Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
AH AHA HA HA HA!!!

yikes.

wtc7_pile_s.jpg


The building was much much taller than the buildings immediately adjacent to it, yet the Verizon and Post Office buildings to the right and left are hardly touched. If I had been in those buildings when WTC7 collapsed I'd have been laughing like you do to - laughing with relief.
 
Good God these threads are tiresome. Can there BE too many multi-page threads about semantics and personal incredulity?
 
[qimg]http://www.wtc7.net/docs/wtc7_pile_s.jpg[/qimg]

The building was much much taller than the buildings immediately adjacent to it, yet the Verizon and Post Office buildings to the right and left are hardly touched. If I had been in those buildings when WTC7 collapsed I'd have been laughing like you do to - laughing with relief.

You might want to show how it was impossible for the buildings to fall like they did without CD before you go all willy-nilly about this subject. At least try SOMETHING other than incredulity. You act as if this forum is some kind of island where we are standing alone against the world's structural engineers.

You should keep in mind the one standing alone is your little cult.
 
What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpSrHq5Uk&feature=related

Likely thats a prefab concrete building and notoriously easy to knock down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point which is why they stopped building them

Nothing like the steel frame construction of the much larger WTC7
 
Last edited:
How the heck should I know, I was 3000 odd miles away.

It's called a theory. Perhaps you've heard the term.

Now go ahead in my thread and explain it. YOU CANNOT HAVE CD WITHOUT THE EXPLOSIVES, kiddo.

If there were no explosives, there was no CD. Period. If there's no CD, there's no conspiracy. See how this works?
 
[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/fiterman-hall-02.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/gz_aerial_wtc7crop.jpg[/qimg]

Orly?

Then what tore out a large chunk of Fitterman Hall? A botched CD?

Clearly some of the facade landed there as you can see the grid of windows butting up to the building. Had this been an official CD there would be cause for alarm but this wasn't so a very small amount of damage relative to what could have been was perhaps inevitable.
 
It's called a theory. Perhaps you've heard the term.

Now go ahead in my thread and explain it. YOU CANNOT HAVE CD WITHOUT THE EXPLOSIVES, kiddo.

If there were no explosives, there was no CD. Period. If there's no CD, there's no conspiracy. See how this works?

I can't prove the use of explosives but doesn't mean they weren't used.

My theory is that they were - how's that?
 
I didn't say it all landed clean into its own footprint.

:rolleyes: Uh yes you did...

...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) - here.

"fell straight down into its own footprint;" - here

So you think it fell cleanly and symmetrically straight down into its own footprint. I love it when truthers start denying things they've said.




That's what YOU imply.

No, only when you're misrepresenting what NIST says.

This was a 47 storey building - very tall even in the US. The start of global collapse was straight down into its own footprint since it didn't topple faster than it fell, in fact it hardly toppled at all.

You claim at the start it should have fallen over and several times since. I made this point a few pages back:

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.


Please feel free to embarrass me with how sound works. I look forward to it.

My pleasure.

You claim you can't hear any explosion sounds. I'm not sure what video you think you are watching but I can hear explosion sounds and they distort the microphone. The mic on the camera is so bad that all sounds seem to distort it including the heavy wind at the start. Then when the demolition starts, which is clearly audible, its so loud that its harder to make out individual detonations as much as other videos.

EDIT: And it turns out there were plenty of cameras taping that demolition that show how loud it was. See my post here.

But we dont just have one crappy video taping the collapses we have numerous professional cameras and microphones from various angles and distances. None pick up a hint of any explosive detonations, there's not even a recording as poor as the one you gave.

Here's some collapse videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFSF2VyaoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

I tried to quickly find the one with the reporter interviewing a women with WTC7 behind her as it collapses when she says "be carefull of your baby!" but I couldn't, but there's no detonations there either.

Any of these could have picked up the explosions.

And what about WTC1 and 2? We have numerous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o

Its got silly music on it and the guy who put this together cut away but keep the audio going, but Im sure you remember this clip.

Here's another:

http://youtu.be/smreRx51cus

What do you hear? I hear a steady rising progressive rumble turn into a roar. This is not what any explosive demolition sounds like. The microphone also eventually distorts, however only right near the end of the clip. Richard Gage will claim that massively intense explosives in the core were set off that were so powerful they flung heavy steel outwards over 600 feet. No demolition anywhere is trying to be at all that powerful and note how loud they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28

If what Gage claims happened what would you hear on 911? Just how ridiculously loud it would be I do not know, but what we do know is that if they happened where Gage claims we would hear massive explosions and they would be far enough away that the mic would not distort and would have time to pick it up, or, they would be so powerful it would distort immediately. What we hear however is nothing like that, its a slow progressive rumble turning into a roar as it gets closer and the energy increases. This clearly shows its the sound of the collapse not of any explosives detonating, since we expect a collapsing building to get louder in this way, sounds of explosions would sound totally different.
 
Last edited:
Clearly some of the facade landed there as you can see the grid of windows butting up to the building. Had this been an official CD there would be cause for alarm but this wasn't so a very small amount of damage relative to what could have been was perhaps inevitable.

If you look at those pictures you can clearly see the collapse radius is at least twice the size of its footprint not counting the side that hit filterman hall. Thats a whole two blocks at least of debris that fell outside its footprint.
 
Last edited:
I can't prove the use of explosives but doesn't mean they weren't used.

No, what proves they weren't there is the utter and complete lack of any evidence. Physical evidence, anecdotal evidence, heresay, whatever.

None. Zero. Nada.

No evidence.

I love it when truthers start denying things they've said.

Self-debunking. A classic truther faux-paux.
 
Still waiting for a responce on this.

Please tell me how you tell the difference between someone on 911 hearing and experiencing a bomb and someone that heard and experienced something else, like a transformer exploding or a backdraft.





I've replied to Edx on this point already or didn't you bother to read what I said?

Didn't you bother to read my responce?

Explosions are common and expected, I've asked you several times now how do you tell the difference between someone hearing and experiencing a bomb or something else.

There is no conclusive proof that explosives were used nor is there any to say they weren't. Just claiming that exploding sounds can mean any number of things adds nothing to this debate...

Yes it does, you claim that all evidence points to people hearing and experiencing explosives. So considering that plenty of things can cause explosions and people reporting explosions are fully expected in fires, what evidence do you have that says they specifically experienced explosives rather than something else? How many times do I have to ask you the same questions?



although if you debunkers are allowed to say that an explosive is not necessarily a sound due to explosives because there are other real life examples where this is so

Not only are there plenty of things that can explode and I posted 3 examples on this page including 2 videos directly to you in my post you ignored but I also showed you a video with the sources that show only a few example of how its normal for people to use words like "explosion", "blast" and a phrase like "sounding like bombs" to not only describe things that weren't explosives but that they used those words to describe things they already knew weren't bombs when they said it.



then I can say that the global collapse of WTC7 is not necessarily due to fire since the most common example of such collapses is with CDs.

You can say that, and you'd be stupid because you have to ignore all the aspects around WTC7s collapse. Now if you're saying I am ignoring something with these explosion witness', please do provide the evidence so that I can see how you are going about telling the difference between someone hearing a bomb vs something else like a transformer explosion or backdraft. Since blast injuries are common in every other bombing I'd also like to know how you rationalise no one sustaining any on 911 when all these bombs were going off all over the place.


You can't have it all ways so the argument is circular and worth nothing.

The two arguments you gave don't relate to each other, but I hasten to add that you're defending Richard gage, someone who wants to be able to say huge explosions went off flinging steel and pulverizing concrete but no videos picked up such gigantic explosions.
 
And to add to what I said in my last post, here's some more views of the Glentworth & Fullbeck House demolition with better cameras/microphones:



Collapse is at 04:31. Was that loud enough for you?

What about this one?



You claimed... "Notice the lack of explosive sounds ".

Can you hear them now or are you still intentionally deaf? There's plenty more videos of this demolition on youtube in case you think the NWO faked this one just to spite you.



What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpSrHq5Uk&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Can you hear them now or are you still intentionally deaf? There's plenty more videos of this demolition on youtube in case you think the NWO faked this one just to spite you.

He no doubt had trouble finding one that didn't have the telltale huge explosions.....
 
The two arguments you gave don't relate to each other, but I hasten to add that you're defending Richard gage, someone who wants to be able to say huge explosions went off flinging steel and pulverizing concrete but no videos picked up such gigantic explosions.

squib.jpg



tower_exploding_2730.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk&NR=1
19 minutes 30 seconds in a tremendous explosion.

http://www.ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/weblog.php?/weblog/reopen_9_11/
 
Last edited:

uuh, yes thats the collapsing WTC. So? I dont hear any sound, wheres the huge steel flinging concrete pulverising explosives going off?

And what do you see when you look at those pictures? An explosive cant detonate silently, so please tell me why you think massive explosives were going off flinging steel around yet not picked up on video. The blast wave is what creates destruction, the blast wave is sound, so if you have no sound you have no blast wave and so no destruction, why do no truthers understand that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk&NR=1
19 minutes 30 seconds in a tremendous explosion.

uuuh, I don't hear it Clayton.... :confused: For some reaosn the video skips a few times when the collapse starts and thats why it jumps to the sound of the collapse, but there is no "tremendous explosion". Unless you gave me the wrong timestamp.


Whats this website supposed to be showing me?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom