Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

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

because it was inside the building on the other side of the north wall..........

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

what makes you qualified to say they were adequate? Thats right. You are not remotely qualified. so given lots of videos that show much louder explosions and the lack of any at the WTC7........its a safe assumption that you are wrong.
 
mrkinnies said:
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?
Click to expand...

You think I haven't seen this?

Firstly a firefighter did not "report" this, this is a video where a truther has added an annotation where he claims the guy says "seven is exploding". This is nonsense, he never said that and the guy hears what he wants to hear and now thats all you hear when you listen to it. Where are all the 911 firefighters in their oral histories, in interviews ever reporting anything like your claim of numerous demolition shaped charge explosion sounds from 7? Answer: NONE. I told you there is a reason why no truther EVER quotes a firefighter about WTC7, because they always disagre with them. All you can ever do is quote them out of context, and whether or not they really even believe what you claim they meant doesnt even matter either.

Aside from that there is question as to whether this sound is even genuine, but assuming it is according to analysis this video was recorded about 7 hours before the collapse between 10:15 AM and 10:50 AM. You also claimed they set off multiple explosives throughout the day. So I asked you, how many of these explosives went off and if this is the sound why didn't any cameras pick up any explosions when it collapsed or in WTC1 and 2's collapse?

But you've tied yourself in a knot now, because you have to try and now claim less and less explosives went off in order to make this new theory of yours more likely, but at the same time you started off defending Richard Gage that claims huge amounts of intense explosives went off in all 3 buildings when they collapse.

We're also back to what kind of demolition works by setting off an explosive 7 hours before the building falls down, but we both know you dont want to touch reality and would rather pretend explosives work the way you want them to, just like the microphones previously.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
You think I haven't seen this?

Firstly a firefighter did not "report" this, this is a video where a truther has added an annotation where he claims the guy says "seven is exploding". This is nonsense, he never said that and the guy hears what he wants to hear and now thats all you hear when you listen to it. Where are all the firefighters in their oral histories, in interviews or anywhere ever reporting anything like your claim of numerous demoltiion style explosions from 7? Answer: NONE. I told you there is a reason why no truther EVER quotes a firefighter about WTC7, because they always disagre with them

Aside from that there is question as to whether this sound is even genuine, but assuming it is, you claimed they set off multiple explosives off throughout the day. According to analysis this video was recorded about 7 hours between 10:15 AM and 10:50 AM.

So I asked you, how many of these explosives went off and if this is the sound why didn't any cameras pick up any explosions when it collapsed or in WTC1 and 2's collapse?

But you've tied yourself in aknot now, because you have to try and now claim less and less explosives went off in order to make this new theory of yours more likely, but at the same time you started off defending Richard Gage that claims huge amounts of intense explosives went off in all 3 buildings when they collapse.

We're also back to what kind of demolition works by setting off an explosive 7 hours before the building falls down.
Click to expand...

So you've seen this video before but none of the ones about firefighters talking about big explosions. There's loads of those and are very easy to find so I'd say you were lying.

I've already explained my theory about demolition charges going off throughout the day several pages back. Go find it. You say I don't read your stuff but its clear you haven't read mine.

Face it Edx, you are floundering.
 
mrkinnies do you think that the JREF form is the only place in the world where people disagree with the "truth" movement?

I'm sensing your love of the idea of having "it all figured out" and leaving the Matrix while we and most other experts world wide are wallowing in ignorance and denial. This is conspiracy theorist 101
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
So you've seen this video before but none of the ones about firefighters talking about big explosions. There's loads of those and are very easy to find so I'd say you were lying.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep lying? I dont mean to me, I mean to yourself.

No one says there weren't explosions.

Got it? Is that clear enough for you?

I am asking you how do we tell the difference between an explosive and the hundred other things an explosion can be from and what people would be reporting as an explosion. Since I first challenged you to tell me how to tell the difference you have refused to do so and have ignored it over and over again each tme.

I've already explained my theory about demolition charges going off throughout the day several pages back. Go find it. You say I don't read your stuff but its clear you haven't read mine.
Click to expand...

Uuuh, yes I know that you are making that claim. I replied to that claim 3 times now and even in the post you quoted.

There's usually a point where it becomes clear a truther literally will not read what you write to them, I think that that time is now.
 
Last edited:
Good grief. Explosions is an old topic:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
The most common conspiracist misuse of eyewitness accounts involves descriptions of loud noises in and around the Twin Towers. "Controlled demolition" theorists claim that such descriptions indicate that explosive devices were at work in the towers, even, for some unfathomable reason, long before the collapses. To them, all descriptions are literal and figures of speech don't exist. When Hursley Lever, who was in the north tower basement when flight 11 hit, said "I heard a bomb," but then explained that he thought the noise was a transformer explosion and went back to work, conspiracists will focus on "bomb" and omit the rest.
Click to expand...
What about explosions or sounds like explosions before the towers collapsed, as the fires progressed? Such would not be surprising, and perhaps would be expected. During the huge fire in Madrid's Windsor building (during which the structural steel that was on the fire floors failed, leaving the building's concrete core exposed), "Explosions could be heard within the building and authorities cordoned off a zone some 500 metres in diameter in case it should collapse." Source

Needless to say, that building was not hit by an airliner, nor were explosive devices suspected to be at work. In the towers there were partial floor collapses, falling elevators, likely debris falling down elevator shafts, fuel vapors igniting, bursting pipes, and perhaps steel failing, electrical systems shorting, and pressurized containers from the buildings and aircraft exploding. None of these things would be surprising during such events.
Click to expand...
The lesson for conspiracists? These accounts must be put in context and must not be used to support a fantasy that neither the first responders nor the audiovisual, seismic, or physical evidence support.
Click to expand...

Gravy wrote thtat over 5 years ago, yet some people still haven't figured it all out. Explosions =/= demolitions. Given that:
  1. Steel from the collapse initiation zones were recovered, and those showed no signs of explosives effects on them
  2. That there were people trapped in the building - in one case actually in a stairwell very close to one of the core columns - that were not blown to bits by supposed demolitions emplanted on columns
  3. That there are no secondary signs of explosives effects - such as the typical "Primary" types of barotrauma associated with bombing eventsi (the injuries seen appear to fall into the "tertiary" category. Explanation: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra042083)
... there is no rational choice but to ascribe those testimonies to the natural sorts of explosives sounds expected in a very large fire: Structures failing and impacting each other, enterprise-scale electrical equipment exploding, and very sadly and tragically, survivors jumping and impacting on structures below. There is no reason to even attempt to link them to deliberately planted demolitions, not when the entirety of the evidence is looked at.

More info:
This claim is as finished as it gets, and was so years ago. We're done here.

i. There are multiple articles available on Google Scholar that describe the sorts of injuries seen by area Emergency Departments in the immediate aftermath of the 3 towers collapses. You have to do some comparative work, but the incidents of barotrauma that were seen were individual cases - a single eye injury, a single ear injury, etc. - and did not resember barotraumatic injuries noted in other events, such as the Madrid bombings, the Israeli bus bombings, etc.
 
mrkinnies said:
Hey Bill, that building really did burn did it not? Unlike WTC7 which sort of smouldered a bit with a few dancing flames here and there.
Click to expand...

A "few dancing flames here and there," huh? Yeah, right!


More here.

There's a term for when people are unable to recognize the very evidence that stares them in the eye :
"Cognitive Dissonance."

That's the real "CD" behind truther claims.
 
mrkinnies said:
Hey Bill, that building really did burn did it not? Unlike WTC7 which sort of smouldered a bit with a few dancing flames here and there.
Click to expand...

A few dancing flames? So you're saying the firefighters are liars then are you? You do know that dozens and dozens have all commented on 7 specifically and they never ever describe it as having small fires. They describe it as having a raging inferno, heavy damage that it was leaning, bulging, groaning, creaking and things were cracking and falling that that they all knew it would collapse hours before it did from that fire and damaged state, all with no dissenting opinions from any of them in nearly 10 years.

So you claim they are liars, just like you imagine all the other experts in the world that don't believe what you claim is obvious and NIST's theories breaks fundamental laws of physics. Maybe theres a reason you're a fringe bunch of nobodies, consider that? No wait probably not. :rolleyes:
 
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...

You debunkers don't understand technology. In 1969 we had the technology to get to the Moon and back.

The permutation power of state of the art main frames in 1969 compared to 2001 computer hardware/software would be like a 5 year old's first 5 minutes with a yoyo compared to the best trickster performing the 1000 most difficult yoyo tricks simultaneously for 10 straight years without a break. And that's probably low balling.


After all it was some unusual ejections from the N Tower that hit WTC7.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
...
After all it was some unusual ejections from the N Tower that hit WTC7.
Click to expand...
Only for you and 911 truth, since you don't do physics. It is a matter of knowledge, you don't have much on 911, and you don't understand physics so you make up nonsense like this.

Gage banks on the fact you believers in 911 nonsense are physics free and will not check out his claims with science.
 
People need to quit forwarding the claim that the WTC 7 fires were small. That claim is in complete contradiction to the evidence. As was noted after the collapse of the North tower, 10 floors were seen to be burning on the southwest corner of the building. Eventually, fires were noted to have spread to the North face of the building, then to the East. And eventually, they were noted to have ranged from as low as the 7th floor to as high as the 30th.

A fire that eventually travels over 23 stories and is visible on 3 of 4 faces of a building is not small. Not even close. It is a deliberate distortion to claim that it is.

The fire progression sequence is summarized in NCSTAR 1A, and is elaborated upon in NCSTAR 1-9, chapter 5. This information is available, and is readily verifiable through examination of historical video recordings of the fires. Any attempts to minimize the size or extent of building 7's fires is nothing more than a display of ignorance, and a total disregard for the evidence.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
People need to quit forwarding the claim that the WTC 7 fires were small. That claim is in complete contradiction to the evidence. As was noted after the collapse of the North tower, 10 floors were seen to be burning on the southwest corner of the building. Eventually, fires were noted to have spread to the North face of the building, then to the East. And eventually, they were noted to have ranged from as low as the 7th floor to as high as the 30th.

A fire that eventually travels over 23 stories and is visible on 3 of 4 faces of a building is not small. Not even close. It is a deliberate distortion to claim that it is.

The fire progression sequence is summarized in NCSTAR 1A, and is elaborated upon in NCSTAR 1-9, chapter 5. This information is available, and is readily verifiable through examination of historical video recordings of the fires. Any attempts to minimize the size or extent of building 7's fires is nothing more than a display of ignorance, and a total disregard for the evidence.
Click to expand...

Any attempts to aggrandize the size or extent of building 7's fires is nothing more than a huge display of arrogance, ignorance, and a total disregard for the evidence.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Any attempts to aggrandize the size or extent of building 7's fires is nothing more than a huge display of arrogance, ignorance, and a total disregard for the evidence.
Click to expand...
You don't do fire science, or physics so you have no clue why burning buildings in the daytime look unimpressive compared to nighttime fires.

wtc7fire3-1-1.jpg

A fire not fought. Looks like fire, imagine how impressive what you say were little fires would look like at night. You spread lies and don't care about the truth. 10 years of failure, and you celebrate your ignorance of 911 by posting proof.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom