Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Miragememories said:
If you wish to argue the existence of the Internet and search engines in 2001, I have no argument for you.

MM
Click to expand...

That's the most accurate thing you've ever said in my entire time of posting here. Ever.

You know why that is MM?

Because the internet and search engines were available in plenty of forms.

Remember AOL?
 
Miragememories said:
Recent posts are meandering and off-topic.
Click to expand...
True, because Lex keeps JAQing off.

As has occurred throughout this thread, the Official Story adherents have failed to address Christopher7's technical arguments.

I would say it shows little argument can be made against his points.

MM
Click to expand...
There's a difference between lack of argument and inability to argue.

Ergo, for example, frequently dismisses points out of hand. At one point, he scoffed at a calculation made using the basic principle of a sundial. Strangely, when challenged, it was clear he knew he had been wrong, but he didn't want to admit it. I've also seen people-again, including Ergo-suddenly declare that they don't want to discuss X and try to change the subject right after they've been soundly trounced on the matter of X. I've also seen people-you-repeatedly taking pot-shots at debunkers while seeming curiously loath to address their actual arguments, whether they are on-topic or not.

Miragememories said:
"I've never checked but I have no doubt the details were well documented in the reports at the time."

It is so much easier to make an assumption than check.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, respond to being proved wrong with mockery, and pretending that the matter is irrelevant, while presenting no actual argument whatsoever. An excellent example of what I was talking about.

If you wish to argue the existence of the Internet and search engines in 2001, I have no argument for you.

Congratulations on successfully obtaining your Masters Degree!

MM
Click to expand...
So by your own logic, it "shows little argument can be made against [SnS's] points." Are you admitting you were wrong?

And, oh yes, avoiding the request to prove that the military could intercept the planes in practice.
 
chrismohr said:
To people who have studied FEMR's data,

Is what Chris7 saying here true? I was under the impression that what was going up and down was the speed of descent due to variable resistance, not that the building was descending at a negative rate sometimes (in other words, popping up and down).

Another question: I am assuming that Chris7's up-and-down charge on FEMR's data refers to the beginning of the collapse sequence. If so, even assuming that Chris7's reading of the data is accurate, is his claim that up-and-down motion is possible only in an earthquake true? For example, if the building is barely beginning its descent, and some internal torquing or leveraging is happening, could a single point along the roofline move a tiny bit upward?
Click to expand...
In the 3 seconds before the collapse it would not be vibrating up and down many times a second as much as 6".

The point is that the video image is varying a bit due to the atmospheric disturbance and the measurements are not exact. The building is not moving up and down nor did the building change in acceleration up and down as it fell. Taking the data points as absolutely accurate is an erroneous interpretation.

NIST did not do that nor did Mr. Chandler because they know that the data points are NOT absolutely accurate. That's why they use a lot of points and have the software compute the average. The average was FFA as close as can be measured. The difference is negligible - too small to be considered.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Since when was a Masters in Math a vaccine against mental illness or incompertence? And Math is not Physics. One must study math to be able to do physics but there is no requirement at all that one studies physics to do math. Chandler likely has done no more physics than that required for his high school classes and its clear he did not understand even that.
Click to expand...
You are an anonymous poster saying a physics teacher with two masters degrees and the "experts" at NIST don't know what they are talking about. :rolleyes: Right.

Just a lot of grandiose claims and bluster.
 
pgimeno said:
Whatever. That NIST appendix contradicts your statement that
C7 said:
That asinine interpretation of the data is refuted by NIST and Chandler. Measurements taken from a video are not exact so many are taken and the software computes the average.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Of course dear. Would you post the quote please?
 
000063 said:
True, because Lex keeps JAQing off.

There's a difference between lack of argument and inability to argue.

Ergo, for example, frequently dismisses points out of hand. At one point, he scoffed at a calculation made using the basic principle of a sundial. Strangely, when challenged, it was clear he knew he had been wrong, but he didn't want to admit it. I've also seen people-again, including Ergo-suddenly declare that they don't want to discuss X and try to change the subject right after they've been soundly trounced on the matter of X. I've also seen people-you-repeatedly taking pot-shots at debunkers while seeming curiously loath to address their actual arguments, whether they are on-topic or not.

Ah, yes, respond to being proved wrong with mockery, and pretending that the matter is irrelevant, while presenting no actual argument whatsoever. An excellent example of what I was talking about.

So by your own logic, it "shows little argument can be made against [SnS's] points." Are you admitting you were wrong?

And, oh yes, avoiding the request to prove that the military could intercept the planes in practice.
Click to expand...

I suggest you learn how to quote properly if you want a proper response.

MM
 
Christopher7 said:
The people at NIST are the only people who have seen the data. The scientific method requires that NIST release the data so it can be checked by others. "Trust me" is not science.
Click to expand...

You haven't even specified what data you want released. "All of it" is not an acceptable answer.

ETA: Their inputs are in the public domain, as well. You yourself used them to supposedly "debunk" NIST. Exactly what data is it so crucial to have?
 
Last edited:
thedopefishlives said:
You haven't even specified what data you want released. "All of it" is not an acceptable answer.

ETA: Their inputs are in the public domain, as well. You yourself used them to supposedly "debunk" NIST. Exactly what data is it so crucial to have?
Click to expand...

Just another goal post move by troofers........since their claims keep getting narrower and narrower as they get refuted. :rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
I suggest you learn how to quote properly if you want a proper response.

MM
Click to expand...
I don't expect a proper response from you.

MM, you were wrong. Search engines existed before 2001, and it was quite possible for the hijackers to learn about the relevant areas by using the library and other public sources, without getting near a keyboard.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are an anonymous poster saying a physics teacher with two masters degrees and the "experts" at NIST don't know what they are talking about. :rolleyes: Right.

Just a lot of grandiose claims and bluster.
Click to expand...

Says the carpenter who doesn't understand fire science......
 
000063 said:
I don't expect a proper response from you.

MM, you were wrong. Search engines existed before 2001, and it was quite possible for the hijackers to learn about the relevant areas by using the library and other public sources, without getting near a keyboard.
Click to expand...

On paper, or Microsoft, I'm sure it appeared that post-Cuba, the U.S. had an effective response time to aircraft hijackings.

The only relevant question is; were the U.S. military then, and now for that matter, ready to shoot down civilian airliners?

Because the success of the plan you believe was used, depended on a delayed military intervention well outside of the narrow timeline available to hijackers.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
On paper, or Microsoft, I'm sure it appeared that post-Cuba, the U.S. had an effective response time to aircraft hijackings.

The only relevant question is; were the U.S. military then, and now for that matter, ready to shoot down civilian airliners?
Click to expand...
Broadly, no, and especially not with the speed and decisiveness which would've been called for on 9/11. As for today, IDK.

Because the success of the plan you believe was used, depended on a delayed military intervention well outside of the narrow timeline available to hijackers.

MM
Click to expand...
What was the intercept time for the last plane intercepted over US soil?

This is a rhetorical question. In the entire decade before 9/11, the US intercepted only one plane over US soil, and it took them 88 minutes. Payne Stewart's plane, specifically. And that's with a transponder going, much less the transponder turned off.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

Two of the 9/11 flights reached their targets in less than an hour, the third in an hour and twenty, and the Shanksville planes went down after an hour and twenty minutes. Incidentally, Air Force and Air National Guard planes got close enough to Stewart's plane to tell it had decompressed.

They had four planes just in case one got shot down. Only one needed to succeed for the plan to be a success. Three did.
 
Christopher7 said:
The people at NIST are the only people who have seen the data. The scientific method requires that NIST release the data so it can be checked by others. "Trust me" is not science.
Click to expand...

You seem to think NIST is trying to prove a new scientific breakthrough or something. They were tasked to find out why a those buildings collapsed. Nothing more, nothing less. If we're to believe what you're spewing, it's as if they're trying to prove how old fossils are, or the origins of mankind or meaning of life stuff.

For chrissake, NIST doesn't exist to please YOU, Mr Sarns. They've got better things to do. And they don't exist to wallow on 9/11. They're done with that.

Scientific method my ass.
 
Miragememories said:
On paper, or Microsoft, I'm sure it appeared that post-Cuba, the U.S. had an effective response time to aircraft hijackings.

The only relevant question is; were the U.S. military then, and now for that matter, ready to shoot down civilian airliners?

MM
Click to expand...

The relevant question is, how often did hijackers use those airplanes as weapons to drive into buildings?

Zero. None. Nada. Ziltch.

Before 9/11 - I knew that. Everybody in America knew that. Hijack planes, land, refuel, wave your little gun out the window and show the world just how tough you are. That's what hijacking was.

Nobody could have forseen what they were up to on 9/11. I find it very unlikely that the people on the planes thought they were going to die until it was too late. That's an assumption. But it's an educated guess seeing as though flight 93 failed its mission when word came out.

Because the success of the plan you believe was used, depended on a delayed military intervention well outside of the narrow timeline available to hijackers.
Click to expand...

Military intervention would have meant shadowing the aircraft. By the time they were hijacked, it was too late. The hijackers had all the time in the world. Why would you shoot down a hijacked aircraft? The thought was stupid pre-9/11. You wait for them to land, then you figure it out.
 
Last edited:
thedopefishlives said:
You haven't even specified what data you want released. "All of it" is not an acceptable answer.

ETA: Their inputs are in the public domain, as well. You yourself used them to supposedly "debunk" NIST. Exactly what data is it so crucial to have?
Click to expand...
As if you didn't know. :rolleyes:

The "data" is the input to the collapse model - the actual numbers.
Ron Brookman SE, filed a FOIA request and NIST said no.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom