Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-03-2013, 06:21 PM   #1
fanof2012
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Posts: 708
Likes: 57 (43 Posts)
Default This is why Richard Gage has never been threatened

When I went to Ground Zero on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, I watched Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth give a presentation. After the presentation, Gage was asked if he has ever received any threats from government officials and people in power as a result of his decision to expose the fact that the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics on multiple grounds. Gage’s response was, “I have NEVER been threatened! At first, I would always look behind my shoulder to see if anyone was stalking me for exposing the lies of 9/11, but I’ve stopped doing that because I’ve never received any grief from the powers that be for what I’ve done.”

So why is it that the powers that be have never threatened Gage for showing that the 9/11 official story is a scientific impossibility? And why have other people who expose the lie been threatened but not Gage? Well, the answer is simple, but quite unfortunate…… IT’S BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH ARE SO STUPID THAT THEY WILL REFUSE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO BELIEVE IT!

Not everyone on planet earth takes empirical evidence seriously. Some people are paradigmatic and will reject anything that goes against their paradigm, and some people are wishful thinkers who are scared of looking at any info which will change their view on life (and why such people are not classified as “mentally ill” is beyond me.) Because of this, it doesn’t matter how much proof there is that shows the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics because non-empirical people will reject it or refuse to look at the evidence no matter what. The powers that be realize this, and that is why they do not perceive Gage to be a threat when he exposes the scientific flaws of 9/11, and as such they will never threaten him. Gage also realizes that not everyone is empirical, and he has stated that this inspired him to go on a mission to study human psychology to find out why some people won’t believe things when the evidence shows that they have no choice but to believe it.

This also explains why it’s so easy for the government to keep a secret. It doesn’t matter how much proof comes out, people will always refuse to believe it and that makes keeping a secret a piece of cake for the government. IF ONLY EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WAS EMPIRICAL! If only, if only, if only.
fanof2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-03-2013, 11:53 AM   #2
conorbhoy
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanof2012 View Post
When I went to Ground Zero on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, I watched Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth give a presentation. After the presentation, Gage was asked if he has ever received any threats from government officials and people in power as a result of his decision to expose the fact that the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics on multiple grounds. Gage’s response was, “I have NEVER been threatened! At first, I would always look behind my shoulder to see if anyone was stalking me for exposing the lies of 9/11, but I’ve stopped doing that because I’ve never received any grief from the powers that be for what I’ve done.”

So why is it that the powers that be have never threatened Gage for showing that the 9/11 official story is a scientific impossibility? And why have other people who expose the lie been threatened but not Gage? Well, the answer is simple, but quite unfortunate…… IT’S BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH ARE SO STUPID THAT THEY WILL REFUSE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO BELIEVE IT!

Not everyone on planet earth takes empirical evidence seriously. Some people are paradigmatic and will reject anything that goes against their paradigm, and some people are wishful thinkers who are scared of looking at any info which will change their view on life (and why such people are not classified as “mentally ill” is beyond me.) Because of this, it doesn’t matter how much proof there is that shows the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics because non-empirical people will reject it or refuse to look at the evidence no matter what. The powers that be realize this, and that is why they do not perceive Gage to be a threat when he exposes the scientific flaws of 9/11, and as such they will never threaten him. Gage also realizes that not everyone is empirical, and he has stated that this inspired him to go on a mission to study human psychology to find out why some people won’t believe things when the evidence shows that they have no choice but to believe it.

This also explains why it’s so easy for the government to keep a secret. It doesn’t matter how much proof comes out, people will always refuse to believe it and that makes keeping a secret a piece of cake for the government. IF ONLY EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WAS EMPIRICAL! If only, if only, if only.
And what about your own paradigm???
conorbhoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-03-2013, 06:57 PM   #3
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Gage is no threat because he's a charlatan and snake oil salesman. He goes from venue to venue selling his BS. Have you seen the types of places where he has preached? Some of them were so crummy they likely had to usher the homeless out just before the meeting.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01...-to-invade-me/
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 10:52 AM   #4
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Are you trying to change the subject?

That is a normal tactic when you cannot win at the origional topic.
Iranian Commander could be informed by Iranian engineers that the physics of 9/11 are impossible. No subject change here though I give you props for trying to portray me as avoiding what you say.



Quote:
Why hasn't Gage produced a peer reviewed paper on where the bombs must have been planted to produce the result we saw on tv?
Why don't you ask Gage that question? Sounds like you are SPECULATING that the reason Gage hasn't is because he's lying. What makes you think that? How sure are you?

Last edited by homervb; 26-03-2013 at 12:32 PM.
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 02:24 PM   #5
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Did you say 'could be'? So why not bring out their engineers? More likely it's his 'opinion'.
"more likely" = complete speculation.

Quote:
I won't be going to any of his dog and pony shows.

The simple fact is that not one expert has ever shown any numeric proof that the buildings could not have come down due to fire.
And the NIST could not model the entire collapse nor did they test for explosives.

If the NIST could not offer 1 hypothetical model that could possibly explain the entire collapse then that leaves it completely open for debate.

If NIST didn't check for explosives then that leaves the possibility open for debate.


Since you're speculating, I will too:

Perhaps the reason the NIST could not model the entire collapse is BECAUSE they didn't test for explosives.

Again, like you, I'm speculating. The fall of the towers and the amount of debris left over is eye opening. Whether you think planes brought em down, direct energy weapons, or pre-planted explosives, it doesn't change the fact that the towers were turning to dust before hitting the ground. The lack of debris, the lack of the seismic activity, it all doesn't add up.

If you think masses of projectile steel turning to dust before hitting the ground is nothing but normal in the case of 9/11, well so be it. As for me I find it quite intriguing and it leaves me questioning a lot of things.
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 03:39 PM   #6
samkent
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
The lack of debris, the lack of the seismic activity, it all doesn't add up.
Lack of debris? That's a new for me.
200 dump trucks 24/7 until May 2002. That qualifies as a lot of debris.

But then again you are changing the subject away from Richard Gage being threatened.

Like I said it's a typical tactic when you cannot hold you own on the subject at hand.
samkent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 04:53 PM   #7
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Lack of debris? That's a new for me.
200 dump trucks 24/7 until May 2002. That qualifies as a lot of debris.
I shouldn't have said lack of debris, how bout the consistency of the debris which is the reason for the minimal seismic activity. Steel literally turned to dust, you can see several videos indicating this, this is not speculation this is FACT. But again, you are speculating yourself as to what is considered "a lot" of debris. Again...ALL speculation buddy.


This is the debris of a 110 story building....fires on upper floors did this to a 110 story building? The firefighters reported "small pockets of fire" and I'm suppose to believe this is what happened from small isolated pockets of fire? Nah man, if you can settle for that explanation then good for you. As for me, that doesn't sound right.

Quote:
But then again you are changing the subject away from Richard Gage being threatened.

Like I said it's a typical tactic when you cannot hold you own on the subject at hand.
lmao dude I am not changing the subject. Good try though. I very simply said no matter what caused the towers to fall, the fact is steel was turning to dust. Whether Richard Gage makes money or not he's opening peoples' eyes to discrepancies within the NIST's explanation (or lack of) as to what caused the towers fall which caused the most fatalities on 9/11.

You can sit there and bash me all you want and say I'm using tactics but you're more than wrong. You asked me why Richard Gage hasn't published a paper and I simply said I don't know. Sound like a tactic? Sounds like honesty to me. Keep bashing though, I'm sure it makes you feel good in one way or another

Last edited by homervb; 26-03-2013 at 05:20 PM.
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 05:40 PM   #8
samkent
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
lmao dude I am not changing the subject. Good try though. I very simply said no matter what caused the towers to fall, the fact is steel was turning to dust. Whether Richard Gage makes money or not he's opening peoples' eyes to discrepancies within the NIST's explanation (or lack of) as to what caused the towers fall which caused the most fatalities on 9/11.

You can sit there and bash me all you want and say I'm using tactics but you're more than wrong.
Did you read the title of this thread?
"This is why Richard Gage has never been threateded"

No where in there does it say anything about debris. You brought that up when you could not sustain the truther side of Richard Gage.

My point has been made in both respects.
samkent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 06:33 PM   #9
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Did you read the title of this thread?
"This is why Richard Gage has never been threateded"

No where in there does it say anything about debris. You brought that up when you could not sustain the truther side of Richard Gage.

My point has been made in both respects.
lol I love you have no rebuttal for the debris aspect. Though you did manage to pretty much say Richard Gage is completely discredited because Iranian engineers haven't taken his side. (is that even relevant?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Maybe it's because Richard Gage has never shown any 'real' proof.

It's all been inuendo and supposition.
You do realize that the NIST could not give 1 hypothetical model showing how the towers collapsed the way they did. Therefore, you coming here and saying you know for sure how and why the towers collapsed is complete speculation, right? Where's the NIST's details/proof surrounding the global collapse of the towers?

Family members of 9/11 victims have petitioned to re-open the investigation and want to know why these buildings fell the way they did. Thousands of people perished in and around the towers and if the NIST can't give at least 1 hypothetical explanation as to why then that leaves it up to other people to investigate and hypothesize.

Quote:
Why has he never produced a paper showing which colums had to be severed to produce the visual result we saw?
He's an engineer and he has the plans (he says), so where's any real proof?
Why hasn't the NIST modeled the full collapse? Where's their proof? Oh yea, "global collapse was inevitable" is enough proof for you, right?


Quote:
Have you seen the types of places where he has preached? Some of them were so crummy they likely had to usher the homeless out just before the meeting.
That is so irrelevant it is ridiculous.

Last edited by homervb; 26-03-2013 at 07:19 PM.
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 10:51 PM   #10
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

1,815 and still rising.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Last edited by The Mighty Zhiba; 30-03-2013 at 09:21 AM. Reason: tidying
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2013, 11:23 PM   #11
samkent
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
1,815 and still rising.
A couple of years ago they were at 1500.

Not exactly a rush of people joining is it.
samkent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 06:20 AM   #12
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post

The simple fact is that not one expert has ever shown any numeric proof that the buildings could not have come down due to fire.

This is your mistake right here. It is not logically possible to prove a negative which makes this argument a religious and not a scientific one. Just like I can`t conclusively prove that buildings can`t possibly collapse universally at high speed due to office fires, although the circumstances would have to be very odd, you can`t conclusively prove that the Moon isn`t made of cheese, that people with glasses secretly come from the planet Neptune or that green park benches cause nuclear war. None of these things seem very likely but you can never disprove them 100%.
That`s why scientists like Gage propose alternative hypothesis which seem more likely because they explain more of the evidence without relying on ad hoc hypothesis and other supporting arguments like the official version of 9/11 does. They`re not supposed to be trying to disprove anything conclusively, but provide the simplest explanations possible for observable events in an attempt to get closer to the truth. Believing the official version of 9/11, which was presented on 9/11 itself without any investigation at all, and which has not been validated by any forensic research since and therefore relies solely on government proclamations and NIST computer simulations is naive and it is not scientific. It is a religious position of faith and nothing more. Presenting alternative hypothesis is therefore neither rude or attention seeking or hard. I formulated the exact hypothesis myself on 9/11 when all the newscasters and eye witnesses talked about explosions in NY and have stuck to it since because the one given by the Bush administration never made any sense. If you have been otherwise convinced you are the victim of a scam.
Your second logical error is that you launch into a personal assault on Gage`s character rather than address his research and arguments. This makes everything you say afterwards irrelevant. Then you make a third mistake by appealing to "your" "experts", while totally ignoring any "experts" who disagree, and then finally to whatever you perceive the majority of "scientists" to be saying. Neither is scientifically relevant and both are logical fallacies. The truth doesn`t depend on scientific titles, the size of your government grant, the amount of books you`ve had published or what a majority of any group believes about anything. A majority of Europeans believed at one point that burning witches was a good idea, that you had to pay the Pope to get your relatives out of Purgatory and that the world was flat. This majority opinion did not make any of this true.
If you can write something without committing all these logical errors in your text we can then have a meaningful debate the corruption of the peer review process, the state and corporate control of science in general through granting and withholding research funds, state and corporate control of media and the tendency for lazy group think among the general public, which is all pretty easily observable in my view.
But as long as you`re filling your posts with nothing but flawed, illogical and invalid thinking and argumentation, nobody will take you seriously.

Last edited by skulb; 27-03-2013 at 06:34 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 10:34 AM   #13
samkent
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
That`s why scientists like Gage propose alternative hypothesis which seem more likely because they explain more of the evidence without relying on ad hoc hypothesis and other supporting arguments like the official version of 9/11 does.
I agree to a point. His is a hypothesis with no numeric proof behind it.
His proof is nothing more thatn the same old videos we all have seen.
You would expect a man with his background in Arch/Engineering he would be able to provide something more. He has had 12 years to put it together, but hasn't.

Quote:
Believing the official version of 9/11, which was presented on 9/11 itself without any investigation at all, and which has not been validated by any forensic research since and therefore relies solely on government proclamations and NIST computer simulations is naive and it is not scientific.
Just not true.
There are links available to tests that were performed on newly built WTC floor sections. The tests show that when a fire is below the trusses fail in the time frame consistant with 911. Which agrees with the commonly accepted OS Story.

Quote:
Your second logical error is that you launch into a personal assault on Gage`s character rather than address his research and arguments.
He hasn't shown us any research only his conclusions. Show us the math behind the failure points. Show us how the beams could not have weakened due to fire.
His position is no different than the Pope. He has many years in religion and therefore we should accept the exsitence of a god.

Quote:
Then you make a third mistake by appealing to "your" "experts", while totally ignoring any "experts" who disagree,
Where is the proof from these other experts?
Can't Gage and these other experts put their heads together and produce one paper for peer review?

Quote:
If you can write something without committing all these logical errors in your text we can then have a meaningful debate the corruption of the peer review process, the state and corporate control of science in general through granting and withholding research funds, state and corporate control of media and the tendency for lazy group think among the general public, which is all pretty easily observable in my view.
Now you are layering conspiracies on top of each other.
If you and Gage feel the peer review process is controlled by TPTB, why doesn't he release the paper to the public at large?

In 1978 an engineering student caught the error of the origional designer of the now Citigroup building in NYC. Students have the mentality to buck the trend. Especially when TPTB say not to. If Gage and his ilk were to publicly release a paper with numbers you can bet engineering students would be all over it.

There is just no reason for him (Gage) NOT TO. Other than he doesn't want to change the status quo.
samkent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 02:07 PM   #14
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
There is just no reason for him (Gage) NOT TO. Other than he doesn't want to change the status quo.
Why wouldn't the NIST test for explosives? There's no reason NOT TO. But hey it's okay for them throw out that possibility immediately just like you and the other non-skeptics out there. (I mean come on, when it comes to investigating the deaths of 2,000+ people,why consider every possible scenario when you can only investigate one )

You're calling out Richard Gage on not releasing a paper on the idea of a controlled demolition.

I'm calling out the NIST on their model of the entire collapse.

You say Richard Gage is bogus because his only defense is "it was a controlled demolition." Yet you believe the NIST who said "global collapse was inevitable" despite the lack of actual details and models showing this. (Just like Richard Gage)

Stop trying to sound like you are 100% sure of what happened to the towers.
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 02:56 PM   #15
samkent
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Why wouldn't the NIST test for explosives?
Why not gasoline?
Why not rocket fuel?
Why not Oreo cookies?

You need a reason to test for these other things.
They saw no reason. They saw a plane hit. They saw the fire.
None of the emergency people on the scene reported anything that might suggest explosives. Only the conspiracy group think that.

Still until Gage and his group produce a paper with numerics for the world to review, I won't take his seriously. He's milking the conspiracy for a living.
samkent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 03:50 PM   #16
homervb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Why not gasoline?
Why not rocket fuel?
Why not Oreo cookies?
Because rocket fuel and oreo's aren't used in bringing down buildings. (wasn't sure if that was obvious to your or not )



Quote:
You need a reason to test for these other things.
They saw no reason. They saw a plane hit. They saw the fire.
None of the emergency people on the scene reported anything that might suggest explosives. Only the conspiracy group think that.
So your'e telling me that they wouldn't take into consideration that this alleged al-qaeda cell could have secondary explosives going off within the building? (No I'm not talking about controlled demolition, I'm just talking general explosives) How bout explosives on the plane? Or is it some sort of widely known "fact" that terrorists would have no interest in explosives when it comes to attacking one of the most powerful countries in the world? How did they attack the WTC back in 93? Ohhh right, EXPLOSIVES inside vans.

Like I said, they only looked into 1 scenario. Investigating that scenario left the NIST incapable of hypothesizing a model of this "inevitable" global collapse. It was just so inevitable that it couldn't be modeled, right?

Quote:
Still until Gage and his group produce a paper with numerics for the world to review, I won't take his seriously. He's milking the conspiracy for a living.
Until NIST produces a model for the "inevitable" global collapse, I will not take you or the OS seriously.

Last edited by homervb; 27-03-2013 at 06:04 PM.
homervb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 06:59 PM   #17
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
I agree to a point. His is a hypothesis with no numeric proof behind it.
His proof is nothing more thatn the same old videos we all have seen.
Firstly, the fact that NIST floods us with numbers reminds me more of a squid squirting ink to confuse predators than anything else. As you probably know, most available data against the OV, all ignored by NIST, are laws of physics which the OV violates. The most important of these is the law of conservation of momentum. Not only do all architects and engineers learn this during their education, but when I was in eight grade in the 80s we were taught about it there as well. If an alleged event violates this physical law it did not occur. There is a very good reason why NIST`s "evidence" is all based on computer simulations: computer simulations can violate laws of physics.
Secondly videos are relevant as evidence as long as they are not fake, and most videos you find online are taken straight from the news broadcasts that day. Such videos will show among other things rate of collapse, anomalous visual effects like building matter moving faster than free fall away from buildings, immediate eye witness reactions; free from political indoctrination and propaganda and therefore far more relevant than what people were saying three months later after constant lies in the MSM, and many many other relevant issues totally ignored by NIST and most debunkers because it doesn`t fit their preconceived beliefs/political orders. Because of the destruction of evidence carried out by the US government the visual documentation is a sizable part of the available data on which we can draw conclusions. Discarding this concrete physical evidence on principle, like NIST did, is about as far away as you can hope to get from science.
They also ignored almost all witness statements which almost without exception talked about explosions. This didn`t fit with the conclusion NIST had been ordered to reach by the White House so they ignored all signs of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
You would expect a man with his background in Arch/Engineering he would be able to provide something more. He has had 12 years to put it together, but hasn't.
Again, the forensic evidence was DESTROYED. Richard Gage can therefore not present it and he must resort to laws of physics and the science of structural engineering and how precisely the OV violates these. All his arguments, which is what the scientific process is about, are based on perceived violations of physical laws and principles of structural engineering so pretending that he has "not presented evidence" is pretty lame when you have two whole sciences, and then some, which will explain to you in all desirable detail why fire can not cause skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed. Simply put, buildings are generally made of solid materials, posing resistance to said buildings collapsing at free fall speed (WTC 7) or 2/3 of free fall speed (WTC 1 and 2). Also, he has had 12 years to prove to you that something did NOT happen, which is still logically impossible. You can prove that something has happened though, because this would not be disproving a negative but proving a positive, and obviously Gage and others have conclusively proven that buildings can be demolished by explosives; this is otherwise a well known fact anyway. Niels Harrit and Steven Jones have also convincingly proven that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished with explosives, and as I`ve just informed you this is not just logically and physically possible, but the only normal way in which large buildings collapse without resistance from the structure below. (Those of us with critical thinking skills did not really need this evidence though because it was flaming obvious from the start. My first thought when I realized that they were going to try and sell people on their ridiculous fire hypothesis, and that the obvious presence of explosives in NYC on 9/11 would never again be mentioned on TV, was that it was an enormous propaganda mistake that would blow up in their faces because it was just too unbelievable, even for the worst dullards. Boy did it ever and apparently it wasn`t! For some reason a large portion of the population of this planet will believe absolutely anything if it`s coming from some crook in a suit and tie on TV. A larger portion do not though, which is the good news.)
What has not been proven is that WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell down due to fire. The reason this has not been proven is that it is physically impossible, as everyone understood on 9/11 itself if you watch the news feed. Bear in mind that while this is clearly physically impossible, for any number of reasons, it is still logically possible in that it cannot be disproved categorically. But since it violates physical laws believing this hypothesis to be true mandates that we abandon scientific principles altogether. The only question people had on 9/11, before the propaganda started, was "who blew the buildings up and how?" The OV was launched in the evening of 9/11 with no investigation and no explanation of any kind, and ever since, cowards, morons and criminals have believed it or pretended to believe it. It is interesting that the person who first claimed that "no explosives were used" in Manhattan is now in jail for fraud, although his name escapes me. If you do as I told you and watch the news feed from 9/11 you`ll see him there.
There is no science of any kind involved in this though. It was and is a political decision to keep from us what really happened on 9/11. It is a disgrace that ANYONE has ever believed the obvious and transparent lie that fire caused the 9/11 collapses for as much as a second.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Just not true.
There are links available to tests that were performed on newly built WTC floor sections. The tests show that when a fire is below the trusses fail in the time frame consistant with 911. Which agrees with the commonly accepted OS Story.
These "tests" were all performed with computer simulations. NIST tried models for a long time but stopped because they COULD NOT reproduce the findings they wanted with them because the models did not collapse. The computer models obviously did. If I wanted to I could write a computer simulation "proving" that all three buildings collapsed because butterflies landed on them. All I`d have to do was animate butterflies landing on the sides of the buildings, and then the buildings collapsing immediately afterwards. This would not make it true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
He hasn't shown us any research only his conclusions. Show us the math behind the failure points. Show us how the beams could not have weakened due to fire.
His position is no different than the Pope. He has many years in religion and therefore we should accept the exsitence of a god.
Once again, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Therefore it is impossible to prove that fire did not cause the three WTC buildings to collapse, short of the fact that this would violate several laws of physics because there was little or no resistance during either of the three collapses, because neither concrete or steel burns in office fires (one of the reasons large buildings are built with steel, concrete, stone etc) and because the fires were observably small (not visible outside the buildings) and oxygen starved (smoke) and therefore cool as fires go. It is still never 100% certain that they didn`t collapse from fire though because nothing can conclusively be disproved logically, no matter how absurd. This is why it is just as impossible for you to disprove my hypothesis that they collapsed because butterflies landed on them, which should explain why it is not enough to simply say "nobody has disproved this so therefore it is OK for me to believe it, and it must be true!" The question needs to be: "is it likely?"

I would say my butterfly hypothesis is marginally more incredible than the US government`s fire hypothesis, based on the facts that no other steel framed skyscraper has ever suffered a collapse of any kind due to fire or butterflies, much less collapses at free fall and 2/3 of free fall three times in one day; that explosions were reported by literally hundreds of witnesses and media reporters (again, go look at the live feed from MSNBC, BBC, CNN; ABC etc and see for yourself). Considering this alone I would discard the butterfly hypothesis first because I am unaware of butterflies ever causing significant structural damage to buildings, and then the fire hypothesis, since fire at least has the potential to damage flammable parts of a building even though nothing is going to collapse in one hour because of it. As far as anybody knows the only thing that has previously and since caused such buildings to collapse is explosives. This must therefore, based on experience, be the most likely hypothesis, like people such as Dan Rather understood while live on TV on 9/11, yet NIST utterly failed to even entertain this most intuitive hypothesis in its "investigation".
When explaining why, they performed a marvel of circular logic and fallacies by saying that they "didn`t look for such evidence" because it`s a "waste of time to look for something that isn`t there". What they said therefore is that they knew the evidence for the most likely hypothesis wasn`t there before looking for it and that they therefore didn`t look for it. In other words, the official investigation you have been trained to believe is real because it`s being repeated to you on TV would flunk a 5th grade essay and did not even look for all the evidence; even specifically avoiding looking for evidence of explosives. Only what supported the political exploitation of the event decided on at the White House was ever so much as looked at and there could be no explosives there because Muslim "terrorists" could not have rigged three skyscrapers in Manhattan with explosives. If you believe this is science you really have some reading to do...
I`m not sure if you`re aware that the only source for the position you are taking on 9/11 is this fraudulent "investigation", along with the even more suspicious and politically controlled 9/11 Commission Report. If you aren`t it might be time to wake up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Where is the proof from these other experts?
Can't Gage and these other experts put their heads together and produce one paper for peer review?
This is just ignorance. Dr Steven Jones published a physics paper years ago proving that explosives were used to destroy both towers, pointing out precisely what types of explosives they were and the physical signs in the debris the US government was unable to destroy as well as in the video documentation.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html

Note the words at the top: "Accepted for publication". Just because government shills are howling that he is a loon to discredit him, as opposed to for example refuting his evidence scientifically, this doesn`t mean the evidence presented has been refuted. All this proves is that the US government and its organs do not want the truth to be known and do not want people looking at this evidence. By assassinating Jones`character they are trying to scare weak minded people away from his research, nothing more. If this paper was not scientifically valid it would not have been published. The only lies which are allowed to be published in scientific papers are those sanctioned by government and big corporations, and anything this controversial would have been shut down immediately if there was even a hint of weakness in it. No scientific paper, with the notable exception of the NIST report, which was not scientific but political, has been published refuting any of Jones`conclusions. Come to think of it, the NIST report didn`t even refute them because it studiously avoided most of the physical evidence while tinkering with meaningless computer simulations. In fact, most people who resort to character assassinations of Jones are "journalists", bloggers, bureaucrats and politicians, not scientists.

Professor Emeritus Niels Harrit also published a paper in chemistry confirming Jones`findings. Many lectures he has given on the subject can be viewed online as well. Like Jones he deals in hard, physical proof which is totally ignored by the media and most people supporting the US government version of 9/11.

http://nielsharrit.org/


Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
Now you are layering conspiracies on top of each other.
If you and Gage feel the peer review process is controlled by TPTB, why doesn't he release the paper to the public at large?
He has and it is. All the evidence you could ever want is available online if you just bother looking for it, and manage to break free of your indoctrination for five minutes. Calling something a conspiracy does not disprove it, like you seem to think. By definition a conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more people to do something illegal or criminal. Therefore 9/11 was a conspiracy, whether you approach it to find the truth or whether you blindly believe the Bush administration`s fairytale about Al Qaida, which has been under NATO control for 40 years and counting anyway. Any theory about what happened on 9/11, including the official nonsense, is therefore a conspiracy theory and if being a conspiracy theory discredits my position then it must at the same time discredit the official conspiracy theory. This is just logical. The conspiracy theory most likely to be true then is the one which is supported by the evidence. As I`ve tried to show you, what little evidence was not destroyed supports and confirms the demolition hypothesis. Government computer simulations and propaganda supports the official conspiracy theory. Personally I would think that destroying the evidence and censoring media, academia and the "public debate" after the event is guilty demeanor and therefore yet an indication that the US government was involved in the attacks and wanted to cover up its involvement, or that of others they had allowed to do it.
But anyway, two kids conspiring to smoke in the bathroom during recess are engaging in a conspiracy. It is a normal human behavior. All you`re doing is proving just how much you`ve been brainwashed by the MSM and academia which has been using this as a derogatory term about anyone questioning government lies for the last 50 years. Hitler and the Soviets used the exact same technique to control the unfortunate people they were abusing.
Back to you point: the peer review process in itself is inherently corrupt because it is designed to centralize research and science in general. By controlling scientific output economically and formally, like all governments and corporations do, they control what is being researched and what is not. Naturally, any research that might uncover government and corporate criminality will have trouble finding funds. THe usual misconception people have is that they still live in a free society when they don`t. Try to imagine you`re in the USSR in 1960 and then talk to me about the purpose of the peer review process. We are in exactly the same position as that, if not worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samkent View Post
In 1978 an engineering student caught the error of the origional designer of the now Citigroup building in NYC. Students have the mentality to buck the trend. Especially when TPTB say not to. If Gage and his ilk were to publicly release a paper with numbers you can bet engineering students would be all over it.

There is just no reason for him (Gage) NOT TO. Other than he doesn't want to change the status quo.
Again, when you continue to use words like "ilk" you are not discrediting Richard Gage but yourself. Just like when I wrote my last response to you this is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. I recommend you stop resorting to this error if you want to be taken seriously. Lastly, engineering students are only all over whatever they`re allowed to know. You can be sure that the tenure of any professors of engineering who question or ridicule the official version of 9/11 in their classes will be very short indeed. And they all know it.

Of course, you`ll dismiss what I say as a "conspiracy theory", just like you`ve been trained to. But what you and the rest of the government lovers have totally missed is that we have, for the past 25 years or so, lived through a transition from a democratic process of government in the west, flawed as it was, to a totalitarian process of government. Governments and corporations make proclamations and we believe or pretend to believe their lies. If we don`t we are fired, persecuted, ridiculed in the media and harassed by internet trolls. Science has just two functions in such a totalitarian society: to make government lies unassailable and to suppress truth. Of course science like this is not really science at all but pathological science, and has as much to do with the truth as snake handling.
But then people who are infested with child like positive thinking, as too many people are these days, will probably not even believe this if the government went on TV and told them right out. And of course they won`t do that. It`s much simpler and more efficient to oppress and plunder morons who are unaware that they have been turned into serfs. And I say this coming from the same position once myself. In the 90s I would refuse to listen to talk about conspiracies and government criminality in general, partly because it depressed me and partly because I found it annoying since finding real information and contradicting sources was almost impossible before the internet. I would always just close off, thinking that if this was true we`d never be told about it, just like with JFK, never receive any kind of justice for it and never have the relevant evidence presented to us in public. The internet has changed all this, and provided the first decade perhaps in human history with real freedom of expression as well as press freedom. This is of course one more thing all western governments are currently busy trying to put a stop to with all their energy, to stop "pedophiles" and "extremists". What they really want is to stop the flood of truth which is threatening to wash them all away.
What blew the top of my head off was 9/11 because it was such an obvious coverup from the start. Since then I have lost all confidence in governments, corporations, media and academia and anybody pretending to be an "authority" of any kind. I have also lost most of my respect for and confidence in people in general, who are dull and/or cowardly enough to go along with it; they even spy on people like me and report us to what they foolishly believe are "authorities", with the effect that you start censoring yourself to avoid getting fired etc.
This is not some frivolous issue. It is life and death, and the first time this dawns on people it freaks them out. I can guarantee you that it will freak you out at some point in the future as well, when denial is no longer possible. All I can say is good luck to you. They say ignorance is bliss and maybe it is for a while. In your denial though you`re building an avalanche above your head which will crush you eventually. By then you`ll be hopelessly enslaved with no way out, so the sooner you break out the better. This usually happens when people become aware of some huge, inexcusable government lie, crime or coverup.
For the last generation it was JFK, which erupted even through the fog of corporate and government media, academic and publishing control. For our generation it`s 9/11. No government lie has ever been more obvious than this.

Last edited by skulb; 28-03-2013 at 12:17 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 07:42 PM   #18
marky78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 21 (7 Posts)
Default

Excellent post.
marky78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 08:15 PM   #19
lobuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Roger That
Posts: 21,944
Likes: 3,706 (2,108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marky78 View Post
Excellent post.
Agreed.

Excellent post that skulb.
lobuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 11:13 PM   #20
isuncertain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 291
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

^^

I am in violent agreement. Quality posts skulb
isuncertain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
9/11, government, richard gage, secret, whistleblower

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.