• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Open Letter to Richard Gage

This photo never fails to get a gasp when I show it to high school kids for the first time:



This was no ordinary office fire.
 
Pardalis said:
You're a truther just because of that?

Yeah...
So basically your beef is with M. Bush.

In your letter you end with : "we can rule out demolition using conventional means"

Well, wouldn't the next logical step be to say that there wasn't any demolition? Why cling to the belief that there was a CD if there's no evidence of one?

Don't you feel you're chasing ghosts at this point?
Click to expand...

Not really, Bush is just an inept puppet. It's the other guys I have suspicions about.

For WTC1 and 2, I think the most likely explanation is very close to NIST's with no nefarious intervention. When we get the report on WTC7, we'll find out more about that.

I have never been a believer in CD. I thought it was a possibility. As far as CD goes, it does feel like we have been chasing ghosts. Now, I want to let others know there weren't any.
 
pomeroo said:
Your specific criticisms of the controlled-demolition myth are sensible enough, but you continue to attempt to be the rational fantasist. It doesn't work; oxymorons rarely do. The whole "truth" movement rests on a massive conceptual error: wars are by their very nature unpredictable. The notion that a huge shadow army of super-villains carried out an absurdly convoluted plan to start a war with Afghanistan is, after all is said and done, simply stupid. The immediate drawbacks, a devastating blow to several sectors of the U.S. economy, were obvious. The consequences of the war were unpredictable. When conspiracy liars stop shrieking and look--really look--at the changes in the world over the past seven years, they can't help noticing that Republicans have lost control of both houses of Congress and will probably lose the Presidency. What good is pretending that an all-powerful cabal is pulling all the strings when reality is laughing in your face?
Click to expand...

Straw man, Pommy old boy. I have never suggested that there is a huge shadow army of super-villains. Nonetheless, I am glad the world is coming to see the current administration as they really are.
 
Blender Head said:
First off, thank you for this letter.

Secondly, I was wondering if I could use your points (credited to you of course) for my video series on YouTube? If you wish to discuss this via PM I'd be happy to oblige.
Click to expand...

The letter is published in a number of places on the internet so there is nothing to stop you from quoting from it. Whether you have my blessing or not depends on whether you maintain a respectful tone.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Straw man, Pommy old boy. I have never suggested that there is a huge shadow army of super-villains. Nonetheless, I am glad the world is coming to see the current administration as they really are.
Click to expand...

Gregory, I think they are goons, but I also don't think they did this.

This was an inevitable attack and one I PREDICTED in some detail in June of that year on The Mike Malloy Show on the ie America Radio Network.

Their sins lie, as Johnson's did, in how they USED it after it happened.

P.S. And what about my fireproofing points from the previous page?
 
GregoryUrich a small correction regarding point 7:

This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went north and west.
Click to expand...

I believe it should be WTC 1 in the second sentence here.
 
Clippy said:
Looks like a very fair letter. You might want to stress in the opening paragraph that you are an active member of STJ, having published in their journal.

Just one question on point 12. You say it's obvious that any observed molten metal could not have come from a thermate attack weeks previous. How quickly would you expect enough heat to dissipate that it would return to solid phase? I guess it would depend on the surroundings, but let's say you had one ton pooled at the bottom of GZ.
Click to expand...

You got me. Unsupported claim. I sensed I was going out on a limb there. Intuition stikes again. A ton of molten metal at the foundation would spread heat to the bedrock and surrounding rubble. How long would that take? One weeks sounds like a long time. Stone is not a particularly good insulator. Also, the detectable heat source source would be 72 feet deep in debris which would make it unlikely to detect. Other than that I don't have anything to back it up. Anyone else want to weigh in on this one?
 
BenBurch said:
Gregory, I think they are goons, but I also don't think they did this.

This was an inevitable attack and one I PREDICTED in some detail in June of that year on The Mike Malloy Show on the ie America Radio Network.

Their sins lie, as Johnson's did, in how they USED it after it happened.

P.S. And what about my fireproofing points from the previous page?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the effects you describe in any depth. Maybe that is the next step after I get done with my current effort on fireproofing dislodgement.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Straw man, Pommy old boy. I have never suggested that there is a huge shadow army of super-villains. Nonetheless, I am glad the world is coming to see the current administration as they really are.
Click to expand...

Sorry, do I have to buy into insane 911 conspiracy theories to see this or can I formulate an opinion on the current US administration without doing so?
 
GregoryUrich said:
Nonetheless, I am glad the world is coming to see the current administration as they really are.
Click to expand...

Yes, because years of being hammered in the press, and abysmal approval ratings( to be fair congress has it worse ), don't show anyone else noticing!
Pfft...



Good one.
 
GregoryUrich said:
The letter is published in a number of places on the internet so there is nothing to stop you from quoting from it. Whether you have my blessing or not depends on whether you maintain a respectful tone.
Click to expand...

I will simply run through AE911Truth's feature list and use your points to address them (With some slight modification to be sure ;)).
 
stateofgrace said:
Sorry, do I have to buy into insane 911 conspiracy theories to see this or can I formulate an opinion on the current US administration without doing so?
Click to expand...

Sorry, gotta drink the kool-aid if you wanna see these things. Try the grape flavor, it's kickin.

By the way there's a petition at Kucinich's web site for supporting the impeachment. Please consider doing so!
 
roundhead said:
I am not "forgetting"the damage caused by the planes. My scenario stated if the exact same damage was done as was caused by the planes.


"Roughly half interior columns damaged"...you better read the Nist report again, or for the first time, whichever applies. I think the figure was 13-15 percent of EXTERIOR columns, if i remember correctly.

I guess my biggest beef with the official explanation is the heat the steel saw, and for how long.

I used to work as a Field Engineer for a computer company as a systems troubleshooter. I have a lot of experience soldering circuit boards to make repairs. As such, i am aware of what the term heat sink implies, and how any temp offered to a portion of a given metal will "creep"along the path given it.

The towers were nothing if not a huge interconnected phalanx of steel. It seems to me heat applied to any given area would be wicked away quite easily. Of this i have no doubt. The longer and hIgher the heat in a given spot, of course, the more likely local damage could result.

When i couple this "heatsink" thought, with the KNOWN temps Nist reports (i include in this thought the fact 157 of 160 pieces of impact zone steel were subjected to 500 degree temps at most according to Nist) and add to it the known duration of the hydrocarbon fires that were present, it doesnt add up to steel failure in any way to me.

And frankly, i think fireproofing(a huge Red Herring) had zero to do with the outcome, one way or another. Until i see evidence of 1500-2000 degree temps in given zones for the duration of the fires before collapse, i find it VERY unlikely fire and fire proofing had anything to do with the demise of the towers.And even those unlikey tems could have been present for long, if at all.Way to much black smoke.

I wouldnt miss a wink of sleep tonight if i took my cheapest pot, put it on the stove, maxed the temp, and went to bed, of waking up alive in the morning with a perfectly usable pot.




Show me the heat
Click to expand...

Others have responded far better to this than I can, but I will admit I did not correctly interpret the initial post; I missed the part about causing the same structural damage; but I believe my point still stands. I'm not sure a construction team is physically capable of causing the same damage a several-ton airliner loaded to the brim with jet fuel and other flammable materials flying at between 475-570 mph can to a building chock-a-block full of even MORE flammable materials, therefore I still don't believe the exact same situation would occur in response. But in response to this post, I think you fail to appreciate just how hot some of the materials in an office fire can burn. Others on this thread have already given you links to prove your thoughts on the matter are wrong, so I won't bother; I simply wanted to state I had misinterpreted your initial post at one point, and I apologize for that. I still think you're extremely misguided, but that is my opinion, and I think you will allow me to maintain it so long as you maintain your points, thank you. I'll cease derailing the thread now.
 
roundhead said:
I am not "forgetting"the damage caused by the planes. My scenario stated if the exact same damage was done as was caused by the planes.


"Roughly half interior columns damaged"...you better read the Nist report again, or for the first time, whichever applies. I think the figure was 13-15 percent of EXTERIOR columns, if i remember correctly.

I guess my biggest beef with the official explanation is the heat the steel saw, and for how long.

I used to work as a Field Engineer for a computer company as a systems troubleshooter. I have a lot of experience soldering circuit boards to make repairs. As such, i am aware of what the term heat sink implies, and how any temp offered to a portion of a given metal will "creep"along the path given it.

The towers were nothing if not a huge interconnected phalanx of steel. It seems to me heat applied to any given area would be wicked away quite easily. Of this i have no doubt. The longer and hIgher the heat in a given spot, of course, the more likely local damage could result.

When i couple this "heatsink" thought, with the KNOWN temps Nist reports (i include in this thought the fact 157 of 160 pieces of impact zone steel were subjected to 500 degree temps at most according to Nist) and add to it the known duration of the hydrocarbon fires that were present, it doesnt add up to steel failure in any way to me.

And frankly, i think fireproofing(a huge Red Herring) had zero to do with the outcome, one way or another. Until i see evidence of 1500-2000 degree temps in given zones for the duration of the fires before collapse, i find it VERY unlikely fire and fire proofing had anything to do with the demise of the towers.And even those unlikey tems could have been present for long, if at all.Way to much black smoke.

I wouldnt miss a wink of sleep tonight if i took my cheapest pot, put it on the stove, maxed the temp, and went to bed, of waking up alive in the morning with a perfectly usable pot.




Show me the heat
Click to expand...

Really?

Moten Metal,weeks afterwards?

Any ideas?

Remember........................

It seems to me heat applied to any given area would be wicked away quite easily. Of this i have no doubt
Click to expand...

Any doubts?
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
Sorry, gotta drink the kool-aid if you wanna see these things. Try the grape flavor, it's kickin.

By the way there's a petition at Kucinich's web site for supporting the impeachment. Please consider doing so!
Click to expand...

All options should be considered including grape flavoured kool-aid.;)
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
Office fires just dont weaken structural steel in an hour.And any steel that was found that exhibited extreme temps is to me problematic to the official story, baecause an office fire isnt capable of deforming or weaking structural steel in a very short period of time. Period.
.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Cardington Fire Test data:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm

See, for example, Primary beam , grid line E , location B14. It reaches 600 C in just 17 minutes and 1000 C in 40 minutes.

Do you know the strength of steel at 600 C? How about 1000 C?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom