Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

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

You only put me on your ignore list because you cannot yourself answer the problem of the microphones yet claim to be the professional in their operation.

You haven't answered my simple question, one which could surely help tenfold with the debate, especially as it seems to form the crux of your argument now we've clarified that global collapse was symmetrical and downward. It's all you have left yet you cannot answer it.

Backing out now is a definite sign of weakness but to be expected by a debunker. I've seen it time and time before so you're not alone.
 
Last edited:
Microphones and speakers I recall have inefficiencies in converting electronic signals to sound and vice versa. The point I suspect alienentity was pointing out, is that if the camera was capable of catching the much lower intensity sounds of people from a distance, than more intense sounds would have very clearly registered. When placed in that context, arguing about the issues with microphones becomes a moot point; it picked up sounds thousands of times less intense (decibels register increase in sound intensity exponentially) than explosives - an extreme case. It means that much lounder explosion sounds would have been beyond any doubt noticed in a video or audio recording, and no legitimate recording of the WTC 7 collapse picks up such signatures
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Microphones and speakers I recall have inefficiencies in converting electronic signals to sound and vice versa. The point I suspect alienentity was pointing out, is that if the camera was capable of catching the much lower intensity sounds of people from a distance, than more intense sounds would have very clearly registered. When placed in that context, arguing about the issues with microphones becomes a moot point; it picked up sounds thousands of times less intense (decibels register increase in sound intensity exponentially) than explosives - an extreme case. It means that much lounder explosion sounds would have been beyond any doubt noticed in a video or audio recording, and no legitimate recording of the WTC 7 collapse picks up such signatures
Click to expand...

Hi Grizzly Bear, I agree, but the sounds of the collapsing structure weren't picked up above the sound of people talking so here lies the overall problem.
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...
Individual supports versus overall supports? That doesn't even make sense.

The exterior columns were accessible from the inside. You don't see them on the outside because they were covered by the cladding.
Click to expand...
And you could not have WRAPPED them without removing 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.
Click to expand...

Maybe to assess the damage done by the debris from WTC 1.
 
RedIbis said:
Indeed. I always appreciate when you guys post classic threads, though I'm not sure why you would. I got some funny potshots in on that one.
Click to expand...

I posted proof of you being a hypocrite, as everyone can see. Now, will you provide proof that I have used the term twoofer to describe an individual who does not believe the accepted narrative of 9/11? If not, will you admit your error?

ETA: I also note that you provide your whole reason for being here - posting potshots and not proof.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Hi Grizzly Bear, I agree, but the sounds of the collapsing structure weren't picked up above the sound of people talking so here lies the overall problem.
Click to expand...

If the camera doesn't pick it up then you wouldn't be talking about explosives in the first place, since the sound intensity within the range is entirely insufficient to classify as ballistic in origin.

ETA: The minimum is 140 Db from 1/2 a mile. It picked up sounds significantly less than that so it falls well within the margin of error when considering microphone efficiency.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Hi Grizzly Bear, I agree, but the sounds of the collapsing structure weren't picked up above the sound of people talking so here lies the overall problem.
Click to expand...

The overall problem is your arguments are based 100% on simple incredulity. In addition to that, your main goal appears to be to cast some kind of doubt on the 'official story' in order insert whatever cockamamie idea you can come up with to explain the collapses, even though you have absolutely NO evidence to support it at all.

It's very similar to God of the Gaps. We know it well. It doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
Individual supports versus overall supports? That doesn't even make sense.


And you could not have WRAPPED them without removing the cladding.
Click to expand...

See, I told you you don't understand. Read up about redundancy in steel framed buildings.

Is it necessary to wrap linear charges around all four sides of a column when 3 will do? Only one side held the cladding.
 
mrkinnies said:
Hi Grizzly Bear, I agree, but the sounds of the collapsing structure weren't picked up above the sound of people talking so here lies the overall problem.
Click to expand...

Because it was a relatively slow process. A landslide generates far more energy than a gunshot, but it's the gunshot that hurts your ears. You might want to look up the word brisance. Explosions get attention for a reason, but you know this. You've watched the CD videos.

Meanwhile - for the fifth time - how do you suppose the CD plan would have panned out had WTC7 not been hit by WTC1 debris?
 
mrkinnies said:
You haven't answered my simple question, one which could surely help tenfold with the debate, especially as it seems to form the crux of your argument now we've clarified that global collapse was symmetrical and downward. It's all you have left yet you cannot answer it.

Backing out now is a definite sign of weakness but to be expected by a debunker. I've seen it time and time before so you're not alone.
Click to expand...


Irony.... you've ignored every single one of my critical question even the ones Ive had to constantly repeat over and over again. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
See, I told you you don't understand. Read up about redundancy in steel framed buildings.

Is it necessary to wrap linear charges around all four sides of a column when 3 will do? Only one side held the cladding.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously proposing that 3 sides of all exterior columns on certain floors (2 floors, say) had linear charges attached? Plus, of course, the remaining core columns.

Can you possibly imagine the noise this would make when they are detonated almost simultaneously?
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you really want us to find your quotes and embarrass you yet again? really?

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

So how did they sever all of these at once without and explosives? We know there were no explosives because they is no sound of them going off, no video and no traces of cut beams, detonators, wires etc.

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.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

How do you know there was no fire? and how would the firemen know there were no people? So you don't know that they did not nor can you show that the buildings maintenance staff did not either on the days leading up to 911, or the security staff either or that large numbers of people carrying explosive were seen entering and leaving the building over days or that anyone heard the inevitable noise their preparation would have required.

and still you have not answered the basic question....what if the WTC1 debris had not damaged WT7 and not started multiple fires? what then
 
twinstead said:
Where have you been?
Click to expand...

To tell the truth, hiding on the PC near the a/c and arguing with truthers on JREF. Looking forward to cooler weather and getting out more. It's quite sad really. Is it too late to learn the banjo?
 
GlennB said:
To tell the truth, hiding on the PC near the a/c and arguing with truthers on JREF. Looking forward to cooler weather and getting out more. It's quite sad really. Is it too late to learn the banjo?
Click to expand...

Dude. It's NEVER too late to learn the banjo.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Redundancy is based on the structural framing system assembly, not the individual pieces. Wiki has a categorization of the different types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_system

Read through them. I'm afraid it's you that doesn't understand enough.
Click to expand...

Wiki isn't the great authority you may hope it is. I used an example from Wiki yesterday and was careful to include a clause stating it was not to be relied upon (which one of the debunkers ignored and told me not to believe Wiki - which proves how much they read of what I say).

What you have posted is irrelevant. It is a classification of structural systems. Maybe it means more to you in which case please expand otherwise I can't see why you link to this here.

Here is an article written about WTC in respect to steel structures, fire and redundancy. It also talks of the shock many knowledgeable structural engineers felt concerning the destruction of steel structures when no such precedent exists.

http://www.iconreview.org/news/13656

"and the complete collapse of WTC7 after burning unchecked for approximately seven hours, the team found particularly significant. "Prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist."

(I've highlighted the important point in bold).

I like this because too many debunkers believe complete high-rise steel structural collapse due to fire is a common event when in fact it's never before happened.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom