Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkinnies said:
They did report them and here's a firefighter hearing one. Listen to their conversation, it's written on the screen in case you missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

Was that a computer monitor I heard...or maybe a can of hairspray?
Click to expand...


Long debunked. the explosion audio was faked as was the subtitles of what they said.
The latter is easy to prove....play the video but turn the monitor off.....and listen just to the sound. Its an interesting example of how the mind can be tricked.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Long debunked. the explosion audio was faked as was the subtitles of what they said.
The latter is easy to prove....play the video but turn the monitor off.....and listen just to the sound. Its an interesting example of how the mind can be tricked.
Click to expand...

I did that already and it sounds the same to me
 
mrkinnies said:
I did that already and it sounds the same to me
Click to expand...

I made several points about the video and you have so far ignored every single one of them. Do you intended to actually debate here or just keep stating your opinions?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
You missed the bit where my "religion" is backed by actual facts and probability, yours is not.:cool:
Click to expand...

NIST in NCSTAR 1A mentions that no other high rise structure subject to an unattended fire had ever fully collapsed before, let alone in such a clean way.

What were you saying about probability?
 
Edx said:
I made several points about the video and you have so far ignored every single one of them. Do you intended to actually debate here or just keep stating your opinions?
Click to expand...

I apologise to you Edx. I will reply to you in full when I get time.
 
mrkinnies said:
NIST in NCSTAR 1A mentions that no other high rise structure subject to an unattended fire had ever fully collapsed before, let alone in such a clean way.
Click to expand...

mrkinnies - for the fourth time now, what if WTC7 had not been hit and fires started? This would scupper Plan A (CD) as there would now be no excuse for the collapse. What would the perps have done?
 
mrkinnies said:
NIST in NCSTAR 1A mentions that no other high rise structure subject to an unattended fire had ever fully collapsed before, let alone in such a clean way.

What were you saying about probability?
Click to expand...

You appear to be paraphrasing there and misinterpreting what NIST said in the process. What they actually said was, "the fires in WTC7 were similar to those that have occured in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. these other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."

They don't say that the other fires were unattended and make no comment on the cleanliness or otherwise of the collapse.
 
GlennB said:
mrkinnies - for the fourth time now, what if WTC7 had not been hit and fires started? This would scupper Plan A (CD) as there would now be no excuse for the collapse. What would the perps have done?
Click to expand...

Hypotheticals are not an appropriate topic for debate. No one could possibly know the answer to such a question.
 
RedIbis said:
Hypotheticals are not an appropriate topic for debate. No one could possibly know the answer to such a question.
Click to expand...

That's the entirety of the truther arguments, hypotheticals. Do you come down on truthers when they bring up unknown military explosives? Do you call them out when they have a post full of "could haves" and "might haves?"
 
mrkinnies said:
And what about that video. Edx says that firefighter doesn't say "seven is exploding". Apparently Edx works with sound but clearly his hearing is poor because he does say it - it's as clear as day.
Click to expand...


Except it doesn't. It was a clever trick to add the subtitles because then your mind reads and accepts that as what he says rather than what your ears hear.
Turn off the monitor and its not clear at all what he says but it certainly is not "seven is exploding"
 
Disbelief said:
That's the entirety of the truther arguments, hypotheticals. Do you come down on truthers when they bring up unknown military explosives? Do you call them out when they have a post full of "could haves" and "might haves?"
Click to expand...

If I see a bad argument and it's worth noting I comment on it. I don't have additional responsibility to your monolithic Twoofer entity.
 
RedIbis said:
Hypotheticals are not an appropriate topic for debate. No one could possibly know the answer to such a question.
Click to expand...

I'll refrain from inserting the laughing dog here and just put in terms that you might understand then - knowing that the debris strikes were far from guaranteed The Perps would not have undertaken such a foolhardy plan in the first place. There would be too many hostages to fortune, of which this is just one.
 
mrkinnies said:
I think about it all the time for I never understand why people can be fooled so often. Advertisers, marketeers, politicians...they do it over and over and we humans keep falling for it.
Click to expand...
One common belief among the egocentric is that they're the only ones truly capable. 9/11 Truthers are generally unlettered, other than "GED", yet claim to be able to simply look at videos and photos and determine a controlled demolition happened, with such certainty that they don't even need to know the detail of an event that trained structural engineers had to carefully study to determine the cause of collapse and then write an elaborate whitepaper on it.

If most people say you're wrong, you're generally wrong.

Also, advertising and marketing isn't some mind control beam. They occasionally fail, and fail badly, such as Sony's goat fiasco. I am tired of it being portrayed as some sort of magic wand one waves over the sheeple to turn them into zombies. It's like the Jedi Mind Trick: it works best on the weak-willed.
 
mrkinnies said:
How do you know when they started doing this? Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors, not used as offices and accessible to private personnel only. The support structure for the entire building was also on these floors for its where the foundation structure was converted to a high rise structure because support at ground level had to span a substation. These floors did not catch fire however.

Of course the picture you show of those guys applying Linear Shaped Charges is quite revealing. Look at the angle they put them to ensure the steel is cut and the column slips downward. Remind you of any other pictures at all?
Click to expand...

Your "theory" isn't very consistent, is it? First you contend that they had to remove ALL the supports simultaneously, then you propose that they removed the supports one by one throughout the day and then maybe fire finished off the job, even though the interior collapsed first and then the exterior, and the fire wasn't on the exterior.

As for putting the Linear Shaped Charges on the mechanical floors, you do realize they could not have applied these devices to the exterior columns, do you not?

At some point on 9/11 there was a team of firefighters (and engineer?) in WTC 7 to see how things looked. Does anyone know whether they were on the mechanical floors? If they were, they would surely have noticed these big ole' devices everywhere. If not, how did the perps prevent them from going there?

Your plot is so full of holes it's laughable.
 
RedIbis said:
Hypotheticals are not an appropriate topic for debate. No one could possibly know the answer to such a question.
Click to expand...

Socrates, the United States Supreme Court and thousands of professors of logic are humbled to learn they have been doing it wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up for us Red.

/face palm.
// Red got an A in defamation and an F in Logic.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
If I see a bad argument and it's worth noting I comment on it. I don't have additional responsibility to your monolithic Twoofer entity.
Click to expand...

Well, we know that is not true since you have repeatedly posted in threads where truthers use hypotheticals and you do not call them out. As for the part I bolded above, please quote me as using the term Twoofer, and also point me to where I made any mention of some monolithic entity in the post you quoted. I used the term truther to represent individuals making arguments, not as some monolith.
 
mrkinnies said:
But YOU are in the herd, I'm not, therefore I'm not following you and the propaganda you so happily swallow.
Click to expand...

What propaganda? There is no "911officialstoryisright" movement..... its the twoofers that are churning out new lies.

"Next you'll be telling me you condone the slaughter of a million people in the Middle East as a result of 9/11.
Click to expand...

??????? wow that was a leap......how does understanding how fire can bring down a building turn into support for mass murder?

Also you do know who killed most of those people? Clue. it wasn't the US or its Allies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom