Richard Gage challenge for so called 911 Truth "debunkers"--We all know who they are..

He probably has a life.

agreed

and theres always...

Thread: whatever you do, do not read this post

I know the bans come very easy here. That would be my guess.

You're right, I do....so let's see has anyone discredited or "debunked" even one sentence of the article which I have sited?
No...it looks like they did not.
I see G House came snarking back in the back door babbling about very minor points from the article I posted....Oh well...par for the course. Clearly Building seven was a demolition job...whether they used thermate/thermite or someother high tech device is entirely irrelevant.
It is completely beyond debate that "fires" and "building damage" did not bring this building crumbling into dust, while incinerating the entire contents of its 50 floors in less than 30 seconds.
He is still thoroughly "owned" as usual since he cannot debate the material he claims to have "debunked".

This is just too funny for words....
Ah the power of the "edit your post" click...
But we aren't talking about that are we?

Of course the buildings WERE also attacked...no one is refuting that...
However, the designers have stated that these buildings were created to sustain the impacts of NUMEROUS such planes including their fuel loads.
The damage they sustained was by no means "extensive".
I will look for material from the AE911TRUTH.ORG site to back up this claim...
In the meantime, thanks for bringing up this point.

Ok point taken.

Can't resist being a troll can you?

Or distorting events.

SOMEONE ELSE brought up thermite, I just responded to it.

Are you so friggen clueless that you think a rational SANE person doesn't recognize your shill tricks?

I'm not responding to your Troll Thread theme because of the following.

EVERY point brought up by so-called 911 truthers has been thoroughly debunked. SHR summed up the situation regarding your efforts quite well. There is really no need to rehash all this stuff once again.

Why don't you just go in a corner and babble to yourself about what you believe.

I beg to differ. It was not ME who had their ass delivered collect.
What do other people think?
Please reply....

Poor little House...has no ground to stand on and so resorts to ad hominiem and character smearing...
Pathetic.
Where's your "debate" house?
I have never seen any of the points brought up in this article debunked or even debated here...
I have seen no explanation for the incredibly high temperatures recorded at this site.
Nor have I found a plausible explanation for the straight down configuration of the collapse.
No one has ever explained how literally acres of office contents can disappear in a matter of seconds without high tech explosives.

NWO BushCo WHORE is who you are.

Please go to the linked article about building seven and view the video of the collapse...then read this excerpt.
Fire or damage to the building cannot explain how all of these massive support columns would fail at once.


The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of explosives would violate the principle of least resistance. Local fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in any given location) and structural damage here and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail at the same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition is also suggested by the drop of the center of the skyscraper moments before the surrounding structures started to fall, as well as by the fact that the outer walls were pulled inwards. In a controlled demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying the weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior walls inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with fires was reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have undergone a traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom floor. An emergency worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 was interviewed on 9/11. He described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the [rest of] the building followed after that". The videos showing the collapse support his description.

Pretty well sums it all up.

No need for further discussion.

Give it up.

September 16, 2001

Thermal imaging show hot spots of up to 900 Kelvin (1,160 Fahrenheit)

[link to pubs.usgs.gov]

You seem to take this debate quite personally and also take it out on people personally.

It's common courtesy to leave a debate within a thread.

And you have not brought in any new arguments worth responding to other than emotionally raping anyone who agrees that something is amiss.

--"EVERY point brought up by so-called 911 truthers has been thoroughly debunked."
You do need to present something here to back up the statement. And since you've covered every point I would be interested in seeing the report.

--"There is really no need to rehash all this stuff once again."

Yes there is. Without it there is no argument but somebody blowing hot air. Because you believe you are right does not mean you are exempt from providing evidence.

I didn't start this, fieldolight did.

Please go to the linked thread where Gage is thoroughly debunked...

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

what is happening is you're getting called to provide proof.. and bickering like jr. high kids. the stupidity that keeps reoccurring and getting everyone so flustered, imo, is this:

someone posts some link to somewhere that may or may not be credible. they then state whatever topic is "debunked" and that's it. closed story. i'm finding it rare in my fairly limited time here that people actually have a genuine debate and go over the points presented in a methodical manner. they just do the "see? i'm right. you idiot/fuckhole/asshole/moron/shill/zionist/etc" ... it's all so very... weak, really.

i'm not trying to personally attack ya, house, but a couple links to some of these threads you've debunked stuff on would go a long way. if you've done the debunking so thoroughly then let us have some old threads that have all your points laid out. the namecalling and requirement that everyone else do the searching is pretty lame... at least when you take into account that here you are, arguing your points without at least referencing your previous posts. if fieldoflight is going to ignore them time and again then ignore their thread. is it necessary to be an incessant prick? i mean this prophect elijah dude just irritates to no end but i don't even expend the energy anymore. shrug.

personally, i'd like to see ONE genuine ongoing thread where discussion is actually taking place rather than douchebag A calling douchebag B some random name and then vice versa while they BOTH have at -best- semi-valid points or evidence.

and please, folks.. this whole "everybody knows it" argument i keep seeing repeated... stfu... just... please, you're hurting those who actually try for logical truth. just... stop.

The logical truth of the matter is to see who stood to benefit from such an attack, what kind of u.s. policies, spending and wars were initiated because of this attack? Arguing technicalities about whether the buildings were demolished or attacked is irrelevant. The fact is the governments of the world colluded under the u.s. false flag attack, in order to engage in the war on terrorism. It is an omnipresent war that affects anyone who does not support their states politics. This in itself is motivation enough for our government to attack its own people. This is obvious in the information given to the public, 7 years later your still discussing shoddy half ass information that is neither here nor there. I do agree that children should limit their responses in these threads because these are not issues for the mind of a child. Realistically, none of the information presented here in this forum is processed, useful, or reliable. It is subjective and biased based on the limited information of the presenter. To elaborate on Stan P.'s words, Ignorance is based on beliefs.

Links were posted, the material from the links posted, the material explained ad infinitum, over and over and over again.

We can't help it if you people are dumb as rocks.

It' pointless to keep repeating it.

However go ahead and keep telling all the lies, total fabrications and extremely bad science you wish. That's what you do.

Molten metal, as well as structural steel which is Iron was the result of an exothermic steam reaction due to the constant deluging of water onto a smoldering ruble pile...for weeks, I know I saw the water cannon when I was there weeks after. The "Metal" in that ruble pile consisted of more than just steel, more than just metal too and was far from homogeneous. Copper, zink, aluminum, magnesium, all were present and many other metals as well as sulfur and polymers, and tons of other combustibles all interacting in a chemical reaction known as burning, for a long time, it could have melted damn near any alloy and it in fact did.

The path of least resistance is down, little force known as gravity is the cause of that. A large modern skyscraper is roughly 90% air, it's not a tree, a tree is solid, they don't tip over unless they are specifically demo'd to tip over, ie remove support from the bottom and create that circumstance, the WTC collapse occurred from virtually the top down so the fell straight down as the force required to tip them over in any way shape or form would have had to be lateral and massive, it wasn't there of course, gravity was the only force present or required.

The resulting debris field being of a seemingly less volume than anyone who doesn't know better is the result of the building being roughly 90% nothingness in volume.

The steel support columns in the WTC while very thick at the base tapered to approximately 1/4 in thickness near the top because they were required to to meet the buildings engineering. So they were not so massive as most believe at all near the upper stories.

All the floors were made from "lightweight" concrete and not standard and or reinforced concrete also as many would prefer to believe. The main aggregate in lightweight concrete is pumis and is far more easily pulverized than standard concrete, hence the large dust cloud.

There was never ever been any traces of explosives or nuclear mini bombs ever found ever. The trace elements that were found for such compounds as thermite/mate were mostly sulfur and many internal sources known to be in the WTC complex can account for their presence.

I could go on and on and on, post all the figures and calculations for everything I said.....again, but it never ever matters.

All the theoretical collapse circumstances from controlled cutter squib charges to Dr Judy's disintergrator beams are disinformation and red herring style endless chase a fantasy programs that have been allowed to be propagated to keep researchers from discovering any real illegal acts concerning the 911 tragedy and the cover up there of.

It's why anyone with any real integrity doesn't pay attention to them to any longer. It's also why in almost 7 years every single last one of the so called theories has gone nowhere, is easily refuted with actual science and only the most easily dupable dolts, mentally unbalanced and or people using the attack of 911 for personal or professional gain propagate or believe them any longer.

Last time I'm going to play there is no tooth fairy son while I hear "YES THERE IS! HE GAVE ME A QUARTER!" Moving on to the actual real world of deliberate intelligence and or gross incompetence and why we hardly know shit about why the worst terrorist attack on American soil actually happened. You guys keep playing with your invisible friends.

it really sums it up... I see lot of arguments and links to support
your fantasies... NOT!

yes, it sums up how some people are imaginable retarded...

you two have IQ smaller than my penis...

funny how you still ignore WTC7...

omg! DEBATE!!

*falls to ground* thank jebus!

true thanks for posting something worth reading... i was beginning to wonder...

gimme a few and i'll read through this.

Debunkers are shills for the New World Order. In previous life most likely approved of the POW camps that the Japanese ran during WWII. Humanity. Who cares about humanity.

it's pretty obvious you don't care (for) what anybody that disagrees with you thinks... yet here you are.



ok: if you were only trying to prove something to FoL i would understand... there are others here watching you make a ridiculous ass of yourself flippin' insults like fast food burger patties.



like i said: you're an unfounded fuckin' prick to plenty of people. if you think you deserve any respect do the work yourself and prove you have ANYthing of value to add.



so very old, and presented in such a scientific and eloquent way that nobody is willing to move an inch for you--even yourself.



you keep saying i'm following you. seriously. GET OVER YOURSELF. ffs SHR pretty much nailed this one on another thread when he said certain topics will get reoccurring posters. if you don't want a response when you start running your mouth then make sure something worthwhile is spilling from it, eh?

Those Japanese were better off from a safety standpoint. If things had not gone well for the US, those people would have been targets for the general population. They were not treated badly.

The one thing I do have a problem with is that they were not compensated for property, money, etc. that they lost because of this. That wasn't right.

You are living in a much different time than they were. It was total war. Of course it is easy to second guess these descisions today.

The major reasons for doing it was:

Eliminating the infiltration of enemy spies (you couldn't hide as a naturalized or alien Japanese person).

These peoples safety from a standpoint of an enraged public.

Oops, I didn't read your statement correctly, I thought you were talking about the camps we kept West Coast Japanese civilians in.

Yeah boy!!!

I LOVED all those Japanese run POW camps!!!



























:weneedadouchebagemoticon:

WTC7 was a controlled demo.
The only possible damage that could have occurred to that building is roof damage.
That building collapsed from the ground up, free falling all the way down into its own footprint, with the roof and upper floors completly intact.

Don't feel bad though Ghouse. You aren't the only one fooled by them.

i'm certainly no chemist/physicist or authority on the matter but this done sound quite reasonable.



on this particular point most find trouble with the speed at which it fell. it would seem to me that if gravity were truly the defining force in the way the towers fell... and 'structural failure' accounts for the actual collapse... wouldn't particular sections of the building start failing rather than everything completely all at once in such a synchronized fashion... in 3 buildings with differing levels of damage (especially WTC7. very minimal by comparison)... i'd imagine SOME variation in the timing of the falls would occur. someone posted a thread about the timing of a ball falling from the top of the towers without resistance in a vacuum. they also posted the calculated times if it 'stopped' (met resistance for a split second) every floor on the way down in more of a 'pancake' fashion as suggested by Pop.Mech. i think they reached a figure around 60seconds or so... even if 60 seconds is accurate, wouldn't at least one tower have a fall speed a bit over the roughly 10 or so seconds (i don't have the specific times handy, just know they're very close) it took? just a thought.



don't know much about the debris field other than it all collapsed relatively neatly into itself.



ooo ok this i haven't heard. did you have a link to support this? this says a LOT if accurate.



eh, you got one guy over here with his ears perked up.



dingdingding. quite a few folks i know look at the 'no plane theory' and the like as just that... disinfo to keep the anthill busy with something other than what is meant to be protected.



well... now you've skipped past debate and back into insult. i would imagine that if ALL these theories were so easily refuted with actual science that one wouldn't need to post all the half-assed, illogical 'debunks' that show up all over the web. the fact that you start classifying the very people who put at least the EFFORT into finding out the truth (no matter how misled they may/may not be) speaks volumes on what may be your intentions. people should be educated and supported when making the attempt to put something intelligent on the table for the sake of truth. take your prior molten steel argument. i can absolutely see what you're getting at and would love to see more well-educated people, specifically in the field, adding their intellect to it.



condescending and arrogant. why? it's not like you know any solid, awe-inspiring truths with 100% certainty yourself. shrug.