Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[LSSBB]

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.

I agree that at face value uglypig's idea of a CD that only involved column 79 or thereabouts is a possibility, and could also be much better hidden than anything involving perimeter columns. There are more considerations, such as lack of characteristic explosive noise, and survivability in the fire, and as you say just flat out lack of evidence of demolition equipment. The additional challenge would be isolating this one CD from the other events of the day. In any case, it doesn't seem to me that uglypig is trying to prove the CD actually occurred or trying to absolve the stubborn CD supporters.

 

[thedopefishlives]

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.

Twice the calories? Forget 9/11, hook me up with that kind of a digestive system. It'd save me tons of money on the food bills.

 

[Redwood]

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.

The truthers should find some small-town p.o.s. building that the owner wants to get rid of, and offer to bring it down with thermite. (Common thermite will work better than any "nano" variety.)

You don't need any kind of license to handle thermite, though the local fire marshal might be interested in what you're doing. The guys at Mythbusters might be interested in giving it a shot. I would suggest a two or three story structure. If sure it CAN be done, and if truthers are correct that small structures are easier to bring down that skyscrapers, lacking their robustness, it should be easy.

Predictions: (1) It will be a "dazzling" show, indeed. (2) It will be very difficult to control, and will make a big, hard-to-clean-up mess from the massive amounts of thermite required, if nothing else.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Sure.

But arguing these things are literally impossible is refuting their ideas for the wrong reason.

Do we know as a 100% certain fact that the girder walked off its seat at column 79 and this started the fast portion of the collapse? No! It is just a pretty plausible explanation, which only requires elements to happen that are known to have been there: Heat from uncontrolled fires, and long steel spans.

Contrast that with midgets, death rays, nano-thermite or explosives: All these things are not known to have been present there. On top of this, we can list all the things that make these theories implausible; the problems of concealing bright lights or loud booms being obvious ones.

But really, all you need to do is point out that there exists no alternative theory to NIST's that does not require a host of unproven entities. Nail C7 on the subject of complete theory. You'll see that he'll have to invent EVERYTHING along the way, while NIST only needs to fiddle with the distribution of fuel and availability of air - two things that are known to have been present, the details are just a bit sketchy.

 

[Oystein]

...
In any case, it doesn't seem to me that uglypig is trying to prove the CD actually occurred or trying to absolve the stubborn CD supporters.

Right, but that's the corner some posters want to shove him into.

 

[uglypig]

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

The failure of col. 79 (and we really don't know if it was 79 or less likely 80) brought down the penthouse. Now, the immediate act of that collapse caused some problems for the next core column row (the floors were hanging on it) but nothing substantial.

If it hadn't been for the trusses the building wouldn't have collapsed or not as rapidly.

The trusses offered large cross sections as a target for debris (47 floors, some....thousand tons or so) and once the trusses failed it took down col 76 and the other two rows.

In short, the primary reason for the global collapse was failure of truss no. 2 and 3.

 

[LSSBB]

The truthers should find some small-town p.o.s. building that the owner wants to get rid of, and offer to bring it down with thermite. (Common thermite will work better than any "nano" variety.)

You don't need any kind of license to handle thermite, though the local fire marshal might be interested in what you're doing. The guys at Mythbusters might be interested in giving it a shot. I would suggest a two or three story structure. If sure it CAN be done, and if truthers are correct that small structures are easier to bring down that skyscrapers, lacking their robustness, it should be easy.

Predictions: (1) It will be a "dazzling" show, indeed. (2) It will be very difficult to control, and will make a big, hard-to-clean-up mess from the massive amounts of thermite required, if nothing else.

I had a thread with that theme. None were worthy enough to take up the challenge. Heck, they won't even buy their own fire progression software, or even model a CD.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

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

Why?

Do you not see the absurdity in what you are asking?

If the demolition of WTC7 was pre-planned, it becomes axiomatic that it was an intended part of the whole WTC 9/11 operation.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

Why?

Do you not see the absurdity in what you are asking?

If the demolition of WTC7 was pre-planned, it becomes axiomatic that it was an intended part of the whole WTC 9/11 operation.

MM

So then how did they take down the other two? They would have to be able to mask the demolitions in both places.

 

[Christopher7]

So then how did they take down the other two? They would have to be able to mask the demolitions in both places.

Closeup videos reveal that they didn't adequately mask some of the demolition explosions - ejections above where the plane hit on the left and under the debris cloud running down on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw

 

[Christopher7]

Do we know as a 100% certain fact that the girder walked off its seat at column 79 and this started the fast portion of the collapse? No!

NIST said their conclusion was "probable" 10 times in the final report.

It is just a pretty plausible explanation, which only requires elements to happen that are known to have been there: Heat from uncontrolled fires, and long steel spans.

Really?

The fire had burned out over an hour before the collapse so it could not have expanded the beams when NIST said it did.

NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans said it was 1' 0" [12"] wide.

NIST omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented collapse even if thermal expansion could push the girder 6" [instead of the 5.5" NIST said would cause failure]

Nail C7 on the subject of complete theory. You'll see that he'll have to invent EVERYTHING along the way

And if he can't tell you exactly how it was done every step of the way, ignore all the evidence that proves the NIST conclusion wrong.

 

[cjnewson88]

Closeup videos reveal that they didn't adequately mask some of the demolition explosions - ejections above where the plane hit on the left and under the debris cloud running down on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw

You call that a 'close up' video? Smoke-filled air being pushed out as the building collapses is not an explosion ejection, otherwise this would have occurred BEFORE the top of the building begins to move. And, of course, the ones below are caused by compressed air (as we already all know).

 

[000063]

Why?

Do you not see the absurdity in what you are asking?

If the demolition of WTC7 was pre-planned, it becomes axiomatic that it was an intended part of the whole WTC 9/11 operation.

MM

Oh, good. Are you going to answer the question of how They made sure none of the collapsing pieces of WTC 1 hit the charges in WTC 7? Did they aim the collapse at 7 in order to give themselves an excuse? Because you're asserting that 7 was deliberately demolished, and that's what it would take.

Closeup videos reveal that they didn't adequately mask some of the demolition explosions - ejections above where the plane hit on the left and under the debris cloud running down on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw

That's air and smoke being compressed and forced out by, y'know, the building collapsing. Those "explosions" are of remarkably low velocity for something propelled by explosives, and promptly billow up into the air.

The video also asserts that the top section should've arrived on the ground intact, and that the white smoke is a byproduct of the thermite reaction. I see where you get your Schrodinger's Explosives from.

The "rocket" is just debris being flung through the air and losing momentum, presumably due to air resistance.

...
And if he can't tell you exactly how it was done every step of the way, ignore all the evidence that proves the NIST conclusion wrong.

You're acting like you have evidence for merely the magical experimental CIA/military explosives that are not explosive and have never been used elsewhere. Of course, the people needed for research, production, and testing of such belies your claim that only a small group of rogue CIA elements would be able to pull this off.

 

[pgimeno]

You call that a 'close up' video? Smoke-filled air being pushed out as the building collapses is not an explosion ejection, otherwise this would have occurred BEFORE the top of the building begins to move. And, of course, the ones below are caused by compressed air (as we already all know).

You're wrong, of course. They are clearly explosions, and the TU Delft building was blown up too:

TU Delft was an inside job!

 

[LSSBB]

You call that a 'close up' video? Smoke-filled air being pushed out as the building collapses is not an explosion ejection, otherwise this would have occurred BEFORE the top of the building begins to move. And, of course, the ones below are caused by compressed air (as we already all know).

Yes, of course he is mistaken. Would he ever admit it? He has yet to abandon any fundamental tenet of his faith. He's a wiz at MS Paint, let's see him model up the Demolition Explosive that produces this and the collapse all around the building perimeter.

 

[Oystein]

NIST said their conclusion was "probable" 10 times in the final report.

Thank's for agreeing with my statement "Do we know as a 100% certain fact that the girder walked off its seat at column 79 and this started the fast portion of the collapse? No!"

Really?

The fire had burned out over an hour before the collapse so it could not have expanded the beams when NIST said it did.

NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans said it was 1' 0" [12"] wide.

NIST omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented collapse even if thermal expansion could push the girder 6" [instead of the 5.5" NIST said would cause failure]

Really. NIST showed that a building built with the blueprints of WTC 7 is vulnerable to certain failure modes that can cause global collapse. This is a good-enough result towards their main objective, which is to learn from WTC 7 to make existing and future buildings safer.

You have issues with fine details. So is NIST wrong on the details? Yes, this is practically certainty! But is NIST wrong on the big picture - fires distorted the steel frame, featuring unusually long horizontal spans etc. and caused collapse initiation? Yes, almost certainly this is correct. Enic's latest simulation just showed that this scenario is well within the realm of the possible.

So what do you propose to identify and fix NIST's inaccuracies at the detail level? Understand that inventing rough and dirty fantasy scenarios with zero evidence to back them up even at the crudest of levels doesn't cut it.

And if he can't tell you exactly how it was done every step of the way, ignore all the evidence that proves the NIST conclusion wrong.

You can criticize NIST only because their hypothesis comes with a great amount of detail. You have none, so you deserve to be ignored.

 

[Christopher7]

That's air and smoke being compressed and forced out by, y'know, the building collapsing.

If the ejections above where the plane hit are from collapsing floors, what made them collapse if not explosives? NIST said the collapse began where the plane hit.

 

[Christopher7]

Really. NIST showed that a building built with the blueprints of WTC 7 is vulnerable to certain failure modes that can cause global collapse.

That's circular reasoning. You are using the claimed result as proof the result is correct.

This is a good-enough result towards their main objective, which is to learn from WTC 7 to make existing and future buildings safer

"That's close enough for government work" is not valid science and it is not a valid reason to change existing codes.

No codes have been changed or added to correct structural "deficiencies" in WTC 7 that could lead to a collapse have been made because none are needed.

You have issues with fine details.

Fine details?

Like the fire had burned out and could not have started the collapse at 5:20 p.m.?
and
NIST omitting the stiffeners [lying] that would have prevented the girder flange from folding and thereby preventing the triggering event?

Fine details?

So is NIST wrong on the details? Yes, this is practically certainty!

practically certainty? It's not even "Almost most likely".

But is NIST wrong on the big picture

Ya got that part right.

 

[pgimeno]

But is NIST wrong on the big picture

Ya got that part right.

Wow, so you do acknowledge that that part, i.e. the part where Oystein says:

But is NIST wrong on the big picture - fires distorted the steel frame, featuring unusually long horizontal spans etc. and caused collapse initiation? Yes, almost certainly this [big picture] is correct.

... is right. Thanks for the concession.

 

[000063]

If the ejections above where the plane hit are from collapsing floors, what made them collapse if not explosives? NIST said the collapse began where the plane hit.

You call that a 'close up' video? Smoke-filled air being pushed out as the building collapses is not an explosion ejection, otherwise this would have occurred BEFORE the top of the building begins to move. And, of course, the ones below are caused by compressed air (as we already all know).

Then, of course, there's the fact that if the collapse started at the impact zones, why would there be explosives above it? If the building starts to collapse, and the area above the impact zones starts to collapse as well, then it would force air out. The building was never designed for those sorts of stresses.

And, once again, you hide behind NIST when convenient. I take it you don't disagree with my assertion that the low velocity is inconsistent with explosives, and that the video's assertion that the top portion should've hit the ground in one piece is ludicrous, and that they are switching between explosives and thermite as needs must?

Now, about your evidence for explosive nanothermite being developed by the government...