Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[sheeplesnshills]

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

How could I know? I have insufficient data to ascertain exactly what happened.

Its the most plausible thing you would expect.

No its not. Its what you expect. not I. I am not to blame for your lack of understanding

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

We have no need to do so.

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

No beams were cut, no explosions of sufficient magnitude and remains of detonators, shock cord, timers etc etc. They did not also check for sign that godzilla was not involved......why not?

But no NIST didnt.

Well they were not asked to so it would have been outside their remit to do so. There is no evidence for the use of explosives so why look for that as opposed to Godzilla claw marks? Godzilla doesn't exist???? youtube says otherwise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8trsDPpAI5E

 

[Animal]

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

explain to me what happened with the 8 stories.

trooferism.......repeatiing a lie again and again in the hope that it will be accepted as true.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Sigh!

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

How so. Please show where I was irrational.

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.

And you were wrong. They are merely one subset of no planers.

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.

So? there were multiple eye witnesses and other forensic evidence. Lack of video says nothing about the reality of something. Did the battle of Hastings not happen just because nobody filmed it in hi Def??

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

Denial is not a river in Eygpt.

 

[mrkinnies]

So? there were multiple eye witnesses and other forensic evidence. Lack of video says nothing about the reality of something. Did the battle of Hastings not happen just because nobody filmed it in hi Def??

There you go again, irrational logic.

Read what I said. The demise of the planes cannot be discussed using video evidence of the crashes - because there isn't any. It's really that simple.

Of course the other facts can be discussed using other evidence but it's still not conclusive however you look at it.

That's all you have isn't? The ability to play silly word games and call people names. Ah, diddums!

 

[Marokkaan]

How could I know? I have insufficient data to ascertain exactly what happened.



No its not. Its what you expect. not I. I am not to blame for your lack of understanding



We have no need to do so.



No beams were cut, no explosions of sufficient magnitude and remains of detonators, shock cord, timers etc etc. They did not also check for sign that godzilla was not involved......why not?



Well they were not asked to so it would have been outside their remit to do so. There is no evidence for the use of explosives so why look for that as opposed to Godzilla claw marks? Godzilla doesn't exist???? youtube says otherwise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8trsDPpAI5E

You are right lol. Lets ignore the 8 stories. Lets also ignore the freefall.

Al those points are not important. And do not support the cd theory

But it is important, to remove the sentence in the final NIST report: "it consistents physical principles". LOL

 

[Sabretooth]

There you go again, irrational logic.

Read what I said. The demise of the planes cannot be discussed using video evidence of the crashes - because there isn't any. It's really that simple.

Of course the other facts can be discussed using other evidence but it's still not conclusive however you look at it.

That's all you have isn't? The ability to play silly word games and call people names.

Jammy? Is that you?

 

[Animal]

I apologize deeply. I was speaking from a UK perspective and personal experience with my brother in law (graduate of Glasgow Universtity http://www.gsa.ac.uk/gsa.cfm?pid=11 where it can be see that Engineering and Architecture is a separate course.), he designs a lovely house but is not and would not pretend to be an engineer. Beams etc are chosen from tables, not calculated from first principles as would be required for unique buildings like the WTC towers. I have no doubt that many architects also study engineering in depth but those do not include Gage or our building contractor twoofer. Gages cardboard box stunt leaves no doubt about that.

No need to apologize. A good percentage of licensed architects in this country don't have a clue how a building is put together. I worked with one that had designed a ceiling with 5/8" gyp bd. with a 2ft radius on a curve......basically an inside dome out of gyp bd. She could not understand why the contractor thought she was a moron.

Gage is right up there with that segment of the profession.

One of my biggest complaints about architecture schools is they seem to embed an attitude in students that they can design anything and know everything about all building types. That could not be further from the truth. I have seen more buildings f****d up by architects that did not have the slightest clue what they were designing and never stop to ask. that sort of individual. They are an embarrassment to the profession.

I would not be surprised to find the majority of ae troofers to be just

 

[000063]

There you go again, irrational logic.

Read what I said. The demise of the planes cannot be discussed using video evidence of the crashes - because there isn't any. It's really that simple.

Except for the famous video of 77, yes. Did you miss my point, or are you just in outright denial? Here, I'll even link it for you.

Flight 77 video.

Of course the other facts can be discussed using other evidence but it's still not conclusive however you look at it.

I think you're conflating "you", as in "MrK", with "everyone else".

That's all you have isn't? The ability to play silly word games and call people names. Ah, diddums!

Guys, it's clear that MrK is ignoring me. I have asked him three times whether there's a difference between a part of the a sequence/process and the entire process. This is relevant because NIST claimed that only the last part of WTC 7's collapse was "global", yet MrK says they called the entire collapse global. The only logical conclusion is that he is ignoring the inconvenient question.

 

[mrkinnies]

No need to apologize. A good percentage of licensed architects in this country don't have a clue how a building is put together. I worked with one that had designed a ceiling with 5/8" gyp bd. with a 2ft radius on a curve......basically an inside dome out of gyp bd. She could not understand why the contractor thought she was a moron.

Gage is right up there with that segment of the profession.

One of my biggest complaints about architecture schools is they seem to embed an attitude in students that they can design anything and know everything about all building types. That could not be further from the truth. I have seen more buildings f****d up by architects that did not have the slightest clue what they were designing and never stop to ask. that sort of individual. They are an embarrassment to the profession.

I would not be surprised to find the majority of ae troofers to be just

Such lame words. On and on you debunkers go in pointless attempts to prove why you think truthers are incompetent.

There are embarrassing people in all professions.

So Animal, why, at the stage when WTC7 fell as a single unit (as described by NIST), did the building fall with symmetry and lack of initial rotation? You're the expert architect here so it should be easy for you.

 

[paperboy05]

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

Please substantiate this. Do you have a video showing a similar free fall for a previous controlled demolition?

 

[mrkinnies]

Except for the famous video of 77, yes. Did you miss my point, or are you just in outright denial? Here, I'll even link it for you.

Flight 77 video.


I think you're conflating "you", as in "MrK", with "everyone else".

Guys, it's clear that MrK is ignoring me. I have asked him three times whether there's a difference between a part of the a sequence/process and the entire process. This is relevant because NIST claimed that only the last part of WTC 7's collapse was "global", yet MrK says they called the entire collapse global. The only logical conclusion is that he is ignoring the inconvenient question.

If I said that then I was wrong to do so. Can you show me where and I'll apologise.

As for that video, I rest my case. No plane to be seen.

 

[dafydd]

Such lame words. On and on you debunkers go in pointless attempts to prove why you think truthers are incompetent.

There are embarrassing people in all professions.

So Animal, why, at the stage when WTC7 fell as a single unit (as described by NIST), did the building fall with symmetry and lack of initial rotation? You're the expert architect here so it should be easy for you.

Where did you study engineering,CD and fire control?

 

[paperboy05]

So Animal, why, at the stage when WTC7 fell as a single unit (as described by NIST), did the building fall with symmetry

Unless you are using a new definition of "symmetry", it didn't.

 

[mrkinnies]

Unless you are using a new definition of "symmetry", it didn't.

So you debunkers keep saying.

Sure the building flexed to produce a kink but at the point the building fell as a single unit, the north wall was still a rectangle, as was the west wall and all windows, panels and roofline stayed in their horizontal planes.

 

[dafydd]

Unless you are using a new definition of "symmetry", it didn't.

Truthers should provide a glossary of the terms they are going to use before they begin posting.

 

[Animal]

Such lame words. On and on you debunkers go in pointless attempts to prove why you think truthers are incompetent.

There are embarrassing people in all professions.

So Animal, why, at the stage when WTC7 fell as a single unit (as described by NIST), did the building fall with symmetry and lack of initial rotation? You're the expert architect here so it should be easy for you.

It did not fall with symmetry.
Lack of intial rotation? - Lack of a lateral force acting on it.

I suppose you think it should have toppled like a tree?

 

[dafydd]

So you debunkers keep saying.

Sure the building flexed to produce a kink but at the point the building fell as a single unit, the north wall was still a rectangle, as was the west wall and all windows, panels and roofline stayed in their horizontal planes.

What about my question about your studies?

 

[dafydd]

It did not fall with symmetry.
Lack of intial rotation? - Lack of a lateral force acting on it.

I suppose you think it should have toppled like a tree?

We all know that the building was a solid block.

 

[mrkinnies]

It did not fall with symmetry.
Lack of intial rotation? - Lack of a lateral force acting on it.

I suppose you think it should have toppled like a tree?

Possibly, or broken apart in sections.

Instead the outer walls stayed intact - while everything inside the building apparently fell to pieces. Amazing.

 

[Animal]

So you debunkers keep saying.

Sure the building flexed to produce a kink but at the point the building fell as a single unit, the north wall was still a rectangle, as was the west wall and all windows, panels and roofline stayed in their horizontal planes.

Were you expecting gravity to supply

a lateral force on the building remnants?