Great Richard Gage interview according to JREF

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It's not "emotional" ... I just like pointing out how much of a hypocritical title it is. The truth is the last thing you guys are after.

I know you intend that as a generalization, but I am a "truther". Early on when I began my personal research, I absorbed a lot of my information from unreliable sources and was just as off-base as most of those posting here at ATS. That period lasted only a few months, because I realized I was applying a bias to my research that was just as bad as that used by "OS'ers". So I decided to alter my methodology and focus on generating primary data sources, doing my best to keep my personal bias out of the process by engaging/collaborating with the best and brightest in their respective fields that I could find.

I have stayed away from the WTC controversy for a very good reason. I am NOT a structural engineer. Although I had the mandatory strength of materials class in college, structural engineering, especially when it comes to structures like the WTC complex, is a very specialized field. So, although I have a heavy background in physics and math, I figure my opinion is nothing more than that of a technical layperson when it comes to the WTC.

I find the NIST report in general to be a very reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. However, as a technical layperson, I find the NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC7 laughable. That does not mean I find the demolition theory any more plausible, just that I consider the collapse "unexplained". So I do support the efforts of Gage and his group in seeking an "independent investigation", although I do believe they are locked into their own version of the event.

There are some very serious and capable 911 researchers out there. They continue to move forward to document the events of 9/11 in spite of the damage done to the 911 Truth movement since 2006 by all of the "crazy". Many others however have simply thrown up their hands in disgust and moved on with their lives. For me, my focus was/is the Pentagon event. Some of the layers have been peeled back, but there remains a lot of work to be done. But it is sad that the title "truther" has come to carry such a negative connotation.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Are we actually supposed to believe they got three digits of accuracy on the velocity of those planes.

Now THAT is silly!

psik

You're right.... YOU estimate it and tell me. I will listen to you, silly truther.

I am not trying to estimate it.. I have seen 440 for the north tower and 550 for the south tower. I have not seen 3 digits of precision before. So you explain where you got it.

psik

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It's not "emotional" ... I just like pointing out how much of a hypocritical title it is. The truth is the last thing you guys are after.

I know you intend that as a generalization, but I am a "truther". .......

Yes, John I did. Although you are a self proclaimed truther, I see you more as a 9/11 researcher. If all "truthers" were like you, Gage, Balsamo, Jones, etc would all be out of business. (regarding 9/11 lies they spread)

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I am not trying to estimate it.. I have seen 440 for the north tower and 550 for the south tower. I have not seen 3 digits of precision before. So you explain where you got it.

Its in the report that you refuse to read. Had you taken my advice and read the report you wouldn't be asking the question.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am not trying to estimate it.. I have seen 440 for the north tower and 550 for the south tower. I have not seen 3 digits of precision before. So you explain where you got it.

psik

NIST 6.8.3 Table 6-4 (Page 180)

www.nist.gov...

reply to post by Six Sigma

Yes, the use of asbestos was halted during the construction. The "truther" stated that both buildings were "full." Your comment about Silverstein is ridiculous- period. I have managed many projects in older buildings that have asbestos. Abatement's are quite costly, yes. But I think you should educate yourself on the necessity of it's removal.

What part of my comment about Silverstein was ridiculous?

As far as i know asbestos needs to be removed during any type of construction, repair or remodeling work in the building. Buildings such as the WTC have companies moving in and out of it all the time and every time they remodel the office space. Silverstein was looking at a very large expanse if he wanted to keep it occupied. 9/11 saved him the trouble. The First Responders inhaled some of it for free at ground zero (myself included).

So tell me what is ridiculous about what I said...?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It's not "emotional" ... I just like pointing out how much of a hypocritical title it is. The truth is the last thing you guys are after.

I know you intend that as a generalization, but I am a "truther". .......

Yes, John I did. Although you are a self proclaimed truther, I see you more as a 9/11 researcher. If all "truthers" were like you, Gage, Balsamo, Jones, etc would all be out of business. (regarding 9/11 lies they spread)

If 911files is a 9/11 researcher and i'm a truther, what does that make you?

reply to post by maxella1

As far as i know asbestos needs to be removed during any type of construction, repair or remodeling work in the building.

No, only if its in poor condition and friable. Most of the stuff in the WTC was directly affixed to the steel structure which was never modified for construction.

Buildings such as the WTC have companies moving in and out of it all the time and every time they remodel the office space. Silverstein was looking at a very large expanse if he wanted to keep it occupied. 9/11 saved him the trouble. The First Responders inhaled some of it for free at ground zero (myself included).

Where is everyone getting the idea that the remediation of the ACM in the WTC buildings was the financial responsibilty of the leasee? This is usually not the case.

reply to post by hooper

Where is everyone getting the idea that the remediation of the ACM in the WTC buildings was the financial responsibilty of the leasee? This is usually not the case.

whos responsibility was it ?

Originally posted by maxella1


What part of my comment about Silverstein was ridiculous?

All of it.

I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11.

Please provide with proof... what his motive was. And if you start with the insurance payout crap...you better have some hard numbers to show how he made out on the deal.

So, tell me, wise truther; How do you think Larry approached Bush on getting in on the whole 9/11 inside job??

How did it go?

LS
"Hey George, it's me Larry over at the world trade center. Word on the street is that you're looking to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

GWB

"Yeah, Larry, we are looking into it. You know we have to have another Pearl Harbor to launch the NWO.

LS

" I hear you George. I was hoping you could do me a favor. Can you somehow work it into your plan to destroy the World Trade Center? I mean, I just took out a huge insurance policy and would love to turn a profit on it somehow. Oh, and these God Damn abatement bills are killing me!"

GWB

" No worries Larry, consider it done. I will let you know what day it happens so you don't show up and get yourself killed!"

LS

"Thank you George, I owe you one!"

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am not trying to estimate it.. I have seen 440 for the north tower and 550 for the south tower. I have not seen 3 digits of precision before. So you explain where you got it.

psik

NIST 6.8.3 Table 6-4 (Page 180)

www.nist.gov...

It says 443 +/- 30 and 542 +/- 24

Their error specification is much larger than their least significant digit. Really DUMB!

Yeah, I think I have seen that before but I dismissed it because it is so silly.

psik

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by hooper

 

Where is everyone getting the idea that the remediation of the ACM in the WTC buildings was the financial responsibilty of the leasee? This is usually not the case.

whos responsibility was it ?

Here you go:

vls.law.villanova.edu...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

but I dismissed it because it is so silly.

psik

What a shocker.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by maxella1


What part of my comment about Silverstein was ridiculous?

All of it.

I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11.

Please provide with proof... what his motive was. And if you start with the insurance payout crap...you better have some hard numbers to show how he made out on the deal.

So, tell me, wise truther; How do you think Larry approached Bush on getting in on the whole 9/11 inside job??

How did it go?

LS
"Hey George, it's me Larry over at the world trade center. Word on the street is that you're looking to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

GWB

"Yeah, Larry, we are looking into it. You know we have to have another Pearl Harbor to launch the NWO.

LS

" I hear you George. I was hoping you could do me a favor. Can you somehow work it into your plan to destroy the World Trade Center? I mean, I just took out a huge insurance policy and would love to turn a profit on it somehow. Oh, and these God Damn abatement bills are killing me!"

GWB

" No worries Larry, consider it done. I will let you know what day it happens so you don't show up and get yourself killed!"

LS

"Thank you George, I owe you one!"

Look at you and your crazy imagination...

Originally posted by maxella1



Look at you and your crazy imagination...

Care to answer my question?

reply to post by Six Sigma


I wonder what Larry has to say about the unprecedented powerdown just before 9/11?

What was the reason for it? Conveniently it affected all the security in the towers.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

but I dismissed it because it is so silly.

psik

What a shocker.

Your supplying incomplete data wasn't a shocker..

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Your supplying incomplete data wasn't a shocker..

psik

It was quite appropriate for the discussion we were having regarding using a gun and bullets to simulate the removal of fire protection materials. +/- 24 & 30 is hardly worth mentioning when you are comparing a plane to a bullet. Don't you think?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Your supplying incomplete data wasn't a shocker..

psik

It was quite appropriate for the discussion we were having regarding using a gun and bullets to simulate the removal of fire protection materials. +/- 24 & 30 is hardly worth mentioning when you are comparing a plane to a bullet. Don't you think?

I think your leaving out information was quite appropriate. Just as the shotgun and stupid false precision was appropriate to the idiocy of the NIST. The entire blowing off of fire protection is irrelevant.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I think your leaving out information was quite appropriate. Just as the shotgun and stupid false precision was appropriate to the idiocy of the NIST. The entire blowing off of fire protection is irrelevant.

psik

I didn't leave anything out. When asked for sources, I provided them. Again, for the discussion we were having, it was irrelevant.

I believe some members of NIST agree with you about the "blowing off" part. They feel the layer of fire protection was too thin.