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

[ProfWag]

[stundie]

[Scepcop]

Apparently, the JREF forum is discussing this debate as well, after having learned about it from my post on the Zeitgeist forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=179138

[Scepcop]

Edx,
I've been over that many times before. It doesn't matter if the steel softened or weakened. There is no way that fire or the top few floors could generate enough force to pulverize the whole building at near free fall speed, or at least at the speed that it fell. No way around it. You have to cut the columns and the resistance below the WTC in order to do that. Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said that on the day of the attack on the news, that you have to get at the "under infrastructure of a building to bring it down". I'm sure you've heard those clips where they say that. Every truther film shows those clips, which are all over YouTube. It's common sense.

So, even if the steel weakened, it CANNOT collapse the whole building at that speed. CANNOT. IMPOSSIBLE. You guys have never explained it or accounted for it. No way around it. You are missing a huge amount of force that you are not accounting for.

So please quit bringing up debunked and outdated arguments. We are tired of hearing such old arguments that do not address the crux of the issue.

[Scepcop]

ProfWag,
Your ridicule of that video proves nothing.

Gage was making a great point there, that for one to assume that an 80,000 ton structure (or how many tons it was) to collapse like air is totally ludicrous. Yet you'd have to believe that to buy the official story. He was showing you how ridiculous YOU are ProfWag. Therefore, the JOKE'S ON YOU!

[Scepcop]

[stundie]

[Scepcop]

Thanks Stundie, I will forward your recommendations and suggestions, in both posts, to Richard Gage and his team.

Hope they will make good use of them.

Winston

[Edx]

[really?]

[Edx]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Edx]

[Edx]