Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[NutCracker]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

It's another unexplainable and unusual action to add to the long list of other unexplainable and unusual actions which all happened on the same day.

Complex event, half a million tonnes of steel and concrete and what have you fell to the ground, unexplained detail. Surprisy surprisy..

Unexplained detail? And then what?

A detail that has what bearing on the overall conclusion exactly?

unexplained = unexplainable? You claim there are a lot of such details. Well, there seem to be some work for you to do, then. Dig up the facts and find out what the explanation for these details are. Then, tie in all the other evidence, radar data, CVR recordings, FDR data, DNA evidence, photographic evidence etc etc and write up your findings. Please elebaorate on how and why your findings change the overall conclusion.

Good luck with your enterprise. Drop me a note when your done. I'm very curious.

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Is there some suggestion that firefighters cannot be subverted ? Logic says that they are the same as the general population from which they spring where many can be bought off by money or manipulated by threats. That much is self evident surely ?

My objective disbelief in firefighters who said things like 'the building was fully involved in fire,all 47 floors from ground to ceiling'' is well supported by the total lack of evidence from the historical video and photo record to back up such an outlandish claim.

With Miller I don't believe him on subjective grounds bacause to me he shows all the body language signs of somebody who is lying and objectively because there is no satisfactory evidence by video or photo to show the lean that he describes. It is impossible that this lean would not be clearly and widely shown in the extensive visual record if it had in fact existed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA firefighter miller

To sum up. I believe that most fire fighter accounts of 9/11 are honest ones but I also believe that a minority of firefighter accounts are false for the reasons I gave.

I think I'm going to be sick. Firefighter Miller just lost 300 of his brothers and you are criticizing his BODY LANGUAGE? Do you have ANY IDEA what it must have been like to be a firefighter that day, risking your life, working day and night wondering whose body is going to turn up under the next twisted beam? I don't, it's out of the realm of my experience.

The consistency of the firefighters' reports about the deformation of Building 7 is impossible to deny without taking the position that large numbers of firefighters would lie to cover up the murder of hundreds of their own brothers. INCONCEIVABLE! SICKENING!

I've been patient but Bill my patience has snapped. And BTW no one I know of is denying the firefighters' reports of explosive sounds. But who among all those FDNY firefighters who reported explosive sounds in 2001 is still believing they were bombs and saying so? Out of 5000 FDNY employees? None that I know of, maybe a tiny handful of people who have left the force.

Discussion over. My experiment in direct observation has failed with you.

[chrismohr]

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

I'm going by memory here mrmikkies, but didn't Barry Jennings testify that firefighters were in the main lobby when he finally got down? Didn't I see videos of firefighters running up stairs in Building 7? Even if I'm wrong, I'm confident that firefighters were wanting to get into the debris pile left by the Twin Towers and that parts of the debris pile were within the collapse zone of Building 7. Wherever they were, firefighters had to be pulled away from a large collapse zone of Building 7.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I should have been clearer and said:-

''Is that how you phrased Richard Gage's question to NIST ? What really happened was that the top section tilted the 22 degrees and then the entire bottom of the building fell away beneath it. Almost as if somebody had pulled the plug.''

As one would expect it to.....with the floors already falling whats to hold it up?

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

Your words ring true for the debunkers too. Perhaps you should look at what history tells us. Here's a quote from Goring during the Nuremberg Trials;

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Looks like the debunkers were brought to the bidding of their leaders or fooled in plain english.

I'm British and owe no allegiance to the US Gov. whatsoever.
Goring lived in a dictatorship with no free press and high penalties for speaking up. He also was a nut with a very low opinion of "the people". Comparing Nazi Germany to the US today is ludicrous as both Watergate and the Monica Lewinsky scandals show quite clearly.

You may be (in fact being a twoofer shows that you are) very easily fooled by propaganda but not all of us are as gullible and ill-educated.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

I think I'm going to be sick. Firefighter Miller just lost 300 of his brothers and you are criticizing his BODY LANGUAGE? Do you have ANY IDEA what it must have been like to be a firefighter that day, risking your life, working day and night wondering whose body is going to turn up under the next twisted beam? I don't, it's out of the realm of my experience.

The consistency of the firefighters' reports about the deformation of Building 7 is impossible to deny without taking the position that large numbers of firefighters would lie to cover up the murder of hundreds of their own brothers. INCONCEIVABLE! SICKENING!

I've been patient but Bill my patience has snapped. And BTW no one I know of is denying the firefighters' reports of explosive sounds. But who among all those FDNY firefighters who reported explosive sounds in 2001 is still believing they were bombs and saying so? Out of 5000 FDNY employees? None that I know of, maybe a tiny handful of people who have left the force.

Discussion over. My experiment in direct observation has failed with you.

And that right there is why I ignore Bill Smith. He got the reaction that he wanted from you. Put him on ignore and let it go. He is mearly a troll.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

This does:


http://www.nmsr.org/BoxBoy.jpg

Yeah thats when we knew that Gage was either a moron or a fraud. That "demo" is so wrong in so many ways its just breathtakingly dumb.........

[paperboy05]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." ~ NIST NCSTAR 1-ASo NIST admitted that for 2.25 seconds, the building fell at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 - gravitational acceleration - as if eight stories worth of building were just teleported away.This is what we've been saying all along is impossible. Because when an object is falling at freefall acceleration, all of its gravitational potential energy is being converted into energy of motion, which means there is no energy left over to actually collapse the building! It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the period of freefall is only a small fraction of the overall collapse time, freefall acceleration at any moment is impossible."

Wait, what?

Can you please give some detailed explanations as to why it is impossible?

Also, keep in mind that Chandler was basing the "free fall" on a single point on the north wall, to claim it was the building is somewhat disingenuous.

Quote:

"Even if several floors of the outer structure were buckled as depicted above, there would still be plenty of structure to prevent the building from accelerating at free fall. Because in order to crush that buckled structure, it would have to use some of its gravitational potential energy, this would mean that not all the gravitational energy is being converted to kinetic enegy, and therefore freefall would not occur."

Is this true, anyone?

Also, you really should cite your sources: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...-outdated.html

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

So you suggest the speed is not relevant based on nothing more than your belief that engineers will find it irrelevant.

Hmmm, is this fantasy too or do you have proof?

This engineer finds it irrelevant.........so his belief is in fact factual.
Its a curiosity, nothing more.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Animal

Mine is a Science degree......not art. Had the same Statics and Mechanics classes that all the engineering majors had as well as engineering calculus (don't have a clue why we needed that) Also three structure courses taught by aeronautical engineers (and they hated us architects)

But then, I went to and predominately engineering Institute. My second degree was from a more usual university.......and that I would agree was more arts degree.

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.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

I think I'm going to be sick. Firefighter Miller just lost 300 of his brothers and you are criticizing his BODY LANGUAGE? Do you have ANY IDEA what it must have been like to be a firefighter that day, risking your life, working day and night wondering whose body is going to turn up under the next twisted beam? I don't, it's out of the realm of my experience.

The consistency of the firefighters' reports about the deformation of Building 7 is impossible to deny without taking the position that large numbers of firefighters would lie to cover up the murder of hundreds of their own brothers. INCONCEIVABLE! SICKENING!

I've been patient but Bill my patience has snapped. And BTW no one I know of is denying the firefighters' reports of explosive sounds. But who among all those FDNY firefighters who reported explosive sounds in 2001 is still believing they were bombs and saying so? Out of 5000 FDNY employees? None that I know of, maybe a tiny handful of people who have left the force.

Discussion over. My experiment in direct observation has failed with you.

Here's a few more reports along the same lines. Still no lean to be seen on tape though. No catastrophic fires either.

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring and fully involved " –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

"The flames were coming out of every window of 7 It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block".–Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

"7 was fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved" - Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

"The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window of 7 has fire. It is an amazing site" –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6.

"The other building,#7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." FDNY Firefighter TJ Mundy

"7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable."–FDNY Firefighter Steve Modica

"So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed" -–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim

For a lean I would like to see pictures of the clarity of this one which appears to show no lean pre cpllapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A collapse WTC71

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Chris, whatever happened to the over 75 Pentagon videos that were confiscated by the FBI? Why haven't they been released.

