Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Clayton Moore]

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?

90 freaking days?

60 freaking days?


30 freaking days?

 

[NoahFence]

No, all evidence points to there having been explosive noises.

Correct. Why in the world would explosive noises at the site of the worst terrorist attack on US Soil (or anywhere in the world, ever) be strange?

This means they could have been caused in many ways including by explosives.

Incorrect. Explosives could not have been used to take down any buildings. None. All 3 buildings of note were suffering from incredible fire, which (you should know this) would render explosives useless.

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.

Read above. No explosives.

 

[NoahFence]

90 freaking days?

60 freaking days?


30 freaking days?

No idea what that even means.

 

[Edx]

No, all evidence points to there having been explosive noises.

So where's your evidence then? I spent time explaining why it is extremely unlikely they heard explosives, what do you have to say in response?

I can expand on details, but simply restating your initial position and ignoring everything I said isn't going to get you anywhere. Imagine you got this new investigation you're after do you think just ignoring the crictisms of your position would go down well?

This means they could have been caused in many ways including by explosives.

You just said all evidence points to people hearing explosive detonations, then here you say that there could have been many things that caused the noises. Maybe you can tell me how do you tell the difference between someone hearing an explosive detonation and someone who heard something else?

I put it to you that you cannot tell the difference because no one sustained any injuries associated with explosives, there is no evidence found of any explosives in the rubble and when all this steel flinging and concrete pulverising is meant to be happening no detonations can be heard on video perfectly capable of picking it up and people reporting "explosions" "blasts" and "sounding like bombs" is common when people already know they arent tallking about explosives.

Throw me a bone mrkinnies, what evidence trumps all that and what explosives work the way you require them to work?

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.

I dont care about "proof" unless you're defining proof as evidence, so you claim all evidence points to explosives so what evidence is there and how do you deal with the points I brought up? Comeon, give me a good reason to think it was an explosion rather than something else. Whatcha got?

 

[mrkinnies]

No idea what that even means.

It means the twin tower debris burnt at high temperatures for a long time.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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!

They could have been a god farting......or a really loud marching band....have you any proof they were not?

 

[Disbelief]

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

How does this fit in with your idea that the fall was symmetrical? Since your claim is that the fall was symmetrical, where is your axis of symmetry?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It means the twin tower debris burnt at high temperatures for a long time.

So? how did you expect them to burn?

 

[Edx]

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?

90 freaking days?

60 freaking days?

30 freaking days?

Since we know normal fires produce molten metal and we know that in other fires even before 911 people have reported molten steel and melting steel and since we know how and why fires on 911 - of expected temperatures - stayed hot for so long, why are reports of molten metal and steel significant at the same time?

Truthers claim fires dont produce molten metal and reports of molten steel are strange, yet molten metal is expected and molten steel has been reported in plenty of other fires in exactly the same way. The fact that we know this contradicts what truthers claim, that these reports shouldn't exist.

Though its kind of funny to watch you move the goal posts before you even ask me for the quotes and sources, good job, its like you're already so used to being wrong...

 

[NoahFence]

It means the twin tower debris burnt at high temperatures for a long time.

Okee doke.
You think the longer a fire burns, it gets cooler? What's the point?

 

[mrkinnies]

So where's your evidence then? I spent time explaining why it is extremely unlikely they heard explosives, what do you have to say to it in response?

I can expand on details, but simply restating your initial position and ignoring everything I said isn't going to get you anywhere. Imagine you got this new investigation you're after do you think just ignoring the crictisms of your position would go down well?


You just said all evidence points to people hearing explosive detonations, then here you say that there could have been many things that caused the noises. Make up your mind!

*How do you tell the difference between someone hearing an explosive detonation and someone you heard something else?

I put it to you that you cannot tell the difference because no one sustained any injuries associated with explosives, there is no evidence found of any explosives found in the rubble and when all this steel flinging and concrete pulverising is meant to be happening no detonations can be heard on video perfectly capable of picking it up none can be heard and people reporting "explosions" "blasts" and "sounding like bombs" is common when people already know they arent tallking about explosives.

Throw me a bone mrkinnies, what evidence trumps all that? What explosives work the way you require them to work?



I dont care about "proof" unless you're defining proof as evidence, so you claim all evidence points to explosives so what evidence is there and how do you deal with the points I brought up? Comeon, give me a good reason to think it was an explosion rather than something else?

Barry Jennings said very clearly that he heard explosions and disputed anyone else's opinion about what those sounds were. Are you going to argue with someone who was in WTC7 and saw huge destruction which he felt was being caused by the huge explosions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

 

[NoahFence]

Barry Jennings said very clearly that he heard explosions and disputed anyone else's opinion about what those sounds were. Are you going to argue with someone who was in WTC7 and saw huge destruction which he felt was being caused by the huge explosions?

Barry Jennings was nowhere near WTC 7 when it went down. Any explosions he heard were therefore not caused by any explosives used to take down the towers. He heard one of the hundred(s) of other things that could cause an explosion, or a noise that may have sounded like one.

 

[mrkinnies]

How does this fit in with your idea that the fall was symmetrical? Since your claim is that the fall was symmetrical, where is your axis of symmetry?

Centre of the building or are you going to be another one of those people who seeks perfect symmetry of a falling building structure.

The strange things is, you debunkers assert that NIST's modelling did not have to fit because they were dealing with chaos so was hard to obtain an exact match and yet when truthers talk of symmetry of collapse you demand it be absolutely perfect. It wasn't and CD's never are, but global collapse did involve the bulk of the building structure falling straight down with its walls remaining close to vertical and floor and roof close to horizontal. Since NIST also uses margins of error in its findings, the word symmetrical is an acceptable term which can be applied to what happened during global collapse even though some slight distortion was observed.

There's really no point arguing with that. My kids can see that the building falls straight down as a complete block. Even NIST says it happened. Why do you claim it to be different?

 

[mrkinnies]

Barry Jennings was nowhere near WTC 7 when it went down. Any explosions he heard were therefore not caused by any explosives used to take down the towers. He heard one of the hundred(s) of other things that could cause an explosion, or a noise that may have sounded like one.

Your first part is true. Your second is more conjecture.

 

[NoahFence]

Centre of the building or are you going to be another one of those people who seeks perfect symmetry of a falling building structure.

You people claim that. Not us. It was leaning as it fell, so no symmetry.

There's really no point arguing with that. My kids can see that the building falls straight down as a complete block.

The entire building came down as a complete block.....really?

Your first part is true. Your second is more conjecture.

It's not conjecture. It's been proven.

All this time, I'm hearing all kinds of explosions. I'm thinking that may it's the police cars [and] buses that are on fire. I don't see.. you know, but I'm still hearing all these explosions.

HE even suggests that it was cars and busses. So we can take his word on explosions but not on what they were?

He left hour(s) before the collapse - PROOF that the explosions he heard had nothing to do with any so-called "controlled demolition".

PROOF.


ETA - care to take a stab at this?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7404674#post7404674

 

[Edx]

Barry Jennings said very clearly that he heard explosions and disputed anyone else's opinion about what those sounds were. Are you going to argue with someone who was in WTC7 and saw huge destruction which he felt was being caused by the huge explosions?

EDIT: Just in case you didn't know, Jennings had left WTC7 many hours before 7 collapsed.

You know this is exactly why I didn't stay a truther for long after I started reading debates like this.

I already discussed explosion witness', I asked you how do you determine whether they heard a bomb rather that something else.

Why do you keep saying explosion as if an explosion has to mean bomb? I already told you and you apparently admitted in the last post that lots of things could cause explosions and sounds of explosions.



Check out the above video, a transformer explosion. Hursley Lever on 911 said he heard an bomb, then straight after said it was probably a transformer exploding.

Here's a video of backdraft:



I already told you that people report explosions in fires, its common, but not only in fires, they also use words like "blast" and even "sounding like bombs" to refer to things they already know weren't actually bombs or explosives. See the video below, again:



Here's some more questions for you to ignore...

1. Barry Jennings didnt sustain any blast injuries at all, how is that possible if he was truly caught in such a huge explosive blast?
2. What explosives can destroy heavy steel and concrete but not even destroy someones ear drums?
3. What kind of demolition works by setting off an explosive and then 7 hours later the building collapses?
4. Why werent there any sounds of detonations caught on tape when the buildings collapsed despite them being in the right position to do so?



And by the way Jennings said that truthers misrepresented him, just like most of the people truthers quote.

 

[Disbelief]

Centre of the building or are you going to be another one of those people who seeks perfect symmetry of a falling building structure.

Oh, so you think it should have toppled then? You realize that toppling really would have been symmetrical.

The strange things is, you debunkers assert that NIST's modelling did not have to fit because they were dealing with chaos so was hard to obtain an exact match and yet when truthers talk of symmetry of collapse you demand it be absolutely perfect. It wasn't and CD's never are, but global collapse did involve the bulk of the building structure falling straight down with its walls remaining close to vertical and floor and roof close to horizontal. Since NIST also uses margins of error in its findings, the word symmetrical is an acceptable term which can be applied to what happened during global collapse even though some slight distortion was observed.

Funny how gravity would mean something collapsing down. Of course, you must not have understood Dave Roger's explanation to why it was not symmetrical. Glad you moved the goalposts though by saying it was not really symmetrical.

There's really no point arguing with that. My kids can see that the building falls straight down as a complete block. Even NIST says it happened. Why do you claim it to be different?

Can you explain how straight down damages buildings across the street?

 

[Gamolon]

So where's your evidence then? I spent time explaining why it is extremely unlikely they heard explosives, what do you have to say in response?

I can expand on details, but simply restating your initial position and ignoring everything I said isn't going to get you anywhere. Imagine you got this new investigation you're after do you think just ignoring the crictisms of your position would go down well?


You just said all evidence points to people hearing explosive detonations, then here you say that there could have been many things that caused the noises. Maybe you can tell me how do you tell the difference between someone hearing an explosive detonation and someone who heard something else?

I put it to you that you cannot tell the difference because no one sustained any injuries associated with explosives, there is no evidence found of any explosives in the rubble and when all this steel flinging and concrete pulverising is meant to be happening no detonations can be heard on video perfectly capable of picking it up and people reporting "explosions" "blasts" and "sounding like bombs" is common when people already know they arent tallking about explosives.

Throw me a bone mrkinnies, what evidence trumps all that and what explosives work the way you require them to work?



I dont care about "proof" unless you're defining proof as evidence, so you claim all evidence points to explosives so what evidence is there and how do you deal with the points I brought up? Comeon, give me a good reason to think it was an explosion rather than something else. Whatcha got?

Barry Jennings said very clearly that he heard explosions and disputed anyone else's opinion about what those sounds were. Are you going to argue with someone who was in WTC7 and saw huge destruction which he felt was being caused by the huge explosions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

Did you even read what Edx posted? You keep saying he heard explosions and Edx is saying that you have no proof they were caused by EXPLOSIVES. See all the bold/enlarged text.

Know what else? Aerosol cans explode...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSpDhOXcEQc

 

[twinstead]

Does Barry Jennings think the explosions he heard were caused by explosives?

 

[NoahFence]

Computer monitors explode....probably nowhere to be found in 257 floors of office building though.