Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what are you saying, kiddo?

The air temp outside the actual flames themselves wasn't hot?

...or are you suggesting water doesn't turn to gas?
 
mrkinnies said:
I've replied to Edx on this point already or didn't you bother to read what I said?
Click to expand...

Didn't you bother to read my responce?

Explosions are common and expected, I've asked you several times now how do you tell the difference between someone hearing and experiencing a bomb or something else.

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...
Click to expand...

Yes it does, you claim that all evidence points to people hearing and experiencing explosives. So considering that plenty of things can cause explosions and people reporting explosions are fully expected in fires, what evidence do you have that says they specifically experienced explosives rather than something else? How many times do I have to ask you the same questions?



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
Click to expand...

Not only are there plenty of things that can explode and I posted 3 examples on this page including 2 videos directly to you in my post you ignored but I also showed you a video with the sources that show only a few example of how its normal for people to use words like "explosion", "blast" and a phrase like "sounding like bombs" to not only describe things that weren't explosives but that they used those words to describe things they already knew weren't bombs when they said it.



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.
Click to expand...

You can say that, and you'd be stupid because you have to ignore all the aspects around WTC7s collapse. Now if you're saying I am ignoring something with these explosion witness', please do provide the evidence so that I can see how you are going about telling the difference between someone hearing a bomb vs something else like a transformer explosion or backdraft. Since blast injuries are common in every other bombing I'd also like to know how you rationalise no one sustaining any on 911 when all these bombs were going off all over the place.


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

The two arguments you gave don't relate to each other, but I hasten to add that you're defending Richard gage, someone who wants to be able to say huge explosions went off flinging steel and pulverizing concrete but no videos picked up such gigantic explosions.
 
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...

So, we can take the word of an anonymous internet truther that WTC7 does NOT topple over sideways, or we can choose to accept the actual video footage of WTC 7 as it indeed topples over sideways:



I will stick to hard physical evidence, thank you. You might be able to persuade agents of the Empire that these are "not the 'droids they're looking for," but your mind games aren't working on me, nor on anyone else that has a nanogram of sense.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpSrHq5Uk&feature=related
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
So, we can take the word of an anonymous internet truther that WTC7 does NOT topple over sideways, or we can choose to accept the actual video footage of WTC 7 as it indeed topples over sideways:



I will stick to hard physical evidence, thank you. You might be able to persuade agents of the Empire that these are "not the 'droids they're looking for," but your mind games aren't working on me, nor on anyone else that has a nanogram of sense.
Click to expand...

Nor do your silly assertions that the building toppled over work on me. I know you debunkers like to claim you are some kind of special beast but you are not.

WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.

Is this some kind of sick joke. I thought you JREFers had a good reputation but now I see you distort beyond imagination. Stand a matchstick on its end and it will topple over. Did WTC7 do that.....NO!

Come back to me when you can see properly. No wonder you were duped on 9/11.

Here's a building which did topple over....I don't think WTC7 did that. You debunkers are getting really bad in your old age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ
 
Last edited:
WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.
Click to expand...

"His" rebuttal?
Kiddo - his rebuttal is irrefutable video evidence.

Did ya get a chance to check out my thread yet? It's directed at YOU.....
 
mrkinnies said:
Nor do your silly assertions that the building toppled over work on me. I know you debunkers like to claim you are some kind of special beast but you are not.

WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.

Is this some kind of sick joke. I thought you JREFers had a good reputation but now I see you distort beyond imagination. Stand a matchstick on its end and it will topple over. Did WTC7 do that.....NO!

Come back to me when you can see properly. No wonder you were duped on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I'd like an answer to my question I asked you on the previous page, 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"? or would you sue because it clearly did not and they misled you?
 
mrkinnies said:
What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpSrHq5Uk&feature=related
Click to expand...



Are you freaking deaf?! :rolleyes:

I work with sound every day, please do tell me what you hear in this video so I can embarrass you about how sound works.

And what about the dust cloud? Gage claims that can only happen with a demolition but as Chris showed you in his videos that is what will happen when a building collapses either from explosive demolition, Verinage demolition or fire. Explosives arent even creating the dust cloud, thats still the building crushing into itself. What do you think the dust cloud tells you?

Once ps: if it fell accross a 4 lane street critically damaging the building there, it can't be very symmetrical and clean straight into its own footprint can it?
 
Last edited:
mrkinnies said:
Nor do your silly assertions that the building toppled over work on me. I know you debunkers like to claim you are some kind of special beast but you are not.

WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.

Is this some kind of sick joke. I thought you JREFers had a good reputation but now I see you distort beyond imagination. Stand a matchstick on its end and it will topple over. Did WTC7 do that.....NO!

Come back to me when you can see properly. No wonder you were duped on 9/11.

Here's a building which did topple over....I don't think WTC7 did that. You debunkers are getting really bad in your old age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ
Click to expand...

You probably missed this part.

WTC7lean.jpg


Next stop, Barclay Street and Fitterman Hall.
 
NoahFence said:
"His" rebuttal?
Kiddo - his rebuttal is irrefutable video evidence.

Did ya get a chance to check out my thread yet? It's directed at YOU.....
Click to expand...

What, that the building rotated sideways and didn't fall downward but out to the side; that is what to topple over means. Are you mad too?
 
AJM8125 said:
You probably missed this part.

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/WTC7lean.jpg[/qimg]

Next stop, Barclay Street and Fitterman Hall.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, the building has fallen straight down and has now moved to the side also as the top nears the ground! Did it topple over at the start or throughout most of global collapse? NO
 
Edx said:
Are you freaking deaf?! :rolleyes:

I work with sound every day, please do tell me what you hear in this video so I can embarrass you about how sound works.

And what about the dust cloud? Gage claims that can only happen with a demolition but as Chris showed you in his videos that is what will happen when a building collapses either from explosive demolition, Verinage demolition or fire. Explosives arent even creating the dust cloud, thats still the building crushing into itself. What do you think the dust cloud tells you?

Once ps: if it fell accross a 4 lane street critically damaging the building there, it can't be very symmetrical and clean straight into its own footprint can it?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it all landed clean into its own footprint. That's what YOU imply. This was a 47 storey building - very tall even in the US. The start of global collapse was straight down into its own footprint since it didn't topple faster than it fell, in fact it hardly toppled at all. What it did as the roof came closer to the ground is less clear but the deviation from vertical was within several degrees ; not 30 or 50 or 90 degrees, a FEW degrees although for such a tall building that is to be expected and would have been enough to send falling debris over a wider area than the building previously occupied. Even then the post collapse photo evidence shows minimal damage to surrounding buildings.

Please feel free to embarrass me with how sound works. I look forward to it.
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
In other words, it didn't fall straight down. Thank you.
Click to expand...

The start of global collapse saw the building fall straight down or are you claiming it toppled completely sideways too?

Come on, someone with 13000 odd posts must be able to do better than that.
 
come on kiddies er...kinnies, how'd these magical explosives survive? Answer in my thread "Twoofer Challenge" and get your little 9/11 leader a cool grand.
 
mrkinnies said:
The start of global collapse saw the building fall straight down or are you claiming it toppled completely sideways too?

Come on, someone with 13000 odd posts must be able to do better than that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should know truther semantics by now.

You might want to look at your membership agreement if you're going to start personalizing arguments, by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom