Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

There's a stronger argument for fixing the image around the explanation to present to a mainstream audience than there is for generating an image that reflects reality, since it obviously doesn't do the latter.
 
Dave Rogers said:
:i:

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

Dave
Click to expand...

The reality is the global collapse of WTC7 fell symmetrically. Even NIST says the upper 33 storeys fell as ONE block. For you to keep harping on about the definition of symmetrical is ludicrous in the extreme.

Just to remind you, global collapse is the term NIST used to describe the last few seconds of the collapse and its the phase during which the bulk of the building came down.

The side walls stayed vertical. The roof and windows on each floor remained horizontal. The north wall stayed vertical. The complete block fell in one easy motion straight downward. How more obvious does it need to be before you stop your silly tirade about it not having been symmetrical.

Give it up, reality agrees with me!
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
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.
Click to expand...

Likewise, you've said nothing to me to convince me I'm wrong so why do you think you are so special?

I still have yet to see evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon so we'll have to agree to differ on that one too. Care to tell me where the wings went again?
 
Last edited:
The reality is the global collapse of WTC7 fell symmetrically. Even NIST says the upper 33 storeys fell as ONE block. For you to keep harping on about the definition of symmetrical is ludicrous in the extreme.
Click to expand...

A symmetrical collapse does NOT land on the building across the street. Period. No amount of finger-in-your-ears ignorance can change that fact.

Just to remind you, global collapse is the term NIST used to describe the last few seconds of the collapse.
Click to expand...

Uh...so?

The side walls stayed vertical(ISH). The roof and windows on each floor remained horizontal(ISH). The north wall stayed vertical(ISH). The complete block fell of the north face in one easy motion straight(ish) downward. How more obvious does it need to be before you stop your silly tirade about it not having been symmetrical(ish).
Click to expand...


FTFY.
 
NoahFence said:
A symmetrical collapse does NOT land on the building across the street. Period. No amount of finger-in-your-ears ignorance can change that fact.
Click to expand...

The building was 47 storeys tall. How far was WTC7 building away from other buildings?
 
mrkinnies said:
Likewise, you've said nothing to me to convince me I'm wrong so why do you think you are so special?

I still have yet to see evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon so we'll have to agree to differ on that one too. Care to tell me where the wings went again?
Click to expand...

Because you can't be convinced. You have an irrational hatred of the government, and, like all you cute little twoofers, can't begin to explain anything beyond "free-fall" or "symmetrical(Ish)". Your evidence is 50% impossible, and 50% flat-out lies.

My evidence actually happened.

As for the Pentagon, you LIE. It's as simple as that. In 10 years you've not seen photos of engine parts inside the Pentagon? You've not gone through the photos from the Mussawi(sp) trial that shows the charred remains of passengers STILL IN THEIR SEATS?

The only reason you'd say you haven't seen the wreckage at the Pentagon, is because YOU ARE A LIAR. period.
 
mrkinnies said:
The building was 47 storeys tall. How far was WTC7 building away from other buildings?
Click to expand...

Who cares how tall it was? If it fell straight down, as you laughingly suggest, it wouldn't have struck a builidng across a 4 lane road. Period.

Grab a dictionary. Your brain will thank you.
 
NoahFence said:
Because you can't be convinced. You have an irrational hatred of the government, and, like all you cute little twoofers, can't begin to explain anything beyond "free-fall" or "symmetrical(Ish)". Your evidence is 50% impossible, and 50% flat-out lies.

My evidence actually happened.

As for the Pentagon, you LIE. It's as simple as that. In 10 years you've not seen photos of engine parts inside the Pentagon? You've not gone through the photos from the Mussawi(sp) trial that shows the charred remains of passengers STILL IN THEIR SEATS?

The only reason you'd say you haven't seen the wreckage at the Pentagon, is because YOU ARE A LIAR. period.
Click to expand...

Have you seen those photos? Can you verify that they came from the Pentagon?

And where did those wings go. Come on, tell me?
 
NoahFence said:
Who cares how tall it was? If it fell straight down, as you laughingly suggest, it wouldn't have struck a builidng across a 4 lane road. Period.

Grab a dictionary. Your brain will thank you.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the height of the building is irrelevant compared to the mighty width of a 4-lane road?

In the world of the debunker, only distances relevant to their debunking are required.

Listen to yourself...it's painful
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
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!
Click to expand...

No, they overcame the security system on a commercial airliner. The military was never tasked to prevent that.
 
Have you seen those photos? Can you verify that they came from the Pentagon?

And where did those wings go. Come on, tell me?
Click to expand...

I am NOT a liar. Therefore, if I said they exist, they do.

There's a website that you can go to to view these things. Grab a pen - it's a funny name.

Go to
www.google.com

Upper left, click on "images"

Type in your parameters. Try "Pentagon Wreckage" - that should do. I can indeed confirm that they come from the Pentagon, because in most of them, the Pentagon is actually in the frame.

As for the wings, please, kiddo. Move on. Those things were demolished. Are you expecting to be able to see them after a 500mph impact on a massively reinforced building? WHAT?!?!
 
Oh, so the height of the building is irrelevant compared to the mighty width of a 4-lane road?

In the world of the debunker, only distances relevant to their debunking are required.

Listen to yourself...it's painful
Click to expand...

You dolts are the ones who say "straight down" - not me. Try to keep up kiddo.
 
mrkinnies said:
The reality is the global collapse of WTC7 fell symmetrically. Even NIST says the upper 33 storeys fell as ONE block. For you to keep harping on about the definition of symmetrical is ludicrous in the extreme.
Click to expand...

In that case, can I make up any definition of "symmetrical" that I want to and use mine too? Let's see: I'm going to define "symmetrically" to mean "In a southerly direction, within seven miles of the Cape of Good Hope, and covered in fish", and determine that WTC7 didn't fall symmetrically. And you can't argue with that, because your definition ("Symetrically" means "falling as a single block") is every bit as wrong as mine.

Alternatively, we could use the real definition of symmetry, which is "Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis." Since we know that WTC7 rotated to the south as it fell, we can therefore state that the collapse did not exhibit a correspondence of form or constituent configuration about a plane perpendicular to a line drawn north-south and passing through the building. Since it also exibited an off-centre kink in the north wall, we can say the same with respect to any possible plane perpendicular to an east-west line. That only leaves symmetry about horizontal planes, and I hope we can all agree that the building did not fall as much up as it did down.

So, no symmetry to the collapse, irrespective of how many pieces the building fell in.

mrkinnies said:
The side walls stayed vertical. The roof and windows on each floor remained horizontal. The north wall stayed vertical. The complete block fell in one easy motion straight downward.
Click to expand...

None of this is true. The side walls tilted southwards. The roof and windows on each floor tilted southwards. The north wall tilted southwards and developed a kink off-centre, resulting in a portion to the east tilting westwards and a portion to the west tilting eastwards. The complete block rotated southwards as it fell. This is clearly visible in the picture of the collapse that Triforcharity posted in post #414. That is reality, and it disagrees with you.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
So now WTC 7 landed on Fitterman? That's a new one. Or is it?
Click to expand...

fiterman.jpg


Yes, it did.
 
NoahFence said:
I am NOT a liar. Therefore, if I said they exist, they do.

There's a website that you can go to to view these things. Grab a pen - it's a funny name.

Go to
www.google.com

Upper left, click on "images"

Type in your parameters. Try "Pentagon Wreckage" - that should do. I can indeed confirm that they come from the Pentagon, because in most of them, the Pentagon is actually in the frame.

As for the wings, please, kiddo. Move on. Those things were demolished. Are you expecting to be able to see them after a 500mph impact on a massively reinforced building? WHAT?!?!
Click to expand...

I'm not a liar too so why do you think you are so special? I've asked this before.

So how comes the fuselage penetrated the building through several inner rings yet the wings disappeared? The Pentagon was after all a massively reinforced building.

Looks like you cannot confirm those photos after all. Just saying they are true is NOT evidence.
 
NoahFence said:
[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/fiterman.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, it did.
Click to expand...

What's that large pile next to Fitterman? I'm looking at Fitterman and don't see WTC 7 on top of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom