That works both ways of course...you are not the only group of deniers, we have those in the AGW debate as well.
So let me get this straight. You link a video as proof for what you believe to be true and when proof is confronted, you run with your tail between your legs? Nice to know someone can point out lies and misinformation and you just plug your ears with your fingers and chant "la la la la"...
What a cop out! Another professional is needed to verify lies Gage is telling? I suppose a professional needs to verify that Gage edited out the east penthouse portion of his video? Or you need a professional to verify that the entire WTC7 structure didn't collapse in 6 to 7 seconds like he lies about?
This is still my favorite video from 9-11. [video=youtube;9EXb9LMeizA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EXb9LMeizA[/video]
No,it does NOT 'work both ways'...WE aren't making crap up out of whole cloth to compensate for our incredulity....
Here is a link to many peer reviewed works on the collapse of 7WTC alone. They all contradict Gage's fantasy. http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/ Bon appetite!
Not in my experience. What kind of rational mind can entertain controlled demolition? This is true in my experience. You were saying? Yes, but it didn't happen. So have most people, and the history of animosity between al-Qaeda and the West seems to be an historical facet that 9/11 truth conveniently ignores. You can find nothing in US history as a precedent for the 9/11 truth mythology. And no, Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin are not precedents, as one was a plan that wasn't implemented, with the other more or less a confused fiasco. It is fallacious to believe that just because people don't swallow the outrageous claims of 9/11 truth, they automatically 'trust men in power'. Think about it before you parrot such a meme.
A whole panel against one individual? That's the AE911T way I suppose. They won't even answer my emails about the advertised debate, so clearly Gage doesn't take his challenge all that seriously. Lame personal attack. Try Chris Mohr's videos on youtube.
All the points he made are points you or any other truther could acknowledge, because they show your theory is as full of holes as you claim the official version is.
Chris Moron versus Retard Gage, that's great! If nukes had created openings under the buildings then the videos would have shown the lower portions moving downward. That is not what we see in any videos. psik
And the supposed demonstration of physics in your homemade video is not what we see in any of the footage either.
You proved so many things with the above vid ... 1. Not a pyroclastic cloud. 2. No CD explosions. 3. No freefall of tower. I could probably find a few more but the above will do enough to invalidate this thread. Thanks for disproving so many truther claims.
Richard Gage holds up boxes and expects people to use their imaginations from there. He doesn't actually drop anything. Mohr just says idiotic drivel and gets the quantity of fuel wrong. Has someone built a better model that can collapse completely? ANYONE! Any engineering school? LOL psik
Why would anyone need to? No model can approximate the variables present in the collapse of the towers,especially your pitiful attempt.. BTW just saying Mohr got it wrong isn't enough,you need to prove it.
To PROVE they can do something besides just TALK and that what they say is demonstrable. You can only TALK. But in 1940 it only took 4 months to model the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel at the University of Washington. No Computers existed. But today we can't even get virtual models. Physical and Virtual models require accurate data. But that seems to be what people don't want for resolving the 9/11 Affair. The NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. And all of the Conspiracy Theorists don't point that out about the NIST. People pretending that modelling is unimportant merely advertise that they are full of sh!t. I can't help it If you have not listened to Mohr blather, I am not going to waste my time being diverted finding his quotes. psik
Tacoma narrows bridge is yet another red herring by you,since they KNEW the mechanism that caused the collapse,it was quite evident. And the quantity of concrete in the tower is still irrelevant And modeling IS important...just not half assed attempts like YOURS And YOU'RE the one that made the claim about mohr,Back it up!
Some engineers questioned the Tacoma Narrows bridge even before it was built. And the designer of the bridge (who also designed the Golden Gate Bridge) ignored an important 1933 report on the effects of wind deflection in suspension bridges. Interestingly enough, the report was also ignored in the original design of the Golden Gate Bridge. However, during construction it was realized it moved to much and underdeck stiffeners were then added to the design. The TN did not have this, although they were being designed to be added at the time of the collapse. One of the alternate designs incorporated plate girders for stiffening, but the expense and delay were not acceptable to the PWA. Most people tend to forget that this was one of the New Deal projects, intended more to put people to work and to be as cheap as possible.
What does your reply have to do with anything I wrote/pointed out? I said that your homemade video doesn't correctly show/represent any of the physics seen on that day either. You went out of your way to avoid discussing this. You have admitted that the model in your video in no way represents either twin tower's design. Yet after you admit that, you STILL go on to say that your video represents the physics of the collapse and what SHOULD have happened. How is that even possible? I even gave you an example using your logic. According to you, I should be able to smash to Hot Wheel semi trucks together and use the results of that collision to predict what will happen physically to real life semi trucks when they collide. Is that what you are saying psikeyhackr? Or are you going to continue to ignore these points because you don't want to admit you and your crappy video are wrong?
Jeeez, the one major downside to the internet is crackpots and nutjobs can spew their nonsense at the world. Why doesn't this board have a Crackpot Conspiracies and Theories Section for this sort of "stuff"?
depending on what point he is trying to make that is perfectly valid, do you know what point he is trying to make?
