Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Rogers said:
The bolded bit is your black-and-white assessment of the images. It is not true that they in no way reflect actual video images, or the actual progression of the collapse.

Dave
Click to expand...

True, they both have windows. Was I correct when I said earlier:

I would even doubt you have ever assessed in which respects NIST's model was inaccurate.
 
Edx said:
Verinage works by removing supports (NOT ENTIRE FLOORS) in 1 or 2 floors with cables and hydraulics. Explosive demolition is also not free fall either because they are not trying to remove all matter below the building, they strategically remove supports and allow the building to collapse into itself.

According to the truth movement the 2.25 seconds of free fall could only have happened if the matter below the collapsing floors were removed, they claim explosives were used and the idea of buckling (ie.what was proposed by NIST with no disagreement outside of trutherdom) is nonsence.

Therefore truthers must think that 8-stories worth of building was VAPORISED - like a Star Trek weapon - INSTANTLY and also they did this so QUIETLY it wasn't picked up in the numerous cameras perfectly situated to capture any detonations.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you for agreeing with me that the support of an entire floor needs to be lost to allow the upper section of a building to fall onto the lower. I didn't of course say EVERY support before, but THE support, just in case you were trying to twist my words. How they do this is up to the demolition team but the idea is to weaken the structure enough such that the building falls as neatly and maybe as symmetrically as is possible.

Perhaps some truthers believe that the floors below were vaporised but I'm happy to accept that only a handful of critical columns and structural elements needed to be destroyed for the building to fail like a Verinage style collapse - just as you and NIST agree is possible. Maybe that's why the Penthouse fell first; it's supporting structure needed to be pulled ahead of the main block for the building to finally fall cleanly and symmetrically (which it did). As many witnesses reported hearing explosions throughout the day, perhaps the critical supports were being removed slowly so as not to cause suspicion. Who knows, but it's plausible. The fact that the cameras didn't capture the final sounds doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that the sound recording equipment didn't record them.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, it's clear that you've made no attempt to do so. Care to show me those windows on the images from the NIST model?

Dave
Click to expand...

I guess petulance is all you have left. I'll just assume that you have made no attempt to do so.
 
mrkinnies said:
The fact that the cameras didn't capture the final sounds doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that the sound recording equipment didn't record them.
Click to expand...

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.
 
Edx said:
Verinage works by removing supports (NOT ENTIRE FLOORS) in 1 or 2 floors with cables and hydraulics. Explosive demolition is also not free fall either because they are not trying to remove all matter below the building, they strategically remove supports and allow the building to collapse into itself.

According to the truth movement the 2.25 seconds of free fall could only have happened if the matter below the collapsing floors were removed, they claim explosives were used and the idea of buckling (ie.what was proposed by NIST with no disagreement outside of trutherdom) is nonsence.

Therefore truthers must think that 8-stories worth of building was VAPORISED - like a Star Trek weapon - INSTANTLY and also they did this so QUIETLY it wasn't picked up in the numerous cameras perfectly situated to capture any detonations.
Click to expand...

NoahFence said:
OK, so video and photo isn't "true" evidence. Tell me, mrkinnies, what IS "true" evidence?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I asked you if you could verify that those images came from the Pentagon attack and are authentic? If you cannot then you cannot use them as true evidence.

But let's face it, the NBC and CBS videos of the WTC7 collapse are definitely of building 7. We can both verify that.
 
As many witnesses reported hearing explosions throughout the day, perhaps the critical supports were being removed slowly so as not to cause suspicion.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Precious.....

The amount of different things that could account for sounds of explosions would probably number over a hundred.
 
RedIbis said:
Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.
Click to expand...

Yes, nobody has seriously considered the possibility that the microphone of a 2001 video camera, designed to pick up the 40-60dB sound levels of speech at around 1 metre, was incapable of picking up sounds at a level of +130dB, roughly one hundred million times louder. Why on Earth would we have missed something so obvious?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, that's a good approach to glossing over the fact that you've either never looked at the images you're commenting on, or have, but didn't understand them.

Dave
Click to expand...

I must have looked at them to know, as you agreed, that they do not reflect recorded images that day. Why are trying so hard to avoid that point?
 
That's not what I said. I asked you if you could verify that those images came from the Pentagon attack and are authentic? If you cannot then you cannot use them as true evidence.
Click to expand...

And I asked YOU to go to google images and look for the images. They exist. They're EXTREMELY easy to find. So much so that it's no doubt a lie that you've never seen them. I CAN verify that they're from the pentagon, as I SAID, because the pentagon is IN THE FRIGGIN PICTURES.

They are authentic.
They are real.
They were used as evidence in a trial, which is why they're public record.
As such they are extremely easy to find. You HAVE heard of google, right?

Since I obviously need to hold your hand:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...2105l4037l0l4238l15l12l0l4l4l0l180l1038l2.6l8

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...788l2594l0l2682l15l12l0l3l3l0l217l853l4.3.1l8
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Your call for perfection not withstanding, yes the collapse appeared symetrical.
Click to expand...

Call to perfection? You just complained about NISTs WTC7 animation. :rolleyes:

And they dont just say most of it fell quite symetrically they say it fell straight down into its own footprint. Well again, it can't do that and fall accross a 4 lane street to critcially damage another building at the same time.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Why did NIST produce images which were so radically different from what anyone could see from the recorded images?
Click to expand...

Since the NIST report is now used by architects and engineers when building new skyscrapers, I'm sure they have a good reason. Probably because there are other images which DO coincide with the recorded images. These images that you're referring to may be used for a different purpose. But without knowing exactly which images you refer to, honestly, I don't know that for a fact but based on common sense, I'll virtually guarantee that that is indeed the case.
 
NoahFence said:
Since the NIST report is now used by architects and engineers when building new skyscrapers, I'm sure they have a good reason. Probably because there are other images which DO coincide with the recorded images. These images that you're referring to may be used for a different purpose. But without knowing exactly which images you refer to, honestly, I don't know that for a fact but based on common sense, I'll virtually guarantee that that is indeed the case.
Click to expand...

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

because the mass of the fuselage was enough to break through whilst the masses of the wings and tail were not. Result is a hole the diameter of the fuselage in the exterior wall and progressively smaller holes as the mass and velocity reduced in the other rings. The wings and tail just ended as aluminum confetti just as the Phantom did.

This is Engineering and Physics 101 stuff. Where did study either?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom