Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Clayton Moore]

Hi Clayton, Bill, Marokkaan,

Tell you what... you can use the word "destruction" and I'll use the word "collapse." We'll treat them as synonyms, recognizing that both words have different connotations. I believe "collapse" describes better what happened, you believe "destruction" because of our respective biases. We won't correct each other, you do your thing I do mine.

Were the buildings destroyed or not?
Were the buildings completely destroyed or not? You must agree that they were. Collapse is an action. Destruction is a result.

Hiding behind an innocuous term like collapse is just plain immoral.

 

[chrismohr]

Were the buildings destroyed or not?
Were the buildings completely destroyed or not? You must agree that they were. Collapse is an action. Destruction is a result.

Hiding behind an innocuous term like collapse is just plain immoral.

The buildings collapsed, regardless of the cause. The buildings were destroyed, whatever the cause. Neither of us is hiding. I use my preferred term, you use yours. OK?

"Immoral"? Give me a break. You're wasting time. I notice that most of my 235 reasons for natural collapse on my YouTube videos haven't even been addressed yet. Don't sweat the small stuff... you and the 9/11 Truth movement have a lot of objections to answer from my project.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Were the buildings destroyed or not?
Were the buildings completely destroyed or not? You must agree that they were. Collapse is an action. Destruction is a result.

Hiding behind an innocuous term like collapse is just plain immoral.

Did they collapse or not? Did they completely collapse or not?
You must agree they did.
Destroy is an action, collapsed was the result.

Hiding behind a biased term like destruction is just plain childish.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The buildings collapsed, regardless of the cause. The buildings were destroyed, whatever the cause. Neither of us is hiding. I use my preferred term, you use yours. OK?

"Immoral"? Give me a break. You're wasting time. I notice that most of my 235 reasons for natural collapse on my YouTube videos haven't even been addressed yet. Don't sweat the small stuff... you and the 9/11 Truth movement have a lot of objections to answer from my project.

Sounds like the dreaded telephone tag times 235. U can 235 without me.

I don't have the inclination to respond to 235 times to a video(s).

Write them down and post them. You obviously had a script. Use it.

 

[DGM]

Were the buildings destroyed or not?
Were the buildings completely destroyed or not? You must agree that they were. Collapse is an action. Destruction is a result.

Hiding behind an innocuous term like collapse is just plain immoral.

Wow, that's like............deep. Would "destruction from collapse" work for you or are you saying they were "destructed" before they collapsed?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wow, that's like............deep. Would "destruction from collapse" work for you or are you saying they were "destructed" before they collapsed?

Destroyed.

 

[DGM]

Destroyed.

Works for me. Are you done now?

 

[alienentity]

Sounds like the dreaded telephone tag times 235. U can 235 without me.

I don't have the inclination to respond to 235 times to a video(s).

Write them down and post them. You obviously had a script. Use it.

You're so rude and disrespectful - what makes you think anyone would do anything for you?

Give your head a shake, dude!

 

[ergo]

Hiding behind an innocuous term like collapse is just plain immoral.

Immoral? Well, OK. You're giving them some credit for intelligence. I think there are some other words we could use for people who call this a "collapse":

 

[chrismohr]

Immoral? Well, OK. You're giving them some credit for intelligence. I think there are some other words we could use for people who call this a "collapse":

[qimg]http://911reports.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wtc1b-copy.jpg?w=240[/qimg]

Ergo,
Thanks for not using those words. Especially because no one has an answer to the fact that there was 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor, much of it being pushed outward at the rate of twelve floors per second. One estimate has the wind speed peaking at 482 mph. Even half that speed equals a strong tornado; why couldn't that kind of air pressure create horizontal motion of dust on a very large scale?

 

[leftysergeant]

Immoral? Well, OK. You're giving them some credit for intelligence. I think there are some other words we could use for people who call this a "collapse":

[qimg]http://911reports.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wtc1b-copy.jpg?w=240[/qimg]

There is really no difference between that dust plume and the flow of dust around the bottom of a collapsed or CDed building. It is not driven by explosives, but by air pressure as Chris explained above.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Ergo,
Thanks for not using those words. Especially because no one has an answer to the fact that there was 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor, much of it being pushed outward at the rate of twelve floors per second. One estimate has the wind speed peaking at 482 mph. Even half that speed equals a strong tornado; why couldn't that kind of air pressure create horizontal motion of dust on a very large scale?

Ah yes, but where did the dust and ejected people bits come from?

 

[leftysergeant]

If you noticed the upper floors kept disappearing so where was the weight that pile drivered each tower into dust?

It was being funneled down the inside of the structures. Look at the windows. They are bering blown out somewhere between the visible collapse front and the leading edge of the falling dust plume. The puffs of dust, further, do not appear from all windows of the same floor simultaneously. On one facade, dust is ejected before it is ejected fromm the others.

Note, too, that the voluimn of observable dust in the ejecta increases with time. This is the opposite of explosive ejecta, which would start from a dense staff and peter out to a less dense.

 

[ergo]

Ergo,
Thanks for not using those words. Especially because no one has an answer to the fact that there was 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor, much of it being pushed outward at the rate of twelve floors per second. One estimate has the wind speed peaking at 482 mph. Even half that speed equals a strong tornado; why couldn't that kind of air pressure create horizontal motion of dust on a very large scale?

Just show me another gravity-only driven collapse that produces such ejections and I'll believe you.

You can even use WTC7 as an example, if you want. It was half the height of the towers. Where are the ejections from its descent?

 

[sylvan8798]

I will be replacing "collapse" with "destruction" when discussing what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

I suggest everyone here do like wise.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The word you use doesn't change the history, Clayton.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There is really no difference between that dust plume and the flow of dust around the bottom of a collapsed or CDed building. It is not driven by explosives, but by air pressure as Chris explained above.

What is the dust of a CD'ed building? Pulverized cement from the explosives?

 

[leftysergeant]

Ah yes, but where did the dust and ejected people bits come from?

The floor slabs and drywall were grouind to small chunks and ground up a few people and the smaller stuff was blown outward in the high pressure air that was generated. Please pay attention. Thishas all been discussed before.

Some small body parts were ejected with the intial explosion of the planes on impact.

 

[Edx]

What is the dust of a CD'ed building? Pulverized cement from the explosives?

The explosives dont cause most of the dust in an explosive demolition, you do know that right?

 

[Edx]

Just show me another gravity-only driven collapse that produces such ejections and I'll believe you.

You can even use WTC7 as an example, if you want. It was half the height of the towers. Where are the ejections from its descent?

Verinage does. Just imagine they are 110 stories high, made of steel and had perimeter columns

 

[Oystein]

Huh? The upper floors of what? What do you mean by "disappear" - mass turning into - what? - nothing?
How did this reply answer the questions I asked:

"it seems very much like dust ejections are a result of the collapse, not of the explosives. Do you see that too, Clayton Moore? "​

and

"Lo and behold: We see high-speed lateral ejections of dust in both [Verinage] videos - yet we KNOW for a fact that no explosives were involved! Care to explain what that means, Clayton Moore?"​

Bumped for Clayton Moore, who thinks we can't see how he is evading tough questions.
Please view the videos of real CDs, with and without explosives, and answer some questions!