Richard Gage’s “Overwhelming Evidence” of controlled demolition?

baldartist

Scholar
B
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
97
I saw this architect on a video claiming he has ‘overwhelming evidence” of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. What evidence is he claiming? I really don’t think I can stomach going to his website. I notice while there is this fringe group of architects and engineers in the truth movement, I do not see even a small group of demolition experts in the movement. I think one guy who used to own a demo company, and one explosives “loader.”
 
Never heard of him. :)
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of threads dedicated to this fraud.
 
baldartist said:
I saw this architect on a video claiming he has ‘overwhelming evidence” of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. What evidence is he claiming? I really don’t think I can stomach going to his website. I notice while there is this fringe group of architects and engineers in the truth movement, I do not see even a small group of demolition experts in the movement. I think one guy who used to own a demo company, and one explosives “loader.”
Click to expand...

Gage takes in over 500,000 dollars a year, and pays himself up to maybe a little past the 15 percent bracket so the no extra money goes to Uncle Sam as he spreads lies across the world on the dime of dolts who send him money.

Yes, it is true; Gage has a fringe few. With less than 0.1 percent of all engineers on earth, Gage is a minor player. With only 500k/yr, doubt the IRS will look into his tax free status. We need a law that forbids tax free Groups like Gage to spread lies, unless he state it is a religion of woo. He fools idiots like the Boston bombers and others who are gullible for the time being.

Yes, lots of threads dedicated to Gage; is Gage an idiot who believes his BS, or is he smart, making 500k/yr off of idiots; okay, idiots on 911; hopefully most will recover and start thinking for themselves.

If you say Gage three times, it forms a singularity and all rational thinking evaporates faster than free-fall, at temperatures only 911 truth nuts can dream up to melt moly...
 
Last edited:
baldartist said:
I saw this architect on a video claiming he has ‘overwhelming evidence” of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. What evidence is he claiming? I really don’t think I can stomach going to his website. I notice while there is this fringe group of architects and engineers in the truth movement, I do not see even a small group of demolition experts in the movement. I think one guy who used to own a demo company, and one explosives “loader.”
Click to expand...

The loader is a guy who used to work for Controlled Demolition, but who obviously knows nothing about the basics of demolition, even claiming that there are "thermite shape charges", which is obvious nonsense. Other conspiracists even think he's a "cognitive infiltrator": (http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/...911truth-and-tom-sullivan’s-lies-of-omission/)

Such is life amongst the fringies.... :rolleyes:
 
Gage is either a con-man or a moron.

He actually compared the twin towers to cardboard boxes. Since the carboard boxes didn't crumple when dropped on other boxes, then the towers shouldn't have collapsed, or something.

That's like crashing two matchbox cars together, noting their lack of damage, and then concluding anyone involved in a car accident planted a bomb in their engine block to get away with insurance fraud.

This is their leader, guys. This is the **** he comes up with.

Do not circumvent the auto censor. Just type out the word and let it replace it with asterisks)
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to the forum, I'm sure the truthers will be once again dismayed another lurker decided to join the dark side!

ThatOneGuy said:
Gage is either a con-man or a moron.

He actually compared the twin towers to cardboard boxes. Since the carboard boxes didn't crumple when dropped on other boxes, then the towers shouldn't have collapsed, or something.

That's like crashing two matchbox cars together, and then one vanishes into thin air noting their lack of damage, and then concluding anyone involved in a car accident planted a bomb in their engine block to get away with insurance fraud.

This is their leader, guys. This is the **** he comes up with.

Do not circumvent the auto censor. Just type out the word and let it replace it with asterisks)
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
Click to expand...

Sorry just a minor FYP. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwood said:
The loader is a guy who used to work for Controlled Demolition, but who obviously knows nothing about the basics of demolition, even claiming that there are "thermite shape charges", which is obvious nonsense. Other conspiracists even think he's a "cognitive infiltrator": (http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/...911truth-and-tom-sullivan’s-lies-of-omission/)

Such is life amongst the fringies.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Wow, good find from the past, Redwood!

baldartist said:
I saw this architect on a video claiming he has ‘overwhelming evidence” of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. What evidence is he claiming? I really don’t think I can stomach going to his website. I notice while there is this fringe group of architects and engineers in the truth movement, I do not see even a small group of demolition experts in the movement. I think one guy who used to own a demo company, and one explosives “loader.”
Click to expand...
The "guy who used to own a demo company" was the late Danny Jowenko of Veere, The Netherlands (I spent a few hours in Veere a couple of months ago, but as I was there on leisure with friends, not driving myself, and the office of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V. ) is a bit outside of the town, I didn't have a chance to stop by and ask some nosey questions. Danny himself passed away a few years ago (2012?) when he ran his car head-on into a tree.

Richard Gage, AE911Truth and many other truthers love to quote Jowenko from an interview he did with the Dutch investigative TV program "Zemla" about ten years ago, where he opined that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
What they generally don't tell you is that Jowenko had only an, apparently soundless, video clip of the collapse to go by, which indeed looks like CD (but surely doesn't sound like one, as any visitor of the jowenko.com website finds out on the right on the starting page). He didn't know at first that it collapsed only hours after the twins, he had no idea that it was burning, much less what the extent of the fires was, and with each bit of info he learned, his doubts about CD increased. He tried to salvage the idea initially by speculating how a large team could hurry through the building to set charges, but eventially he sighed and exclaimed that he can't explain it.
What they never ever tell you is what the same Danny Jowenko said in the same interview about the twin towers: That he understands perfectly that and how fires can cause a collapse, and why the collapses went all the way to the ground, and that this could not possibly have been an explosive demolition as the collapse obviously started at the burning floors, but explosives could not survive temperatures of 300 °C (572 °F) or more, nor could their detonators. The same argument would of course apply to WTC7.


Otherwise, Gage and AE911Truth cite the following claims as evidence of CD, even though they are not:
  1. Rapid onset of destruction[n],
  2. Constant acceleration[l] at or near free-fall[l] through what should have been the path of greatest resistance[l],
  3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions[n] including 118 FDNY personnel[m],
  4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph[l],
  5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete[l], and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like[m] dust clouds[n],
  6. Isolated explosive[l] ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”[n]
  7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings[n], with 220 floors each an acre in size missing[l] from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
  8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles[l][n],
  9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams[m],
  10. Nanothermite composites[l] and iron microspheres[n] found in WTC dust samples.
[l]: Claim is a lie (it is flat-out false, and Gage has been informed that it is false, yet it remains)
[m]: Claim is misleading (it is literally true or at least not outright false, but the reader is lead to construe this as more significant than it really is)
[n]: Claim, even if it were true, is not actually evidence for CD, as the same observations would be common or expected in normal fires and non-CD building collapses.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Wow, good find from the past, Redwood!


The "guy who used to own a demo company" was the late Danny Jowenko of Veere, The Netherlands (I spent a few hours in Veere a couple of months ago, but as I was there on leisure with friends, not driving myself, and the office of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V. ) is a bit outside of the town, I didn't have a chance to stop by and ask some nosey questions. Danny himself passed away a few years ago (2012?) when he ran his car head-on into a tree.

Richard Gage, AE911Truth and many other truthers love to quote Jowenko from an interview he did with the Dutch investigative TV program "Zemla" about ten years ago, where he opined that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
What they generally don't tell you is that Jowenko had only an, apparently soundless, video clip of the collapse to go by, which indeed looks like CD (but surely doesn't sound like one, as any visitor of the jowenko.com website finds out on the right on the starting page). He didn't know at first that it collapsed only hours after the twins, he had no idea that it was burning, much less what the extent of the fires was, and with each bit of info he learned, his doubts about CD increased. He tried to salvage the idea initially by speculating how a large team could hurry through the building to set charges, but eventially he sighed and exclaimed that he can't explain it.
What they never ever tell you is what the same Danny Jowenko said in the same interview about the twin towers: That he understands perfectly that and how fires can cause a collapse, and why the collapses went all the way to the ground, and that this could not possibly have been an explosive demolition as the collapse obviously started at the burning floors, but explosives could not survive temperatures of 300 °C (572 °F) or more, nor could their detonators. The same argument would of course apply to WTC7.


Otherwise, Gage and AE911Truth cite the following claims as evidence of CD, even though they are not:
  1. Rapid onset of destruction[n],
  2. Constant acceleration[l] at or near free-fall[l] through what should have been the path of greatest resistance[l],
  3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions[n] including 118 FDNY personnel[m],
  4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph[l],
  5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete[l], and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like[m] dust clouds[n],
  6. Isolated explosive[l] ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”[n]
  7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings[n], with 220 floors each an acre in size missing[l] from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
  8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles[l][n],
  9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams[m],
  10. Nanothermite composites[l] and iron microspheres[n] found in WTC dust samples.
[l]: Claim is a lie (it is flat-out false, and Gage has been informed that it is false, yet it remains)
[m]: Claim is misleading (it is literally true or at least not outright false, but the reader is lead to construe this as more significant than it really is)
[n]: Claim, even if it were true, is not actually evidence for CD, as the same observations would be common or expected in normal fires and non-CD building collapses.
Click to expand...

Number 9 should be red Oystein, there was no evidence of thermite on steel at the world trade center.
 
Oystein said:
What they never ever tell you is what the same Danny Jowenko said in the same interview about the twin towers: That he understands perfectly that and how fires can cause a collapse, and why the collapses went all the way to the ground, and that this could not possibly have been an explosive demolition as the collapse obviously started at the burning floors, but explosives could not survive temperatures of 300 °C (572 °F) or more, nor could their detonators.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. Some truthers have admitted that Jowenko claimed that WTC1 and WTC2 couldn't have been controlled demolitions, but responded that Jowenko was an expert in conventional controlled demolitions and hence was able to spot the conventional demolition of WTC7; however, the WTC1 and WTC2 demolitions were unconventional demolitions, so Jowenko didn't realise they must have been demolitions. The sharp-eyed will note that this line of argument doesn't actually address the specific issues Jowenko raised about WTC1 and WTC2, but for the faithful it seems to be enough to deflect the cognitive dissonance arising from the fact - from their viewpoint, at least - that their infallible expert was wrong two times out of three.

Dave
 
Oystein said:
Otherwise, Gage and AE911Truth cite the following claims as evidence of CD, even though they are not:
  1. Rapid onset of destruction[n],
  2. Constant acceleration[l] at or near free-fall[l] through what should have been the path of greatest resistance[l],
  3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions[n] including 118 FDNY personnel[m],
  4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph[l],
  5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete[l], and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like[m] dust clouds[n],
  6. Isolated explosive[l] ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”[n]
  7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings[n], with 220 floors each an acre in size missing[l] from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
  8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles[l][n],
  9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams[m],
  10. Nanothermite composites[l] and iron microspheres[n] found in WTC dust samples.
[l]: Claim is a lie (it is flat-out false, and Gage has been informed that it is false, yet it remains)
[m]: Claim is misleading (it is literally true or at least not outright false, but the reader is lead to construe this as more significant than it really is)
[n]: Claim, even if it were true, is not actually evidence for CD, as the same observations would be common or expected in normal fires and non-CD building collapses.
Click to expand...
Neat summary Oystein. And thanks for the restating in summary of the true Jowenko opinions.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Number 9 should be red Oystein, there was no evidence of thermite on steel at the world trade center.
Click to expand...

On second thought, I concur. What they refer to is the corrosion by intergranular sulfidation that Biederman, Barnett and Sasson described on two pieces of steel. I was thinking that perhaps this might be consistent with a thermAte attack (because sulfur), but of course it is inconsistent with their actual claim, thermIte.

I erred on the careful side, and may have erred similarly elsewhere and could have gone for the harsher juddgement. Examples: The "pyroclastic-like dust clouds" might well be a lie, not just misleading; many of the "eyewitness accounts of explosions" are presented in a misleading way, not just non-evidence in the CD-case.

Plus, I could have added the [n]-label ("not evidence for CD even if it were true") to almost all instances of false or misleading claims, but left them away as not to overload the formatting.
 
ThatOneGuy said:
Gage is either a con-man or a moron.

He actually compared the twin towers to cardboard boxes. Since the carboard boxes didn't crumple when dropped on other boxes, then the towers shouldn't have collapsed, or something.

That's like crashing two matchbox cars together, noting their lack of damage, and then concluding anyone involved in a car accident planted a bomb in their engine block to get away with insurance fraud.

This is their leader, guys. This is the **** he comes up with.

Do not circumvent the auto censor. Just type out the word and let it replace it with asterisks)
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
Click to expand...

Lol. Yes I saw that. That was Gage? What an idiot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
baldartist said:
... I notice while there is this fringe group of architects and engineers in the truth movement, ...
Click to expand...

A few notes on the 2400+ "architects and engineers" that they present under theit petition:
  • Check out the thread "When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?", where I frequently post recent developments on the group, such as statistics on new signatures, Facebook likes, changes in leadership or noteworthy activities and developments
  • The 2400+ A&E are not all American, only 1800+ are, while close to 580 are from the rest of the world. Among the 1800+ Americans, only about 800 are licensed by any US states to practice architecture or engineering; which is a necessity for civil and structural engineers. In fact, only perhaps 250 are licensed civil or structural engineers in the USA. The other 1100+ engineers hail from other disciplines such as electrical, mechanical, chemical engineering, even landscape or software engineering - these are not building professionals
  • These numbers represent only about 0.05% of the licensed engineers in the USA - much much less in other English-speaking countries (Canada, UK, Australia leading other foreign nations), and an unmeasurably tiny percentage of the engineers in all the rest of the world
  • By and large, however, the list is "real" though. AE911T puts some effort into verifying that the signatories actually have the claimed credentials as architects or engineers (college degrees and licenses), so I would wager that >90% of them, and perhaps close to 100%, really are what they claim and they really doubted the "fires and plane crashes alone caused all collaoses" narrative, at least at the time they signed.
  • Most of the signatures are old though! Half the signatures came in during the first three years of AE911T's petition's existence (May 2007 to July 2010), the second half took more than five years. In 2015, they so far added under 90 new A&E signatures and have thus an annual growth rate of under 4%. This means there is absolutely no organic growth - their A&E-"members" are not winning new disciples by word of mouth - their slow growth is equivalent to each existing member proselytizing a new member once every 26 years!
  • Almost all of the A&E signatories do nothing for or within the organization - they don't write articles, they contribute no research, they don't speak in public. Almost all of AE911T's website articles for example are written by non-A&E. Even their latest, glossy booklet ("Beyond Misinformation") that summarizes their evidence has a lawyer (Ted Walter) as lead author, a carpenter (Chris Sarns) as technical editor, and two journalists (Craig McKee and Andrew Steele) and the same carpenter again as contributing writers.

In short: The 2400+ look like an impressive number, but at close scrutiny, many qualifications apply, and you are right to say that they are only a fringe among their professional peers.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
A few notes on the 2400+ "architects and engineers" that they present under theit petition:
  • Check out the thread "When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?", where I frequently post recent developments on the group, such as statistics on new signatures, Facebook likes, changes in leadership or noteworthy activities and developments
  • The 2400+ A&E are not all American, only 1800+ are, while close to 580 are from the rest of the world. Among the 1800+ Americans, only about 800 are licensed by any US states to practice architecture or engineering; which is a necessity for civil and structural engineers. In fact, only perhaps 250 are licensed civil or structural engineers in the USA. The other 1100+ engineers hail from other disciplines such as electrical, mechanical, chemical engineering, even landscape or software engineering - these are not building professionals
  • These numbers represent only about 0.05% of the licensed engineers in the USA - much much less in other English-speaking countries (Canada, UK, Australia leading other foreign nations), and an unmeasurably tiny percentage of the engineers in all the rest of the world
  • By and large, however, the list is "real" though. AE911T puts some effort into verifying that the signatories actually have the claimed credentials as architects or engineers (college degrees and licenses), so I would wager that >90% of them, and perhaps close to 100%, really are what they claim and they really doubted the "fires and plane crashes alone caused all collaoses" narrative, at least at the time they signed.
  • Most of the signatures are old though! Half the signatures came in during the first three years of AE911T's petition's existence (May 2007 to July 2010), the second half took more than five years. In 2015, they so far added under 90 new A&E signatures and have thus an annual growth rate of under 4%. This means there is absolutely no organic growth - their A&E-"members" are not winning new disciples by word of mouth - their slow growth is equivalent to each existing member proselytizing a new member once every 26 years!
  • Almost all of the A&E signatories do nothing for or within the organization - they don't write articles, they contribute no research, they don't speak in public. Almost all of AE911T's website articles for example are written by non-A&E. Even their latest, glossy booklet ("Beyond Misinformation") that summarizes their evidence has a lawyer (Ted Walter) as lead author, a carpenter (Chris Sarns) as technical editor, and two journalists (Craig McKee and Andrew Steele) and the same carpenter again as contributing writers.

In short: The 2400+ look like an impressive number, but at close scrutiny, many qualifications apply, and you are right to say that they are only a fringe among their professional peers.
Click to expand...

This is a very compelling point. The same quality of experts are co authors of the NT paper. This is very bizarre because they trade on the notion that they are experts and professionals etc... but their "output" is essentially done by self appointed experts who do little more than writing of marketing brochures aimed at a technically challenged audience.

The more vexing are those who do have some science background, engineering experience and who work in construction... have gone along with their nonsense.

There is also a segment of intelligent educated people who simply fall for their appeals to authority and blindly accept the AE experts are honest intelligent brokers who have studied the event in detail. Prof. Lynn Margulis is a stellar example of a smart idiot! But she is not alone.
 
One of the most interesting thing about the truth movement is the presence of intelligent people who accept of promote the CT point of view. Is this some sort of blinding because of political views? Is it simply a lack of technical expertise? Is it built on distrust of official "anything"? Why don't more truthers examine the technical arguments which undermine CD or the notion of a huge false flag conspiracy? How can a government which can win a war despite several tries over the past half century pull off a precision hoax and get away with it and no one blows a whistle on it... no rehearsals... involving thousands of actors/participants?

This sort of thing baffles me.
 
The misrepresentation by the gatekeepers never stops.

Oystein said:
”..Richard Gage, AE911Truth and many other truthers love to quote Jowenko from an interview he did with the Dutch investigative TV program "Zemla" about ten years ago, where he opined that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

What they generally don't tell you is that Jowenko had only an, apparently soundless, video clip of the collapse to go by, which indeed looks like CD…”
Click to expand...

And what Oystein is not going to talk about is, that in an interview given months later, Mr. Jowenko said that he looked into the available information about WTC7. When asked if he still stood by his professional opinion that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by a controlled demolition (CD), he unequivocally responded that it most definitely was.

Oystein said:
”..He didn't know at first that it collapsed only hours after the twins, he had no idea that it was burning, much less what the extent of the fires was, and with each bit of info he learned, his doubts about CD increased.”
Click to expand...

Even after Mr. Jowenko’s untimely and mysterious death (R.I.P.), Oystein fails to show respect for the truth.

Please quote a statement by Mr. Jowenko from that interview that provides any support for your claim that Mr. Jowenko increasingly doubted that WTC7 collapsed from CD as he learned more.

Oystein said:
”..He tried to salvage the idea initially by speculating how a large team could hurry through the building to set charges, but eventially he sighed and exclaimed that he can't explain it..”
Click to expand...

What Oystein is not telling is that what Mr. Jowenko could not explain was how WTC7 could have been rigged for CD in a single day, 9/11. In the brief period that he gave his interview, Mr. Jowenko did not have the time to fully appreciate the significance of an impossible ‘same day’ CD rigging.

Either it had not yet occurred to him, or, he was afraid to immediately voice what became all too obvious, the CD preparations must have occurred prior to 9/11. If the building was not rigged on 9/11 as a response to the major hazard it posed, than it must have been rigged in anticipation of 9/11, and was therefore an intentional part of the 9/11 plot.

Oystein said:
”..What they *never ever tell you is what the same Danny Jowenko said in the same interview about the twin towers:…”
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
”*That's not quite true. Some truthers have admitted that Jowenko claimed that WTC1 and WTC2 couldn't have been controlled demolitions, but responded that Jowenko was an expert in conventional controlled demolitions and hence was able to spot the conventional demolition of WTC7; however, the WTC1 and WTC2 demolitions were unconventional demolitions, so Jowenko didn't realise they must have been demolitions. ..”
Click to expand...

I won’t bother quoting Oystein’s paraphrasing of Mr. Jowenko’s acceptance that the twin towers were not a controlled demolition.

Oystein’s “never ever” is more reason why anything he writes has to be sifted through very carefully to find the truth.

Anyone watching that part of the interview knows that it is true that Mr. Jowenko accepted the premise that the WTC Twin towers were felled as a result of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

It is very important to note that he gave that opinion prior to becoming aware of WTC7.

Following his assessment that WTC7 was unquestionably a CD, Mr. Jowenko was never publicly asked about his earlier contradictory opinion about the twin towers. A single car collision with a tree made it certain that he never would.
 
Criteria said:
Please quote ...
Click to expand...

You've got some nerve, daring to ask me something, after the dozens of times you ran away from my question! :)

You have a LOT to answer, explain, retract and admit before you have earned the right to ask a question yourself! :)
 
Criteria said:
The misrepresentation by the gatekeepers never stops.

Please quote a statement by Mr. Jowenko from that interview that provides any support for your claim that Mr. Jowenko increasingly doubted that WTC7 collapsed from CD as he learned more.
Click to expand...
Oystein said:
”..He didn't know at first that it collapsed only hours after the twins, he had no idea that it was burning, much less what the extent of the fires was, and with each bit of info he learned, his doubts about CD increased.”
Click to expand...
Oystein said:
You've got some nerve, daring to ask me something, after the dozens of times you ran away from my question! :)

You have a LOT to answer, explain, retract and admit before you have earned the right to ask a question yourself! :)
Click to expand...

In other words Mr. Jowenko said nothing to substantiate your claim that; "with each bit of info he learned, his doubts about CD increased.”

As too often happens, you were playing fast and loose with the truth.

Why would/should I respond to questions from individuals who hold such little regard for honesty?
 
Just curious here: Do the proponents of the "controlled demolition" claim explain how much explosive material would be needed to drop two of the biggest buildings on earth, where it came from, how it was delivered and placed throughout the buildings undetected, how much time that would take and how many technicians would be required, how it was detonated, etc., etc.? These conspiracy theorists get as far as "It must have been a bomb!," but I've never seen any description of the nuts-and-bolts (alleged) details.
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious here: Do the proponents of the "controlled demolition" claim explain how much explosive material would be needed to drop two of the biggest buildings on earth, where it came from, how it was delivered and placed throughout the buildings undetected, how much time that would take and how many technicians would be required, how it was detonated, etc., etc.? These conspiracy theorists get as far as "It must have been a bomb!," but I've never seen any description of the nuts-and-bolts (alleged) details.
Click to expand...

Google "attack scenario 404" for an attempt. Elsewhere on the same website there's an estimate of the amount of explosives required, so you may find it amusing to work out how long it took the three technicians to install each 40 pound charge in the four weeks they took to install them; I came up with 10 seconds per charge, assuming they don't sleep. And I defy you to read the section on the Pentagon crash, involved a Boeing 757 crashing in such a way as not to look like a Boeing 757 crash simply so that 9/11 truthers will look stupid, without your jaw dropping about a foot.

Dave
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious here: Do the proponents of the "controlled demolition" claim explain how much explosive material would be needed to drop two of the biggest buildings on earth, where it came from, how it was delivered and placed throughout the buildings undetected, how much time that would take and how many technicians would be required, how it was detonated, etc., etc.? These conspiracy theorists get as far as "It must have been a bomb!," but I've never seen any description of the nuts-and-bolts (alleged) details.
Click to expand...
AFAIK there has never been a serious attempt by truthers to address the logistic and security aspects of CD at either Twin tower or WTC7. They simply contend that charges could have been placed under the guise of maintenance works or after hours - or similar simplistic claims having no regard to the logistic scale of such work. And completely ignoring that there was zero evidence of CD post the event.

Some rebuttal work is on record. I did attempt some ball parking of the logistic effort of placement but I don't have records of my findings (I am military engineer trained and I ignored the security aspect - focussed only on placing charges without concern for discovery.)

The available visual evidence of the Twin Towers collapses is sufficient to support conclusions that - in reverse sequence:
The collapse progression stage conclusively did not require CD assistance; AND
The collapse initiation stage highly probably did not require CD assistance.

Both those conclusions can be validly reached by qualified analysis. (i.e. not quantified in the normal sense. The energy levels are so overwhelming that ball park guesstimates are good enough.)

Both those statements have been the basis of my own explanations since Nov 2007 when I first entered into Internet Forum debate.

A wide range of quantified analysis confirms similar conclusions despite a period of years when the understanding of both mechanisms was vague or confused.

The "collapse initiation" stage for both of the "Twins" was primarily a cascade (sequenced) failure of columns in axial compression with heat as the trigger. It has to be explained in 3D and I doubt there could ever be a fully detailed proof. (That statement contentious - some will disagree - many persons satisfied with 1D approximations.) However I rely on the logistic impossibly of placing charges to assist the collapse initiation stage. On two occasions about 5-6 years back I collaborated with two different truthers in an effort to assist them construct a pro CD hypothesis. Both aborted when we reached the stage where continuing required fire suited suicide teams working in the impact and fire zone to place charges of fireproof explosives whilst the fires raged,. Reductio ad bleeding ridiculous I called that process.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Just curious here: Do the proponents of the "controlled demolition" claim explain how much explosive material would be needed to drop two of the biggest buildings on earth, where it came from, how it was delivered and placed throughout the buildings undetected, how much time that would take and how many technicians would be required, how it was detonated, etc., etc.? These conspiracy theorists get as far as "It must have been a bomb!," but I've never seen any description of the nuts-and-bolts (alleged) details.
Click to expand...

They tend to handwave about "nano-thermite", which they seem to think would have all the cutting power of thermite with all the speed of a bomb. Also, it somehow lacks the barotrauma of explosives and the bright lights of thermite.

They might as well call the stuff "unobtanium".

A related example of goalpost moving is how Truthers focus on how WTC 7 was bought down by fire, even though they haven't proved that the Twin Towers were a CD. When asked how the bad guys managed to aim the collapses at WTC 7 so precisely without harming the charges, they clam up.
 
000063 said:
They tend to handwave about "nano-thermite", which they seem to think would have all the cutting power of thermite with all the speed of a bomb. Also, it somehow lacks the barotrauma of explosives and the bright lights of thermite.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple, really. At first they said it was explosives because of the need for precise timing. When it was pointed out that explosives go Bang!, some of them switched to thermite because it doesn't go Bang! while others just pretended that the Bang!s heard at the wrong time were actually at the right time. Then it was pointed out that there's no known way to cut steel columns with thermite, and that thermite wouldn't give precise enough timing, so some of them switched to nanothermite because it's somewhere in between thermite and explosives, and they thought that the explosives bit of it would cut the columns with precise timing while the thermite bit of it would handle the not going Bang! side. When it was pointed out that in fact nanothermite would still go Bang! but wouldn't cut the columns, they decided to talk about the NIST WTC7 report instead, because... actually, at that point I tend to lose track.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's quite simple, really. At first they said it was explosives because of the need for precise timing. When it was pointed out that explosives go Bang!, some of them switched to thermite because it doesn't go Bang! while others just pretended that the Bang!s heard at the wrong time were actually at the right time. Then it was pointed out that there's no known way to cut steel columns with thermite, and that thermite wouldn't give precise enough timing, so some of them switched to nanothermite because it's somewhere in between thermite and explosives, and they thought that the explosives bit of it would cut the columns with precise timing while the thermite bit of it would handle the not going Bang! side. When it was pointed out that in fact nanothermite would still go Bang! but wouldn't cut the columns, they decided to talk about the NIST WTC7 report instead, because... actually, at that point I tend to lose track.
Dave
Click to expand...
No need to lose track. They had lost the battle to claim CD at the Twin Towers but in doing that they had taught debunkers to accept reversed burden of proof. Debunkers liked that idea because they got to show off how clever they were with physics. BUT truthers could not win CD at the Twins because there was to much visible evidence of "No CD". Wasn't needed - a "cascading" failure leading directly into ROOSD. No need for explosives or thermXte.

THEN the WTC 7 report - most of the evidence hidden inside the building (No funny comments about "inside job" please. That is not the sort of "inside job" they complain about.)

So WTC 7 had the evidence mostly hidden AND debunkers salivating to prove no CD.

And a fruitful strategy for ever circling debate it has been.....
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
It's quite simple, really. At first they said it was explosives because of the need for precise timing. When it was pointed out that explosives go Bang!, some of them switched to thermite because it doesn't go Bang! while others just pretended that the Bang!s heard at the wrong time were actually at the right time. Then it was pointed out that there's no known way to cut steel columns with thermite, and that thermite wouldn't give precise enough timing, so some of them switched to nanothermite because it's somewhere in between thermite and explosives, and they thought that the explosives bit of it would cut the columns with precise timing while the thermite bit of it would handle the not going Bang! side. When it was pointed out that in fact nanothermite would still go Bang! but wouldn't cut the columns, they decided to talk about the NIST WTC7 report instead, because... actually, at that point I tend to lose track.

Dave
Click to expand...

... because after failing to come up with any plausible CD hypothesis, much less one supported by any evidence, the "game plan" is now to discredit the NIST report, accuse NIST of deliberate deceit (very important), and then use the "logic" that NIST must be covering up something to hook a few more gullible fools into the "movement." Regardless of how successful the "game plan" is, the problem is that they will end up with a "movement" full of gullible fools, and everyone else will know it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's quite simple, really. At first they said it was explosives because of the need for precise timing. When it was pointed out that explosives go Bang!, some of them switched to thermite because it doesn't go Bang! while others just pretended that the Bang!s heard at the wrong time were actually at the right time. Then it was pointed out that there's no known way to cut steel columns with thermite, and that thermite wouldn't give precise enough timing, so some of them switched to nanothermite because it's somewhere in between thermite and explosives, and they thought that the explosives bit of it would cut the columns with precise timing while the thermite bit of it would handle the not going Bang! side. When it was pointed out that in fact nanothermite would still go Bang! but wouldn't cut the columns, they decided to talk about the NIST WTC7 report instead, because... actually, at that point I tend to lose track.

Dave
Click to expand...

Your wrong Dave, first Jones proposed( RDX cutter charges,) then he proposed( thermite,)
when he was told RDX would cook off in the fires without exploding.
Then he proposed thermate with sulfur, to explain the material dripping from the towers at lower temperatures than steel would. He thought the material was Iron sulfate, and that the sulfidication on the steel in world trade 7 was proof.
Then after he lost the first micro spheres debate to Dr Greening in a personal email exchange, he went to the red grey paint chips as nano thermite.
He then admitted to Dr. Greening that the chips were in themselves only good for contact heated low temperature ignition thermite matches to ignite explosives like RDX.
Complete Circle of stupidity.
 
WilliamSeger said:
... because after failing to come up with any plausible CD hypothesis, much less one supported by any evidence, the "game plan" is now to discredit the NIST report, accuse NIST of deliberate deceit (very important), and then use the "logic" that NIST must be covering up something to hook a few more gullible fools into the "movement." Regardless of how successful the "game plan" is, the problem is that they will end up with a "movement" full of gullible fools, and everyone else will know it.
Click to expand...

The game plan seems to be prove NIST was wrong (about a detail) = must have been CD.

A bit of Underpants Gnome logic to be sure.
 
DGM said:
It's all they got left (not that they had anything to start with).
Click to expand...

You know full well, they had Dylan Avery to begin with, and loose change, now they,
Have Gage and company taking their cash.
You can't blame Gage for taking candy from the babies of the truth movement,
It is just to easy to hood wink truthers.
 
Mark F said:
The game plan seems to be prove NIST was wrong (about a detail) = must have been CD.

A bit of Underpants Gnome logic to be sure.
Click to expand...
Yes. EXCEPT


prove NIST was wrong (about a detail) = must have been CD.
That has to be a very big = I has to cover the multiple quantum leaps gap of missing argument.
 
DGM said:
It's all they got left (not that they had anything to start with).
Click to expand...
It is as good a ploy as any to spin out the R Gage income strategy.

It is nothing more than a focused version of "Blame 'the man'" which is the basis of most CT's anyway. "I cannot work it out - cannot be my problem that I cannot think - so someone must be to blame - government is a safe target >> inside job."

The psychology is simple. And I do not make it a global claim. But how many "truthers" ever demonstrate ability at clear reasoned thinking?

Thought so. ;)

Why do they reverse burden of proof? It is a back handed compliment - they know that some of us debunkers can think.
 
ozeco41 said:
Yes. EXCEPT

prove NIST was wrong (about a detail) = must have been CD.
That has to be a very big = I has to cover the multiple quantum leaps gap of missing argument.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the adult-themed cartoon TV show "South Park" airs on the underside of the world so for those on the wrong side of the equator or who just didn't get the Underpants Gnomes reference,...

South Park centers around the various activities of a number of grade-school age children. In the second season of South Park an episode aired in which Underpants Gnomes would sneak into one of the characters bedrooms at night and steal his underpants. The children find the Underpants Gnomes who explain why they steal underpants.

You see, the gnomes claim to be business experts and explain their 3-Phase business plan, which is laid out in the following slide:

Gnomes_plan.png


When pressed to explain the plan in greater detail they just keep mindlessly repeating "Phase 1: Steal underpants, Phase 3: Make money"

There is a parallel here with,... :boxedin:
 
Last edited:
South Park airs in Oz, but upside down. Not fun to watch.
Also gets the business plan arse about:

Profit - ? - Collect underpants

(Which almost makes sense, though not logically)
 
Oystein said:
South Park airs in Oz, but upside down. Not fun to watch.
Also gets the business plan arse about:

Profit - ? - Collect underpants

(Which almost makes sense, though not logically)
Click to expand...
There are advantages and disadvantages of living on the bottom half of the world.

The main advantage arises from the hydraulic benefit of blood moving to the brain under increased pressure. Same effect as turbocharging a car engine - more "fuel" - explains why most of my posts are of higher quality.

The main disadvantage is having to wear the Velcro shoes so you don't fall off.

In the interest of fair play I've started a political initiative to correct the world map - put us back on equal terms with you northeners.

This is stage one:
upover3.jpg
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
There are advantages and disadvantages of living on the bottom half of the world.

The main advantage arises from the hydraulic benefit of blood moving to the brain under increased pressure. Same effect as turbocharging a car engine - more "fuel" - explains why most of my posts are of higher quality.

The main disadvantage is having to wear the Velcro shoes so you don't fall off.

In the interest of fair play I've started a political initiative to correct the world map - put us back on equal terms with you northeners.

This is stage one:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/upover3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Lemme guess, is Stage 3 "Profit"?
 
Mark F said:
Lemme guess, is Stage 3 "Profit"?
Click to expand...
There will be many opportunities selling maps that are the right way up.

Might need to identify a couple more countries.. F'rinstance the jerrys and the poms could get lost if we don't show them the way home.

Might have to produce a PC version for those with no sense of humour.

and spelin should be standardised - our way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom