• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Ah... so the charges were set off after the collaspe began?

What exactly is the purpose of that?

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.

Again, you're saying everything that happened prove your theories. It's patently stupid.

Major ejections = controlled demo
But
Major ejections aren't a common expectation in a controlled demo.

Friggin bizarre.
 
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.MM
No, they can't, because they would be orders of magnitude louder. They would be audible across Manhattan, and possibly off of it. The quietest explosive NIST could find would do that. Not to mention the highly visible, y'know, explosions produced by the conventional explosives.

You're just trying to duct-tape anything onto your argument that looks solid or plausible, and it's actually making it weaker.

...[WTC 7], which we all know suffered a bottom-down, high speed implosive collapse.
We do? Since when?


...Thirdly, those responsible wanted to be absolutely certain that the WTC Twin Towers would be leveled....
They also wanted to try and produce as little evidence as possible. That's directly at odds with the idea of overkill, no matter how much you ignore it.

...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....
I love how you seem to keep ignoring the people telling you why that would be physically impossible, and unnecessary. All they need to do is damage the columns so they can't stay up. You're effectively arguing that they put enough explosives to throw the beams out of the building at subsonic speeds--which, again, would be physically impossible--for no reason.

Just give up.
 
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.
This is a feature, not a bug. Which is why you should stop debating and ignore them like nearly everyone else does. Having smart people legitimize their "movement" by acting as though it's a subject for "debate" isn't helping anything. Take the hours you've wasted on this and do something productive.
 
miragememories said:
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.
Your argument amounts to IF A THEN B, IF NOT A THEN B. Therefore A is irrelevant.
 
=Miragememories;7837945]

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.

Unsupported assertion. Its been shown that dropping a single floor would destroy the building.

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.

Very Good. The terrorists had no interest in things like; peripheral damage, overkill, and expense.

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

unsupported assertion. I have seen no evidence that the terrorists knew with certainty the towers would collapse. None of them were structural engineers and whilst they probably hoped the towers would fail it seems unlikely they were scertain they would.

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

stating the obvious. if one side is missing large number of sporting members it seems likely that would be the side most likely to fail first.

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.

Stop lying. there is no credible evidence that the burning material was steel.

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

Do you want to try that again? how would removing supports arrest or counter anything?


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

unsupported assertion.

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

stop lying. There were no 600 foot lateral ejections of heavy steel sections, merely the laying out of a 600 foot sections of the perimeter columns as they peeled off

columnsz.jpg
 
Last edited:
The challenge with my debate has always been having a hard time even knowing what I am debating because the sands keep shifting.

That's been my experience reading into it... the explanations even differ between individuals in the movement. MM probably surmised the position best, that he likely believes conventional devices were used in mid-collapse under the assumption that the noise of the collapse would "dampen" the "bang" sounds. An explanation which to say the least, makes little sense to me given the audio record that exists of the entire timeline...

I did find it interesting that they took issue with you using The Delft University fire over it's construction when they were happy to ignore it whilst comparing the Madrid tower to the WTC. From what I saw of your debate you made it fairly clear where your comparison was relevant and where it wasn't.
 
This is a feature, not a bug. Which is why you should stop debating and ignore them like nearly everyone else does. Having smart people legitimize their "movement" by acting as though it's a subject for "debate" isn't helping anything. Take the hours you've wasted on this and do something productive.
You sound like my wife!
 
Sheeplesnshills said, "unsupported assertion. I have seen no evidence that the terrorists knew with certainty the towers would collapse. None of them were structural engineers and whilst they probably hoped the towers would fail it seems unlikely they were certain they would." I think I remember Osama bin Laden saying, in that videotape the American soldiers found, that he was surprised to see the buildings collapse; he expected that the planes would hit the buildings and create havoc but not collapse entirely. He was not a structural engineer, but his attitude was slam the hell out of them, create a monster fire, kill a bunch of people, and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't debate people who don't respect me. Jeremy Hammond has publicly accused me of being either ignorant or willfully dishonest, so I have said discussion over for me personally. But this article appeared on ae911truth.org and I wanted people to see what he said. No need for me to hide what my opponents have said, and Hammond expresses his views clearly and forcefully so I thought some of you on both sides would like to see what he said. But as for me, I'm not willing to debate my worthiness to even weigh in on this subject. I know it pretty well so no direct debate with Jeremy.
 
Last edited:
No need for me to hide what my opponents have said, and Hammond expresses his views clearly and forcefully so I thought some of you on both sides would like to see what he said. But as for me, I'm not willing to debate my worthiness to even weigh in on this subject.

Chris:

Sometimes I question your sanity when you give these guys the leeway you do. But this.......

 
Well firstly, its on the front page.

Secondly, Let Me Google That For You. First result.

Damn that was hard. I think I may have to have a lie down.

Thanks.

Can you read laying down?

We’ll come to free-fall shortly, but the fundamental point Mohr fails to address is that NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis requires—bear with me here—that there be fires burning in the northeast corner of the twelfth floor in order to cause the thermal expansion of 13th floor beams, which pushed a girder off of its seat at critical Column 79, causing a series of cascading floor failures that caused Column 79 to buckle and fail due to the lack of lateral support, which led to a progressive series of column failures that resulted in a “global collapse” where the entire structure fell “as a single unit.” Got that? There are numerous problems with this hypothesis, but when it comes to the fires in WTC 7, there’s one problem in particular that stands out, which is that according to NIST’s own analysis of the available photographic and video evidence, the fire on the 12th floor had already burned through the northwest area and had moved on to the western end of the building by the time of its collapse at 5:20 p.m. (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1, Chapter 5).

So how did NIST deal with this little problem? Simple! They ignored their own evidence and falsified the data they input into their computer model by inserting raging fires in the northeast area of the 12th floor at the time of collapse. Mohr makes no effort to address this fatal flaw in the fire-induced collapse hypothesis or the evidence off scientific fraud on the part of NIST.

Read the link's contents. Chris Mohr's explanations are rent asunder.


http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...azines-science-of-controlled-demolitions.html
 
Last edited:
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In commercial, disciplined controlled demolitions, large ejections of structural steel is not an expectation.



"Not an expectation?" :D:rolleyes:

How about:
THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

Demolition companies never even try and use explosives capable of flinging heavy steel around, least of all large heavy pieces "hundreds of feet" away from building like Gage claims.

On 911, we have no evidence of any sounds even approaching that of a conventional demolition explosive, let alone one as absurdly powerful as people like you and Gage claim were used.

It simply isn't possible in this universe for explosives to have the power to fling heavy steel around and yet the collapse to look and sound the way it did. They would have to be magic explosives.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom