Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
alienentity said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the steel columns would have been proportionally thinner in WTC5, not having to carry such a big weight. Why then do they continue to carry that weight and not just buckle? It was still 9 storeys tall (110ft) or isn't that very tall in your expert opinion?
 
Last edited:
I see the truther side has debunked themselves again - they offer videos with sounds of explosions unmistakably caught by camcorders. This shows that videos SHOULD have picked up explosions in WTC 7 as it collapsed. But none did, thus nicely disproving the truther claims.

Thanks for making this so easy, truthers! :)
 
mrkinnies said:
But the steel columns would have been proportionally thinner in WTC5, not having to carry such a big weight. Why then do they continue to carry that weight and not just buckle? It was still 9 storeys tall or isn't that very tall in your expert opinion?
Click to expand...

Excellent question. I think you missed the part where it says that there was an 'extensive internal collapse' in WTC 5. So, yes, many columns buckled in fact.

But you ought to consult an engineer with your questions, if you want to really learn the details. I'm not an engineer, and I don't pretend to be. But I did read the article in Structure Magazine, which you did not, evidently.

ps nice dodge of my questions. Well done, because your answer would have made you think, and I'm worried about what might happen if you did..
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
I see the truther side has debunked themselves again - they offer videos with sounds of explosions unmistakably caught by camcorders. This shows that videos SHOULD have picked up explosions in WTC 7 as it collapsed. But none did, thus nicely disproving the truther claims.

Thanks for making this so easy, truthers! :)
Click to expand...

But they don't show the sounds of the penthouse falling either. How does that fit with your hypothesis?
 
Methinks you are floundering around here, mrkinnies. Grasping at straws. As an architect do you really not know that different buildings have different structural designs?
 
alienentity said:
Excellent question. I think you missed the part where it says that there was an 'extensive internal collapse' in WTC 5. So, yes, many columns buckled in fact.

But you ought to consult an engineer with your questions, if you want to really learn the details. I'm not an engineer, and I don't pretend to be. But I did read the article in Structure Magazine, which you did not, evidently.
Click to expand...

But didn't collapse.....hmmmm.

In short, you know no more than I.
 
mrkinnies said:
But they don't show the sounds of the penthouse falling either. How does that fit with your hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Not so. In my time-adjusted video on WTC 7 'explosions', there is a possible sound which seems to coincide with the collapse of the penthouse. No explosion, although truthers have also made that claim (did you know that?)

Here it is. ps, you can definitely hear the global collapse as a rumble, so the microphone is working. There does seem to be a slight noise just before the PH collapses down into the building, but it's not loud. Maybe you'd call it an explosion, as others have, but I don't.



ETA, the main point is that we can hear the building as it falls, but no explosions. So it is irrelevant if we cannot hear the penthouse collapse - we know the microphone is working fine, right through the whole collapse. You cannot deny this, I'm afraid, and maintain any credibility.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
But didn't collapse.....hmmmm.

In short, you know no more than I.
Click to expand...

I do know that there were fires in the buildings though. I do know that there was a multifloor collapse in WTC 5 due to fire, and that it was studied. And I have irrefutable evidence on video of the probable cause of collapse. (said fire)

You, on the other hand, do not have such evidence for your theories.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Not so. In my time-adjusted video on WTC 7 'explosions', there is a possible sound which seems to coincide with the collapse of the penthouse. No explosion, although truthers have also made that claim (did you know that?)

Here it is. ps, you can definitely hear the global collapse as a rumble, so the microphone is working. There does seem to be a slight noise just before the PH collapses down into the building, but it's not loud. Maybe you'd call it an explosion, as others have, but I don't.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That first rumble is possibly the sound of the final detonation and down goes the penthouse.

According to wikipedia, which lets face it is hardly the font of all knowledge but I'll use it anyway, steel buildings are brought down in stages. Cutters destroy key supports then a final detonation low down in the building starts the collapse. This sound could be that final blast especially as the sound of the falling penthouse is non-existent so whatever that first rumble is it must have been much louder than several tonnes of steel drooping 610 ft.

I don't know and cannot prove it. Neither can you prove it isn't what I say.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Of course WTC7 was more damaged, it was totally destroyed by explosives. I keep telling you!
Click to expand...

How many explosives?

I can see you're probably going to ignore my last big post to you like you did all the other times, but you claimed now that to minimise sound they set off shaped charges all throughout the day. So how many did it take do you imagine and why didn't anyone (ie.firefighters) report on all these random huge explosives going off?

Do you then accept that Gage is wrong when he claims that for 2.25 seconds of 8 stories worth of free fall to occur in WTC7 that the resistence below was removed by explosives?

Again, what about WTC1 and 2, do you accept that Gage is wrong when he claims massively powerfull explosives propelled steel around?
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
You, on the other hand, do not have such evidence for your theories.
Click to expand...

How old are you again because that sentence is incredibly petty and immature. How do you know what evidence I have? You don't know anything about me other than what I've told you yet you now claim to know what evidence I have.
 
mrkinnies said:
According to wikipedia, which lets face it is hardly the font of all knowledge but I'll use it anyway, steel buildings are brought down in stages. Cutters destroy key supports then a final detonation low down in the building starts the collapse. This sound could be that final blast especially as the sound of the falling penthouse is not existent so whatever that first rumble is it must have been much louder than several tonnes of steel drooping 610 ft.
Click to expand...

Wiki is even less reliable when you don't really know what they're talking about. Demolitions are done in stages, but they dont set off individual explosives over 7 hours :rolleyes: What demolitions work the way you say they work? What explosives work the way you say they work? You will always avoid ever answering any of these questions. Your demolition can be whatever you want, its fun to make things up!!

I don't know and cannot prove it. Neither can you prove it isn't what I say.
Click to expand...

So you cant prove it and I cant prove it absolutely therefore any old claim is just as likely? Do you look at Judy Wood space beams and just as likely as well maybe? How about Mini nukes or CGI planes?

Why will you refuse to answer my hypothetical challenge? Here I'll type it all out again for you:

If I video tape something in the sky and claim its an alien spacecraft but it looks just like a plane and planes are common in the area, then I have to be able to explain how I can tell the difference between an alien spacecraft and a regular plane. You are the equivalent of saying you don't have to do that and that your claim that its an alien spaceship is just as likely as it being a a plane. I challenge you to explain why your belief that its specifically explosives is more likely.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
How many explosives?

I can see you're probably going to ignore my last big post to you like you did all the other times, but you claimed now that to minimise sound they set off shaped charges all throughout the day. So how many did it take do you imagine and why didn't anyone (ie.firefighters) report on all these random huge explosives going off?

Do you then accept that Gage is wrong when he claims that for 2.25 seconds of 8 stories worth of free fall to occur in WTC7 that the resistence below was removed by explosives?

Again, what about WTC1 and 2, do you accept that Gage is wrong when he claims massively powerfull explosives propelled steel around?
Click to expand...

They did report them and here's a firefighter hearing one. Listen to their conversation, it's written on the screen in case you missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

Was that a computer monitor I heard...or maybe a can of hairspray?
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
.

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.
Click to expand...

so its just a belief now.......and like a religion thats enough for you?

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,
Click to expand...

???? but your whole effort to date was to say fire couldn't be the trigger....you insisted that fire could not make lots of columns fail simultaneously as required for your symmetrical collapse. And if fire could be the trigger mechanism why could it not have made other columns and beams fail earlier???? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
so its just a belief now.......and like a religion thats enough for you?



???? but your whole effort to date was to say fire couldn't be the trigger....you insisted that fire could not make lots of columns fail simultaneously as required for your symmetrical collapse. And if fire could be the trigger mechanism why could it not have made other columns and beams fail earlier???? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

Why don't you respond to the video I just posted?

Don't you see your belief is as much a religion too. Just your religion is more widespread.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think he has a clue........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom