Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
The strange things is, you debunkers assert that NIST's modelling did not have to fit because they were dealing with chaos so was hard to obtain an exact match and yet when truthers talk of symmetry of collapse you demand it be absolutely perfect. It wasn't and CD's never are, but global collapse did involve the bulk of the building structure falling straight down with its walls remaining close to vertical and floor and roof close to horizontal. Since NIST also uses margins of error in its findings, the word symmetrical is an acceptable term which can be applied to what happened during global collapse even though some slight distortion was observed.
Click to expand...

You're arguing that the collapse was symmetrical, so it must have been CD, but even CDs aren't symmetrical, so even though the collapse wasn't symmetrical, it still must have been a CD. It doesn't take a three-digit IQ to see that you haven't actually got an argument at all.

Dave
 
mrkinnies said:
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.
Click to expand...

You mean support components failing due to heat and overloading does not equal "destroyed"?

Doesn't a "failed component" = "removed" in a structural sense?
 
Gamolon said:
You mean support components failing due to heat and overloading does not equal "destroyed"?

Doesn't a "failed component" = "removed" in a structural sense?
Click to expand...

In truther land "removed" must mean "vanished" because they claim 8 stories disappeared and therefore couldn't halt the collapse, so they think 8 stories just "vanished" somehow! :D
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Centre of the building or are you going to be another one of those people who seeks perfect symmetry of a falling building structure.
...
There's really no point arguing with that. My kids can see that the building falls straight down as a complete block. Even NIST says it happened. Why do you claim it to be different?
Click to expand...

Um, maybe because the building didn't fall "straight down"???

 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Um, maybe because the building didn't fall "straight down"???

Click to expand...

Yep, there you go, it did fall straight down. Even NIST in NCSTAR 1A says it did...as one block.

Can I help you with anything else, or do you see the building moving sideways or toppling over?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I don't think there should have been a discernible fire in the debris.

Nothing that could have lasted more than a week. Fires that water couldn't put out? And don't talk about underground coal fires as a precedent.
Click to expand...

Uh, why not?

What precedent or even theory do you have that can enable any form of thermite keeping steel molten for weeks?
 
Gamolon said:
Did you even read what Edx posted? You keep saying he heard explosions and Edx is saying that you have no proof they were caused by EXPLOSIVES. See all the bold/enlarged text.

Know what else? Aerosol cans explode...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSpDhOXcEQc
Click to expand...

I've replied to Edx on this point already or didn't you bother to read what I said?

There is no conclusive proof that explosives were used nor is there any to say they weren't. Just claiming that exploding sounds can mean any number of things adds nothing to this debate...

although if you debunkers are allowed to say that an explosive is not necessarily a sound due to explosives because there are other real life examples where this is so then I can say that the global collapse of WTC7 is not necessarily due to fire since the most common example of such collapses is with CDs.

You can't have it all ways so the argument is circular and worth nothing.
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Yep, there you go, it did fall straight down. Even NIST in NCSTAR 1A says it did...as one block.

Can I help you with anything else, or do you see the building moving sideways or toppling over?
Click to expand...

It clearly internally collapses asymmetrically and its clearly twisting as it goes down, open your eyes. Again, you claim it fell "cleanly" "symmetrically" "into its own footprint" so imagine if you're working in a building near to one getting demolished and the demolition company tells you its going to come down cleanly, symmetrically, into its own footprint and your building is across a 4 lane street. When the building they demolish falls over the street and hits your building, are you saying you would not question the idea that it fell "cleanly and symmetrically, into its own footprint"?
 
Last edited:
Nothing that could have lasted more than a week. Fires that water couldn't put out? And don't talk about underground coal fires as a precedent.
Click to expand...

You may be aware of a process, whereby liquid water turns into a gas? It happens when it gets really hot.

The air was too hot - the water just evaporated before it got to the fire.
 
mrkinnies said:
Yep, there you go, it did fall straight down. Even NIST in NCSTAR 1A says it did...as one block.

Can I help you with anything else, or do you see the building moving sideways or toppling over?
Click to expand...

So then you're basically the same truther idiot that rational people have been dealing with since 9/11.

Ask for evidence, get it, ignore it. Rinse and repeat.
 
mrkinnies said:
I've replied to Edx on this point already or didn't you bother to read what I said?

There is no conclusive proof that explosives were used nor is there any to say they weren't. Just claiming that exploding sounds can mean any number of things adds nothing to this debate...

although if you debunkers are allowed to say that an explosive is not necessarily a sound due to explosives because there are other real life examples where this is so then I can say that the global collapse of WTC7 is not necessarily due to fire since the most common example of such collapses is with CDs.

You can't have it all ways so the argument is circular and worth nothing.
Click to expand...

This is where you present corroborating evidence that explosives were actually used if the "explosions" that were heard are not conclusive to whether there were explosives used or not.

If not, you have no rational reason to believe explosions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom