Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[chrismohr]

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!

OK Clayton,
I started this out. I disagree with Oystein about the whodunnit and the why do it. That's speculative. I say just come up with a basic technical explanation of how... where the thernmites were loaded etc. Whaddaya say?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Being uncivil does not necessarily equal a personal attack........

 

[chrismohr]

I just contacted EMRTC about testing the WTC dust for thermites. They're in New Mexico and the specialize in explosives residue. They wrote:

We could (on the ion chromatograph) test the residue for the remaining ions (positive or negative) that are in the dust but those may be due to thermite or another explosive. It would not be a definitive test. The cost would be $1500.00. Please contact me for more information.

I asked if they could add a spectographic analysis to their test to look for aluminum etc and if so how much? Are there other questions I should ask? In the meantime, Kevin Ryan has responded to my challenge that the dust be submitted to an independent lab for further testing. It's an initial response which is why I wrote to this lab. We'll see. What a strange position to be in: a natural collapse guy trying to explain the controlled demolition theory when Clayton refused to, and now trying to get an independent test to provide evidence of thermitic materials in the 9/11Truth dust! I can't do their homework forever, but let's see if I can help start something real here.

 

[bill smith]

I just contacted EMRTC about testing the WTC dust for thermites. They're in New Mexico and the specialize in explosives residue. They wrote:

We could (on the ion chromatograph) test the residue for the remaining ions (positive or negative) that are in the dust but those may be due to thermite or another explosive. It would not be a definitive test. The cost would be $1500.00. Please contact me for more information.

I asked if they could add a spectographic analysis to their test to look for aluminum etc and if so how much? Are there other questions I should ask? In the meantime, Kevin Ryan has responded to my challenge that the dust be submitted to an independent lab for further testing. It's an initial response which is why I wrote to this lab. We'll see. What a strange position to be in: a natural collapse guy trying to explain the controlled demolition theory when Clayton refused to, and now trying to get an independent test to provide evidence of thermitic materials in the 9/11Truth dust! I can't do their homework forever, but let's see if I can help start something real here.

Brilliant work Chris.

Any idea what they mean by the following

''...[We could] test the residue for the remaining ions (positive or negative) that are in the dust but those may be due to thermite or another explosive.''

 

[bill smith]

You might be the very man to mediate in all this stuff Chris. You are respected by both sides and are reasonably open minded.

 

[bill smith]

I just contacted EMRTC about testing the WTC dust for thermites. They're in New Mexico and the specialize in explosives residue. They wrote:

We could (on the ion chromatograph) test the residue for the remaining ions (positive or negative) that are in the dust but those may be due to thermite or another explosive. It would not be a definitive test. The cost would be $1500.00. Please contact me for more information.

I asked if they could add a spectographic analysis to their test to look for aluminum etc and if so how much? Are there other questions I should ask? In the meantime, Kevin Ryan has responded to my challenge that the dust be submitted to an independent lab for further testing. It's an initial response which is why I wrote to this lab. We'll see. What a strange position to be in: a natural collapse guy trying to explain the controlled demolition theory when Clayton refused to, and now trying to get an independent test to provide evidence of thermitic materials in the 9/11Truth dust! I can't do their homework forever, but let's see if I can help start something real here.

Do you mind posting how you put the question to EMRTC ?

 

[chrismohr]

Do you mind posting how you put the question to EMRTC ?

Bill,
Here was my initial inquiry. I assume that this will not skew the results, which would be a scientific test:

I have been debating against controlled demolition theorists re the 9/11
attacks. They believe thermitic materials were used to destroy the Twin
Towers. They claim they have dust samples to prove it. If you were given a
dust sample, could you test it for thermitic materials (thermite,
thermate)? Very roughly, what would be a cost estimate for such a lab test?
See my rebuttals at chrismohr911 for more information. Part 11a and 11b
deal with this.

I followed up with this request to make it clear we are looking for unignited thermitic materials, not just the ignited stuff:

The original experiment (which has not been replicated) claims to have found unignited thermite and thermate (with sulfur) in the WTC dust. Here is a link to the abstract: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/...J.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

[chrismohr]

Brilliant work Chris.

Any idea what they mean by the following

''...[We could] test the residue for the remaining ions (positive or negative) that are in the dust but those may be due to thermite or another explosive.''

They specialize in analysis of explosives. I'm guessing that she means she can show if there are explosives and could show that thermitics are a likely suspect but no guarantees that what she finds would specifically be thermitic, just some kind of exploded stuff. Others can probably give a much better answer.

 

[Clayton Moore]

OK Clayton,
I started this out. I disagree with Oystein about the whodunnit and the why do it. That's speculative. I say just come up with a basic technical explanation of how... where the thernmites were loaded etc. Whaddaya say?

This is hilarious. Team debunkers demand that WTC 7 failed, one point of failure, and that one failure escalated enabling the total destruction of the building via an event called a "gravity collapse."


where the thernmites were loaded etc. Whaddaya say?

Your question is to accentuate how impossible it would be to rig WTC 7 for a controlled demolition.

Which sounds more impossible/unlikely Chris? Rigging a building for a controlled demolition using the most advanced technology in the world?
Or one point of failure resulting in the total destruction of a building.

 

[A W Smith]

This is hilarious. Team debunkers demand that WTC 7 failed, one point of failure, and that one failure escalated enabling the total destruction of the building via an event called a "gravity collapse."


where the thernmites were loaded etc. Whaddaya say?

Your question is to accentuate how impossible it would be to rig WTC 7 for a controlled demolition.

Which sounds more impossible/unlikely Chris? Rigging a building for a controlled demolition using the most advanced technology in the world?Or one point of failure resulting in the total destruction of a building.

appeal to magic or unknown technology, Unless you are willing to lay out the scenario for us.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This is hilarious. Team debunkers demand that WTC 7 failed, one point of failure, and that one failure escalated enabling the total destruction of the building via an event called a "gravity collapse."


where the thernmites were loaded etc. Whaddaya say?

Your question is to accentuate how impossible it would be to rig WTC 7 for a controlled demolition.

Which sounds more impossible/unlikely Chris? Rigging a building for a controlled demolition using the most advanced technology in the world?
Or one point of failure resulting in the total destruction of a building.

It wasn't one point of failure. It was the failure of one column after a lot of separate failures left it unrestrained over too long a length.
So its a false dilemma. And in any case there is zero, none, zilch, nada evidence of CD using any technology at all let alone the most advanced in the world so not only is it a false dilemma its no dilemma at all. Please try to keep up.
And by the way all total collapses all start with one point of failure......only CD have multiple ones.....

And please stop calling the NYFD liars and mass murderers. It was them that said WTC7 was failing and the idea that they would cover up the murder of hundreds of their friends, family and colleagues is utterly absurd.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It wasn't one point of failure. It was the failure of one column after a lot of separate failures left it unrestrained over too long a length.
So its a false dilemma. And in any case there is zero, none, zilch, nada evidence of CD using any technology at all let alone the most advanced in the world so not only is it a false dilemma its no dilemma at all. Please try to keep up.
And by the way all total collapses all start with one point of failure......only CD have multiple ones.....

And please stop calling the NYFD liars and mass murderers. It was them that said WTC7 was failing and the idea that they would cover up the murder of hundreds of their friends, family and colleagues is utterly absurd.

That's crap. One initial point of failure causing other failures and the total visual destruction of WTC 7 in less than 20 freaking seconds. Never happened.

 

[chrismohr]

That's crap. One initial point of failure causing other failures and the total visual destruction of WTC 7 in less than 20 freaking seconds. Never happened.

Clayton,

Both of us can try to poke holes in each others' beliefs. What I did in my videos was to actually come up with an explanation of how natural collapse could have happened. Took a long time. It would have been easier to just tear down Gage's assertions. What we're asking you to do is offer us a theory of controlled demolition. Forget the who and why for now, I think some more technical details on the how would be essential. For example, where were the thermitics placed? Only around the elevator shafts? How did they manage to set up the thermitics around the outside perimeter columns? Do you believe CD was necessary to pulverize all that concrete, and if so, how were the blinding flashes of light covered up during and immediately after the utterly destructive collapse? What kind of receivers were used which could withstand 1400-degree fires and still function well enough to receive the detonation signals?

I gave you my answer for natural collapse, in 21 parts. Your turn bro. Make fun of my explanation later. First give me your explanation, accounting for all the known phenonena of the day..

 

[bill smith]

They specialize in analysis of explosives. I'm guessing that she means she can show if there are explosives and could show that thermitics are a likely suspect but no guarantees that what she finds would specifically be thermitic, just some kind of exploded stuff. Others can probably give a much better answer.

Fantastic. The right guy could cut the Gordian knot here. Keep us up to date on how the back and forth with Kevin Ryan goes please. We could all be onto a winner here. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[BasqueArch]

That's crap. One initial point of failure causing other failures and the total visual destruction of WTC 7 in less than 20 freaking seconds. Never happened.

What you believe is wrong. Here's an example of one initial point of failure causing other failures and the total visual destruction of a building in less than 20 seconds.

 

[twinstead]

I gave you my answer for natural collapse, in 21 parts. Your turn bro. Make fun of my explanation later. First give me your explanation, accounting for all the known phenonena of the day..

The problem with this is that YOU have practiced what you preach; you've come up with a theory that accounts for all the evidence and spelled it out in detail why you agree with the commonly-held narrative.

truthers are conspiracy theorists. In their minds all they have to do is chip away at one theory, and they make theirs true by default. In their minds there is no need to present a coherent competing theory, and in fact it would be detrimental to their case if they tried. Yea, some go into movie script writing mode and just make a bunch of crap up just to claim they DID present an alternate theory, but everybody knows better.

The next response you get will more than than likely be simply more critique of your work--most likely over irrelevant minutiae.

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

That's crap. One initial point of failure causing other failures and the total visual destruction of WTC 7 in less than 20 freaking seconds. Never happened.

Events over the course of the day weakened the structure, mostly by thermal expansion of the floor supports ... and then there was a dramatic 15-20 second finale as the structure finally lost its fight with fire and gravity.

Have you read the NIST report? It's quite detailed about the failure sequence that had to have occurred to match the various photos, and explains how they came to the conclusions.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

They even include the predicted effects from the use of explosives.

 

[Oystein]

This is hilarious. Team debunkers demand that WTC 7 failed, one point of failure, and that one failure escalated enabling the total destruction of the building via an event called a "gravity collapse."


where the thernmites were loaded etc. Whaddaya say?

Your question is to accentuate how impossible it would be to rig WTC 7 for a controlled demolition.

Which sounds more impossible/unlikely Chris? Rigging a building for a controlled demolition using the most advanced technology in the world?
Or one point of failure resulting in the total destruction of a building.

If we had zero evidence at all, only the fact that the building collapsed, then the likelihood of CD would compare favourably with the likelihood of natural collapse. After all, more high-rises collapse due to CD than to natural reasons.

We do however have loads of evidence, not least of which is the undisputed fact that there were uncontrolled fires in the building on at least 10 floors over a period of several hours. In addition, we have objective observations from the scene establishing the fact that the building was already severely structurally compromised long before the collapse (gashes in the south face, bulging corner, ...).
With that information added, likelihoods shift dramatically. After all, there are many buildings in the world that collapsed from fires, but probably zero that were demolished using advanced technology while on fire.
But there is more: It has been shown, using sound engineering methods, that WTC7,due to its peculiar designm, is in fact susceptibel to total collapse once structural damage around a certain part of the structure has accrued beyond some point, and that the fires that were observed did have the potential to incur just that kind of damage. This analysis further shifts the likelihood in favour of natural collapse from fires.

In contrast, no evidence whatsoever has been found of the use of advanced demolition technology, which shifts the likelihood of CD further to zero.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If we had zero evidence at all, only the fact that the building collapsed, then the likelihood of CD would compare favourably with the likelihood of natural collapse. After all, more high-rises collapse due to CD than to natural reasons.

We do however have loads of evidence, not least of which is the undisputed fact that there were uncontrolled fires in the building on at least 10 floors over a period of several hours. In addition, we have objective observations from the scene establishing the fact that the building was already severely structurally compromised long before the collapse (gashes in the south face, bulging corner, ...).
With that information added, likelihoods shift dramatically. After all, there are many buildings in the world that collapsed from fires, but probably zero that were demolished using advanced technology while on fire.
But there is more: It has been shown, using sound engineering methods, that WTC7,due to its peculiar designm, is in fact susceptibel to total collapse once structural damage around a certain part of the structure has accrued beyond some point, and that the fires that were observed did have the potential to incur just that kind of damage. This analysis further shifts the likelihood in favour of natural collapse from fires.

In contrast, no evidence whatsoever has been found of the use of advanced demolition technology, which shifts the likelihood of CD further to zero.

Yeah sure, natural complete destruction of THREE HUGE SKYSCRAPERs. In less than 20 visual seconds each.

So glad you don't care that neoconservatives loyal to Israel subvert America.

 

[chrismohr]

Do you mind posting how you put the question to EMRTC ?

Hi all,

I'm wondering if EMRTC is maybe not the right place for this dust analysis since they can';t do the spectograph. Here would be what I would consider ideal:

1) Located in India so far away from any US political issues but still a country with an educated populus scienjtific infrastructure etc. Also cheap.
2) Can do a spectograph looking for aluminum and all ingredients of unexploded thermitics.
3) Can also look for exploded materials by looking for positive and negative ions.
in India
I need help finding not only the place to do all this but also exactly what to ask them to look for. Anyone have ideas on how to find a reputable dust lab in India that can find explosive materials specifically and can do several tests all in one place (or can farm it out)?

From there I would offer it up to Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage personally and see what they say. Thanks in advance if anyone can dig this up and ask the right questions to get a really good independent analysis. Then Bill is right, let the (thermitic?) chips fall where they may. If they say yes and it turns up positive, there will be other bridges to cross re chain of custody etc but we'll see if we will even cross that bridge, ever.