Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[mrkinnies]

The truth movement has hardly changed their arguments since 2006. Why is spending another 15 minutes on their claims even necessary?

Yawn....

The debunking movement has hardly changed their arguments since 2006. Why is spending a few seconds to read your post even necessary?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Think about what I said, and then what you responded with..... If the debunker arguments haven't changed, that's because the crap that debunkers see regularly hasn't changed. You see that right?

 

[DGM]

You can't even have watched this video throughout, it's 15 minutes long and yet you post 5 mins after me.

You debunkers really are amazing how you manage to alter time and truth.

I know this maybe hard for you to comprehend but, maybe he saw it before? I did notice you used this as an excuse to dodge his question.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You can't even have watched this video throughout, it's 15 minutes long and yet you post 5 mins after me.

You debunkers really are amazing how you manage to alter time and truth.

Because you do not have to watch more than 1.21 before they lie......Jowenko is not THE expert of anything. And they omit to mention that they did not even tell him the building had been on fire for 7 hours until AFTER he made that comment.

When you start with such a blatant lie why would anyone watch any more?

 

[TheRedWorm]

I know this maybe hard for you to comprehend but, maybe he saw it before? I did notice you used this as an excuse to dodge his question.

Hey dodging is what truthers are good at. That and hand-waving inconvenient facts. And ignoring pertinent questions. And holding two contradictory theories in their heads at the same time. And...

 

[DGM]

Because you do not have to watch more than 1.21 before they lie......Jowenko is not THE expert of anything. And they omit to mention that they did not even tell him the building had been on fire for 7 hours until AFTER he made that comment.

When you start with such a blatant lie why would anyone watch any more?

Are you saying that it only takes one lie for you to dismiss the rest of the video?

 

[mrkinnies]

Because you do not have to watch more than 1.21 before they lie......Jowenko is not THE expert of anything. And they omit to mention that they did not even tell him the building had been on fire for 7 hours until AFTER he made that comment.

When you start with such a blatant lie why would anyone watch any more?

Care to show me the proof that the building sustained high temperatures due to fire across the entire plan of the building all at once?

The only way every structural member could have failed simultaneously is if every structural member was exposed to fire for the 7 hours you debunkers love to refer to.

But go and read what NIST said because they discuss the fire in detail and THEY will tell you it waxed and waned throughout different floors, in different areas at different times.

 

[000063]

Care to show me the proof that the building sustained high temperatures due to fire across the entire plan of the building all at once?

The only way every structural member could have failed simultaneously is if every structural member was exposed to fire for the 7 hours you debunkers love to refer to.

Except that the official story doesn't claim that every structural member failed at once. You're trying to backdoor in ye olde Truther "global collapse" meme. The official story posits a sequential collapse. The East Penthouse of WTC 7 and the supportting structure collapsed well before the bulk of the building. That's unarguable, that's a sequence, that's a progressive collapse.

But go and read what NIST said because they discuss the fire in detail and THEY will tell you it waxed and waned throughout different floors, in different areas at different times.

We've already established you're trying to sneak in a straw man.

 

[DGM]

Care to show me the proof that the building sustained high temperatures due to fire across the entire plan of the building all at once?

.

Care to show us you'd understand if we did? Your post #1618 indicates to me you would not.

 

[mrkinnies]

Except that the official story doesn't claim that every structural member failed at once. You're trying to backdoor in ye olde Truther "global collapse" meme. The official story posits a sequential collapse. The East Penthouse of WTC 7 and the supportting structure collapsed well before the bulk of the building. That's unarguable, that's a sequence, that's a progressive collapse.

Tell me, what was the supporting structure of the bulk of the building oh clever one?

 

[DGM]

Tell me, what was the supporting structure of the bulk of the building oh clever one?

Again. This question shows you would not understand the answer even if we could understand this twisted question.

 

[mrkinnies]

Again. This question shows you would not understand the answer even if we could understand this twisted question.

DGM, thus far you have offered only silly word games. Is that all you can do?

I'll ignore you because you talk nonsense.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You link to a video narrated by Ed Asner.
Can you explain to us why Ed Asner is more of an expert than Chris Mohr?

Also, would you care to enlighten us how the people at NIST fare in comparison to those at AE911T in terms of expertise?

Thanks.

Good questions.

 

[DGM]

DGM, thus far you have offered only silly word games. Is that all you can do?

I'll ignore you because you talk nonsense.

No, you'll ignore me because you have no clue what I'm talking about. If you did, you would be able to shut me the **** up.

Ignore away ol' seeker of "truth".

 

[Oystein]

You can't even have watched this video throughout, it's 15 minutes long and yet you post 5 mins after me.

You debunkers really are amazing how you manage to alter time and truth.

You're not the first to link to this video. I have seen it before.

Now, instead of doing the usual truther dodge, could you pleae answer:
Can you explain to us why Ed Asner is more of an expert than Chris Mohr?

Also, would you care to enlighten us how the people at NIST fare in comparison to those at AE911T in terms of expertise?

Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

Care to show me the proof that the building sustained high temperatures due to fire across the entire plan of the building all at once?

Why should we show you proof for something that no one has ever claimed?

The only way every structural member could have failed simultaneously is if every structural member was exposed to fire for the 7 hours you debunkers love to refer to.

There are several things fatally wrong in this short paragraph:
- Every structural member did not fail simultaneously
- Fire for 7 hours wouldn't be the only possible explantion even if they did

But go and read what NIST said because they discuss the fire in detail and THEY will tell you it waxed and waned throughout different floors, in different areas at different times.

So?

 

[mrkinnies]

You're not the first to link to this video. I have seen it before.

Now, instead of doing the usual truther dodge, could you pleae answer:
Can you explain to us why Ed Asner is more of an expert than Chris Mohr?

Also, would you care to enlighten us how the people at NIST fare in comparison to those at AE911T in terms of expertise?

Thanks.

The video is clear. It doesn't include Ed Asner in the list of experts when it starts to ask them for their views. Why don't you go watch it again from 5.45.

NIST is a federal agency. It's budget comes from the US government therefore expecting NIST to produce critical examination of the official story is unlikely.

I have to assume NIST's experts are of equal distinction to those in AE911Truth but then again watching the video below makes that assumption questionable. It's embarrassing to watch, especially from 6 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23VGrABNBlQ

 

[DGM]

Yawn....

The debunking movement has hardly changed their arguments since 2006. Why is spending a few seconds to read your post even necessary?

Pick me .........pick me................

They haven't changed because your arguments have not progressed since then. Why would our truth change? Should we adjust reality to cope with your lies?

 

[Oystein]

The video is clear. It doesn't include Ed Asner in the list of experts when it starts to ask them for their views. Why don't you go watch it again from 5.45.

Why not from 0:00? What's wrong with 0:00-5:45?
Chris Mohr never claims to be an expert. He did the same that Asner did: Present the opinions of better people than himself.

NIST is a federal agency. It's budget comes from the US government therefore expecting NIST to produce critical examination of the official story is unlikely.

Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy.

I have to assume NIST's experts are of equal distinction to those in AE911Truth

Why do you "have to" assume that? What qualifications do the AE911T people bring, and what qualification do the NIST people bring?

but then again watching the video below makes that assumption questionable. It's embarrassing to watch, especially from 6 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23VGrABNBlQ

Yes, seeing the lies of AE911T is indeed embarrassing.

 

[DGM]

NIST is a federal agency. It's budget comes from the US government therefore expecting NIST to produce critical examination of the official story is unlikely.

So have AE 9/11's 1500 engineers do a better job. What are you waiting for? I'll wait for their results.