• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Gage Q&A

Seattle_JC

New Blood
S
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
12
Richard Gage will be lecturing in Seattle on 27-June-09 offering “startling visible evidence that what we have been told about 9-11 cannot be true.” His presentation will be followed by a question and answer session.

Because my patience wears thin when dealing with the 9/11 truth movement, I am not entirely sure if I am willing to pay and sit through his webs of contradictions, bad science, and paranoid rhetoric. However, there are other local skeptics that have expressed an interest of going, call them masochists.

If we do end up attending this event, I think the taking advantage of the Q&A is a must here. What are some hardball questions that we can throw at Gage during this session?

I don't expect to change any minds in the audience, the event is presented by 9-11 Truth Seattle, but I would hate to make easy for the guy.

Your collective input is greatly appreciated here,
JC
 
Seattle_JC said:
Richard Gage will be lecturing in Seattle on 27-June-09 offering “startling visible evidence that what we have been told about 9-11 cannot be true.” His presentation will be followed by a question and answer session.

Because my patience wears thin when dealing with the 9/11 truth movement, I am not entirely sure if I am willing to pay and sit through his webs of contradictions, bad science, and paranoid rhetoric. However, there are other local skeptics that have expressed an interest of going, call them masochists.

If we do end up attending this event, I think the taking advantage of the Q&A is a must here. What are some hardball questions that we can throw at Gage during this session?

I don't expect to change any minds in the audience, the event is presented by 9-11 Truth Seattle, but I would hate to make easy for the guy.

Your collective input is greatly appreciated here,
JC
Click to expand...
Don't pay be the press; be the media; Get a camera and cover the event for your local paper; school paper, church paper, any paper.
Ask him when his story will earn the Pulitzer Prize like people earned for breaking Watergate.

Or go right to the problem with a question of why exposing real conspiracies earn Pulitzers but nut case ideas like his earn nut case followers.
 
Last edited:
Ask him whether he carries 3 large carboard boxes wherever he goes ...
 
I would ask him:

Why do architects and engineers typically specify certain levels of fireproofing for structural steel? Why is it required by the IBC (International Building Code) and IFC (International Fire Code) and why do those codes require more of it in tall buildings than they do in shorter ones?

On his website, his one of his slide states that fire can cause collapse in wood framed buildings but never in steel framed ones. However, isn't it true that there have been many examples of low-rise steel structures failing in fires? Also, don't most structural textbooks teach that heavy timber construction is actually more resilient than steel in fire conditions? Here's a quote from a relevant structural textbook:*

Surprisingly, heavy timber construction can withstand fire better than unprotected steel construction. Heavy timber burns slowly and resists heat penetration. The uncharred inner portion of the timber retains its structural strength, and if the fire is promptly put out, may continue to carry the load for repairs to be carried out.
Click to expand...

If he looks at you like a deer in headlights, show him this picture to help him out:

woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/woodbeambentsteel.jpg/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg


Also, in his slides, he emphasizes the sudden onset of collapse at the base, but the Dan Rather video he plays show - right at the beginning - the penthouse collapse at the top - several seconds before the rest of the building appears to be moving. How does he explain this?

Furthermore, he lists as one of the characteristics supportive of controlled demolition for WTC 7 that it fell mostly into its own footprint (that's not strictly true, either, but we'll let it go for the moment). However, for the collapse of the Twin Towers, he cites the 1200-ft-diameter debris field as evidence of controlled demolition. So, isn't he advocating that the lack of a debris field is evidence in one case and the presence of said field is evidence in the other? Doesn't that seem to contradict?

For the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, he lists the presence of several tons of molten metal as one of the 'characteristics of a controlled demolition'. While the presence is in itself a highly spurious claim, I'm not all that interested in it specifically at the WTC. I would be curious to know if he could cite examples where known demolitions produced such an effect. He should be able to name several off the top of his head if it's typical, right?

Does he have extensive experience with tall buildings? Has he, in fact, ever worked on a high-rise structure at all?

*Building Construction for Architects and Engineers, Dr. B. Benjamin, 1978. Pg 41
 
Minadin said:
I would ask him:

Why do architects and engineers typically specify certain levels of fireproofing for structural steel? Why is it required by the IBC (International Building Code) and IFC (International Fire Code) and why do those codes require more of it in tall buildings than they do in shorter ones?
Click to expand...

I suggest that for citations reading the page this URL points to from the top. It's from "Report from Ground Zero" and Dunn is a FDNY expert that speaks specifically about the fireproofing in WTC and why WTC was unique.

Building collapse - V Dunn
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]​

Will he allow video taping? Beg or borrow a handicam and try to use it.
 
He believes WTC7 was felled by conventional controlled demolition, right? Ask him why there isn't a single eye witness who reported this, including members of the FDNY.
 
Last edited:
If he claims that his evidence could be taken to court, ask him why that hasn't happened yet.
 
I would also add if he most likely brings up other structures as precedents to "prove" that steel structures "don't collapse from fire" the question of whether he and his group have done any case studies on their examples to find out if their designs or circumstances have been considered in their selection of precedents.

Perhaps someone can word this question better but to expand upon this question I am asking specifically if things like circumstance; pre-existing damage, ignition on multiple floors rather than in one area, removal of fire proofing due to impact, incapacitation of fire suppression (sprinkler systems and water supply), impact damage severely compromising the existing structure.

And design; how was the structural frame assembled versus that of the WTC buildings in question, and how does structure failure affect other structures versus the WTC?

This is a fairly broad question but something I think Gage needs to be challenged with. Again, perhaps someone can word this better to compress the content if this is too long.
 
Seattle_JC said:
If we do end up attending this event, I think the taking advantage of the Q&A is a must here. What are some hardball questions that we can throw at Gage during this session?
Click to expand...
.
I attended his show in May of 2008 and Chicago's Circle Campus.

I got in line and asked him about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. He got a surprised look on his face and then talked about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints.

I thought that was pretty LAME but I was so surprised I didn't think of a come back and there was someone behind me with another question.

But he is supposedly head of a group of architects and engineers. How much computing power do they have today compared to what was available when the WTC was designed in the early 60's? So why can't they figure out the distribution of steel and concrete regardless of what the NIST says?

psik
 
Here we go again with the "concrete and steel Distribution" obsession.
That theory is so dumb that even most 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists won't use it.
 
Ask him:

' Will you, Richard Gage swear by almighty God that the evidence you have presented here today is the full Truth as you have ascertained it to be from your lengthy investigation based on the collective professional expertise of your organisation' ?

www.ae911truth.org
 
Last edited:
Minadin said:
I would ask him:

However, isn't it true that there have been many examples of low-rise steel structures failing in fires?
Click to expand...

Any examples? Why not find out yourself? Better to come with a real case. There are many steel structures that have been subject to fire, they deform ... slowly ... and what happens then? What kind of failures may take place?
 
I think I'll write a short essay entitled ' How to kill a thread in 40 words ' Lol
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I would also add if he most likely brings up other structures as precedents to "prove" that steel structures "don't collapse from fire" the question of whether he and his group have done any case studies on their examples to find out if their designs or circumstances have been considered in their selection of precedents.

Perhaps someone can word this question better but to expand upon this question I am asking specifically if things like circumstance; pre-existing damage, ignition on multiple floors rather than in one area, removal of fire proofing due to impact, incapacitation of fire suppression (sprinkler systems and water supply), impact damage severely compromising the existing structure.

And design; how was the structural frame assembled versus that of the WTC buildings in question, and how does structure failure affect other structures versus the WTC?

This is a fairly broad question but something I think Gage needs to be challenged with. Again, perhaps someone can word this better to compress the content if this is too long.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad train of thought, there - Perhaps we could word a question thusly:

If the sprinklers were broken by the plane impacts, how would that have effected the overall performance of the fire supression system in WTC 1 and 2?

(No one has ever died from a fire in a building with a working sprinkler system, and it typically adds about 1 hour to the rating of structural elements)
 
ask him what he thinks should have happened to the top section of the WTCs if they came down without explosives, and then ask him to quickly explain the physics to you. Be prepared for little in the way of productive response. Expect a topic shift.

TAM:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom