• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Richard Gage’s “Overwhelming Evidence” of controlled demolition?

ozeco41 said:
Yes. EXCEPT


prove NIST was wrong (about a detail) = must have been CD.
That has to be a very big = I has to cover the multiple quantum leaps gap of missing argument.
Click to expand...

The missing "logic" is that NIST isn't just wrong about a detail; they are deliberately hiding the truth, and that can only mean one thing: CD!
 
ozeco41 said:
Sure - stick little flags on them for every time we win - which suggests cricket would be best odds.

Best to stay with cricket tho. Rugby is a bit risky and forget tennis.
Click to expand...
They count funny in tennis and limit the highest number. Yeah its right out. If one needs higher numbers, cricket or basketball are better.:D

... or in my case, golf
 
jaydeehess said:
They count funny in tennis and limit the highest number. Yeah its right out. If one needs higher numbers, cricket or basketball are better.:D

... or in my case, golf
Click to expand...

I've never understood how basketball can be so fast paced and high scoring, yet still be so completely boring after two minutes...

:boxedin:
 
WilliamSeger said:
I've never understood how basketball can be so fast paced and high scoring, yet still be so completely boring after two minutes...

:boxedin:
Click to expand...
Cricket is easiest to understand.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.

Simple isn't it? Then we have women's cricket which stuffs up that explanation.
 
jaydeehess said:
They count funny in tennis and limit the highest number. Yeah its right out. If one needs higher numbers, cricket or basketball are better.:D

... or in my case, golf
Click to expand...
I played golf for a time and retired from playing undefeated. Never lost a game in my golfing career.

My wife - rcon43 - has a similar record for playing soccer. Retired after a career with nary a single defeat.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
I played golf for a time and retired from playing undefeated. Never lost a game in my golfing career.

My wife - rcon43 - has a similar record for playing soccer. Retired after a career with nary a single defeat.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I retired from hockey also undefeated.;);)
There's a bit more detail but its really unimportant.
 
ozeco41 said:
I played golf for a time and retired from playing undefeated. Never lost a game in my golfing career.
Click to expand...

My golfing career comprises of 2 holes so far.
The very first was a birdy!!
I should have stopped right there!!!
Fool that I am, I played a second hole. I don't remember, something like 17 above par... :boxedin:
Then they opened the gates and let the cows on the course, and I ended my career.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I've never understood how basketball can be so fast paced and high scoring, yet still be so completely boring after two minutes...

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

I retired from basketball, at 6'7" I was just to short to play.
Plus I kept kicking the ball with my size 14 feet.

Back lot basketball was more exciting, you counted body parts to see what you lost when. You walked off the court.
Everyone liked watching the girls play, the cat fights were insane, always hair pulling, and clothes ripped off, no rules except don't intentionally murder the opposing team.
That and dirt track racing though the woods down the log roads, most of the time backwards, the cars we ran only had reverse left, last one not to crash, was the winner.
Can't believe what the clasic, (junk) cars would be worth now if I still had them, back then you could buy one for a couple hundred. We would race them then part them out.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I retired from basketball, at 6'7" I was just to short to play.
Plus I kept kicking the ball with my size 14 feet.

Back lot basketball was more exciting, you counted body parts to see what you lost when. You walked off the court.
Everyone liked watching the girls play, the cat fights were insane, always hair pulling, and clothes ripped off, no rules except don't intentionally murder the opposing team.
That and dirt track racing though the woods down the log roads, most of the time backwards, the cars we ran only had reverse left, last one not to crash, was the winner.
Can't believe what the clasic, (junk) cars would be worth now if I still had them, back then you could buy one for a couple hundred. We would race them then part them out.
Click to expand...

I actually enjoyed playing basketball, and baseball, too, but every time I start watching a professional game, I ask myself if there isn't some better use of my time.
 
Oystein,

(Sorry, for some reason the Quote button didn't post your comments & a link back.)

I think that this needs a little modification:

Oystein said:
Otherwise, Gage and AE911Truth cite the following claims as evidence of CD, even though they are not:
  1. Rapid onset of destruction[n],
Click to expand...

To the unobservant, it DOES appear that the onset of destruction is very sudden, very rapid.

This is, of course, false. The buildings (WtC 1, 2 & 7) are undergoing slow internal (2 hour, 1 hour & 7 hour, respectively) & external (20 minute, 40 minute & 3 hours) degradation which, in each case, brings them all to the moment of collapse initiation.

But, once you reach that point, the transition from "burning but upright" to "collapsing" is sudden.

And, for the truthers, both of these "features" needs to be addressed.

First, there is never a slow progression towards collapse initiation is a real CD. (This is much stronger than "not necessarily a feature of a real CD. It is wholly incompatible with a real CD.)

In a real CD, the building is solid. Less solid than before CD prep, to be sure, but still with a FOS > 1, to insure the safety of the work crews preparing CD.

From the time that the preparation is complete & the button is pushed, the building is in a static state.

The point is that, if the guy with his finger on the button chooses to not push the button for some reason, the moment of demo can be delayed as long as he wants.

In contrast, neither the towers nor WTC7 were in a static state prior to collapse initiation. Their progress to collapse was unstoppable.

We see progressive tilt of WTC2, progressive bowing of outer columns in both WTC 1 & 2, and progressive creep of WTC7 as shown by the FDNY's surveyor's transit on the external bulge (which gave them the forewarning that it was going to collapse).

But a key feature that Gage & other truthers keep harping on, and is truly false, is that the sudden transition from "creeping towards failure" to "the start of gross initial collapse" indicates that all the internal supports must be "blown" a the same instant.

The truthers think that the columns must be blown first, and then the collapse starts an instant later.

And this is false. The timing (& the logic) is backwards.
__

The truth is that sufficient columns have weakened enough to put the buildings on the very verge of collapse, and one last straw hits the camel's back.

At the point just before collapse initiation, the supports that have failed have done so, progressively, over a long period of time.

At the point just before collapse initiation, many of the supports are still intact, but not enough to resist the start of collapse. So the building starts to collapse.

And here is the key point that most people (& all truthers, including Gage) do not understand ...

... it is the start of collapse itself that fractures all the rest of the still-intact supports. THAT is why the gross collapse starts suddenly.

And this also explains why the falling components fell straight downwards, too.!!

If the supports continued to fail at a slower rate, instead of nearly simultaneously, then the building WOULD tilt to the side. Bazant showed why the columns could not support these moment loads, why they could not fail at a slower rate, and why the building had to fall nearly straight downwards, after a minimal tilt of the upper block.
__

So the real order of events is:

A subset of the columns fail slowly & progressively, leading up to the moment of collapse, then collapse begins, and then the rest of the columns fail nearly simultaneously.

There is a need to explain to people who don't understand why all those last pieces & parts fail at the same time.

The above explains it.
 
Last edited:
tfk,

so you are saying that the claim
1. Rapid onset of destruction​
ought to have a little [l] instead of [n][/SUP] as it is not true AND Gage should be aware that collapse onset was not rapid? I could do that. As I said earlier, I was a bit conservative with assigning these my labels:
Oystein said:
[l]: Claim is a lie (it is flat-out false, and Gage has been informed that it is false, yet it remains)
[m]: Claim is misleading (it is literally true or at least not outright false, but the reader is lead to construe this as more significant than it really is)
[n]: Claim, even if it were true, is not actually evidence for CD, as the same observations would be common or expected in normal fires and non-CD building collapses.
Click to expand...
IF you accept that the collapses appeared to be sudden, because you allow for an imprecise and unperceptive observation of grainy videos just using eyes, then natural collapses also often appear to be sudden - [n][/SUP]
As an architect or engineer analysing the available evidence, I agree this imprecision is willful ignorance to obfuscate the relevant facts - i.e. a lie.
 
ozeco41 said:
Cricket is easiest to understand.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
Click to expand...

That's the easy bit out of the way - now try explaining the LBW rule, the field placings, the difference between a chinaman and a googly and the Duckworth-Lewis method.

And for our American chums, how a game that lasts for 5 days can end in a draw.

(Apologies for any derail)
 
Last edited:
slowsmile said:
ozeco41 said:
Cricket is easiest to understand.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.

Simple isn't it? Then we have women's cricket which stuffs up that explanation.
Click to expand...
That's the easy bit out of the way - now try explaining the LBW rule, the field placings, the difference between a chinaman and a googly and the Duckworth-Lewis method.
Click to expand...
My eldest daughter was married - open air ceremony at a cricket field - and held the celebratory meal in the (converted) pavilion.) As father of the bride I got to make a speech. And couldn't resist the temptation offered by the venue. References to "bowled a maiden over", "glance to fine leg" - even references to the middle stump being same length and stiffness as the other two stumps. References to a "third man" of necessity raised questions from first man as to existence of "second man".
And allusions to square legs; silly mid on; adult males "fielding in slips". etc etc :o

(I think I avoided the topic of "No Balls" :rolleyes:)
slowsmile said:
And for our American chums, how a game that lasts for 5 days can end in a draw.
Click to expand...
Let's start with the difference between a "draw" and a "tie". ;)

slowsmile said:
(Apologies for any derail)
Click to expand...
AKA a "wide"??

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
And what Oystein is not going to talk about is, that in an interview given months later, Mr. Jowenko said that he looked into the available information about WTC7. When asked if he still stood by his professional opinion that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by a controlled demolition (CD), he unequivocally responded that it most definitely was.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the YT video with a phone call by Jeff Hill? Can you please indicate where Jowenko states he looks into the available information on WTC 7 outside of what he was shown during the Dutch interview?


Anyone watching that part of the interview knows that it is true that Mr. Jowenko accepted the premise that the WTC Twin towers were felled as a result of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

It is very important to note that he gave that opinion prior to becoming aware of WTC7.
Click to expand...

So? Are you aware of Jowenko reversing his opinion on WTCs 1 & 2?

A single car collision with a tree made it certain that he never would.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence it was anything but this?
 
Here's a Richard Gage appearance in Switzerland in November 2018 which was published an hour ago on a very popular German channel and has already 1200 views. Skimmed the threads and thought this one should fit as good as anyone. No comment and I haven't watch it.

 
Childlike Empress said:
Here's a Richard Gage appearance in Switzerland in November 2018 which was published an hour ago on a very popular German channel and has already 1200 views. Skimmed the threads and thought this one should fit as good as anyone. No comment and I haven't watch it.
Click to expand...

What, no cardboard boxes?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Here's a Richard Gage appearance in Switzerland in November 2018 which was published an hour ago on a very popular German channel and has already 1200 views. Skimmed the threads and thought this one should fit as good as anyone. No comment and I haven't watch it.

Click to expand...

Man, is that grifter still lying to people?
 
Bonnie Faulkner... a conspiracy believing radio host from SF had Gage, two lawyers from and Barbara Hinegger on Guns and Butter this morning... produced I suspect in the last few weeks... The show was about their lawsuit(s). Didn't listen but it sounded like the same old evidence.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Here's a Richard Gage appearance in Switzerland in November 2018 which was published an hour ago on a very popular German channel and has already 1200 views. Skimmed the threads and thought this one should fit as good as anyone. No comment and I haven't watch it.

Click to expand...

A 9/11 liar can't stop presenting lies. Funny or sad, the idiots who leave comments who believe ideas like Gage presents.
 
Besides of cardboard demostration of how the towers fell which does not add the planes into play he has been a joke at this point.

Sent from my LM-X410PM using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom