Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

YOU are completely ignoring my repeated assertion that every single video I have seen of thermite, thermate, etc always show extremely brilliant light for about 45 seconds.

On the contrary, I acknowledged that you base your opinion on the videos you have seen. But those are rudimentary experiments and do not represent anywhere near all that can be done with thermite or nano-thermite in steel cutting devices.

Am I wrong?

Yes. Jon Cole's cutting device only emits bright light while cutting which lasts about 10 seconds. Nano-thermite probably works faster.

You are also IGNORING the firefighter I found who was there every day for around three months and KNOWS what the temperatures were because he HAD to know for the safety of his crew.

He may not have been working near one of the hot spots. They were a small percentage of the total area - 16 acres.

The ASSE said:
"[SIZE=-1]Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF."

Anonymous "experts" claiming to know better are not a valid rebuttal to the American Society of Safety Engineers nor can FEMR2 can be considered a valid rebuttal to NIST and Chandler.
[/SIZE]

 

[Christopher7]

I acknowledge that thermite/nanos/thermate CAN do this work, but it DIDN'T or Millete would have found evidence of it in the dust

Millette not finding nano-thermite does not mean there was none by any stretch of the imagination. Putting aside his not doing the tests that establish the red/grey chips are nano-thermite, and assuming the red/gray chips are not nano-thermite, thermite and/or nano-thermite still could have been used without leaving red/gray chips, just molten iron and iron spheres.

and the brilliance of the light would have been a dead giveaway.

Why do you keep repeating the falsehood?

You do not know how nano-thermite can be engineered and used in a cutting devise or where those devices would be placed or how much light they would emit or for how long. You are making a pronouncement based on your very limited knowledge and you are way off base.

 

[uglypig]

3 or 4m of smoke would be enough to block most of the light. Louvers and sun outside ..... It would not be visible.

a comical assertion,

¨

10+ core columns cut. About 15 surviving columns reached DCR of 0.8. The tower was dead immediately after the impact.

 

[tsig]

Millette not finding nano-thermite does not mean there was none by any stretch of the imagination. Putting aside his not doing the tests that establish the red/grey chips are nano-thermite, and assuming the red/gray chips are not nano-thermite, thermite and/or nano-thermite still could have been used without leaving red/gray chips, just molten iron and iron spheres.

Why do you keep repeating the falsehood?

You do not know how nano-thermite can be engineered and used in a cutting devise or where those devices would be placed or how much light they would emit or for how long. You are making a pronouncement based on your very limited knowledge and you are way off base.

How do you know what nano thermite is capable of?

 

[000063]

3 or 4m of smoke would be enough to block most of the light. Louvers and sun outside ..... It would not be visible.
....

That kind of assumes that there would be smoke everywhere anyone could see the thermite burning from. In all 3 buildings. And thermite is visible in sunlight, especially if viewed in shade.




Note that these are small amounts, compared to the tons which would be required for WTC 7, regardless of Chris7's appeals to magic. Despite his claims, if nanothermite or whatever burns better than regular thermite, then the plume of sparks would be correspondingly larger and more visible.

Millette not finding nano-thermite does not mean there was none by any stretch of the imagination. Putting aside his not doing the tests that establish the red/grey chips are nano-thermite, and assuming the red/gray chips are not nano-thermite, thermite and/or nano-thermite still could have been used without leaving red/gray chips, just molten iron and iron spheres.

Why do you keep repeating the falsehood?

In other words, you say there could be nanothermite without leaving any evidence of such. You've effectively admitted to having no evidence. Also, you're all but directly accusing Mohr of lying.

You do not know how nano-thermite can be engineered and used in a cutting devise or where those devices would be placed or how much light they would emit or for how long. You are making a pronouncement based on your very limited knowledge and you are way off base.

Sarns, you need to prove your claim that it can, otherwise you're just appealing to magic. You're the one with the affirmative claim, yet you cannot, do not, and will not provide evidence. You can't even decide whether it was explosive or thermite. All you can do is gainsay debunkers.

 

[Animal]

3 or 4m of smoke would be enough to block most of the light. Louvers and sun outside ..... It would not be visible.

you need to quit before you fall even further behind,¨

10+ core columns cut. About 15 surviving columns reached DCR of 0.8. The tower was dead immediately after the impact.

Not for the reason you think

 

[triforcharity]

Anonymous "experts" claiming to know better are not a valid rebuttal to the American Society of Safety Engineers nor can FEMR2 can be considered a valid rebuttal to NIST and Chandler.
[/SIZE]

So, we can add you to that same pile, right? You're a carpenter, and you're arguing against structural engineers about a building collapse.

So, your rebuttal is not valid.

(See how that works Sarns? Kinda backfired on you, didn't it......)

 

[Animal]

So, we can add you to that same pile, right? You're a carpenter, and you're arguing against structural engineers about a building collapse.

So, your rebuttal is not valid.

(See how that works Sarns? Kinda backfired on you, didn't it......)

but, but, but, but........he is not "anonymous"

 

[uglypig]

Again, I am talking about a hypothetical case: Imagine a few 50kg devices (like those Cole used) burning at the 5th or 6th floor, inside the core, hidden behind dense smoke, louvers and maybe some other mechanical equipment.

The light si bright (I'm a little bit of pyro-maniac so I have experience with it) but not enough to penetrate solid objects or 10m of dense smoke.

The towers were different and if used, some of those devices would have been visible (assuming devices at the impact floors and not... in the basement on 700, 800 row core columns).

Not for the reason you think

You mean like 130ton, 254m/s jetliner crashing head on to the 1000 core row? The impact twisted the impact floors by 30cm. Had the plane traveled 15% faster the tower would have collapsed right after it had been hit.

 

[000063]

So, we can add you to that same pile, right? You're a carpenter, and you're arguing against structural engineers about a building collapse.

So, your rebuttal is not valid.

(See how that works Sarns? Kinda backfired on you, didn't it......)

Not to mention the fact that he is perfectly willing to say that NIST is actively lying whenever he chooses.

 

[000063]

Again, I am talking about a hypothetical case: Imagine a few 50kg devices (like those Cole used) burning at the 5th or 6th floor, inside the core, hidden behind dense smoke, louvers and maybe some other mechanical equipment.

That would about a hundred pounds, about the size of a ten-year old small child. It's not something that can be easily hidden.

The light si bright (I'm a little bit of pyro-maniac so I have experience with it) but not enough to penetrate solid objects or 10m of dense smoke.

Except for the part where Chris' theory requires these devices be on the outside as well.

The towers were different and if used, some of those devices would have been visible (assuming devices at the impact floors and not... in the basement on 700, 800 row core columns).

The impact floors were hit by airplanes going at hundreds of MPH, strong enough to strip fireproofing from columns and blast remains of their passengers clear through the building. The explosives would likely either be damaged or thrown clear out of the building, unless you add even more conspicuous armoring.

You mean like 130ton, 254m/s jetliner crashing head on to the 1000 core row? The impact twisted the impact floors by 30cm. Had the plane traveled 15% faster the tower would have collapsed right after it had been hit.

Somehow, I doubt your figures.

 

[Animal]

Again, I am talking about a hypothetical case: Imagine a few 50kg devices (like those Cole used) burning at the 5th or 6th floor, inside the core, hidden behind dense smoke, louvers and maybe some other mechanical equipment.

Once again your ignorance of the operations of a modern highrise in NYC shows through with flying colors.

The light si bright (I'm a little bit of pyro-maniac so I have experience with it) but not enough to penetrate solid objects or 10m of dense smoke.

And once again, you ignorance as to building structures is quite apparent.

The towers were different and if used, some of those devices would have been visible (assuming devices at the impact floors and not... in the basement on 700, 800 row core columns).

Once again your ignorance of buildings shows.

You mean like 130ton, 254m/s jetliner crashing head on to the 1000 core row? The impact twisted the impact floors by 30cm. Had the plane traveled 15% faster the tower would have collapsed right after it had been hit.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[Oystein]

I'd really like to see this debate change in the following way:

If everybody could refrain from assuming that uglypig is wrong in everything he says just because he is not crying with the wolves. That would be swell.

I can't say that I know him well, but I have seen that he is able to work his way diligently through complex technical problems, accept facts and draw reaonable conclusions.

I see a lot of knee-jerk replies. Try to be deeper than that, please.


For the record: I find most proclamations that this or this is "impossible" to do with thermite (or whatever other device truthers invent) to be pretty stupid - in terms of being not correct, and also tactically. The question is hardly ever whether or not thermite could cout through steel (it can), or whether it could survive the fires (it could, with sufficient ingenuity applied to protecting it), or whether its bright light could be hidden from view (of course it could, given clever precaution to just that effect). The real questions are always: Was thermite in fact used to cut steel, and is there any evidence for it (no, none)? Is there any evidence that thermite was protected from office fires (no, none; what thermite, anyway?)? Is there any evidence that the bright shine from the thermite reaction was shielded from view (no, none; which thermite reaction, anyway)?


You see, midgets with saws can cut through steel, and surely it is possible to protect them from fire and from view. So is my "an army of midgets with saws brought down WTC" a proposal that deserves to be debated? No, because there is no evidence for it (there wouldn't be any evidence for it even if the remains of several midgets and also a number of saws had been found in the debris). Would you discuss with me if and how such sawing midgets could escape detection and avoid being seen? I hope you wouldn't do such a foolish thing!

 

[Animal]

I'd really like to see this debate change in the following way:

If everybody could refrain from assuming that uglypig is wrong in everything he says just because he is not crying with the wolves. That would be swell.

I am not assuming.

I can't say that I know him well, but I have seen that he is able to work his way diligently through complex technical problems, accept facts and draw reaonable conclusions.

I see a lot of knee-jerk replies. Try to be deeper than that, please.


For the record: I find most proclamations that this or this is "impossible" to do with thermite (or whatever other device truthers invent) to be pretty stupid - in terms of being not correct, and also tactically. The question is hardly ever whether or not thermite could cout through steel (it can), or whether it could survive the fires (it could, with sufficient ingenuity applied to protecting it), or whether its bright light could be hidden from view (of course it could, given clever precaution to just that effect). The real questions are always: Was thermite in fact used to cut steel, and is there any evidence for it (no, none)? Is there any evidence that thermite was protected from office fires (no, none; what thermite, anyway?)? Is there any evidence that the bright shine from the thermite reaction was shielded from view (no, none; which thermite reaction, anyway)?


You see, midgets with saws can cut through steel, and surely it is possible to protect them from fire and from view. So is my "an army of midgets with saws brought down WTC" a proposal that deserves to be debated? No, because there is no evidence for it (there wouldn't be any evidence for it even if the remains of several midgets and also a number of saws had been found in the debris). Would you discuss with me if and how such sawing midgets could escape detection and avoid being seen? I hope you wouldn't do such a foolish thing!

Water jets can cut through steel too, and I am sure there are a hundred more methods that can be thought of that can cut steel as well. To claim a "hypothesis" of how it happened without detailing how it ALL happened is pointless and deserves ridicule.

 

[Christopher7]

How do you know what nano thermite is capable of?

Jon Cole's experiment demonstrates that therrnate can cut steel beams. Nano-thermite reacts faster than thermate/thermite and can be made explosive. Can you add 2 and 2 ?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Jon Cole's experiment demonstrates that therrnate can cut steel beams. Nano-thermite reacts faster than thermate/thermite and can be made explosive. Can you add 2 and 2 ?

Can you define the exact explosive properties of nano-thermite? If not, then you have no more idea of its capabilities than we do.

 

[Christopher7]

Note that these are small amounts, compared to the tons which would be required for WTC 7, regardless of Chris7's appeals to magic. Despite his claims, if nanothermite or whatever burns better than regular thermite, then the plume of sparks would be correspondingly larger and more visible.

Those experiments are thermite burning free rather than in a cutting device.

In other words, you say there could be nanothermite without leaving any evidence of such. You've effectively admitted to having no evidence.

Absurd conclusion. I said it would leave molten iron and iron spheres and there is evidence for both, your denial notwithstanding.

Also, you're all but directly accusing Mohr of lying.

You call people a liar when they are simply wrong. Chris is not lying because he believes what he says, he's just wrong.

You do not know how nano-thermite can be engineered and used in a cutting devise or where those devices would be placed or how much light they would emit or for how long. You are making a pronouncement based on your very limited knowledge and you are way off base.

Sarns, you need to prove your claim that it can, otherwise you're just appealing to magic. You're the one with the affirmative claim, yet you cannot, do not, and will not provide evidence. You can't even decide whether it was explosive or thermite. All you can do is gainsay debunkers.

I have provided evidence but your denial filter blocks it out.

 

[Christopher7]

Anonymous "experts" claiming to know better are not a valid rebuttal to the American Society of Safety Engineers nor can FEMR2 can be considered a valid rebuttal to NIST and Chandler.

So, we can add you to that same pile, right? You're a carpenter, and you're arguing against structural engineers about a building collapse.

No. I'm agreeing with them on FFA and pointing out that their fire simulation does not match the photos.

 

[Christopher7]

Can you define the exact explosive properties of nano-thermite? If not, then you have no more idea of its capabilities than we do.

You ask the impossible [and unnecessary] as an excise to deny the obvious - nano-thermite can be used to cut steel and destroy buildings.

 

[uglypig]

Once again your ignorance of the operations of a modern highrise in NYC shows through with flying colors.

No, those floors were mechanical floors. Devices small enough to carry in a bag pack. As Qystein put it - arguments from impossibility just don't cut it.

And once again, you ignorance as to building structures is quite apparent.

Floor 5 had half closed metal louvers, tons of big mechanical equipment, possibly heavy smoke (before the collapse).

Once again your ignorance of buildings shows.

Basement attack on the inner core would literally screw the impact zone.

Now you are just making stuff up.

Of course not, 15% increase in speed means 30% increase in energy. Now, the plane had impacted more on the 1000 core row than NIST assumes. Even going by the wrong NIST model 5 columns in a row were gone. The last three reached DCR of about 0.8. Ripe for collapse.

The floor system got totally busted. Do you know why the inward bowing started 18 minutes after the impact? Those trusses hadn't reached even 350°C by that time. It started because the plane damaged truss seats (floors 80,81) just gave way and the floors hanged on the exterior wall.

Floor 83 got it's trusses separated from the wall by wing and explosion -> loss of lateral support for the east wall.

Had it carried 1/3 more energy the floor system would be dislodged far worse and the whole 1000 and 900 row core columns would collapse. The tower would have collapsed during the impact or in the first 20 minutes.