Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

And building collapses such as this 30-story building in Brazil (Jan 2011) 'Neighbours reported hearing a loud rumbling sound followed by what resembled an explosion.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12317450

No doubt building collapses make loud sounds, but nothing we've ever seen on videos of WTC collapses is like any explosive controlled demolition. They sound just as we'd expect giant buildings to sound when they collapse.

ETA Does anybody think the Brazilian authorities should be testing for explosive residues in this case? They have no reason to. Nor did NIST have any reason to. Nor would NIST or FEMA do an arson investigation for building 7.

The building in question was under construction and fell during winds and heavy rain.

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/central-brazil-building

 

[alienentity]

Now mrkinnie is arguing against himself....again. He argues on one hand that there were big fires in other WTC buildings yet they didn't collapse. Yet on the other hand he argues that the explosion could not have come from 'gas canisters, computer monitors' etc.... from ANY of those burning buildings because..... WTC 1 had collapsed only minutes prior?

Yikes, this is desperate stuff. And totally unconvincing.

 

[mrkinnies]

Why not? Illogical. RU saying that none of the flaming buildings (5,6 or 7) had those items?



Reality doesn't worry you. That's the problem. Your fantasies are what you care about.


More unqualified speculation about things you don't understand..


So would a lack of explosives. You can't tell which it is, which is why your argument fails.


ie, your lack of intellectual honesty prevents you from accepting the best documentary evidence, instead rationalizing that it doesn't exist. Nice work.

Face it, you have to rant rather than debate because that's all you've got.

 

[alienentity]

The building in question was under construction and fell during winds and heavy rain.

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/central-brazil-building

It collapsed completely and there were sounds described as resembling explosions.

In the WTC cases, you had massive plane impacts (many truthers deny the planes existed...but that's another story) and massive fires (many truthers deny this fact as well, just as flat-earthers deny the earth is a sphere), and in WTC 7's case, extensive fires over many hours, totally unfought.

There is massive evidence as to the cause of all these collapses, but the cult of 9/11 'Truth' doesn't care about real evidence and reality. Just ask FDNY personnel who figured out along with city engineers that 7 would probably collapse - they understood on 9/11 what was going on - truthers still haven't figured it out. Now that's just sad....

 

[alienentity]

Face it, you have to rant rather than debate because that's all you've got.

I rebutted every point you made. I see you've conceded defeat. Thanks for coming out.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Here is that clip again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oew1KYnC428

The two most obvious explosive sounds come about 10 seconds into the video which is a few minutes into the collapse of WTC1. NIST claim WTC7 only set on fire after WTC1 fell so these sounds are significant since they can't be gas canisters or monitors or general office debris. They sound like cutting charges too. Google Linear Shaped Charge and you'll find an example.

I believe cutting charges were set off throughout the day to reduce the structural capacity of WTC7 - not that any of you debunkers care for my thoughts as you've made clear. That doesn't worry me.

It could be that fire then finished the job off. That would account for the lack of distinct explosive noises prior to the building's collapse sequence, although I've yet to see a video with a convincing soundtrack to that collapse so explosives could have been used - most videos start too late into the sequence or have soundtracks which are too faint. Perhaps someone could give exact timings to show where they believe a soundtrack records the start of the entire collapse and is clear enough to hear the actual crashing sounds of the penthouse structure. I know many of you have posted such clips but I don't see what you guys mean.

1:14 "still hear continuing explosions. I don't know what it is."

What more is required to verify explosions?

 

[alienentity]

1:14 "still hear continuing explosions. I don't know what it is."

What more is required to verify explosions?

We know there were explosions, only you guys haven't caught on to this....I sense a pattern here...

The problem is, you don't have any evidence as to the location of the explosions. I've made a video about it on my channel.

you're guessing and pretending your guesses might be correct. But so far your judgement has proven quite inadequate.

Again, NOT A SINGLE VIDEO taken at the time of WTC 7's collapse shows explosions. Isn't it ironic that somehow random cameras caught random explosions with no problem as you've pointed out, yet couldn't manage to do so (even from several locations within proximity to 7) as 7 collapsed.

Hmmm, where would logic lead us here? Oh yes, all the cameras malfunctioned and failed to catch the mythical explosions, just as they've failed to catch the Yeti in action. (but we KNOW the Yeti is real, and the NWO is covering up its existence as well!)

 

[mrkinnies]

I rebutted every point you made. I see you've conceded defeat. Thanks for coming out.

No defeat I can assure you.

Can you explain to everyone why Building 5 was different in construction to WTC7. Both were steel framed buildings yet building 5 was left standing (damaged but standing) after hours of being on fire. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the twin towers too yet was the least damaged building overall.

Your lame reasoning on your own YouTube channel isn't satisfactory. In fact its extremely poor.

 

[TJM]

The two most obvious explosive sounds come about 10 seconds into the video which is a few minutes into the collapse of WTC1. NIST claim WTC7 only set on fire after WTC1 fell so these sounds are significant since they can't be gas canisters or monitors or general office debris.<snip>

WTC's 5 and 6 were burning.

 

[NoahFence]

I believe cutting charges were set off throughout the day to reduce the structural capacity of WTC7 - not that any of you debunkers care for my thoughts as you've made clear. That doesn't worry me.

So they^TM came up with a totally new way of controlled demolition, one that is possible inside an inferno, and on a building that would be 2x taller than the world record....without testing the process?

 

[mrkinnies]

We know there were explosions, only you guys haven't caught on to this....I sense a pattern here...

The problem is, you don't have any evidence as to the location of the explosions. I've made a video about it on my channel.

you're guessing and pretending your guesses might be correct. But so far your judgement has proven quite inadequate.

Again, NOT A SINGLE VIDEO taken at the time of WTC 7's collapse shows explosions. Isn't it ironic that somehow random cameras caught random explosions with no problem as you've pointed out, yet couldn't manage to do so (even from several locations within proximity to 7) as 7 collapsed.

Hmmm, where would logic lead us here? Oh yes, all the cameras malfunctioned and failed to catch the mythical explosions, just as they've failed to catch the Yeti in action. (but we KNOW the Yeti is real, and the NWO is covering up its existence as well!)

I've still yet to see a video which shows the full start of collapse and has a corresponding soundtrack which picks up the sounds of the building collapsing starting with the penthouse. Can you explain that? After all, if they don't pick up the sounds of a natural collapse which would have been deafening, then why should they pick up the sounds of explosions?

And why is our judgement of the explosive sounds inadequate. What makes you qualified to make such a statement?

 

[NoahFence]

What more is required to verify explosions?

Try to keep up. Nobody is discounting explosions.

 

[mrkinnies]

So they^TM came up with a totally new way of controlled demolition, one that is possible inside an inferno, and on a building that would be 2x taller than the world record....without testing the process?

What's to test - to see if it collapses or to see if it collapses cleanly? Either way, both systems would bring a building down and if that's your intention then great.

 

[alienentity]

No defeat I can assure you.

Can you explain to everyone why Building 5 was different in construction to WTC7. Both were steel framed buildings yet building 5 was left standing (damaged but standing) after hours of being on fire. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the twin towers too yet was the least damaged building overall.

You've contradicted yourself in your haste. You say it was severely damaged but was the least damaged of the WTC buildings?!? So you admit that WTC 7 was more severely damaged!
Gee, I wonder if that had some effect on the outcomes!! Nah, too inconvenient to the truther doctrine. Must ignore reality again..


WTC 5 was different in many ways, the most relevant that it was 9 stories tall, so fully 38 stories shorter than WTC 5. If you don't see what difference that makes, there's no hope for you at all.

In fact WTC 5 suffered fire-induced collapse internally 'Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8'

So imagine (you can't, I know) floors 6-8 losing structure, but having another 40 floors of mass to carry. Still think the building would survive?

If your answer is 'yes', then congratulations, you're not a trained fire investigator or engineer.. What a coincidence, you're not! I'm 2 for 2!

If the answer is 'no', then stop arguing, and show some respect for the truth for a change.

 

[beachnut]

No defeat I can assure you.

Can you explain to everyone why Building 5 was different in construction to WTC7. Both were steel framed buildings yet building 5 was left standing (damaged but standing) after hours of being on fire. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the twin towers too yet was the least damaged building overall.

Your lame reasoning on your own YouTube channel isn't satisfactory. In fact its extremely poor.

You failed to make a point. You will not be doing anything but posting failed opinions made up to support your fantasy of what happen on 911. Gage depends on people like you who don't understand and can't practically apply math, physics, and engineering to donate money so he can make a living. You have nothing but fantasy, you are a winner for 911 truth. You know what you say is true, you made it up, in your head it is the truth.

 

[GlennB]

I believe cutting charges were set off throughout the day to reduce the structural capacity of WTC7 -

And what if WTC7 had never been hit by WTC1 debris? After all it was some unusual ejections from the N Tower that hit WTC7.

Then your "plan" would leave WTC7 all rigged-up and nowhere to go. No excuse for the collapse, therefore no cutter charges being set off.

Do you have the slightest clue how totally asinine your theories are?

 

[NoahFence]

What's to test - to see if it collapses or to see if it collapses cleanly? Either way, both systems would bring a building down and if that's your intention then great.

Ah, so they didn't test their master plan at all? Just arbitrarily throw explosives in there to see if it worked? What'd they do? Cross their fingers?

 

[mrkinnies]

You've contradicted yourself in your haste. You say it was severely damaged but was the least damaged of the WTC buildings?!? So you admit that WTC 7 was more severely damaged!
Gee, I wonder if that had some effect on the outcomes!! Nah, too inconvenient to the truther doctrine. Must ignore reality again..


WTC 5 was different in many ways, the most relevant that it was 9 stories tall, so fully 38 stories shorter than WTC 5. If you don't see what difference that makes, there's no hope for you at all.

In fact WTC 5 suffered fire-induced collapse internally 'Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8'

So imagine (you can't, I know) floors 6-8 losing structure, but having another 40 floors of mass to carry. Still think the building would survive?

If your answer is 'yes', then congratulations, you're not a trained fire investigator or engineer.. What a coincidence, you're not! I'm 2 for 2!

If the answer is 'no', then stop arguing, and show some respect for the truth for a change.

Of course WTC7 was more damaged, it was totally destroyed by explosives. I keep telling you!

 

[alienentity]

I've still yet to see a video which shows the full start of collapse and has a corresponding soundtrack which picks up the sounds of the building collapsing starting with the penthouse. Can you explain that?

And why is our judgement of the explosive sounds inadequate. What makes you qualified to make such a statement?

Call to perfection fallacy noted. You won't accept any evidence if it counters your ideologically-fixed belief in CD. You're rationalizing, not learning.

Why is your judgement inadequate? Well, the burden of proof is on you to show where the explosions took place and what caused them.
You've done neither thing, only making bare assertions.

It has nothing to do with my qualifications, I'm not making the claims, and I'm able to offer both published, peer-reviewed material to support my positions where you refuse to do so. Oh, I forgot, you don't have any peer-reviewed materials to submit. My bad!

I keep forgetting you have no evidence. It must be very frustrating for you.

 

[alienentity]

And what if WTC7 had never been hit by WTC1 debris? After all it was some unusual ejections from the N Tower that hit WTC7.

Then your "plan" would leave WTC7 all rigged-up and nowhere to go. No excuse for the collapse, therefore no cutter charges being set off.

Do you have the slightest clue how totally asinine your theories are?

He's arguing in circles and is lost. I don't think he does have a clue, unfortunately.