounts to little more than a slander of the engineering and architectural professions.

This is followed by the hollow building canard. It is difficult for me to comment on this position because it is so ludicrous I have a hard time taking it seriously, especially given the fact that in one of the following section Mohr will appeal to the sheer mass of the top section as the means for creating the collapse. At the moment he is just setting you up for the bait and switch though, so he doesn't pursue it, but remember this later on.

The list of reasons at 3:05 are of the "How fast was the car going when it slammed/smashed/bumped/collided/careened into you variety. Every point is subtly colored to maximise the implication of massive damage to the structures (nevermind Irfanoglu and Hofamann finding that the impact had no role in the collapse beyond, allegedly, stripping the fireproofing).

Point seven at 4:23 is interesting since this argues for a reduction of the structural integrity of the UPPER section, which will become problematic for Mohr later on no doubt.

At around 5:00 the first real unsupported factoid appears. There is no evidence that this temperature was reached in the steel itself and no evidence of this supposed towering inferno scenario. Most of the jet fuel was gone in the initial fireball, no doubt SOME of the steel could have been heated like this, but there is no observation based reason to believe that a sufficient amount would have been.

At 5:30 we get the whole towering inferno bit again, ignoring the fact that one of the towers had survived an inferno in the 70's, with NO SPRINKLERS and the same defective fireproofing. Given this, if fire alone was the cause of the collapse they should have collapsed, or at least suffered structural damage on that earlier occasion. The fact that they did not is not proof of demolition, especially since we don't really know the exact extent of the fire or effect on the fireproofing. But we cannot say that we have an observational basis for believing that the fire was that hot aside from the collapse itself, which is the matter in question. You cannot use the matter in question (Was the fire hot enough to cause the collapse or was something else needed?) to answer the problem (Yes it was, because the there the collapse occurred). This is called petitio principii, although one may argue that it is circular reasoning.

In fact all observations point in the opposite direction, from the smoke color to subsequent metallurgical tests. The only reason we have to believe the inferno theory is if we had ALREADY decided fire was the cause because Al-Queda was the cause. THAT is an example of reverse scientific method.


Next is the common confusion between fire temperature and steel temperature. Little needs to be said about this. There is no evidence that enough of the STEEL reached these temperatures, they may have, but we don't have evidence that they did and the evidence we do have says they didn't. Another example of reasoning from the conclusion.

End of PART 1a

It will probably be a couple of days before I listen to the whole thing but he brought up that crap about copper being a better conductor than steel.

Yeah, so what?

That doesn't make steel a BAD conductor! And what applications use one inch thick plates of copper for anything?

How many tons of steel were on each level of the towers? How could the south tower weaken in ONE HOUR?

Somebody in the audience talked about mass falling at 100 mph. But how did it get up to 100 mph. If mass falls 12 feet it reaches less that 10 mph. Then it should have encountered stationary mass and attempted to accelerate that mass and consequently slowed down itself. These people are rationalizing what they decided to believe.

When does Richard Gage talk about the distributions of steel and concrete...To hell with this controlled demolition crap.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It will probably be a couple of days before I listen to the whole thing but he brought up that crap about copper being a better conductor than steel.

This is starting to look like a much larger project than I anticipated.

The second half of the first video seems to venture into the territory of "let's say random things about stuff that sound a little like it would it support my theory if you don't think about it too hard" territory.

But this is a good opportunity to lay out the main problems with these common arguments in a formal format so I will continue as and when I have time.

reply to post by Darkwing01






By this part of the the video things seem to start going off the rails. By suggesting that the explosion of jet fuel did a large part of the damage in a somewhat circular pattern all the up and down the building we have departed from reality and entered some cartoon physics nether-world.

A simple experiment with a firecracker will suffice to show why this argument holds no water (although I implore you not to do the experiment yourself for obvious reasons). Take the firecracker and place it on your palm with your hand open, let it explode and observe the damage. Now repeat the test with an identical explosive, but this time with a closed hand. Be sure to pick up all the pieces of your appendage before rushing off to the hospital.

Explosions don't LIKE to transmit their force to solid elements if they can help it. If the windows were blown open you can guess that the explosion wasn't a shaped charge of any kind. Remember the "90% air" story? Yes 90% air means plenty of volume to expand into and zero reason to do any structural damage whatsoever.

So the fireball is in no way shape or form PROOF of structural damage. The only proof we have so far is the fact that the fireball is the only only officially sanctioned source of damage, we are asked assume without any further evidence that this damage was caused because the alternative is for some unthinkable.

Well it isn't for me.

The table at ~7:00 is again of the same ilk. We are told at what temperatures steel behaves in which ways, but there is no evidence that sufficient STEEL, rather than the fires, was ever at this temperature. None of this is proof of anything because it is circular.

Moving on a little we get told that the pulling in of the perimeter columns is evidence of sagging floor trusses. Wonderful theory really, but unfortunately wholly unfounded in reality. There is no physical reason to suppose that that amount of pull could have been achieved at any steel temperature, all tests (i.e. Cardington) have pretty conclusively falsified the notion and it seems theoretically unsound too (sagging steel cannot pull efficiently).

In fact the only plausible mechanism for achieving such a pull is having the core blown out:



So the pulling of the perimeter columns is not proof of what Mohr thinks it is proof of, in fact in points to exactly the opposite conclusion he wishes to draw from it. This will more than likely be a recurring theme of this series as far as I can tell.

Next we have more circular story telling which is simply laying out the scenario for what the sequence of events is in a fire-induced collapse theory. There is no proof here, just assuming and embellishing on the basis of that assumption. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with this, but it does not constitute proof of anything other than an active imagination.

The "bellows effect" for the sudden growth of the fires at onset of collapse appears to be a straw-man, I am not aware of anyone arguing that that surge in fire intensity was caused by anything but what Mohr describes. Points for him in my eyes if someone has.

At 12:28 we get treated to the fallacious conditional "If one part parts was destroyed by nano-thermite, all parts must be destroyed by nano-thermite". This seems to be related to the last argument, which could be seen then as "If one effect was caused by explosives all effects must be caused by explosives". This is terrible reasoning and there isn't much more to say about it.

Finally he seems to refer to Bazant's as negating the need for NIST to analyze the collapse itself. Bazant's theories have been much discussed, and one can either agree with it or not. Heaven knows I disagree with it, and there are several published rebuttals to it in the same journal it was published in. Whether one agrees with Bazant or not one has to concede that it is in its present state completely unfalsifiable, and there is a standing challenge to anyone to build an actual model (not the WTC itself, I am talking about REPEATABLE experiments here) that behaves in the manner and process that Bazant describes.

I am not holding my breath though because Bazant appears to defy several physical laws in in his theoretical superstructure or possibly (according to Heiwa's theory) simply add up all the effects.

If you think me wrong show the model, until then Bazant has a great theory but one that doesn't PROVE anything scientific, because once again it is simply a description of what would have happened if fire and gravity alone were the cause, Bazant even states this conclusion at the outset of one of his papers. Again the circular demon rears its head.

So we have an interesting mildly plausible narrative thus far, and not a shred of proof. Let's hope things improve from here on out.

End of Part 1b

reply to post by Darkwing01


addendum to Part1

He didn't just cite Delft in corroboration of NIST did he? Please tell me he didn't.....

Oh boy!

Hate to leave such a small tidbit of information in the thread but I just wanted to point out 2 things:

I made BBQ for the holiday last weekend. When I lit the charcoal the flame was the same color as the jet fuel fires. Obviously my grill was instantly melted [sic].

Thermal imaging was not capable of detecting temperatures in that range at that time. This means neither side can determine how hot the fire was, only estimate.

Is there a transcript of this debate anywhere?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Is there a transcript of this debate anywhere?

Not as far as I am aware, YouTube's auto-caption doesn't seem to work anymore either.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Part 2



At the start of the second video remember that we still have no reason to actually believe that the fire induced collapse theory is correct, all we have been given is an exposition. To treat that as proof would be to affirm the consequent: If fire had caused the collapse then we would have seen xyz happen. xyz DID happen, therefore fire caused the collapse.

In the second part it appears as though we will be presented with a false dichotomy. Gage's argument will be treated as though if any errors are to found in it the fire hypothesis must be true.

A minor quibble to start is that scientific evidence does not "refute" anything, it falsifies hypothesis. Scientists may or may not refute:

verb /riˈfyo͞ot/ refuted, past participle; refuted, past tense; refutes, 3rd person singular present; refuting, present participle Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove - these claims have not been convincingly refuted Prove that (someone) is wrong Deny or contradict (a statement or accusation) - a spokesman totally refuted the allegation of bias

Actually that is not such a minor quibble, science cannot prove anything by its nature, to think otherwise is in my opinion a gross error.

Another semantic point near the start is that we have not been given any reason to believe it was probably not a controlled demolition as yet as Mohr seems to think. All of the 44 points thus far could be true AND controlled demolition could be true. Mohr appears to think that the position he has outlined is exclusive of demolition, when it is not even remotely so.

Next is a tally of who believes what. An utter irrelevance as far as I am concerned. Reality is what it is independently of our beliefs or anybody else's beliefs about there nature. You may think otherwise, but that is my position.

But let us not be prejudiced, Mohr may find something in the list that positively excludes demolition, so let us turn to that:

Immediately we run into a problem, because Mohr seems to not understand Gage's method from the outset. Gage is saying: "Here are some features which are true of demolitions but which are not true of natural collapses". Mohr seems to believe that casting aspersions on individual points weakens Gage's position, but Gage only requires ONE of his arguments to be true of ONE of the collapses for his whole argument to be true.

Still, Mohr may cast sufficient doubt on each one for us to conclude that there insufficient reason to believe them. Gage needs to prove each separately.

However Mohr doesn't even get off the starting blocks.

Here is Gage Blueprint:


It is a long video, but the relevant section is from about 15:00 onward. Astute listeners will note that Gage is NOT talking about WTC1 or 2 when he goes through his list. He is talking about WTC7.

Mohr on the other hand is speaking about WTC1 & 2. Never the twain shall meet. Mohr argument seems to be that WTC7 was different from the other two collapses, therefore none could have been demolished. This is a poor attempt.

Mohr seems to think that simply listing ADDITIONAL attributes of demolitions will show that they were not demolitions. By way of analogy this would be like saying that a hydrogen car is a horse-drawn carriage because cars have petrol, diesel or electric engines and wheeled personal transports that are not cars are horse-drawn carriages.

Mohr is asking us to accept a ridiculous conditional at the outset and we hopes we don't notice as he jumps to affirming the antecedent.

The same reasoning, with little adjustment, could be use to prove that THIS was NOT controlled demolition:


To recap:
Gage is saying that if a collapse has features xyz then it couldn't be naturally caused.
Mohr is saying that if a collapse doesn't have features abc then it couldn't be demolition, except the never supports his assertion, he merely asserts it is true of some (not even most) demolitions and then he hopes that we don't notice his false generalization.

The hallmarks Mohr cites at 4:43 are not hallmarks of controlled demolition, they are hallmarks of particular instances of controlled demolitions, which may be dramatic, but are not even particularly representative.

Mohr speaks about the sounds at around 6:00. There are two problems with this:
1) Sound, even of explosives, can be damped by various means. The reason this is not usually done in demolitions is because there is no need and it would be very expensive, lack of sound does not necessarily indicate lack of explosion.
2) There is no reason to suppose that ONLY RDX could have been used. Both the Verinage demolition technique and the Cole demonstration (links provided on request) illustrate that Mohr point does not in any way exclude demolition.

Next, at 7:20 Mohr seems to argue that because he has a longer....... list, his reason must be more valid. I don't think I need to elaborate on this one....

Towards the end Mohr leaves some things for later and repeats the Fire temperature=Steel temperature fallacy.

End of Part 2

Chris Mohr is a better sounding orator than Gage but everything is explained by

GRAVITY DOES TERRIBLE THINGS!

He keeps saying that experts keep assuring him of things like enough energy. But Potential Energy is weight times height and Gage threw out a Kilowatt Hour number but where is the steel and concrete at what heights?

Gage constantly sounds unsure of himself. That is kind of weird considering how long he has been doing this.

I wouldn't pick either of these two and want to just slap both of them. It is like their objective is to resolve nothing and debate forever. It is like a debate about whether or not there was a controlled demolition not an explanation of how the top of the north tower could crush the rest or how the top 29 stories of the south tower tilt/rotated 22 degrees in a couple of seconds.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Gage constantly sounds unsure of himself. That is kind of weird considering how long he has been doing this.

Gage is a terrible orator in my opinion, his lines are practiced and stilted. I don't know why people think that he is such a good rhetoritician, the OS'ers keep suggesting he is some silver tongued harpy.

Mohr is better, but he comes off as someone who has just come out of the doctors office or a church sermon and is just repeating everything he heard as gospel to all who will listen.

The person who can really put an argument together is David Ray Griffin, but the OS'ers pulled of a huge coup by repeating the "he isn't an engineer" line (this while furiously citing Popular Mechanics mind you).

You can tell when someone has a lot of facts, and when they have an understanding, Griffin gets it.

Why should we respect Chris Mohr?

He 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 that matters. 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 bit of resistance even if it was 90% air?

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 time. Is Richard Gage participating in this crap to alienate listeners and help kill the subject of 9/11? When does he ever talk about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers? We can't have most people on Earth actually understanding grade school Newtonian Physics and figuring out for themselves how ridiculous 9/11 is.

Debating skills don't have anything to do with physics. It is beginning to look like the more people call themselves debating Newtonian Physics the more stupid they advertise themselves to be. They just need an audience dumber than they are.

Why the nation that put men on the Moon might become a laughing stock if most 8th graders around the world understood the physics.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

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 time. Is Richard Gage participating in this crap to alienate listeners and help kill the subject of 9/11?

No, I think I understand now why they didn't publish the video in the end. It really is quite tepid I am afraid.

I fast-forwarded to another video, and the same nonsense (like confusing the energy densities for self contained and non self contained systems) is there too.

My resolve at finishing this pet project is flagging, but I will try to chip away at it when I have time.

Mohr's incompetence explained.



psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I saw that earlier today too.

I'm afraid he is 100% right, Mohr's whole series of videos is just a chain of basic errors and logical fallacies strung together and delivered by a guy in a suit.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Mohr's incompetence explained.

psik

It's amazing how dishonest and or dimwitted David Chandler is.

Yes there is 2.4 seconds during the collapse that can be averaged out to equal gravitational acceleration. No one disputes that, every one agrees on it, nobody important cares

If we were to average out a graph that started at the fall of penthouse and ended when the last piece hit the ground. It would average out to 40% of gravitational acceleration.

What Chris Mohr has done is gone inside of that 2.4 sec and found a span of time where acceleration is greater than Gravitational acceleration. David Chandler in this video wines and complains and says we can't do that. Well yes we can, after all that's what he's doing. We can pick out any section of the collapse we want and average it out, point at it and say lookie here.

So what does this portion of the collapse that is greater than free fall acceleration mean. Momentum transfer, and that is what we've been saying all along was the cause of the 2.4 sec equal to free fall.

I love how he post a rebuttal video and then blocks comments. I guess that's the best way to get the last word.

Originally posted by waypastvne
It's amazing how dishonest and or dimwitted David Chandler is.

Yes there is 2.4 seconds during the collapse that can be averaged out to equal gravitational acceleration. No one disputes that, every one agrees on it, nobody important cares

What Chris Mohr has done is gone inside of that 2.4 sec and found a span of time where acceleration is greater than Gravitational acceleration. David Chandler in this video wines and complains and says we can't do that. Well yes we can, after all that's what he's doing. We can pick out any section of the collapse we want and average it out, point at it and say lookie here.

The dim witted do flock together.

The deep sociological question is what is with the physics profession that this crap did not get shot down in 2002? How can they say after NINE YEARS that the distribution of steel is important to analyzing a grade school physics problem? How can physics instructors at major engineering school look David Chandler in the eye?

The 9/11 decade is the pinnacle of European culture. Isaac Newton would be so proud.

psik