Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[triforcharity]

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.

Good video, this one is new to me.

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.

Why can't they be? Why can't they be transformers popping? (this would be a VERY common occurance after a building collapse.) Why can't it be any of the SCOTT pack bottles going off? How about car tires?

Can you eliminate any of those?

They sound like cutting charges too. Google Linear Shaped Charge and you'll find an example.

Yeah, they sound NOTHING alike. NOTHING.

 

[twinstead]

Technology.

Appeals to magic ROCK!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

First time in history = impossible and fire is non-existent if you can't see through a wall... Both have one thing in common; they're both very shallow and not unexpectedly, fail to prove anything

 

[GlennB]

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

You missed post 1036 so let me ask again - what if WTC7 had not been hit by WTC1 debris? No fires, therefore no 'official' reason for the collapse. Would they have just abandoned the plan, gone in there and removed the charges?

Meanwhile here below are some cutter charges being placed. Note that they have to go right up to the steel, so all fireproofing and other material such as drywall must be removed. The web on an I beam also needs to be cut through with a torch so that the charge can run the full width of the flanges. Extra weakening of the web with a torch is sometimes needed to ensure clean collapse. You seriously think this kind of work can be carried out in an extremely busy office block? The noise, light and smell would have been overwhelming. And (by my count) 13 of the core columns abutted elevator shafts or stairways

Then the detonations are ear-splitting, unmissable and unmistakable. This would be the most ridiculous covert plan in history and laughed out of the room at the first mention.

 

[bill smith]

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.

WTC5 was hell's own inferno as we see in the video and though the steel was relatively light the building remained standing.

Compare that to the total global collapse of a much bigger and far more strongly built steel building from a few small fires that soon went out.

 

[alienentity]

WTC5 was hell's own inferno as we see in the video and though the steel was relatively light the building remained standing.

Compare that to the total global collapse of a much bigger and far more strongly built steel building from a few small fires that soon went out.

Hmm, too bad it's a BS post at the end of the day. Yes, Bill, there are often paradoxes in life. But this doesn't lead to controlled demolition, it leads to understanding the nature of the paradox. You won't go that far of course - understanding would spoil the game.

So I guess the argument of the day from you and mrkinnies is that WTC 5 should have collapsed because the steel used in its construction was 'relatively light' or 'thin', and WTC 7 should have remained standing because its steel was thicker.

Have I understood the argument correctly? I'm ignoring any attempt to accurately measure the fires in each building, as neither of you have even begun to make a serious argument about them. Let's just assume for the time being that the fires were equal in severity - I think that's a fair start as mrkinnie stated that WTC 5 was not as severely damaged as WTC 7 - what else could he have meant? (he wrote: 'It was severely damaged by falling debris from the twin towers too yet was the least damaged building overall.')
I think Bill and he should get their stories straight. They seem to be arguing against one another.

It would be helpful if either one of you could cite a scholarly paper regarding the subject, but I guess that's also too much to ask. So I suppose we're really just relying on your own personal opinions, which in turn are informed by an unknown and questionable expertise.

Not much to go on, y'know. (This reminds me why I don't hang around UBC hospital and tell the doctors how to treat patients - I'm just not qualified in those areas... talking with truthers makes me think you don't need special training to understand anything. You just watch some youtube videos and.. bingo...instant expertise comes your way. Must be nice in that world)

 

[mrkinnies]

You missed post 1036 so let me ask again - what if WTC7 had not been hit by WTC1 debris? No fires, therefore no 'official' reason for the collapse. Would they have just abandoned the plan, gone in there and removed the charges?

Meanwhile here below are some cutter charges being placed. Note that they have to go right up to the steel, so all fireproofing and other material such as drywall must be removed. The web on an I beam also needs to be cut through with a torch so that the charge can run the full width of the flanges. Extra weakening of the web with a torch is sometimes needed to ensure clean collapse. You seriously think this kind of work can be carried out in an extremely busy office block? The noise, light and smell would have been overwhelming. And (by my count) 13 of the core columns abutted elevator shafts or stairways

Then the detonations are ear-splitting, unmissable and unmistakable. This would be the most ridiculous covert plan in history and laughed out of the room at the first mention.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/cuttercharges-1.jpg[/qimg]

Ooh, more straw man tactics - "it couldn't have been done because it would have taken so long"

......baloney!

How do you know when they started doing this? Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors, not used as offices and accessible to private personnel only. The support structure for the entire building was also on these floors for its where the foundation structure was converted to a high rise structure because support at ground level had to span a substation. These floors did not catch fire however.

Of course the picture you show of those guys applying Linear Shaped Charges is quite revealing. Look at the angle they put them to ensure the steel is cut and the column slips downward. Remind you of any other pictures at all?

And did you watch that video I posted yesterday? The explosive sounds are ear-splitting, unmissable and unmistakable.

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

 

[mrkinnies]

Hmm, too bad it's a BS post at the end of the day. Yes, Bill, there are often paradoxes in life. But this doesn't lead to controlled demolition, it leads to understanding the nature of the paradox. You won't go that far of course - understanding would spoil the game.

So I guess the argument of the day from you and mrkinnies is that WTC 5 should have collapsed because the steel used in its construction was 'relatively light' or 'thin', and WTC 7 should have remained standing because its steel was thicker.

Have I understood the argument correctly? I'm ignoring any attempt to accurately measure the fires in each building, as neither of you have even begun to make a serious argument about them. Let's just assume for the time being that the fires were equal in severity - I think that's a fair start as mrkinnie stated that WTC 5 was not as severely damaged as WTC 7 - what else could he have meant? (he wrote: 'It was severely damaged by falling debris from the twin towers too yet was the least damaged building overall.')
I think Bill and he should get their stories straight. They seem to be arguing against one another.

It would be helpful if either one of you could cite a scholarly paper regarding the subject, but I guess that's also too much to ask. So I suppose we're really just relying on your own personal opinions, which in turn are informed by an unknown and questionable expertise.

Not much to go on, y'know. (This reminds me why I don't hang around UBC hospital and tell the doctors how to treat patients - I'm just not qualified in those areas... talking with truthers makes me think you don't need special training to understand anything. You just watch some youtube videos and.. bingo...instant expertise comes your way. Must be nice in that world)

More empty assumptions and twisted meanings from yourself.

WTC7 was entirely destroyed therefore was MORE damaged than WTC5. WTC5 was fully engulfed by flame and lost a significant portion of itself when falling debris from the twin towers hit it. But WTC5 stood firm except for some internal partial collapse.

So why do you devote a whole YouTube channel to 9/11 if its worthless?

 

[GlennB]

Ooh, more straw man tactics - "it couldn't have been done because it would have taken so long"

......baloney!

I didn't say that, and I'm not suggesting you did so how is that a "straw man" ?

How do you know when they started doing this? Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors, not used as offices and accessible to private personnel only.

So what? You've again missed the main point. Without a guarantee of WTC7 being hit and fires started the perps of this scheme would have no cover for the eventual collapse of the building. No such guarantee was possible. As a plan it's a non-starter. It's also utterly pointless as nothing is achieved that couldn't be achieved by other means.

Of course the picture you show of those guys applying Linear Shaped Charges is quite revealing. Look at the angle they put them to ensure the steel is cut and the column slips downward. Remind you of any other pictures at all?

Yes, it's revealing. It's difficult, time-consuming, messy, noisy and smelly. And then you have the mechanical floors off-limits for the duration.

As for the angle I can see where you're going, but you really need to reconsider before going down that route.

I see you're very new to this. Do some searches around this forum before making an even bigger arse of yourself.

 

[mrkinnies]

I didn't say that, and I'm not suggesting you did so how is that a "straw man" ?



So what? You've again missed the main point. Without a guarantee of WTC7 being hit and fires started the perps of this scheme would have no cover for the eventual collapse of the building. No such guarantee was possible. As a plan it's a non-starter. It's also utterly pointless as nothing is achieved that couldn't be achieved by other means.



Yes, it's revealing. It's difficult, time-consuming, messy, noisy and smelly. And then you have the mechanical floors off-limits for the duration.

As for the angle I can see where you're going, but you really need to reconsider before going down that route.

I see you're very new to this. Do some searches around this forum before making an even bigger arse of yourself.

I've been doing this for years - just not here.

So you think the whole 9/11 debunking of WTC7 comes down to the fact the demolition team wouldn't have been able to obtain a pass to floors 5 and 6?

And what about that video. Edx says that firefighter doesn't say "seven is exploding". Apparently Edx works with sound but clearly his hearing is poor because he does say it - it's as clear as day.

 

[alienentity]

Ooh, more straw man tactics - "it couldn't have been done because it would have taken so long"

......baloney!

How do you know when they started doing this? Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors, not used as offices and accessible to private personnel only.

Of course the picture you show of those guys applying Linear Shaped Charges is quite revealing. Look at the angle they put them to ensure the steel is cut and the column slips downward. Remind you of any other pictures at all?

And did you watch that video I posted yesterday? The explosive sounds are ear-splitting, unmissable and unmistakable.

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

You're stuck.

You don't have any proof that shaped charges of any kind were applied to any structures, and in fact no evidence of such has ever been found. Ergo, you have no evidence to present, only speculation.
This is not going to get you anywhere in a serious examination.

2) The video you like does not show the origin of the explosion, so is inconclusive. In other words, it cannot 'prove' that explosives of any kind were present in WTC buildings. You have failed completely to eliminate alternative sources for the sounds.

3) You are unable to explain how structure below the E Penthouse could be destroyed by explosives such that we cannot hear the explosions as the collapse occurs.

In EVERY explosive controlled demolition we have on record, the explosions necessarily occur at the moment the building begins to collapse. There are no exceptions, and you will never find any.
You are arguing for an unknown process which has no engineering precedent, yet you offer no engineering explanation that is vetted by either demolitions experts or professional structural engineers. Thus your argument carries no credibility, and for good reason - it is not a sound argument.

At the end of the day you are still left in the uncomfortable position that the explosives you claim were detonating to cause collapse were somehow not captured by any recording device at the time of collapse, near, far, amateur or professional. This claim is destined for failure post haste unless you can offer a plausible explanation for this absence.

Strangely, regarding the video I linked you to, you claim there is a sound of explosives as the penthouse falls. I call BS (no, not that BS, that's like saying 'Beetlejuice' 3 times. I mean the other BS) on that.

For the record, here is the WTC 7 video, which includes a comparison with the Ocean Park demolition taken from about the same distance. Notice you can hear a rumble of the collapsing building in both cases, but with Ocean Park you also hear CD explosions. They are absent with WTC 7.

Something is amiss with truther arguments. They do not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[mrkinnies]

You're stuck.

You don't have any proof that shaped charges of any kind were applied to any structures, and in fact no evidence of such has ever been found. Ergo, you have no evidence to present, only speculation.
This is not going to get you anywhere in a serious examination.

2) The video you like does not show the origin of the explosion, so is inconclusive. In other words, it cannot 'prove' that explosives of any kind were present in WTC buildings. You have failed completely to eliminate alternative sources for the sounds.

3) You are unable to explain how structure below the E Penthouse could be destroyed by explosives such that we cannot hear the explosions as the collapse occurs.

In EVERY explosive controlled demolition we have on record, the explosions necessarily occur at the moment the building begins to collapse. There are no exceptions, and you will never find any.
You are arguing for an unknown process which has no engineering precedent, yet you offer no engineering explanation that is vetted by either demolitions experts or professional structural engineers. Thus your argument carries no credibility, and for good reason - it is not a sound argument.

At the end of the day you are still left in the uncomfortable position that the explosives you claim were detonating to cause collapse were somehow not captured by any recording device at the time of collapse, near, far, amateur or professional. This claim is destined for failure post haste unless you can offer a plausible explanation for this absence.

Strangely, regarding the video I linked you to, you claim there is a sound of explosives as the penthouse falls. I call BS (no, not that BS, that's like saying 'Beetlejuice' 3 times. I mean the other BS) on that.

For the record, here is the WTC 7 video, which includes a comparison with the Ocean Park demolition taken from about the same distance. Notice you can hear a rumble of the collapsing building in both cases, but with Ocean Park you also hear CD explosions. They are absent with WTC 7.

Something is amiss with truther arguments. They do not stand up to scrutiny.

How many times do I have to tell you, you cannot hear the sound of WTC7 falling in that collapse. You can only hear the first rumble just before the penthouse falls so whatever that was it must have been louder than the sound of a 47 storey building coming down. It could have been wind though.

So if that microphone fails to pick up the sounds of the building collapsing then what else are you expecting?

Compare this to the second clip and you hear everything - explosions and the building collapsing?

You're comparing apples with pears and clearly have no argument either.

 

[alienentity]

So why do you devote a whole YouTube channel to 9/11 if its worthless?

Oh, for the same reason I fight against medieval ideas of female circumcision, witchcraft, sky gods and such - because there is a flood of superstitious garbage on the internet which influences people. It is harmful to reason and justice.

9/11 Truth is primarily an anti-government, anti-intellectual movement not that different from many other pseudo-scientific trends. There's really not much difference between an anti-semite, an Obama Birther and a 9/11 Truther when you get down to the patterns of belief.

So long as there are people like Richard Gage touring the world and spreading vicious lies about his own country, there will be a need for rebuttals such as Chris Mohr's. Hopefully Gage's lies will die away with him, as they appear to have done with Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones (both men have lost momentum lately in the 9/11 truth movement).

There are still extreme fringe theorists like Judy Wood and Tracy Blevins who posit some kind of nefarious 'molecular dissociation' weapon that 'dustified' the steel of the WTC buildings. They have the same amount of evidence for their nutty ideas that you have for yours - nothing. But the CD theory is much more mainstream in 9/11 Truth, although ironically it is just as nutty and unsupported by evidence.

Think for yourself, don't just follow the herd. You will benefit from this. The sooner you drop your insistence on CD the better it will be for your intellectual maturation and function. That's free advice, shared without malice.

Many people have escaped the mental dungeon that you're currently in, so I have hope for you. One day you may even thank us for giving you a good smack upside the head. I hope so.

 

[alienentity]

How many times do I have to tell you, you cannot hear the sound of WTC7 falling in that collapse. You can only hear the first rumble just before the penthouse falls so whatever that was it must have been louder than the sound of a 47 storey building coming down. It could have been wind though.

So if that microphone fails to pick up the sounds of the building collapsing then what else are you expecting?

Compare this to the second clip and you hear everything - explosions and the building collapsing?

You're comparing apples with pears and clearly have no argument either.

Wrong. If you listen with headphones you can hear a growing rumble. Sorry, but it's fairly easy to pick up.

You're absolutely correct about the Ocean Towers video, though - it is a real CD, so you can hear explosions from 2200 ft away. With WTC 7, 2000 ft away, there is no sound of explosions.

One building was destroyed by CD, the other by fire. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

 

[mrkinnies]

Oh, for the same reason I fight against medieval ideas of female circumcision, witchcraft, sky gods and such - because there is a flood of superstitious garbage on the internet which influences people. It is harmful to reason and justice.

9/11 Truth is primarily an anti-government, anti-intellectual movement not that different from many other pseudo-scientific trends. There's really not much difference between an anti-semite, an Obama Birther and a 9/11 Truther when you get down to the patterns of belief.

So long as there are people like Richard Gage touring the world and spreading vicious lies about his own country, there will be a need for rebuttals such as Chris Mohr's. Hopefully Gage's lies will die away with him, as they appear to have done with Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones (both men have lost momentum lately in the 9/11 truth movement).

There are still extreme fringe theorists like Judy Wood and Tracy Blevins who posit some kind of nefarious 'molecular dissociation' weapon that 'dustified' the steel of the WTC buildings. They have the same amount of evidence for their nutty ideas that you have for yours - nothing. But the CD theory is much more mainstream in 9/11 Truth, although ironically it is just as nutty and unsupported by evidence.

Think for yourself, don't just follow the herd. You will benefit from this. The sooner you drop your insistence on CD the better it will be for your intellectual maturation and function. That's free advice, shared without malice.

Many people have escaped the mental dungeon that you're currently in, so I have hope for you. One day you may even thank us for giving you a good smack upside the head. I hope so.

But YOU are in the herd, I'm not, therefore I'm not following you and the propaganda you so happily swallow.

Next you'll be telling me you condone the slaughter of a million people in the Middle East as a result of 9/11.

 

[alienentity]

I'll give you a clue regarding the video: First there is silence, then a brief noise (could be wind noise), followed by crowd noise and a growing rumble which then dies away to silence.
The growing rumble coincides with the collapse of the building not far away. A similar sound is caught on the Ashley Banfield video and others, which corroborates this video nicely.

In no instance does any video capture an explosion such as that of the Ocean Towers demolition. This is a strong indication that such an explosion did NOT occur, contrary to truther claims.

It invalidates truther claims of explosive CD quite nicely. At least to a rational, objective person. Truthers, of course, will reject such empirical evidence, just as you have done.

 

[GlennB]

I've been doing this for years - just not here.

Then you haven't been exposed very much to contrary ideas. Now all you need to do is open your mind to the possibility that you've just been regurgitating bilge that CT sites have spoon-fed you,

So you think the whole 9/11 debunking of WTC7 comes down to the fact the demolition team wouldn't have been able to obtain a pass to floors 5 and 6?

Now that is a straw man. I have said no such thing. My main point in this little side-discussion is that the perps could never guarantee WTC7 would be hit by debris, starting fires. Without the fires there is no cover for the collapse. The plan to rig mechanical floors, such as it is, is a non-starter for this reason alone (though there are countless others, such as the need for an outside engineer to enter the mechanical floors, this issue of elevators and stairways passing through the mechanical floors, fumes passing into adjoining floors and so on).

You have avoided this point three times now. I suspect you really can't begin to deal with it. The joke is that it's really quite a small issue compared with other more technical stuff that would also make CD an utterly dumb plan. For example, what if the water hydrants had been functioning and the FDNY had gone in there and put out the fires? How would the det-cord survive the fires? There are a thousand things that could go terminally wrong with this "plan". And the plan is pointless from the outset. D'uh.

eta: not to mention the inescapable deafening noise of CD detonations. Has anyone mentioned that?

 

[alienentity]

But YOU are in the herd, I'm not, therefore I'm not following you and the propaganda you so happily swallow.

Next you'll be telling me you condone the slaughter of a million people in the Middle East as a result of 9/11.

Cut the crap. I do my own research and publish it as I did the video I linked to. You have done nothing of the sort.

Be honest - what do you know about microphone design, limiter circuitry, and the measurement and meaning of decibels? I have 20 years experience in professional audio production, I use the gear every day. I know what microphones pick up and why. You do not.

Your problem is you don't respect experts in any particular field if they happen to disagree with your ideological beliefs. That makes you a fool, since you don't know how to separate the 'wheat from the chaff', so to speak. You can't tell the difference between bafflegab, lying, and accurate representation. Thus you allow paranoia and mistrust to guide your understanding.

ie you're confused and hostile to those who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[mrkinnies]

I'll give you a clue regarding the video: First there is silence, then a brief noise (could be wind noise), followed by crowd noise and a growing rumble which then dies away to silence.
The growing rumble coincides with the collapse of the building not far away. A similar sound is caught on the Ashley Banfield video and others, which corroborates this video nicely.

In no instance does any video capture an explosion such as that of the Ocean Towers demolition. This is a strong indication that such an explosion did NOT occur, contrary to truther claims.

It invalidates truther claims of explosive CD quite nicely. At least to a rational, objective person. Truthers, of course, will reject such empirical evidence, just as you have done.

A "strong indication" - is that like saying it "appeared symmetrical" which you've spent so long debunking.

The noise is a distant rumble - very faint and barely recognisable.

The Ocean Towers clip clearly shows a building stripped of all outer walls with no other structure around it and no body else is talking so there's very little to stop the microphone from picking anything up. Besides, all the explosions go off as a rapid fire. I'm saying that at WTC7, the explosions occurred throughout the day to weaken the structure such that less needed to go off to bring the building down.

Apples and pears.

 

[alienentity]

mrkinnies, the gist of this discussion is that you know perfectly well that there is no explosion sound from WTC 7 on any video as it collapses. Yet it would HAVE to be there if explosive CD were the cause of collapse.

ergo, CD is not the cause of collapse. It's really that simple.

Explosives cause high pressure waves which are picked up by microphones if they are in the vicinity. That's what microphones do. You'll notice the WTC 7 videos pick up sirens, crowd chatter, all sorts of ambient noise, but NOT EXPLOSIONS. But they DO PICK UP EXPLOSIONS without problem when in the vicinity of REAL CD's. That's because real CD's produce intense pressure waves, which microphones pick up very well.

Microphones are not going to miss 120 to 130db sounds. Nope, they aren't. Never going to happen unless the microphone is off.