Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
So at an early age you were misrepresenting. The teacher made a mistake. He wasn't lying.
Click to expand...

You might want to re-read my little anecdote, this time for comprehension. Thanks.

But more importantly, you forgot to reply to a direct question asked of you more than twice before. So let me repeat:


Clayton Moore, what DID happen on 9/11? Since the debate is over, you surely have now a pretty good idea and a fairly complete and well-rounded theory?
A brief version that mentions the what, who and how, that can be read in one minute or less, will totally suffice for starters.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
here's a new theory... Bazant and eagar don't like it, but clayton and others will like it even less...

http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html?cache=clear
Click to expand...

as detailed in the new issue of aluminum international today, simensen argues that molten aluminum from the airplane bodies chemically reacted with water in the buildings' sprinkler systems, setting off the explosions that felled the twin towers. [did nostradamus really predict the 9/11 terrorist attacks?]
Click to expand...


rotflmao
 
Clayton Moore said:
rotflmao
Click to expand...

Everybody can see that you are running away from my question
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for civility.
Clayton. You dodge and duck and evade in plain sight in bright daylight. It is rather obvious that you are utterly unable to answer the following:

Clayton Moore, what DID happen on 9/11? Since the debate is over, you surely have now a pretty good idea and a fairly complete and well-rounded theory?
A brief version that mentions the what, who and how, that can be read in one minute or less, will totally suffice for starters.

The most reasonable conclusion from your total lack of explanatory power is that the debate is indeed over, but it didn't end in your favour:
Obviously, there is no alternative to the official theory, making the official theory the correctest one by default.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oystein said:
Everybody can see that you are running away from my question
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for civility.
Clayton. You dodge and duck and evade in plain sight in bright daylight. It is rather obvious that you are utterly unable to answer the following:

Clayton Moore, what DID happen on 9/11? Since the debate is over, you surely have now a pretty good idea and a fairly complete and well-rounded theory?
A brief version that mentions the what, who and how, that can be read in one minute or less, will totally suffice for starters.

The most reasonable conclusion from your total lack of explanatory power is that the debate is indeed over, but it didn't end in your favour:
Obviously, there is no alternative to the official theory, making the official theory the correctest one by default.
Click to expand...
Since Clayton Moore has not responded to our demand for an alternative theory explaining the destruction of the WTC buildings, Clayton, would you mind if I take a stab at it for you? If I were an AE911 Truth guy I might say something like this:

An alternative theory to the destruction of the buildings is necessary because of the utter failure of NIST to explain them. As just one example for Building 7, thermal expansion is not a plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, for numerous reasons, beginning with the fact that free-fall acceleration means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns, as required by the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis. There is also the fact that NIST’s own analysis of the photographic and video evidence of fires showed that the fires in the northeast on the 12th floor had already burnt out long before the collapse, which is also fatal to its hypothesis; it dealt with this by ignoring its own evidence and inputting fraudulent data into its computer fire simulations. There is also the fact that even if there had been fires in that area, they could not have produced the hypothesized failure. It’s claim of no shear studs on the key girder is contradicted by its own interim report and design drawings (Salvarinas 1986). Even assuming the requisite high temperatures, no shear studs, no differential between the steel beams and the concrete slabs, no thermal gradient within the beams, no bowing, etc., the beams could not have expanded enough to have caused the key girder to have come off its seat (in addition, it was constrained by the flange of key Column 79). The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis fails at every point, and cannot account for free-fall, the eutectic steel sample recovered from WTC 7, the molten steel witnessed in the rubble, or the nano-thermite and iron-rich microspheres found in the dust. The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis is no longer is no longer a plausible hypothesis, and a real investigation is required to look at the only existing alternative.

That alternative is the extensive use of explosive but relatively quiet nanothermites to explain the explosive outward-moving collapse of the Towers, and quieter and heat-based thermate to explain the rapid implosion of Building 7. These could have been secretly brought in to the elevator shafts of the Towers when they were shut down for "repairs." The deceptive controlled demoolition could have been accomplished by smashing planes into the buildings because they were designed to structurally withstand such an impact. Shaped charges could have directed steel beams outward instead of inward for maximum terror. This theory fully explains these facts:


1) No tall steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before
2) The nearly symmetrical collapse of all three buildings (natural fires damage buildings irregularly and therefore would collapse asymmetrically)
3) The complete lack of structural resistance and therefore freefall collapse of part of Building 7 collapse, as well as the near freefall collapse of the Towers
4) Some of the explosive charges went off early, many as much as 50 stories below the buildings' collapse zones.
5) Extreme heat was produced, 1000 degrees or more higher than any office fire, as was evidenced by billions of iron microspheres, rivers of molten steel, sulfidized steel whose only source could have been the sulfur in thermate, and even melted concrete which you can see in the Police Museum.
6.) Thermites were found in the WTC dust. etc etc etc

NIST and their supporters have no explanation for these phenomena, and NIST itself did not test for thermites in the dust. Due to the utter failure of natural collapse as an explanation for these phenomena, another theory needs to be looked at, which NIST and others refuse to do. A full investigation of this will fill in any gaps in my theory, but it is obvious that the controlled demolition theory already explains all the relevant anomalies much better than NIST's theory.

How did I do, Claytion and Bill?
 
I can see holes in it from way back here, but I'll let the experts evaluate it.
 
chrismohr said:
Since Clayton Moore has not responded to our demand for an alternative theory explaining the destruction of the WTC buildings, Clayton, would you mind if I take a stab at it for you? If I were an AE911 Truth guy I might say something like this:

An alternative theory to the destruction of the buildings is necessary because of the utter failure of NIST to explain them. As just one example for Building 7, thermal expansion is not a plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, for numerous reasons, beginning with the fact that free-fall acceleration means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns, as required by the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis. There is also the fact that NIST’s own analysis of the photographic and video evidence of fires showed that the fires in the northeast on the 12th floor had already burnt out long before the collapse, which is also fatal to its hypothesis; it dealt with this by ignoring its own evidence and inputting fraudulent data into its computer fire simulations. There is also the fact that even if there had been fires in that area, they could not have produced the hypothesized failure. It’s claim of no shear studs on the key girder is contradicted by its own interim report and design drawings (Salvarinas 1986). Even assuming the requisite high temperatures, no shear studs, no differential between the steel beams and the concrete slabs, no thermal gradient within the beams, no bowing, etc., the beams could not have expanded enough to have caused the key girder to have come off its seat (in addition, it was constrained by the flange of key Column 79). The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis fails at every point, and cannot account for free-fall, the eutectic steel sample recovered from WTC 7, the molten steel witnessed in the rubble, or the nano-thermite and iron-rich microspheres found in the dust. The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis is no longer is no longer a plausible hypothesis, and a real investigation is required to look at the only existing alternative.

That alternative is the extensive use of explosive but relatively quiet nanothermites to explain the explosive outward-moving collapse of the Towers, and quieter and heat-based thermate to explain the rapid implosion of Building 7. These could have been secretly brought in to the elevator shafts of the Towers when they were shut down for "repairs." The deceptive controlled demoolition could have been accomplished by smashing planes into the buildings because they were designed to structurally withstand such an impact. Shaped charges could have directed steel beams outward instead of inward for maximum terror. This theory fully explains these facts:


1) No tall steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before
2) The nearly symmetrical collapse of all three buildings (natural fires damage buildings irregularly and therefore would collapse asymmetrically)
3) The complete lack of structural resistance and therefore freefall collapse of part of Building 7 collapse, as well as the near freefall collapse of the Towers
4) Some of the explosive charges went off early, many as much as 50 stories below the buildings' collapse zones.
5) Extreme heat was produced, 1000 degrees or more higher than any office fire, as was evidenced by billions of iron microspheres, rivers of molten steel, sulfidized steel whose only source could have been the sulfur in thermate, and even melted concrete which you can see in the Police Museum.
6.) Thermites were found in the WTC dust. etc etc etc

NIST and their supporters have no explanation for these phenomena, and NIST itself did not test for thermites in the dust. Due to the utter failure of natural collapse as an explanation for these phenomena, another theory needs to be looked at, which NIST and others refuse to do. A full investigation of this will fill in any gaps in my theory, but it is obvious that the controlled demolition theory already explains all the relevant anomalies much better than NIST's theory.

How did I do, Claytion and Bill?
Click to expand...

Many things, including the misspelling of my name, the complete failure of the US military to protect the DC area and that no heads rolled anywhere.
 
Clayton - why are you and your kind so reluctant to give us a full theory regarding the whole day's events? Why are you so scared to answer simple questions?


(No doubt like this one)
 
Clayton Moore said:
Many things, including the misspelling of my name, the complete failure of the US military to protect the DC area and that no heads rolled anywhere.
Click to expand...

Complete failure?......seems to me thay have done OK since 9/11 was the first attack to succeed in DC since 1814


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Please show us that they were ever tasked to be able to shoot down civilian airliners attacking high rise buildings. Sure they screwed up but then most wars start with major screw ups because the enemy does something you did not expect. Top brass have a bad habit of expecting the next war to be like the last one.....it rarely is.


and no heads rolling is not relevant to the conspiracy since its not unusual to cover up failures in time of war.
 
chrismohr said:
Since Clayton Moore has not responded to our demand for an alternative theory explaining the destruction of the WTC buildings, Clayton, would you mind if I take a stab at it for you? If I were an AE911 Truth guy I might say something like this:

An alternative theory to the destruction of the buildings is necessary because of the utter failure of NIST to explain them. As just one example for Building 7, thermal expansion is not a plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, for numerous reasons, beginning with the fact that free-fall acceleration means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns, as required by the fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis. There is also the fact that NIST’s own analysis of the photographic and video evidence of fires showed that the fires in the northeast on the 12th floor had already burnt out long before the collapse, which is also fatal to its hypothesis; it dealt with this by ignoring its own evidence and inputting fraudulent data into its computer fire simulations. There is also the fact that even if there had been fires in that area, they could not have produced the hypothesized failure. It’s claim of no shear studs on the key girder is contradicted by its own interim report and design drawings (Salvarinas 1986). Even assuming the requisite high temperatures, no shear studs, no differential between the steel beams and the concrete slabs, no thermal gradient within the beams, no bowing, etc., the beams could not have expanded enough to have caused the key girder to have come off its seat (in addition, it was constrained by the flange of key Column 79). The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis fails at every point, and cannot account for free-fall, the eutectic steel sample recovered from WTC 7, the molten steel witnessed in the rubble, or the nano-thermite and iron-rich microspheres found in the dust. The fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis is no longer is no longer a plausible hypothesis, and a real investigation is required to look at the only existing alternative.

That alternative is the extensive use of explosive but relatively quiet nanothermites to explain the explosive outward-moving collapse of the Towers, and quieter and heat-based thermate to explain the rapid implosion of Building 7. These could have been secretly brought in to the elevator shafts of the Towers when they were shut down for "repairs." The deceptive controlled demoolition could have been accomplished by smashing planes into the buildings because they were designed to structurally withstand such an impact. Shaped charges could have directed steel beams outward instead of inward for maximum terror. This theory fully explains these facts:


1) No tall steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before
2) The nearly symmetrical collapse of all three buildings (natural fires damage buildings irregularly and therefore would collapse asymmetrically)
3) The complete lack of structural resistance and therefore freefall collapse of part of Building 7 collapse, as well as the near freefall collapse of the Towers
4) Some of the explosive charges went off early, many as much as 50 stories below the buildings' collapse zones.
5) Extreme heat was produced, 1000 degrees or more higher than any office fire, as was evidenced by billions of iron microspheres, rivers of molten steel, sulfidized steel whose only source could have been the sulfur in thermate, and even melted concrete which you can see in the Police Museum.
6.) Thermites were found in the WTC dust. etc etc etc

NIST and their supporters have no explanation for these phenomena, and NIST itself did not test for thermites in the dust. Due to the utter failure of natural collapse as an explanation for these phenomena, another theory needs to be looked at, which NIST and others refuse to do. A full investigation of this will fill in any gaps in my theory, but it is obvious that the controlled demolition theory already explains all the relevant anomalies much better than NIST's theory.

How did I do, Claytion and Bill?
Click to expand...

Not too bad Chris though I would have worded it differently.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Many things, including the misspelling of my name, the complete failure of the US military to protect the DC area and that no heads rolled anywhere.
Click to expand...
Sorry about the typo Clayton. Yes there is much more but Oystein had asked for a brief summary. I would guess that you would add to your theory the pulverization of concrete and even heavy metal deckings would be evidence of large amounts of explosives as well.

I didn't delve into the allegations of the failure of our military to protect us that day, the allagations of a "standdown order," etc. My videos were 95% about the technical issues surrounding the collapses of the buildings and what destroyed them. Based on that, I was offering a technical version of what I thought was your theory. Incomplete, of course. But did I summarize your theory honestly and accurately? Bill Smith says I did pretty good. You?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Complete failure?......seems to me thay have done OK since 9/11 was the first attack to succeed in DC since 1814


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Please show us that they were ever tasked to be able to shoot down civilian airliners attacking high rise buildings. Sure they screwed up but then most wars start with major screw ups because the enemy does something you did not expect. Top brass have a bad habit of expecting the next war to be like the last one.....it rarely is.


and no heads rolling is not relevant to the conspiracy since its not unusual to cover up failures in time of war.
Click to expand...
This is not an area of expertise for me, but I remember well an article in my Sunday paper in the late 90s. Gary Hart was warning us of our military unpreparedness for a terrorist attack on US soil. He asked a top Air Force brass, "If a passenger plane full of US civilians were hijacked and it was flying towards the White House, would you shoot it down?" The Air Force guy admitted he doubted if the Air Force would do it, and maybe such a jet would indeed crash into the White House. I remember feeling very scared. Well, a few years later something very much like that happened. I was not surprised. At all. The terrorists threw us a sucker punch and I would not be surprised if there was some kind of coverup of incompetence. Heads didn't roll, but we were simply unprepared as a nation. The individuals involved weren't really prepared to shoot down planes full of US civilians at that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom