Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[dafydd]

Cripes.....I had hopes that England's education system had not sunk that far into the toilet.

That is why I live in Flanders.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So nothing to show the lean prior to collapse. The lean that firefighter Miller is assumed to talk of.

As an aside, I never can quite work out why Silverstein said he and the firefighters agreed to 'pull' Wtc7 and yet no firefighters entered the building.

That is surely worthy of a Stundie! If you are a fireman who has just seem a bulge and perhaps a lean in a building and think it is going to collapse, AND just seen about 300 of you friends die in building collapse...............would YOU go into that building???????

And what would they see from the inside that would help? You seen to forget that no one really gave a flying vigorous mating what happened to building 7 by that time......other than it was hindering the hunt for survivors of the WTC1 and 2 towers (of which there were several still trapped)

 

[alienentity]

word salad snipped..

I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and I don't believe Flight 93 landed in that field in Shanksville.

ETA Flight 93 didn't land in Shanksville, it crashed there. Big difference

And that would make you a no planer. Methinks the gentlemen doth protest too much.

kinnies, if your critical thinking skills are deficient to the point where you have to see something on video to believe it, there is no hope for you.

Sorry if that makes you angry, but you ain't got what it takes to think rationally about 9/11, apparently. btw, I noticed you ranted in some of your other posts, so it's pretty hypocritical to complain about me doing that. Just sayin'.

Anyways, it's goodbye from me, kinnies. You're not going to learn, that's obvious. There's no debate with an irrational mind. That's a job for a psychotherapist.

 

[mrkinnies]

ETA Flight 93 didn't land in Shanksville, it crashed there. Big difference

And that would make you a no planer. Methinks the gentlemen doth protest too much.

kinnies, if your critical thinking skills are deficient to the point where you have to see something on video to believe it, there is no hope for you.

Sorry if that makes you angry, but you ain't got what it takes to think rationally about 9/11, apparently. btw, I noticed you ranted in some of your other posts, so it's pretty hypocritical to complain about me doing that. Just sayin'.

Anyways, it's goodbye from me, kinnies. You're not going to learn, that's obvious. There's no debate with an irrational mind. That's a job for a psychotherapist.

There's no anger at all. If that's what you believe then I won't argue with you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I'm British too and I'm not fooled by propaganda either. That's why I protested on the streets over the invasion of Iraq. I don't support the so called 'war on terror' because there is no terror. Afghanistan is really about geopolitics and a gas pipeline called TAPI and I don't support the war there either. The whole situation in the Middle East is about protecting political interests and energy flows at a time of peak oil, not that I'm dumb enough to think that similar hasn't happened over and over in history but it's the lies about it all that I hate.

Here in the UK the propaganda machine went to work to lump 9/11 and Gaddafi together with all those other terrorists to justify the war in Libya; an act designed to control oil flows there too. As ex-president of Halliburton, Cheney spoke back in 1999 to the Petroleum Institute about the Middle East being the greatest prize when it comes to oil. So what better way than to invent a story about Middle Eastern men living in caves attacking America so the US and its allies can blow the hell out of a million brown people and secure primary energy routes.

You need to read more about what's happening to the issue of energy because we are sure hell in for a bumpy ride over the coming years and the western politicians know it. The financial system is breaking because of the high price of energy as predicted by the likes of Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg and Matthew Simmons. It's only going to get worse and the 'war on terror' will escalate out of control.

so you are a general CTer, so what? you are <snip> trying to make sense of a very complex world, nothing more.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[mrkinnies]

That is surely worthy of a Stundie! If you are a fireman who has just seem a bulge and perhaps a lean in a building and think it is going to collapse, AND just seen about 300 of you friends die in building collapse...............would YOU go into that building???????

And what would they see from the inside that would help? You seen to forget that no one really gave a flying vigorous mating what happened to building 7 by that time......other than it was hindering the hunt for survivors of the WTC1 and 2 towers (of which there were several still trapped)

Not sure what you're on about here. I ask an obvious question and you reply with waffle.

That said, in response to your waffle, these guys did want to go into WTC7 but were kept out it would seem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-js8vO6_Hc&feature=player_embedded

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Cripes.....I had hopes that England's education system had not sunk that far into the toilet.

Well I'm a Scot so shouldn't really comment on the English educational system but no, it has not sunk that low, The UK has sadly about the same proportion of morons that the US has (just the UK is smart enough not to let them have guns )

As Mr Gump said, "Stupid is, as stupid does"............and twoofers seem to delight in showing that to be the case.

 

[000063]

Not sure what you're on about here. I ask an obvious question and you reply with waffle.

That said, in response to your waffle, these guys did want to go into WTC7 but were kept out it would seem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-js8vO6_Hc&feature=player_embedded

Um.

other than it was hindering the hunt for survivors of the WTC1 and 2 towers (of which there were several still trapped)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Maybe i have to repeat, 8 stories in freefall is impossible in a natural collapse.

Repeat all you like. Doesn't change a thing. It simply is not true.

explain to me what happened with the 8 stories.

How would I know? All I said is that I can think of at least two mechanism that would allow even higher than 1g acceleration for short periods, and 1g or very close to it (because you can't actually show 1g because of the possible error band) is no problem at all. That would be speculation as to what happened, not necessarily what actually happened.

Like I said its merely a curiosity.....nothing more.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

kinnies, if your critical thinking skills are deficient to the point where you have to see something on video to believe it, there is no hope for you.

Its worse than that, even if he does see video he only believes it, if it fits his version of reality......its a classic case of confirmation bias.

 

[dafydd]

Not sure what you're on about here. I ask an obvious question and you reply with waffle.

That said, in response to your waffle, these guys did want to go into WTC7 but were kept out it would seem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-js8vO6_Hc&feature=player_embedded

Proof by youtube again. If it's not on youtube then truthers don't believe it's real.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Not sure what you're on about here. I ask an obvious question and you reply with waffle.

That said, in response to your waffle, these guys did want to go into WTC7 but were kept out it would seem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-js8vO6_Hc&feature=player_embedded

Facepalm!

This is guys who wanted to go to the debris of 1 and 2 to rescue survivors NOT people wanting to go into WTC7! They were kept out because 7 would have killed many of them when it collapsed.

 

[000063]

MrKinnies, you never answered this question.

Is there a difference between the last stage of a process and the entire process? Again, yes or no.

Ahem.

Only people with no expertise or they are biased are telling its no symmetrical collapse, those people do not understand the behaviour of a collapse.

The East Penthouse collapsed while the west side of the penthouse stood. That means it wasn't symmetrical.

There is really no wriggle room here.

Yes it does, thanks.

It shows me that the building was already falling to the ground and therefore subject to the chaotic forces of crashing steel and concrete at ground level.

But before the building started to fall as a single unit, there was no lean.

Except for the part where the E. Penthouse had already fallen before the bulk of the collapse.

Once again, Truther's say symmetry is evidence of CD. When shown the collapse is asymmetrical, the say that's also evidence of a collapse, or it's "more symmetrical" than a natural collapse would be.

I'm not disputing the fact that fire can destroy a building - any building.

But I am disputing that fire brought down WTC7.

It didn't. Fire and some debris damage.

I also dispute that 19 terrorists had anything to do with 9/11 or that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 landed where it was meant to have done......

Of course not. It crashed, it didn't land.

 

[Marokkaan]

Repeat all you like. Doesn't change a thing. It simply is not true.




How would I know? All I said is that I can think of at least two mechanism that would allow even higher than 1g acceleration for short periods, and 1g or very close to it (because you can't actually show 1g because of the possible error band) is no problem at all. That would be speculation as to what happened, not necessarily what actually happened.

Like I said its merely a curiosity.....nothing more.

Exactly, you dont know. Controlled demolition can explain this. Its very easy.

Its the most plausible thing you would expect.

Because NIST and you and the others can not explain this.

What would it be easy, if u just check the steel for explosives/incendiaries to exclude.

But no NIST didnt.

 

[000063]

Verinage is a demolition technique and that means human beings are involved in causing the building to collapse.

Those human beings make damn sure that the building will fall as intended by removing key lateral restraints throughout the structure and applying simultaneous destruction to all the supporting members at the point collapse is to start.

Except that the supports of the East Penthouse went first. You can't have sequential support loss and claim that it's simultaneous at the same time.

Natural building collapses don't follow the same procedure. They are messy and usually incomplete.

Like "hitting buildings" in all directions messy, like WTC 1,2, and 7 did?

 

[mrkinnies]

Its worse than that, even if he does see video he only believes it, if it fits his version of reality......its a classic case of confirmation bias.

Sigh!

The irrational behaviour appears to be all yours and alienentity's.

No-planers, as I understood them, were those truthers who suggested the planes which hit the Twin Towers were CGI. I have always disagreed with this since I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the video footage.

Since there is no video footage of either flight 77 or flight 93 then the subject of their demise cannot be discussed with actual video evidence of their flight paths and crashes.

That's all I'm saying. Twist the meaning if you like; if that's the only way you feel you can win.

 

[000063]

Since there is no video footage of either flight 77 or flight 93 then the subject of their demise cannot be discussed with actual video evidence of their flight paths and crashes.

Which is irrelevant, as there is plenty of eyewitness and physical evidence, even if there weren't--oh, wait, 77 was caught on video. A poor video, but video nonetheless. It's one of the most famous videos of 9/11, in fact. I question your research skills.

MrKinnies, you have a question to answer. Is there a difference between the last stage of a process and the entire process? Again, yes or no.

Exactly, you dont know. Controlled demolition can explain this. Its very easy.

Its the most plausible thing you would expect.

Because NIST and you and the others can not explain this.

Yes they can, you just don't like the explanation.

What would it be easy, if u just check the steel for explosives/incendiaries to exclude.

But no NIST didnt.

Because there was no melted or exploded steel. No evidence of barotrauma. Thermite or whatever can't take down steel instantly, and would have to have been conspicuously burning before the "collapse" reached that point. It's far too risky to even plant these hypothetical devices. Heck, even the bomb-sniffing dogs--which are trained on thermite as well, IIRC--found diddly. It doesn't matter that NIST found no devices. No one found any devices or evidence of them. Not NIST. Not the FBI. Not FDNY. Not NYPD. Not the detectives and forensic experts who hand-searched the debris. All you have is argument from ignorance. The best truthers can do is point at photos of beams cut by steelworkers and declare it evidence of explosives or incendiaries. Strangely, none of the actual devices or their remains are ever seen.

 

[carlitos]

So mrkinnies is not a True No-Planer^TM. And he's having a discussion with at least one scotsman here. Nice.

 

[carlitos]

Sigh!

...

Since there is no video footage of either flight 77 or flight 93 then the subject of their demise cannot be discussed with actual video evidence of their flight paths and crashes.

That's all I'm saying. Twist the meaning if you like; if that's the only way you feel you can win.

No, actually, that's not all you're saying:

I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and I don't believe Flight 93 landed in that field in Shanksville..

 

[dafydd]

Maybe i have to repeat, 8 stories in freefall is impossible in a natural collapse.

explain to me what happened with the 8 stories.

Read the report. Where did you study engineering?