Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[DGM]

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 don't believe this would help. Did Tillotson speak at the "hearings"?

 

[000063]

Pretty much of anything is possible in programming.

Alan Turing's ghost would like a word with you.

As usual a person on this form asks a specific question about something I never said. This can happen for one of two reasons, agenda or weak-mindedness or both.

There's a difference between you not saying something, and a point that can be inferred by what you actually said. If you say "the sky is blue", it can be inferred that you know what a)the sky is, and b)what the color "blue" is, at the very least.

Saying that a programming task would be a snap is relative. It would be a snap for team of experienced programmers with the necessary software.

Clay, do you think that programming an egg falling to the ground and breaking with perfect or near perfect predictive accuracy would be difficult and time-consuming, even for this team of experienced programmers with the necessary software?

"Yes/no/I don't know." Pick one.

 

[000063]

My argument is that a program can predict exactly the possible range of distribution of material from a smashed egg and each possible distribution depending upon the accuracy of the defined materials.

Which actually weakens your case for a WTC collapse simulation, as the buildings and their contents were immensely more complicated than dropping an egg. I am talking exponents, here.

 

[Oystein]

I don't believe this would help. Did Tillotson speak at the "hearings"?

I think MM is saying that Harrit said at the TH that he (Harrit) asked Tillotson how he (Tillotson) did it, and the answer was "under air".

Unfortunately, MM does provide a citation: What was said (quote) and where is this documented (link to video, timestamp).

It doesn't matter though. The point of my post was to ask David Roagers to back up his claim or retract, or at least qualify, it.

 

[000063]

You do your best you can with the information you have and the tools available. You also understand that situations may occur that you did not forsee and you do your best to mitigate these risks. When you do encounter unforseen situations you try to learn from them and adapt accordingly.

Yes, situations like a jumbo jet crashing into them at high speed.

Or a building nearby being hit by a jumbo jet, collapsing, and its debris setting fire to your building, leaving it to burn for several hours largely unhindered.

Those would be rather unforseen.

 

[000063]

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.

What was it stuck by, then?

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

1. The flight paths, I've read, were pretty inaccurate, and the only known jumbo jet in the US ever piloted by remote required extensive and conspicuous modification. The ground crews and pilots would've noticed.

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

I note that you carefully avoid saying "fireproofing". Problem is, the more protection against fire, the bigger the explosives and their explosive accessories, and thus the more conspicuous. Plus there's the question of the miles of wiring which would be needed, since the building's structure and interference would prevent any sort of radio detonations.

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

It doesn't matter why they do it if they're right. And they are.

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

You, however, seem quite adept.

 

[000063]

??

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

Which leaves "massive fires". Also, the impact and massive fires are what allegedly lead to debris falling on WTC 7, in any CD theory. The explosives in WTC 1 and 2 would have to survive to the point where they trigger the "collapse". You need that just to get to WTC 7. You also have to prove the debris was somehow aimed at WTC 7, in order to give them an excuse. Odd that the debris did nothing to disrupt the explosives or whatever in WTC 7.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The point of my post was to ask David Roagers to back up his claim or retract, or at least qualify, it.

I'll happily qualify it; it's a third hand claim, in that Miragamemories claims that Harrit told him that Tillotson said he'd done measurements on nanothermite in air. MM also cites a video that I couldn't be bothered to watch, mainly because it's hardly surprising that Tillotson would do so; he knew what his sample was, and would have been fully aware that any exotherm would arise from the thermite reaction, so there would be no need to incur the additional inconvenience of carrying out the DSC trace under an inert atmosphere.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

I'll happily qualify it; it's a third hand claim, in that Miragamemories claims that Harrit told him that Tillotson said he'd done measurements on nanothermite in air. MM also cites a video that I couldn't be bothered to watch, mainly because it's hardly surprising that Tillotson would do so; he knew what his sample was, and would have been fully aware that any exotherm would arise from the thermite reaction, so there would be no need to incur the additional inconvenience of carrying out the DSC trace under an inert atmosphere.

Dave

Uhm urrr ahhh... I overlooked, or didn't process correctly, the "non" in "non-inert environment"



<--- *whistles innocently*
It's been a splendid sunny day today! Gonna have a BBQ with Scotch and my best buddies. What's up guys?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Uhm urrr ahhh... I overlooked, or didn't process correctly, the "non" in "non-inert environment"



<--- *whistles innocently*
It's been a splendid sunny day today! Gonna have a BBQ with Scotch and my best buddies. What's up guys?

I'm beginning to think this forum needs a Best Friendly Fire Incident award .

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

Have you heard of dominoes? The destruction of all three WTC buildings, without explosives, required a domino effect.

 

[000063]

Except that you want them to recreate an entire domino course blindfolded after just watching a video of the first domino course.

Such an exact simulation as you request--Appeal to Impossible Perfection--would be very hard to make, maybe impossible, and what happened can be determined without it. Truthers often claim to have done precisely that just by looking at Youtube videos. I suspect that any such simulation would be dismissed for some other nonsense reason, just like you kept moving the goalposts about bones and explosions.

#000063bookmark

 

[Myriad]

Have you heard of dominoes? The destruction of all three WTC buildings, without explosives, required a domino effect.

The destruction of the three WTC buildings required a series of neighboring nations successively coming under the influence of Communism?

Well, at least that's original. Too bad you didn't think of it during the Command Loss Timer thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Clayton Moore]

Alan Turing's ghost would like a word with you.

There's a difference between you not saying something, and a point that can be inferred by what you actually said. If you say "the sky is blue", it can be inferred that you know what a)the sky is, and b)what the color "blue" is, at the very least.

Clay, do you think that programming an egg falling to the ground and breaking with perfect or near perfect predictive accuracy would be difficult and time-consuming, even for this team of experienced programmers with the necessary software?

"Yes/no/I don't know." Pick one.

No.

 

[NoahFence]

Have you heard of dominoes? The destruction of all three WTC buildings, without explosives, required a domino effect.

Not even sure what you're trying to say there.

 

[Oystein]

Have you heard of dominoes? The destruction of all three WTC buildings, without explosives, required a domino effect.

That's not the worst comparison. Both dominoes and houses fall from gravity alone, after an initial instability.

Dominoes of course fall slower, as they can't fall vertically and propagate horizontally. Dominoe pieces, on acount of their being small and rigid, pivot around their base and experience an average vertical net acceleration of about 1/4 g (acceleration tends towards 0 when the piece is still nearly vertical, and towards 1/2 g when almost on the gound).

Buildings on the other hand, deforming inelastically and moving straight down, would accelerate faster, at more than 1/2 g.

But still, the similarity is striking: Once the collapse / dominoe cascade gets going, it will continue by gravity alone to finish.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If you wish to receive replies from me Noah do not ever imply or state I am knowingly lying.

I'm only willing to show you respect as long as you return the same courtesy.

MM

You don't answer even the simplest of question no matter how politely they are put to you so we have nothing to lose at all if say you are guilty of a terminological in-exactitude. When you lie you can't then whine about people calling you a liar.

 

[triforcharity]

You must have noticed by now that I am quite willing to engage in extendeduseless dialogue with those members of JREF who refrain from childish posting facts and boorishusing logical behavior.

I've fixed your post to more accurately reflect reality.

I am quite aware of how much fun it must be to know you are on the majority side and that most people will not criticize you for such bad behavior.

Bad behavior? Like, posting facts and being logical?

Go ahead if it makes your day, but I have no reason to engage in discussion with people who behave like that.

That's the damn truth.

I do hope we understand each other?

MM

Why are you asking this as a question? It's not.

Go back and try again.

 

[000063]

No.

What are you basing this conclusion on?

 

[triforcharity]

Uhm urrr ahhh... I overlooked, or didn't process correctly, the "non" in "non-inert environment"



<--- *whistles innocently*
It's been a splendid sunny day today! Gonna have a BBQ with Scotch and my best buddies. What's up guys?

Wouldn't Scotch and best buddies be one in the same?