First, correct me if I wrong, but it was 75 videos of 911 total not 75 of the pentagon. secondly they released the only one that showed the plane, The other cameras showed people dying or nothing. If you do not know why they would not release the first I pity you and if they showed nothing but the interior of a highly secret building I can also only but pity you if you do not understand why it was not released. Security cameras in 2001 would not be high def nor would they store more than a frame or two every second.

We have the gate post, the gas station and the Hotel videos, all support a plane.......plus of course we have these witnesses........http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...sses/bart.html the forensics and a crash scene that looks exactly as it should...........heck even all CIT witnesses say it was a plane and that it hit the building!

[mrkinnies]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I'm British and owe no allegiance to the US Gov. whatsoever.
Goring lived in a dictatorship with no free press and high penalties for speaking up. He also was a nut with a very low opinion of "the people". Comparing Nazi Germany to the US today is ludicrous as both Watergate and the Monica Lewinsky scandals show quite clearly.

You may be (in fact being a twoofer shows that you are) very easily fooled by propaganda but not all of us are as gullible and ill-educated.

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.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://www1.salary.com/Fire-Fighter-Salary.html

so salary equals willingness to be bribed to cover up mass murder? You do understand that these people go into burning buildings to rescue people.....the suggestion that they all would be silent and remain silent over this is absurd. Hundreds of their Friends and family died on 911!

Whores will do almost anything for money, are you suggesting just because they and presumably you would do it, that hundreds of firefighters would do the same?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

... I'm not fooled by propaganda either. ...

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

... "peak oil" ...

Sure, pal. Cool story.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Then you can explain, how freefall was possible??

The centre of mass was in the core was in the process of moving downwards. In the video I just made, you can clearly see the upper portion of the building bow or flex under compression as the exterior is affected by this mass.
Somewhere in that period the exterior columns buckled. Once they buckled, they offered virtually no resistance (like a vertical toothpick snapping under an excessive load).
The exterior of the building then quickly fell roughly 7 or 8 floors until more resistance was encountered.

Quote:

If you really understand physics, you know its impossible that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall in a natural collapse

You are making a bare assertion. To show that it would be impossible, you'd have to 'prove' that the structure of the building couldn't fail that way.
Now that's impossible. Because you cannot 'prove' a negative, you cannot eliminate the possibility that the structure behaved that way naturally.

Quote:

So now you are saying to me, we can easily ignore 8 stories in freefall??? LOL

Nobody is ignoring it. If anything you are ignoring the most professional engineering analysis because you don't like to hear the conclusions. That's your personal problem.

Quote:

Can you please tell me your expertise??

Apparently greater than yours.

Quote:

You have to understand 8 stories in freefall in a natural collapse is IMPOSSIBLE.

Only controlled demolition is possible to do this.

You keep saying that as if it's a fact. Yet I challenge you to find, in the engineering literature, ANY MAXIM which supports what you claim.
Please find it if you can.

Or, alternatively, find, in the analysis of real, actual controlled demolition, any building which behaves the way WTC 7 did - by that I mean, find an equivalent building being demolished:

very tall, 40 floors perhaps
steel frame construction
progressive collapse of core East to West
exterior columns buckle roughly halfway thru the collapse

Please find a verified demolition in history which matches the collapse of WTC 7. Or stop making your bare assertions about something you do not wish to understand.

RU interested in learning, or just spreading propaganda? You seem to be bent on the latter, and I daresay you're not a structural engineer so your assertions have zero credibility. You haven't provided a single peer-reviewed engineering paper in an engineering journal to support your claims.

You've provided zero documentation from the world of actual controlled demolition.

In short, you're talking out of your rear end.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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.

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

I just quote an explanation, so you can understand in good english how important the free fall is. Its shocking you say freefall is not important because its a short period of time LOL. (but even it was not important, you can not forget/ignore the free fall, especially when you first denied there was freefall LOL.

"When accelerating constantly from rest, the distance-acceleration-time formula is distance = ˝ × acceleration × time˛ (S = ˝ a t˛). WTC7 was 180 metres tall. So for WTC7 falling at constant freefall acceleration (9.8ms-2), the values would be:180 = ˝ × 9.8 × t˛Which gives you a value for t of about 6 seconds. Now let's imagine WTC7 fell at only half the rate of gravity (4.9 ms-2). The values in this case would be:180 = ˝ × 4.9 × t˛Which would give you a value for t of about 8.5 seconds. The rate of fall has been halved, but the time has only increased by a couple of seconds. This is because everytime you halve a, you double t˛. Which means you multiply t by √2 (1.4). So halving the acceleration will yield only a 40% increase in time.Now if WTC7 had taken 8.5 seconds to collapse, a truther might say "this is only a couple of seconds longer than freefall, this is proof of demolition", and a debunker might respond by saying "8.5 seconds corresponds to an acceleration of half that of freefall, no demolition needed", and the debunker would be correct. But this is assuming the acceleration is constant throughout. In reality the acceleration was not constant.This was the mistake NIST made in their draft report. They correctly pointed out that the time between the moment the main structure (excluding the east penthouse) began to collapse and the moment the building disappeared from view in the most well known video of its collapse, was 5.4 seconds. Freefall time would have been 3.9 seconds. But the time is irrelevant, what matters is the acceleration. When physicist David Chandler called them out on this, they did a revised analysis for their final report. Below is NIST's velocity-time graph of WTC7's collapse..."In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration ... This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." ~ NIST NCSTAR 1-ASo NIST admitted that for 2.25 seconds, the building fell at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 - gravitational acceleration - as if eight stories worth of building were just teleported away.This is what we've been saying all along is impossible. Because when an object is falling at freefall acceleration, all of its gravitational potential energy is being converted into energy of motion, which means there is no energy left over to actually collapse the building! It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the period of freefall is only a small fraction of the overall collapse time, freefall acceleration at any moment is impossible."

"NIST have not explained the 2.25 seconds of freefall, they've simply asserted that it is consistent with their computer model. Their computer model has not been independently reviewed and they haven't even released an animation of the entire collapse. All we have from them therefore is their word. Even if several floors of the outer structure were buckled as depicted above, there would still be plenty of structure to prevent the building from accelerating at free fall. Because in order to crush that buckled structure, it would have to use some of its gravitational potential energy, this would mean that not all the gravitational energy is being converted to kinetic enegy, and therefore freefall would not occur."

The claim

Quote:

a) freefall acceleration at any moment is impossible.

simply is wrong. In fact higher figures than 1g are possible for short periods of time. I can think of at least two ways that could occur. If you had studied engineering then you likely could as well (who is being quoted here BTW?)

B) is simply a rehash of a) and since NIST probably, like me, saw nothing weird about a short period of 1g acceleration and that it was utterly irrelevant as it was in the final part of the building to fall down when the entire building was doomed already.

Things that seem weird to the stupid and uneducated may not to those you are blessed with intelligence and education. Religions have made use of the former for thousands of years.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Then you can explain, how freefall was possible?? If you really understand physics, you know its impossible that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall in a natural collapse

So now you are saying to me, we can easily ignore 8 stories in freefall??? LOL

Can you please tell me your expertise??



You have to understand 8 stories in freefall in a natural collapse is IMPOSSIBLE.

Only controlled demolition is possible to do this.

Nope. You are just wrong. I know its possible.

[Marokkaan]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

The claim simply is wrong. In fact higher figures than 1g are possible for short periods of time. I can think of at least two ways that could occur. If you had studied engineering then you likely could as well (who is being quoted here BTW?)

B) is simply a rehash of a) and since NIST probably, like me, saw nothing weird about a short period of 1g acceleration and that it was utterly irrelevant as it was in the final part of the building to fall down when the entire building was doomed already.

Things that seem weird to the stupid and uneducated may not to those you are blessed with intelligence and education. Religions have made use of the former for thousands of years.

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

explain to me what happened with the 8 stories.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Animal

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

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-js8...layer_embedded

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Animal

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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-js8...layer_embedded

Um.

Quote:

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

[sheeplesnshills]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by alienentity

[color="Red"]

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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-js8...layer_embedded

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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-js8...layer_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

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.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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.

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

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]

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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:

Originally Posted by mrkinnies

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

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

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?