Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA 2009
-
30-05-2009 3:19am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Just seems to be a lot of arguments from authority and arguments from verbosity to me.
But if a lot of these points aren't true (and alot of them aren't) How can they be strong evidence for anything?
You know for a fact these points aren't true? How?So did they also show the part of the penthouse that fell long before the rest of the building? Did they even mention it as a possible cause of the "explosions"? And for most controlled demolitions don't explosions go off on every floor not just the top few?
They did show and point out the penthouse falling just a second or 2 before the rest of the building. For most controlled demolitions the explosions start at the bottom to destabilise the building and then some explosions nearer the top allow the building to fall in on itself. The building is then weakened further by lower down explosions.There are plenty of things that would sound like explosions. Electrical transformers exploding, collapsing floors etc.
What about explosives?The reading NASA made was infrared. It just showed that there were huge hotspots on the site. There is nothing to suggest it was molten steel.
What do you suggest it was?Very much disputed. Also thermite has never been used as part of a controlled demolition. In fact if thermite was use alot of these other arguments wouldn't hold because thermite doesn't explode.
Gage doesn't claim that thermite exploded. He claims that thermite cut the steel and and that was followed by explosions (probably from explosives)Because the firefighters were quite sure that the building was going to collapse well in advance.
It's entirely possible that the police officer use a poor choice of words, or was misinformed on the day.
It's also entirely possible that he didn't and that he wasn't.Which was traveling a a much lower speed and with very little fuel. The intent was that it would be a plane lost in the fog with low fuel.
Funny how the film doesn't mention that part.
Actually it does, in the interview clip with the original engineer or architect.Again lots of things that could have exploded of sounded like explosions.
But in controlled demolitions don't the explosions all go off at once and are immediately follow by the collapse of the building?
No they don't. They go off in a controlled manner to firstly weaken the building, and then bring levels down on top of each other. It usually happens so quickly that the explosions all sound like one big explosions.
:rolleyes:And?Could have been any number of other metals that have a lower melting point than steel.
There are lots of metals that have a lower melting point than steel, but they don't usually use them to build buildings with. What's your point?And since when is molten metal in a basement a feature of a controlled demolition?
When thermite is used?Because there was no melted steel?
Many witnesses identified flowing melted steel. How do you know there was no melted steel?Again thermite isn't consistant with a controlled demolition.
That doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way.Nope seems like 9/11 truthers take stuff out of context, lie and make bad arguments. As usual.
:D:D
Dammit, Mob, I can see why you do this so much. It's fun. You don't have to prove a point, just muddy the waters a bit to make it look like what's claimed is wrong. Cool. I should do this more often.
By the way, you should waste that 2 hours and watch the film. It'd save you asking questions that are answered in it.0 -
Because there is no evidence supporting most of the point and there are more likely explanations.You know for a fact these points aren't true? How?
So how come none of that was obseved at WTC7 if it was a demolition?They did show and point out the penthouse falling just a second or 2 before the rest of the building. For most controlled demolitions the explosions start at the bottom to destabilise the building and then some explosions nearer the top allow the building to fall in on itself. The building is then weakened further by lower down explosions.
Where the "explosions" before or after the building started to collapse?
Is there any evidence to show there were explosives?What about explosives?
Are my examples impossible?
Other molten metals, other still burning fires. Not sure really.What do you suggest it was?
So why cut the steel with thermite then set off explosives as well as hitting the building with a plane.Gage doesn't claim that thermite exploded. He claims that thermite cut the steel and and that was followed by explosions (probably from explosives)
And as I mentioned thermite is not used for demolitions and the are other possibilities to explain it's presence.
Yep so therefore that one out of context quote is useless as evidence for anything.It's also entirely possible that he didn't and that he wasn't.
My mistake.Actually it does, in the interview clip with the original engineer or architect.
But the point still stands. There was a huge difference between that scenario and what actually happened.
Except they're also accompanied with a flash, which is not present in WTC.No they don't. They go off in a controlled manner to firstly weaken the building, and then bring levels down on top of each other. It usually happens so quickly that the explosions all sound like one big explosions.
Also all these reports of explosions aren't all at once they are throughout the day. And the ones near to the collapse could conciveably be from the collapsing floors not explosives.
Oh and the total lack of any evidence for explosives.
A well thought out rebuttal. Can you explain how this is evidence for a controlled demolition?:rolleyes:
But they do use them in office equipment, and maintance equipment, and elevators and oh yea ..... planes.
There are lots of metals that have a lower melting point than steel, but they don't usually use them to build buildings with. What's your point?
For welding and processing of nuclear materials according to wikipeida.When thermite is used?
Also the miltary used to use to mess up tanks. It's never been use for a controlled demolition.
Because there are other explanations for flowing molten metals. And I don't think many people are able to identify the type of molten metals by eyesight.Many witnesses identified flowing melted steel. How do you know there was no melted steel?
But that would mean it would not be like a normal controlled demolition at all. Which is the only argument you have.That doesn't mean it can't be used in such a way.
Really cause that's seems to be what these films are doing.:D:D
Dammit, Mob, I can see why you do this so much. It's fun. You don't have to prove a point, just muddy the waters a bit to make it look like what's claimed is wrong. Cool. I should do this more often.
I'm just showing where these arguments are wrong.0 -
Because there is no evidence supporting most of the point and there are more likely explanations.
But that doesn't necessary negate the original point. You're assuming.So how come none of that was obseved at WTC7 if it was a demolition?
Where the "explosions" before or after the building started to collapse?
According to the video the explosions came very quickly one after another creating a kind of rumble, beginning just before the tower collapsed.Is there any evidence to show there were explosives?
Are my examples impossible?
I'm sure your arguments aren't impossible. But at this point I can't actually remember what your argument was, if there was indeed one at all. Or did you simply claim that the original point was wrong.So why cut the steel with thermite then set off explosives as well as hitting the building with a plane.
The point made in the video is that thermite was used to cut the steel beams, the explosions that followed were to ensure destruction. I assume this is because if the beams were cut with thermite they would probably slide off each other and I suppose eventually bring the building down. But it would, I'd say, be a much slower process. The planes were used as a "catalyst".And as I mentioned thermite is not used for demolitions and the are other possibilities to explain it's presence.
Thermite is not normally used for demolitions, but again, that's not to say that it couldn't be. It seems like a pretty effective chemical to me. What are those possibilities? And please explain in as much detail as you can.And the ones near to the collapse could conciveably be from the collapsing floors not explosives.
And they could conceivably be explosions from explosives.But they do use them in office equipment, and maintance equipment, and elevators and oh yea ..... planes. That's a lot of photocopiers and computers you'd need there. Plastic more than any metal I should think.For welding and processing of nuclear materials according to wikipeida.
Also the miltary used to use to mess up tanks. It's never been use for a controlled demolition.
Seriously, to accept that, because somebody said that a given material had never been used in a given manner, actually means it was never used in that way, is a little naive.Because there are other explanations for flowing molten metals. And I don't think many people are able to identify the type of molten metals by eyesight.
Well according to the video, melting aluminium gives off a white smoke, and steel looks like flowing lava. But then you still haven't bothered to watch it, have you?But that would mean it would not be like a normal controlled demolition at all. Which is the only argument you have.
What does that mean? A normal controlled demolition? If the towers were somehow brought down by controlled demolition, it could hardly be called normal. Normal demolition is usually done on empty buildings and the surrounding areas cleared of people and ... everything.Really cause that's seems to be what these films are doing.
No Mob, this film doesn't fob off questions with standard believe everything answers. This film doesn't ask unimportant questions and doesn't ask anyone to back anything up with evidence. This film in particular wasn't made for the presenters own gratification. He doesn't seem to be on some sort of ego-massaging crusade. I hope you get my point.
The film raises questions and highlights the agenda of the architects and engineers. The agenda is a simple one, they want another investigation. They're not happy with the answers given in the last one. And it's easy to see why.
When a guy from NIST stands and sniggers at questions put to him by a (offscreen) reporter and then claims that nobody ever saw molten steel, and nobody ever mentioned it, it's pretty obvious that there's something strange going on.
You can see that in the film. You should try watching it. In fact, let me know when you have and I might come back to you. Until then ...0 -
What exactly am I assuming?But that doesn't necessary negate the original point. You're assuming.
That sounds exactly like floors collapsing on top of each other. Wow.According to the video the explosions came very quickly one after another creating a kind of rumble, beginning just before the tower collapsed.
The argument is "People heard explosions therefore they must have been demolition charges."I'm sure your arguments aren't impossible. But at this point I can't actually remember what your argument was, if there was indeed one at all. Or did you simply claim that the original point was wrong.
My counter argument is "but there is a lot of other stuff that would have accounted for the explosions."
That's a lot of assuming there. Any evidence for any of that?The point made in the video is that thermite was used to cut the steel beams, the explosions that followed were to ensure destruction. I assume this is because if the beams were cut with thermite they would probably slide off each other and I suppose eventually bring the building down. But it would, I'd say, be a much slower process. The planes were used as a "catalyst".
Then why isn't used in demolition?Thermite is not normally used for demolitions, but again, that's not to say that it couldn't be. It seems like a pretty effective chemical to me.
There's a ton of problems with it being used for that. It burn unevenly, it wouldn't penetrate steel unless on top of it, making it effectively useless on the vertical beams, it's awkward to handle, and you'd need quite a lot of it all over the build for it to work.
Thermite = Rust + Aluminum + fire. All were present and in abundance at WTC.What are those possibilities? And please explain in as much detail as you can.
Thermite could also have been used in the construction of the buildings and have left residue.
The samples for the "paper" were collected and test weeks after 9/11 contamination is a possibility.
And they could have been explosions from Photon torpedoes fired from the Enterprise.And they could conceivably be explosions from explosives.
The argument is the the only explanation for those explosion is demolition charges.
This however is not the case.
And there's alot of other stuff all around the building that it could have been. That's a lot of photocopiers and computers you'd need there. Plastic more than any metal I should think.
Can you provide a single example of thermite being use to bring down a steel framed structure?Seriously, to accept that, because somebody said that a given material had never been used in a given manner, actually means it was never used in that way, is a little naive.
And is it possible that the witness didn't notice the white smoke due the huge amount of other smoke pouring from the building?Well according to the video, melting aluminium gives off a white smoke, and steel looks like flowing lava. But then you still haven't bothered to watch it, have you?
But how exactly would thermite or explosion make flowing molten steel exactly?
The explosions would just bend or break the steel while the thermite would just cut a hole through it producing little amounts of molten steel which cool and hard pretty quickly.
Where does this molten steel come from?
A controlled demolition with explosives.What does that mean? A normal controlled demolition? If the towers were somehow brought down by controlled demolition, it could hardly be called normal. Normal demolition is usually done on empty buildings and the surrounding areas cleared of people and ... everything.
The argument believers make is that the collapses look exactly like normal controlled demolitions i.e. falling straight down.
So if it was a normal controlled demolition it would have had to use explosives like every other demolition.
However thermite is not used in normal controlled demolitions. So how would the WTC collapse be a normal controlled demolition when it's using an abnormal method?
Ah so it's just going to present unfounded "facts" and half truths? And expects it believers to retaliate with ad hominems?No Mob, this film doesn't fob off questions with standard believe everything answers. This film doesn't ask unimportant questions and doesn't ask anyone to back anything up with evidence. This film in particular wasn't made for the presenters own gratification. He doesn't seem to be on some sort of ego-massaging crusade. I hope you get my point.
Not really when none of the presented facts hold up to any kind of scrutiny.The film raises questions and highlights the agenda of the architects and engineers. The agenda is a simple one, they want another investigation. They're not happy with the answers given in the last one. And it's easy to see why.
Wow government official is a dick and possibly misinformed? Stop the presses it must be a conspiracy.When a guy from NIST stands and sniggers at questions put to him by a (offscreen) reporter and then claims that nobody ever saw molten steel, and nobody ever mentioned it, it's pretty obvious that there's something strange going on.
Why would I when it's the same debunked nonsense that every other 9/11 truther films spews out without a scrap of evidence.You can see that in the film. You should try watching it. In fact, let me know when you have and I might come back to you. Until then ...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement