Richard Gage Debates a Member of International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ahhh... But you can determine it was a controlled demolition by just looking at it! Pretty interesting statement Ultima.

I can't even believe the irony sometimes.

What is NIST's theory based on? Oh, that's right, "by just looking at it." You know CO. I used to entertain you but have come to the conclusion that you are here for a specific agenda. Call me paranoid what you will.

I'd rather be paranoid and be wrong than be a sheeple and be wrong.

reply to post by Griff



Griff ~ My agenda is to deal with the facts. The irony was that Ultima made a statement that NIST can't determine the cause because of the steel not recovered. right? BUT in the next breath, he will assume it was a CD because of this.

Now...I'm not sure who has been selling you the snake oil, but you always seemed to have kept an open mind to the facts. Your recents posts have been from the land of Thrutherville. Sorry dude.


NIST has not released a final report.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff ~ My agenda is to deal with the facts. The irony was that Ultima made a statement that NIST can't determine the cause because of the steel not recovered. right? BUT in the next breath, he will assume it was a CD because of this.

You think Ultimate suspects the towers were demolitions because NIST didn't have much steel? Have you asked him if this is his actual reasoning? (Try it!)

You're basically making a logical fallacy in order to accuse someone else of making one, because I bet Ultimate has a number of reasons (as a number of us do) for suspecting bombs being planted.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ahhh... But you can determine it was a controlled demolition by just looking at it! Pretty interesting statement Ultima.

What??? where have i ever stated that????

I have stated that something else have to cause the collapse due to the evidence that the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse. Also the fact of molten steel in the debris and the steel kept molten for several weeks.



[edit on 1-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by billybob

 

your entire post in nothing but a rant. Calling the firefighters testimony "propaganda" is pathetic.

Saying the media was involved is a joke.

You have ZERO proof for your entire post and have nothing to back the lies I have pointed out to you.

i'm rubber, you're glue, bounces off of me, and sticks to you.

if we're going kindergarten playground, let's do it in style.

reply to post by billybob


I rest my case... thanks BB

so, if we should accept firefighters' testimony, then we must accept that they CONSISTENTLY reported "secondary explosions".

and we must accept the explosion and collapse in the subbasements of the twin towers.

and we must accept the "blow up" as "blow up" which is NOTHING like "fall down".

however, as it is OBVIOUS that there was a POLAR DIFFERENCE between what some firefighters reported, and what other firefighters reported, that SOME of them are either WRONG or LYING. want to play the numbers game? 'cause i've heard WAY more people say "SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS", than i've heard ANYONE say, "crashing sounds of collapses".

oh yeah, and we must accept that there were no firefighters to "pull" when silverstein said "pull it".

you're it.

reply to post by billybob


ya know, im entirely too tired to totally refute anything you posted here. partially cuz im just that tired and partially cuz i have in other posts, though its possible that those posts are part of the 300 or so that were inadvertantly deleted last year august.

BUT, lemme throw out a few things to consider. you being an open minded person im sure can at least think about these for a second before you dismiss them outright.

can you agree that in a fire explosions do not always equal bombs?

can you agree that someone is more likely to say "sounded like an explosion" than they are "sounded like things collapsing" because the avg person has seen enough movies to understand that an explosion would be really loud? i mean, have you yourself ever heard something loud and then in the retelling described it as "sounding like an explosion"? i have...most people have...its human nature.

even if there were explosions, is it uncommon for things in a fire to explode?

if the explosion in the basement was as willie put it "7 seconds after the sound of the plane hitting" then what kept the buildings standing up if the supports in the basement were gone?

last question ive always wondered is if it was a cd...in the words of marvin the martian "where's the kaboom? there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!" cuz, i happen to have a better than average idea of just how much HE it should take to do that job and man...i just dont see/hear it. not in one single video out there to i see anything on the magnitude it SHOULD require to do that job.

but hey thats just me and my own opinion, ya'll are totally entitled to yer own.

ps, numbers game. i just now read your sig BB and im not sure where they derived their variables for their statistics...but my team used to drill around 10x a year for mock terrorist attacks...so wouldnt that mean theres a 1 in 36.5 chance of an attack and one of our drills happening at the same time?
not exactly betting odds but much more realistic than the figure in your sig

reply to post by Griff


yer paranoid.

sorry, it was there

muahahahaha

someone had to take you up on it. lol its a free pass

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ahhh... But you can determine it was a controlled demolition by just looking at it! Pretty interesting statement Ultima.

What??? where have i ever stated that????

I have stated that something else have to cause the collapse due to the evidence that the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse. Also the fact of molten steel in the debris and the steel kept molten for several weeks.

Ultima, sorry if I put words in your mouth. If you don't think it was a CD... what is your belief? Your post lead me to believe you don't agree with the NIST reports, therfore you seem to think there is a conspiracy.... ? Right?

Also...your statement about molten STEEL in NOT accurate. Again, assuming you have done your research, you know that there was not ANY molten material tested from the GZ site. Therfore to post that it was steel in not accurate.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by billybob
so, if we should accept firefighters' testimony, then we must accept that they CONSISTENTLY reported "secondary explosions".

and we must accept the explosion and collapse in the subbasements of the twin towers.

and we must accept the "blow up" as "blow up" which is NOTHING like "fall down".

however, as it is OBVIOUS that there was a POLAR DIFFERENCE between what some firefighters reported, and what other firefighters reported, that SOME of them are either WRONG or LYING. want to play the numbers game? 'cause i've heard WAY more people say "SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS", than i've heard ANYONE say, "crashing sounds of collapses".

oh yeah, and we must accept that there were no firefighters to "pull" when silverstein said "pull it".

you're it.

Eyewitnees AND physical evidence are used together in an investigation. To piggy back on Dam's post. You do know that explosions do not ALWAYS mean explosives.

Firefighters hearing explosions can translate in to a variety of different reasons. Agreed?

Now, when the firefighters are stating the the building has severe damage, large fires, etc... There is only so much specualtion to this. How severe IS severe? How big ARE the fires? But the bottom line is we know that there were severe fires raging for hours and that there was sigifigant damage to the building. These eyewitness statements have been confirmed by video,photographic, and additional eyewtiness statements. There is not, however any photographic, video, or eyewitness statements that show that explosive devices were used.

The facts are, some firefighters heard explosions. Any firefighter that was near WTC7 saw the flames, saw the damage.

the Silverstein comment I no longer comment on (ok one more time)...if someone needs to use a quote claiming that a multi millionaire is going to "slip up" on a documentary admitting to being involved in the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind.... inlcuding the death of thousands ....You really don't have much.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima, sorry if I put words in your mouth. If you don't think it was a CD... what is your belief? Your post lead me to believe you don't agree with the NIST reports, therfore you seem to think there is a conspiracy.... ? Right?

Also...your statement about molten STEEL in NOT accurate. Again, assuming you have done your research, you know that there was not ANY molten material tested from the GZ site. Therfore to post that it was steel in not accurate.

As stated i am trying to find the truth. The Final NIST reports contridictes all previous reports.

Something besides the planes impacts and fires had to casue the collapse.

There are many witnessesto, also photos and videos that show molten steel at ground zero.




[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

for anyone who doubts the veracity of people's reports of "bombs" and "explosions" on 911, please watch the video, "911, the explosive reality".
it is made up entirely of live footage recorded on september eleventh and the following days.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Once the truth is presented to you... why do you ignore it? Please forward me ANY source you have that shows the molten material that was witnessed at GZ to be that of STEEL. You can NOT. Stop lying.

reply to post by billybob


BB ~

Stop that garbage... no one is denying the existance of explosion sounds throughout the day. Besides those sounds there is ZERO evidence to show the existatnce of explosive devices.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Once the truth is presented to you... why do you ignore it? Please forward me ANY source you have that shows the molten material that was witnessed at GZ to be that of STEEL. .

I will admit to the truth when i am shown the truth. So far i have not seen any truth from the people the believe the official story.

Photos of molten steel in the debris at ground zero.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

I think we can see now who is lying.



[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

you stop that garbage. bounces off of me, and sticks to you.
you're stance that the sounds of explosions are not explosive devices is much weaker than the observation that there were likely devices planted, and used to demo all three towers.
because you can see the flashes going off, you can see the typical 'squibs' of a demo, and the rate of fall leaves little room for potential energy to be used to do all the work done.

and, you OCTs(official conspiracy theorists) claim on one hand that there WERE NO SOUNDS of explosions during the collapse, with jibes like "hushaboom" and whatnot, yet, when there is OVERWHELMING TESTIMONY reporting explosions, you claim that people didn't know what they were hearing, or that it was transformers.









[edit on 2-12-2007 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob


ok bb heres an excersise. figure out how many of the core columns had to be cut to facilitate a collapse.

take taht number times 3.6 and that will give you the HE yeild needed per floor in lbs.

THEN find a national guard unit that has combat engineers and see if they'll let you come watch them do some demo training sometime (tell them you may want to enlist, they love recruiting chances) and watch some real live demo going off. (or anywhere else using HE for some purpose)

ask how much they were using per shot.

see if what you witness with your own eyes jives with what ANY recording device picked up on 911

get back to me.

(3.6 is the absolute minimum required per column using LSC's based on the 'leaked' schematics for columns on the 66th floor. they do of course get bigger as you get lower in the tower but 3.6 is still a pretty good sized boom)

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You do NOT know that it was steel. It was NOT analyzed. PERIOD. Either show your source with analisis or retract your statement...if not... you are lying.

reply to post by billybob


Bb ~

Also please note that the OP was about Richard Gage who posted a video of a controlled demolition with the explosion audi removed from his website.

Again.... Your vidoes show nothing of proof. The flashes? You mean the debris?

The squibs? You mean the air?

Again, garbage... and recycled garbage at that.