Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismohr said:
Just a quick catchup... I have requests for info on dust analysis in with two places I've contacted. A third place can help find ignited explosive residue but not specifially thermite. Just waiting. ....
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up Chris

chrismohr said:
And by the way Bill, I did ask NIST if they did a dust test for explosives and if not, would they consider doing it? They said no, "we follow the evidence," and the evidence never pointed them in that direction.....
Click to expand...
That is the correct position for them for a number of reasons.

The main one which it is so easy to forget after years of countering arguments ranging from "reasoned" way across to "outright idiocy" it is so easy to lose the context in which NIST operated.

The key fact being that there was never the slightest chance let alone a prima facie case for use of explosives or incendiaries in assisting the collapses.

All the claims that NIST should have investigated are no more than hot air mixed with wishful thinking and false logic.

A secondary reason is the example of WTC7 and free fall. When NIST went the extra mile to explain something that no professional needed explaining look at the misrepresentation that "Chandler force then to admit..."
chrismohr said:
...They won't do the test but Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al can do it, which is what I am pushing for. So far several "debunkers" have offered to put up money if we can get the dust from Kevin. So far no 9/11 Truth people have been willing to pitch in any money at all. Will keep all informed.
Click to expand...
"truthers" in general will resist dust analysis because those with a modicum of intelligence know that the whole thermite issue is a scam. The more astute ones will encourage it being quite confident that it will not happen. At a guess I would put Gage in that camp.
 
ozeco41 said:
Without benefit of hindsight I see a photo of two very seriously damaged buildings which will either collapse or require demolition.

ozeco41 BE, ASTC, FIEAust(ret)
Click to expand...


Thanks for another laugh. Luck Larry, the Mossad, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a bunch of neocons and their stool pigeons knew, you didn't.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Thanks for another laugh. Luck Larry, the Mossad, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a bunch of neocons and their stool pigeons knew, you didn't.
Click to expand...

It is delightfully idiotic, biased, blind ideological diatribes like this that remind me that in no way, shape, or form are people like Clayton Moore to be payed attention to at all.

I like how you threw the Mossad in there to give it a "Da Jooooooos did it!" flavor. Then you add "Lucky" to Silverstein, which of course means you must subscribe to our good buddy Red's theory that Larry "made out like a bandit" on 9-11 (oh, by the way, he never offered any evidence of that. Did he give it to you to give it to us?)

Then you finish with the vague "a bunch of neocons" and their stool pigeons. Nice. Cue spooky music.

You are irrelevant, Clayton. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
... I did ask NIST if they did a dust test for explosives and if not, would they consider doing it? They said no, "we follow the evidence," and the evidence never pointed them in that direction.
Click to expand...

FYI: Ron Wieck said once that an FBI agent told him that they (the Bureau, not NIST) would have looked for evidence of explosives at Ground Zero as a matter of course. The problem is, that was a personal statement made by that agent, and there's been no documentation that I'm aware of which supports this independently.

The reason I'm bringing it up, however, is to point out that a sensible thing to do would be to FOIA the FBI and see if they're willing to part with documentation regarding that. It might be difficult; in another context, I believe some FOIA's for some other documents related to 9/11 were denied due to the fact that they treat such material as related to a criminal investigation and therefore won't jeopardize a potential prosecution in the future by releasing that information now. However, I don't recall the specifics of that case, plus you simply never know what the government bureaucracy is willing to provide when a person simply asks. So this might be worth a shot if you really want to chase it down.
 
Two things:

1) Hundreds of people with controlled demolition experience were hired for debris removal because they knew how to safely navigate a debris pile. Not one of them came forth with a single piece of evidence for CD. NIST followed the evidence and had no more interest in looking for CD than in mininukes, alien death rays, missiles or any other theory that had no factual support.

2) Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That was his excellent way of telling laypeople where the burden of proof lies. I have chosen to push the issue of the alleged thermitic dust and in so doing, I am voluntarily helping the team of 9/11 researchers do what I believe they should have done years ago. Why? Because one of three things will happen (in what I believe is in order of likelihood): 1) Harrit et all will refuse to submitr the samples, which will tell me all I need to know about them and their process 2) They will agree to submit their dust samples to an independent lab and the results will be negative, in which case I will be finished with that argument 3) the results will turn up positive, in which case, to paraphrase Ryan Mackey, Gage will have stumbled on the stupidest secret controlled demolition in history.
 
chrismohr said:
Just a quick catchup... I have requests for info on dust analysis in with two places I've contacted. A third place can help find ignited explosive residue but not specifially thermite. Just waiting. And by the way Bill, I did ask NIST if they did a dust test for explosives and if not, would they consider doing it? They said no, "we follow the evidence," and the evidence never pointed them in that direction. They won't do the test but Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al can do it, which is what I am pushing for. So far several "debunkers" have offered to put up money if we can get the dust from Kevin. So far no 9/11 Truth people have been willing to pitch in any money at all. Will keep all informed.
Click to expand...

It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.

They said 'We follow the evidence' But after a few years of study they produced a draft report that contained the statement 'We cannot fully explain the total collapse of building 7'.Surely at that tpoint they should have tested for explosive residues in the dust that they undoubtedly had in their possession. It's plain that they were saying that there was an unknown factor at play which is very well reflected in the statement . Do you think that it could be considered negligence that they didn't do so ?
 
chrismohr said:
Just a quick catchup... I have requests for info on dust analysis in with two places I've contacted. A third place can help find ignited explosive residue but not specifially thermite. Just waiting. And by the way Bill, I did ask NIST if they did a dust test for explosives and if not, would they consider doing it? They said no, "we follow the evidence," and the evidence never pointed them in that direction. They won't do the test but Harrit/Jones/Ryan et al can do it, which is what I am pushing for. So far several "debunkers" have offered to put up money if we can get the dust from Kevin. So far no 9/11 Truth people have been willing to pitch in any money at all. Will keep all informed.
Click to expand...

It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.


They said 'We follow the evidence' But after a few years of study they produced a draft report that contained the statement 'We cannot fully explain the total collapse of building 7'.Surely at that tpoint they should have tested for explosive residues in the dust that they undoubtedly had in their possession. It's plain that they were saying that there was an unknown factor at play which is very well reflected in the statement . Do you think that it could be considered negligence that they didn't do so ?
 
bill smith said:
It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.

They said 'We follow the evidence' But after a few years of study they produced a draft report that contained the statement 'We cannot fully explain the total collapse of building 7'.Surely at that tpoint they should have tested for explosive residues in the dust that they undoubtedly had in their possession. It's plain that they were saying that there was an unknown factor at play which is very well reflected in the statement . Do you think that it could be considered negligence that they didn't do so ?
Click to expand...
Good job Bill, Right down the party-line with that one.


:rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.


They said 'We follow the evidence' But after a few years of study they produced a draft report that contained the statement 'We cannot fully explain the total collapse of building 7'.Surely at that tpoint they should have tested for explosive residues in the dust that they undoubtedly had in their possession.
Click to expand...

One does not follow the other. Why not similarly claim they should have checked for footprints of king kong or Godzilla?

It's plain that they were saying that there was an unknown factor at play which is very well reflected in the statement .
Click to expand...

Not at all. They admit right from the start that there were many unknowable's involved. The extent of the damage, the extent of the fires, the amount of fuel for the fires, the amount of ventilation for the fires. So to expect then to "fully explain" the collapse is ludicrous.

Do you think that it could be considered negligence that they didn't do so
Click to expand...

No, I would however have considered it a waste of taxpapers money. No explosions loud enough, no shock cord, no timers, no detonators equals no explosives - period.
Click to expand...
 
sheeplesnshills said:
bill smith said:
It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.




One does not follow the other. Why not similarly claim they should have checked for footprints of king kong or Godzilla?



Not at all. They admit right from the start that there were many unknowable's involved. The extent of the damage, the extent of the fires, the amount of fuel for the fires, the amount of ventilation for the fires. So to expect then to "fully explain" the collapse is ludicrous.



No, I would however have considered it a waste of taxpapers money. No explosions loud enough, no shock cord, no timers, no detonators equals no explosives - period.
Click to expand...

I still think that if the Grand Jury against NIST that Richard Gage proposes is convened that this question should be explored in depth.
Click to expand...
 
chrismohr said:
Two things:

1) Hundreds of people with controlled demolition experience were hired for debris removal because they knew how to safely navigate a debris pile. Not one of them came forth with a single piece of evidence for CD. NIST followed the evidence and had no more interest in looking for CD than in mininukes, alien death rays, missiles or any other theory that had no factual support.

2) Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That was his excellent way of telling laypeople where the burden of proof lies. I have chosen to push the issue of the alleged thermitic dust and in so doing, I am voluntarily helping the team of 9/11 researchers do what I believe they should have done years ago. Why? Because one of three things will happen (in what I believe is in order of likelihood): 1) Harrit et all will refuse to submitr the samples, which will tell me all I need to know about them and their process 2) They will agree to submit their dust samples to an independent lab and the results will be negative, in which case I will be finished with that argument 3) the results will turn up positive, in which case, to paraphrase Ryan Mackey, Gage will have stumbled on the stupidest secret controlled demolition in history.
Click to expand...
Spot on except the last sentence Chris.

If "3) the results will turn up positive,..." Gage will not have "stumbled on the stupidest secret controlled demolition in history." Jones, not Gage, will have tumbled on one single step which could form part of a demolition hypothesis. ONLY one step. There would still be need for the other dozen or more steps AND a logical explanation which ties them in as a demolition hypothesis. By itself the presence of thermXte is nothing more than an unexplained anomaly. So don't "throw in the towel" too easily. :) - even in this unlikely hypothetical situation. ;)
 
ozeco41 said:
Spot on except the last sentence Chris.

If "3) the results will turn up positive,..." Gage will not have "stumbled on the stupidest secret controlled demolition in history." Jones, not Gage, will have tumbled on one single step which could form part of a demolition hypothesis. ONLY one step. There would still be need for the other dozen or more steps AND a logical explanation which ties them in as a demolition hypothesis. By itself the presence of thermXte is nothing more than an unexplained anomaly. So don't "throw in the towel" too easily. :) - even in this unlikely hypothetical situation. ;)
Click to expand...
You know.......sometimes your harsh non-partisan attitude can be annoying.






I knew there was something I liked about you.

:D
 
And what's to prevent Gage from salting the sample with just a teensy bit of the Right Stuff® to ensure the answers are what he wants?

The chain of evidence has been FUBARed.
 
DGM said:
You know.......sometimes your harsh non-partisan attitude can be annoying.

I knew there was something I liked about you.

:D
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
 
ozeco41 said:
If "3) the results will turn up positive,..." Gage will not have "stumbled on the stupidest secret controlled demolition in history." Jones, not Gage, will have tumbled on one single step which could form part of a demolition hypothesis. ONLY one step. There would still be need for the other dozen or more steps AND a logical explanation which ties them in as a demolition hypothesis. By itself the presence of thermXte is nothing more than an unexplained anomaly. So don't "throw in the towel" too easily. :) - even in this unlikely hypothetical situation. ;)
Click to expand...

This is eminently true. The reason I discard any explosives or incendieries claim is pictured and documented in NCSTAR 1-3C. And that's the state of the steel. We all have to remember that none of recovered pieces showed any signs of anything other than mechanical force having acted upon them, so if the theory of intentional demolitions is a go, it has to be demonstrated why it wasn't involved in starting the collapse.

There's also the small note about how the NYPD, FDNY, PANYNJ, Customs Bureau, FBI, and others could have been climing all over the piles for weeks and not have seen and reported any signs of such use.

It also must be demonstrated why there were no other signs of use anywhere else along the structure. Again, no survivor/witness testimony, explosions loud enough to have been attributable to demolitions, signs of emplacement within the towers, etc. etc.

Anyway, point made: That would be at best a single step. Heck, even by itself it still faces consistency problems. Why such thin layers for such massive columns? Things like that. The point being that it takes a total picture to make a narrative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom