Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[dafydd]

How the heck should I know, I was 3000 odd miles away.

And in another world,it seems.

 

[mrkinnies]

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.

Of course it is, I haven't said the building collapsed into a footprint sized space. YOU keeping saying so. How do you expect such a mass of debris to stay within the boundaries of its original footprint?

That said, for you and your ramblings I'll clarify a few terms I've used although I think the fact you have to pick on these is a sign that your own argument is weak.

When I say the building collapsed into its own footprint - I mean it fell downward towards its own foundations and the roof remained largely within the same vertical plane it had occupied prior to collapse, that is the building did not topple over like a column does when pushed over from the top.
When I use the word clean in terms of collapse, I mean the global collapse of the building fell as a complete unit such that it didn't break up into pieces from the top down; no parts fell off or twisted over sideways. The top stayed intact and almost complete until the roof hit the bottom, as far as I can see with the visual evidence available. I did actually elaborate on this earlier but you have ignored this.
When I say straight downward, I mean the building did not topple over sideways but fell as if the ground was swallowing the building whole. Yes, the tower showed some angular movement from vertical as the roof came closer to the ground but it was less than a few degrees - possibly 5 degrees at most. Considering how far the roof had to fall that is some feat.

As for your sound examples, none of them offer any reliable evidence since most are silent. Some clips miss the initiation altogether. The one of the cops talking could be explained by the fact the microphone was already picking up a signal from the voices of the policeman. Microphones do funny things - I'm a musician in my spare time and can't tell you how many times I've lost certain sounds because the microphone couldn't cope with the signals it was receiving elsewhere. I don't know what the expert description of that problem is but I'm sure there must be one. Listening to the demolition example I show it is clear the noises of the explosions are there but only very briefly and only because we know it was a demolition do we accept the initial sounds to be explosions. Without knowing this we may have assumed it was the sound of something breaking.

And as for your constant harping on about explosive sounds, I've already told you that I couldn't tell whether an explosive sound is caused by explosives or not but I don't think you can either, so the argument is pointless.

 

[beachnut]

... And as for your constant harping on about explosive sounds, I've already told you that I couldn't tell whether an explosive sound is caused by explosives or not but I don't think you can either, so the argument is pointless.

Zero sounds of explosives on 911. I can tell the difference, I have been bombed before, and the blast effect from 2400 feet breaks windows and rumbles your gut. You need to get some combat experience.

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?

He did not hear explosives, he heard parts of WTC towers hitting his building. If he was exposed to explosives his brain would have been mush. Most of 911 truth fail to use reality as a base, and fail to understand what a simile is. "He is a lion when he's upset". Is he really a lion? I heard an explosion. Was it an explosive. Class dismissed - Poor 911 truth guaranteed failure forever, 10 years and no Pulitzer. A really lost cause, 911 truth, who believes the lies 911 truth spreads? Gage took 911 truth nonsense and has made over 300k a year off of lies.

You don't understand models; I recommend engineering school instead of using 911 truth to fuel your paranoia.

 

[triforcharity]

Perhaps you'd care to comment on what I have written above rather than writing silly one liners in the hope of changing the subject and increasing your count tally.

Perhaps you would do the same for my post? I even have pictures....

 

[Edx]

Of course it is, I haven't said the building collapsed into a footprint sized space. YOU keeping saying so.

I have never said so, stop lying.

You have however said it collapsed cleanly, symmetrically and straight into its own footprint. If you are happy with the way you use those words, I wanted you to answer this which I asked before.... if you're working in a building near to one getting demolished and the demolition company tells you its going to come down cleanly, symmetrically, straight into its own footprint and your building is across a 4 lane street when the building they demolish falls accross and hits your building, on its roof, are you saying you would not question the idea that it fell "cleanly and symmetrically, straight into its own footprint"? or would you sue because it clearly did not and they misled you?

When I say the building collapsed into its own footprint - I mean it fell downward towards its own foundations and the roof remained largely within the same vertical plane it had occupied prior to collapse, that is the building did not topple over like a column does when pushed over from the top.

The WTC towers were not single columns pushed over from the top.

When I use the word clean in terms of collapse, I mean the global collapse of the building fell as a complete unit such that it didn't break up into pieces from the top down; no parts fell off or twisted over sideways.

Except it did twist you can see that in the video and you can see that from the damage it caused when it collapsed.

When I say straight downward, I mean the building did not topple over

Like a loony toons sketch. Why would it have toppled over?


And btw I do remind you that you denied you said it collapsed clean into its own footprint, thats why i showed you you did. If you're going to jump from one foot to the next at least remember when you do it. If you're going to use words use them consistently and preferably the way everyone else uses them.

As for your sound examples, none of them offer any reliable evidence since most are silent.

Actually they all have sound, there may be question as to whether the original audio might be recorded from inside or from somewhere else in a couple but of all videos that show the collapses (and there are quite a number) none of them show any detonations at all.

Some clips miss the initiation altogether.

Which videos do you refer to? And which videos show any explosive detonations in the collapse?

The one of the cops talking could be explained by the fact the microphone was already picking up a signal from the voices of the policeman.

Microphones do funny things - I'm a musician in my spare time and can't tell you how many times I've lost certain sounds because the microphone couldn't cope with the signals it was receiving elsewhere.

I am a media composer and I work with sound every day, you keep talking about things you obviously don't understand. Take the crappest microphone recording a demolition and it will still pick up the demolition explosion sound. You posted a video which distorted to a high degree with just a bit of wind, but you could still tell huge detonations went off when the bulding is demolished. Do you have anything comparable on 911?

Look at all the videos of the WTC collapses, I gave you two right beneath it and none pick up any explosive detonations, detonations from explosives so great that Gage claims propelled heavy steel hundreds of feet away. You do realise and understand that no demolition even tries to do that?What Gage is talking about would be literally deafening, yet all we hear is a progressive rumble. Now consider that video of a demolition you gave earlier, look at other videos of the same event and the individual explosions are clear as day yet they were only small, yet multiple microphones couldnt pick up such absurdly powerful explosives going off on 911?

Microphones simply dont work the way you pretend they work and thats why you had such a hard time trying to find an example of a demolition were there was no sound, even though you were too incompetent to realise that it didn't show what you wanted anyway and other videos clearly picked up the sound.

I don't know what the expert description of that problem is but I'm sure there must be one.

Why must there be one? Because the facts don't show what you want them to show? Why cant you just be wrong?

The more extreme the demolition and the more intense the explosives truthers say were used and the more dramatic they make it it means the more evidence they fail to have. Super intense explosives? Okay, so where's the evidence when we have all these cameras around to catch them? You cannot have it both ways. Either super intense explosives went off or they didnt, decide which it is.

*Listening to the demolition example I show and the noise of the explosions is there but only very briefly and only because we know it was a demolition do we accept the initial sounds to be explosions.

No, everything is distorting the microphone immediately including the wind. Therefore when the demolition starts you hear a INSTANT more or less continuous distortion. Why? Because the explosion was so loud it then clipped immediately and it didn't recover in time to pick up individual blasts too well so basically just sounded like continuous distortion. Anything like that on 911? Nope.

Look at the other videos of the same collapse that are calibrated right or are using better mics, the individual explosions are very loud and very distinguishable individually.


*

And as for your constant harping on about explosive sounds, I've already told you that I couldn't tell whether an explosive sound is caused by explosives or not but I don't think you can either, so the argument is pointless.

So if one day I video something flying in the air am I just as right to think it could be an alien space ship even though it looks exactly like a plane and seeing planes are common? I'd have to explain how I could distinguish between an alien space ship and the plane if they both look identical. In the absence of any evidence, what logical reason do we have to conclude it is an alien space ship rather than a plane? YOu claimed that all the evidence points to people hearing and experiencing bombs/explosives on 911, so where's this evidence then and what reason do you give anyone to think it was a bomb rather than the hundred other things it could be? Imagine you're in a court in front of a jury arguing your case, they want to know why they should accept your theory thats its bombs, what do you tell them?

 

[triforcharity]

The reality is the global collapse of WTC7 fell symmetrically. Even NIST says the upper 33 storeys fell as ONE block. For you to keep harping on about the definition of symmetrical is ludicrous in the extreme.

Just to remind you, global collapse is the term NIST used to describe the last few seconds of the collapse and its the phase during which the bulk of the building came down.

The side walls stayed vertical. The roof and windows on each floor remained horizontal. The north wall stayed vertical. The complete block fell in one easy motion straight downward. How more obvious does it need to be before you stop your silly tirade about it not having been symmetrical.

Give it up, reality agrees with me!

Perhaps you haven't seen the pictures with the distinct lean during 7WTC's collapse I posted? You seem to have missed those.

 

[triforcharity]

So now WTC 7 landed on Fitterman? That's a new one. Or is it?

No, that's not new, and you know that. Pieces of 7WTC landed on the ROOF of Fitterman Hall.

Yeah, those are for you too newguy......whatever your name is.

Want to ignore them again?

 

[triforcharity]

That's not what I said. I asked you if you could verify that those images came from the Pentagon attack and are authentic? If you cannot then you cannot use them as true evidence.

But let's face it, the NBC and CBS videos of the WTC7 collapse are definitely of building 7. We can both verify that.

The images that are from the Pentagon are accepted by a court of law, and stipulated by the defense team for Moussoui (sp?), aka The 19th Hijacker.

Feel free to google it.

 

[sylvan8798]

Well, of course, the courts are part of the government, so that doesn't count trifor.

 

[triforcharity]

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!

Hey there new guy. Actually, you're wrong.

Here's why.

This is a list of things that would have been found in abundance in an office building that go BOOM in a fire.

HVAC equipment including compressors and condensers
CRT type TV's and computer monitors
Cleaning supplies such as cleaner
Any kind of large motor that has oil inside. (Think elevator motors)
Elevator life cables that fail due to being exposed to heat
Pistons in office chairs
Toner cartridges for printers and copiers
(After the collapse of 1&2WTC, there were who knows how many SCOTT pac bottles from the missing firefighters)
Gas tanks and tires from vehicles

Can you rule those things out? Nope, you most certain cannot.

Can we rule out explosives? Yes. Here's why.

Explosives capable of cutting any support columns in 7WTC would have made an ENORMOUS BOOM that would have been heard all over lower Manhattan, and most likely, even into NJ.

Explosives would have been detected by any one of the numerous dogs that were in and around Manhattan in the days following 9/11. Not one of these dogs detected any kind of explosives.

Now, keep running your ignorant mouth, and I will continue to bash it with logics and facts.

 

[triforcharity]

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

First off, if it was an explosion that went off near Barry, he would have suffered some type of baratraumatic injuries. He had none.

 

[triforcharity]

Yep, there you go, it did fall straight down. Even NIST in NCSTAR 1A says it did...as one block.

Can I help you with anything else, or do you see the building moving sideways or toppling over?

Something can still fall as "one block" and still have a lean.

But, you are free to continue with the logical fallacies if you want.

 

[triforcharity]

I didn't say it all landed clean into its own footprint. That's what YOU imply.

Wow, twisting your own words and arguing semantics.

the remaining building, and that means most of it, fell straight down into its own footprint; not just the north wall, but at least three walls as seen in the available CBS and NBC videos. You need to be more honest here.

Which is a lie. Three other buildings sustained HEAVY damage during the collapse of 7WTC. Stop lying.

 

[Edx]

First off, if it was an explosion that went off near Barry, he would have suffered some type of baratraumatic injuries. He had none.

Yes, I've made that point to mrkinnies many times now and he refuses to deal with it.

 

[beachnut]

...
The strange things is, you debunkers assert that NIST's modelling did not ...

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?

The standard "things" is, for 911 truth, 911 truth don't understand models, the goals of NIST, and, 911. The building falls straight down? How did it get across the street and damage other buildings? Do you understand what straight down means, and that watching a video is not 3d? Did you know quibbling about straight down will not make your version of 911 come true.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
(After the collapse of 1&2WTC, there were who knows how many SCOTT pac bottles from the missing firefighters)
(snip)

Off-topic, but one of the things that moved me most emotionally, was a video I saw of firefighters searching the collapse pile of WTC I and WTC II, where you could hear scores of downed firefighters location beepers sounding because they were immobilized (likely dead) and not moving.

 

[triforcharity]

Off-topic, but one of the things that moved me most emotionally, was a video I saw of firefighters searching the collapse pile of WTC I and WTC II, where you could hear scores of downed firefighters location beepers sounding because they were immobilized (likely dead) and not moving.

I remember someone asking here what that noise was in one of the videos. He honestly didn't know what it was. Someone else explained that it was a PASS device.

I hate that noise, but love it at the same time.

/ot

 

[Reactor drone]

[qimg]http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/squib.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tower_exploding_2730.jpg[/qimg]

If these are supposed to be evidence of tremendous explosions flinging steel you may want to consider the fact that all the 1 storey tall pieces of debris in that second image are lengths of lightweight aluminium cladding from the building exterior.

 

[chrismohr]

Good video EDX. I've seen maybe two fires in my life and there were explosions in both.
Chris Mohr

 

[chrismohr]

Final, Concluding Gage Rebuttal Video #20

Whew! I never thought I'd see the end of this!

Here's part 20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l7j6h9elQ

You'll see that when I take off my debater's jacket, underneath I'm still a preacher.

I don't drink much so I think I'll celebrate with a piece of chocolate.