Chris Mohr is uploading 'respectful rebuttal' videos of Gage's presentations. I've just quickly looked at this one ... I may watch the others later. Some thoughts...
One minute in Mohr states that Gage does not acknowledge the differences in construction between the twin towers and the other skyscrapers he cites as examples of towers which burned more severely without collapse. Humorously, he then does what so many debunkers do and contradict his own criticism by citing the collapse of a building even less like the twin towers ... the TU Delft building.
I rebutted this stupid debunking argument in the first video I ever made, when I used the TU Delft collapse to support the demolition argument. Mohr characterized the TU Delft collapse as "very fast, almost symmetrical, and into its own footprint". Really? It was about 1/4 of the height of WTC7, and1/8 the height of the twin towers, and collapsed no where near a free fall rate, and it was only one wing of the building ... how exactly is this proof that a massive skyscraper can undergo a progressive, global collapse at basically free fall?
Afer droning on about the TU Delft collapse for a full four minutes, he then cites other examples commonly cited by debunkers like the Kadel toy factory and the interstate 580 overpass - again contradicting his earlier criticism of comparisons to skyscrapers Gage cites. The doublethink here is astounding. If a university building, a toy factory and an overpass are relevent then so are the skyscrapers Gage cites.
After talking a bit about how fire causes floors to sag, and how this phenomena is vital to NIST's 'inward bowing' theory for the towers (while neglecting to mention it's a major problem for NIST's 'rigid thermal linear expansion' theory for WTC7), he finishes this part of his rebuttal by comparing 9/11 truth to what I guess is called "titanic denalism", and saying lots of scientists don't like people like Gage for various reasons. One reason, he says, is they don't like being accused of being part of a conspiracy - an accusation Gage has never made - and another reason is we are apparently "unschooled in the scientific method" - even though Gage's presentations follow the scientific method.
Chris Mohr says this is a "respectful rebuttal" and not debunking. Sorry Mr Mohr, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...
The only difference is Chris Mohr's rebuttals are relatively ad-hominem-lite. Aside from that, the tactics and arguments are basically the same.
Related Info:
Edited version of Gage and Mohr's debate with added comments and videos to address the sound issue and other points raised by Mohr.
9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off
2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist
