Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[RedIbis]

I'll refrain from inserting the laughing dog here and just put in terms that you might understand then - knowing that the debris strikes were far from guaranteed The Perps would not have undertaken such a foolhardy plan in the first place. There would be too many hostages to fortune, of which this is just one.

Why refrain? Posting a laughing dog is the height of wit in this forum and provides the perfect retort to nearly any unsettling truth, namely, asking your opponent in debate to defend a hypothetical is nothing but a cheap rhetorical tactic.

Worse than actually employing this tactic is being unaware that NIST already took care of this little problem when they promoted their preposterous fire theory which doesn't require debris damage only fire. Now the debris damage started the fires, but the debris damage had little impact on the collapse sequence. So how hard would it be to later explain that after the collapse of two towers and the infernos raging in 5 and 6 that WTC 7 caught on fire? Even if these fires didn't appear large or didn't migrate around the bldg, most people wouldn't question how they could bring down such a large bldg, and there would be plenty of people willing to suspend all critical thinking to defend such a preposerous explanation. At least on that, there is nothing hypothetical whatsoever

 

[twinstead]

NIST in NCSTAR 1A mentions that no other high rise structure subject to an unattended fire had ever fully collapsed before, let alone in such a clean way.

What were you saying about probability?

No building the size of WTC7 has ever been rigged for demolition and brought down in front of everybody's nose pretending it was a natural collapse in the history of the world.

Therefore, it couldn't have happened. Case closed.

 

[RedIbis]

No building the size of WTC7 has ever been rigged for demolition and brought down in front of everybody's nose pretending it was a natural collapse in the history of the world.

Therefore, it couldn't have happened. Case closed.

Buildings are brought down by CD all the time. A steel framed high rise has never globally collapsed due to fire before. Big difference.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, we know that is not true since you have repeatedly posted in threads where truthers use hypotheticals and you do not call them out. As for the part I bolded above, please quote me as using the term Twoofer, and also point me to where I made any mention of some monolithic entity in the post you quoted. I used the term truther to represent individuals making arguments, not as some monolith.

C'mon, it is Red. He is like a snob of the truthers, somehow believing that his ideas (had he ever had the cojones to actually express them) are significantly better than other truthers.

He gets upset when we lump him in with his inferiors, apparently failing to realize that his ideas are just as ludicrous as his colleagues.

This thread is great example, the claim that hypotheticals have no place in a debate is the dumbest damn thing I've read all day.

/bwhahahaaa!!!!! Now I see that Red has used a hypothetical in post 1141. This guy is like a god damn National Treasure of Unintentional Humor. Fantastic!

lulz.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Why are truthers and creationists so much alike?

Because they are both followers of religions to all intents and purposes. Twoofers haven't started using the word "faith" yet but we already commonly hear "I believe" as if that was of any importance in a technical debate.

 

[000063]

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.

Aside from the lack of shattered windows across the island, who's to say the explosion sounds weren't coming from the collapsed WTC 1?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I wouldn't know - I'm an aetheist

What is an Aetheist? You simply have another faith....911 twoof. All extravagant claims and no evidence.....sound familiar?

 

[Edx]

Your "theory" isn't very consistent, is it? First you contend that they had to remove ALL the supports simultaneously, then you propose that they removed the supports one by one throughout the day and then maybe fire finished off the job, even though the interior collapsed first and then the exterior, and the fire wasn't on the exterior.

Worse than that, he told me on the last page that he also agrees with Gage which claims an entire 8 stories were removed instantly by explosives when 7 collapsed. Which sort of renders his theory for how they managed to minimise noise in the collapse totally moot anyway.

Not that I understand where he is going with the theory, since he also claims massive explosives flung steel around with WTC1 and 2, way more powerfull than any shaped charge, yet we have great video of those collapses practically beneath it and none can be heard.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

NIST in NCSTAR 1A mentions that no other high rise structure subject to an unattended fire had ever fully collapsed before, let alone in such a clean way.

What were you saying about probability?

No other high rise was ever pre wired with explosives and then set on fire by another nearby collapsing building and then blown up to make it look like fire did it..............

what were you saying about probability?

And you do understand things can happen for a first time.....and if NIST actually said exactly what you say they did....then they were wrong, WTC1 and 2 had already done that hours before. So every other steel high rise that had unfought fires had collapsed before WTC7 did the same....thats a probability of 1 albeit based on a small data set.

 

[000063]

So, yes, it is now confirmed. 9/11 beetards claim that WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman Hall.


What is the point of having any discussion here?

Well, considering that Fiterman Hall was clearly destroyed, and you can literally drive your car to the spot in NY where it used to be and look at it under construction, what point indeed?

Citation please.

<facepalm>
No you hayseed.

When a building collapses it goes down. Duh.
When a building is imploded it is brought down into its own footprint.
When a building is imploded and brought down into its footprint, it doesn't strike adjacent buildings.
If a building collapses and strikes adjacent buildings (including one on the freaking roof) then it obviously doesn't collapse into its own footprint.

Of course, this is your usual "one-liner then run away" style of debate, ergo. Everytime you try a sustained argument, you end up getting spanked and run crying for Mommy. Then you repeat the same incorrect points in some other thread. Over and over.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hypotheticals are not an appropriate topic for debate. No one could possibly know the answer to such a question.

but its a prerequisite to the explosives theory....if you cannot come up with a plausible answer than you have no theory. period.

and please also answer why if the destruction of wt7 was essential why not simply bring it down when WTC1 collapsed.......when there could be no witnesses, no cameras and little doubt as to the cause?

 

[000063]

Why refrain? Posting a laughing dog is the height of wit in this forum and provides the perfect retort to nearly any unsettling truth, namely, asking your opponent in debate to defend a hypothetical is nothing but a cheap rhetorical tactic.

Worse than actually employing this tactic is being unaware that NIST already took care of this little problem when they promoted their preposterous fire theory which doesn't require debris damage only fire. Now the debris damage started the fires, but the debris damage had little impact on the collapse sequence.

NIST says the collapse was mostly caused by fire. Debris damage played a part, so it is required for their theory. At the very least, it set the fires in the first place, so it has to be part of the theory.

So how hard would it be to later explain that after the collapse of two towers and the infernos raging in 5 and 6 that WTC 7 caught on fire? Even if these fires didn't appear large or didn't migrate around the bldg, most people wouldn't question how they could bring down such a large bldg, and there would be plenty of people willing to suspend all critical thinking to defend such a preposerous explanation. At least on that, there is nothing hypothetical whatsoever

No, that's precisely what a hypothetical is. The fires in WTC 7 did appear large, and did move around the building. Unless the bad guys had the ability to alter incendiaries remotely.

Buildings are brought down by CD all the time. A steel framed high rise has never globally collapsed due to fire before. Big difference.

How many of those high-rises were set on fire by debris damage from a 110-story skyscraper that had collapsed from airplane impact and fire, then burned, unfought, for several hours?

Or, heck, how many buildings bought down by CD were "steel-framed high rises"? Of those, how many were above 30 stories?

Oh, right, none.

 

[Disbelief]

Well, we know that is not true since you have repeatedly posted in threads where truthers use hypotheticals and you do not call them out. As for the part I bolded above, please quote me as using the term Twoofer, and also point me to where I made any mention of some monolithic entity in the post you quoted. I used the term truther to represent individuals making arguments, not as some monolith.

Well Red, got anything on this? Can you show me where I have used the term twoofer?

Speaking of arguing hypotheticals, I thought this was funny:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5010963#post5010963

 

[The Big Dog]

Well Red, got anything on this? Can you show me where I have used the term twoofer?

Speaking of arguing hypotheticals, I thought this was funny:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5010963#post5010963

hell, you don't even have to go out of this thread to show that Red is a hypocrite.

Do we give a body of work stundie around here?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Well Red, got anything on this? Can you show me where I have used the term twoofer?

Red, I use twoofer all the time because to use the word truth in any of their lies is a travesty. Its like Orwells Ministries of Truth, Love and Plenty or indeed the Christian claim that their God is the "truth and the light"

Twoofers have not earned the right to call themselves a "truth" movement. They do not want any "truth" other than the one they already believe in.

 

[Disbelief]

hell, you don't even have to go out of this thread to show that Red is a hypocrite.

Do we give a body of work stundie around here?

I just like pointing out the hypocrisy. I could even show where he uses the term twoofie/twoofer, something I do not do yet he accuses me of doing so.

Red, I use twoofer all the time because to use the word truth in any of their lies is a travesty. Its like Orwells Ministries of Truth, Love and Plenty or indeed the Christian claim that their God is the "truth and the light"

Twoofers have not earned the right to call themselves a "truth" movement. They do not want any "truth" other than the one they already believe in.

It's ok that you do, but I do not. I would just like Red to acknowledge that he has accused me of using a term that I do not use and that I was claiming a monolithic truth entity, which I did not. Since he is such a stickler for detail, he should be willing to clear this issue up.

 

[GlennB]

hell, you don't even have to go out of this thread to show that Red is a hypocrite.

Do we give a body of work stundie around here?

No, but his contribution to Stundiness may yet be recognised

linky

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Buildings are brought down by CD all the time. A steel framed high rise has never globally collapsed due to fire before. Big difference.

Competent architects and engineers don't rely of lack of precedent to question something and neither do skeptics. They look at the evidence and form a conclusion from that. Big difference.
You should forgive people like me for being a little unfriendly with that "first time in history" argument; if that could answer the world's questions, the engineering reports would be utterly pointless from the get go. People like yourself who espouse the argument seriously underestimate the complexity of engineering investigations.

 

[alienentity]

It was instructive to learn that, while mrkinnies was claiming a number of things about what microphones can and cannot do, and grilled me about my personal expertise in audio, he flatly refused to divulge whether he has any professional training and experience with audio production and microphones.

So he's a complete hypocrite, and frankly dishonest in debate. As we've often discovered with the mindset of 9/11 Truthers, the amateur knows far more than the professional. The professional's opinion is invalid, while the amateur truther's opinion is spot-on and virtually flawless.

I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that people who hold untenable beliefs cannot engage in a rational and honest discussion about those beliefs, and suffer from mangled thought processes. Hence the amateur always knows more than the trained professional, and the professional is to be dismissed, ignored and disrespected.

By refusing to apply the same scrutiny and candor to his own abilities that he applied to me, mrkinnies earns the addition to my ignore list.

Buh-bye!

 

[mrkinnies]

Your "theory" isn't very consistent, is it? First you contend that they had to remove ALL the supports simultaneously, then you propose that they removed the supports one by one throughout the day and then maybe fire finished off the job, even though the interior collapsed first and then the exterior, and the fire wasn't on the exterior.

As for putting the Linear Shaped Charges on the mechanical floors, you do realize they could not have applied these devices to the exterior columns, do you not?

At some point on 9/11 there was a team of firefighters (and engineer?) in WTC 7 to see how things looked. Does anyone know whether they were on the mechanical floors? If they were, they would surely have noticed these big ole' devices everywhere. If not, how did the perps prevent them from going there?

Your plot is so full of holes it's laughable.

Again you twist my words and claim I've said things when I haven't. I've been over the difference between individual supports and overall support. You clearly do not understand this which is why you keep labouring the point...incorrectly.

The exterior columns were accessible from the inside. You don't see them on the outside because they were covered by the cladding.

Not sure why the fireman would have gone into the mechanical floors since they were't on fire and weren't occupied by people but they could have done.