...Richard Gage destroyed by Kim Hill

[Grizzly Bear]

You see that as being belligerent. Why? I have no idea.

I lost track after Gage shotgunned about a thousand different conspiracies. What I'd like to see from him is what justification he has for concluding that fires couldn't bring down a building. Of course with his demonstration idiocy with the cardington tests I think I already have my answer. I'd be pretty tee'd if I couldn't get this sort of technical explanation out of him when he relies on his placement of authority to drive his points.

 

[TJM]

She is reading off of something on a topic she knows nothing about.

Yet she was able to reduce Gage to a stammering fool. Quite easily too.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yet she was able to reduce Gage to a stammering fool. Quite easily too.

That's not really a "reduction" as much as it's a "leaving in place".

 

[BigAl]

No. Not like this lady. I was saying the lady in this debate knows nothing about 9/11. Roberts is very knowledgeable about 9/11. He just couldn't hang with Gage on the technical aspects and then started taking potshots for lack of anything else. Roberts was not prepared for that debate. This lady all she had was the potshots. She was determined not to hear anything Gage was saying from the get go. Most of the time she isn't even addressing what he just said a moment before. She is reading off of something on a topic she knows nothing about. Kind of like debunkers here like to regurgitate Gravey's Googlepages or 9/11 myths because they themselves know nothing about 9/11.

I guess your English hasn't exposed you to the phrase, "Hoisted with his own petard". Kim threw his own beliefs back in his face.

Yes, Kim should have read something of the NIST report and dropped the assertion about the oil tanks.

For an unofficial, back of the envelope analysis, the Counterpunch article got lots right about the WTC7 collapse.

All of the structural analysis done by FEMA and NIST points to a failure of Truss 1 or Truss 2 -- Truss 2 seems more likely to me -- as the initiating failure in WTC 7. The sequence is as follows:

-> thermal weakening of Truss 2 leads to its failure,

-> the loss of support low in the eastern interior propagates to the roof,

-> the weight (and dynamic force) of material falling onto the diaphragm based on Floor 5 tips this rigid layer of the building,

-> this causes failure of column joints to the diaphragm,

-> lack of vertical support through the diaphragm progresses up the interior of the building west of Truss 2 (and/or Truss 1),

-> the difference in collapse timing east and west of Truss 2 creates a vertical crack/crease/kink/fold/break through the building above Truss 2 (Column 80),

-> a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely,

-> since the building implodes, exterior walls falls in.

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
​

 

[T.A.M.]

That's not really a "reduction" as much as it's a "leaving in place".

LOL...nice!

TAM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

He is. He stays on course. I remembered that from the Mark Roberts debate when Roberts tried the same crap as this lady. But that whole thing was hilarious. It was comedy between the rational and the clueless.

I think there's quite a few railroad tracks that Gage went onto, not to remain "on course".

Kim reduced him to a blabbering idiot.

First off, she asked him if he was a scientist. He said no!

So there ya go! He's no scientist, he's an architect. But then again I really don't know if he's an architect at all, since he wants to become a scientist.

 

[TexasJack]

It was comedy between the rational and the clueless.

You mean, for example, not knowing this?

Wow. I didn't know CNN also reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened just like the BBC.

 

[Algebra34]

I guess your English hasn't exposed you to the phrase, "Hoisted with his own petard". Kim threw his own beliefs back in his face.

Yes, Kim should have read something of the NIST report and dropped the assertion about the oil tanks.

For an unofficial, back of the envelope analysis, the Counterpunch article got lots right about the WTC7 collapse.

Lots right? Maybe Counterpunch are right all together. How would you know? Not from the NIST report that's for sure. Kim knows nothing about 9/11 nor does she care. She has her hands over ears based on nonsense and is shouting at the top of her lungs "I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH NAH NAH!". And you endorse this. This is 9/11 debunking.

 

[R.Mackey]

I guess your English hasn't exposed you to the phrase, "Hoisted with his own petard". Kim threw his own beliefs back in his face.

Yes, Kim should have read something of the NIST report and dropped the assertion about the oil tanks.

For an unofficial, back of the envelope analysis, the Counterpunch article got lots right about the WTC7 collapse.

Exactly. The point that Ms. Hill made, and made correctly, is that even the alternative, lefty, independent press finds Truth Movement allegations to be completely insane. The claims that it's all "so obvious" and "we're being suppressed by a complicit media" are sheer, unadulterated, totally idiotic paranoia.

It doesn't matter that Counterpunch didn't have the right sequence of events on the diesel fueling system of WTC 7. This is a detail. For those, we look to scientists, something we've done and that the Truth Movement studiously avoids.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Lots right? Maybe Counterpunch are right all together. How would you know? Not from the NIST report that's for sure. Kim knows nothing about 9/11 nor does she care. She has her hands over ears based on nonsense and is shouting at the top of her lungs "I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH NAH NAH!". And you endorse this. This is 9/11 debunking.

If Kim didn't care about 9/11 then she wouldn't have had Gage as a guest.

Do you have a picture that Kim had her hands over her ears?

When Richard Gage says: "Blabbering Blatherskite" he turns into:

 

[T.A.M.]

But Ryan in the insane world of NWO and 9/11 truth there is no RIGHT or LEFT, only them (everyone but the truthers) and us (the truthers...the only ones smart enough to see past the deception).

Come on...remember?

TAM

 

[Algebra34]

You mean, for example, not knowing this?

I've heard and seen the BBC claim but I never heard that CNN did the same thing 40 minutes before the BBC. You can't just claim the BBC is just parroting CNN when the building is clearly still standing behind the women claiming it collapsed in the BBC report. If they didn't know that was WTC7 in the background then why the hell did they have a camera on it when they were reporting it collapsed before it did? Just another one of those coincidences I guess. Right? What would debunkers do without coincidence I wonder? We should make 9/11 a national holiday. Coincidence Day.

 

[R.Mackey]

But Ryan in the insane world of NWO and 9/11 truth there is no RIGHT or LEFT, only them (everyone but the truthers) and us (the truthers...the only ones smart enough to see past the deception).

Could be. But I would argue that if the New World Order is so vast and powerful that it can influence the alternative press utterly, and even co-opt alternative radio in New Zealand, then its supremacy is assured and no stunts or lying to people are necessary in the first place.

This kind of accusation is, in fact, on the threshold of the Inflationary Limit. Mr. Gage, in other words, is indistinguishable from a fully developed conspiracy theorist, protestations notwithstanding.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I've heard and seen the BBC claim but I never heard that CNN did the same thing 40 minutes before the BBC. You can't just claim the BBC is just parroting CNN when the building is clearly still standing behind the women claiming it collapsed in the BBC report. If they didn't know that was WTC7 in the background then why the hell did they have a camera on it when they were reporting it collapsed before it did? Just another one of those coincidences I guess. Right? What would debunkers do without coincidence I wonder? We should make 9/11 a national holiday. Coincidence Day.

Reporters always make mistakes.

You should know this, remember the Media is "Government controlled"?

 

[T.A.M.]

Could be. But I would argue that if the New World Order is so vast and powerful that it can influence the alternative press utterly, and even co-opt alternative radio in New Zealand, then its supremacy is assured and no stunts or lying to people are necessary in the first place.

This kind of accusation is, in fact, on the threshold of the Inflationary Limit. Mr. Gage, in other words, is indistinguishable from a fully developed conspiracy theorist, protestations notwithstanding.

Based on your "Inflationary" model, Gage is the pinnacle. He does nothing but spew other peoples inflated drivel, adding in his own 2 cents (I guess with inflation his 2 cents might be 4) where he feels he can.

TAM

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The camera was pointing towards where the towers used to be. Where else do you think that they should've been pointing at? Also, NBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed or is collapsing about the same time that CNN first said the same thing.

 

[Algebra34]

It doesn't matter that Counterpunch didn't have the right sequence of events on the diesel fueling system of WTC 7. This is a detail. For those, we look to scientists, something we've done and that the Truth Movement studiously avoids.

A detail? She kicked off her interview with nonsense. According to the official version this is dead wrong. It's not the official version. The position and side this idiot was taking up she knows absolutely nothing about. She knows nothing about what is reported officially as the truth. Nor do most debunkers that I have encountered. Nor do most people for that matter.

 

[TJM]

That's not really a "reduction" as much as it's a "leaving in place".

QFT.

 

[BigAl]

I've heard and seen the BBC claim but I never heard that CNN did the same thing 40 minutes before the BBC. You can't just claim the BBC is just parroting CNN when the building is clearly still standing behind the women claiming it collapsed in the BBC report.

It was a blue-screen studio and I bet she didn't know what image was being broadcast behind her.

She was a news reader reading text she was given. My hypothesis is that it had been a long and exhausting day for her with two towers already collapsed and she mistook "will collapse" for "has collapsed". It's not often a news reader gets to read news of the future.

In any case, by 4PM the whole world that was watching local news knew that WTC7 was about to collapse.

Twoofers seem to ignore that point.

 

[Algebra34]

It was a blue-screen studio and I bet she didn't know what image was being broadcast behind her.

She was a news reader reading text she was given. My hypothesis is that it had been a long and exhausting day for her with two towers already collapsed and she mistook "will collapse" for "has collapsed". It's not often a news reader gets to read news of the future.

In any case, by 4PM the whole world that was watching local news knew that WTC7 was about to collapse.

Twoofers seem to ignore that point.

I know she didn't know genius. She doesn't know WTC7 from Rockefeller Center. That is obvious. She is a parrot. But someone knew to have the camera on building 7 when they were going to report it collapsed. They just did it too soon. They blew it. Gotta get that scoop you know. Gotta be first in the news business.