Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[thedopefishlives]

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

You are lumping two very different things together. Cut steel, yes, that is obvious. Destroy buildings, that is far from obvious and has not been proven. You don't know if nano-thermite can destroy a building any more than I, or the rest of the people here, do. So stop talking like it's "obvious", because it is not.

 

[chrismohr]

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!

Well this is a surprise. Chris7 you may enjoy this! Until convinced otherwise, I say the absence of bright light makes a thermitic collapse initiation impossible because 1) That smoke in front of Building 7 would at the least have had a silver lining like clouds in front of the sun 2) thermite burns brilliant bright for 45 seconds or so and even if it were all contained at first, it would be shining amidst the random debris of collapse and not covered up any more 3) Gage claimed nanos for the Twin Towers (explosive) and thermate for Building 7 (more heat-base); this is what I'm debating and we KNOW thermate shines blindingly bright for 45 seconds.

So why do these arguments sound "pretty stupid" to you? Bottom line: no evidence of thermites or detonators or thermite hiders or CD wires ever found. But still if you argued the army of midgets, I would say impossible and list reasons why: not only that there is no evidence for such an assertion, but it creates a whole set of impossibilities of its own. Since C7 is actually arguing thermitics, I say 1) no evidence has been found and 2) a whole set of impossibilities arises when you posit such a mechanism.

 

[GlennB]

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.

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

uglypig, I kind of agree with what your're saying (in the sense of the thought experiment side of it), though Cole's experiments don't even come close to representing the reality of a practical procedure. I could go on about Cole and his noble efforts ...

One place the whole caboodle falls flat is that the perps had to arrange this hypothetical scenario well in advance and had no guarantee - far from it, in fact - that WTC7 would be hit and fires started.

It also fails with regard to the big stinkin' WHY? question. There was a time when Truthers claimed "insurance" and "destroy incriminating evidence" and "extra shock+awe" but even those claims died out because they were so damned stupid that even Truthers couldn't bear to repeat them any more. Which leaves them with zilch as motive.

The WTC7 CT fails at the planning stage, long before any techical plausibility becomes an issue.

 

[pgimeno]

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 ?

I can add 2 and 2 but your story still doesn't add up.

TNT is a stronger explosive than nanothermite can be done. Yet it isn't used in steel building demolitions; usually RDX or HMX is used instead. Thermite as an explosive would make a column laugh.

Cole's devices require certain shapes. No such device was seen.

 

[Clayton Moore]

uglypig, I kind of agree with what your're saying (in the sense of the thought experiment side of it), though Cole's experiments don't even come close to representing the reality of a practical procedure. I could go on about Cole and his noble efforts ...

One place the whole caboodle falls flat is that the perps had to arrange this hypothetical scenario well in advance and had no guarantee - far from it, in fact - that WTC7 would be hit and fires started.

It also fails with regard to the big stinkin' WHY? question. There was a time when Truthers claimed "insurance" and "destroy incriminating evidence" and "extra shock+awe" but even those claims died out because they were so damned stupid that even Truthers couldn't bear to repeat them any more. Which leaves them with zilch as motive.

The WTC7 CT fails at the planning stage, long before any techical plausibility becomes an issue.

If we could land on the moon in 1969 using 60s mainframes and 60s software you can be darn tootin sure the calculations, using 201 hardware and software, to ensure a portion of a building would be blown into another building with explosives would be a snap.

 

[000063]

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.
...

I have been.

 

[000063]

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.

Remember those videos I posted upthread? The one in the Braniac version was, IIRC, just ten pounds of thermite, and it's about the size of a coffee can. Ten times that amount would be very difficult to carry in a back pack, unless it were a large, conspicuous backpack.

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

A light can shine through closed window blinds.

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

I...fail to see how. Can you explain in more detail?

 

[000063]

If we could land on the moon in 1969 using 60s mainframes and 60s software you can be darn tootin sure the calculations, using 201 hardware and software, to ensure a portion of a building would be blown into another building with explosives would be a snap.

Oh, good, I've been waiting for you to fall into that trap.

I enjoy the liars demanding how impossible it would be to demolish the three skyscrapers with explosives yet the explanation of the "natural" first ever total collapses of steel supported structures is water off a ducks back.....

So, Clay, has anything of the like ever been done before? A building deliberately collapsed on top of another, using a demolition method that had to be done secretly and couldn't pre-weaken the structure? Has anyone ever pulled it off in history?

You will not answer those questions, if you bother to answer this post.

(I also listed a dozen or so other "firsts", to which you never responded. In fact, you specifically dodged it.)

This is also the first time I've ever seen a Truther crazy enough to assert that it was possible to aim WTC 1's collapse at 7. Of course, given that it is impossible to precisely model the collapse of an entire tower even today, it couldn't have been done. Given that they couldn't predict exactly how the plane would hit, they couldn't have placed the explosives precisely. And so on. All you have is appeal to magic.

 

[uglypig]

I...fail to see how. Can you explain in more detail?

For example in the ST the airplane took out some 800 row core columns and many 1000/900 row columns..those on the perimeter of the core. So, the tower stood on a few 900/1000 row columns and on the east wall and 800 row core columns. If cut at the basement, the only bearing part would be the east wall. This would overload the east wall, magnifing even a few cm of inward bowing into a full meter.... collapse. Or to truss seat failure, had they been caught in the expansion phase.

This is why I believed the CD theory for a while. It certainly wasn't necessary to plant devices on the impact floors (only one condition - the plane would have to travel fast enough to cause substantial core damage - 600km/h+).

 

[Clayton Moore]

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!

Looks like someone is thinking "jump ship."

 

[Christopher7]

Well this is a surprise. Chris7 you may enjoy this! Until convinced otherwise, I say the absence of bright light makes a thermitic collapse initiation impossible because

ETA:
"It can't be because" is not a valid argument because it is just your opinion based on your limited knowledge. Your claim the a bright light would be visible thru the smoke is not backed up by anything.

1) That smoke in front of Building 7 would at the least have had a silver lining like clouds in front of the sun 2) thermite burns brilliant bright for 45 seconds or so

You now know that the Jon Cole thermite beam cutting device produced a bright light for about 10 seconds. If you persist in claiming a thermite beam cutting device would produce a bright light for 45 seconds, then that would constitute lying.

and even if it were all contained at first, it would be shining amidst the random debris of collapse and not covered up any more

False. Thermite/nano-thermite used on the lower floors would be covered by the debris of about 30 floors.

this is what I'm debating and we KNOW thermate shines blindingly bright for 45 seconds.

That depends on how much thermite is burned. Your 45 seconds only applies to the amount used in the videos you have seen and burning free. You are erroneously using a large amount of thermite burning free and claim that would be the case in a cutting device which you now know would be much shorter.

ETA: The building was a pile of rubble with the thermite buried in 7 seconds

Bottom line: no evidence of thermites or detonators or thermite hiders or CD wires ever found.

Evidence of thermate [fingerprint] was found in sample #1 and FEMA said further study was needed but NIST did not address this evidence in their final report on WTC 7. There is no legitimate scientific explanation for the presence of the sulfur, other than thermate, which allowed melting at a much lower temperature than steel normally melts.

Nano-thermite was found in the dust, your denial notwithstanding.

Over 100 witnesses heard explosions [that could have been explosives] and you know it. So why are you still making that false claim?

Wires are not necessary as you have been informed so why are you still making that false claim?

 

[GlennB]

For example in the ST the airplane took out some 800 row core columns and many 1000/900 row columns..those on the perimeter of the core. So, the tower stood on a few 900/1000 row columns and on the east wall and 800 row core columns.

That's just utterly wrong, so I didn't include the rest of your post.

 

[tsig]

If we could land on the moon in 1969 using 60s mainframes and 60s software you can be darn tootin sure the calculations, using 201 hardware and software, to ensure a portion of a building would be blown into another building with explosives would be a snap.

Yes, because space travel is just like blowing up buildings...Oh, wait...

 

[tsig]

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!

I see a tone troll reply. Try to be deeper than that, please.

 

[tsig]

You now know that the Jon Cole thermite beam cutting device produced a bright light for about 10 seconds. If you persist in claiming a thermite beam cutting device would produce a bright light for 45 seconds, then that would constitute lying.

False. Thermite/nano-thermite used on the lower floors would be covered by the debris of about 30 floors.

That depends on how much thermite is burned. Your 45 seconds only applies to the amount used in the videos you have seen and burning free. You are erroneously using a large amount of thermite burning free and claim that would be the case in a cutting device which you now know would be much shorter.

Evidence of thermate [fingerprint] was found in sample #1 and FEMA said further study was needed but NIST did not address this evidence in their final report on WTC 7. There is no legitimate scientific explanation for the presence of the sulfur, other than thermate, which allowed melting at a much lower temperature than steel normally melts.

Nano-thermite was found in the dust, your denial notwithstanding.

Over 100 witnesses heard explosions [that could have been explosives] and you know it. So why are you still making that false claim?

Wires are not necessary as you have been informed so why are you still making that false claim?

You're claiming that they were the first and only buildings in the history of the world to be CDed by remote control?

 

[uglypig]

That's just utterly wrong, so I didn't include the rest of your post.

Tell that to NIST. Look in their report and you'll see.

 

[Oystein]

Well this is a surprise. Chris7 you may enjoy this! Until convinced otherwise, I say the absence of bright light makes a thermitic collapse initiation impossible because 1) That smoke in front of Building 7 would at the least have had a silver lining like clouds in front of the sun 2) thermite burns brilliant bright for 45 seconds or so and even if it were all contained at first, it would be shining amidst the random debris of collapse and not covered up any more 3) Gage claimed nanos for the Twin Towers (explosive) and thermate for Building 7 (more heat-base); this is what I'm debating and we KNOW thermate shines blindingly bright for 45 seconds.

So why do these arguments sound "pretty stupid" to you? Bottom line: no evidence of thermites or detonators or thermite hiders or CD wires ever found. But still if you argued the army of midgets, I would say impossible and list reasons why: not only that there is no evidence for such an assertion, but it creates a whole set of impossibilities of its own. Since C7 is actually arguing thermitics, I say 1) no evidence has been found and 2) a whole set of impossibilities arises when you posit such a mechanism.

1) Suffices.
Also, you migfht add that there simply exists no thermite "theory" that deserves the name. Since there is zero evidence of thermite, none of the thermite proponents has ever committed to the how, where, who, why, when and how much of its suggested use.



(By the way: "we KNOW thermate shines blindingly bright for 45 seconds" is OBVIOUSLY false. I can't comprehend why you would say such an easily refuted nonsense.)

 

[Oystein]

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.

Absolutely.
Did uglypig nake such a claim, presented as fact? No.

 

[Oystein]

You are lumping two very different things together. Cut steel, yes, that is obvious. Destroy buildings, that is far from obvious and has not been proven. You don't know if nano-thermite can destroy a building any more than I, or the rest of the people here, do. So stop talking like it's "obvious", because it is not.

Crap.

Of course, if you hire a few talented engineers and tasked them with destroying a building with nano-thermite, I have absolutely no doubt that such an engineering solution WILL be found.

It just is
a) unnecessary
b) totally unproven that something like that happened at all
c) there exists no theory that actually describes such an engineering solution for the towers.

And THAT is why debating details of such a non-existing theory, such as "what about the blinding light" is foolish.

 

[Oystein]

I see a tone troll reply.

Where?