Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[carlitos]

pixels, obviously.

 

[Miragememories]

"An explosive that creates plenty of molten iron in the vicinity to melt the columns? Clever stuff indeed.

Hmmmm, lemme see now ...... mass of steel to melt is .... specific heat of steel .... melting point .... thermal conductivity ..... rate of heat loss ....

Nope, you're talking bollocks."

"Correction: You are talking bollocks.
This will not penetrate your denial screen but for the lurkers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g"

"This is a good video everyone should watch. A lot of effort went into it. It demonstrates that thermitic materials CAN melt through steel columns. Chris7 has also shown in an article he linked for us (which I don'd have at my fingertips) that thermitic materials CAN be made to have explosive qualities. IF thermitic materials were used, maybe they could bring a building down somehow.

My problems are these:

Millette never found thermitic materials in the dust."

Millette refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Bentham Paper DSC conclusions, yet he and his company do not possess a DSC, or have any expertise with that equipment.

"The Bentham study has major problems which Ivan and Oystein point out very effectively."

I have a problem with Oystein and Ivan's approach to seeking the truth. Quantity over quality when it suits their argument, and out-of-context [no statement from the author explaining point-of-contradiction] data when it suits their argument.

"There were no explosive sounds of the level normally required to do a CD (and explosions are assumed to have thrown heavy steel hundreds of feet laterally, so even nanothermite reconfigured for explosive properties somehow would by definition be much more boom than hush)."

It didn't sound right?

With the WTC Twin Towers, once the sound of each upper section failing became audible on the street, it was possible to hide the sound of explosives.

"A thermitic demolition of three huge skyscrapers would be blindingly bright for at least 45 seconds after collapse and that brilliance could NOT be hidden once everything is destroyed and pulverized and cut apart and collapsing."

A thermitic demolition of three huge skyscrapers could be what you describe.

But, depending on the demolition design, it does not have to be what you describe.

They could have used remote-activated beacons to direct the incoming aircraft to pre-planned locations.

Thermitic devices could have been critically mounted on columns for sufficient floors to ensure the support failure for each upper section.

Because of the intensely loud sounds generated by each upper section starting to descent, loud, core-planted explosives could followup with a demolition-pattern designed to thoroughly finish the job.

You've seen the level of dust and pulverization. Which is why the thermitic material that was not ignited, is not readily detectable without very specific research methods.

"Huge amounts of aluminum oxide would be found and it wasn't."

That is based on unproven assumptions.

"No triggering devices to start the CD could possibly survive the raging fires where collapse initiation happened... and this is just off the top of my head. Among the 238 reasons I laid out in my videos you will find many more. CAN thermite be configured to cut through steel? Yes. DID it on 9/11? No."

More traditional explosive devices planted below the impact zones would face little risk from fire.

Just a few possibilities to consider...and this is just off the top of my head.

MM

 

[pgimeno]

Incorrect. Mr Chandler and NIST used every 5th or 6th frame because any more that that does not increase the accuracy, it just adds "noise".

With their poor methods, maybe. Measuring whole pixels over times where just zero or one pixel change indeed introduces noise. That's one reason why subpixel tracking has an advantage.

 

[carlitos]

It didn't sound right?

With the WTC Twin Towers, once the sound of each upper section failing became audible on the street, it was possible to hide the sound of explosives.

Explosives were used to demolish the World Trade Center towers.

The sound of the explosives was hidden by the sound of the buildings falling.

The reason that the buildings started falling in the first place is ___________?

this is just off the top of my head.

Indeed.

 

[beachnut]

This is a good video everyone should watch. A lot of effort went into it. It demonstrates that thermitic materials CAN melt through steel columns. Chris7 has also shown in an article he linked for us (which I don't have at my fingertips) that thermitic materials CAN be made to have explosive qualities. IF thermitic materials were used, maybe they could bring a building down somehow.

My problems are these: Millette never found thermitic materials in the dust, the Bentham study has major problems which Ivan and Oystein point out very effectively, there were no explosive sounds of the level normally required to do a CD (and explosions are assumed to have thrown heavy steel hundreds of feet laterally, so even nanothermite reconfigured for explosive properties somehow would by definition be much more boom than hush), a thermitic demolition of three huge skyscrapers would be blindingly bright for at least 45 seconds after collapse and that brilliance could NOT be hidden once everything is destroyed and pulverized and cut apart and collapsing, huge amounts of aluminum oxide would be found and it wasn't, no triggering devices to start the CD could possibly survive the raging fires where collapse initiation happened... and this is just off the top of my head. Among the 238 reasons I laid out in my videos you will find many more. CAN thermite be configured to cut through steel? Yes. DID it on 9/11? No.

J.H. Cole proves thermite leaves BLAST EFFECT on steel, not as much as real explosives, but splattered IRON on steel, and IRON FUSED to the steel. Evidence NOT found at the WTC, you are right, not used.

Where do we find these failed engineers? Are they going through some family crisis? Divorce, made them go nuts on 911? This old presentation by J.H. Cole, proves thermite would be detected. Debunks himself http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191550

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate#comment-241377

J.H. Cole? I can see the terrorists now, "Don't mind us, we are rigging the WTC with thermite. Ignore the device we are attaching underneath the 3 inches of wallboard fire insualtion..." J. Cole, another delusional claim. If you are going to go nuts, blame the government for 911, thermite ceiling tiles are the methy way to go.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

If you are going to go all the way for 911 truth insanity, go crazy early and often. Ceiling tiles filled with thermite with thousands of radio controlled fuses.

When we go to youtube to see madness, sad to see so many idiots pushing videos about 911 delusions. Videos titled "WTC Demolition", or Inside Job, misleading kids.


The thermite cutting devices are a blast from the past.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/thermitecutter.jpg
Discussed in 2008 at JREF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
Discussed in 2007 at JREF

911 truth is confused and lost. They present the wrong evidence. Showing you can cut steel with thermite is not evidence of thermite used to cut steel at the WTC. Iron fused to steel and blast effects are evidence, and some left over devices would help.

 

[carlitos]

So, from a chemistry / physics perspective, which is more ridiculous?

- Thermite that does not flash
- Explosives that make no sound

 

[LSSBB]

It didn't sound right?

With the WTC Twin Towers, once the sound of each upper section failing became audible on the street, it was possible to hide the sound of explosives.



A thermitic demolition of three huge skyscrapers could be what you describe.

But, depending on the demolition design, it does not have to be what you describe.

They could have used remote-activated beacons to direct the incoming aircraft to pre-planned locations.

Thermitic devices could have been critically mounted on columns for sufficient floors to ensure the support failure for each upper section.

Because of the intensely loud sounds generated by each upper section starting to descent, loud, core-planted explosives could followup with a demolition-pattern designed to thoroughly finish the job.

You've seen the level of dust and pulverization. Which is why the thermitic material that was not ignited, is not readily detectable without very specific research methods.



That is based on unproven assumptions.



More traditional explosive devices planted below the impact zones would face little risk from fire.

Just a few possibilities to consider...and this is just off the top of my head.

MM

What a complicated little Rube Goldberg you've whipped up off the top of your head.

What about the flash from the thermite?

 

[thedopefishlives]

So, from a chemistry / physics perspective, which is more ridiculous?

- Thermite that does not flash
- Explosives that make no sound

If a tower falls in Manhattan and nobody sees it, is it still a fire-and-damage-induced gravity collapse?

 

[GlennB]

So, from a chemistry / physics perspective, which is more ridiculous?

- Thermite that does not flash
- Explosives that make no sound

You have no idea how thermitic explosives can be engineered to do both. D'uh. [/C7 mode]

 

[000063]

...They could have used remote-activated beacons to direct the incoming aircraft to pre-planned locations.

You are aware that transponders are huge, right? And any beacon strong enough to transmit from the interior of a steel-framed building for miles is also going to be strong enough to noticeably mess with the electronics in the building?

More on this in a second.

Thermitic devices could have been critically mounted on columns for sufficient floors to ensure the support failure for each upper section.

Sounds like a lot of Appeal to Magic. You are aware that it is impossible for thermite to sever steel structural members instantly, right? And that it does not burn uniformly, meaning unsynchronized breaches?

Because of the intensely loud sounds generated by each upper section starting to descent, loud, core-planted explosives could followup with a demolition-pattern designed to thoroughly finish the job.

Which would itself blow out windows and cause audible noises more than loud enough to be heard over the collapse. I mean, loud enough to be heard across New York. Plus there's the fact that the core fell last.

You've seen the level of dust and pulverization. Which is why the thermitic material that was not ignited, is not readily detectable without very specific research methods.

You mean those large concrete and steel pieces that made it to the ground? Those "pulverized" pieces? The ones hand-searched for remains by forensic experts and handled by steelworkers? And what happens to the triggers and wiring for the explosives? The transponders?

More traditional explosive devices planted below the impact zones would face little risk from fire.

Just a few possibilities to consider...and this is just off the top of my head.

MM

Remember, the planes hit the buildings at hundreds of MPH, and were subject to crosswinds, tailwinds, pitch, yaw, and a few other random factors that makes the location and effects of their impact impossible to predict in more than the broadest terms, even with your mythical transponder. They could end up driving debris straight into the explosives and disabling them. Or the multi-floor fires could damage the explosives.

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that the collapses started at the impact zones.

 

[chrismohr]

So, from a chemistry / physics perspective, which is more ridiculous?

- Thermite that does not flash
- Explosives that make no sound

At last I get to correct Carlitos for a change! The word "flash" implies a fast burst of light. Thermite burns for 45 seconds or so, so all of lower Manhattan would see three enormous bursts of blinding light a good thirty seconds after each building had collapsed into a random heap of rubble where pockets of thermitics would be exposed everywhere. And if anyone believes thermite kept catching on fire and burning in the debris for months, you're looking at more blinding lights going off over and over day and night for months afterwards. This to me is boldly going where no rational person has gone before, so I choose the light-free thermites as, er, even less credible than hushed explosives.

 

[chrismohr]

What a complicated little Rube Goldberg you've whipped up off the top of your head.

What about the flash from the thermite?

I repeat, this is no "flash" of light. Try blinding, sustained light for 45 seconds or so, like a sun shining through the rubble!

 

[Redwood]

I repeat, this is no "flash" of light. Try blinding, sustained light for 45 seconds or so, like a sun shining through the rubble!

Would "burst" of light be acceptable? More literary than "massive emission of light"!

 

[plague311]

I repeat, this is no "flash" of light. Try blinding, sustained light for 45 seconds or so, like a sun shining through the rubble!

To say a thermal lance is blinding is a massive understatement. I drove cab for a few years in Fargo as a part time gig to save some cash for a trip. One summer they were redoing the bridge going over the Red River that all the railroads use. In order to not interrupt the railroad system they had to rebuild the entire bridge overnight.

It should be noted I have NO idea what they were using it for, I will even say I don't know it's application to the job, outside of common sense. However, you could see the light from, literally, miles away.

 

[chrismohr]

My take on the part corresponding to video 3, #55-65:

# | Chris Mohr's argument | Response by AE911Truth | P.Gimeno's take
- | Part 3 of Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage's 9/11 video Blueprint for Truth looks at the assertion that "no tall steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire," but the 2008 Delft University Tower fire-induced, fast collapse mostly into its own footprint proves "it ain't necessarily so." CORRECTION and CLARIFICATION: The Delft University Building was a steel-reinforced concrete building, not a steel-framed building. As the initial report stated, "The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so." Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings, but buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials. | Yes as you said: "Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings." But it does not follow logically that: "buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials." The stronger the materials, the more resistant they are to collapse.| I don't think that's a logical conclusion, just a statement of fact. The Kader toy factory is an example of a steel building collapsed totally. The Windsor tower in Madrid is an example of the unprotected steel structure of the building collapsing totally. In Windsor, the core was steel-reinforced concrete and the perimeter was steel. It was being added fireproofing, and the work was almost complete in the lower half. Only the top half of the perimeter collapsed. Ref: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm It collapsed basically onto its footprint, see http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/slide0008_image013.jpg The WTC7 case has to be analyzed separately because the fireproofing was not initially damaged.
55 | There has never been a tall building where a large jet with 98,500 liters of exploding fuel hit at over 500 mph creating massive fires where softened steel has had to hold up 180,000,000 pounds above it. | On 9/11 two jets crashed into the two World Trade Center towers, and stood for nearly an hour with no problem holding the weight above. The fires were only "massive" for a few seconds. They cooled off enough for people (such as Edna Cinton) to stand in the very places the fires started. | Yes, they stood for nearly an hour until the fire softened the steel. The point where Edna Cintron was standing was the entry point; at that point the materials were displaced by the crashing plane to other parts of the building. Near the same hole there are visible raging fires. The fires got worse as time progressed, as expected.
56 | The World Trade Center Towers dispensed with heavy concrete reinforcement because its weight would have made a 110 story skyscraper unsound. Instead the builders used a spray on fire retardant. | |
***57 | Tall Steel Framed Building's Very Fast, Almost Symmetrical, Collapse into its Own Footprint after coffee maker fire | |
58 | Steel Frame Structures Collapse in Fire: In 1997 the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed in 1997 The Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, completely collapsed after burning for two hours Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes Sofa SuperStore Charleston SC, long span roof trusses WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911. | |
59 | People Surprised By Steel Building Collapses Since 1900 (Unsinkable Titanic)! | Yes, people can be surprised by any major collapse or structural failure. There were technical design flaws in the Titanic which made it susceptible to sinking. However, the World Trade Centers were designed to be extra strong, since they had never built such a tall building. Indeed WTC 1 and 2 held up just fine for about an hour. | Again, they stood fine for about an hour until the fire softened the steel enough as to not be able to bear the weight of the buildings.
60 | Traditional buildings : steel-reinforced concrete. In fires, steel bends and concrete holds it together. | |
61 | Intentionally left blank | Yes, the 9/11 Commission intentionally did not cover WTC 7. What about the redacted blanked pages in the report about Saudi Arabia? | The 9/11 commission talks about WTC7, it just doesn't mention its collapse because it wasn't part of their task or objectives. (The part about Saudi Arabia I don't know much about. It is probably worth looking into, but probably not related to an inside job.) But point #61 was about a picture showing bent steel beams during a fire.
62 | Vincent Dunn has "seen twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. Steel tries to expand at both ends, when it can no longer expand, it sags..." | |
63 | Barehanded Guys Bending Steel Around a Tree (Sherman's Necktie) | |
64 | Robert Berhinig, 1967: "steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of... fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." | |
65 | If Steel Can't Be Brought Down By Fire, Why Bother With Concrete Reinforcement or Fireproofing of Steel Frames? | |

And a possible counter-response to the new response to #1, still pending to see the mentioned video:

#1 | The buildings did withstand the impacts, despite being calculated for a lower speed impact. The buildings were approximately the width of a runway, so it didn't need a lot of skill to hit them by people who knew how to land; one of the hits was sloppy. | Planes do not land near 500 mph. It is difficult to hit a building first time at such speeds. You can try it yourself with Google's Flight Simulator. (new video in progress) | Pilots that have airliner training can. It's not easy to handle an airliner for a non-pilot because of its size and inertia. The terrorists probably practiced with simulators.

Thanks for your work on this pgimeno! Other comments welcome as well. Again, these are re-re-rebuttals we are creating for the chrismohr911.com website. Rick just adds in my re-re-rebuttals at the bottom ofb the left column as I go. The AE911 side isn't done yet but rather than waitb I'm just putting my re-re-rebuttals in. As mentioned before, more links to YouTube videos etc. for each re-re-rebuttal is great too.

 

[Christopher7]

This is a good video everyone should watch. A lot of effort went into it. It demonstrates that thermitic materials CAN melt through steel columns. Chris7 has also shown in an article he linked for us (which I don'd have at my fingertips) that thermitic materials CAN be made to have explosive qualities. IF thermitic materials were used, maybe they could bring a building down somehow.

Thank you very much for your honesty.

My problems are these: Millette never found thermitic materials in the dust,

He did a test that did not show the Al and Si separating but did NOT do the test that Harrit et al had done that did show the Al and Si separating. He did not heat the chip to 430^oC+ to see if it produced iron-rich spheres. The only thing he proved was his unwillingness to duplicate the two key tests that demonstrated the existence of elemental Al and a thermitic reaction.

the Bentham study has major problems which Ivan and Oystein point out very effectively

Defenders of the official collapse theory work overtime to find fault with the Bentham study. To date, no one has published a rebuttal and until they do, all the rancor by anonymous posters has no real credibility.

there were no explosive sounds of the level normally required to do a CD (and explosions are assumed to have thrown heavy steel hundreds of feet laterally, so even nanothermite reconfigured for explosive properties somehow would by definition be much more boom than hush)

There are well over 100 reports of explosions and a few videos that caught the explosions.

a thermitic demolition of three huge skyscrapers would be blindingly bright for at least 45 seconds after collapse

You don't know how long the thermite would burn. A device could be engineered to limit the "afterglow" and whatever afterglow there was could be easily masked. Thermite incendiary/explosives used on the interior columns would not be seen from below.

and that brilliance could NOT be hidden once everything is destroyed and pulverized and cut apart and collapsing

It would be covered and/or consumed by the mushroom debris ejections in the TT and hidden by the smoke covering the lower part of the north face of WTC 7.

huge amounts of aluminum oxide would be found and it wasn't

That is an unsubstantiated claim, both the amount and the assumption that the aluminum oxide was not released as white/gray particulate matter in the smoke.

no triggering devices to start the CD could possibly survive the raging fires where collapse initiation happened.

That is false. The use of magnesium would prevent the pre ignition and wireless detonators would eliminate the need for detcord. Jon Cole pointed out that thermite incendiary devices could have been placed inside columns to cut the columns or the bolts. These would be protected from the fires.

Furthermore, the collapse started above where the plane hit in the South Tower as can be observed in this video [0:20]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw

The official theory is that the collapse began on the floors where the plane hit. If that were escaping air from an internal collapse it disproves the official theory.

and this is just off the top of my head. Among the 238 reasons I laid out in my videos you will find many more.

Thinking up reasons to not believe is denial, not science.

CAN thermite be configured to cut through steel? Yes.

Honesty

DID it on 9/11? No.

Assumption.

 

[chrismohr]

By the way, the "Experts Speak Out" video is out in its final form. I congratulated Richard Gage on a job well done. It's the same arguments as before for 9/11 Truth but with various experts saying what Richard has said all along. An effective argument from authority. If anyone wants to take on an examination of the claims from that point of view, feel free to steal from my chrismohr911.com site to get started on the arguments.

 

[Christopher7]

With their poor methods, maybe. Measuring whole pixels over times where just zero or one pixel change indeed introduces noise. That's one reason why subpixel tracking has an advantage.

Wrong. If using every 5th or 6th frame is considered to be scientifically sound [and it is by both sides], then the sub-pixel canard is just techno-babble.

 

[LSSBB]

You don't know how long the thermite would burn. A device could be engineered to limit the "afterglow" and whatever afterglow there was could be easily masked. Thermite incendiary/explosives used on the interior columns would not be seen from below.

It would be covered and/or consumed by the mushroom debris ejections in the TT and hidden by the smoke covering the lower part of the north face of WTC 7.

This answer is 100% wishful thinking. You can't just say there could be a device, or the light would be covered. You have to SHOW how the device would work, and you have to do the math on the light being obscured. There are actual formulas Astrophysicists use for light transmission through dust / particulate matter. Note that the light has a spectrum, so you have to take into account the material makeup of the smoke and debris and it's absorption and scatter charateristics. As far as I have seen, brilliant bright light will transmit through smoke (with varying degrees of absorption en route) and reflect off surfaces.

 

[Christopher7]

By the way, the "Experts Speak Out" video is out in its final form. I congratulated Richard Gage on a job well done. It's the same arguments as before for 9/11 Truth but with various experts saying what Richard has said all along. An effective argument from authority.

It should be noted that the defenders of the official collapse theory are also using an "appeal to authority" when they quote the NIST report as proof of collapse due to normal building fires.

ESO is a rebuttal by experts in all related fields with decades of experience.

The personal attacks on these professionals says more about the attackers than the people being attacked.