Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
ozeco41 said:
Our $AU has been worth more than the US version for some months. ;)

But apparently we are back down to ~95cents

...so my intended bit of a joke is a joke on me :(

...teach me to check before leading with my chin :o
Click to expand...

Sorry. Wasn't trying to be offensive. :) I think I did that wrong anyway. My intention was to say that our dollar was much weaker than your ....ah......whatever you call it.
 
ozeco41 said:
You wuz right I wuz wrong - no offence taken. The two dollars - $US and $AU - have been near parity for quite some time.
Click to expand...

I would pledge 20€ instead of US$, but who knows where the Euro will be, with Greece and all, by the time Chris gets his quote :D
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's obvious to anyone with eyes and loyalty to the USA that this charade of debunking the truth of 911 is protecting the perpetrators, knowingly or unknowingly, after the fact.
Click to expand...
Je ne suis pas aux États-Unis.

Hundreds of Israels were held in custody after 9/11 and we were told nothing of why they were here by the MSM.
Click to expand...
Souce?


You want science? Falling colliding matter doesn't pulverize itself,
Click to expand...
Not until it hits something. Like the ground.

nor does it melt itself,
Click to expand...
Fire is generally quite adequate for melting things, generally.

nor does it launch itself.
Click to expand...
As a general rule, things that are launched tend to fall afterward. It is, I admit, rather difficult for things to be launched and falling simultaneously.

 
sheeplesnshills said:
Bill, try to be less obviously trollish.....its much more fun.

The test could be done on live at half time during monday night football on ESPN and twoofers still wouldn't believe it if it doesn't show what they want.

For legal purposes an independent test house report would be all a court (or anyone not suffering from paranoia) would require as proof, worst case they could call them as expert witnesses.
Click to expand...

Whatever happens Chris will light a fire under this if he keeps it up. We will go forward with increased knowledge or perceptions.
 
mrkinnies said:
Thank you. That first rumble is possibly the sound of the final detonation and down goes the penthouse.

According to wikipedia, which lets face it is hardly the font of all knowledge but I'll use it anyway, steel buildings are brought down in stages. Cutters destroy key supports then a final detonation low down in the building starts the collapse. This sound could be that final blast especially as the sound of the falling penthouse is non-existent so whatever that first rumble is it must have been much louder than several tonnes of steel drooping 610 ft.

I don't know and cannot prove it. Neither can you prove it isn't what I say.
Click to expand...

So what you believe is that it's a controlled demolition? What causes you to believe it? and why?
 
Just got this request. Anyone want to do the lab test for him?

I realized that you will probably say that you are a journalist and not a scientist who does experiments. In this case journalism will not lead you to the truth, only to the major consensus narrative. And as long as you only report what NIST etc. have told you, you will always be on the safe side and will never be wrong.
Maybe if anybody reads this and is able to replicate the collapses under laboratory conditions, please contact me, i have not found anybody who was able to do it or instruct me how to do it. Thank you!
 
Chris,

[Edited. Misunderstood posting.]

Whose response was this?

What is it in response to?

What makes him/her think that you "only report what NIST, etc. have told you"?

What has "the safe side" got to do with "the true side"?

Ryan Mackey did an entire segment on replicating the collapse in a lab experiment. The big problem is scaling. A lab test is tough, but certainly possible with careful attention to detail.

See this link Chapter 2.

Perhaps your correspondent would like to take a crack at it.


tom
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Chris,

Whose response was this? Gage?

It makes no sense as a response to "will you supply me with a sample of your dust so that it can be independently tested for thermite?"

You would not be doing any testing. You would be facilitating the testing being done by credentialed professionals who do this specific testing for BOTH prosecutors & defense attorneys on a regular basis. And accepted by all parties as definitive.

Journalism will not lead to the truth. Neither will selling DVDs.

Good science will. Competent scientists running definitive tests will.

Good journalism will, after competent tests are completed, do a fine job at spreading the truth to the public. Good journalism will also spread the word about charlatans who refuse to put evidence to the test while hypocritically claiming to be searching for the truth.

You would not be reporting "what NIST says". NIST will be completely uninvolved in this test.

From the perspective of "was there any thermite in the dust", there is zero possibility of "replicating the collapses under lab conditions". Thermite was there or it was not. Any one searching for the truth would leap at the chance to perform a definitive test.

A charlatan would look for excuses to avoid definitive tests.

This reply sounds to me like a charlatan looking for some lame excuse to avoid running a definitive test. Like everything else, they appear to be incompetent at searching for the truth as well.


tom
Click to expand...

From the mouth of babes. What about asking NIST to perform one of the tests on a sample of Jones's dust ? We know that they are extremely knowledgeable about nanothermite and have been for years. They already have a relationship with Chris. How did we not think of this before ? What do you think Chris ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
What about asking NIST to perform one of the tests on a sample of Jones's dust ? We know that they are extremely knowledgeable about nanothermite and have been for years. They already have a relationship with Chris.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea. It'll save truthers a huge amount of time constructing flimsy rationalisations for rejecting the results when they show that there was nothing in the dust that could have caused the collapses; they'll just be able to say that NIST has always been part of the conspiracy, so the results must be faked. Pre-emptive delusions are so much more efficient.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
Just freaking look at it. Do they look like some sagging, yawning, creaking building announcing its demise?
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't heard it yet, but hours before the collapse of WTC7, fire chiefs heard it creaking and yawning, and engineers saw it move and bulge. Femr2 has shown that the roof was moving already minutes before final reelease.
So in the case of WTC7, you are plain wrong: Yes, it was seen sagging, yawning, creaking and thereby announcing its demise.

In the case of the towers, sagging of floors, bowing of columns likewise announnced the coming demise of the buildings, and people heard many loud popping noises ("explosions"), some of which were undoubtedly snapping bolts, welds and other connections.

So if you think that observations of sagging, yawning, creaking, bulging, popping and breaking long before release would be the expected precursors of a natural collapse, then you should conclude that the sagging, yawning, creaking, bulging, popping and breaking that was indeed observed corroborates the obvious conclusion "progressive collapse from fires".
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
That's a great idea. It'll save truthers a huge amount of time constructing flimsy rationalisations for rejecting the results when they show that there was nothing in the dust that could have caused the collapses; they'll just be able to say that NIST has always been part of the conspiracy, so the results must be faked. Pre-emptive delusions are so much more efficient.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm happy that you agree. It's obvious that NIST should be asked to carry out one of the tests on Jones's dust. They have the equipment,the expertise and the credibility more than any other.
 
bill smith said:
Well I will be as happy as you will be to see the nanothermite issue resolved one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I think Dave considers it resolved already, while you apparently do not.

So what have you done to have this resolved? Have asked Jones e.al. to send a sample to NIST? Have you pledged some of your own money to pay for the analysis?
 
bill smith said:
Well I will be as happy as you will be to see the nanothermite issue resolved one way or the other.
Click to expand...

There is no "nanothermite issue". A group of delusional incompetents have published some data that is totally inconsistent with the presence of nanothermite in a sample of WTC dust, as is immediately obvious to any competent scientist who studies it in more than the most superficial detail, and have claimed that this proves that there was nanothermite in the dust. The only issue is the current state of their mental health.

And, of course, your comment is as disingenuous as usual; if NIST say they have found no evidence of nanothermite in a sample of WTC dust, you will not for one moment consider "the nanothermite issue" to be resolved.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom