Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

There were far more than 9 cameras trained on WTC7, and even more pairs of eyes.

Everyone was 8 blocks away or more with a very limited view. The lower floors were hidden by heavy smoke.

No, you do. Removal of all vertical support over several floors is a requirement for your theory. And this means cutting every column multiple times, including the exterior ones.

They would be rigged from the inside and you have no idea how much light would be seen from the outside.

The smoke is from a fire near the west end as cameras 8 and 9 clearly show.

Near, yes. Not at.

So what? The bottom 19 or 20 floors were hidden by the smoke from the vantage point of cameras 8 and 9 and spectators [8 blocks away].

You have no idea how thermite could be used yet you make all these pronouncements like you did.

Same ol' Appeal to Magic

There's nothing magic about thermite. You're just spouting the same ol' "It can't be because"

 

[000063]

"...because thermite does not have any of the properties your theory requires it to", yes.

I also like how it becomes easy or hard to see the same thing as your theory requires.

I don't believe much of any of the above. I'm sure your team of duhbunkers would report any disruptive comments/activity and the guilty would be dealt with by youtube. I'm sure AE911 Truth would not allow the alleged activity you complained about.
...

Have you literally never looked at Youtube comments in your entire life?

 

[chrismohr]

Chris7, I'm not a thermnite expert, but every video of the application of thermite I have ever seen shows blinding light for around 45 seconds. This includes demonstrations of thermite and thermate by 9/11 Truth experimenters, who do show that thermate can cut through steel. But it also shows (1) blinding light when even a couple pounds of thermite is burned (2) a long, slow, imprecise process of burning through steel. The most generous I can be is to admit the possibility that thermate can cut through steel and maybe more precisely than was done in Cole's backyard experiment. I can even admit to the possibility that the light can be covered at first, but NOT tons of thermate for 45 seconds, after the building fell backwards and there was this chaotic annihilation! I still can't believe you seriously assert this. Oh, and here's an example of "performance art:" around 1969, some hippies stole some road repair equipment from the city of New York, spent the night jackhammering away at a city street, put up Road Construction signs, and left. It took the city over a year to figure out it was a prank, everyone assumed it was officially sanctioned. Performance art has a quality of surrealism and is designed to mess with your head. It doesn't have to be destructive but it often plays pranks on people who are too serious and straitlaced to get the joke.

You're kidding, right? You can tell us.

 

[Miragememories]

"... I'm not a thermnite expert, but every video of the application of thermite I have ever seen shows blinding light for around 45 seconds. This includes demonstrations of thermite and thermate by 9/11 Truth experimenters, who do show that thermate can cut through steel. But it also shows (1) blinding light when even a couple pounds of thermite is burned (2) a long, slow, imprecise process of burning through steel. ..."

Have you ever knowingly observed a thermitic reaction occurring in the shielded core of a smoke-filled building from a distance of 8 blocks?

MM

 

[Clayton Moore]

I side with Chris on this. Monitoring 22 videos would be a full time job [with overtime].

Why should the comments have to be monitored?

What kind of public information should/can only be discussed in a specific forum?

 

[Animal]

Why should the comments have to be monitored?

What kind of public information should/can only be discussed in a specific forum?

You need a good cheese to go with that whine.

 

[GlennB]

Have you ever knowingly observed a thermitic reaction occurring in the shielded core of a smoke-filled building from a distance of 8 blocks?

We were discussing C7's theory, which also requires removal of all the external columns over several floors. A ridiculous concept, I know.

 

[uglypig]

MM is right, the charges could have been inside the core at the 5th floor. This floor had metal louvers, pretty safe. It wouldn't have been hard to put a few kilos of HC on that floor, enough to fill the entire volume with smoke.

Also, those charges could have been placed on three columns and maybe two of the trusses and the collapse would still work.

Thermite demolition was possible. The real problem is evidence. Plenty for fire..yet none for thermite.

 

[Animal]

MM is right,

No he isn't

the charges could have been inside the core at the 5th floor. This floor had metal louvers, pretty safe. It wouldn't have been hard to put a few kilos of HC on that floor, enough to fill the entire volume with smoke.

You ignorance of the workings of a modern highrise in NYC is evident

Also, those charges could have been placed on three columns and maybe two of the trusses and the collapse would still work.

Your ignorance of building structures is also quite evident.

Thermite demolition was possible. The real problem is evidence. Plenty for fire..yet none for thermite.

The real problem is anyone believing that demolition by thermite was remotely possible.

 

[DGM]

It wouldn't have been hard to put a few kilos of HC on that floor, enough to fill the entire volume with smoke.

Forgive my ignorance but, what is HC?

 

[Clayton Moore]

MM is right, the charges could have been inside the core at the 5th floor. This floor had metal louvers, pretty safe. It wouldn't have been hard to put a few kilos of HC on that floor, enough to fill the entire volume with smoke.

Also, those charges could have been placed on three columns and maybe two of the trusses and the collapse would still work.

Thermite demolition was possible. The real problem is evidence. Plenty for fire..yet none for thermite.

Evidence? Are you kidding? THREE HUGE skyscrapers are virtually completely pulverized and virtually completely demolished by freaking falling on themselves?

And you're saying it couldn't have been done WITH explosives?

It doesn't make any difference how the demolition was performed. Get it?

The collapse premise says the collapse had to begin at one point of failure and continue to virtually completely pulverize and virtually completely demolish each of the THREE HUGE skyscrapers.

ONE point of failure. Get it?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Evidence? Are you kidding? THREE HUGE skyscrapers are virtually completely pulverized and virtually completely demolished by freaking falling on themselves?

And you're saying it couldn't have been done WITH explosives?

It doesn't make any difference how the demolition was performed. Get it?

The collapse premise says the collapse had to begin at one point of failure and continue to virtually completely pulverize and virtually completely demolish each of the THREE HUGE skyscrapers.

ONE point of failure. Get it?

So all you have as evidence for your controlled demolition is your own personal incredulity that the damage to both structural members and fireproofing caused by a 767 flying at 500+ mph, plus the resulting massive office fires, could not cause two skyscrapers to collapse, and that said collapsing skyscrapers could not cause enough damage and fires to a third skyscraper to cause it to collapse. Got it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So all you have as evidence for your controlled demolition is your own personal incredulity that the damage to both structural members and fireproofing caused by a 767 flying at 500+ mph, plus the resulting massive office fires, could not cause two skyscrapers to collapse, and that said collapsing skyscrapers could not cause enough damage and fires to a third skyscraper to cause it to collapse. Got it.

I said completely.

Chris Mohr, about 2/3 of each WTC tower was completely pristine. Which of your videos explains how a much lighter 1/3 of a building forced down and demolished the much heavier and much sturdier 2/3 of each tower.

 

[chrismohr]

I said completely.

Chris Mohr, about 2/3 of each WTC tower was completely pristine. Which of your videos explains how a much lighter 1/3 of a building forced down and demolished the much heavier and much sturdier 2/3 of each tower.

A friendly reminder that I am waiting for you to acknowledge what I said in my video, which was my answer to your question about how I explain sounds of explosions. Until you acknowledge watching that video and then responding to my answer, especially the list of things that explode in fires, I will not respond to anything else you say. Otherwise I will answer question after question and you will ignore my answers. Ain't gonna do it. Call it Manual Ignore.

If you acknowledge that explosions can happen in regular office fires, then it is up to you to eliminate the possible causes of explosive sounds I listed, leaving only thermite or some kind of bomb. That's what an arson investigator does. That's what they did after 9/11. Hundreds of them. Specialists.

 

[000063]

Have you ever knowingly observed a thermitic reaction occurring in the shielded core of a smoke-filled building from a distance of 8 blocks?

MM

I strongly doubt it, seeing as thermite is rarely used in buildings which have been on fire for seven hours.

And given that no photos of WTC 7 from any range show this alleged thermite, I'm going to have to call your post a goalpost move.

MM is right, the charges could have been inside the core at the 5th floor. This floor had metal louvers, pretty safe. It wouldn't have been hard to put a few kilos of HC on that floor, enough to fill the entire volume with smoke.

Also, those charges could have been placed on three columns and maybe two of the trusses and the collapse would still work....

I don't know much about architecture, but I...strongly doubt that.

 

[uglypig]

One removed truss in WTC7 would be enough to send it down - in fact this is what happend.

Chris Mohr, about 2/3 of each WTC tower was completely pristine.

The whole core of WTC2 was completely overloaded by the airplaine strike. It's a miracle that it didn't collapse the moment it was hit.

The rest of your post is not worth replying to.

 

[000063]

Evidence? Are you kidding? THREE HUGE skyscrapers are virtually completely pulverized

No.

and virtually completely demolished

No.

by freaking falling on themselves?

No.

I like how you give yourself wriggle room by inserting "virtually", when none of the three collapses were even close to in their own footprint.

And you're saying it couldn't have been done WITH explosives?

Your straw man, maybe.

It doesn't make any difference how the demolition was performed. Get it?

So why do you insist it was explosives or thermite?

The collapse premise says the collapse had to begin at one point of failure and continue to virtually completely pulverize and virtually completely demolish each of the THREE HUGE skyscrapers.

No. No. No.

ONE point of failure. Get it?

False.

 

[000063]

I said completely.

Chris Mohr, about 2/3 of each WTC tower was completely pristine. Which of your videos explains how a much lighter 1/3 of a building forced down and demolished the much heavier and much sturdier 2/3 of each tower.

I've told you before; the falling sections impacted with the force of 30 times their own mass. More than the entire weight of the building. According to your proportions, that's over ten times the weight of each tower, which they, natch., were never designed for.

 

[DGM]

One removed truss in WTC7 would be enough to send it down - in fact this is what happend.

Way over simplified and frankly not correct. Don't confuse "trusses" with "girders".


(if you need help with this I can link you to the relevant section of the NIST report).

 

[Clayton Moore]

I've told you before; the falling sections impacted with the force of 30 times their own mass. More than the entire weight of the building. According to your proportions, that's over ten times the weight of each tower, which they, natch., were never designed for.

In a distance of 10 to 20 feet a force of 30 times their own mass was available?

Not in this universe.

From a "standing" start no less.

When