Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Dave Rogers]

I notice you now talk about the building having collapsed as a single unit. That's not what you said before so be careful what you accuse others of doing.

Please remind me, with links, where I denied that "the building above floor 14 collapsed as a single unit". Alternatively, admit that your implied claim here is also either a mistake or a lie.

Let me remind you. NIST states that the building above floor 14 fell as a single unit. In other words, the top 33 storeys stayed intact and didn't break apart as it fell. So your words about rotations and kinks are pure nonsense.

How can anybody type anything like this and expect to be taken seriously? NIST themselves pointed out the presence of the kink, and at no point suggested that the building above floor 14 fell as an undeformed single unit; nor do they state that the orientation of that single unit remained constant. The kink and the rotation can both be seen in pictures and videos of the collapse, and you've already admitted to the kink yourself. So tell me, in your world, is it impossible to rotate an object without breaking it? It isn't in mine.

(Nor, in fact, do they specifically deny that the upper block broke apart at some point; it's rather obvious that it did, in fact, given the fact that it wasn't still standing after the collapse. Which, of course, rather goes against your bizarre and unconventional definition of symmetry.)

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

Now show me an example of a similar collapse that happened naturally.

Why do you people keep going back to "that's never happened"?

Is there anything else on 9/11 that never happened before? Something? Anything? Something that could CAUSE these buildings to collapse? Perhaps 19 hijackers flying massive aircraft as fast as they could go into buildings? That's never happened before, either.

3...2.....1......

[twoofer mode]
No building has ever collapsed due to aircraft impacts.
AND
No building has ever collapsed due to fire! So clearly it was explosive nanothermite planted by jooish NWO illuminati CIA Agents on Bush's payroll!!elevnty!one1!!!
[/TWOOFER MODE]


Please. All your bunk has been proven lies for years.

 

[bill smith]

Try to keep up, bill. You're confusing the kink with the movement of the structure after the kink had formed.

Dave

But you don't try to get your model close to how the collapse looked. You enter the numerical data and the conditions etc and you push the render button. If NIST get a result that resembles the real event well and good. But if they don't get that result they shouldn't try to ' get their models even t'his close'. Get the point ?


' I talked personally to four NIST people, and on this matter they reminded me that NIST was using cutting-edge computer technology to get their models even t'his close, and that they were being honest about the limitations of even these models.'

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Larry Silverstein did of course say the building was pulled so how do you explain that? Demolition expert, Danny Jawenko, also stated that WTC7 was a controlled demolition on first seeing it probably because the nature of collapse was as clear as day a controlled demolition. Are you saying Mr Jawenko is wrong or are you a demolition expert as well?

Hahaha. It's 2004 again. I am envious of the TM's Tardis Though I suppose theirs would be called a Retardis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But you don't try to get your model close to how the collapse looked. You enter the nemerical data and the conditions etc and you push the render button. If NIST get a result that resembles the real event well and good. But if they don't get that resultthey shouldn't try to ' get their models even t'his close'. Get the point ?

No, because there isn't one. The purpose of this particular piece of modelling was not to get a pretty animation of the collapse to show on the news, but to determine the starting conditions by creating a model that reproduces the observed effects, because those starting conditions were not accurately known. The proper way to proceed with the modelling, therefore, is to get the model as close as possible to reality by adjusting the starting conditions.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hi gang,

I may surprise people on both sides with this one. Those of you who call me a debunker might especially be surprised. See what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM

Chris, how can an independent test now prove anything about the "dust" the Jones et al. "tested" before?

They already lied about the results of their own tests so any dust that has in their hands no longer has a reliable provenance (if it ever had).......and any that has been in the hand of authorities won't be accepted by the truth movement.

Is it not more likely that an independent test has been done but that the results were not to their liking and so not publicized?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You're floundering!

NCSTAR 1A 3.5.2

"The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model."

I just hope NASA don't use the same physics as NIST, lol!!

LOL NASA have far fewer unknowns to deal with.

 

[mrkinnies]

Hahaha. It's 2004 again. I am envious of the TM's Tardis Though I suppose theirs would be called a Retardis.

Yes it's strange how people are. It's 2011 and many people around the world still believe in the story of Jesus. I guess in 2001 years time many folk will still hang to the idea that a bunch of islamists overcame the security system of the most powerful militarized nation on earth and managed to wreak havoc in September 2001.

Bizarre!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I guess in 2011 years time many folk will still hang to the idea that a bunch of islamists overcame the security system of the most powerful militarized nation on earth and wreaked havoc on 9/11.

Bizarre!

Another desirable phase in your long-overdue education would be to look up the phrase "argument from incredulity".

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

Yes it's strange how people are. It's 2011 and many people around the world still believe in the story of Jesus. I guess in 2011 years time many folk will still hang to the idea that a bunch of islamists overcame the security system of the most powerful militarized nation on earth and wreaked havoc on 9/11.

Bizarre!

Strange how you truthers still have no evidence after 10 years. As a movement, you guys are laughable.

 

[twinstead]

Yes it's strange how people are. It's 2011 and many people around the world still believe in the story of Jesus. I guess in 2011 years time many folk will still hang to the idea that a bunch of islamists overcame the security system of the most powerful militarized nation on earth and managed to wreak havoc in September 2001.

Bizarre!

Yet, your ignorant incredulity aside, the vast preponderance of evidence suggests exactly that. Amazing.

 

[mrkinnies]

As a life long Zappa fan myself, I'm sure Frank would have been a truther for sure, for he would have seen just how stupid the debunkers are. Stupidity IS more abundant than hydrogen. Thingfish anyone?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps you'd care to comment on what I have written above rather than writing silly one liners in the hope of changing the subject and increasing your count tally.

As a life long Zappa fan myself, I'm sure Frank would have been a truther for sure, for he would have seen just how stupid the debunkers are. Stupidity IS more abundant than hydrogen. Thingfish anyone?

Still, since reality disagrees with your arguments, what else do you have left but sarcasm?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

As a life long Zappa fan myself, I'm sure Frank would have been a truther for sure, for he would have seen just how stupid the debunkers are. Stupidity IS more abundant than hydrogen. Thingfish anyone?

You realize that "truthers" are a tiny cult of irrationals, and the "debunkers" are just about everybody else on Earth, right? I think this whole internet thing confuses you. You see, when I turn off my computer, truthers disappear. When you walk outside, "debunkers" are the actual real people you see.

 

[RedIbis]

No, because there isn't one. The purpose of this particular piece of modelling was not to get a pretty animation of the collapse to show on the news,

Dave

Are you sure because their computer generated images look absolutely nothing like the video.

 

[NoahFence]

Hahaha. It's 2004 again. I am envious of the TM's Tardis Though I suppose theirs would be called a Retardis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you sure because their computer generated images look absolutely nothing like the video.

Seriously, Red, do you honestly think that's an argument that suggests that it was done to create a pretty animation to show on the news?

Dave

 

[mrkinnies]

You realize that "truthers" are a tiny cult of irrationals, and the "debunkers" are just about everybody else on Earth, right? I think this whole internet thing confuses you. You see, when I turn off my computer, truthers disappear. When you walk outside, "debunkers" are the actual real people you see.

On the contrary, when I go outside and talk about 9/11, I discover that 99% of the population has never even bothered to question what they saw on or read about that day. Most just walk away in disgust because their own nervous system has already been programmed to believe the crap.

"That man in the suit told me it happened that way so it must be true"....lame, lol!

Hardly an army of debunkers, more a group of gullible automatons.

 

[Dave Rogers]

On the contrary, when I go outside and talk about 9/11, I discover that 99% of the population has never even bothered to question what they saw on or read about that day. Most just walk away in disgust because their own nervous system has already been programmed to believe the crap.

I think you need to distinguish between experimental results (most people you approach to discuss 9/11 walk away from you in disgust) and personal interpretation (all the rest of the above). There are, after all, other possible explanations for your observation.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

Yes it's strange how people are. It's 2011 and many people around the world still believe in the story of Jesus. I guess in 2001 years time many folk will still hang to the idea that a bunch of islamists overcame the security system of the most powerful militarized nation on earth and managed to wreak havoc in September 2001.

Bizarre!

Difference being, there's irrefutable proof of the events of 9/11. To the sane and rational, it's black and white. 19 Terrorists+4 Aircraft = 9/11.

Hyperbole, innuendo and internet bravado aren't proof of anything. Sorry fella.