Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
twoofer mode

This is clearly visible in the picture of the collapse that Triforcharity posted in post #414. That is reality, and it disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

can you prove that was WTC 7 in those photos!?!

/twoofer mode
 
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Man, are you just kidding with us or what?
 
RedIbis said:
What's that large pile next to Fitterman? I'm looking at Fitterman and don't see WTC 7 on top of it.
Click to expand...

You're right. None of that undated pile landed on Fitterman hall. One firefigher was really, really mad at the whole situation and went nutty on the building. You figured it all out.
 
mrkinnies said:
Explain?
Click to expand...

Wing connections = very weak.

Move on. I shouldn't have to explain why an aircraft purposely made from the lightest materials possible would virtually disintegrate when striking a hardened concrete structure at 500mph (ish).

Honestly, this is like 2nd grade stuff. It's mind-numbingly common sense
 
NoahFence said:
You're right. None of that undated pile landed on Fitterman hall. One firefigher was really, really mad at the whole situation and went nutty on the building. You figured it all out.
Click to expand...

So in your mind if debris damaged a neighboring building this means that WTC 7 landed on top of it?

I realize that this line of "reasoning" is dumb to the extreme but I'm curious how you come to that conclusion.
 
Dave Rogers said:
You can come up with something dumber than a claim that NIST deliberately generated an inaccurate animation of the collapse to show the public how accurate their simulations were? That should be entertaining.

Dave
Click to expand...

Do you think NIST's computer generated images reflect what is seen on video? Simple question, simple answer. I'll even take a yes or no.
 
RedIbis said:
So in your mind if debris damaged a neighboring building this means that WTC 7 landed on top of it?

I realize that this line of "reasoning" is dumb to the extreme but I'm curious how you come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Damage is to the roof of Fitterman Hall, and obviously more. The roof of that building can't be damaged without something hitting it. Make sense? That thing was big ol parts of WTC 7. The entire WTC 7 didn't land on it, but huge chunks did. This is pretty friggin obvious if you ask me. And because of that, it's also equally obvious that it wasn't "straight down".
 
RedIbis said:
Do you think NIST's computer generated images reflect what is seen on video? Simple question, simple answer. I'll even take a yes or no.
Click to expand...

No, the modelled images differ from the actual observed collapse in significant ways. I presume that's what you're talking about.

Do you think NIST's computer generated images were generated primarily to look good on TV news programs? Same deal.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
So in your mind if debris damaged a neighboring building this means that WTC 7 landed on top of it?

I realize that this line of "reasoning" is dumb to the extreme but I'm curious how you come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Parts of WTC7 landed on top of Filterman Hall so that means it didnt fall symmetrically straight down into its own footprint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom