Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[000063]

Maaagic.

 

[uglypig]

Which is why your claim of a back pack size device falls into the argument form impossibility.

No, parts of it could have been carried in backpacks. Reading comprehension fail.

50kg per whole device, 25l of volume. Three or four per truss 2 and 3, maybe three more for columns 79,76, 77.... enough to make the building collapse.

Half closed......just shot yourself in the foot there.

Reading comprehension fail. Did you miss the part about smoke and mechanical equipment blocking the light?

 

[Oystein]

I feel slightly depressed and insulted that no one will discuss my "army of midgets with saws" theory. It is every bit as possible, and likely, and supported, as the "backpacks-full-of-nanothermite-to-the-core" theory:

• It is a possible scenario (midgets with saws can indeed cut steel columns)
• Midgets with saws don't go BOOM to loudly, and they can easily be concealed from sight (they are midgets, after all!)
• There is precisely zero evidence that midgets with saws were used on the WTC towers

So please, I want your speculations about how many midgets it takes, how the saws were tailored, and which columns they cut when! And then I want your debunking! And then I want you to call each other names!

 

[Dave Rogers]

So please, I want your speculations about how many midgets it takes, how the saws were tailored, and which columns they cut when!

And, of course, if anyone should ask you any of these questions, you can dismiss them curtly by saying "Why should I help you with your research?"

Dave

 

[thedopefishlives]

I feel slightly depressed and insulted that no one will discuss my "army of midgets with saws" theory. It is every bit as possible, and likely, and supported, as the "backpacks-full-of-nanothermite-to-the-core" theory:

• It is a possible scenario (midgets with saws can indeed cut steel columns)
• Midgets with saws don't go BOOM to loudly, and they can easily be concealed from sight (they are midgets, after all!)
• There is precisely zero evidence that midgets with saws were used on the WTC towers

So please, I want your speculations about how many midgets it takes, how the saws were tailored, and which columns they cut when! And then I want your debunking! And then I want you to call each other names!

Well, clearly they couldn't have used gas-powered cutting saws. Those things are almost as big as a midget, it would be physically impossible for one to hoist it in such a way as to make a successful cut.

 

[Animal]

No, parts of it could have been carried in backpacks. Reading comprehension fail.

50kg per whole device, 25l of volume. Three or four per truss 2 and 3, maybe three more for columns 79,76, 77.... enough to make the building collapse.



Reading comprehension fail. Did you miss the part about smoke and mechanical equipment blocking the light?

The only failure is your grasp on reality.

 

[tsig]

Any of these "clandestine" installation claims make me laugh. They have no clue how things worked in a large modern office building in NYC.
Then we can take it to the next step.......without precutting / weakening of the building structure, the size of the required charge gets a lot bigger. (I am sure the experts in that field can expand on that......and by experts......I don't mean carpenters)

There was no sound of explosions heard......so now we are into hush a boom explosives, and there was no seismic signature, which means there was no pressure wave.....in other words......only magic explosives could do the job.

Or any large public building. Every square foot is owned by someone and the territory is fiercely protected.

 

[uglypig]

The only failure is your grasp on reality.

Yeah.

1) explain why the light must have been visible from the outside

2) explain why it wouldn't be enough to take out truss 3 (which is the NIST scenario btw)

Until you answer these two questions you are just plainly WRONG

Arguments from impossibility just don't cut it. In other words: it's lies.

 

[Miragememories]

"... 80 columns, each cut top+bottom, multiple sides per column (say 2 to be insanely generous), 7 floors. That's 2240 devices to be installed with many of them abutting or even inside elevator shafts and the like. All fittings, drywall and fireproofing to be removed and disposed of. And then there's the kicker charges to shift the cut columns out of the way, but we'll let that pass. And the timing to make it simultaneous, a requirement of yours.

It's a nonsense. A fantasy."

And how many column disconnects, fire-induced no less, did the NIST claim was the cause of WTC7's global collapse?

That would require something in the order of 0007 of those devices.

That is, if the NIST hypothesis about how easy it was to implode the WTC7 was true, and not a fantasy.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

And how many column disconnects, fire-induced no less, did the NIST claim was the cause of WTC7's global collapse?

That would require something in the order of 0007 of those devices.

That is, if the NIST hypothesis about how easy it was to implode the WTC7 was true, and not a fantasy.

MM

Are you prepared to abandon any claim that WTC1 and 2 were subject to CD and limit your CD claim to WTC7?

 

[uglypig]

NIST claims a small local collapse in the center and big damage in the whole flooring under the east penthouse.

NIST is probably wrong onm the details of girder walk-off but it was over once the debris hit the transfer trusses.

Imagine the core, 24 columns. Three gone with the east penthouse. Now, the trusses would take away at least 6 adjacent core columns, probably more. That leaves us with only half of the core. Now, the space below EP was empty, so the columns were easily forced to walk-buckle and finally collapse.

I tried to find a diagram I once saw.....

 

[000063]

No, parts of it could have been carried in backpacks. Reading comprehension fail.

50kg per whole device, 25l of volume. Three or four per truss 2 and 3, maybe three more for columns 79,76, 77.... enough to make the building collapse....

I'm noting a lot of 'if' and not much evidence here.

Yeah.

1) explain why the light must have been visible from the outside...

Chris7's theory, which we started with, requires exterior columns to be loaded with charges as well.

 

[000063]

And how many column disconnects, fire-induced no less, did the NIST claim was the cause of WTC7's global collapse?

That would require something in the order of 0007 of those devices.

That is, if the NIST hypothesis about how easy it was to implode the WTC7 was true, and not a fantasy.

MM

We're discussing column severing, not disconnects. The devices are supposed to cut through the members, not merely make them break.

NIST does not claim the building imploded. We know it fell mostly outward. In fact, they specifically pointed out why they think neither thermite not explosives were used.

 

[Animal]

Yeah.

1) explain why the light must have been visible from the outside

Your scenario REQUIRES the smoke to block ALL light. . A plot based on random chance? Laughable......not the mention your ignorance on large facility operations. Your hypothetical from fantasy is just another failure

2) explain why it wouldn't be enough to take out truss 3 (which is the NIST scenario btw)[/QUOTE]

It wasn't simply the one "truss" (actually a girder beam) it was the loss of lateral support over several floors. The likely initiating event was the failure of the one girder causing a series of collapses on several floors weakened by fire.

Until you answer these two questions you are just plainly WRONG

Is that supposed to make you more credible.......it doesn't

Arguments from impossibility just don't cut it. In other words: it's lies.

Hypothetical proposals from impossibility just don't cut it, in other words it is stupidity.

 

[uglypig]

Your scenario REQUIRES the smoke to block ALL light.

Again, your reading comprehension fails. There were huge machines and walls which could block the light. Smoke (if present) would also block the light. The louvers would have also blocked a lot of the light. Just look for them on google.

So there are at least 3 things capable of obscuring the line of sight.

The building failed because of the penthouse. First, the floors hanged in tension for a full second, which induced eastward forces on the remaining core. Then the mass of debris knocked out trusses 2 and 3 which in turn lead to collapse of two adjacent core rows. By this time the core lost at least 9 columns (out of 24) and had large eastward forces applied to it. Missing eastward support made it to walk and buckle.

4 50kg devices would have been enough to cut truss 3 in two places. The collapse of that truss would lead to the same chain of events.

You just want to bully C7 by dismissing everything he says. I understand your desire to attack that troll, but please don't get intellectually dishonest. It's not necessary (as he doesn't have any evidence for CD) and not worthy of you.

 

[GlennB]

You just want to bully C7 by dismissing everything he says. I understand your desire to attack that troll, but please don't get intellectually dishonest. It's not necessary (as he doesn't have any evidence for CD) and not worthy of you.

C7's theory requires every column - including the external ones - to be cut with an unknown nano-thermitic device. From that p.o.v. any talk of cloaking the light with internal walls, smoke or whatever is irrelevant. The external columns abutted the facade.

Protecting C7's position - even in the interest of 'fairness' - as you are is actually a strange kind of "killing with kindness", in that you're encouraging his nit-picking and his 'just-so' fantasies.

 

[Oystein]

...
4 50kg devices would have been enough to cut truss 3 in two places. The collapse of that truss would lead to the same chain of events.

You just want to bully C7 by dismissing everything he says. I understand your desire to attack that troll, but please don't get intellectually dishonest. It's not necessary (as he doesn't have any evidence for CD) and not worthy of you.

Absolutely.

I have said it before: It is, in principle, possible to bring about (duplicate, mimick...) every pattern of natural collapse by employing ingenious means of intentional destruction. As a natural collapse is a series of failures with a specific timing, you could, in a thought experiment, rig a building such that you invoke the same failures with the same timing - and more ingenuity could in principle be employed to conceal the workings of these artificial means. Then this intentional demolition would look exactly the same as the natural collapse of the building's twin.
(Again, it's a thought expermiment - there are probably prohibitive burdens of complexity and hilarity to shoulder, but hey, it's the NWO, they just stole $2.3 trillion, didn't they )

So saying that CD is impossible, as a matter of principle, invites defeat. Don't say it. Just don't.

Ask for evidence, and ask for complete, falsifiable theories. You'll find that you'll get none from the twoof side. Lean back and enjoy the silence.

 

[Animal]

Again, your reading comprehension fails.

Actually...your hypothesis fails.

There were huge machines and walls which could block the light. Smoke (if present) would could also block the light. The louvers would have might also blocked a lot of the light. Just look for them on google.

So there are at least 3 things capable of obscuring the line of sight.

The building failed because of the penthouse.

No, it failed because column 79 exceeded its unsupported length along with some deflection caused by girder expansion.

First, the floors hanged in tension for a full second, which induced eastward forces on the remaining core. Then the mass of debris knocked out trusses 2 and 3 which in turn lead to collapse of two adjacent core rows. By this time the core lost at least 9 columns (out of 24) and had large eastward forces applied to it. Missing eastward support made it to walk and buckle.

4 50kg devices would have been enough to cut truss 3 in two places. The collapse of that truss would lead to the same chain of events.

You just want to bully C7 by dismissing everything he says. I understand your desire to attack that troll, but please don't get intellectually dishonest. It's not necessary (as he doesn't have any evidence for CD) and not worthy of you.

Once again, you make up a fantasy with no facts to support you.

 

[Oystein]

Well, clearly they couldn't have used gas-powered cutting saws. Those things are almost as big as a midget, it would be physically impossible for one to hoist it in such a way as to make a successful cut.

You obviously have no idea what properties midgets can be tailored to. There are secret super-nano-midgets, also known as midjats, that can get twice the calories of a cheeseburger out of a cheeseburger, and that within milliseconds, so they can hoist not just one but hundreds of gas-powered cutting saws.

 

[Animal]

Absolutely.

I have said it before: It is, in principle, possible to bring about (duplicate, mimick...) every pattern of natural collapse by employing ingenious means of intentional destruction. As a natural collapse is a series of failures with a specific timing, you could, in a thought experiment, rig a building such that you invoke the same failures with the same timing - and more ingenuity could in principle be employed to conceal the workings of these artificial means. Then this intentional demolition would look exactly the same as the natural collapse of the building's twin.
(Again, it's a thought expermiment - there are probably prohibitive burdens of complexity and hilarity to shoulder, but hey, it's the NWO, they just stole $2.3 trillion, didn't they )

So saying that CD is impossible, as a matter of principle, invites defeat. Don't say it. Just don't.

Ask for evidence, and ask for complete, falsifiable theories. You'll find that you'll get none from the twoof side. Lean back and enjoy the silence.

And water jets, and midgets with hack saws, and rusting, and klingon death rays etc. etc. It is just stupidity for "impossible" methods to be continue to be supported as the troofers do.