Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The bolded bit is your black-and-white assessment of the images. It is not true that they in no way reflect actual video images, or the actual progression of the collapse.

Dave

True, they both have windows. Was I correct when I said earlier:

I would even doubt you have ever assessed in which respects NIST's model was inaccurate.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

True, they both have windows. Was I correct when I said earlier:

I would even doubt you have ever assessed in which respects NIST's model was inaccurate.

Well, it's clear that you've made no attempt to do so. Care to show me those windows on the images from the NIST model?

Dave

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Edx

Verinage works by removing supports (NOT ENTIRE FLOORS) in 1 or 2 floors with cables and hydraulics. Explosive demolition is also not free fall either because they are not trying to remove all matter below the building, they strategically remove supports and allow the building to collapse into itself.

According to the truth movement the 2.25 seconds of free fall could only have happened if the matter below the collapsing floors were removed, they claim explosives were used and the idea of buckling (ie.what was proposed by NIST with no disagreement outside of trutherdom) is nonsence.

Therefore truthers must think that 8-stories worth of building was VAPORISED - like a Star Trek weapon - INSTANTLY and also they did this so QUIETLY it wasn't picked up in the numerous cameras perfectly situated to capture any detonations.

Ah, thank you for agreeing with me that the support of an entire floor needs to be lost to allow the upper section of a building to fall onto the lower. I didn't of course say EVERY support before, but THE support, just in case you were trying to twist my words. How they do this is up to the demolition team but the idea is to weaken the structure enough such that the building falls as neatly and maybe as symmetrically as is possible.

Perhaps some truthers believe that the floors below were vaporised but I'm happy to accept that only a handful of critical columns and structural elements needed to be destroyed for the building to fail like a Verinage style collapse - just as you and NIST agree is possible. Maybe that's why the Penthouse fell first; it's supporting structure needed to be pulled ahead of the main block for the building to finally fall cleanly and symmetrically (which it did). As many witnesses reported hearing explosions throughout the day, perhaps the critical supports were being removed slowly so as not to cause suspicion. Who knows, but it's plausible. The fact that the cameras didn't capture the final sounds doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that the sound recording equipment didn't record them.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Well, it's clear that you've made no attempt to do so. Care to show me those windows on the images from the NIST model?

Dave

I guess petulance is all you have left. I'll just assume that you have made no attempt to do so.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

The fact that the cameras didn't capture the final sounds doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that the sound recording equipment didn't record them.

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I guess petulance is all you have left. I'll just assume that you have made no attempt to do so.

Yes, that's a good approach to glossing over the fact that you've either never looked at the images you're commenting on, or have, but didn't understand them.

Dave

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Edx

Verinage works by removing supports (NOT ENTIRE FLOORS) in 1 or 2 floors with cables and hydraulics. Explosive demolition is also not free fall either because they are not trying to remove all matter below the building, they strategically remove supports and allow the building to collapse into itself.

According to the truth movement the 2.25 seconds of free fall could only have happened if the matter below the collapsing floors were removed, they claim explosives were used and the idea of buckling (ie.what was proposed by NIST with no disagreement outside of trutherdom) is nonsence.

Therefore truthers must think that 8-stories worth of building was VAPORISED - like a Star Trek weapon - INSTANTLY and also they did this so QUIETLY it wasn't picked up in the numerous cameras perfectly situated to capture any detonations.

Originally Posted by NoahFence

OK, so video and photo isn't "true" evidence. Tell me, mrkinnies, what IS "true" evidence?

That's not what I said. I asked you if you could verify that those images came from the Pentagon attack and are authentic? If you cannot then you cannot use them as true evidence.

But let's face it, the NBC and CBS videos of the WTC7 collapse are definitely of building 7. We can both verify that.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

maybe as symmetrically

where's that goalpoast moving icon at when you need it?

[NoahFence]

Quote:

As many witnesses reported hearing explosions throughout the day, perhaps the critical supports were being removed slowly so as not to cause suspicion.

Precious.....

The amount of different things that could account for sounds of explosions would probably number over a hundred.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.

Yes, nobody has seriously considered the possibility that the microphone of a 2001 video camera, designed to pick up the 40-60dB sound levels of speech at around 1 metre, was incapable of picking up sounds at a level of +130dB, roughly one hundred million times louder. Why on Earth would we have missed something so obvious?

Dave

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Yes, that's a good approach to glossing over the fact that you've either never looked at the images you're commenting on, or have, but didn't understand them.

Dave

I must have looked at them to know, as you agreed, that they do not reflect recorded images that day. Why are trying so hard to avoid that point?

[NoahFence]

Quote:

That's not what I said. I asked you if you could verify that those images came from the Pentagon attack and are authentic? If you cannot then you cannot use them as true evidence.

And I asked YOU to go to google images and look for the images. They exist. They're EXTREMELY easy to find. So much so that it's no doubt a lie that you've never seen them. I CAN verify that they're from the pentagon, as I SAID, because the pentagon is IN THE FRIGGIN PICTURES.

They are authentic.
They are real.
They were used as evidence in a trial, which is why they're public record.
As such they are extremely easy to find. You HAVE heard of google, right?

Since I obviously need to hold your hand:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...180l1038l2.6l8

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...17l853l4.3.1l8

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I must have looked at them to know, as you agreed, that they do not reflect recorded images that day.

So you admit you simply didn't understand them? Well, that's progress.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

So you admit you simply didn't understand them? Well, that's progress.

Dave

Why did NIST produce images which were so radically different from what anyone could see from the recorded images?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Why did NIST produce images which were so radically different from what anyone could see from the recorded images?

Presumably, because they left the windows out.

Dave

[Edx]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Your call for perfection not withstanding, yes the collapse appeared symetrical.

Call to perfection? You just complained about NISTs WTC7 animation.

And they dont just say most of it fell quite symetrically they say it fell straight down into its own footprint. Well again, it can't do that and fall accross a 4 lane street to critcially damage another building at the same time.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Why did NIST produce images which were so radically different from what anyone could see from the recorded images?

Since the NIST report is now used by architects and engineers when building new skyscrapers, I'm sure they have a good reason. Probably because there are other images which DO coincide with the recorded images. These images that you're referring to may be used for a different purpose. But without knowing exactly which images you refer to, honestly, I don't know that for a fact but based on common sense, I'll virtually guarantee that that is indeed the case.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Presumably, because they left the windows out.

Dave

To indulge your semantics, it was the glass they left out, not the windows.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Since the NIST report is now used by architects and engineers when building new skyscrapers, I'm sure they have a good reason. Probably because there are other images which DO coincide with the recorded images. These images that you're referring to may be used for a different purpose. But without knowing exactly which images you refer to, honestly, I don't know that for a fact but based on common sense, I'll virtually guarantee that that is indeed the case.

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

I'm not a liar too so why do you think you are so special? I've asked this before.

So how comes the fuselage penetrated the building through several inner rings yet the wings disappeared? The Pentagon was after all a massively reinforced building.

Looks like you cannot confirm those photos after all. Just saying they are true is NOT evidence.

because the mass of the fuselage was enough to break through whilst the masses of the wings and tail were not. Result is a hole the diameter of the fuselage in the exterior wall and progressively smaller holes as the mass and velocity reduced in the other rings. The wings and tail just ended as aluminum confetti just as the Phantom did.

This is Engineering and Physics 101 stuff. Where did study either?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

It's faith based on several years of listening to you tools fail about 9/11 time and time again.

Care to actually tell me what frickin' image you're referring to so I can confirm the fail?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

When you're not an expert critical thinking should tell you that if the NIST report is as much of a obvious fraud as truthers claim you'd see more than a minicule irrelevant fringe fraction of nobodies critcising it

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

To indulge your semantics, it was the glass they left out, not the windows.

Really? You think they included the window frames in the simulation?

Dave

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Precious.....

The amount of different things that could account for sounds of explosions would probably number over a hundred.

So this is where the debunkers claim to be experts on the cause of noise now. You have no proof of what caused those noises, just conjecture yet you treat your view as being special and the right one. Such arguments are circular and pointless as I explained earlier in the day.

They could have been from explosives and you cannot argue that to be wrong since explosives make explosive noises or do they go cluck!

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

No idea, they don't show the aftermath on this clip or hadn't you notice?. But there was a hole punched through several rings of the Pentagon so how did that happen? According to your video, the plane should have disintegrated with no hole left, although, this cannot be seen on your video.

There are longer videos and even the whole technical report on the Phantom test is available on line (it was carried out in Japan to test how the concrete containment vessel of a nuclear power plant would stand up to the impact of an aircraft.

The block used was thicker than the Pentagon wall and of course a 757 is heavier than a Phantom. So the fuselage of the 757 punched through whilst the phantom did not. The thing to learn from the video is how an aluminum aircraft structure simply turns to shrapnel is such a high speed impact.
The speeds of the 757 and the Phantom were very similar.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

So this is where the debunkers claim to be experts on the cause of noise now. You have no proof of what caused those noises, just conjecture yet you treat your view as being special and the right one

Conjecture? That's the truth movement in its entirety! It's ALL conjecture. I on the other hand, can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that other things can and did explode on 9/11 - and I can prove they weren't explosives. My "special and right" view has been backed up by fact. Yours? Not so much.

Quote:

They could have been from explosives and you cannot argue that to be wrong since explosives make explosive noises or do they go cluck!

They don't however, react well to fire.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

So this is where the debunkers claim to be experts on the cause of noise now. You have no proof of what caused those noises, just conjecture yet you treat your view as being special and the right one. Such arguments are circular and pointless as I explained earlier in the day.

They could have been from explosives and you cannot argue that to be wrong since explosives make explosive noises or do they go cluck!

We have no proof of what caused the noises people heard, but despite the fact that hundreds of things can cause explosions and sounds like explosions you want to claim specifically explosives caused them?

I told you before that not only are explosions common in fires but people even use the words "blast" and "sounding like bombs" in cases that do not involve fires and even in cases that they already know they arent refering to an explosive!

What evidence do you have they specifically experienced an explosive rather than something else?

Additionally, we have videos all around and up close to all 3 collapses on 911 and ZERO detonations can be heard. Yet truthers claim huge pieces of steel were flung around by powerfull blast waves from explosives, they claim 8 stories in WTC7 were instantly vaporised to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall while not making a sound. Instead they'll fall back on eyewitness' quotes talking about explosions, even though plenty of other things can cause it and reports just like that are common. If there were all these bombs going off why did no one suffer any blast injuries? Blast injuries are common in every other bombing yet completely absent on 911.

1. So witness' reporting explosions could be a hundred other things before its a bomb.
2. No one suffered common injuries associated with explosives
3. No videos of the collapse show any sounds consistent with explosive detonations whatsoever not even when all this steel vaporising and flinging and concretre pulverising is meant to be occuring. Not even real explosive demolitions are trying to be able to as powerfull as what truthers claim happened on 911 and yet you never have any trouble hearing them.

Here's a video I made a while back with a few of these points

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Its a similar case with reports of molten metal and steel. Truthers claim its strange, yet they are completely unremarkable as well. Plenty of other fires even before 911 have had reports of people claiming to have seen molten steel and molten metal afterwards.

I agree there could have been explosives, but what evidence do you have for their existance on 911? All the evidence points against it.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Really? You think they included the window frames in the simulation?

Dave

Is this really the only way you can defend NIST's unrealistic collapse images?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Ah, thank you for agreeing with me that the support of an entire floor needs to be lost to allow the upper section of a building to fall onto the lower.

I didnt agree with that. If you weaken and destroy a few or 1 critical connections holding up a floor above, but not every single column, the lower floor might now not have enough load bearing strength to hold up that top floor. At that point its going to collapse, isn't it, but you claim that floor wont just fall down onto the floor below but is going to fall off to the side despite zero lateral energy available to do that.

Quote:

I didn't of course say EVERY support before, but THE support, just in case you were trying to twist my words. How they do this is up to the demolition team but the idea is to weaken the structure enough such that the building falls as neatly and maybe as symmetrically as is possible.

But you know that Gage and your truther friends claim that is how 2.25 seconds of free fall is only explained by explosives, because they claim that the entire 8 stories would have had to have been removed.

Therefore they are saying explosives somehow instantly removed 8 stories by some unknown method and it was done so quietly videos didnt pick it up. What explosives work the way Gage and co. claim they work?

Quote:

Perhaps some truthers believe that the floors below were vaporised but I'm happy to accept that only a handful of critical columns and structural elements needed to be destroyed for the building to fail like a Verinage style collapse

In that case, why cant fire explain it? You are introducing a massive conspiracy using fictional explosives for no reason I can see.

Quote:

Maybe that's why the Penthouse fell first; it's supporting structure needed to be pulled ahead of the main block for the building to finally fall cleanly and symmetrically (which it did).

Don't use the word pull as if thats some kind of demolition term.

And how can it fall cleanly if it fell accross a 4 lane street and critcially damaged a builiding there?

Quote:

As many witnesses reported hearing explosions throughout the day,.

And yet none sustained any injuries associated with explosives and none were caught on any video tape when all this steel flinging and pulverising was meant to be occuring. How is that possible? Also see my other post.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

True, they both have windows. Was I correct when I said earlier:

I would even doubt you have ever assessed in which respects NIST's model was inaccurate.

do we really have to start posting pictures of demised equines????

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Is this really the only way you can defend NIST's unrealistic collapse images?

Which specific image?

I get the sense you're reluctant to specify which, because you already know that doing so will kill this silly line of questioning.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.

Yet there are dozens of videos of CDs on Youtube where they managed just fine.....yet none managed on 911 despite the huge variety of camera used? Implausible.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Your call for perfection not withstanding, yes the collapse appeared symetrical.

so you agree with mrkinnies definition and not reality. Funny how you have a call to perfection on noah and WTC7 falling on Fitterman Hall.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Edx

We have no proof of what caused the noises, but despite the fact that hundreds of things can cause explosions and sounds like explosions you want to claim explosives caused them?

I told you before that not only are explosions common in fires but people even use the words "blast" and "sounding like bombs" in cases that do not involve fires and even in cases that they already know they arent refering to an explosive! What evidence do you have they specifically experienced an explosive?

Additionally, we have videos all around and up close to all 3 collapses on 911 and ZERO detonations can be heard. Yet truthers claim huge pieces of steel were flung around by powerfull blast waves from explosives, they claim 8 stories in WTC7 were instantly vaporised to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall while not making a sound. Instead they'll fall back on eyewitness' quotes talking about explosions, even though plenty of other things can cause it and reports just like that are common. If there were all these bombs going off why did no one suffer any blast injuries? Blast injuries are common in every other bombing yet completely absent on 911.

1. So witness' reporting explosions could be a hundred other things before its a bomb.
2. No one suffered common injuries associated with explosives
3. No videos of the collapse show any sounds consistent with explosive detonations whatsoever not even when all this steel vaporising and flinging and concretre pulverising is meant to be occuring. Not even real explosive demolitions are trying to be able to as powerfull as what truthers claim happened on 911 and yet you never have any trouble hearing them.

Its a similar case with reports of molten metal and steel. Truthers claim its srange, yet they are completely unremarkable as well. Plenty of other fires even before 911 have had reports of people claiming to have seen molten steel and molten metal afterwards.

I agree there could have been explosives, but what evidence do you have for their existance on 911? All the evidence points against it.

Is that post your idea of a joke? Unremarkable? You missed your calling.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

Is that post your idea of a joke? Unremarkable? You missed your calling.

I don't suppose you'd have the time to actually detail what's a joke about it, would you? You know, with actual words and evidence?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Or that handheld videocams didn't have the necessary mic and/or capability. Nearly ten years of "debunking" has managed to avoid considering these possibilities.

Ok Red, please find me some recordings of demolitions from around that time or before it that couldn't pick up demolition explosions.

Do that and I will accept it, but you won't because you have no idea how sound works.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Is that post your idea of a joke? Unremarkable? You missed your calling.

Yes its totally unremarkable. Plenty of other fires even before 911 contain reports of people seeing molten steel and molten metal. If I show you examples, will you accept the point?

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Edx

We have no proof of what caused the noises, but despite the fact that hundreds of things can cause explosions and sounds like explosions you want to claim explosives caused them?

I told you before that not only are explosions common in fires but people even use the words "blast" and "sounding like bombs" in cases that do not involve fires and even in cases that they already know they arent refering to an explosive! What evidence do you have they specifically experienced an explosive?

Additionally, we have videos all around and up close to all 3 collapses on 911 and ZERO detonations can be heard. Yet truthers claim huge pieces of steel were flung around by powerfull blast waves from explosives, they claim 8 stories in WTC7 were instantly vaporised to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall while not making a sound. Instead they'll fall back on eyewitness' quotes talking about explosions, even though plenty of other things can cause it and reports just like that are common. If there were all these bombs going off why did no one suffer any blast injuries? Blast injuries are common in every other bombing yet completely absent on 911.

1. So witness' reporting explosions could be a hundred other things before its a bomb.
2. No one suffered common injuries associated with explosives
3. No videos of the collapse show any sounds consistent with explosive detonations whatsoever not even when all this steel vaporising and flinging and concretre pulverising is meant to be occuring. Not even real explosive demolitions are trying to be able to as powerfull as what truthers claim happened on 911 and yet you never have any trouble hearing them.

Its a similar case with reports of molten metal and steel. Truthers claim its srange, yet they are completely unremarkable as well. Plenty of other fires even before 911 have had reports of people claiming to have seen molten steel and molten metal afterwards.

I agree there could have been explosives, but what evidence do you have for their existance on 911? All the evidence points against it.

No, all evidence points to there having been explosive noises. This means they could have been caused in many ways including by explosives. To say that all the evidence points against explosives is plain stupid. At the current time, there is no proof either way so you can no more debunk my claims of explosives anymore than I can of your 'other' noise theories.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is faith, not skeptical inquiry.

curses, my irony meter just blew!

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

so you agree with mrkinnies definition and not reality. Funny how you have a call to perfection on noah and WTC7 falling on Fitterman Hall.

so Disbelief, did the upper 33 floors of WTC7 fall as one block or was NIST wrong too?