Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Too smart to waste my time searching for something as vague as

Go to ae911truth.org for a rebuttal of my skeptic.com article.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Too smart to waste my time searching for something as vague as

Go to ae911truth.org for a rebuttal of my skeptic.com article.
Click to expand...

For once, I am in full agreement with Clayton Moore: It would be a total waste of time to search that rebuttal.
Of course my reasons are different. I know that the directions given are not vague at all: The article can be found directly on the page that Chris linked to. Clayton, if anything, too dumb to realize how easy the rebuttal can be found. He is failing at Internet 101. He could seek the help of 7-year-olds.
 
The first problem with Mohr’s example is that a reinforced concrete building is not a steel-framed building. Mohr is obviously unaware of the distinction between a building constructed with steel columns and beams (steel-framed) and a building constructed with concrete poured around reinforcing steel, or rebar (reinforced concrete).
Click to expand...

My irony meter exploded like a hydrogen bomb when I read this... These dolts committed the very fallacy they accused Chris of...
 
One of Jeremy's comments is that thermitic materials can be made to be explosive. Richard Gage has made that point too. But if it works as an explosive, then... noise. Lots of it. If it works as thermite and melts, then how can it create a precise collapse when it takes so long for thermite to burn through steel? How can melting thermite cause lateral ejection of heavy steel beams 600 feet? Or do you now agree that lateral ejection may not have happened at all? The challenge with my debate has always been having a hard time even knowing what I am debating because the sands keep shifting.
 
Further evidence of truthers' lack of comprehension. Thermite is not explosive. Thermite burns really hot, really fast. It can't be used (dependably) to produce more than a jagged hole in steel. It can be used to initiate explosives.

In other words, thermite sparks off conventional explosives. Think of it as the fuse to set off a stick of dynamite. Claims of "thermite paint" being used to "blow up" the WTC are as ludicrous as claiming you can demolish a bridge by wrapping it in time fuse.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Too smart to waste my time searching for something as vague as

Go to ae911truth.org for a rebuttal of my skeptic.com article.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to find, even from the as911Truth homepage and worth your perusal, as it's a thorough and global destruction of Mohr's work. To his credit, Chris remains very polite and professional although reluctant to address where Hammond points out the fatal flaws in the research.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Too smart to waste my time searching for something as vague as

Go to ae911truth.org for a rebuttal of my skeptic.com article.
Click to expand...

I suggest you do read it.

Others encouraging you not to, do so because they know it is actually a very good critique of Chris's position on 9/11.

I am not sure why Chris posted about it, unless he is hoping the rank 'n file here will provide him with a rebuttal?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I suggest you do read it.

Others encouraging you not to, do so because they know it is actually a very good critique of Chris's position on 9/11.

I am not sure why Chris posted about it, unless he is hoping the rank 'n file here will provide him with a rebuttal?

MM
Click to expand...
There's no "rebuttle" needed, All this guy did was reword/elaborate what Gage originally said.


This is the kind of work that has gotten the "truthers" as far as they have.


:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
There's no "rebuttle" needed, All this guy did was reword/elaborate what Gage originally said.


This is the kind of work that has gotten the "truthers" as far as they have.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So is Hammond's critique valid? If not, why not? And no, "because he's a twoofer" is not a counter argument.
 
RedIbis said:
So is Hammond's critique valid? If not, why not? And no, "because he's a twoofer" is not a counter argument.
Click to expand...
No. For the same reasons Chris already pointed out. Expanding on the old talking points doesn't make them true.

Like I said. This is why the "truth" movement is where it is today.
 
chrismohr said:
"One of Jeremy's comments is that thermitic materials can be made to be explosive. Richard Gage has made that point too. But if it works as an explosive, then... noise. Lots of it. "
Click to expand...

Jeremy R. Hammond said:
"Mohr offers no source for his claim that nano-thermite would create “deafening 140 db sounds,” when ignited. But the clue here is his reference to “the explosive force of the shock wave itself.” With conventional explosives used in controlled demolitions, like RDX, it is the pressure of the explosion that cuts through steel columns. With thermitic materials, however, it isnʼt a high-pressure “shock wave,” but the exothermic reaction that melts through the steel. One patented device designed to employ thermitic materials for applications including demolition notes that a “primary disadvantage” of conventional demolition charges “is that they generate excessive noise and debris upon detonation,” while “Thermite-based cutting devices, which employ a cutting flame, produce relatively little over pressure.” While regular thermite is an incendiary, as the Department of Defense points out, nano-thermite has the potential for uses in “high-power, high-energy composite explosives.” But nano-thermite is “explosive” because of the
great amount of energy it releases, not via high pressure “shock waves,” but via the even more energetic and more rapid exothermic reaction compared to regular thermite."
Click to expand...

chrismohr said:
"If it works as thermite and melts, then how can it create a precise collapse when it takes so long for thermite to burn through steel? How can melting thermite cause lateral ejection of heavy steel beams 600 feet? Or do you now agree that lateral ejection may not have happened at all? The challenge with my debate has always been having a hard time even knowing what I am debating because the sands keep shifting."
Click to expand...

Well it did not have to be all thermitic, all the time. Once a significant collapse display is initiated, convention explosives can be introduced with their noise effectively disguised by the sound of the collapsing floors.

Jeremy R. Hammond said:
"If conventional explosives were also used in conjunction with thermite, fewer would be required. And the fact is that there were explosions taking place that were documented on video. Many eyewitnesses reported explosions, explosions were captured on the audio of a number of videos, news reporters talked about explosions taking place well after the collapse of the Twin Towers, and there was speculation by some reporters live on air that these were cars exploding after having caught fire as a result of the collapses. It may be that there was some other such source of the explosions, but one can hardly deny that they took place. Two distinct explosions can be heard in the audio track of one video of WTC 7 immediately prior to the observable collapse of the east penthouse."
Click to expand...

Regarding the lateral ejection of heavy steel beams, as far as 600 feet.

Many Official Story supporters have proffered explanations that attempt to dismiss such occurrences as being reasonable and not an indication that explosives were used.

It has been said that the enormous amount of kinetic energy created when the potential energy of the WTC towers was converted during the collapses, was sufficient to propel multi-ton steel frames such huge distances.

But I have a problem with this.

In commercial, disciplined controlled demolitions, large ejections of structural steel is not an expectation.

Yes, I know, the counter-argument is that those buildings are pre-engineered with strategically placed cuts to the steel to prevent such an occurrence.

Well, that does sound a bit risky and it does not eliminate the threat. The cuts merely shorten the steel when it breaks. The kinetic energy is still there.

But that aside, maybe the truth of the matter is that such major ejections are not a common expectation in an imploding building, disciplined controlled demolition or otherwise.

Case in point, WTC7, a modern 47-story steel-structured office tower which we all know suffered a bottom-down, high speed implosive collapse.

There was a great north face view of the complete global collapse until it descended below the rooflines of smaller office buildings.

If, as Official Story supporters insist, WTC7 was not prepped for controlled demolition, and if ejections of structural steel are to be expected from such a high kinetic energy collapse, why was there no northside evidence of this?

I would argue it is because it is not a significant expectation. And for the record, I do not know of any commercial controlled demolition of a modern office tower that was as tall as WTC7. If the risk of ejections is so great in a demolition not pre-engineered against such eventuality, it should have been a very high risk in the tallest, unprotected, implosion to ever occur.

So why, you might argue, if ejections are not an expectation in controlled demolitions, did they occur with the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?

Well there are at least two explanations that I can think of.

Firstly, they were topdown collapses. Too crush the lower building, an enormous amount of the upper core had to be demolished.

Secondly, they were not disciplined controlled demolitions in the sense that there was no requirement for concern over things like; peripheral damage, overkill, and expense.

Thirdly, those responsible wanted to be absolutely certain that the WTC Twin Towers would be leveled.

In both of the WTC Twin Towers, the upper sections began to topple over on their pre-weakened aircraft impacted sides.

As a noteworthy aside, you might look at the interesting timeline for the corner of WTC2 that displayed a long period of streaming molten steel. About a minute or less after this stream stopped flowing, WTC2's upper section began to topple.

In both cases, the topples were mostly countered, and arrested, by the rapid undermining removal of vertical supports.

Under the blanket of noise created by the toppling upper sections, conventional, loud explosives could be employed en masse.

Hence you have multi-ton steel frames ejected 600 feet laterally.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I suggest you do read it.

Others encouraging you not to, do so because they know it is actually a very good critique of Chris's position on 9/11.

I am not sure why Chris posted about it, unless he is hoping the rank 'n file here will provide him with a rebuttal?

MM
Click to expand...
Wait a second, you argue that people are encouraging him not to read it, when all they've done is tell him to look for it himself.

Then you say you don't know why Chris mentioned it, followed by ye olde passive-aggressive "just sayin'!" implied reason. You have effectively said that is the only reason you can think of for him to have posted it. If he wanted a rebuttal, he would've linked it, or done it himself. He's more than capable of it.

5/10. Mediocre troll.
 
RedIbis said:
So is Hammond's critique valid? If not, why not? And no, "because he's a twoofer" is not a counter argument.
Click to expand...

He loses from the get-go

Mohr begins his case with the argument that “You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings … without anyone noticing anything unusual.” He does not mention it, but we may presume he thinks it would be just as impossible in the case of WTC 7, the third WTC building to collapse completely on 9/11. The main point to be made about this assertion is that it is not a scientific argument, but speculation. It, for starters, assumes that nobody noticed anything unusual in the days, weeks, and months before 9/11. But is that true? Since this possibility was never actually investigated, and thus building workers were never interviewed and asked whether they noticed any suspicious activity going on, we don’t really know. Also, while it may seem unlikely that this could be done, if the actual scientific evidence disproves the fire-induced collapse hypothesis and proves the alternative, then one has a priori knowledge that, however unlikely, this must have occurred. So we must turn to the science, which Mohr does get to, eventually, as we shall see.
Click to expand...


Right off the bat he pretty much says it's possible to rig three of the largest buildings in the city, populated 24/7, with explosives.

You have to imagine what that entails! Joe Middle-Management is sitting in his office, burning the midnight oil, while mere feet away, workers are cutting through drywall, planting charges?
WHAT?!?

After 10 years, nobody has come forward and said, "hey, you know what, now that I think about it, it was really strange watching those people put explosives in the building...."

Please. Talk about reaching.

And when are those idiots at AE911 going to acknowledge the fact that MORE than 3 buildings collapsed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom