Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[NoahFence]

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

It's faith based on several years of listening to you tools fail about 9/11 time and time again.

Care to actually tell me what frickin' image you're referring to so I can confirm the fail?

 

[Edx]

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

When you're not an expert critical thinking should tell you that if the NIST report is as much of a obvious fraud as truthers claim you'd see more than a minicule irrelevant fringe fraction of nobodies critcising it

 

[Dave Rogers]

To indulge your semantics, it was the glass they left out, not the windows.

Really? You think they included the window frames in the simulation?

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

Precious.....

The amount of different things that could account for sounds of explosions would probably number over a hundred.

So this is where the debunkers claim to be experts on the cause of noise now. You have no proof of what caused those noises, just conjecture yet you treat your view as being special and the right one. Such arguments are circular and pointless as I explained earlier in the day.

They could have been from explosives and you cannot argue that to be wrong since explosives make explosive noises or do they go cluck!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No idea, they don't show the aftermath on this clip or hadn't you notice?. But there was a hole punched through several rings of the Pentagon so how did that happen? According to your video, the plane should have disintegrated with no hole left, although, this cannot be seen on your video.

There are longer videos and even the whole technical report on the Phantom test is available on line (it was carried out in Japan to test how the concrete containment vessel of a nuclear power plant would stand up to the impact of an aircraft.

The block used was thicker than the Pentagon wall and of course a 757 is heavier than a Phantom. So the fuselage of the 757 punched through whilst the phantom did not. The thing to learn from the video is how an aluminum aircraft structure simply turns to shrapnel is such a high speed impact.
The speeds of the 757 and the Phantom were very similar.

 

[NoahFence]

So this is where the debunkers claim to be experts on the cause of noise now. You have no proof of what caused those noises, just conjecture yet you treat your view as being special and the right one

Conjecture? That's the truth movement in its entirety! It's ALL conjecture. I on the other hand, can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that other things can and did explode on 9/11 - and I can prove they weren't explosives. My "special and right" view has been backed up by fact. Yours? Not so much.

They could have been from explosives and you cannot argue that to be wrong since explosives make explosive noises or do they go cluck!

They don't however, react well to fire.

 

[Edx]

So this is where the debunkers claim to be experts on the cause of noise now. You have no proof of what caused those noises, just conjecture yet you treat your view as being special and the right one. Such arguments are circular and pointless as I explained earlier in the day.

They could have been from explosives and you cannot argue that to be wrong since explosives make explosive noises or do they go cluck!

We have no proof of what caused the noises people heard, but despite the fact that hundreds of things can cause explosions and sounds like explosions you want to claim specifically explosives caused them?

I told you before that not only are explosions common in fires but people even use the words "blast" and "sounding like bombs" in cases that do not involve fires and even in cases that they already know they arent refering to an explosive!

What evidence do you have they specifically experienced an explosive rather than something else?

Additionally, we have videos all around and up close to all 3 collapses on 911 and ZERO detonations can be heard. Yet truthers claim huge pieces of steel were flung around by powerfull blast waves from explosives, they claim 8 stories in WTC7 were instantly vaporised to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall while not making a sound. Instead they'll fall back on eyewitness' quotes talking about explosions, even though plenty of other things can cause it and reports just like that are common. If there were all these bombs going off why did no one suffer any blast injuries? Blast injuries are common in every other bombing yet completely absent on 911.

1. So witness' reporting explosions could be a hundred other things before its a bomb.
2. No one suffered common injuries associated with explosives
3. No videos of the collapse show any sounds consistent with explosive detonations whatsoever not even when all this steel vaporising and flinging and concretre pulverising is meant to be occuring. Not even real explosive demolitions are trying to be able to as powerfull as what truthers claim happened on 911 and yet you never have any trouble hearing them.

Here's a video I made a while back with a few of these points



Its a similar case with reports of molten metal and steel. Truthers claim its strange, yet they are completely unremarkable as well. Plenty of other fires even before 911 have had reports of people claiming to have seen molten steel and molten metal afterwards.

I agree there could have been explosives, but what evidence do you have for their existance on 911? All the evidence points against it.

 

[RedIbis]

Really? You think they included the window frames in the simulation?

Dave

Is this really the only way you can defend NIST's unrealistic collapse images?

 

[Edx]

Ah, thank you for agreeing with me that the support of an entire floor needs to be lost to allow the upper section of a building to fall onto the lower.

I didnt agree with that. If you weaken and destroy a few or 1 critical connections holding up a floor above, but not every single column, the lower floor might now not have enough load bearing strength to hold up that top floor. At that point its going to collapse, isn't it, but you claim that floor wont just fall down onto the floor below but is going to fall off to the side despite zero lateral energy available to do that.

I didn't of course say EVERY support before, but THE support, just in case you were trying to twist my words. How they do this is up to the demolition team but the idea is to weaken the structure enough such that the building falls as neatly and maybe as symmetrically as is possible.

But you know that Gage and your truther friends claim that is how 2.25 seconds of free fall is only explained by explosives, because they claim that the entire 8 stories would have had to have been removed.

Therefore they are saying explosives somehow instantly removed 8 stories by some unknown method and it was done so quietly videos didnt pick it up. What explosives work the way Gage and co. claim they work?

Perhaps some truthers believe that the floors below were vaporised but I'm happy to accept that only a handful of critical columns and structural elements needed to be destroyed for the building to fail like a Verinage style collapse

In that case, why cant fire explain it? You are introducing a massive conspiracy using fictional explosives for no reason I can see.

Maybe that's why the Penthouse fell first; it's supporting structure needed to be pulled ahead of the main block for the building to finally fall cleanly and symmetrically (which it did).

Don't use the word pull as if thats some kind of demolition term.

And how can it fall cleanly if it fell accross a 4 lane street and critcially damaged a builiding there?

As many witnesses reported hearing explosions throughout the day,.

And yet none sustained any injuries associated with explosives and none were caught on any video tape when all this steel flinging and pulverising was meant to be occuring. How is that possible? Also see my other post.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

True, they both have windows. Was I correct when I said earlier:

I would even doubt you have ever assessed in which respects NIST's model was inaccurate.

do we really have to start posting pictures of demised equines????

 

[NoahFence]

Is this really the only way you can defend NIST's unrealistic collapse images?

Which specific image?

I get the sense you're reluctant to specify which, because you already know that doing so will kill this silly line of questioning.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.

Yet there are dozens of videos of CDs on Youtube where they managed just fine.....yet none managed on 911 despite the huge variety of camera used? Implausible.

 

[Disbelief]

Your call for perfection not withstanding, yes the collapse appeared symetrical.

so you agree with mrkinnies definition and not reality. Funny how you have a call to perfection on noah and WTC7 falling on Fitterman Hall.

 

[Clayton Moore]

We have no proof of what caused the noises, but despite the fact that hundreds of things can cause explosions and sounds like explosions you want to claim explosives caused them?

I told you before that not only are explosions common in fires but people even use the words "blast" and "sounding like bombs" in cases that do not involve fires and even in cases that they already know they arent refering to an explosive! What evidence do you have they specifically experienced an explosive?

Additionally, we have videos all around and up close to all 3 collapses on 911 and ZERO detonations can be heard. Yet truthers claim huge pieces of steel were flung around by powerfull blast waves from explosives, they claim 8 stories in WTC7 were instantly vaporised to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall while not making a sound. Instead they'll fall back on eyewitness' quotes talking about explosions, even though plenty of other things can cause it and reports just like that are common. If there were all these bombs going off why did no one suffer any blast injuries? Blast injuries are common in every other bombing yet completely absent on 911.

1. So witness' reporting explosions could be a hundred other things before its a bomb.
2. No one suffered common injuries associated with explosives
3. No videos of the collapse show any sounds consistent with explosive detonations whatsoever not even when all this steel vaporising and flinging and concretre pulverising is meant to be occuring. Not even real explosive demolitions are trying to be able to as powerfull as what truthers claim happened on 911 and yet you never have any trouble hearing them.

Its a similar case with reports of molten metal and steel. Truthers claim its srange, yet they are completely unremarkable as well. Plenty of other fires even before 911 have had reports of people claiming to have seen molten steel and molten metal afterwards.

I agree there could have been explosives, but what evidence do you have for their existance on 911? All the evidence points against it.

Is that post your idea of a joke? Unremarkable? You missed your calling.

 

[NoahFence]

Is that post your idea of a joke? Unremarkable? You missed your calling.

I don't suppose you'd have the time to actually detail what's a joke about it, would you? You know, with actual words and evidence?

 

[Edx]

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.

Ok Red, please find me some recordings of demolitions from around that time or before it that couldn't pick up demolition explosions.

Do that and I will accept it, but you won't because you have no idea how sound works.

 

[Edx]

Is that post your idea of a joke? Unremarkable? You missed your calling.

Yes its totally unremarkable. Plenty of other fires even before 911 contain reports of people seeing molten steel and molten metal. If I show you examples, will you accept the point?

 

[mrkinnies]

We have no proof of what caused the noises, but despite the fact that hundreds of things can cause explosions and sounds like explosions you want to claim explosives caused them?

I told you before that not only are explosions common in fires but people even use the words "blast" and "sounding like bombs" in cases that do not involve fires and even in cases that they already know they arent refering to an explosive! What evidence do you have they specifically experienced an explosive?

Additionally, we have videos all around and up close to all 3 collapses on 911 and ZERO detonations can be heard. Yet truthers claim huge pieces of steel were flung around by powerfull blast waves from explosives, they claim 8 stories in WTC7 were instantly vaporised to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall while not making a sound. Instead they'll fall back on eyewitness' quotes talking about explosions, even though plenty of other things can cause it and reports just like that are common. If there were all these bombs going off why did no one suffer any blast injuries? Blast injuries are common in every other bombing yet completely absent on 911.

1. So witness' reporting explosions could be a hundred other things before its a bomb.
2. No one suffered common injuries associated with explosives
3. No videos of the collapse show any sounds consistent with explosive detonations whatsoever not even when all this steel vaporising and flinging and concretre pulverising is meant to be occuring. Not even real explosive demolitions are trying to be able to as powerfull as what truthers claim happened on 911 and yet you never have any trouble hearing them.

Its a similar case with reports of molten metal and steel. Truthers claim its srange, yet they are completely unremarkable as well. Plenty of other fires even before 911 have had reports of people claiming to have seen molten steel and molten metal afterwards.

I agree there could have been explosives, but what evidence do you have for their existance on 911? All the evidence points against it.

No, all evidence points to there having been explosive noises. This means they could have been caused in many ways including by explosives. To say that all the evidence points against explosives is plain stupid. At the current time, there is no proof either way so you can no more debunk my claims of explosives anymore than I can of your 'other' noise theories.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

curses, my irony meter just blew!

 

[mrkinnies]

so you agree with mrkinnies definition and not reality. Funny how you have a call to perfection on noah and WTC7 falling on Fitterman Hall.

so Disbelief, did the upper 33 floors of WTC7 fall as one block or was NIST wrong too?