Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
We people?
Click to expand...

Yes "you people". Truthers.

Why do you ignore all the rest of my post and target what you obviously feel is a flaw in my comprehension of steel insulation?
Click to expand...

Because the rest of your post is irrelevant due to the fact that the damage remains. Just as explosives and thermite are irrelevant due to the fact that they could no survive aircraft impacts and massive fires.


Thank you for answering some questions. Perhaps you can train ergo.
 
NoahFence said:
Because the rest of your post is irrelevant due to the fact that the damage remains. Just as explosives and thermite are irrelevant due to the fact that they could no survive aircraft impacts and massive fires.

Thank you for answering some questions. Perhaps you can train ergo.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Unlike the followers of the Official Story common belief here, supporters of 9/11 Truth are individuals. For the most part, the only thing we share in common is a belief that the Official Story is a BIG LIE.

WTC7 was not struck by an aircraft.

The aircraft could have been directed by remote control, and given the accuracy of the flightpaths, they likely were.

Precautionary overkill on the demolition materials would have coped with the fires.

The biggest reason why people resist the notion that 9/11 was an inside job is personal incredulity.

No problem. I used to feel the same way and wish I still did.

You can lie to the world but you can't lie to yourself.

MM
 
DGM said:
Why do you keep mentioning this. It's not part of the "official story".

Kind of like "melted steel".

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

??

I was a reply to what he said "Just as explosives and thermite are irrelevant due to the fact that they could no survive aircraft impacts and massive fires."

Ask him.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You are welcome.

Unlike the followers of the Official Story common belief here, supporters of 9/11 Truth are individuals. For the most part, the only thing we share in common is a belief that the Official Story is a BIG LIE.
Click to expand...
Your ilk also shares a psychologial need and desire to believe in conspiracies. You can't help yourself in choosing to believe against the evidence.

WTC7 was not struck by an aircraft.
What is the price of condoms in Canada.

The aircraft could have been directed by remote control, and given the accuracy of the flightpaths, they likely were.
The second plane nearly missed Tower 2, the flight was erratic. No evidence supports your irresistable desires.

Precautionary overkill on the demolition materials would have coped with the fires.
Yet you hide your persuasive evidence of this gaseous aft speculation.

The biggest reason why people resist the notion that 9/11 was an inside job is personal incredulity.
Irony meet hypocrisy.

No problem. I used to feel the same way and wish I still did.
No you didn't, no you don't

You can lie to the world but you can't lie to yourself.
Your statements prove this proposition is false.


MM
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BasqueArch said:
Your ilk also shares a psychologial need and desire to believe in conspiracies. You can't help yourself in choosing to believe against the evidence.

WTC7 was not struck by an aircraft.
What is the price of condoms in Canada.

The aircraft could have been directed by remote control, and given the accuracy of the flightpaths, they likely were.
The second plane nearly missed Tower 2, the flight was erratic. No evidence supports your irresistable desires.

Precautionary overkill on the demolition materials would have coped with the fires.
Yet you hide your persuasive evidence of this gaseous aft speculation.

The biggest reason why people resist the notion that 9/11 was an inside job is personal incredulity.
Irony meet hypocrisy.

No problem. I used to feel the same way and wish I still did.
No you didn't, no you don't

You can lie to the world but you can't lie to yourself.
Your statements are proof this proposition is false.


MM
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I hope you enjoyed that work of fiction you created.

Please learn to use the quote function properly.

MM
 
I hope you enjoyed that work of fiction you created.

Please learn to use the quote function properly.

MM

Must have hit its mark -
Lame and limp, insubstantial response.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Mr Mohr,

I am wondering what your qualifications and prior experience with either engineering or physics is?

Just I have been trying to find a debate between some of the AE911 members and other qualified engineers or physicists for a long while to get an impartial overview of how each sides arguments hold up. If you are not an engineer or physicist I can't really see the point in watching this long debate. It would likely just remind me watching a creationist vs scientist debate.
Click to expand...
Hiya Zeuzz,
I'm not the man for you. I'm an English major with journalistic training and experience. I've summarized the arguments against controlled demolition, going through Gage's videos and debate with me point by point and explaining every anomaly in a narrative, nontechnical way, getting help from engineers, fire safety experts, foundry workers, physicists, etc etc etc. This is not a scientific debate. Neither I nor Richard Gage is qualified to go through all the scientific formulae from the worlds of chemistry, physics and structural engineering.
 
Zeuzzz said:
...Just I have been trying to find a debate between some of the AE911 members and other qualified engineers or physicists for a long while to get an impartial overview of how each sides arguments hold up. If you are not an engineer or physicist I can't really see the point in watching this long debate. It would likely just remind me watching a creationist vs scientist debate.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence summarises the situation yet you seem to use it as a "throw away" waste of time dismissal.

Well yes it is a waste of time. But the so called "creationism" v "evolution" debate is a good analogy for the debate with truthers. There is no debate. Creationism is orders of magnitude down the scale of credibility. In fact has zero credibility.

And the same for the truthers TECHNICAL arguments about 9/11 matters such as claims for demolition at WTC. I emphasis technical - demolition at WTC (there was none); it wasn't that plane at the Pentagon (it was) etc I do not refer to claims related to political ineptitude or worse.

No person in the history of the truth movement has ever put forward a coherent complete hypothesis favouring demolition at WTC. So it is pointless arranging a discussion between competent engineers and engineering representatives of AE911Truth. There is nothing to discuss on that topic. The same goes for Pentagon and Shanksville claims. Zilch to discuss.

Your time would be better spent coming to understand why my previous statements are correct. You are unlikely to get an impartial view, simply because the concept of impartial in this setting seems to imply some credibility for the truthers side arguments. There isn't any such credibility. So better to form your own opinion rather than rely on "neutral referees".
 
grandmastershek said:
Tilston told them if they were testing to identify nanothermite to test in a non inert environment? Where did he say that?
Click to expand...

Tillotson said that he had determined the properties of a known sample of nanothermite by testing it in a non-inert environment. Neither Miragememories nor Harrit is intelligent enough to discern the difference between testing the properties of a sample of known composition, and testing for the presence of a substance in a sample of unknown composition; Miragememories has openly admitted that he's not intelligent enough to understand that distinction. As for Harrit, we can only infer.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Tillotson said that he had determined the properties of a known sample of nanothermite by testing it in a non-inert environment. ...
Click to expand...

Dang - my poor old memory! I could swear we have been through this before and not found any corroboration for the claim that Tillotson said any such thing.

IIRC, Harrit claims he asked Tillotson and the answer was that Tillotson did it under air (I don't have a link to Harrit, I could be wrong).
IIRC, Moorea claimed that he had heard from Tillotson that it was done under Argon, but when I pressed Moorea a while go, last year I think, if he could dig up Tillotson's exact word, he admitted he wasn't so sure after all that that is what Tillotson said.
Tillotson's paper is silent on the issue of atmosphere.

So for all I know, we just don't know what gas Tillotson used.

Do you have a source that I am not aware of, Dave?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Mr Mohr,

I am wondering what your qualifications and prior experience with either engineering or physics is?

Just I have been trying to find a debate between some of the AE911 members and other qualified engineers or physicists for a long while to get an impartial overview of how each sides arguments hold up. If you are not an engineer or physicist I can't really see the point in watching this long debate. It would likely just remind me watching a creationist vs scientist debate.
Click to expand...

Gage is neither an engineer nor a physicist. I hope you feel the same way about him.
Even though it's not important what Gage and Mohr are.

What matters is that Gages premises are wrong, that his arguments are wrong, and that his conclusions are wrong.

They have been wrong for 4 years and more now. We know he has been corrected, and been made aware of the corrections, several times. He still repeats the same old falsehoods. By 2011, there are only two possibilities left: He is either a lunatic, or a liar.
(Which falsehoods am I talking about? Well, pretty much every claim on the homepage of AE911T is false, or not relevant to the argument. I might even challenge you to pick ANY one claim from that homepage, so we can look whether it is relevant and true, or not.)
 
Oystein said:
Dang - my poor old memory! I could swear we have been through this before and not found any corroboration for the claim that Tillotson said any such thing.

IIRC, Harrit claims he asked Tillotson and the answer was that Tillotson did it under air (I don't have a link to Harrit, I could be wrong).
IIRC, Moorea claimed that he had heard from Tillotson that it was done under Argon, but when I pressed Moorea a while go, last year I think, if he could dig up Tillotson's exact word, he admitted he wasn't so sure after all that that is what Tillotson said.
Tillotson's paper is silent on the issue of atmosphere.

So for all I know, we just don't know what gas Tillotson used.

Do you have a source that I am not aware of, Dave?
Click to expand...

Check it out in the YouTube video of Dr. Harrit speaking at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto if you any doubts Oystein.

MM
 
I was a reply to what he said "Just as explosives and thermite are irrelevant due to the fact that they could no survive aircraft impacts and massive fires."
Click to expand...

Both scenario's played a part in 9/11. The fact that no plane hit WTC 7 is both obvious and totally irrelevant.


Precautionary overkill on the demolition materials would have coped with the fires.
Click to expand...

So they put more explosives than was needed to ensure they'd survive - and still went undetected. Nope. That's pure fantasy talking there. We're dealing with reality. If they put more in there, more would have been vaporized when the plane hit. Nothing changes. Nothing survives.
 
Last edited:
By arguing that the controlled demolition was unconventional in that it destroyed other buildings, it pretty much destroys the concept that they were controlled. At this point it looks more like every terrorist attack we've seen on the news; widespread damage and the intent to get as many casualties as possible. A friggin non-sequitor that never stops.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Think redundancy and a billion permutations a second. Feel better? Not as boggling as you thought.

It's a building. I'm sure realistic interaction between animated human beings and realistic interaction between animated human beings and their environment would be much more complex to program.
Click to expand...
We're talking about a collapsing building with hundreds of thousands of different variables. Something as simple as a copier being a few feet to the left could throw off the simulation entirely, down the line. Haven't you ever heard of the butterfly effect? Now imagine you have a lot of butterflies. Good luck determining the weather tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom