Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
As nasty as you've been to me? If I had been that nasty I would have been banned. Look for it yourself.
Click to expand...
Here we go again into derail mode. Thanks Bill for answering my question, did I do an OK job of summarizing the CD theory? I lifted the part about the alleged problems with Building 7 from a recent post of Jeremy Hammond's on another blog. Oystein, was my attempt to answer your challenge on Clayton's behalf a good template for what you were looking for with him when you said you wanted a brief summary of the CD theory? If not, what is missing? In any event, I believe my YouTube videos at chrismohr911 answer the allegations of CD theorists respectfully and thoroughly. Here's a freely provided pair of links, available to anyone on either side of the argument:

The two playlists for YouTube:
Section 1 Twin Towers (2 hours 9 minutes total) http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL92DAE5DE3C22CF4F&feature=viewall
Section 2 Building 7 (1 hour 35 minutes total) http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5&feature=viewall

I look forward to seeing links be available by request so we can get back to discussing the actual technical issues.
 
Xero said:
Please point out the "personal attack" part. Oh, you can't? What a surprise.
Click to expand...

Edited for civility.

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...
 
Yes? Still waiting for the "personal; attack" part. Or perhaps you fail to understand how "personal attack" actually works, like certain others I've noticed. Facts and reason don't count as "attacks", just for those having trouble keop8ng track.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It was edited out. That's not clear to you?
Click to expand...

You are showing us how Chris makes personal attacks by not showing us????

This is truly bizarre!

just link to the original post <snip>:rolleyes:

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sheeplesnshills said:
You are showing us how Chris makes personal attacks by not showing us????

This is truly bizarre!

just link to the original post <snip>:rolleyes:

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
Click to expand...
We're still completely derailed here. Oystein asked Clayton for a CD theory, he didn't respond, I thought it would be interesting to see if I could put together a summary of the WTC CD theory in his place. Bill gave an actual substantive answer (pretty good tho I would have worded it differently). Let's not wait for Clayton. Oystein, does my attempt to summarize the WTC CD theory fit the template you had in mind when you first issued the challenge to Clayton? I say that because I DO believe they have a theory, it's just a theory I have already rebutted. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the WTC CD advocates have no theory at all. Does my CD summary rebut your claim they have no theory at least?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sheeplesnshills said:
You are showing us how Chris makes personal attacks by not showing us????

This is truly bizarre!
Click to expand...

The mod edited it. Duh. And it was


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Everybody can see that you are running away from my question
Edited by Tricky: Edited for civility.
 
Originally Posted by Xero
Please point out the "personal attack" part. Oh, you can't? What a surprise.
Edited for civility.


Originally Posted by Oystein
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...

Awesome....Clayton Moore thinks a simple question is a personal attack.

typical.
 
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:
Click to expand...
You are too good for this world, Chris...

chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd cut out all of that. We have seen all the reasons why truthers mistrust the common narrative ad nauseam. But that does not constitute an alternative theory.

chrismohr said:
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
Click to expand...
Well, that's a lot of words with very little meat. Basically, it boils down to:
- "They" used nanothermite and thermate
- During elevator shut-offs
- Planes just a distraction

I'd expect a little more:
- Where were these materials applied to? "Elevator shafts" is a little vague
- How much of them? CHarge size and count... (Estimate upper and lower bounds)
- How were they implemented (effort, timescale, overcoming security, stealth...)
- Who dunnit?
- Why do it?

chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep, that theory may explain the anomalies, but does not explain the bulk of the evidence.

chrismohr said:
How did I do, Claytion and Bill?
Click to expand...
At least you tried to do their work for them.

tmd has a cute theory:
He believes that "some agent" was "somehow" implemented that exerted "some force". I kid you not, that is all the details to his theory!
 
Oystein said:
You are too good for this world, Chris...


I'd cut out all of that. We have seen all the reasons why truthers mistrust the common narrative ad nauseam. But that does not constitute an alternative theory.


Well, that's a lot of words with very little meat. Basically, it boils down to:
- "They" used nanothermite and thermate
- During elevator shut-offs
- Planes just a distraction

I'd expect a little more:
- Where were these materials applied to? "Elevator shafts" is a little vague
- How much of them? CHarge size and count... (Estimate upper and lower bounds)
- How were they implemented (effort, timescale, overcoming security, stealth...)
- Who dunnit?
- Why do it?


Yep, that theory may explain the anomalies, but does not explain the bulk of the evidence.


At least you tried to do their work for them.

tmd has a cute theory:
He believes that "some agent" was "somehow" implemented that exerted "some force". I kid you not, that is all the details to his theory!
Click to expand...

miracle.jpg
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's there. You look for it.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. I looked. you LIED! liar!!! You are just another 911 troll.


Answer this or concede!

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:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom