View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 20:35

Its not about cardboard boxs you dipshit.....lol


No you're just using trucks this time. But it's the same false analogy.

Gages demonstration shows us that a smaller object can't crush a larger object yet according to your logic, a larger object can't crush a smaller object?? :shock: hahahahahahahaha!!


For the last time, nothing is getting crushed. The towers are mostly air. You just need enough deformation of the structure to cause a failure.

Maybe you should have a rethink before you start coming out with patently false debunks which highlight the idiotic nature of your argument. lol


It's not idiotic to anybody who knows how science works.

So now the masses do play a part because you need to know the masses to work out how much energy kinetic energy there is?? lol


Yes. How does physics work in your world?

Thanks but your working outs do not explain the collapse of WTC7 , yet alone WTC 1 & 2 which you seem to be arguing.


I've already explained the collapses of all three structures in as much detail as a care to go into. You're either not accepting the explanation or you're not understanding it.

What a load of tosh, if the top floor is crushed, then that certainly isn't enough to cause a sequential collapse and neither will it gain inertia because there is still many floors of intact structure providing resistance.


Actually it is, because the mass of the collapsed portion is now adding energy to the collapse. By the time you get to the bottom floor you have the force of a couple hundred towers coming down on it. Each story supplies 8 g's of force, remember?

Of course it can, so can 1 storey collapse a 10 storeys in a free fall collapse??


Maybe, maybe not. But we don't have one story, we have ten and twenty five stories for each respective tower.

OK, we have a tin can and a truck, please choose which object you would be like to be seated in and why in our 70mph head on collision or even stood vertically so that the tin can free fall.


I'm trying to explain to you the concept of conservation of energy, and your being an idiot about it.

I'll happily admit I'm no expert on physics


Then keep your mouth shut and listen to what I'm trying to teach you.

but if you want to believe I know nothing about physics while trying to explain how a smaller object can crush an object that is 10 times the size, then either you are not explaining yourself properly or as I suspect, you don't know that much about physics yourself. lol


It's not about size, it's about energy. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything else about the collapse.

You're lack of understanding isn't proof of a conspiracy, it simply means you don't understand.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 21:00

It does if it needs to achieve free fall speeds.


Accept that it didn't fall near free fall speeds. The collapse was resisted.

If you are overloading the remaining structure, then there would be resistance and no free fall speeds.


And this was what was observed. You're trying to ignore the penthouse collapse to get this to fit the free fall hypthesis but you can't. There was obviously a structural failure occuring.

Sorry but handwaving it away as irrelevant doesn't explain why the building had absolutely no structural resistance for 2 seconds.


The two second free fall tells you nothing about how the structure failed, stundie. That's my point. And if it fell at free fall for two seconds after total failure of the structure, that means it was resisting for the the remaining 12 seconds, doesn't it?

The problem is not with the truther argument but your interpretation of it. lol


It's not about me interpreting your case. It's about you proving it.

Chemist wrote:If explosives were good enough to bring down the towers and WTC 7 than why mess with thermite at all?
To make it look less like a traditional demolition.


And why would somebody bother to make a demolition look less like a demolition?

Chemist wrote:Why risk with a completely unproven method of demolition, and why are there no witnesses reporting individuals setting charges.
Yeah why risk with an unproven method such as fire hey Chemist?? lol


We have decades of data that prove fire can collapse a steel structure. You're simply wrong about this.

And yet, there's an absence of evidence that thermite was ever used in a demolition of buildings.

And your hilarious question, why are there no witnesses reporting individuals setting charges?? lol Oh I suppose these individuals should walk around with a big sign saying I'm setting explosive charges??


My point is when you have an area swarming with news cameras, emergency responders and witnesses, it's hard to start wiring explosives and lugging in thermite without somebody noticing.

Of course, it requires tons and tons of thermite, but just a few fires on a few floors. lol


So tell me where the thermite is! Who procured it? Who set the charges? And how come nobody noticed.

Bombing is not as much as a shock and awe as crashing jet liners into the building and making them collapse.


Great, so you admit to the fact that planes caused the collapse of the towers.

And I guess that this wasn't enough "shock and awe", they had to demolish WTC7 7 hours after the fact. Seems a little anticlimactic, eh?

Chemist wrote:Much simpler and less witnesses, which means less opportunity for somebody to find out the truth.
It would raise many questions.


Yeah, a truthers work is never done!

Chemist wrote:If so, why accuse Bin Laden?
Cause Bin Laden was in Afghanistan where Unocal wanted to build their pipeline and they knew it wasn't safe because of OBL.


Yeah, whatever. We still have the problem of why not demolish the WTC like terrorists attempted to do in 1993?

Chemist wrote:Why not accuse Saddam Hussein directly?
Because there would be no excuse for the pipeline in Afghanistan to be built.


Don't be an idiot.

Chemist wrote:And if staging 9/11 was possible than planting WMD's in Iraq should be child's play.
Really??? lol And where do you get WMD from?? lol And how do you get it to Iraq?? lol


The same way you get several tons of thermite into a building infront of a million eyewitnesses.

You're answering your own questions, stundie! I'm hoping it dawns on you how obsurd your position is. Up till now, I'm having a hard time believing and toilet trained person can believe what you're saying.

Surely it's much easier to lie about it and then make out there was bad intelligence. Much cheaper and easier! lol


Accept that the lack of WMD marred Bush's presidency.
You'd think he would want to fix that.

Chemist wrote:Yeah, there's problems. Not that the truther would want to address any of it.
I will happily address any problems that I think I can answer.


Well, that's the problem, isn't it. You don't know enough about physics to be able to answer the questions. You don't know anything about energy and how its converted, or enough about the structural peformance of a hollow tube steel structure.

However what I won't do is try to pretend I can answer something if I don't really know.


You've been doing that for the past week and it's making you look foolish. How about just listening and learning while the adults talk.

Now this 2.25 seconds?? Are you going to carry on explaining it or admit that your theory doesn't account for the free fall speeds?? lol


Ever hear about gravity? That's your explanation.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 20 Jul 2010, 21:31

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:No it doesnt, you didnt watch to the end of the video I gave you.
I watched the whole of the video.
Edx wrote:You can clearly see that there's about 3 to 4 floors crushing at least 13 with ease and falls in "near free fall speeds".
No there isn't...lol


Yes there is. Watch it. :roll:

Edx wrote:Why didnt the bottom resist the top half?
Because you are making it up. lol


So then you count and tell me how many floors are crushing the bottom part, please do, and then tell me why the bottom didnt resist the top. Im sure you'll tell me you cant be bothered like last time.




Edx wrote:You still havent explained why you think one floor can hold up the entire weight of the upper block once the weight has misaligned and is no longer being supported by load bearing connections.
I haven't explained it because I have never argued that one floor can do this?? lol


Yes you do, because if you arent arguing that then you arent disagreeing with me. Its funny that you dont even understand what you are saying :roll:

Edx wrote:Forget it, others can understand.



Of course, only you and the debunkers understand it yet everyone else is just too stupid.


Everyone else? You mean the pathetic figure on Gage's website?

Gage says 1225 engineers and architects support him, Ignoring the fact that we have people like no planer Anders Bjorkman and they include SOFTWARE engineers but roughly 17,000 (SEVENTEEN THOUSAND) engineers are newly credentialed every year just in the US. Yet, Gage can only find 1225 including architects and computer programmers all over the world and its been nearly a decade since 911!! :lol: And there isnt a single peer reviewed article in a legitimate respected journal promoting any truther claims, yet there have been hundreds regarding the collapses in 911 and building codes have been revised affecting hundreds of thousands of engineers due to NISTs recommendations based on their WTC report. You'd think if they were saying something so obviously wrong as you make out they would have something to say about it. But no they dont. You guys are fringe, just like the Intelligent Design proponents, Creationists, holocaust denialists and the 2012 crowd. Fringe and getting worse since 2006. Big deal.


Edx wrote:Find any firefighter on 911, the only example you could give is Schroeder who didnt even know that the South Tower collapsed first.
Sorry but I don't do desperate debunking by using logical fallacies such as appealing to the masses. lol


Its hilarious how you start arguing about all these firefighters you say believe bombs were in the towers, I ask you to find me one and you say its a logical fallacy to "appealing to the masses" :lol:


Edx wrote:You pick a small fraction of the collapse time and then claim the entire thing fell in free fall, you are dishonest.
Seeing as you can't find an example of where I claim the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL, then you are the one being dishonest.


If you say WTC7 collapsed in free fall that is a dishonest misrepresentaion as it implies that the entire collapse was free fall when only a small fraction of it was free fall.

Especially when you consider that in my very 1st post on this thread to Scecop I said that the only building which I think fell at NEAR FREE FALL was WTC 7!! lol


In that case WTC1+2 couldnt have been demolitions... right? Isnt that what you're saying here? :roll:

Edx wrote:They did not fall in free fall, only a small fraction fell in free fall.
I know, you keep repeating this even though it was me that pointed this out to you debunkers.


We already knew that, what isnt honest is ignoring the rest of the collapse.

Edx wrote:Why do you think free fall matters?
Because there is no resistance,.


Unless material is being pulled down, but we've already established you dont understand that the buildings werent solid objects and so you have no idea how this could work.


Edx wrote: Does that mean WTC 1 and 2 arent demolitions because they didnt collapse in free fall?
No because the WTC 1 & 2 were demolished differently, that is why the collapses look different. Although according to your logic, all building collapses look the same or something?? lol



According to you free fall = demolition, therefore since WTC1 and 2 certainly werent free fall then it couldnt have been a demolition as there was resistence. If not then free fall makes no difference as according to you the WTC shouldnt have collapsed at all and no matter how long it took to collapse would be too much for you, which we know you already think. So, if the bottom didnt resist the top block no matter how long it took to collapse you will still claim explosives, so your argument about explosives creating no resistance is nonsense as it isnt even something you are claiming consistently for all collapses.

Edx wrote:You are so set on free fall here claiming it proves explosives, but then you also claim WTC1 and 2 were demolitions so where is the free fall there?
Unless you can think of any other way a building can fall at free fall speeds, then I'm all ears.


Once again a tiny fraction fell at free fall, that is not the same as saying the building fell at free fall speeds. :roll:

You need to get your groupthink updated. There was no pancakes!! lol


Yes there was, pancaking means one floor impacts the next. I already showed you that 10 years before 911 pancaking progressive collapses was still a concern and that stuctrural engineers at the time believed One Meridian Plaza might "PANCAKE" collapse.

Edx wrote:What we dont see on any videos anywhere on 911 are any sounds of all these steel flinging and pulverising that is meant to be occurring in the collapses yet such things can easily be heard on any ACTUAL explosive demolition.
Looking for reason to ignore and deny the fact the building fell at free fall speeds (for 2 seconds!) doesn't actually help your cause. lol


I see you ignored the obvious issue of no explosion sounds when all these high explosives are meant to be occuring.


Edx wrote:See, you're being dishonest. I never said it looked exactly like one, I said thats what a building resembles when it collapses.
Building do not collapse straight down unless they have been brought down via demolitions.


What about explosives?



NO EXPLOSIVES NO PRE-WEAKENING OF THE STRUCTURE. We already know you cant bring yourself to deal with how verinage works, so this is for anyone that happens to be reading.

Here's some progressive collapses in history:

The uncompleted L'Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut in 1987. Progressive collapse. The source above states, "The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height.".... .

Another building under construction progressivly collapsed in 1973. Concrete monthly says, "Fairfax County Va., a progressive collapse during the construction of the 24th floor of the Skyline Plaza Apartments killed 14 workers and injured 34 more.". NIST includes it as one of their examples (see below) and says additionally "the collapse involved the full height of the tower, and falling debris also caused the horizontal progressive collapse of an entire parking garage under construction adjacent to the tower."

The New World Hotel in Singapore, a 1987 report states, "In 'March 1986, a six-storey building - the Lian Yak building - collapsed rapidly and totally to the ground and basement levels with the loss of 33 lives."

One Meridian Plaza, 10 years before 911 didnt collapse, however structural engineers at the time felt it was at risk of a "pancake" collapse so the fire department pulled all their firefighters out.
"Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series: Highrise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza[/QUOTE]

"In December 1985, a catastrophic accident occurred in Los Angeles during construction of a 21-story steel-frame building. Eighty tons of structural steel sections were stockpiled on one bay on the fifth floor, loading the bay to twice its designed capacity. Three beams failed suddenly at their temporary connections, precipitating a progressive collapse of 10 bays all the way to the ground floor. Three construction workers were killed in the accident.

In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35. "

- Construction and Equipment 2004




Edx wrote:But if you look any closer its clearly very very different.
No it's not! lol


Find me a demolition that doesnt make explosion sounds quite audible on video, thanks.


Edx wrote:One of the main characteristics of an explosives demolition is that of HUGE earth shaking explosive detonations.
That is a typical demolition but just because that is how they are typically done, doesn't mean the WTC were done this way.


Why, because they used thermite? :roll: One again Stundie, THERMITE CANNOT MAKE STEEL FLINGING EXPLOSIVES QUIETER.


Edx wrote:Yet, you claim that there was even more intense explosives on 911 flinging steel around which isnt even used in normal demolitions, yet we cant hear these detonations in any videos of the collapses.
I think you are confusing me with Richard Gage and you cherry picked video. lol


You just did it again right above!! :lol: And now you accuse me of cheery picking again, wow.

Edx wrote:The firefighters SAID it was a raging inferno, again this means they are stupid, incompetent, delusional or liars. Take your pick.
Or mistaken seeing as there is no video or photographic evidence at any point showing the building to be a raging inferno. lol


So which is it then:

stupid, incompetent, delusional or liars


Pick one Stundie.

Edx wrote:And once again explosions doesnt necessarily mean bomb.
I know it doesn't. But it doesn't mean we rule out the possibility until we have a source for the explosion.


But you arent having it as a "possibility" you're saying it is explosives just because they said explosion even though you cant find of these guys that really believe its bombs and none have any injuries consistent with explosives.

Edx wrote: And since you seemed to accept there were plenty of others sources for "explosions" that people could have heard, then its your burden to prove that these were - specifically - explosIVES rather than anything else.
Ahh but you are the one who claims it is NOT explosions so the burden of proof is on you. Me on the other than accept it could be explosions or something else. I do not know for sure but what I don't do is what you fake debunkers do and CLAIM they are explosions but CLAIM they are something else.


Again, you cant prove a negative. What is it with you people? Why dont you prove they didnt hear backdraft, the sound of the tower collapsing onto the North Tower, a generator or transformer blowing up. a elevator falling etc etc, Ive given lots of reason why it is highly unlikely to be bombs. IE. no one has any injuries consistent explosives, no one found any remains of explosives and the amount of equivilent TNT would have had to have been huge.

Edx wrote:The fact that no one had any blast injuries at all and the fact that truthers dont give a crap about even trying to find out says it all.
HAHAHAHAHA!! You and this blast injuries even though its been pointed out to you time and time again it doesn't prove anything.


So its been pointed out to me why people who you claim experienced an explosive blast including people that were "thrown around" by one didnt sustain any injuries consistent with explosives?. Rrriiiiiiight, whatever you say Stundie.

And if truthers don't give a crap, why are they the only ones who demand a new investigation while morons like you claim there is no need because you have the answers to all things 9/11?? lol


They dont give a crap because if they did they would have tried finding these people and asking if they had blast injuries, they dont even when they have them right there doing an interview. Theres no reason why someone would have had blast injuries and if you had that you would have a lot better argument for bombs being there on 911, but you dont and you dont care.

Edx wrote:I disproved you and you move the goal posts and dont admit you were wrong.
I haven't moved any goal posts. lol


Every time I reply to you you've moved some goal posts.

Edx wrote:You dont need to know that.
I do need to know......lol Thats the whole blank point right there mate! lol


I wish you'd read what Im writing in context rather than trying to make every smarmy little unfunny joke that comes into your head.

Edx wrote:There's plenty of things that could cause someone to describe it as an explosion, Ive given you loads of examples.
Of course there is, but do we then conclude that this = no explosion?? lol


No explosIVE. Its your job to explain why it is more likely to be an explosive rather than something else, but you dont even feel like you have to. You just take every quote of "explosion" and say thats evidence for bombs with no care about all the other things it could be and all the other reasons people would describe it that way.


Edx wrote:People in the Empire State Building described a elevator cable snapped as "like gunfire", does that mean gun fire should be looked into?
Well did anyone get knocked over by the gunfire?? Did the empire state building collapse??


Way to go missing the point on purpose. Someone said that the elevator cable snapping sounded like gun fire, if this happened on 911 you would find truthers trying to claim there was gun fire in the towers because someone said it sounded like gun fire.

Edx wrote: Or how about that giant crane collapsing being described as "like two explosions?"
That didn't sound like an explosions to me. lol


But it did to other people, thats the point. Other people use words like explosion to describe things that arent explosive detonations all the time Good job debunking yourself yet again.

Edx wrote:If you had ANYONE that has blast injuries that would go a long way to proving your point and yet no one sustained any blast injuries, no one found any explosive damage to the columns, no one found any explosive remains.
That is because no one looked for explosives.


You dont need to look for it, it would be everywhere. They sorted that stuff for months and went through everything. They did look, you're lying and delusional and you dont care about the facts. Its okay, its a typical truther thing to do.

Edx wrote:If you want to say that what people experienced was specifically an explosive rather than the multitude of other things it could be then the burden of proof is yours.
It could be an explosion, it could be something else.


So prove it is more likely to be an explosive, show me how you've differentiated between quotes from firefighters that said explosion and experienced an explosive and where they said explosion and it was not an explosive. We both know you haven't, wont, cant and dont care.


But you are the one who wants to say that people didn't experience an explosion but rather something else without any burden of proof. So until you have some evidence, then we can't rule out explosives as a possibility.



What i am saying is that it is highly unlikely to be an explosive and I have given my reasons why. You have not given any reasons why you believe certain people really did experience an explosive and havent tried to explain where you think other people have experienced something else. As long as someone says explosion, thats good enough for you. Screw context or everything going on around them.


The debunking is nothing short of a joke and your debunking makes you look stupid! lol


You are one of the worst examples of an intelligent truther ever. You may feel like this is going well for you, but thats because you're delusional.

Edx wrote:Firstly no other video of controlled demolitions seem to have this problem of the mic "overloading" to the point where you cant hear anything.
That is because the video and the mics are set to capture the explosions. lol


No they arent, we're talking about normal people videoing the collapse with their cameras. :roll:

Also, you obviously have no idea about sound. I do, I work with it every day. You hear if a video is set up with appropriate audio because the frequencies are all there, consistent and dont distort. If you hear lots of high frequency and distortion and it sounds kind of tinny it means the microphone is small, which is what you hear in these demolition videos you claim are set up to capture the explosion sounds. If they really were made to capture the full glory of the explosions the audio quality would be a LOT better. See also below...

Edx wrote:Secondly, if these explosions start from above then you should be able to hear the explosions 110 stories up quite easily in the videos of the collapses before it gets so loud that, according to you, it overloads this mic.
That depends on the location of the video in relation to the towers and the size of the explosives.


A couple of good examples are in this video:



So why cant we hear any explosions?

If the explosion was "overloading" (you mean distorting) the microphone then it would distort ALL THE SOUND but we can still hear what is going on. This proves there was no overloading from these explosions like you claim, to say otherwise is just showing complete ignorance of how sound and microphones work

We can clearly hear explosions on other demolitions such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ (different angle)

Edx wrote: Again, this never happened either. Thirdly, you have multiple cameras in multiple positions all over the place and no one caught any such explosive detonations on tape.
That is because most of them are overloaded with the sound of the rumble of the collapse.


Again, you dont understand sound and how microphones work. See above.
Edx wrote:Lastly, these explosives are meant to be much more intense that a normal demolition, normal demolitions aren't trying to fling steel around. So that means they should be even louder.
Who said they were "more intense!" oh that's right I didn't.


For the nth time, in a normal controlled demolition explosives are only intense enough to cut load bearing columns and connections, they do not make them intense enough to fling steel around and pulverise the building. Since that is what Gage claims happened then this means TONS more explosive energy would be require and therefore IT WOULD BE EVEN LOUDER
Last edited by Edx on 20 Jul 2010, 23:47, edited 14 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 20 Jul 2010, 22:32

stundie wrote:
Chemist wrote:Why not accuse Saddam Hussein directly?
Because there would be no excuse for the pipeline in Afghanistan to be built.


Oh yea, they were so serious about that it still hasn't been built nearly a decade later. :roll:


Chemist wrote:And if staging 9/11 was possible than planting WMD's in Iraq should be child's play.
Really??? lol And where do you get WMD from?? lol And how do you get it to Iraq?? lol


You're asking how do you get from WMDs to talking about Iraq? My my, what can one say to someone like you.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 23:28

Edx wrote:
stundie wrote:
Chemist wrote:Why not accuse Saddam Hussein directly?
Because there would be no excuse for the pipeline in Afghanistan to be built.


Oh yea, they were so serious about that it still hasn't been built nearly a decade later. :roll:


Chemist wrote:And if staging 9/11 was possible than planting WMD's in Iraq should be child's play.
Really??? lol And where do you get WMD from?? lol And how do you get it to Iraq?? lol


You're asking how do you get from WMDs to talking about Iraq? My my, what can one say to someone like you.


More to the point: how do you describe how the world works to somebody who seems to be living in a vaccum?
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 20 Jul 2010, 23:44

Chemist wrote:More to the point: how do you describe how the world works to somebody who seems to be living in a vaccum?


Stundie is the classic kind of truther that imagines himself an expert but actually knows nothing about everything. He doesn't understand buildings, demolitions, sound, explosives, microphones, thermite, firefighting or anything relevant to the discussion at all. But he is so egotistical and delusional that he refuses to accept that he is wrong and thinks stupid mindless jokes makes him look good. Somehow he thinks if he puts "lol" and "hahahahaha" after everything it makes him look less ignorant.

A truther on a youtube channel recently tried to claim over and over that Gage has over 12,000 archetics and engineers I told him he doesnt, and he posts this figure as proof "1225" Yes. One thousand two hundred and twenty five he misread as twelve thousand. Reminded me of the stubbornness of Stundie. The guy never admitted he was wrong of course.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 21 Jul 2010, 01:14

I'm more curious as to how Winston will advise Gates in the upcoming debate. I wonder if such advise will take into consideration what has been discussed in this thread. It would be difficult to advise Gates unless they are both willing to change their underlying argument and abandon the controlled demolition hypothesis altogether.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 21 Jul 2010, 02:35

Chemist wrote:I'm more curious as to how Winston will advise Gates in the upcoming debate. I wonder if such advise will take into consideration what has been discussed in this thread. It would be difficult to advise Gates unless they are both willing to change their underlying argument and abandon the controlled demolition hypothesis altogether.


I hope Gage does take Winstons arguments here, even better, take Stundie's, because that would be a great way for Gage to show everyone how ridiculous he is.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 21 Jul 2010, 02:45

From what I've read, the info they're presenting is so distorted that I'm not sure even Truthers themselves know what they're trying to say.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 21 Jul 2010, 06:53

ProfWag wrote:From what I've read, the info they're presenting is so distorted that I'm not sure even Truthers themselves know what they're trying to say.


Over the years they've tied themselves in so many knots its easy to make them look ridiculous, such as showing that Gage video where he doesnt understand sound, explosives or thermite.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 01 Aug 2010, 20:43

Scepcop wrote:Hi everyone,
I just got word from Richard Gage that the Coast to Coast debate between his team of scientists and the JREFers about 9/11 will take place on July 31st, sometime in the evening. So please feel free to listen in. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Uhhhh, what happened to this? I've been anticipating this "intellectual" debate with the all-knowing Richard Gage and what did I stay up late for? Nothing.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 02 Aug 2010, 00:11

Are you saying this debate did not take place or that it was much ado about nothing ? I forgot all about it
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 02 Aug 2010, 02:05

really? wrote:Are you saying this debate did not take place or that it was much ado about nothing ? I forgot all about it

I don't believe it took place, unless they tape the show before it airs...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 02 Aug 2010, 02:37

I looked at Coast to Coast's website. But it doesn't mention that the debate aired. Instead, another program was on on July 31.

I honestly don't know what happened. I'll email Richard Gage about it.

If it was rescheduled or canceled, he should have at least let us know. It was obviously inconsiderate and rude that he didn't, when so many were waiting for it. I hope he has a good excuse.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 02 Aug 2010, 04:16

Scepcop wrote: It was obviously inconsiderate and rude that he didn't, when so many were waiting for it. I hope he has a good excuse.

Yes, me too!!!!!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest