Richard Gage to debate CD on Toronto radio show

[LashL]

Oh, look, another tinhatter who follows the twoofer mantra of "cut and paste nonsense without any substance in hopes that someone, somewhere, might actually take you seriously".

:rolleyes:

Try selling your nonsense elsewhere, Mekt. It might work among your fellow tinhattes but it won't fly here.

[R.Mackey]

Laugh it up. But as far as I can tell, not a single one of those peculiar inventions you pointed out has anything to do with explosives and/or demolitions technology.

If you want, I can give you a very good real world example of how one person pulled the wool over the eyes of people like you and your apparently unimaginative and amazingly linear thinking, and how because of that, a lot of people lost their lives.

Read my post, please. What I want is a coherent hypothesis from you.

What you've given me so far doesn't even qualify as speculation.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Oh, look, another tinhatter who follows the twoofer mantra of "cut and paste nonsense without any substance in hopes that someone, somewhere, might actually take you seriously".

:rolleyes:

Try selling your nonsense elsewhere, Mekt. It might work among your fellow tinhattes but it won't fly here.
If you can find some patents detailing techniques using, for example, fire and jet fuel, as suitable elements for demolition of any buildings -- or, for that matter, ANY demolitions of any type -- and that even slightly fit your theory of what happened to the twin towers and Building 7 on 9/11, they by all means post them, and I'll be more than willing to go away.

And BTW, I'm addressing the previously stated concerns over the issue of the "silent thermate". While the patent references I posted don't use that exact term, obviously, if you read the abstracts, you'll recognize the possibility of the existence of such an explosive. Or at least, you should.

[R.Mackey]

If you can find some patents detailing techniques using, for example, fire and jet fuel, as suitable elements for demolition of any buildings -- or, for that matter, ANY demolitions of any type -- and that even slightly fit your theory of what happened to the twin towers and Building 7 on 9/11, they by all means post them, and I'll be more than willing to go away.


You don't need a patent to understand that thousands of tons of flaming debris, followed by an uncontrolled, multi-floor, six-plus-hour fire, could destroy a building.

This is some kind of world-record stupid argument from authority you're making here.

[Hokulele]

ETA: More fun with the USPTO (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html)


Hah!

Mekt_Ranzz, just read Claim 9!

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Low profile thermite igniter

Abstract of US4996922

A thermite igniter/heat source comprising a housing, high-density thermite, and low-density thermite. The housing has a relatively low profile and can focus energy by means of a torch-like ejection of hot reaction products and is externally ignitable.

[Hokulele]

So, out of the ones you have listed so far, which do you believe was used and why?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

So, out of the ones you have listed so far, which do you believe was used and why?
I don't know. More likely any combination thereof, which would explain, at least in part, the observed phenomenon: a controlled demolition with suppressed flashes and sounds of explosions.

These patents have only been posted by me to hint strongly at the relevant technologies out there that could account for the observed controlled demolition effects on 9/11, not necessarily to ensure absolute certainty as to what devices were used.

[Hokulele]

I don't know. More likely any combination thereof, which would explain, at least in part, the observed phenomenon: a controlled demolition with suppressed flashes and sounds of explosions.

These patents have only been posted by me to hint strongly at the relevant technologies out there that could account for the observed controlled demolition effects on 9/11, not necessarily to ensure absolute certainty as to what devices were used.


No, these posts by you hint strongly that you did not understand the applications at all, much less how they would apply to your fantasies.

In order for it to even be worth discussing the mechanics, you have to put forth a consistent hypothesis that includes any of these.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

No, these posts by you hint strongly that you did not understand the applications at all, much less how they would apply to your fantasies.

In order for it to even be worth discussing the mechanics, you have to put forth a consistent hypothesis that includes any of these.
It's precisely that kind of thinking that accounts for why it is that criminals have been able to get ahead of everybody else time and again. Because someone like you keeps saying that it's impossible to extrapolate techniques from something as ordinary as a patent publication or scientific paper to an event as large and ominous as the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7. Again, I say, I can cite an historical example, if you wish.

In any case, are you saying that the patent abstracts that I posted do not in any way support the existence of that stuff you guys mentioned -- that "silent thermate"?

[R.Mackey]

I suppose to save time, I should remind Mekt_Ranzz of the following facts:

The USPTO is not a criminal investigating body.
Not everything that works is patented. There isn't, for instance, a patent on "A Method to Induce Pain in the Forehead by Banging Against Stationary Objects." (Aside: You might be able to patent that for yourself. Feel free to look into it. I release any interest or ownership in the idea to you.)
The NWO would be pretty stupid to come up with a super-spiffy way to carry out its plans, and then release the idea by filing a patent. Honestly, you think the NWO is worried about infringement? Trying to bulk up its IP portfolio?
Patents are, as has already been explained to you, neither a guarantee of scientific possibility nor of technical feasibility. You can find just about every nutty idea under the sun there.
Supposing, just for sake of argument, that these miracle technologies are to blame, then you have a list of the culprits -- and it isn't the US Government. Start rounding up the inventors.
Yes, I'm laughing at you, in case you couldn't tell. I apologize. I'll do so no more. Welcome to Ignore.

[Gravy]

Mekt, do not spam the forum. If you have an issue to discuss, such as a well-thought-out controlled demolition hypothesis, start a thread and be prepared to discuss it.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

* The USPTO is not a criminal investigating body.

I never said it was and I don't see the point in suggesting that it is, which I never did.

* Not everything that works is patented. There isn't, for instance, a patent on "A Method to Induce Pain in the Forehead by Banging Against Stationary Objects." (Aside: You might be able to patent that for yourself. Feel free to look into it. I release any interest or ownership in the idea to you.)

That is correct. Not everything that works is patented. However, most patents are of inventions that DO work. After all, why pay so much to patent an invention that doesn't work?

As for your idea, it may not exist but if there was such a method, it COULD be patented (thanks for the idea, but I'll pass).

* The NWO would be pretty stupid to come up with a super-spiffy way to carry out its plans, and then release the idea by filing a patent. Honestly, you think the NWO is worried about infringement? Trying to bulk up its IP portfolio?

That you would suggest that I'M suggesting that the "NWO" has patented the methods they employed on 9/11 is ridiculous (even though one of the superthermite patents was in fact filed on October 2001). What I was saying in my previous post, however, is that if fire and jet fuel could cause a steel-structured building to collapse, there probably would be some patented technology out there explaining, in general and indirect terms, why.

* Patents are, as has already been explained to you, neither a guarantee of scientific possibility nor of technical feasibility. You can find just about every nutty idea under the sun there.

They may not guarantee anything but they certainly can make things much more probable -- especially with regard to the invention, and variations to said invention, that they cover. AGAIN, I can cite an historical example, if you wish.

* Supposing, just for sake of argument, that these miracle technologies are to blame, then you have a list of the culprits -- and it isn't the US Government. Start rounding up the inventors.

They are not miracle technologies. They are very VERY conventional and ordinary technologies and/or processes -- at least, as far as I can tell. And I never said the government was responsible for 9/11. And I certainly don't think the inventors of said patents had anything to do with it either.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Mekt, do not spam the forum. If you have an issue to discuss, such as a well-thought-out controlled demolition hypothesis, start a thread and be prepared to discuss it.
Okay.

But I was just answering everyone's questions. It wasn't me who brought up the "silent thermate" issue but I sure was attacked for it. And now I've tried to offer proof that such a technology could exist, and it seems that I'm suddenly spamming the forum. In my view, I was just addressing the topics that have been thrust at me.

But for now, I certainly think I've made my point, even though it seems some obviously do not get it.

I will start some other kind of thread some other time. But not now.

I'm tired. :boxedin:

[Gravy]

The only point you've made is that you show no ability to form a coherent argument. This is a skeptics' forum. You make a poor impression on rational people.

[tomwaits]

That is correct. Not everything that works is patented. However, most patents are of inventions that DO work. After all, why pay so much to patent an invention that doesn't work?

The same reason that people spend so much money on youtube videos that are filled with nonsense.

[Arus808]

who says that patents are expensive? $300 at most for a provisional patent.

people pay more to have their inventions made. a patent, only requires your idea can be made (helps to have a working example) but not necessarily that ithat item works.

heck, my company has five patents, none of them are physical, and all of them have to do with computer programming. funny thing is that even though we've patented the program, we've never used it since its obsolete, however the idea to accomplish what hat program could do, is ours.

[Dave Rogers]

To this point, I can only say that the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 was not exclusively conventional and that the desired outcome would have been to ensure that no one questioned the resulting fire-induced collapse mechanism. One way to have accomplished that is to have applied mixtures of technologies, most of which were likely conventional, with others analogues of what is conventional and/or completely novel

Obviously, if the controlled demolitions in questions had explosives involved, their sound and flashes were suppressed when compared to typical controlled demolitions. So the evidence is in what we see and hear: A controlled demolition with limited instances of explosive sounds and flashes. How this was accomplished I’m not sure as I’m not an expert.

This is a classic example of the retreating conspiracist position. Let's look at a bit of history here. The original arguments about CD stemmed from quote-mined witness accounts of seeing flashes and hearing explosions, and this was taken as proof that the Twin Towers were demolished. As the evidence against Twin Towers CD's mounted - specifically, the complete lack of similarity in method to a CD, the absence of sufficiently loud explosions or any temporal correlation between the flashes and explosions reported and the actual initiation of the collapse, and the absence of any physical evidence for CD in debris that was painstakingly examined for months by literally thousands of first responders, cleanup workers and investigating law enforcement agents - the conspiracist position started to focus on WTC7, and the apparent similarity of its collapse to a CD using explosives. However, the evidence against CD for WTC7 is equally strong, in the form of the complete absence of visible explosions or sufficiently loud audible reports correlated with collapse initiation; there are, I believe, two reports of loud noises coinciding with the fall of the east mechanical penthouse into the building, and none of explosions just before this event, which is when demolition explosives would be required to be triggered. So now you need to invoke hush-a-boom[tm] technologies in order to justify the possibility of a CD.

But what, actually is your proof? It seems that the basis of your position is now that the collapse of WTC7 looked too much like a CD to be anything else. This has two basic flaws. Firstly, you have no control sample of a steel-framed building that has collapsed from a combination of fire and structural damage in order to establish that there is any expected difference between the two cases. Secondly, in the absence of this, you can only argue that it is unlikely for a collapse to display certain features of WTC7's collapse, not that it is impossible; it is fairly trivial to point out that a CD involves creating a pattern of structural damage that causes a building to fall near-vertically, and therefore that a sufficiently similar pattern could be created by random damage. Note in passing that the collapse of WTC7 was not symmetrical and did cause serious damage to surrounding buildings, therefore the pattern of damage was clearly less well-controlled than in a well-executed CD. In the absence of probability calculations that are any more sophisticated than pulling numbers out of thin air Kevin Ryan-style, you can't even say how unlikely it is for the collapse to look the way it did. And that's all you bring to the table.

So what about the silent, flash-free explosives? What you're trying to do there is explain away an unquantified improbability by invoking an impossibility. Patents relating to modified cutting torches, low-yield explosives for rock crushing and shaped thermite charges all have insurmountable drawbacks to them (specifically, the first needs a large installation or a human operator, the second is designed for low overpressure and hence won't cut steel, the third is a thermal melt approach which is too uncontrollable to give the precise fall characteristics which are the only piece of evidence you advance), but in any case are nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of proof. As others have said, patents are meaningless; I have patents on things that have never been made, and I suspect in one instance is impossible to make using the method given in the patent. There are no end of patents out there that will never be feasible; companies file patents as bargaining chips in intellectual property disputes, and often quantity is more important than quality. You're trying to invoke something whose feasibility has never been established to "prove" that something that may be unlikely didn't actually happen. It's a specious argument and is only evidence of how weak your case actually is.

And, of course, there is still no coherent suggestion as to what the conspirators could have gained by destroying WTC7, with the greatly increased risk involved in complicating the operation, nor as to how they could guarantee that WTC7 would be set on fire or struck by enough debris in the WTC1 collapse to make the collapse look feasible. In fact, I have yet to see a coherent suggestion as to the benefit derived from demolishing WTC1 and 2. Of course, by focusing on WTC7, you avoid answering that question, and all the other questions about the Twin Towers CD theories - yet there is not, and cannot be, any sane scenario which involves a demolition of WTC7 in the absence of certainty that WTC1 and 2 would fall, and it is the requirement for that certainty that informs all the CD theories.

Your argument, and your whole position, is a mess. You're doing a very good job within your movement of ignoring the monstrously large holes in it. Unfortunately, round here we're rather more able to see them.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

AM I reading this correctly? The evidence for Thermite as a possible method for bringing down the towers has come down to Patents?

ok, so I guess the time travel patent is proof that the NWO could have gotten all the explosives needed, planted in the single alleged power down...they just kept going back to that time period and planting more explosives...lol

I will laugh it up, because you have brought this thread past the edge of insanity.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

This is a classic example of the retreating conspiracist position.[snip]Very well said, as always, Dave.

[bynmdsue]

Okay Lightning Lord,I'll bite.What is your Historic Example?(it better not be 9/11)

[jaydeehess]

"...well, sure there's no evidence of conventional CD methods, but we just can't know what highly-advanced technology 'They' have"

No, no, I can give many patent references (and a bit of history) that at least hint at how these things could be accomplished. But you'd have to use your imagination -- and not a lot either -- to piece it together. And no, I don't have said references on hand. So it will take me time to compile them.

You do realize that having a patent does not mean that the concept actually works, right?
Besides which as I already stated you are invoking something that simply and utterly canot be shown, in any way shape or form , to actually exist and that is, in essence, invoking magic to solve your problem.

That belongs in "Harry Potter" , for the amusment of readers and movie goers, not in any discussion on building collapses.

ETA,, oops I see I was not the first to mention this.

[jaydeehess]

But I was just answering everyone's questions. It wasn't me who brought up the "silent thermate" issue but I sure was attacked for it.

Your arguement was attacked. YOU defended the idea of silent destruction of the columns and you continue to attempt to show its plausibility.
While there is a great deal of data out there on the behaviour of steel in fire and it is a complex but readily sovlable problem how a fast large airliner can sever steel columns, there is nothing that can explain , in any plausible detail, how columns can be cut silently and accurately. So far you have shown some patents but have not shown just how these could be applied to the case at hand. Ironicaly, in English that is called a hand waving arguement.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Dave Rogers said:

"and the absence of any physical evidence for CD in debris that was painstakingly examined for months by literally thousands of first responders, cleanup workers and investigating law enforcement agents - the conspiracist position started to focus on WTC7, and the apparent similarity of its collapse to a CD using explosives."

My response:

Quote from Gregory A. Butler, author of "Lost Towers: Inside the World Trade Center cleanup" (personal communication):

My question: As the collapse of the twin towers was totally unprecedented and initially considered unusual, and as a precautionary measure in the interest of complete safety -- before first responders and other emergency personnel were allowed into the pit -- were bomb-sniffing dogs used to ensure that there were no possible incendiaries to be found in the WTC rubble pile? To the best of your knowledge, why or why not?

Mr. Butler's answer: They used cadaver dogs to find survivors - and after Genelle Guzman was rescued on day three, to find dead bodies - but nobody used bomb sniffing dogs. it was chaos that first couple of days - nobody thought to check the rubble for bombs.

With respect to everything else Dave Rogers said, I think his points have been addressed many times elsewhere by people with more competence than I can muster right now.

But I will ask this: In the case of WTC 7, why does everyone here have such a hard time believing that MAYBE the beams that are normally blown to bits with shape charges were instead cut with an incendiary capable of doing the job? It may not be a conventional method but it would use conventional tools. By using thermite or a derivative of it, you might get the benefits of a heat reaction that would burn through the steel beams efficiently while at the same time minimize the flash and explosive sound factor which seems to be at issue. It seems so easy to imagine its feasibility that to suggest it wouldn't work sounds absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

Look, I've read many scientific papers wherein one process or chemical reaction in this or that decade suddenly advances in the next because some obscure scientist suddenly thought to apply microwave or ultrasonic radiation to it. Why? There's nothing super spectacular about these technologies, we use them all the time (to heat our food quickly or to scare mice away). But as it turns out, using them in new and novel ways can make all the difference in the world in terms of time, efficiency, and yield.

Your argument is like saying that to apply such technologies would NOT make a difference so why even consider that they would? Mine is like saying, "Wow, here is an instance of a familiar reaction producing a somewhat unfamiliar and slightly different result. I wonder how and why that happened?" And instead of looking beyond the old arcane way it used to be done, I hit the more recent publications, scope out the application of newer methods -- the more modern ones -- and find exactly what I'm looking for.

And AGAIN, I beg to differ. In my experience, most inventions that are patented DO work. At least mechanical inventions can usually be proven to work, if the related patent provides the means to build them. Especially those listed time and again as prior art.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Okay Lightning Lord,I'll bite.What is your Historic Example?(it better not be 9/11)
Okay, I'm working on a short write-up. It has nothing to do with 9/11. Thanks for recognizing my self-chosen moniker. You are the first to do so anywhere.

[Dave Rogers]

Mr. Butler's answer: They used cadaver dogs to find survivors - and after Genelle Guzman was rescued on day three, to find dead bodies - but nobody used bomb sniffing dogs. it was chaos that first couple of days - nobody thought to check the rubble for bombs.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof here. No evidence for explosives has ever been found. Since bomb sniffing dogs are used to search for explosives rather than explosive residues, one would hardly expect them to find anything anyway. There are other indications left by explosives, and none have ever been produced. Therefore, if you're trying to prove that WTC7 was a CD, rather than starting from the conclusion that WTC7 was a CD and trying to dream up flimsy rationalisations for it, there is no evidence of explosives having been used.

With respect to everything else Dave Rogers said, I think his points have been addressed many times elsewhere by people with more competence than I can muster right now.

I'm well aware that you think that. Why you think it, on the basis of evidence that has been presented by you and anyone else in the truth movement, is a complete mystery to me. But I'm well aware that you do think it.

But I will ask this: In the case of WTC 7, why does everyone here have such a hard time believing that MAYBE the beams that are normally blown to bits with shape charges were instead cut with an incendiary capable of doing the job?

That's not the question you should be asking. The question is, which is more plausible: that a vast criminal conspiracy has not only invented a hitherto unknown set of silent tools for demolishing a building, but has deployed them in secret in a building in one of the busiest cities in the world, without anyone noticing, that they relied for their cover story on debris from the collapse of a nearby building causing sufficient damage to the target building despite the fact that they couldn't know for certain this would happen, and they then set off their nefarious devices, despite the fact that this involved an immense amount of additional work, large numbers of additional people in the know, and absolutely no benefit to their overall plans [1]; or that a building that had an entire wall literally cut in half by falling debris and burned without firefighting for seven hours fell down without tilting sideways very much?

And AGAIN, I beg to differ. In my experience, most inventions that are patented DO work. At least mechanical inventions can usually be proven to work, if the related patent provides the means to build them. Especially those listed time and again as prior art.

I'd be interested to know what your experience is, and how patents filed in 2006 and yet to be granted can have been "listed time and time again as prior art".

Dave

[1] As I said, I've yet to find any motive for this. If the US Special Forces are found to have infiltrated Tora Bora to the battle cry, "Remember WTC7!" then I'll stand corrected.

[Gravy]

I'm going to ask you a final time if you will have the decency to use the quote feature from now on. I explained to you how it works. Will you use it? Yes or no?


Mr. Butler's answer: They used cadaver dogs to find survivors - and after Genelle Guzman was rescued on day three, to find dead bodies - but nobody used bomb sniffing dogs. it was chaos that first couple of days - nobody thought to check the rubble for bombs.Not one explosive or incendiary cut was found on a single piece of steel at the WTC. Not one piece of an explosive or incendiary device was found in the rubble that was sifted down to quarter-inch size. Not one explosive or incendiary was detected in use. Not one person reported the massive amount of work it would have taken to plant the devices. Not one reputable structural engineer – or anyone else – has demonstrated that explosives or incendiaries were needed to bring the towers down.

Because there is zero evidence to support your hypothesis, and a mountain of evidence tells us what did happen on 9/11, your hypothesis is utterly rejected.

But I will ask this: In the case of WTC 7, why does everyone here have such a hard time believing that MAYBE the beams that are normally blown to bits with shape charges were instead cut with an incendiary capable of doing the job? And not one person has come forward since and said, "Hey, maybe the collapse was related to those big mysterious devices that that strange crew attached to the transfer trusses and told us to keep quiet about. They looked like they could survive a raging inferno, those things!" :rolleyes:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)

Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)


Exactly why do you think chief Nigro, and every firefighter who was on the scene and agrees with him, are lying, Mekt?

Please explain, and use the quote function from now on.

[nicepants]

If you can find some patents detailing techniques using, for example, fire and jet fuel, as suitable elements for demolition of any buildings -- or, for that matter, ANY demolitions of any type -- and that even slightly fit your theory of what happened to the twin towers and Building 7 on 9/11, they by all means post them, and I'll be more than willing to go away.

I saw a car obliterate a deer on the road a few days ago....by your logic I should be able to find a patent for that method of deer-obliteration/car-smashage?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

As far as I can tell, the quote function doesn't allow me to only quote one small piece from a VERY large one. I was simply trying to save space. But to avoid your wrath, I'll just waste a lot of space from now on. ;)

[Disbelief]

As far as I can tell, the quote function doesn't allow me to only quote one small piece from a VERY large one. I was simply trying to save space. But to avoid your wrath, I'll just waste a lot of space from now on. ;)

You can delete the parts that you don't want so you can address specific points.

[JimBenArm]

As far as I can tell, the quote function doesn't allow me to only quote one small piece from a VERY large one. I was simply trying to save space. But to avoid your wrath, I'll just waste a lot of space from now on. ;)
It's easy. Just highlight the part you don't want between the quotes, and hit <DELETE> on your keyboard. Just make sure the [ quote= ###] and [ /quote] are intact.

[technoextreme]

If you can find some patents detailing techniques using, for example, fire and jet fuel, as suitable elements for demolition of any buildings -- or, for that matter, ANY demolitions of any type -- and that even slightly fit your theory of what happened to the twin towers and Building 7 on 9/11, they by all means post them, and I'll be more than willing to go away.

And BTW, I'm addressing the previously stated concerns over the issue of the "silent thermate". While the patent references I posted don't use that exact term, obviously, if you read the abstracts, you'll recognize the possibility of the existence of such an explosive. Or at least, you should.
WTC 5. Now leave and don't ever come back.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

I'm going to ask you a final time if you will have the decency to use the quote feature from now on. I explained to you how it works. Will you use it? Yes or no?

Not one explosive or incendiary cut was found on a single piece of steel at the WTC. Not one piece of an explosive or incendiary device was found in the rubble that was sifted down to quarter-inch size. Not one explosive or incendiary was detected in use. Not one person reported the massive amount of work it would have taken to plant the devices. Not one reputable structural engineer – or anyone else – has demonstrated that explosives or incendiaries were needed to bring the towers down.

Because there is zero evidence to support your hypothesis, and a mountain of evidence tells us what did happen on 9/11, your hypothesis is utterly rejected.

And not one person has come forward since and said, "Hey, maybe the collapse was related to those big mysterious devices that that strange crew attached to the transfer trusses and told us to keep quiet about. They looked like they could survive a raging inferno, those things!" :rolleyes:

Exactly why do you think chief Nigro, and every firefighter who was on the scene and agrees with him, are lying, Mekt?

Please explain, and use the quote function from now on.

Okay, I got it to work, but I still don't see how I can address each of your questions point by point and separate your quotes in the same organized manner. It seems like I have to quote EVERYTHING you said and then at the end rebut. But I'll figure it out.

I saw a car obliterate a deer on the road a few days ago....by your logic I should be able to find a patent for that method of deer-obliteration/car-smashage?

Well, maybe. But more likely, you'll find methods and/or inventions that detail how your car can be better protected in such situations. As far as I know, there is not much utility in smashing up a deer with a vehicle. But I could be wrong. Check it out. :)

[Mekt_Ranzz]

WTC 5. Now leave and don't ever come back.

What's the patent number?

[technoextreme]

What's the patent number?
This is the most moronic thing I've ever read. Why do patents matter? I have plenty of peer reviewed papers describing fires bringing down buildings.Well, maybe. But more likely, you'll find methods and/or inventions that detail how your car can be better protected in such situations. As far as I know, there is not much utility in smashing up a deer with a vehicle. But I could be wrong. Check it out.
Well using your idiotic logic then it's entirely possible for a building to be destroyed by flames because there is defiantly patents for fireproofing..:)

[TheRedWorm]

:tr:

[Brainster]

Okay, I got it to work, but I still don't see how I can address each of your questions point by point and separate your quotes in the same organized manner. It seems like I have to quote EVERYTHING you said and then at the end rebut. But I'll figure it out.

Cut the part that says (/QUOTE) (but with brackets instead of parentheses) at the end and paste it to the end of the first paragraph you are replying to. Then for subsequent paragraphs you are quoting you can just highlight the text and click on the Quote feature from the toolbar.

HTH!

[technoextreme]

:tr:
It's hard to tell between the real thing and trolling.:mgbanghead:mgbanghead:

[Brainster]

It's hard to tell between the real thing and trolling.:mgbanghead:mgbanghead:

He's sincere; I know him from his comments over at 9-11 Blogger.

[jaydeehess]

As far as I can tell,

it just

the quote function doesn't allow me to only quote one small piece

takes a little

from a VERY large one.

experimenting with the message creation space provided

Just as JimBenArm stated
It's easy. Just highlight the part you don't want between the quotes, and hit <DELETE> on your keyboard. Just make sure the [ quote= ###] and [ /quote] are intact.

[boloboffin]

It took me a while to figure out the multiquote button too.

[JimBenArm]

It took me a while to figure out the multiquote button too.
Yeah, that's one that isn't exactly intuitive.

[jaydeehess]

Back to gage. I am told by a CT on another forum that "my people" have put "impediments" in Gage's way.

Anyone have any idea what this guy (a no planer) means by this?

[JimBenArm]

Back to gage. I am told by a CT on another forum that "my people" have put "impediments" in Gage's way.

Anyone have any idea what this guy (a no planer) means by this?
"my people" = People with working brains
"impediments" = logic and reality

[Mekt_Ranzz]

I have to go to work this afternoon and I'll be busy all day long tomorrow. But I WILL be working on my write-up and should have it ready in about two or three days.

Take care everyone until then. :)

[jaydeehess]

"my people" = People with working brains
"impediments" = logic and reality

the exact quote is;
I've read most all available info about 9-11 which means I could give a rats xxxxwhat you think about my opinion, or anyones else's. You have your's, cling to it until the very end. Further, there's no need to keep beating your horse. He died long ago!

The evidence of CD at all three sites is irrefutable. Now, are you suggesting that I can't spot a shill when I see one? Obviously I read all of Ross's page. What's that matter to you? Don't tell me you're a Junior Dr Greening, I just couldn't bare it.

I see your people tried to throw an impediment in Mr Gage's path Yes, you're on the right track there and I suggest you keep at it. He's a way bigger worry than anyone on this board!!! Right!

and my reply;

Cole, I just did refute some of what Ross did say and if I cared to research it a little I could do more of the same.

A Dr.Greening? No, while Greening is a very knowledgable man I diverge from his POV on many issues.

oh please Cole do not bare anything in front of me, I know I could not bear that.(don't get your panties in a knot about my correcting your usage of the word Cole. You expect me not to take a swing at easy ones like that? )

"My people"? What impediment would you be talking about Cole?

Did something happen that Gage was forced to change a speech date? Is he refering to not debating pomeroo?
This is the first direct accusation of being a government shill I have received. I am sooo happy.......

[jaydeehess]

Which building would hit the ground first?

I'll take it easy on you guys before moving on to the second part of the question. Let's keep it simple, shall we?

Humor this "twoofer", please.

I forget, did we establish that the building that collapsed at an average acelleration that was 20% to 50% less than that of gravity would hit the ground after the one which fell through nothing but air?

[bynmdsue]

Thanks for recognizing my self-chosen moniker. You are the first to do so anywhere.

Yeah,I'm not entirely sure if I should be proud of still knowing the LSHer's(or their families in this case) real names or not.

[pomeroo]

If you can find some patents detailing techniques using, for example, fire and jet fuel, as suitable elements for demolition of any buildings -- or, for that matter, ANY demolitions of any type -- and that even slightly fit your theory of what happened to the twin towers and Building 7 on 9/11, they by all means post them, and I'll be more than willing to go away.

And BTW, I'm addressing the previously stated concerns over the issue of the "silent thermate". While the patent references I posted don't use that exact term, obviously, if you read the abstracts, you'll recognize the possibility of the existence of such an explosive. Or at least, you should.


I know that in TwooferWorld any mention of the PLANES is forbidden. But, seriously, what about the PLANES that hit the Towers? You do acknowledge that PLANES hit the Towers, don't you? Max Photon churns out reams of gibberish to prove that thermite did something to the columns, but his house of cards collapsed when he was unable to dispose of those damned inconvenient PLANES. He tried the old remote-control ploy, but he was crushed by Apapthoid's paper, which he was unable to comprehend. So, before you run away, tell us what role was played by the PLANES.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

My question for Richard Gage about debating Mark Roberts at about the 4:22 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVDL8bAhB8

[Brainster]

My question for Richard Gage about debating Mark Roberts at about the 4:22 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVDL8bAhB8

Thanks for trying, Mekt! No surprise he doesn't want to meet the grinder.

[Swing Dangler]

My question for Richard Gage about debating Mark Roberts at about the 4:22 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVDL8bAhB8

Perhaps if you could get a qualified individual to debate Mr. Gage instead of a tour guide he might be more open to the suggestion.

[uk_dave]

Perhaps if you could get a qualified individual to debate Mr. Gage instead of a tour guide he might be more open to the suggestion.


Why?

[Disbelief]

Perhaps if you could get a qualified individual to debate Mr. Gage instead of a tour guide he might be more open to the suggestion.

Or maybe Gage does not want to be embarassed by a tour guide. Do all truthers fear confrontation against someone who is well-versed in their BS? Of course, because then they are shown for the frauds they are.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]Not one explosive or incendiary cut was found on a single piece of steel at the WTC.
Can you provide the source showing that every piece of steel was examined? Rejected.
Gravy cleverly omits steel that looks like swiss cheese due to melting as detailed here (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html)and here (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html).

He is a tricky debunker that is for sure. ;)

Not one piece of an explosive or incendiary device was found in the rubble that was sifted down to quarter-inch size.
Source for every piece of rubble examined?
Rejected.


Not one explosive or incendiary was detected in use.
Detected? Do they have NWO bomb detection devices? That is a new one. Try audio detection efforts. The sound of an explosion could be an explosive device in use.
Rejected.
It would help to test for explosives, but you know that wasn't done, despite the presence of bomb squads at the debris sites

Not one person reported the massive amount of work it would have taken to plant the devices.
It wouldn't take a massive amount of work, see V. Romero's original assessment on the amount of explosives it would have taken.
Rejected.

Not one reputable structural engineer – or anyone else – has demonstrated that explosives or incendiaries were needed to bring the towers down.
Reputable? Is there a list of reputable SE that have sounded off on 9/11 that I can examine?

And not one person has come forward since and said, "Hey, maybe the collapse was related to those big mysterious devices that that strange crew attached to the transfer trusses and told us to keep quiet about. They looked like they could survive a raging inferno, those thing

Ahh yes, the Stoopid Terrorist theory. This theory states that terrorists are stupid enough to leave evidence of explosive devices in plain sight so that they can be discovered, disabled, and removed.
Rejected.

Don't let Gravy depress you, Mekt_Ranz.

[Swing Dangler]

Or maybe Gage does not want to be embarassed by a tour guide. Do all truthers fear confrontation against someone who is well-versed in their BS? Of course, because then they are shown for the frauds they are.

I would be more inclined to believe that Gage would be willing to debate someone who actually worked on the report instead of tour guide researcher.

[Swing Dangler]

Why?

Why not? I would be more open to both side of the debate if both sides were qualified individuals on the issue.

[Dave Rogers]

Gravy cleverly omits steel that looks like swiss cheese due to melting as detailed here (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html)and here (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html).

Swing, why do you do this? It isn't even lying. Gravy points out that nobody found any samples of steel that showed explosive or incendiary cuts, and you post two links that specifically describe eutectic reactions that have reduced the melting point of steel to the point where regions could melt in a normal fire. In other words, you're posting a link that disagrees with the point you're trying to make, and implying that it supports you. Do you really think that nobody will ever investigate your claims?

You'll now either ignore this post or change the subject.

Dave

[Disbelief]

I would be more inclined to believe that Gage would be willing to debate someone who actually worked on the report instead of tour guide researcher.

No, he would like to debate someone who is not knowledgeable of the "theories" that CTers spout. If his "research" is so important, he should be willing to to take on all comers. Since Mark is so well known to the truthers, this would be a prime opportunity for him to put a debunker in his place.

No, Gage is afraid, as are all of your cherished leaders. No matter how you try to spin this Swing, that is the reality.

[JamesB]

Why not? I would be more open to both side of the debate if both sides were qualified individuals on the issue.

But Gage is not a "qualified individual". He is not an engineer, he is not a researcher, and he has no experience designing or performing forensics on highrise buildings.

I agree that he wants to debate someone with more creds and less knowledge. Truthers try to do like Holocaust deniers. They want the publicity and legitimacy of a public debate, so that they can pretend that the subject they are arguing is actually up for debate and is just another point of view.

[uk_dave]

Why not? I would be more open to both side of the debate if both sides were qualified individuals on the issue.

Well, good luck finding one for the 'truther' side.

[Crungy]

But Gage is not a "qualified individual". He is not an engineer, he is not a researcher, and he has no experience designing or performing forensics on highrise buildings.


Gage is third rate architect with no qualifications to debate the WTC buildings collapse. Any architect worth his/her salt would immediately bring their structural concerns to a professional structural engineer. Why doesn't Ritchie do that.....Oh, because they all think 9/11 conspiracy nuts are idiots.

[Swing Dangler]

But Gage is not a "qualified individual". He is not an engineer, he is not a researcher, and he has no experience designing or performing forensics on highrise buildings.

I agree that he wants to debate someone with more creds and less knowledge. Truthers try to do like Holocaust deniers. They want the publicity and legitimacy of a public debate, so that they can pretend that the subject they are arguing is actually up for debate and is just another point of view.

An architect-a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like.
or if you prefer...One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

So you don't think an architect is qualified to examine the collapses? :big:

A person responsible for the design of the building ensuring that it doesn't collapse isn't qualified to examine the collapse of a building?

Hmmm an article detailing a trial surrounding the collapse of the building mentions the jury which is composed of architects and builders and the foreman happens to be an architect. I wonder why they put an architect on a jury as a foreman hearing a case about a collapsed building if an architect is not qualified to examine a building collapse? Read more here (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E5DE133DE433A25751C1A9659C94649ED7CF).


he is not a researcher
Source? If true, this makes Mark Roberts, the tour guide, more qualified to discuss the collapses than a practicing architect. :lolsign:

[Crungy]

An architect-a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like.
or if you prefer...One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.

So you don't think an architect is qualified to examine the collapses? :big:


Just as with all design disciplines, one usually specializes in various aspects within the field. Some architects are "big conceptual design" types, others specialize in technical stuff, others planning and so forth. That said, from Mr. Gage's writings, he appears to know as much about structural issues as the guy who is refilling the vending machine in my break room at the current moment....

Richard Gage is not qualified to discuss the structural collapse of the WTC buildings.

[CHF]

Tell me Swing....do you think there were volcanic "pyroclastic clouds" at GZ on 9/11?

Your "expert" Richard Gage does.

Ahh yes, the Stoopid Terrorist theory. This theory states that terrorists are stupid enough to leave evidence of explosive devices in plain sight so that they can be discovered, disabled, and removed.

So it's the terrorists today, is it Swing? :rolleyes: And tomorrow it'll be the US government again...

[The Almond]

An architect-a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like.

Gage's own resume doesn't list any buildings over 10 stories. Sorry.

So you don't think an architect is qualified to examine the collapses? :big:

How many collapses has he investigated forensically?

Source? If true, this makes Mark Roberts, the tour guide, more qualified to discuss the collapses than a practicing architect. :lolsign:
Why hasn't a practicing architect bothered to publish any of his work in any of the numerous architectural and structural literature? Why is he so desperate to debate what should be evident through sound logic and evidential reasoning?

[MarkyX]

An architect-a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like.


You might want to look at Gage's resume, where he has no experience with tall buildings, examining building collapses, or explosive devices.

[Brainster]

You might want to look at Gage's resume, where he has no experience with tall buildings, examining building collapses, or explosive devices.

But--but--he's designed steel-framed gymnasiums!

[detonation]

I recently participated in the radio debate--on CFRB--with Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 911. I was fascinated by the responses to this debate. I have never participated in any form that deals with 911 conspiracies, so I find this an interesting experience.

My purpose in becoming involved in this debate is to provide a different perspective on the WTC building collapses. Why not subject this to the same standards as an explosion and fire investigation? This has not been done by any of the conspiracy supporters, who have such an emotional response to the collapse, that objectivity is really not present. In my view, it is impossible to conduct any investigation unless there is an impartial analysis.

Interestingly, one of the blogs claimed I must be part of the conspiracy;I find that amusing, since I am not an American citizen, and therefore I don't have any influence over American policy or politics.

I have been asked to participate in another radio program with Mr. Gage. I was unable to make some of my points during the debate, because of time and format constraints, but I guarantee that I will use this information in the second debate to make it difficult to claim that explosives were used in the WTC guildings.

[Gravy]

Welcome, detonation! I'm amazed that Gage is willing to go another round with you. Doesn't the Boxing Commission mandate a lengthy waiting period between fights – and a thorough neurological examination – when brain trauma is diagnosed?

[detonation]

I recently participated in the radio debate--on CFRB--with Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 911. I was fascinated by the responses to this debate. I have never participated in any form that deals with 911 conspiracies, so I find this an interesting experience.

My purpose in becoming involved in this debate is to provide a different perspective on the WTC building collapses. Why not subject this to the same standards as an explosion and fire investigation? This has not been done by any of the conspiracy supporters, who have such an emotional response to the collapse, that objectivity is really not present. In my view, it is impossible to conduct any investigation unless there is an impartial analysis.

Interestingly, one of the blogs claimed I must be part of the conspiracy; iI find that amusing, since I am not an American citizen, and therefore I don't have any influence over American policy or politics.

I have been asked to participate in another radio program with Mr. Gage. I was unable to make some of my points during the debate, because of time and format constraints, but I guarantee that I will use this information in the second debate to make it difficult to claim that explosives were used in the WTC buildings.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum detonation.

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

I recently participated in the radio debate--on CFRB--with Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 911. I was fascinated by the responses to this debate. I have never participated in any form that deals with 911 conspiracies, so I find this an interesting experience.

My purpose in becoming involved in this debate is to provide a different perspective on the WTC building collapses. Why not subject this to the same standards as an explosion and fire investigation? This has not been done by any of the conspiracy supporters, who have such an emotional response to the collapse, that objectivity is really not present. In my view, it is impossible to conduct any investigation unless there is an impartial analysis.

Interestingly, one of the blogs claimed I must be part of the conspiracy; iI find that amusing, since I am not an American citizen, and therefore I don't have any influence over American policy or politics.

I have been asked to participate in another radio program with Mr. Gage. I was unable to make some of my points during the debate, because of time and format constraints, but I guarantee that I will use this information in the second debate to make it difficult to claim that explosives were used in the WTC buildings.

Welcome, Detonation! :)

I'm surprised Gage is willing to make himself look foolish again in debating you, but the chance to promote his website some more might have had something to do with it.

edit: Nvm about the rest. I'm dumb.

[Gravy]

Welcome, Detonation.

We have an old thread about a radio debate between Mr. Gage and a certain Ron Craig, who was described as an explosives engineer, on a conspiracy oriented CFRB radio talk show called The Richard Syrett Show (http://www.richardsyrett.com/index.htm). You can view the thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98471). Is that you, by chance?(Psst: Slayhamlet: look up!) ;)

[Slayhamlet]

(Psst: Slayhamlet: look up!) ;)

Oops. :o

Trying to do too many things at once...

[LashL]

Welcome, detonation. Please let us know when the date and time of the upcoming radio show that you mentioned, and, by all means, jump in to any thread that catches your eye here.


:welcome4

[ref]

Welcome, detonation! :)

If you want some more background info on Gage, go see my article on him: http://911guide.googlepages.com/ae911truth or visit the Joseph Nobles site http://www.ae911truth.info

I can't believe Gage is willing to do a rematch. Good for us, bad for him :cool:

[detonation]

Well, thank you for the invite: I decided to participate!

[CHF]

I have been asked to participate in another radio program with Mr. Gage. I was unable to make some of my points during the debate, because of time and format constraints, but I guarantee that I will use this information in the second debate to make it difficult to claim that explosives were used in the WTC guildings.

Be sure to ask Gage why he thinks there was a volcano (pyroclastic cloud)
at GZ on 9/11. I was originally going to ask him that when I called up that day.

[detonation]

It seems that 80% of his argument is based on two "facts": Thermite traces were found at ground zero, and witnesses (first responders) heard explosons, before the building collapsed. As I indicated in the radio program, which I substantiated with a quote from a Forensic Engineering text, eyewitnesses are unreliable, because they don't understand what they are hearing/seeing. It is not because they are trying to mislead, but because they don't have the training. I didn't have a lot of time to detail the "bangs" that occured when a truss beam was actually heated in a furnace in Toronto, but what the technicians at the lab heard were "very loud" bangs, caused by heating the truss. The trace elements of thermite, he claims were found at GZ, would be inconsistent with the amount of thermite residue you would expect to find if THOUSANDS of beams were cut with thermite charges. As I indicated in the debate, thermite is not high tech: it consists of rust, metal and an oxidizer used in home fire works. How do I know? I teach a 4th year university course in Pyrotechnics and Explosives.

I noticed that anyone who gets sucked into the "pyroclastic cloud" explanation is defeated by the explanations from various "experts". I will certainly go into this CHF, but from another angle. I want to keep the second debate focused on "means" and "opportunity"--in other words, how could all these charges be placed in the building. I have wired hundreds of explosive charges, and I know how long it takes. This has to be explained before, as an Investigator, you could consider that explosives were used.