Richard Gage to debate CD on Toronto radio show

[LashL]

This could be interesting.

On Monday, November 12 at 11:00 p.m. EST, Richard Gage is scheduled for a two hour debate on the Richard Syrett Show on CFRB radio (1010 on the AM dial).

http://www.cfrb.com/shows/501327

From the CFRB site: A SPECIAL TWO HOUR DEBATE: WERE THE WTC TOWERS BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

[pomeroo]

This could be interesting.

On Monday, November 12 at 11:00 EST, Richard Gage is scheduled for a two hour debate on the Richard Syrett Show on CFRB radio (1010 on the AM dial).

http://www.cfrb.com/shows/501327

From the CFRB site: A SPECIAL TWO HOUR DEBATE: WERE THE WTC TOWERS BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?


Who is his opponent?

[LashL]

I'm just looking at Syrett's "bio" on the CFRB site, and it appears that he may be somewhat of a twoofer, and his show seems to focus on all manner of woo (psychics, mediums, UFOs, etc.)

The CFRB site doesn't mention who Gage's opponent is, but Gage's site indicates that it is Ron Craig, and a post on the 911 blogger site describes Craig as "a member of the International Society of Explosives Engineers".

[leftysergeant]

If Craig has actual credentials and the host is rational and fair, he should have no problem making Gaghe look stupid.

Seeing what happens when a twoofer has a radio show, that's a big IF.

Please, someone get transcripts or an MP3 up here. This has to be interesting.

[bofors]

If Craig has actual credentials and the host is rational and fair, he should have no problem making Gaghe look stupid.

Ya, right... whatever...

http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=911rt3.jpg

[LashL]

Ron Craig seems to have an interesting background.


http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/126016


He's a bomb specialist and one of the few civilians who belong to the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators. He's also a licensed Class 1 blaster, qualified firefighter and a Jaws of Life practitioner — not to mention gunsmith, welding instructor and pyrotechnics specialist.

Set someone on fire? No problem. Murder, mayhem, chaos and destruction is the name of his game.
You see, Craig is, above all, a master of special effects (FX). There's a good chance you've seen his work, which includes more than 80 feature films and 10 television series that include flaming cars, people falling from tall buildings and the rat-a-tat-tat of assault weapons, à la Charles Bronson.Mr. Craig is also, apparently, involved in the Toronto Film College (http://www.torontofilmcollege.ca/English/aboutTFC.asp?Submenu=23&Submenu2=5), which describes him as follows:

Ron is an experienced Special Effects Supervisor with over 20 years experience. He has worked on over 85 feature films, 8 television series and numerous commercials. Ron has worked on projects with major studios such as Paramount, HBO, CBS, NBC, and Warner Brothers. Ron is also an experienced instructor, university professor, member of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, and member of the Society for Explosives Engineers.

[pomeroo]

Ya, right... whatever...

http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=911rt3.jpg


Another of your heroes has cold feet. Gage expressed interest in appearing on 'Hardfire,' but it waned after I sent him links to Mark's annihilation of the Loose Change boys and Jim Fetzer. Behind my back, Gage approached my producer and asked him to conduct the interview.
When I explained that 'Hardfire' doesn't exist to help him sell DVDs, he stopped responding.

How do you think you'd fare in a debate with Mark? Sounds like fun, huh?

[T.A.M.]

Something tells me they will focus on WTC7. Do not be surprised, when Gage gets in a corner, for him to start changing topics like a truther Uzi.

TAM:)

[leftysergeant]

Something tells me they will focus on WTC7. Do not be surprised, when Gage gets in a corner, for him to start changing topics like a truther Uzi.

TAM:)

Which is exactly why I think that a lot of woo gets spread through the failure of moderators to maintain control over their venues. Letting Gage tap dance will just cloud the issue.

[LashL]

Something tells me they will focus on WTC7. Do not be surprised, when Gage gets in a corner, for him to start changing topics like a truther Uzi.

TAM:)

Or, it could be a complete set-up disguised as a "debate".

I'm just thinking out loud here but Ron Craig is, apparently, a special effects expert. I don't see anything about him online that indicates he has had any prior involvement with debunking the troof movement's fantasies, or anything in which he has stated any position about the events of 9/11.

I can envision it unfolding not as a debate, but as an opportunity for the twoofers to have a special effects guy say, "sure, the whole thing could have been a pyrotechnics display".

Anyone else ever hear anything about Mr. Craig or know anything more about him?

[Crungy]

I'd love to hear the folks at implosion world have a fun go at nutter Gage.

Here's an oldie but goodie.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Ya, right... whatever...


Sorry, it's not quite on par with real time voice morphing technology.....:p

[T.A.M.]

LashL:

You may be on to something there. Getting a paper debater on board for the set up, followed by the "you know you guys may be on to something, maybe building 7 was a controlled demolition" from the supposed opposition. Only time will tell.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Here is a start...

http://www.torontofilmcollege.ca/English/aboutTFC.asp?Submenu=23&Submenu2=5

At this link is his email, and a brief Bio.

TAM:)

[leftysergeant]

His credentials look pretty good to me.

Gage has nothing in his quiver to counter those credentials.

[peteweaver]

Who is his opponent?

His five year old son ? ;)

[T.A.M.]

The guy seems legit...

From a conference webpage (cached)


Ron Craig
Ryerson University, Canadian Film College


Using Special Effects Materials To Detonate IEDs and Create Incendiary Devices

Provides detail on special effects devices and other commonly used materials that can be used to create deadly IEDs. Pictures, video and footage of these devices, as they are initiated, will be used to show EOD officers how these devices operate. Actual X-Rays of the initiating devices will be shown so participants can identify the materials if they encounter them.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:fdE8kjNfZNkJ:www.iabti.org/ITC_2007.html+Ronald+Craig+Explosives&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=ca

TAM:)

[LashL]

Oh, I am not questioning Mr. Craig's credentials. I'm just naturally suspicious, and naturally skeptical about Gage purporting to debate him and I try to always consider alternative motives, particularly when the host of the debate appears to be into all manner of woo. Given that Mr. Craig is also a special effects expert, I can see how that might play into the truthers' agenda.

In any event, I plan on tuning in on Monday night. :)

[Jonnyclueless]

Generally if a special FX guy is talking about 9/11 it means it's a twoofer. Because that's what the consider to be a demolition expert, a special effects person. So I am skeptical.

[T.A.M.]

Generally if a special FX guy is talking about 9/11 it means it's a twoofer. Because that's what the consider to be a demolition expert, a special effects person. So I am skeptical.

While you MAY be right, I do believe the guys from MythBusters are special effects guys also...

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

It appears that Mr. Craig is fully qualified to demolish Gage. Whether he chooses to do so is another matter entirely.

[pomeroo]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but when a guy who normally refuses to debate agrees to a debate, I start to wonder about his opponent.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm not holding out much hope; the previous show on the website is:

NOVEMBER 8TH, 2007
11PM Illusionist Criss Angel says ALL PSYCHICS AND MEDIUMS ARE FAKES? GUEST: Anthony Carr, THE MAN WHO PREDICTED 9/11, and "The World's Most Documented Psychic!"

Carr is actually "The World's Most Self-aggrandizing Phoney". I don't see him appearing on a show that actually asked him anything but fawning questions.

However, I will listen on Monday, if only for a few minutes.

[CHF]

I've heard Richard Syrett before. Full-fledged twoofer.

I wonder if they'll be taking phone calls.

[Brainster]

Gage really talks very little about architectural matters; I imagine he'll start throwing around the bull about "eight hijackers are still alive" and "Atta lived with a stripper and snorted coke."

He's due here in early December. I am looking forward to asking him a few pointed questions.

[LashL]

It appears that Mr. Craig is fully qualified to demolish Gage. Whether he chooses to do so is another matter entirely.

Yes, as I said above, I do not have any reason to doubt Mr. Craig's credentials. I am, however, naturally suspicious and naturally skeptical about Gage agreeing to, and promoting, this "debate", particularly in light of the fact that Gage is so afraid of legitimate debate that he forbids it on his own forum. That this is scheduled to occur late at night on a radio show hosted by a full blown woo woo does nothing to ameliorate my suspicion.

I can't help but consider the possibility that this could be something crafted by Gage and the woo woo host in order to get the FX expert to say something along the lines of, "Yes, I could create special effects that look like that," so that twoofers can then say, "See? An FX expert says that it was all special effects!!!111eleventy!!11".

Mr. Craig is an unknown quantity at the moment, so it is impossible to ascertain what his role in this might be. I wonder if he knows about the Twoof Movement and if he knows that Gage is a liar and a fraud. I wonder if he knows how intellectually dishonest Gage is and if he is prepared for the Tinhat Two-Step. I wonder if he knows what to expect, and I wonder if he is being set up to be sandbagged and quote-mined by the Twoof Movement.

I guess we'll find out on Monday night.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but when a guy who normally refuses to debate agrees to a debate, I start to wonder about his opponent.

It's not cynical to be suspicious of a guy like Gage, who actively avoids debate at all costs, suddenly agreeing to and promoting a debate. I'm not sure that it necessarily reflects badly on his opponent, though - like I said above, the whole thing could be a set up by Gage and the woo woo host to sandbag the opponent. We don't know enough about Mr. Craig at this point to tell. It might be worth dropping an email to Mr. Craig, though, to find out more.

I'm not holding out much hope; the previous show on the website is...

Yes, it is apparent that the host is a complete woo woo. Gage is an intellectually dishonest coward who never strays far from the warmth and comfort of his fellow lunatics, so it is not surprising that he's only willing to "debate" on a radio show hosted by a woo. Still, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I've heard Richard Syrett before. Full-fledged twoofer. I wonder if they'll be taking phone calls.

I had never heard of Syrett until today, but yes, it's apparent from his bio and the radio station link above that he's a full blown woo.

And I sure hope that they'll be taking phone calls on Monday night.

[leftysergeant]

Craig has credential in blasting, EOD and fire fighting. He should be able to tell them what does or does not look like FX and what could not be done.

For instance, he would know that you cannot produce that kind of fireballs without a lot of real fuel hidden in the building, and it would have been noticeable in occupied office space.

Perhaps Gage is underestimating Craig's intelligence or ability to withstand a brow-beating. With a fire fighting background, I don't think Craig is going to take kindly to any suggestion that you could slip evidence of CD past experienced first responders.

Kevin Ryan did appear to me to be trying to bully Shermer, and I don't think Shermer came back hard enough at him. Maybe Shermer is just too much a gentleman. I don't think that the personality type that would go into explosives is the kind that a dope like Gage should want to push arround.

[Brainster]

Kevin Ryan did appear to me to be trying to bully Shermer, and I don't think Shermer came back hard enough at him. Maybe Shermer is just too much a gentleman. I don't think that the personality type that would go into explosives is the kind that a dope like Gage should want to push arround.

Shermer's problem is that he doesn't know enough of the minutiae that the Troofers like to cite and so he doesn't know how to respond except to cite generalities when they get into the really arcane stuff.

Gage will not limit himself to architectural matters. He is not debating in front of a bunch of architects. Watch his video sometime; it's Loose Change with an "I design steel buildings all the time" overlay. It's quite possible that he brings less real expertise to bear on 9-11 questions than Steven Jones. And yes, that is an insult.

[JamesB]

Gage is the world's lamest appeal to authority. He has done absolutely no new research or analysis. Watch the new video on 911 blogger, about all he does is play clips from 911 Mysteries. I am surprised he doesn't bring up clunkity-clunk.

[CHF]

This Ron Craig guy is good.

[LashL]

This Ron Craig guy is good.


Oh, yes, he is. He's ripping Gage a new one.

[Gravy]

Just tuned in. Craig is kicking his ass.

I like how before the commercial break Gage said he couldn't explain the "squibs" because he's not an explosives expert. Gee, I wonder where he could find one of those?

OMG, Hoffman now on, claiming that the tower collapses became more symmetrical as they progressed. What. A. Moron.

Craig: "What we have is a plate of spaghetti there."

:dl:

[LashL]

Just tuned in. Craig is kicking his ass.

He sure is. Fully, completely.

[WildCat]

"Pyroclastic dust clouds", same old ridiculous crap from Hoffman.

eta: Oops, that was Gage, figures.

[Gravy]

Gage:

Pyroclastic flows. "The smoke enfolds itself because of all the incredible heat." :eek:

Puffs of smoke at top of damaged area of WTC 7. "Can only be squibs or explosives."

Steel broken up into shipment-sized pieces.

Symmetrical collapse at freefall speed.

Gage reminds me alot of Fetzer. Like a fire hydrant spewing wrong.

[WildCat]

Steel broken up into shipment-sized pieces.
We are efficient here at the NWO.

[LashL]

Hilarious that Gage needed backup from the nutcase Hoffman... Even after he went off on the usual tangents, Craig is cool and calm and describes Hoffman's diatribe, accurately, as a "plate of spaghetti" and talks about the twoofers' "red herrings" - like using a lawn mower instead of ... "


:dl:

[Gravy]

We are efficient here at the NWO.I tell ya it was hard delivering the 1360-foot columns to the site!

[Narveson]

Perhaps someone should invite Mr. Craig to participate on this forum.

[Gravy]

Gage on BBC announcing collapse of WTC 7 prematurely: "They must have had a script!" [double laughing dog!]

Craig handled Silverstein issue concisely and well.

[LashL]

He did, indeed.
Now, they say they're going to take calls before summing up... I'm listening for the phone number - none forthcoming so far.

[Slayhamlet]

Wow, Richard Gage is dumb.

[WildCat]

He did, indeed.
Now, they say they're going to take calls before summing up... I'm listening for the phone number - none forthcoming so far.
They announced it a few minutes ago.

[WildCat]

OMG, did Gage just claim that Bush wanted William Rodriquez to run for office until he found out he knew TEH TRUTH??

[Gravy]

Good caller: explosives would have been heard by everyone and recorded. They weren't.

Answering that, Gage just debunked his previous claims: says "silent" thermate used. Dude: silent thermate doesn't create explosive squibs!

God, what an idiot.

*****
Ending the show, Gage is invited to promote his website. He does.

Host: "Ron, not a website? Nothing to promote?"

Craig: "Nothing whatsoever. Just the truth."

Oh, snap!

[CHF]

I called up and asked why demolition charges weren't more audible and Gage replies that 118 FDNY heard...thermite!

What a moron.

[WildCat]

I called up and asked why demolition charges weren't more audible and Gage replies that 118 FDNY heard...thermite!

What a moron.
It's amazing...he simultaneously claims that thermite was used so there wouldn't be audible explosions and that witnesses heard loud explosions. The sheer idiocy of it all!

[ref]

Just tuned in and just missed it. Damn!

[LashL]

I called up and asked why demolition charges weren't more audible and Gage replies that 118 FDNY heard...thermite!

What a moron.

I thought that might have been you! Well done.

[ref]

Did/could someone record this, or is it available online somewhere for listening? I want to hear their embarrassing claims :cool:

[CHF]

While on hold I couldn't decide what to deal with...

- silent CD charges
- free-fall
- pyroclastic clouds
- static vs dynamic loads
- FDNY and WTC7
- Jones' peer-review

So much to choose from with Gage. I don't think he made a single accurate statement all night!

[Gravy]

I called up and asked why demolition charges weren't more audible and Gage replies that 118 FDNY heard...thermite!

What a moron.Heh. Good caller: explosives would have been heard by everyone and recorded. They weren't.

Great comment, CHF. You broke Gage's brain.

[LashL]

They announced it a few minutes ago.

I missed it - I don't have a radio in my computer room, so I was going back and forth between posts so that I could listen and take notes of the debate in the other room. I did hear the calls, though, and Mr. Craig did a great job fielding them (and CHF's question was terrific all on its own - Gage's response was lame)

[CHF]

Did/could someone record this, or is it available online somewhere for listening? I want to hear their embarrassing claims :cool:

You didn't miss much. It was all the usual stuff.

The stuff that's been debunked a thousand times.

[boloboffin]

Good caller: explosives would have been heard by everyone and recorded. They weren't.

Answering that, Gage just debunked his previous claims: says "silent" thermate used. Dude: silent thermate doesn't create explosive squibs!

God, what an idiot.

*****
Ending the show, Gage is invited to promote his website. He does.

Host: "Ron, not a website? Nothing to promote?"

Craig: "Nothing whatsoever. Just the truth."

Oh, snap!

That's the angle I thought he was going for - but still claiming explosions at 7. It appears that our only misunderstandings of truthers are when we assume that they couldn't be that stupid.

[ref]

You didn't miss much. It was all the usual stuff.

Ok. Too bad I live in such a different time zone. Just woke up :o I love to see/hear it handed to them. I would have had many questions as well. But I doubt he will do any appearances anytime soon :p

[MarkyX]

I didn't get a chance to listen to this, but I just find it hilarious that the 9/11 Deniers like Gage are forming contradicting theories.

In fact, it seems to be the fashion lately. "Silent" thermite explosives that everyone can hear from Gage on one end, and Dylan's "ISI funding to non-existent hijackers" on the other.

The corpse is twitching :p

[LashL]

I loved the ending when the (twoofer) host gave the participants the opportunity to promote their websites or other promotional material, and Gage, of course, promoted his loon website, but Mr. Craig declined and said that he had nothing to promote but the truth.

Very, very cool.

ETA: Better said by Gravy here:

Ending the show, Gage is invited to promote his website. He does.

Host: "Ron, not a website? Nothing to promote?"

Craig: "Nothing whatsoever. Just the truth."



Beautiful.

[CHF]

I think I'm gonna e-mail Gage to ask him to clarify some of his claims.

This man is clearly a Stundie gold mine.

[ref]

I think I'm gonna e-mail Gage to ask him to clarify some of his claims.

This man is clearly a Stundie gold mine.

I would like to ask him, why he lists FDNY foreknowledge of the collapse as a sign of controlled demolition. A clear answer, does he think FDNY was involved or not.

[Caper]

Ok any chance we can get a recording of this?

[uk_dave]

Surely it's available on the AE911truth site?

[WildCat]

I missed it - I don't have a radio in my computer room,
You could have listened live on your computer. ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I listened for an hour and forty minutes and then gave up.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone coming to the show without any predisposition to believe either side would have been convinced of the falsity of the "Truther" side.

Debates like this just don't work. One side says, "Blah, blah, blah" and the other says, "Halb, halb halb", and unless you have considerable understanding and knowledge you just can't evaluate either.

I found Gage pretty funny and had heard (or read) it all before (thank you JREFF). Craig was good in his areas of expertise but sort of trailed off in other areas.

[nicepants]

Ok any chance we can get a recording of this?

I'm wondering that, too. Was anyone capturing this?

[Alferd_Packer]

I checked the site and they don't appear to have the show available for download. but I did note this in the schedule for the program last night:

"RICHARD GAGE, Architect, California-based designer of fire-proofed, steel-framed skyscrapers, Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

To my knowlege, Gage has never designed anything higher than a food court Sbarro.

[nicepants]

"RICHARD GAGE, Architect, California-based designer of fire-proofed, steel-framed skyscrapers, Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."


He fire-proofs his steel skyscrapers? Why? Fire can't melt steel, right?

[nicepants]

Ok any chance we can get a recording of this?

I contacted the host, who said it should be available from his audio archive by this weekend.

The URL he gave was http://www.richardsyrett.com

If I remember, I will post a link to it once it's uploaded.

[JamesB]

It is available here for now.

http://911blogger.com/node/12516

[JamesB]

Gage: "No macroscopic chunks of concrete were found at the base of the twin towers".

Oh my God! He is channeling Judy Wood now!

[T.A.M.]

I am tired of this crap. What, 2-3 minutes in, the host asks Gage to cite two to three points that convince him of CD, and what does Gage do? Answer the question like a rational adult? No, he immediately uses the radio show as a mouth piece for the movement...

(Paraphrase of Gage)
"there are millions of people in the United states that believe there is something wrong with what we were told...let me quote a poll for you..."

I have heard enough. If there is anything within it worth talking about, someone else listen to it and bring it up...

TAM

[JamesB]

I noticed that too. Who knew that science was decided by a public opinion poll.

[Alferd_Packer]

From the 911bloer page:

I won’t spoil the surprise. But I will say that the debate went very well and is yet another indication of good things to come for 9/11 truth!

[Mr.Herbert]

Gage blows that pathetic "we have lost our freedoms" horn. What freedoms has he lost???

Volcanic mushroom cloud???? This dude is stuttering like Porky Pig

[T.A.M.]

I am glad I wear my hair real short...hard to pull it out, and god knows that audio gives me ample reason.

TAM:)

[Mr.Herbert]

Oh God, I can't beleive he mentioned Marvin Bush!!! This dude is Jason Bermas minus that gapped front teeth!

[JamesB]

Oh God, I can't beleive he mentioned Marvin Bush!!! This dude is Jason Bermas minus that gapped front teeth!

Even more bizarre is he claims Marvin Bush's company took over WTC security 6 weeks before 9/11. The least they could do is lie consistently, every time I hear this claim it changes.

[pomeroo]

Wow, Richard Gage is dumb.



No, he has a survival instinct. After he expressed interest in appearing on 'Hardfire' and I sent him links to Mark's debates with Fetzer and the Boys, he asked my producer to conduct the interview.

[cmcaulif]

Towards the end, I heard Craig reference some collapse model by (what sounded like) the University of Honolulu, does anyone know what he is referring to?

[pomeroo]

I sent the following message to the clowns at ae911truth.org:

"Richard Gage believes that thermite was "heard."
What is being heard is the laughter of
rationalists all over the world. Gage's
charlatanry was exposed by Ron Craig last night.
The spectacle provides useful insight into the
fantasy movement's avoidance of debates. The
publication of Ryan Mackey's devastating critique
of the farrago of falsehoods and errors that
comprises the chapter on the NIST Report in David
Griffin's latest travesty sent another snake oil
salesman running for the hills. Are any champions
of Da Twoof willing to try their luck on
'Hardfire,' a public access show that tapes in
Brooklyn, NY? Jim Fetzer and the Loose Change
boys didn't do too well."

[Arus808]

Towards the end, I heard Craig reference some collapse model by (what sounded like) the University of Honolulu, does anyone know what he is referring to?


Um...there is no "University of Honolulu"

There is however Honolulu Community College (one of the sub-campuses of the University of Hawaii system).

I haven't listened to the audio as Im trying to see if Im willing to kill a few brain cells to do so.

[cmcaulif]

Um...there is no "University of Honolulu"

There is however Honolulu Community College (one of the sub-campuses of the University of Hawaii system).


Yea, thats why I thought it was weird he said that. Or maybe I just heard wrong

[bofors]

I am now listening to the debate...

... and Jim Hoffman just schooled Ron Craig. :relieved:

[Mr.Herbert]

Did you say Jim Hoffman boned Jenny Craig? :eek:

[Arus808]

I now listening to the debate...

... and Jim Hoffman just owned Ron Craig. :relieved:


in what world? Craig whipped Gage and hOffman and he's one man against two woo's. All it took is one man to prove both of them wrong about their claims.

[DGM]

I am now listening to the debate...

... and Jim Hoffman just schooled Ron Craig. :relieved:
"Just schooled"? What are you 15?

[T.A.M.]

Someone who believes the towers were brought down via controlled demolition just said that Hoffman owned Craig...yup, now I'm convinced.

the weakness of the ignore function is it does not prevent you from seeing their comments when they are quoted.

TAM:)

[bofors]

Let me get this straight...

Ron Craig's argument is:

(1) He would have used shaped charges.

(2) He can't figure out how to plant the demolitions.

(3) .... and that planes hit the WTC twin towers.

Hahahaha....

[CHF]

Let me get this straight...

Ron Craig's argument is:

(1) He would have used shaped charges.

(2) He can't figure out how to plant the demolitions.

(3) .... and that planes hit the WTC twin towers.

Hahahaha....

OK Bofors. Tell us how to rig up a 110 story skyscraper with bombs so that flying a plane into the set-up wouldn't screw up the whole thing.

[T.A.M.]

ITUs (Indestructable Thermite Units) of course...duh!

TAM;)

[DGM]

OK Bofors. Tell us how to rig up a 110 story skyscraper with bombs so that flying a plane into the set-up wouldn't screw up the whole thing.
Maybe he should ask Mr Jowenko how to rig the towers.:D

[bofors]

I called up and asked why demolition charges weren't more audible and Gage replies that 118 FDNY heard...thermite!


I just heard this...

Ha... that's it, John? Eh?

Dude, you're a genius.

Ya, the buildings made absolutely no noise coming down at all.

Ya, let's through out all the evidence, including the audio evidence, that proves CD and just claim that the explosions were not loud enough.

Congratulations, you win the "Bofors-Debunking/Denial" prise de jour: http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/editor/favoritesmilies.gif

[Good Lt]

Ya, let's through out all the evidence, including the audio evidence, that proves CD and just claim that the explosions were not loud enough.Yeah...about all that "evidence..."

Where is it? You gonna cite it one day?

Or do you just through it all out when it doesn't show what you pretend it does?

[CHF]

I just heard this...

Ha... that's it, John? Eh?

Dude, you're a genius.

Ya, the buildings made absolutely no noise coming down at all.

Ya, let's through out all the evidence, including the audio evidence, that proves CD and just claim that the explosions were not loud enough.

Oh look, another strawman :rolleyes:

No bofors, I said the collapses didn't make the noise of a demolition.

You know...this kinda thing:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

That moron Gage then claimed thermite wouldn't make explosions...but then went on to claim that the FDNY heard "explosions!"

Can you make sense of that, Bofors?

[Good Lt]

You don't understand, CHF.

It happened IN HIS MIND, which is undebunkable.

[boloboffin]

Also as in this clip:

ZAyyHQQXX_0

This is a CD that Richard Gage uses to demonstrate what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like. The explosions in this clip have been taken out of the clip Gage uses.

ETA: He then uses Hoffman to explain how explosions meld together into a rushing sound. But the only rushing sound apparent on his clip is the simple sound of the building collapse, the only sound actually present in the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11.

[pomeroo]

I am now listening to the debate...

... and Jim Hoffman just schooled Ron Craig. :relieved:


If you are really an engineer, why are you so scientifically illiterate? Hoffman's faulty calculations were exposed by Dr. Greening long ago.

[hellaeon]

Even the first rebuttle smashes Gage. Gage sounds like a bumbling idiot trying to recite the same crap for about 3-4 minutes and Craig responds with a 10 seconds tirade that gets straight to the point.

Ron, get this walking record on a debate with Mark or even Ryan M! (that would rule)

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha he is dropping pearlers! The kinetic energy of the impact is not important???

[Alferd_Packer]

OK, I listened to it on my way home tonight. Let me start by echoing a sentiment expressed earlier in this thread. Gage is an idiot.

Like Judy Woods, one has to wonder just how he managed to acquire his credentials.

The most glaring example of his cognitive dissonance is his insistence that thermite was used because it has no distinctive sounds, that would have been picked up by every camera and video recorder in Manhattan that day, yet in the very next breath he insists that explosives were used that were powerful enough to blast the exterior panels into neat 30 foot sections and to toss them hundreds of feet laterally.

[Alferd_Packer]

Gage makes a number of mistakes that clearly illustrate his lack of knowledge of his own profession.

1) Gage refers to the Parke Plaza building in Caracas as a steel framed building that survived a catastrophic fire. Wrong. It was a combined structure. It had a concrete “macro frame” every five floors with the intermediate infill floors steel framed (one of which did indeed suffer a partial collapse).

2) Gage implied that the massive size of the core columns at the base of the structure meant that the core of the building was so strong that even if the floors of the towers collapsed, the core would have remained standing 1000 feet high. In this he ignores a number of crucial facts. A) The airplane impacts damaged the core columns as well as the exterior columns. B) The core columns became progressively lighter and smaller the farther up the building you went. C) Photographic evidence indicates that, in fact, both cores did indeed survive for a few seconds longer than the rest of the structure. And most importantly, D) the lack of any diagonal bracing in the core structure (other than a few well defined locations) meant that the entire core was incapable of existing as a stand alone structure. This is a key fundamental principle of structural engineering that should be understood by architects.

3) I am not an architect, nor am I a professional engineer (although I have studied graduate level environmental engineering). I have spent many, many years in construction and buildings, especially in high rise buildings.

Gage is ignorant of the basic operational practices of construction in the private and public sectors. His insistence that to compromise building security is the only thing that would be required to access the core area for the surreptitious placement of demolition charges indicates to me that he has never ever done any design work more complicated than remodeling Auntie Annie’s Pretzels at the local mall. I mean seriously, what’s up with that? Even if you have never been involved with building construction/ remodeling it doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate the layers of bureaucracy and management that even the most minor construction project is saddled with.

Does he seriously think that the security department could dream up a bogus construction project impacting a major life safety system like the elevators without any practical oversight? This is so fundamental to the construction process that it totally boggles the mind that he would seriously present this as an argument.

[Alferd_Packer]

one more point:

Gage’s insistence that the so called chemical signatures of thermite as supposedly detected by Jones has any validity is just plain annoying and insulting. What, does he think we are as stupid as he is?

[CHF]

I loved how Gage said the lower portion of the towers should have held up the top portion because "it had been doing that for years."

In other words the man doesn't know the difference between a dynamic load and a static load.

The most glaring example of his cognitive dissonance is his insistence that thermite was used because it has no distinctive sounds, that would have been picked up by every camera and video recorder in Manhattan that day, yet in the very next breath he insists that explosives were used that were powerful enough to blast the exterior panels into neat 30 foot sections and to toss them hundreds of feet laterally.

That's exactly why I asked him about the lack of CD charges going off. It's always fun to see how a twoofer switches between CD charges and thermite depending on what piece of evidence is being discussed.

[Alferd_Packer]

We need to get Craig over here for a while and prep him before the next debate.

[leftysergeant]

Please. Is there an MP3 of this available anywhere? I gotta have something to link to other sites where they have not yet grasped the dismal lack of function neurons between Gage's ears.

[ref]

Please. Is there an MP3 of this available anywhere? I gotta have something to link to other sites where they have not yet grasped the dismal lack of function neurons between Gage's ears.

http://blip.tv/file/get/Mekt_Ranzz-RichardSyrettShow911TruthDebateRichardGageVsRonCra ig984.wmv

[nicepants]

Seems like the host is a twoofer. Also interesting that Gage always gets the last word before every commercial break.

Oh boy, Jim Hoffman the software engineer.

SELECT * from Controlled_Demolition WHERE Building = WTC7 OR WTC1 OR WTC2

Returned 0 Results

I wish the explosives expert would just ask Gage...what would be the point of thermite/mate if they're using explosives anyways?

[Liszt]

Let me get this straight...

Ron Craig's argument is:

(1) He would have used shaped charges.

(2) He can't figure out how to plant the demolitions.

(3) .... and that planes hit the WTC twin towers.

Hahahaha....


is every truther on this site a "no planer"? what on earth is going on?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Seems like the host is a twoofer. Also interesting that Gage always gets the last word before every commercial break.

Oh boy, Jim Hoffman the software engineer.

SELECT * from Controlled_Demolition WHERE Building = WTC7 OR WTC1 OR WTC2

Returned 0 Results

I wish the explosives expert would just ask Gage...what would be the point of thermite/mate if they're using explosives anyways?

Because it is super-powerful extra-explosive silent marmite thermite? :eye-poppi

[Alferd_Packer]

Let me get this straight...

Ron Craig's argument is:

(1) He would have used shaped charges.

(2) He can't figure out how to plant the demolitions.

(3) .... and that planes hit the WTC twin towers.

Hahahaha....

1) The argument is a valid one. In spite of the truther’s fixation with thermite, super thermite and steel eating termites, their proposed alternative has numerous technical drawbacks that they hand wave over.

2) No, that is not what he said. He said that the thruthers proposed system presents numerous logistical issues. Gage’s glossing over of these issues by ranting about the security in the building ignores those logistical issues entirely.

3) Yes, planes hit the building and the fires burned in the building, and that was enough to initiate the collapse. Gravity took care of the rest with no explosives needed.

[Alferd_Packer]

Back to an issue I raised earlier. Gage implicated the elevator upgrade project as the method by which he believes that explosives were planted in the building. Let’s look at this claim. If this were true, then the elevator company, Otis, and the elevator mechanics who were permanently assigned to work in the building as well as the mechanics assigned to the elevator upgrade project. The in-house port authority as well as the outside consultants and design engineers working on and inspecting the project would have had to be part of the plan as well. Let’s not forget Frank DeMartini. As the construction manager for the towers it would have been his job to monitor and oversee all projects in the building. Finally, and most damning of all to Gage’s supposition is the fact that the elevator shafts were not adjacent to all of the core columns. In fact, the higher you went, the more core space that was used for other purposes.

All this should be obvious to a practicing architect with any experience in high rise construction and renovation.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Here is an example of where a typical layperson can go horribly astray when confronted with what he or she may assume to be an elementary physics problem. Au contraire!

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time. Which one hits the ground first?

Answer: This is actually a bit of a trick question.

Prior to 9/11/01, 100% of Advanced Physics Degree professionals would have agreed with the lesser-educated, "common sense" crowd and said that the building with nothing but air beneath it would strike the ground considerably faster than the other, which, quite honestly, could not really be expected to burrow its way through a 90-story building to reach the ground at all.

However, since 9/11/01, physicists have learned that the answer is actually "there will be virtually no difference in the rate of descent between the two 20-story buildings. They will both strike the ground essentially at the same time."

So you see, one must always consult one's local physics expert when questions concerning the physical universe arise. PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO WORK THROUGH ANY TYPE OF PHYSICS PROBLEMS ON YOUR OWN AT HOME—ALWAYS CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL. Only a professional knows which laws of physics are currently being applied to describe the physical universe that surrounds us. THESE PHYSICAL LAWS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Please do not assume you are up to date on the latest equations and/or theories concerning gravitation or conservation of energy and momentum.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled life, knowing that you are safe in the good hands of the people who you expect to watch out for you and your family's best interests, since that would take too much time out of your day to do for yourself.

Brought to you by the "Have You Hugged Your Big Brother Today?" foundation.

Originally posted by tzo at 911Blogger.com

[Alferd_Packer]

However, since 9/11/01, physicists have learned that the answer is actually "there will be virtually no difference in the rate of descent between the two 20-story buildings. They will both strike the ground essentially at the same time."


What are you talking about?

[Tbone]

What are you talking about?

Just the same old "free fall" thing.

[Mr.Herbert]

I think that was a Drive- By Wooing

[pomeroo]

Here is an example of where a typical layperson can go horribly astray when confronted with what he or she may assume to be an elementary physics problem. Au contraire!

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time. Which one hits the ground first?

Answer: This is actually a bit of a trick question.

Prior to 9/11/01, 100% of Advanced Physics Degree professionals would have agreed with the lesser-educated, "common sense" crowd and said that the building with nothing but air beneath it would strike the ground considerably faster than the other, which, quite honestly, could not really be expected to burrow its way through a 90-story building to reach the ground at all.

However, since 9/11/01, physicists have learned that the answer is actually "there will be virtually no difference in the rate of descent between the two 20-story buildings. They will both strike the ground essentially at the same time."

So you see, one must always consult one's local physics expert when questions concerning the physical universe arise. PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO WORK THROUGH ANY TYPE OF PHYSICS PROBLEMS ON YOUR OWN AT HOME—ALWAYS CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL. Only a professional knows which laws of physics are currently being applied to describe the physical universe that surrounds us. THESE PHYSICAL LAWS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Please do not assume you are up to date on the latest equations and/or theories concerning gravitation or conservation of energy and momentum.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled life, knowing that you are safe in the good hands of the people who you expect to watch out for you and your family's best interests, since that would take too much time out of your day to do for yourself.

Brought to you by the "Have You Hugged Your Big Brother Today?" foundation.

Originally posted by tzo at 911Blogger.com



I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not at home with "advanced physics." What you sarcastically claim that physicists have learned from the buildings that collapsed is something they really haven't learned at all. But, then, you are a conspiracy liar: you don't care.

[LashL]

What are you talking about?

Hmm. Seems like just another twoofer parroting nonsense without ever being on a first name basis with reality.

[ktesibios]

Every time a troofer drops by with yet another regurgitation of the same old long-discredited talking points, I start channeling one of my favorite authors:

The guide was bewildered -- non-plussed. He walked his legs off, nearly, hunting up extraordinary things, and exhausted all his ingenuity on us, but it was a failure; we never showed any interest in any thing. He had reserved what he considered to be his greatest wonder till the last -- a royal Egyptian mummy, the best preserved in the world, perhaps. He took us there. He felt so sure, this time, that some of his old enthusiasm came back to him:

"See, genteelmen! -- Mummy! Mummy!"

The eye-glass came up as calmly, as deliberately as ever.

"Ah, -- Ferguson -- what did I understand you to say the gentleman's name was?"

"Name? -- he got no name! -- Mummy! -- 'Gyptian mummy!"

" Yes, yes. Born here?"

" No! 'Gyptian mummy!"

"Ah, just so. Frenchman, I presume?"

"No! -- not Frenchman, not Roman! -- born in Egypta!"

"Born in Egypta. Never heard of Egypta before. Foreign locality, likely. Mummy -- mummy. How calm he is -- how self-possessed. Is, ah -- is he dead?"

"Oh, sacre bleu, been dead three thousan' year!"

The doctor turned on him savagely:

"Here, now, what do you mean by such conduct as this! Playing us for Chinamen because we are strangers and trying to learn! Trying to impose your vile second-hand carcasses on us! -- thunder and lightning, I've a notion to -- to -- if you've got a nice fresh corpse, fetch him out! -- or by George we'll brain you!"

http://www.mindspring.com/~eliasen/twain/innocents/innoc27.html

I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for a claim that isn't dead and decomposed already.

[T.A.M.]

OK, I listened to it on my way home tonight. Let me start by echoing a sentiment expressed earlier in this thread. Gage is an idiot.

Like Judy Woods, one has to wonder just how he managed to acquire his credentials.


It is not the acquisition of knowledge that makes one a scholar, but rather the logical and correct application of that knowledge.
- TAM 2007

TAM;)

[rwguinn]

Hmm. Seems like just another twoofer parroting nonsense without ever being on a first name basis with reality.
:dl: :dl:

They haven't even been to the same party, much less been introduced!

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time.

Which one hits the ground first?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[Gravy]

The question is far too complex. We are but simple country folk. Please let us know when the YouTube video is available.

Also, these schnozzberries taste like schnozzberries.

[R.Mackey]

Mekt Ranzz: You can't be serious.

[LashL]

Oh, look, a "new" twoofer who thinks that his/her point hasn't been discussed, debated and debunked to death ad nauseam before he/she showed up tonight for his/her very first post on this specific thread that is not even particularly related to his/her long-debunked point.

:rolleyes:

[niloroth]

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time.

Which one hits the ground first?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Oh jeeze, this $(!7 again?

i am going to go with the 3rd building, which was not actually bound by the physical laws of this universe because the NWO has multi-dimensional architecture at their disposal.

[SkuzzleButt]

So this saturday, Gage is going to be giving a lecture about all this nonsense at my university. I am hoping to get a turn on the mic and really stick it to him with a tough question or two. So what would be the best way of going about this?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

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.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

So this saturday, Gage is going to be giving a lecture about all this nonsense at my university. I am hoping to get a turn on the mic and really stick it to him with a tough question or two. So what would be the best way of going about this?
SkuzzleButt: If you're talking about Austin, TX, then I promise that I'll BE at that presentation. So make your question a good one.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.--Albert Einstein

[Gravy]

The genius of Mekt_Ranzz has defeated us. 9/11 was an inside job.

Also, the black walnut takes its morning constitutional.

[R.Mackey]

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.

Fine.

The construction with the 90-story building instead of air below it will come to a crashing halt last. The construction with air below will finish collapsing a short time before the other one.

Now, what's your point?

[Gravy]

So this saturday, Gage is going to be giving a lecture about all this nonsense at my university. I am hoping to get a turn on the mic and really stick it to him with a tough question or two. So what would be the best way of going about this?Hi, SkuzzleButt. Welcome to the forums. You could ask Gage why he claims that the towers were brought down by huge explosions that ejected debris,

but

he claims that explosions weren't recorded because the towers were actually brought down by silent thermate.

He said both these things during his debate with Ron Craig. I'd love to hear his explanation.

Also, it would be good to know why he forbids knowledgeable people who disagree with him to post on his forum. Isn't scientific debate healthy?

Or you could extend a debate challenge from me, Mark Roberts, and watch him squirm.

[Gravy]

Fine.

The construction with the 90-story building instead of air below it will come to a crashing halt last. The construction with air below will finish collapsing a short time before the other one.Are you a wizard?

[R.Mackey]

No, nor a rogue or priest, either. But you knew that.

I am, instead, a dread Scientist. It's a new Prestige class you won't find in the Player's Handbook.

[einsteen]

Mekt_Ranzz,

With all respect, but the first time someone hears about conspiracy theories one is often referred to sites that use false information about building blocks falling as fast through steel and concrete as through air.
Forgot about those sites, because that was not what happened. The north tower's acceleration was about (2/3)g in the beginning. You can't be blamed for that because you are given false information. And I understand the JREF'ers reaction because every time a new person pops-up here and comes again with that. But on the other hand even if you demolish a building with explosives or an other catalyst it will also be no free fall.

[Gravy]

Just so people understand what a high-powered intellect they're dealing with here, this is from Mekt_Ranzz's blog (http://911blogger.com/blog/1645).

The first thing one sees when arriving at the "Lions for Lambs" movie website is the following question posted at the center of the screen:

What do you stand for?

I typed in "9/11 truth" and pressed ENTER.

And this is what I got:
9/11 Truth
THANK YOU for your submission!
Check back to see if it has been approved.
Approved responses may be posted on the site.

Maybe if enough of us post the same thing (or something similar) 9/11 truth will get that much more national exposure!
Go get 'em, tiger! Grrr!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Silent thermate? WHAT? I guess it's better than "natural thermate" the existence of which some of you have postulated, but no matter. I will deal with this tomorrow during the day as it is TOO late right now. In due time, I'll pass on Mark Robert's message to Richard Gage and the rest of the 9/11 truth movement. I PROMISE.

[Arus808]

you dont need to. they troll this forum and also read this forum from time to time; or they have their patsies do that for them.

[uk_dave]

I will deal with this tomorrow during the day as it is TOO late right now.

Lightweight! :D

[Gravy]

In due time, I'll pass on Mark Robert's message to Richard Gage and the rest of the 9/11 truth movement. I PROMISE.THANKS! You're the Ranzziest!

[leftysergeant]

So I down-loaded the MP3 and got about 24 minutes into it, and



AAAAARGH! I CAN'T TAKE IT! THERE IS STUPID ALL OVER THE PLACE!

How in the name of a thousand djinn did Gage ever get certified as an architecht? And he specializes in fire-proof buildings....HUH?

And he doesn't know that steel buildings have a notorious tendancy to fall iun fires? What a freaking bozo!
I mean, the fool is all over the map in the first four minutes talking simultaneously about explosives and thermite and the chemical signitures of thermite and the ends of metal beams still dripping with molten metal.

Has this fool never seen how thermite behaves once the reaction runs its course? does he have any freakling idea how huge a thermite charge would have to bee to still be reacting two WEKS, let alone months, after the collapse? SOOOOO STOOOOPID!

And get this, at about 22:11, the jerk starts talking about what is not found there, like chromium...How much chromium is there in structural steel? And then he mentions things that Jones allegedly found, like manganese ( now why would THAT be in structural steel) and flourine, which he claims is an ingredient of therm,ite.

Well EXCUSE ME! I have never put flourine into any of my thermite mixes and they all burned very hotly, thank you very much...
(ya schmuck.)

I can take only so much stupid this late at night. I am already O.D.ed on it and only up to an eighth of the clip.

How does the existance of someone like Gage square with "survival of the fittest?"

[Dave Rogers]

Here is an example of where a typical layperson can go horribly astray when confronted with what he or she may assume to be an elementary physics problem. Au contraire!

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time. Which one hits the ground first?

I'm not sure whether you're aware, but the al-Qaeda organisation carried out an experiment along these lines back in 2001. There were some difficulties in determining what the results actually were, but the conclusion was that the 90-storey building retarded the fall of the 20-storey building by about 5 seconds, a significant amount compared to the expected 9 second fall time. One of the key results of the experiment was that debris in free-fall could clearly be seen much lower down than the bottom edge of the upper building, showing that it was falling much faster as a result of not having to collapse a 90-storey building on the way. It's quite interesting stuff, you should read something about it some day. Something that's actually true, at any rate; there are fictional depictions of the event but they're mostly third-rate stuff, with poorly defined character motivations, implausible plotlines involving impossibly huge conspiracies - something involving about 20 people would have been much more likely - and very bad scientific explanations of the special effects. Stick to the non-fiction, is my advice.

So you see, one must always consult one's local physics expert when questions concerning the physical universe arise. PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO WORK THROUGH ANY TYPE OF PHYSICS PROBLEMS ON YOUR OWN AT HOME—ALWAYS CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL.

You are living proof of why this is actually a very sound warning.

Dave

(Advanced Physics Degree Professional)

[DGM]

So this saturday, Gage is going to be giving a lecture about all this nonsense at my university. I am hoping to get a turn on the mic and really stick it to him with a tough question or two. So what would be the best way of going about this?
Welcome;
I'd like to see an answer to why he edited out the explosions from his controlled demolition video in his presentation. What doesn't he want people to here?

[T.A.M.]

Silent thermate? WHAT? I guess it's better than "natural thermate" the existence of which some of you have postulated, but no matter. I will deal with this tomorrow during the day as it is TOO late right now. In due time, I'll pass on Mark Robert's message to Richard Gage and the rest of the 9/11 truth movement. I PROMISE.

another sarcastic truther who thinks he knows it all, and is going to "school" us. Good luck with that.

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

No, nor a rogue or priest, either. But you knew that.

I am, instead, a dread Scientist. It's a new Prestige class you won't find in the Player's Handbook.
Is this similar to the Dread Pirate Robert? The Dread Scientist RMackey?

[T.A.M.]

http://911blogger.com/blog/1645
http://www.freestate.tv/author/mekt_ranzz/
http://feeds.utopedia.de/author/Mekt_Ranzz

Proliferative truther, if anyone had any doubts.

TAM:)

[nicepants]

Which one hits the ground first?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

ETA: If you do have a point, please create a thread for it so we don't derail this one any further.

[chillzero]

Please take the physics quiz to a new thread, or it will be split out from here. Remember to keep to the topic of the thread.

[lapman]

How in the name of a thousand djinn did Gage ever get certified as an architecht? And he specializes in fire-proof buildings....HUH?
I would love to see one of his blueprints before and after the structural engineers get a hold of it. I wonder how long it takes for them to stop laughing?

[Dave Rogers]

Please take the physics quiz to a new thread, or it will be split out from here. Remember to keep to the topic of the thread.

To be strictly fair, it's actually a moronic conspiracy theorist's argument [1] based on misinterpretation, speculation, misplaces sarcasm and ignorance. It's just pretending to be a physics quiz. Much though I wish it wasn't, I think this is the correct forum for it.

Dave

[1] Just to clarify and avoid breaching the rules, the word "moronic" qualifies the word "argument" here.

[chillzero]

Much though I wish it wasn't, I think this is the correct forum for it.



But it is not the correct thread.

[JimBenArm]

Yes, this one is green. The correct thread is mauve.

[Dave Rogers]

But it is not the correct thread.

My mistake. I'd better go back and edit my post so it says something intelligent.

Dave

[Alferd_Packer]

I have a copy of Gage's CV/ resume, if anyone cares to host it.

He is a design stamp architect. Togos, Baskin Robins, IHOP, etc. It is stunning in it's mediocracy.

[Alferd_Packer]

Never mind, I figured out how to upload it.

[pomeroo]

Hi, SkuzzleButt. Welcome to the forums. You could ask Gage why he claims that the towers were brought down by huge explosions that ejected debris,

but

he claims that explosions weren't recorded because the towers were actually brought down by silent thermate.

He said both these things during his debate with Ron Craig. I'd love to hear his explanation.

Also, it would be good to know why he forbids knowledgeable people who disagree with him to post on his forum. Isn't scientific debate healthy?

Or you could extend a debate challenge from me, Mark Roberts, and watch him squirm.



Bear in mind that Gage has already run away from this challenge.

[pomeroo]

Silent thermate? WHAT? I guess it's better than "natural thermate" the existence of which some of you have postulated, but no matter. I will deal with this tomorrow during the day as it is TOO late right now. In due time, I'll pass on Mark Robert's message to Richard Gage and the rest of the 9/11 truth movement. I PROMISE.



Richard Gage knows all about Mark Roberts and he has cravenly fled from the challenge.

[T.A.M.]

Alferd, I have been at a lost as to how to upload documents to our CP etc...on the forum, any idea???

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

The question is far too complex. We are but simple country folk. Please let us know when the YouTube video is available.

Also, these schnozzberries taste like schnozzberries.


NO!!!! WATCH OUT!!!! THEY ARE ......

POISON GOOSEBERRIES!!!!!

[pomeroo]

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time.

Which one hits the ground first?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.


Wow, you're one tough twoof guy! Okay, the building with nothing underneath it hits the ground first. It's unanimous.

Some of us have noticed that you aren't making any point.

[Crungy]

Mr. Gage has long list of small and mid size commerical projects on his resume, but nothing meary or of complexity. I know plenty of Chicago architects that have a far more impressive resume then our the Cali-Woo boy.

I'd really like to know if the structural engineers he works with are aware of his nutty 9/11 claims. [/FONT]

Oh, I see this predictible entry on Mr. Gage's resume.

IHOP Restaurant - Novato, CA

;)

[PhantomWolf]

Question: A 20-story building hangs suspended from a crane so that the bottom of the building is 10 feet directly above a 90-story building. Right next to this first 20-story building is another identical 20-story building suspended from another crane at an identical height above the ground, but with no building underneath it. Both cranes let go of their respective 20-story buildings at the same time.

Which one hits the ground first?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Well since no one really answered directly, mostly because idiot with a stopwatch would know the answer, going by the time it took the collapsed of WTC 1 & 2, the building without anything under it would hit the ground approximately 5-8 seconds before the one that had fun crushing the building under it on the way down.

It should be noted here that in the WTC collapses the first panels hit the ground at 9-10 seconds, what was expected from Freefall. The collapses themselves took 15-18 and 18-20 seconds for the main structure, and up to 30 seconds for the final core elements to fall. This is like telling a cop that you were esentially doing the speed limit when he catches you doing 180km/h in a 100km/h zone and expecting not to get a ticket.

[DGM]

Mr. Gage has long list of small and mid size commerical projects on his resume, but nothing meary or of complexity. I know plenty of Chicago architects that have a far more impressive resume then our the Cali-Woo boy.

I'd really like to know if the structural engineers he works with are aware of his nutty 9/11 claims.

Oh, I see this predictible entry on Mr. Gage's resume.

IHOP Restaurant - Novato, CA

;)
I thought the number of different firms was significant. He seems to be a bit of a wanderer.

[dudalb]

Just so people understand what a high-powered intellect they're dealing with here, this is from Mekt_Ranzz's blog (http://911blogger.com/blog/1645).

Go get 'em, tiger! Grrr!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg


It is even funnier condisering how "Lions for Lambs" has totally bombed with both at the box office and with critics. Yeah,flooding a website for a film that will be out of theaters in two weeks will really help Spread the Truth.

[deep]

Hi, SkuzzleButt. Welcome to the forums. You could ask Gage why he claims that the towers were brought down by huge explosions that ejected debris,

but

he claims that explosions weren't recorded because the towers were actually brought down by silent thermate.


No need to ask Gage - just ask somebody who actually listened to the debate. Gage explained that thermate was probably used in place of cutter charges on each steel beam to limit the noise. Traditional explosives were obviously still used, in some capacity, because 270 ton steel beams don't just "fall off" and fly through the air on their own.

Either way, the details of what did happen can only be hypothesized without a new investigation (with subpoena power). Until then, the only thing that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is what didn't happen (i.e., the OT is physically impossible).


Also, it would be good to know why he forbids knowledgeable people who disagree with him to post on his forum. Isn't scientific debate healthy?


Yes, scientific debate is healthy; however, very few of the regular posters here are capable of such a thing when the topic is related to 9/11. During the short period of time that the ae911truth.org forum was open to the public, the discussions were constantly being polluted by members of this forum - creating fake accounts, making countless sensationalistic claims, and ultimately repeating the same fallacious arguments that have become the JREF CT Forum trademark.

See, since you don't actually have the facts on your side, you have to concentrate on coming up with excuses not to acknowledge certain evidence. That's why you're passing around Gage's CV in this thread - get everybody's eyes on it, and work together to find a reason to ignore him. Do you think they do the same thing with your personal information? In a word, no. They don't care, because they don't have to - they have the truth (no pun intended).

Trust me (or don't - doesn't matter to me), it's not that anybody is scared of you - they're just sick of repeating themselves. If anybody here was capable of adding anything to the discussion over there (as opposed to subtracting from it), there's no doubt in my mind that they would be invited (or otherwise allowed to join). Unfortunately -- like I said -- that's not the case.

[Hokulele]

Stundied!

[DGM]

No need to ask Gage - just ask somebody who actually listened to the debate. Gage explained that thermate was probably used in place of cutter charges on each steel beam to limit the noise. Traditional explosives were obviously still used, in some capacity, because 270 ton steel beams don't just "fall off" and fly through the air on their own.

Either way, the details of what did happen can only be hypothesized without a new investigation (with subpoena power). Until then, the only thing that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is what didn't happen (i.e., the OT is physically impossible).





Yes, scientific debate is healthy; however, very few of the regular posters here are capable of such a thing when the topic is related to 9/11. During the short period of time that the ae911truth.org forum was open to the public, the discussions were constantly being polluted by members of this forum - creating fake accounts, making countless sensationalistic claims, and ultimately repeating the same fallacious arguments that have become the JREF CT Forum trademark.

See, since you don't actually have the facts on your side, you have to concentrate on coming up with excuses not to acknowledge certain evidence. That's why you're passing around Gage's CV in this thread - get everybody's eyes on it, and work together to find a reason to ignore him. Do you think they do the same thing with your personal information? In a word, no. They don't care, because they don't have to - they have the truth (no pun intended).

Trust me (or don't - doesn't matter to me), it's not that anybody is scared of you - they're just sick of repeating themselves. If anybody here was capable of adding anything to the discussion over there (as opposed to subtracting from it), there's no doubt in my mind that they would be invited (or otherwise allowed to join). Unfortunately -- like I said -- that's not the case.
Tell you what. Why don't you start defending Gage by explaining why he edited the sound in his presentation. The CD he posts has explosion sounds originally. Why did he remove them?

[Newtons Bit]

Traditional explosives were obviously still used, in some capacity, because 270 ton steel beams don't just "fall off" and fly through the air on their own.

Could you show me this 270 ton (540,000lb) steel beam? I'm working on a 5-story hospital bed-tower right now and the entire lateral system of the entire building only weights 277,000lb.

Oh, and can you also please show me a picture of a crane used in construction that can hoist 270 tons?

Thanks.

[Gravy]

No need to ask Gage - just ask somebody who actually listened to the debate. Gage explained that thermate was probably used in place of cutter charges on each steel beam to limit the noise.

Caller (CHF): I think the controlled demolition of the towers and building 7 can be largely disproven with one simple observation, and that is that demolition charges are deafeningly loud. if a demolition charge went off on 9/11, everyone within a mile radius, every camera, every video would have recorded it.

Gage: Well that's why they would have used thermite, which is a more silent, um, thermate, which is a special form of thermite with added sulfur, because obviously you wouldn't want a whole bunch of explosions to be heard, even though they were, it's not a perfect science. They have a hundred and eighteen witnesses just from those who were recorded in the oral histories.That sounds like a plausible explanation? They didn't want the explosives to be heard, although they were heard, but the use of thermate allowed them to be heard by fewer people?

So, the thermate slowly melts the columns. But that's not enough. Why is that not enough? Why didn't they just use more silent thermate? Okay, they ran out. So they used explosives.

So they smuggled in tons of explosives and equipment (remember, Gage is claiming that "squibs" farther down on the tower were made by explosives), tore out walls to gain access to exterior and core columns on many floors, created special thermate holders to keep that substance in contact with the steel, created magic timers and protection containers to allow the thermate and explosives to withstand the impact of an airliner and subsequent enormous fires, cleaned up everything, repaired the damage they'd done, and they and their incredibly disruptive work remained completely undetected.

You've sold me so far.

Okay, what kind of semi-silent explosives were used, Deep, that are large enough to toss huge steel columns, as you and Gage say, but are otherwise undetectable by sight, sound, and seismometers, and that did not eject huge amounts of lighter debris for great distances at high velocities? And please explain how neither thermate nor explosives left any mark on any steel that was examined by investigators or is visible in photographs.

By the way, Gage's claim of 118 first responders hearing explosives is complete b.s.: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1

Traditional explosives were obviously still used, in some capacity, because 270 ton steel beams don't just "fall off" and fly through the air on their own.So you think that when a quarter-mile high building collapses from the top, parts of its structure shouldn't fall away from the center?

Please explain!...................Please explain!...................Please explain!...................

Here's a video you need to watch. Pay particular attention to the inward buckling of the south tower's east wall as the collapse commences. Note that there are no explosions and no outward ejection of smoke and debris. Explain how this fits into your conspiracy theory.
2083421624495848233

Finally, be sure to read Ryan Mackey's paper (particularly pages 95-97), which puts these myths to rest for good:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Ryan...Review_1_1.pdf

No more excuses, Deep, and no more arguments from ignorance. Get informed or get lost. Now get to work.

[Gravy]

Could you show me this 270 ton (540,000lb) steel beam? I'm working on a 5-story hospital bed-tower right now and the entire lateral system of the entire building only weights 277,000lb.

Oh, and can you also please show me a picture of a crane used in construction that can hoist 270 tons?

Thanks.He's making that up. There were sections of the north tower's west wall that fell across West Street that may have weighed that much. I'd like to see Deep's calculation of how much explosive would be needed to do that. See my video above, which shows large sections of that wall falling, and note that the World Financial Center (not to mention New Jersey, all of lower Manhattan, and Brooklyn) aren't blasted with lighter, high velocity debris from this "explosion." In fact, the lighter debris trails the heavier steel: not what you'd see from a blast.

[T.A.M.]

No need to ask Gage - just ask somebody who actually listened to the debate. Gage explained that thermate was probably used in place of cutter charges on each steel beam to limit the noise. Traditional explosives were obviously still used, in some capacity, because 270 ton steel beams don't just "fall off" and fly through the air on their own.


So how many of these untested, unproduced horizontally acting Thermite Cutting Devices were utilized? How many beams were cut? 20, 40, 200, 400?

Why bother with Thermite. Are you honestly, HONESTLY, trying to imply that the reason your alleged NWO crew used Untested (in this capacity) Thermite Horizontal Cutting Devices was so they would make a smaller "boom". As Kyle would ask...REALLY???


Either way, the details of what did happen can only be hypothesized without a new investigation (with subpoena power). Until then, the only thing that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is what didn't happen (i.e., the OT is physically impossible).

Yes the disclaimer that should be stamped on every truthers forehead...the ultimate "get out of jail free" card.


Yes, scientific debate is healthy; however, very few of the regular posters here are capable of such a thing when the topic is related to 9/11.

There are some, including yourself no doubt, who are not able to discuss the finer scientific points of some of the 9/11 issues, but that shouldn't be held against them/you.


During the short period of time that the ae911truth.org forum was open to the public, the discussions were constantly being polluted by members of this forum - creating fake accounts, making countless sensationalistic claims, and ultimately repeating the same fallacious arguments that have become the JREF CT Forum trademark.

You think you would thank the JREFers for exposing the completely bogus process with which they allowed members to join. To allow so easily, others to pose as professionals, and add FAKE credibility to that site, smacked of BUSH LEAGUE. Though the tactic was perhaps not what truthers would have liked, in the end did it not force the site runners/owners to make sure the members credentials were vetted, which in the end helped with the sites credibility...why whine about it?


See, since you don't actually have the facts on your side, you have to concentrate on coming up with excuses not to acknowledge certain evidence.


Says the one who sits on the side, the truther side with NO FACTS, NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE, and but a handful of LEGITIMATE experts to back them up (in terms of actually producing work of their own).


That's why you're passing around Gage's CV in this thread - get everybody's eyes on it, and work together to find a reason to ignore him. Do you think they do the same thing with your personal information? In a word, no. They don't care, because they don't have to - they have the truth (no pun intended).

If the man is worthy, his credentials will stand up to scrutiny, if not, well...so be it, let them tear it to shreds.


Trust me (or don't - doesn't matter to me), it's not that anybody is scared of you - they're just sick of repeating themselves. If anybody here was capable of adding anything to the discussion over there (as opposed to subtracting from it), there's no doubt in my mind that they would be invited (or otherwise allowed to join). Unfortunately -- like I said -- that's not the case.

what ever makes you feel better.

The proof is in the actions...and the truthers, everyone of them, has run from a debate with Mark Roberts. Most of them will not even show their faces over here. Now I know, you will whine and complain that noone would come here to be "ganged up on", but if this is all about the nation, and promoting the truth, and convincing those with doubts, does that really matter?

TAM:)

[Newtons Bit]

He's making that up. There were sections of the north tower's west wall that fell across West Street that may have weighed that much.

I'm rather getting tired of the truther, "make something up real fast" claims.

[The Almond]

[...]
Yes, scientific debate is healthy; however, very few of the regular posters here are capable of such a thing when the topic is related to 9/11. During the short period of time that the ae911truth.org forum was open to the public, the discussions were constantly being polluted by members of this forum - creating fake accounts, making countless sensationalistic claims, and ultimately repeating the same fallacious arguments that have become the JREF CT Forum trademark.
[...]


The question is not of internet forums, the question is why Gage has avoided well known scientific conferences like the plague, and why he has so utterly failed to get his theory published in a reputable scientific journal.

[R.Mackey]

Aw, c'mon, guys...

I want to see him work out how big the explosives would have to be to throw 270-ton chunks of steel 500-odd feet.

I have.

It's a surprisingly large amount.

Gage is nuts, and we have him on tape to prove it. And so another "leader" bites the dust.

Incidentally, I've been to that IHOP. We Are Everywhere.

[Crungy]

I thought the number of different firms was significant. He seems to be a bit of a wanderer.

A lot of the old timers I have worked with stuck with one or two firms throughout their career, but now most architects and engineers hop around for better pay and position. Architects are criminally underpaid for the amount of schooling they require, so they need to move around in order to establish a respectible paycheck.

Reading his resume again, his experience is all pretty much in cookie cutter buildings. What's funny is how the non-architect 9/11 nutters continually name check him as some sort of leading voice on the architectural communities thought on 9/11. Deep44's defensive post in comedy gold. Gage is probably one of several 9/11 nutters amongst tens of thousands. If there is any suspicion of CD shennanigans amongst the professional architect community AIA would be providing extensive coverage through their periodicals and lectures.

The same applies with the engineering community. Realcddeal always name checks his fellow engineers as CD believers, but I hear nothing but laughter at these claims from structural co-workers. The silence of the professional societies in regards to CD scenarios speaks volumes.

[Newtons Bit]

A lot of the old timers I have worked with stuck with one or two firms throughout their career, but now most architects and engineers hop around for better pay and position. Architects are criminally underpaid for the amount of schooling they require, so they need to move around in order to establish a respectible paycheck.

Reading his resume again, his experience is all pretty much in cookie cutter buildings. What's funny is how the non-architect 9/11 nutters continually name check him as some sort of leading voice on the architectural communities thought on 9/11. Deep44's defensive post in comedy gold. Gage is probably one of several 9/11 nutters amongst tens of thousands. If there is any suspicion of CD shennanigans amongst the professional architect community AIA would be providing extensive coverage through their periodicals and lectures.

The same applies with the engineering community. Realcddeal always name checks his fellow engineers as CD believers, but I hear nothing but laughter at these claims from structural co-workers. The silence of the professional societies in regards to CD scenarios speaks volumes.

Architects are really nothing more than exterior designers. Okay, I go too far. They also do things like figure out how many/where/how-big stairwells need to be.

In the end, if any architectural magazine wanted to have an article about the WTC collapse, it would start with, "Our structural engineer said..."

[LashL]

Reading his resume again, his experience is all pretty much in cookie cutter buildings. What's funny is how the non-architect 9/11 nutters continually name check him as some sort of leading voice on the architectural communities thought on 9/11. Deep44's defensive post in comedy gold.


Reading his CV, it is apparent that Gage has no experience or expertise whatsoever in designing skyscrapers (not a single skyscraper is listed in his CV - it seems he worked primarily on school gymnasiums, classrooms, and some low-rise commercial buildings of 2-4 stories), and yet he is touted by some tinhatters as "RICHARD GAGE, Architect, California-based designer of fire-proofed, steel-framed skyscrapers" and he hasn't lifted a finger to disabuse his fellow tinhatters of that blatant dishonesty.

How pathetic and dishonest can he be?

(Answer: very pathetic and grossly dishonest. Sadly, this is pretty much SOP for members of the grossly inaptly self-named "truth" movement.)

EDIT: Oh, wait. Gage worked for Bechtel Corp. in the past, so that makes him a shill, no doubt on the payroll of the NWO along with the rest of us here. So, kindly disregard the foregoing since he's, obviously, on the disinfo team. Go, Gage!

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

How pathetic and dishonest can he be?

(Answer: very pathetic and grossly dishonest. Sadly, this is pretty much SOP for members of the grossly inaptly self-named "truth" movement.)

EDIT: Oh, wait. Gage worked for Bechtel Corp. in the past, so that makes him a shill, no doubt on the payroll of the NWO along with the rest of us here. So, kindly disregard the foregoing since he's, obviously, on the disinfo team. Go, Gage!

You people!

It's like this....

Today's Troofer is current or former employee of any government department, military, or government contractor? Simple - he/she is a whistle-blower!

Today's Debunker belongs to any of those criteria? He/she is an NWO shill.

Just found this - Gage hard at work on his next project.....



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11085473d658a439c6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9235)

[Brainster]

I don't have any way to prove this, but when the A&E for 9-11 Truth was first announced, Google returned zero hits for "Richard Gage, AIA". He now gets around 10,700.

[Alferd_Packer]

I don't have any way to prove this, but when the A&E for 9-11 Truth was first announced, Google returned zero hits for "Richard Gage, AIA". He now gets around 10,700.


And people wonder why truthers do what they do.

It's all vanity, at least among the older ones it is.

[Alferd_Packer]

I don't have any way to prove this, but when the A&E for 9-11 Truth was first announced, Google returned zero hits for "Richard Gage, AIA". He now gets around 10,700.


And people wonder why truthers do what they do.

It's all vanity, at least among the older ones it is.

[T.A.M.]

Happy Birthday Crungy!!

TAM:)

[sleahead]

Just found this - Gage hard at work on his next project.....

As you mention Erector Sets, I wonder if Ryan Mackey is aware of this rebuttal (http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html)to a small part of his whitepaper. How a&efor911truth have the nerve to list this under "Technical Articles" is beyond me. Other questions that occur to me:

1) Is the rebuttal even weaker than the original argument.

2) Is the Disney analogy worthy of a Stundie nomination.

[Mr.Herbert]

Can anyone direct me to the video where Gage doctored the audio? And also to the original?

Thanks :)

[Dave Rogers]

As you mention Erector Sets, I wonder if Ryan Mackey is aware of this rebuttal (http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html)to a small part of his whitepaper. How a&efor911truth have the nerve to list this under "Technical Articles" is beyond me.

I love the sentence, "Ryan Mackey is big on intimidation tactics but lacking in meaningful analysis." You vicious brute, Mackey! Calling for the execution of your opponents is merely robust debate, but writing a paper is just... uncivilised!

Dave

[nicepants]

Architects are really nothing more than exterior designers. Okay, I go too far. They also do things like figure out how many/where/how-big stairwells need to be.

That's a relief. If this guy was a structural engineer, I'd never enter any of his buildings.

[R.Mackey]

As you mention Erector Sets, I wonder if Ryan Mackey is aware of this rebuttal (http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html)to a small part of his whitepaper. How a&efor911truth have the nerve to list this under "Technical Articles" is beyond me. Other questions that occur to me:

1) Is the rebuttal even weaker than the original argument.

2) Is the Disney analogy worthy of a Stundie nomination.

Yes, I've seen and remarked upon it before.

It's not so much a rebuttal as an excuse for Mr. Thurston's ridiculous Erector Set reasoning. Similar to the chicken-coop arsonist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3092179#post3092179). Really nothing there worth discussing, except perhaps as comedy.

[Crungy]

Architects are really nothing more than exterior designers. Okay, I go too far. They also do things like figure out how many/where/how-big stairwells need to be.
To the average Joe and architect is someone like Calatrava, Gehry and Jahn (and Mike Brady ;)), but these starchitects actually make up a very small percentage of the architectural community. Most architects specialize in such mundane tasks as, planning, code analysis, interior elevations, etc. At a minimum, all architects should know the basic concepts of each design discipline involved in the building. Plenty of architects I know are technically savvy. As a lowly HVAC engineer, I know enough, architectrual, civil, electrical, fire protection and plumbing design to be dangerous. :D
In the end, if any architectural magazine wanted to have an article about the WTC collapse, it would start with, "Our structural engineer said..."
That said, you are right NB, anyone interested in a particular design failure would reference a professional in that field. Electrical RFIs don't get sent to me (intentionally )for a reason.
Reading his CV, it is apparent that Gage has no experience or expertise whatsoever in designing skyscrapers (not a single skyscraper is listed in his CV - it seems he worked primarily on school gymnasiums, classrooms, and some low-rise commercial buildings of 2-4 stories), and yet he is touted by some tinhatters as "RICHARD GAGE, Architect, California-based designer of fire-proofed, steel-framed skyscrapers" and he hasn't lifted a finger to disabuse his fellow tinhatters of that blatant dishonesty.

How pathetic and dishonest can he be?

(Answer: very pathetic and grossly dishonest. Sadly, this is pretty much SOP for members of the grossly inaptly self-named "truth" movement.)

EDIT: Oh, wait. Gage worked for Bechtel Corp. in the past, so that makes him a shill, no doubt on the payroll of the NWO along with the rest of us here. So, kindly disregard the foregoing since he's, obviously, on the disinfo team. Go, Gage!
This is my main beef too. Your typical teen truther believes that his title gives gives weight to his opinion on 9/11. Nope, that would be the NIST committee.
If you read other threads on this forum, you'll see that user realcddeal is an engineering equivalent of Mr. Gage.
Happy Birthday Crungy!!

TAM:)

Much thanks! I wish I wasn't swamped at work. At the moment I'm trying to work out a temp cooling solution for the hotel portion of my lovely 90 story building for next year's cooling season. After work it's off to Shaws for some oysters on the half, then a night of hold 'em with the gents. :cool:

[Alferd_Packer]

I guess he couldn't handle working for a top ranked company like Bechtel Corp.

[pomeroo]

To the average Joe and architect is someone like Calatrava, Gehry and Jahn (and Mike Brady ;)), but these starchitects actually make up a very small percentage of the architectural community. Most architects specialize in such mundane tasks as, planning, code analysis, interior elevations, etc. At a minimum, all architects should know the basic concepts of each design discipline involved in the building. Plenty of architects I know are technically savvy. As a lowly HVAC engineer, I know enough, architectrual, civil, electrical, fire protection and plumbing design to be dangerous. :D

That said, you are right NB, anyone interested in a particular design failure would reference a professional in that field. Electrical RFIs don't get sent to me (intentionally )for a reason.

This is my main beef too. Your typical teen truther believes that his title gives gives weight to his opinion on 9/11. Nope, that would be the NIST committee.
If you read other threads on this forum, you'll see that user realcddeal is an engineering equivalent of Mr. Gage.


Much thanks! I wish I wasn't swamped at work. At the moment I'm trying to work out a temp cooling solution for the hotel portion of my lovely 90 story building for next year's cooling season. After work it's off to Shaws for some oysters on the half, then a night of hold 'em with the gents. :cool:


Happy Birthday Crungy!!

[LashL]

Happy birthday, Crungy!

:hbd::bcake::wave1:bcake::hbd:

[JamesB]

EDIT: Oh, wait. Gage worked for Bechtel Corp. in the past, so that makes him a shill, no doubt on the payroll of the NWO along with the rest of us here. So, kindly disregard the foregoing since he's, obviously, on the disinfo team. Go, Gage!


Not only that, but he worked on a remodeling of the airport in Bin Laden's hometown. Who is the largest construction firm in Saudi Arabia? Hmmmm.... very suspicious.

[boloboffin]

So this saturday, Gage is going to be giving a lecture about all this nonsense at my university. I am hoping to get a turn on the mic and really stick it to him with a tough question or two. So what would be the best way of going about this?

Q: On what authority do you base this list of "characteristic features of controlled demolition"?

Well, that's clunky. The point is, he's pulled them out of his own bottom. He shot the side of the wall and then got out a paint can and painted targets around his bullet holes.

Q: What's the tallest building you ever designed? (WTC 7 is 47 stories, WTC 1 and 2 are 110 stories each)

Q: Why does your clip of the Oslo, Norway controlled demolition have the explosions cut out of the sound track?

Q: Why does your count of the collapse time of WTC 7 stop after it goes behind buildings, when it still has 29 floors to fall?

Q: Why doesn't your count of WTC 7's collapse time start when the east mechanical penthouse falls into the building below? Isn't the building collapsing then?

Q: Are you aware that your website is being used in the Middle East to blame Israel for the 9/11 attacks?

[boloboffin]

Could you show me this 270 ton (540,000lb) steel beam? I'm working on a 5-story hospital bed-tower right now and the entire lateral system of the entire building only weights 277,000lb.

Oh, and can you also please show me a picture of a crane used in construction that can hoist 270 tons?

Thanks.

I will bet you money that that this is the calculated weight of an ENTIRE WTC Tower core column.

[Newtons Bit]

I will bet you money that that this is the calculated weight of an ENTIRE WTC Tower core column.

WTC 1&2 were roughly 1000 ft tall. At 540,000lb, this column would need, on average, to weigh 540 lb/ft. That's probably about right.

[boloboffin]

WTC 1&2 were roughly 1000 ft tall. At 540,000lb, this column would need, on average, to weigh 540 lb/ft. That's probably about right.

DUCK!

[Brainster]

WTC 1&2 were roughly 1000 ft tall. At 540,000lb, this column would need, on average, to weigh 540 lb/ft. That's probably about right.

Roughly 1360 feet tall each.

[LashL]

Q: On what authority do you base this list of "characteristic features of controlled demolition"?

Well, that's clunky. The point is, he's pulled them out of his own bottom. He shot the side of the wall and then got out a paint can and painted targets around his bullet holes.

Q: What's the tallest building you ever designed? (WTC 7 is 47 stories, WTC 1 and 2 are 110 stories each)

Q: Why does your clip of the Oslo, Norway controlled demolition have the explosions cut out of the sound track?

Q: Why does your count of the collapse time of WTC 7 stop after it goes behind buildings, when it still has 29 floors to fall?

Q: Why doesn't your count of WTC 7's collapse time start when the east mechanical penthouse falls into the building below? Isn't the building collapsing then?

Q: Are you aware that your website is being used in the Middle East to blame Israel for the 9/11 attacks?

Those are excellent questions for Gage.


I would also suggest the following question:

Q. Why have you not disabused conspiracy theorists of the erroneous notion that you are a "designer of fire-proofed, steel-framed skyscrapers" as they claim and as you must be fully aware?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

The comment about my Lions for Lambs blog is a really cheap shot. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if it's any good. And just because it's on the box office down slide doesn't necessarily mean that if what I believe in most (9/11 truth) had been posted (it wasn't) that said belief wouldn't have gotten the greater public attention that it deserves.

Like I promised I would, I went to the Richard Gage presentation in Austin, TX. And during the Q&A portion of it, in front of about 200 people, I reluctantly committed my second question to asking Richard Gage about Hardfire's offer to debate. Unfortunately, I got nervous and couldn't remember Mark Roberts name (like I did about ten seconds or so before) but people in the audience knew what Hardfire was anyway, and when I mentioned the debate between "that guy" and the Loose Change boys, Richard Gage seemed to know who I was talking about.

And he said "No".

Particularly, he declined, it seemed, due to a general unwillingness to debate people responsible for distributing impolite emails (or something like that). He didn't seem to feel it would be a kosher debate and said something supporting that notion, and that he is only willing to engage in debates on moderated programs (I think). I can't remember exactly what he said. Yes, I know, I need to get a copy of the video, and there is one. But it'll be awhile before I can do that because said video is stored on a hard drive in a camera that is about 500 miles away (belongs to another person).

Basically, in a nutshell, my impression is that NO, Richard Gage will not honor your request to debate, Mark Roberts, not because he is unable or unqualified (or even because you are unqualified), but because you, or someone representing you, is a very rude person when it comes to making the kind of request that you claim to have already made of Richard Gage.

BTW, I will soon personally address some of the issues you brought up regarding "silent thermate". But that will have to come later; in case you've haven't noticed, I've already done you a favor. :D

[LashL]

<snipped out the silly bits of Mekt's post and this is all that was left>



But thanks for confirming that Richard Gage is a fraud and completely unwilling to, and incapable of, supporting the nonsense that he spouts in furtherance of his personal agenda.

Most of us here already knew that, but it's always good to have a twoofer confirm it for the lurkers. So, thanks for that.

[pomeroo]

The comment about my Lions for Lambs blog is a really cheap shot. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if it's any good. And just because it's on the box office down slide doesn't necessarily mean that if what I believe in most (9/11 truth) had been posted (it wasn't) that said belief wouldn't have gotten the greater public attention that it deserves.

Like I promised I would, I went to the Richard Gage presentation in Austin, TX. And during the Q&A portion of it, in front of about 200 people, I reluctantly committed my second question to asking Richard Gage about Hardfire's offer to debate. Unfortunately, I got nervous and couldn't remember Mark Roberts name (like I did about ten seconds or so before) but people in the audience knew what Hardfire was anyway, and when I mentioned the debate between "that guy" and the Loose Change boys, Richard Gage seemed to know who I was talking about.

And he said "No".

Particularly, he declined, it seemed, due to a general unwillingness to debate people responsible for distributing impolite emails (or something like that). He didn't seem to feel it would be a kosher debate and said something supporting that notion, and that he is only willing to engage in debates on moderated programs (I think). I can't remember exactly what he said. Yes, I know, I need to get a copy of the video, and there is one. But it'll be awhile before I can do that because said video is stored on a hard drive in a camera that is about 500 miles away (belongs to another person).

Basically, in a nutshell, my impression is that NO, Richard Gage will not honor your request to debate, Mark Roberts, not because he is unable or unqualified (or even because you are unqualified), but because you, or someone representing you, is a very rude person when it comes to making the kind of request that you claim to have already made of Richard Gage.

BTW, I will soon personally address some of the issues you brought up regarding "silent thermate". But that will have to come later; in case you've haven't noticed, I've already done you a favor. :D


Gage has always refused to debate Mark Roberts. He is an utter fraud. He expressed interest in being interviewed by me on 'Hardfire.' After I sent him links to Mark's debates with Fetzer and the Boys, he crept behind my back and asked the producer to interview him. I explained that the purpose of 'Hardfire' was something other than providing him a platform for peddling DVDs to suckers.

[LashL]

Gage has always refused to debate Mark Roberts. He is an utter fraud. He expressed interest in being interviewed by me on 'Hardfire.' After I sent him links to Mark's debates with Fetzer and the Boys, he crept behind my back and asked the producer to interview him. I explained that the purpose of 'Hardfire' was something other than providing him a platform for peddling DVDs to suckers.


Gage is a fraud, indeed. He seems to be looking to gain some kind of notoriety among kiddy twoofers. How loathsome.

[Gravy]

The comment about my Lions for Lambs blog is a really cheap shot. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if it's any good. And just because it's on the box office down slide doesn't necessarily mean that if what I believe in most (9/11 truth) had been posted (it wasn't) that said belief wouldn't have gotten the greater public attention that it deserves.

Like I promised I would, I went to the Richard Gage presentation in Austin, TX. And during the Q&A portion of it, in front of about 200 people, I reluctantly committed my second question to asking Richard Gage about Hardfire's offer to debate. Unfortunately, I got nervous and couldn't remember Mark Roberts name (like I did about ten seconds or so before) but people in the audience knew what Hardfire was anyway, and when I mentioned the debate between "that guy" and the Loose Change boys, Richard Gage seemed to know who I was talking about.

And he said "No".

Particularly, he declined, it seemed, due to a general unwillingness to debate people responsible for distributing impolite emails (or something like that). He didn't seem to feel it would be a kosher debate and said something supporting that notion, and that he is only willing to engage in debates on moderated programs (I think). I can't remember exactly what he said. Yes, I know, I need to get a copy of the video, and there is one. But it'll be awhile before I can do that because said video is stored on a hard drive in a camera that is about 500 miles away (belongs to another person).

Basically, in a nutshell, my impression is that NO, Richard Gage will not honor your request to debate, Mark Roberts, not because he is unable or unqualified (or even because you are unqualified), but because you, or someone representing you, is a very rude person when it comes to making the kind of request that you claim to have already made of Richard Gage.

BTW, I will soon personally address some of the issues you brought up regarding "silent thermate". But that will have to come later; in case you've haven't noticed, I've already done you a favor. :D

Thanks for trying, Mekt, but in addition to not remembering my name, you got some other things wrong: I never mentioned Hardfire, nor did I claim to have challenged him in the past.

Or you could extend a debate challenge from me, Mark Roberts, and watch him squirm.

Well, you're just as competent as Gage is.

[ref]

Can anyone direct me to the video where Gage doctored the audio? And also to the original?

Thanks :)

Original audio:
ImplosionWorld Cinema (http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm). Choose the Philips building (top of the two rows, right-hand side).

the same implosion from another angle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0)


Gage audio:
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php

[jhunter1163]

I'd just like to ask our CT friends why it is that all of the demonstrably bogus evidence re: 9/11 comes from their side.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

"Thanks for trying, Mekt, but in addition to not remembering my name, you got some other things wrong: I never mentioned Hardfire, nor did I claim to have challenged him in the past."

No, no, no, I did not say you debated him before, I said you debated the Loose Change team on Hardfire (so he might know who I was talking about). You did, didn't you? Anyway, that was just to indicate who was interested in debating him. And, seriously, I thought you HAD requested to debate him. THAT I definitely misunderstood. But you still haven't really said anything with regard to the rude emails. Methinks thou dost NOT protest too much . . . Also, if you haven't requested a debate, then why would he squirm at the mention of your name? Are you a prominent architect or engineer? (If you're not, I'm not saying you aren't worthy of the debate. I just don't know if any mention of your name would cause someone to squirm, that's all.)

[Gravy]

"Thanks for trying, Mekt, but in addition to not remembering my name, you got some other things wrong: I never mentioned Hardfire, nor did I claim to have challenged him in the past."

No, no, no, I did not say you debated him before, I said you debated the Loose Change team on Hardfire (so he might know who I was talking about). You did, didn't you? Anyway, that was just to indicate who was interested in debating him. And, seriously, I thought you HAD requested to debate him. THAT I definitely misunderstood. But you still haven't really said anything with regard to the rude emails. Methinks thou dost NOT protest too much . . . Also, if you haven't requested a debate, then why would he squirm at the mention of your name? Are you a prominent architect or engineer? (If you're not, I'm not saying you aren't worthy of the debate. I just don't know if any mention of your name would cause someone to squirm, that's all.)Yes, that was me debating as a guest when Ron Wieck was hosting Hardfire. I was not offering to debate Gage on Hardfire, although of course I would. "I doth NOT protest too much?" You doth make false accusations. I have never emailed Richard Gage. But now I will, and I'll offer him extremely liberal debate terms.

Why did he squirm? For the same reason that David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, William Rodriguez, and others have squirmed and declined: because they are intellectual cowards who know that I'll expose them as the incompetents and frauds that they are.

[Unsecured Coins]

I bet if I said I'd go on Hardfire to debate them, they'd trip over their shadows trying to book that show.

[sleahead]

Basically, in a nutshell, my impression is that NO, Richard Gage will not honor your request to debate, Mark Roberts, not because he is unable or unqualified (or even because you are unqualified), but because you, or someone representing you, is a very rude person when it comes to making the kind of request that you claim to have already made of Richard Gage.


So, Mekt, what do you make of this? Let me tell you what I make of it. If I had evidence that my government had murdered nearly 3000 of my fellow citizens, I would be prepared to debate anyone, anywhere, anytime. What I would not do is cry off because supposedly someone was impolite in an e-mail to me. That is an incredibly lame excuse.


The troof leaders seem to be developing a new-found sensitivity. It was not so long ago that they were queuing up to be insulted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But that was OK, because they got to spew their 'facts' in between the insults. The Hardfire shows are conducted in a civil manner and guests are allowed ample time to state and defend their position. And therein lies the problem for the troof leaders; an examination of their 'facts' is the last thing they want.

[T.A.M.]

"Thanks for trying, Mekt, but in addition to not remembering my name, you got some other things wrong: I never mentioned Hardfire, nor did I claim to have challenged him in the past."

No, no, no, I did not say you debated him before, I said you debated the Loose Change team on Hardfire (so he might know who I was talking about). You did, didn't you? Anyway, that was just to indicate who was interested in debating him. And, seriously, I thought you HAD requested to debate him. THAT I definitely misunderstood. But you still haven't really said anything with regard to the rude emails. Methinks thou dost NOT protest too much . . . Also, if you haven't requested a debate, then why would he squirm at the mention of your name? Are you a prominent architect or engineer? (If you're not, I'm not saying you aren't worthy of the debate. I just don't know if any mention of your name would cause someone to squirm, that's all.)

The fact that mark isn't an engineer/architect or scientist is what drives them away, I suspect, among other things.

Gage and Griffin, and others like them, like nothing more than to get a qualified engineer or what not, into a debate where they can blind them with the quick change of topics, and the move to questions that have nothing to do with their opponents area of expertese. THEY CANNOT DO THAT WITH MARK, and it scares them. Mark has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things 9/11, and I know WITHOUT DOUBT that he would tear Gage apart in a 9/11 debate. I suspect Gage knows this to. Mark and/or Ron being "rude" (which I doubt anyway) is like just a convenient out, which we have seen others like DRG use before.

Shameful, but not unexpected from the snake oil charletans.

TAM:)

[Unsecured Coins]

So, Mekt, what do you make of this? Let me tell you what I make of it. If I had evidence that my government had murdered nearly 3000 of my fellow citizens, I would be prepared to debate anyone, anywhere, anytime. What I would not do is cry off because supposedly someone was impolite in an e-mail to me. That is an incredibly lame excuse.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/applause.gif

[Mekt_Ranzz]

What I meant is you haven't addressed the possibility that someone other than you (since you already claimed it was not you) has emailed Richard Gage on your behalf in a likely less than civil manner.

But look, I saw your debate with the Loose Change team and I could see at least a few problems with some of your arguments. That said, I SERIOUSLY doubt the likes of David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan, just to name two, are in any way intimidated by you and your intellectual proficiency. I'm not saying that you are incompetent (like you seem to enjoy saying about me) as I do think you held your own quite well during the debate. I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that any of these truthers about which you speak so terribly are in any way "scared" to debate you.

As for the so-called doctored videos, I saw the one in question when compared to the original(s). As it is clear that the heavy explosion is omitted from the version posted on ae911truth.org, I can understand the focus of your complaint, although I'm not sure it is made with any merit. What does it matter if the explosion is missing? It has already been made clear that the cause for the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 almost certainly involved both typical and atypical conditions (in that controlled demolition was applied but with the sound and flashes suppressed as much technologically possible). More likely, this is just simply an example of a consequence of the edit job done on the clip, the way one may provide information about a topic via an excerpt from a larger body of work. Within the context of the ae911truth.org video, the collapse would be relevant but the explosion would not. But just to be clear, this type of omission is not as serious as, say, the types that seem to be okay with you guys whenever they are done by institutions such as NIST -- like when NIST omitted every bit of analysis after the point when the twin towers were "poised for collapse".

Basically, I think one should weight the purpose of the edit in terms of benefit. What kind of serious benefit is gained from making such a modification? In other words, what was the serious benefit of excluding the explosion? None as far as I can tell except to make the argument more precise. However, although including the explosive sound portion of the clip would have muddied ae911truth.org's point (that the collapse mirrors to certain degree that of Building 7) and made it less precise, it would NOT have made the case for controlled demolition any weaker as exclusive use of conventional explosives for the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, to my knowledge, had not (and has not) been suggested by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.

[pomeroo]

What I meant is you haven't addressed the possibility that someone other than you (since you already claimed it was not you) has emailed Richard Gage on your behalf in a likely less than civil manner.

But look, I saw your debate with the Loose Change team and I could see at least a few problems with some of your arguments. That said, I SERIOUSLY doubt the likes of David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan, just to name two, are in any way intimidated by you and your intellectual proficiency.

[snip]





You are planning to tell us about the problems with Mark's arguments, right?

[Unsecured Coins]

of course not, Ron! That would be madness!

[The Almond]

[...]
But look, I saw your debate with the Loose Change team and I could see at least a few problems with some of your arguments. That said, I SERIOUSLY doubt the likes of David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan, just to name two, are in any way intimidated by you and your intellectual proficiency. I'm not saying that you are incompetent (like you seem to enjoy saying about me) as I do think you held your own quite well during the debate. I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that any of these truthers about which you speak so terribly are in any way "scared" to debate you.

To echo T.A.M.'s sentiment, I believe that Griffin and Ryan are less likely to want to debate with a person who has intimate knowledge of the ideas and opinions they are about to express. In each debate, lecture, appearance, etc., Griffin and Ryan follow an extremely well established script of claims ranging from the wildly inaccurate, to the blindingly stupid. Mark Roberts has addressed, researched and memorized direct rebuttals to each point; thereby making it impossible for them to lie and omit facts.

As for the so-called doctored videos, I saw the one in question when compared to the original(s). As it is clear that the heavy explosion is omitted from the version posted on ae911truth.org, I can understand the focus of your complaint, although I'm not sure it is made with any merit. What does it matter if the explosion is missing?

Explosions are a necessary co requisite for explosives. An explosive, in the technical sense, creates a rapidly expanding pressure front of heated gas (usually nitrogen/oxygen mixed air). The subsequent cooling of the gas and return of the surrounding air to ambient pressure creates a "boom" noise.

It has already been made clear that the cause for the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 almost certainly involved both typical and atypical conditions (in that controlled demolition was applied but with the sound and flashes suppressed as much technologically possible).

This makes no sense. How does one suppress the sound of explosions? Where is the evidence that this happened?

More likely, this is just simply an example of a consequence of the edit job done on the clip, the way one may provide information about a topic via an excerpt from a larger body of work. Within the context of the ae911truth.org video, the collapse would be relevant but the explosion would not.

Again, in your opinion, explosions do not follow the use of explosives. This concept has no basis in reality.

But just to be clear, this type of omission is not as serious as, say, the types that seem to be okay with you guys whenever they are done by institutions such as NIST -- like when NIST omitted every bit of analysis after the point when the twin towers were "poised for collapse".

NIST omitted no analyses. They did not do them, as they were not directed to do so by the US Congress.

Basically, I think one should weight the purpose of the edit in terms of benefit. What kind of serious benefit is gained from making such a modification?

The modification was done in order to force the viewer to compare only the nature of the falling debris. Any critical viewer, upon hearing a controlled demolition with explosions, and seeing the WTC collapse without, would ask (and rightly so), "Where are the explosions?"

In other words, what was the serious benefit of excluding the explosion?

A dishonest and reprehensible method can be used to convince people that the WTC towers were brought down with a controlled demolition. Omission of fact, relevant data and context are common tactics in the 9/11 truth movement, and Gravy's Loose Change guide points out every single one.

None as far as I can tell except to make the argument more precise. However, although including the explosive sound portion of the clip would have muddied ae911truth.org's point (that the collapse mirrors to certain degree that of Building 7) and made it less precise,

So you admit that ae911truth has omitted data which contradicts its hypothesis. I was wondering which scientific or engineering textbook I would find the instructions, "In case you run an experiment whose results do not fit your theory, simply eliminate them from the data set."

it would NOT have made the case for controlled demolition any weaker as exclusive use of conventional explosives for the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, to my knowledge, had not (and has not) been suggested by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.

That's a nebulous claim, and it's difficult to check. I'm certain that I could find some random blogger who thought that C4 or other conventional explosives were used, but I think your point is that none of the "leaders" have made this case.

[Alferd_Packer]

So this saturday, Gage is going to be giving a lecture about all this nonsense at my university. I am hoping to get a turn on the mic and really stick it to him with a tough question or two. So what would be the best way of going about this?

Was anyone able to attend Gage's lecture?

[Gravy]

What I meant is you haven't addressed the possibility that someone other than you (since you already claimed it was not you) has emailed Richard Gage on your behalf in a likely less than civil manner.And you haven't addressed the possibility that you need to stop beating your wife. Get it, Mekt?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

To echo T.A.M.'s sentiment, I believe that Griffin and Ryan are less likely to want to debate with a person who has intimate knowledge of the ideas and opinions they are about to express. In each debate, lecture, appearance, etc., Griffin and Ryan follow an extremely well established script of claims ranging from the wildly inaccurate, to the blindingly stupid. Mark Roberts has addressed, researched and memorized direct rebuttals to each point; thereby making it impossible for them to lie and omit facts.

Well, I don’t know about Mark Roberts’ credentials, although I am willing to review them. What I do know is that he is very likely one of only a few people who have been willing to participate in any serious 9/11 truth debates (which truly does not speak very highly of debunker society), but certainly he can’t be expected to be the only one forever.

Look, it has been very hard getting people like Michael Shermer and Ron Craig on the air to discuss their views of 9/11 directly with one of our members. I would suggest that it would be respectful of you to acknowledge the trouble the 9/11 truth movement has gone through getting credentialed experts (no disrespect to Mark Roberts) to face us. I’m willing to bet none of you have written to NIST requesting that they defend your side of the debate in an open public forum. Am I wrong about this?

Explosions are a necessary co requisite for explosives. An explosive, in the technical sense, creates a rapidly expanding pressure front of heated gas (usually nitrogen/oxygen mixed air). The subsequent cooling of the gas and return of the surrounding air to ambient pressure creates a "boom" noise.

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.

This makes no sense. How does one suppress the sound of explosions? Where is the evidence that this happened?

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. But I do have documented historical examples of how people tweaked technology – or rather very ingeniously used relatively unknown patented technology -- to achieve their ends, which in at least one case, if I remember correctly, was criminal in nature.

Again, in your opinion, explosions do not follow the use of explosives. This concept has no basis in reality.

Well, to one who only thinks in narrow terms and who may not be particularly imaginative and/or inventive, this may seem true. The millions who have filed patent applications throughout history may beg to differ with your assertion, however.

NIST omitted no analyses. They did not do them, as they were not directed to do so by the US Congress.

That is hardly a justification for not doing a complete analysis of an event that has so terribly and fundamentally altered all our lives.

The modification was done in order to force the viewer to compare only the nature of the falling debris. Any critical viewer, upon hearing a controlled demolition with explosions, and seeing the WTC collapse without, would ask (and rightly so), "Where are the explosions?"


Such focus on the explosions would misdirect one to think that because they are missing (in as much as they were missing) the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 could not possibly be examples of controlled demolition. For reasons already stated, this assumption would likely be false.

A dishonest and reprehensible method can be used to convince people that the WTC towers were brought down with a controlled demolition.

Not if they were brought down by controlled demolition.

Omission of fact, relevant data and context are common tactics in the 9/11 truth movement, and Gravy's Loose Change guide points out every single one.

While the 9/11 truth movement is not nor has ever been perfect, I would reserve judgment on your statement until I have read Gravy’s Loose Change guide points.

So you admit that ae911truth has omitted data which contradicts its hypothesis.

I do not know whether or not the case in point was intentionally deliberate. I only know that the explosion sound sequence appears to be missing. Why, I could not say for certain. I will ask Richard Gage about this, however.

I was wondering which scientific or engineering textbook I would find the instructions, "In case you run an experiment whose results do not fit your theory, simply eliminate them from the data set."

Lots of video editing handbooks offer this type of advice, I’m sure. But I don’t think any reputable scientific or engineering textbooks do.

That's a nebulous claim, and it's difficult to check. I'm certain that I could find some random blogger who thought that C4 or other conventional explosives were used, but I think your point is that none of the "leaders" have made this case.

Nebulous claim or not, I don’t think anyone currently in the 9/11 truth movement who has reviewed the pertinent information and facts has made this claim with any degree of credibility.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

And you haven't addressed the possibility that you need to stop beating your wife. Get it, Mekt?
"And you haven't addressed the possibility that you need to stop beating your wife. Get it, Mekt?"

I am not married, so no, I do not get it. :confused:

[uk_dave]

What I do know is that he is very likely one of only a few people who have been willing to participate in any serious 9/11 truth debates (which truly does not speak very highly of debunker society), but certainly he can’t be expected to be the only one forever.


Excuse me? The 'truth' movement can't find enough people to take it seriously enough to spend the time debating it, and this is somehow the fault of the 'debunker society'?

Have you ever considered paying a fee? Could be worth a try, you know?

[Gravy]

Mekt, please do us the courtesy of learning how to use the quote button when you're replying to a post. Now I have to edit out the comments that aren't yours.


Look, it has been very hard getting people like Michael Shermer and Ron Craig on the air to discuss their views of 9/11 directly with one of our members. I would suggest that it would be respectful of you to acknowledge the trouble the 9/11 truth movement has gone through getting credentialed experts (no disrespect to Mark Roberts) to face us. I’m willing to bet none of you have written to NIST requesting that they defend your side of the debate in an open public forum. Am I wrong about this?The "truth" movement has made a habit of asking people (NIST members, 9/11 Commission members) to debate, who they know have a stated policy of not debating. These people have serious work to do, and are not required to respond to every crackpot who challenges them.

On the other hand, I have knowledge of 9/11 events, actors, investigations, and conspiracy claims and misrepresentations that is both broad and specific, far more than anyone who has been challenged to debate by your side. The people you champion cannot fool me. I know all of their tactics and most of their lies.

Look, for example, how Kevin Ryan ran from my debate challenges, culminating in his fleeing from debating me on Thom Hartmann's show (he debated Michael Shermer instead, who is much less informed about 9/11 and Ryan than am I).

Brave Sir Kevin...

March, 2007: Kevin Ryan flees from my debate challenge, although I offer to let him chose the time, the place, the topics, and the moderators. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81207)

April, 2007: Kevin Ryan declines an invitation to debate me on the TV show "Hardfire" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2547606&postcount=12)

July, 2007: Kevin Ryan says no one will debate him on Thom Hartmann's radio show – then he flees and has me banned from 9/11blogger.com when I tell him that Hartmann's producer asked me if I'd do it and I immediately accepted. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88469)

Your leaders can be easily demolished by a tour guide. Your very best are utterly incompetent.

Some "truth movement" you have there, Mekt. Full of honorable, courageous leaders.

[Gravy]

I am not married, so no, I do not get it. :confused:Just as you do not have to address my nonsensical accusation, I do not have to address yours. I do not have the ability to query everyone in the world to see if they may have mentioned me in an email to Richard Gage.

[HyJinX]

Gage is a tool of monumental proportions...

[T.A.M.]

Mekt:

Please use the quote function, like this, to help keep your posts and who you are quoting clear:



Well, I don’t know about Mark Roberts’ credentials, although I am willing to review them. What I do know is that he is very likely one of only a few people who have been willing to participate in any serious 9/11 truth debates (which truly does not speak very highly of debunker society), but certainly he can’t be expected to be the only one forever.

Look, it has been very hard getting people like Michael Shermer and Ron Craig on the air to discuss their views of 9/11 directly with one of our members. I would suggest that it would be respectful of you to acknowledge the trouble the 9/11 truth movement has gone through getting credentialed experts (no disrespect to Mark Roberts) to face us. I’m willing to bet none of you have written to NIST requesting that they defend your side of the debate in an open public forum. Am I wrong about this?


Did you not read my post. DRG, Gage, and the other visible truth leaders, DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE SOMEONE like Mark, because he has knowledge in ALL AREAS of 9/11. THEY WANT TO GET A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, or a skeptic with other things on his plate, because then they can move from topic to topic, dazzling and befuddling the opponent with different facts, in topics that are out of the experts area of expertise. We have seen it done time and time again. DRG would love to get one of the NIST scientists to debate, so that he could get him speechless on the areas of FOREKNOWLEDGE, or FLIGHT 93, which the expert would most likely have little to no knowledge in. Left without a good reply to it, the expert would look defeated, and the truthers would claim victory...they know this, and THIS IS WHY, they want to debate one of the "experts".


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.


oh but look at all of you questioning it. This argument is ridiculous. They used a combination of explosives and Thermite, and other things, so that the CD would work, but would not arouse suspicion in any of the investigators, but would suddenly raise suspicions in a bunch of would be googlehacks!! Give me a break!


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. But I do have documented historical examples of how people tweaked technology – or rather very ingeniously used relatively unknown patented technology -- to achieve their ends, which in at least one case, if I remember correctly, was criminal in nature.


Weak, very weak. Your argument boils down to...

"I believe it was CD, therefore the sounds must have been suppressed, as clearly it did not sound like a normal CD. I have no idea how they did it, but it must have been done this way."

PLEASE!!!!!


That is hardly a justification for not doing a complete analysis of an event that has so terribly and fundamentally altered all our lives.


NIST is a scientific organization. It is not in the business of deciding what must be done and what must, in terms of what is "fundamentally altering" in our lives. They were tasked with specific goals and a very narrow agenda. They fulfilled that tasks very well. I am sure Apollo will be by shortly to call us NISTIANs and point out where they faltered In HIS opinion.



Such focus on the explosions would misdirect one to think that because they are missing (in as much as they were missing) the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 could not possibly be examples of controlled demolition. For reasons already stated, this assumption would likely be false.


It is as simple as this...show us your proof, (omitting "explosions or lack of") that proves the towers, ANY OF THEM, came down via controlled demolition.


While the 9/11 truth movement is not nor has ever been perfect, I would reserve judgment on your statement until I have read Gravy’s Loose Change guide points.

While I am sure you have no idea what an understatement that was, let me tell you, that is a HUGE UNDERSTATEMENT. The truth movement is FAR FAR from perfect.

You sound like there is some reasonableness within you Mekt. I hope as you read, debate, and argue here that this comes out more, rather than regresses into the ethereal of your psyche.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I try to avoid responding to Gravy's comments because he has me on ignore and as many times as I've tried to carry on even the most basic, civil discussions, he's refused and remained stubborn.

But I just couldn't help myself here.

Mekt, please do us the courtesy of learning how to use the quote button when you're replying to a post. Now I have to edit out the comments that aren't yours.

This is funny coming from someone who made up Dylan Avery fantasy quotes in the LCFC "trailer."

The "truth" movement has made a habit of asking people (NIST members, 9/11 Commission members) to debate, who they know have a stated policy of not debating. These people have serious work to do, and are not required to respond to every crackpot who challenges them.

That's the beauty of a democracy, no one is above scrutiny or questioning, especially since they've yet to finish their "serious work" on WTC 7.

On the other hand, I have knowledge of 9/11 events, actors, investigations, and conspiracy claims and misrepresentations that is both broad and specific, far more than anyone who has been challenged to debate by your side. The people you champion cannot fool me. I know all of their tactics and most of their lies.

And that's the problem. You're a debunker, a contrarian, in the business of providing explanation and not evidence. Whereas I don't doubt you "have knowledge of [...] conspiracy claims and misrepresentations" you neglect other sincere and earnest claims, stories, accounts and testimonies and interpret for your audience that which conflicts with your perspective.



Your leaders can be easily demolished by a tour guide. Your very best are utterly incompetent.

Why rely on a false paradigm? There are no leaders in a false movement you need to perpetuate only to tear down. Perhaps, you see yourself as a leader of some hypothetical movement? If we can get past all of that nonsense, we might return to the good research that can go on here. If nothing else we are all people trying to find out as much as we can about an incredibly complex day. It doesn't have to be a war.

Some "truth movement" you have there, Mekt. Full of honorable, courageous leaders.
Please don't read any vinegar in my comments. My e-hand is always extended in the spirit of honest discourse. Your tactics, as well as many others here are aggressive, as they should be. Certainly, you'll oblige some critical observations.

[jaydeehess]

Gage states;
Such focus on the explosions would misdirect one to think that because they are missing (in as much as they were missing) the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 could not possibly be examples of controlled demolition. For reasons already stated, this assumption would likely be false.

Not only do the Ct's claim that the building was caused to collapse by CD but also that the concrete was pulverised by explosives. That does indeed require high explosives. Thermate will NOT do that without very obvious chemical changes to the concrete which are not in evidence.
High explosives do indeed make very loud noises and if one supposes that all of the concrete in the building had explosives inlaid (which would be required to do what the CT's claim was done, namely pulverise all the concrete) then we are talking about a lot of very loud cracks and booms.

Gage does what so many CT's do. He takes one aspect out of the whole, in this case the failure of the columns and states that high explosives would not be required solely but ignore the fact that other aspects of what he claims would indeed require them to the extent that there would have to be a lot of noise.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

"High explosives do indeed make very loud noises and if one supposes that all of the concrete in the building had explosives inlaid (which would be required to do what the CT's claim was done, namely pulverise all the concrete) then we are talking about a lot of very loud cracks and booms."

Some would likely have argued at one time that a the noise associated with a bullet being fired could not be suppressed. That is, until something as simple as a silencer was invented.

Look, if you want to pretend that every technology under the sun is somehow within your line of sight, go ahead. I know better.

ep.espacenet.com

"Just as you do not have to address my nonsensical accusation, I do not have to address yours. I do not have the ability to query everyone in the world to see if they may have mentioned me in an email to Richard Gage."

I was just trying to explain the situation not define it. I don't know exactly why Richard Gage turned down your offer to debate. I just know I asked him about it and he gave me a response that you obviously don't like. I tried to make sense of that response for you to the best of my ability. And I said I would look into it further. So try to refrain from taking out on me your frustrations about not being recognized fully by supporters of 9/11 truth. Be thankful that I was at this event and, albeit to a limited degree, spoke for you and your interests (as I don't even know you, man). None of your cronies were in the audience as far as I can tell. Why not?

I must admit that your attitude here and your most recent attacks on me likely exemplify why you are not on schedule to debate any prominent 9/11 truthers. But, oh well.

[tarrou]

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. But I do have documented historical examples of how people tweaked technology – or rather very ingeniously used relatively unknown patented technology -- to achieve their ends, which in at least one case, if I remember correctly, was criminal in nature.


Deus ex Machina!

[twinstead]

Look, if you want to pretend that every technology under the sun is somehow within your line of sight, go ahead. I know better.


Perhaps, but in your case, as well as most other 911 conspiracy theorists, it is simply a rhetorical tactic to give yourself an 'out'.

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

[jaydeehess]

Some would likely have argued at one time that a the noise associated with a bullet being fired could not be suppressed. That is, until something as simple as a silencer was invented.

Look, if you want to pretend that every technology under the sun is somehow within your line of sight, go ahead. I know better.

Another fine CT tactic, invoke magic (ie. a technology not known to exist (cue spooky music) ,,,,,,, yet).

BTW, A handgun silencer works by slowing down the escaping gases from the barrel. What one hears a silencer accomplish in movies is not particularily accurate either.

[Gravy]

Mekt, can you explain why you refuse to use the quote button, which everyone else uses? You are making us work to interpret and quote your posts. Will you use the quote function from now on? Please answer yes or no.

And do let us know if you ever have anything substantive to say about 9/11, okay?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

"...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.

Gravy: Regarding the quote function, I don't use it because I'm responding to many various comments from various members, so I just put the relevant ones in quotes and then answer them. :)

But if you know of some way to incorporate in organized fashion all the desired quotes into one reply, then by all means let me know. I'm new here, as you surely know, so point me in the right direction of how to properly post replies, and I'll conform (if it's reasonable to).

Address anything substantive about 9/11? Well, we could start with Mark Roberts' explanation about the "conservation of angular momentum issue" brought up during his debate with the Loose Change crew. I would like to contest the claims made on that one if the rules of the thread allow it.

[Gravy]

Next to the button labeled "Quote" there's a button with the " symbol. That's the multiple quote button. Click on that button in each post you want to reply to. When you're ready to compose your reply, click on the "Quote" or "Post Reply" buttons. Then you can reply to all of the posts on one page, and we'll know who you are replying to and we won't have to edit our writing from your posts when replying to you.

You'll find instructions on how to use forum features in this subforum: Forum Help & Member Support (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Next to the button labeled "Quote" there's a button with the " symbol. That's the multiple quote button. Click on that button in each post you want to reply to. When you're ready to compose your reply, click on the "Quote" or "Post Reply" buttons. Then you can reply to all of the posts on one page, and we'll know who you are replying to and we won't have to edit our writing from your posts when replying to you.

You'll find instructions on how to use forum features in this subforum: Forum Help & Member Support (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
Okay, I will happily do that. :blush:

[Gravy]

Address anything substantive about 9/11? Well, we could start with Mark Roberts' explanation about the "conservation of angular momentum issue" brought up during his debate with the Loose Change crew. I would like to contest the claims made on that one if the rules of the thread allow it.Here are some resources to help you understand that issue.

Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001, PDF) Appendix II (http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm)

Eduardo Kausel (MIT): Why the Towers didn't fall like trees (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf)

Frank Greening: An analysis of the tipping of the upper section of WTC 2 (http://www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf) (PDF)

A simple graphic explanation of why the top of the south tower didn't fall to the side. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243)

If you find these to be insufficient, or you cannot understand them, start a new thread, explain what you don't understand, and we'll help you out.

[Hyperviolet]

It's quite simple:

If 9/11 Truth have the evidence, they should relish the chance to debate anyone.


Why is it so hard to get them to face Mark?
Mekt, honestly, ask yourself that.

Maybe it's because he is 'just' a tour guide - with no engineering degrees? As Kevin Ryan says (even though he'll debate Michael Shermer).

In fact; he is a major figure in the 9/11 Debunking world.
The 9/11 Truth pain in the ass, constantly correcting them at every turn.

You defeat him in debate, 9/11 Truth have a huge win.
What exactly is the problem?

The truthers say they have all this 'evidence,' WTC 7 and the lot.
It should be a skoosh.

[sleahead]

Red Ibis,

I'm having trouble squaring these two statement by you in reply to a post by Gravy to Mekt. Can you help me out?


And that's the problem. You're [Gravy] a debunker, a contrarian, in the business of providing explanation and not evidence.


Please don't read any vinegar in my comments. My e-hand is always extended in the spirit of honest discourse..

[twinstead]

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.


Well that's the problem. Just because something may exist as a concept and have patents (note that you can get a patent for something that actually doesn't function) doesn't mean you get to use your imagination about how it COULD be done without some evidence it actually WAS done.

I understand that as a mental exorcise it's fun. I love studying about new technology and its application. But without evidence it has no place in a debate like this; there are simply too many people here who REALLY have expertise in the relevant sciences in question. (me NOT included--I'm just a layman fighting a loosing battle to understand what some of them post) ;)

[sleahead]

Well that's the problem. Just because something may exist as a concept and have patents (note that you can get a patent for something that actually doesn't function) doesn't mean you get to use your imagination about how it COULD be done without some evidence it actually WAS done

Indeed. And Mekt, if you go down this road you put Judy Wood's space beam back in play. Most of the Troof Movement will then hate you forever.

[The Almond]

Well, I don’t know about Mark Roberts’ credentials,

Credentials are immaterial when one is discussing facts. Mark Roberts uses readily available, referenceable information collected and published by reputable journalists, scientists, engineers and photographers.

although I am willing to review them. What I do know is that he is very likely one of only a few people who have been willing to participate in any serious 9/11 truth debates (which truly does not speak very highly of debunker society), but certainly he can’t be expected to be the only one forever.

Look, it has been very hard getting people like Michael Shermer and Ron Craig on the air to discuss their views of 9/11 directly with one of our members. I would suggest that it would be respectful of you to acknowledge the trouble the 9/11 truth movement has gone through getting credentialed experts (no disrespect to Mark Roberts) to face us. I’m willing to bet none of you have written to NIST requesting that they defend your side of the debate in an open public forum. Am I wrong about this?

Personally speaking here, I think Mark Roberts is being overly generous to the truth movement. The fact of the matter is, truth in science is not determined by debate. The idea that the truth movement needs to debate rational scientists in any other forum beyond the legitimate scientific conference is laughable. If Richard Gage has data and information proving that the WTC towers were demolished, he should be presenting such information at a well known scientific conference or in a reputable journal.

That being said, the reasons why the majority of legitimate scientists have ignored the truth movement is that (1) the data has not been presented in a forum that is widely considered in the scientific community and (2) their claims, proofs, and tactics are too idiotic to necessitate a full response.

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.

So, it was done with such precision that the overwhelming majority of demolitions experts, scientists and engineers were fooled, but not a small group of conspiracy theorists? And why are there so many opposing theories as to what caused the non-conventional nature of the collapse?

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. But I do have documented historical examples of how people tweaked technology – or rather very ingeniously used relatively unknown patented technology -- to achieve their ends, which in at least one case, if I remember correctly, was criminal in nature.

I also have historical examples of where relatively small groups of dumb, gullible people believed something so outrageously stupid that the majority of people ignored them. But what do either of our historical anecdotes have to do with this debate?


Well, to one who only thinks in narrow terms and who may not be particularly imaginative and/or inventive, this may seem true. The millions who have filed patent applications throughout history may beg to differ with your assertion, however.

Science is not the pursuit of imagination. If you have nothing other to present other than requesting that I imagine a solution to the problem, I'm afraid you won't convince me of anything.

That is hardly a justification for not doing a complete analysis of an event that has so terribly and fundamentally altered all our lives.

Actually, it is. The US Congress has the right to direct the research of institutions in the US. If you can find any directive given by the Congress ordering NIST to study the WTC collapse past initiation, I will retract this point.


[...]
Lots of video editing handbooks offer this type of advice, I’m sure. But I don’t think any reputable scientific or engineering textbooks do.

My point exactly. This is why the truth movement's arguments will never be accepted in any legitimate scientific forum.

Nebulous claim or not, I don’t think anyone currently in the 9/11 truth movement who has reviewed the pertinent information and facts has made this claim with any degree of credibility.

How does one judge the credibility of members of the truth movement?

[T.A.M.]

In Defense of the truth movements scientific experts, only one or two have actually produced work of their own on the topic, so it is understandable that they have not been taken seriously as a force within the LEGITIMATE scientific community.

I mean look at the 200 Engineers and Architects, and the 150 plus academics who have been posted as questioning the 9/11 commission on the PQ911 Website. that is 350 or more individuals, yet how many of them have posted substantial critiques of the report? How many have created legitimate critiques of NIST? How many of them have developed/produced their own papers on the science of 9/11?

TAM:)

[Brainster]

But look, I saw your debate with the Loose Change team and I could see at least a few problems with some of your arguments. That said, I SERIOUSLY doubt the likes of David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan, just to name two, are in any way intimidated by you and your intellectual proficiency. I'm not saying that you are incompetent (like you seem to enjoy saying about me) as I do think you held your own quite well during the debate. I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that any of these truthers about which you speak so terribly are in any way "scared" to debate you.

I appeared on the Rob Bishop Show (a Truther internet radio program) about six months ago to debate Jason Bermas. During the show Bishop remarked on the record ratings that his show was achieving, that they were having to lay on extra servers to carry the demand.

And since then? None of the Truther hosts have asked me to appear on their program. Now think about that combination; record ratings and no invitations to appear again.

And I'll freely admit that I'm not as good at it as Gravy. So yeah, I think they're afraid.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete

Abstract of US5532449

A plasma arc can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like. The concrete structure can be demolished by melting a surface of the concrete structure by generating a plasma arc from a plasma torch (15) of a plasma arc generator, mixing thermite powder (T) with a supply gas (Gc) for the plasma torch (15), directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in response to the operation of the plasma arc, including initiating and stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in a manner coordinated with the initiation and stoppage of the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction, and melting the surface of the concrete structure. The plasma generator (1) can be provided with a feeder (20) for mixing the thermite powder (T) with the supply gas (Gc), and controller (30) for controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) or for stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T).

[Hokulele]

You don't think that this process wouldn't be noticed by someone?

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Cutting meltable or decomposable materials

Abstract of DE19507700

Materials are cut by means of a jet containing molten materials whose mean temperature is higher than the melting or decomposition temperature of the material being cut. Materials for producing a jet with molten material and a thermite composition are continuously delivered into a reaction vessel where, in a controlled continuous thermite reaction, they are at least partially melted and made available for a jet-forming process. The appts. includes means for igniting the thermite composition.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

NON-EXPLOSIVE BLASTING COMPOSITION

Abstract of JP8169791

PURPOSE: To produce a low-vibration ad low-sound blasting composition consisting of non-explosive component good in aging stability and excellent in safety at the time of producing and handling. CONSTITUTION: The composition is composed of 100 pts.wt. thermite gent consisting of 15-30wt.% aluminum powder containing >=95% (in grain size distribution) particulates having <=44μ m grain size and containing a dust scattering preventing agent and an antioxidant and 70-80wt.% copper oxide containing >=95% (in grain size distribution) particulates having <=74μ m grain size, and 80-120 pts.wt. decomposed gas generating agent. The aluminum powder contains <=2wt.% polytetrafuloroethylene as the dust scattering preventing agent and 1-2wt.% stearic acid or aluminum stearate as the antioxidant. The decomposed gas generating agent is an inorg. matter except borax having a water of crystallization such as potassium alum generating steam, etc., when high temp. is applied.

[Newtons Bit]

Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete

Abstract of US5532449
A plasma arc can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like. The concrete structure can be demolished by melting a surface of the concrete structure by generating a plasma arc from a plasma torch (15) of a plasma arc generator, mixing thermite powder (T) with a supply gas (Gc) for the plasma torch (15), directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in response to the operation of the plasma arc, including initiating and stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in a manner coordinated with the initiation and stoppage of the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction, and melting the surface of the concrete structure. The plasma generator (1) can be provided with a feeder (20) for mixing the thermite powder (T) with the supply gas (Gc), and controller (30) for controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) or for stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T).

This kind of scares me. At some point, someone had some thermite and a plasma torch and thought to themselves, "hey, I wonder what would happen if I used the torch on the thermite!". And I'm sure many cans of beer perished to bring us that information.

[R.Mackey]

Big deal. There are US Patents for time travel, faster-than-light travel, antigravity, and pet display clothing (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5901666.html). Doesn't mean these devices work or are in any way practical.

If you want to propose a specific hypothesis about how the Towers were destroyed, go for it. Otherwise you are stretching the limits of wild speculation, and bordering on "daydreaming."

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

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Thermite charge

Abstract of US2006266204

The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

COMBINATION METHOD OF BLASTING UNIT FOR CONTROLLING SLIGHT VIBRATION AND SCATTER

Abstract of KR20040000835

PURPOSE: A combination method of blasting unit for controlling slight vibration and scatter is provided to reduce vibration and noise, and certainly prevent air overpressure and scattering by properly selecting thermite, reaction speed enhancer and electrolytic fluid material according to surrounding circumstances of the spot as blasting body. CONSTITUTION: In inserting a blasting body into blast holes perforated on a base rock to be crushed, the combination method of blasting unit for controlling slight vibration and scatter comprises any one unit combination selected from the unit combinations comprising thermite(10); thermite and reaction speed enhancer; thermite, reaction speed enhancer and thermite; thermite, reaction speed enhancer and electrolytic fluid material; and thermite, reaction speed enhancer, electrolytic fluid material and thermite; and stemming material(50) added to any one unit combination selected from the unit combinations, wherein the combination method of blasting unit for controlling slight vibration and scatter further comprises a fixing agent inserted between the stemming material and the any one unit combination selected from the unit combinations comprising thermite; thermite and reaction speed enhancer; thermite, reaction speed enhancer and thermite; thermite, reaction speed enhancer and electrolytic fluid material; and thermite, reaction speed enhancer, electrolytic fluid material and thermite, and wherein the selected unit combination is a plural equal any one unit combinations or a plural different unit combinations selected from thermite and reaction speed enhancer; thermite, reaction speed enhancer and thermite; thermite, reaction speed enhancer and electrolytic fluid material; and thermite, reaction speed enhancer, electrolytic fluid material and thermite.

[Mekt_Ranzz]

Big deal. There are US Patents for time travel, faster-than-light travel, antigravity, and pet display clothing (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5901666.html). Doesn't mean these devices work or are in any way practical.

If you want to propose a specific hypothesis about how the Towers were destroyed, go for it. Otherwise you are stretching the limits of wild speculation, and bordering on "daydreaming."

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

[cmcaulif]

What is the point of all this? It seems akin to me pointing out that gravity is real, or than fire can reduce the yield stress and modulus of elasticity of steel.

Unless these concepts are formed into a coherent theory, they don't mean a whole lot.