• 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.

Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

I've been around message boards so long now I hate the first post...

But anyway, do you think Gage is openly lying? "Eyes Open" Delusional as an article I read stated, or do you think he actuallly believes the lies he is spreading?
 
Amazing,

9 years with access to all of the NIST reports, access to the fbi reports. Access to hundreds of hours of video coverage. Alledgely 100's of professional engineers and scientists doubting the official account of events, and what have they got to show for it?

Members of the truth movement should be embarrassed to say so, as it is the most pathetic excuse for a movement i have ever seen.

Then again when you start out trying to prove a lie...thats what happens.

TAM:)
 
Scott Jurgenson said:
I've been around message boards so long now I hate the first post...

But anyway, do you think Gage is openly lying? "Eyes Open" Delusional as an article I read stated, or do you think he actuallly believes the lies he is spreading?
Click to expand...

The "first post"? But Dave Thomas is such a nice guy. ;):D:p

Seriously, though: In Gage's case, I can't tell. Maybe others who've actually interacted with him can tell. There are some in the movement who I believe have got to know they're peddling BS (Steven Jones, the physicist, is one. Given how he's crafted the myths he peddles, I don't see any way he doesn't know. I may be wrong, but I seriously can't see it). But for him, I just don't know. I'm torn between thinking Gage is simply playing delusional for a lunch ticket, and thinking he's so into the myth that he's simply not even trying to think outside of it.

Regardless, the myth's refutability is independent of the depth of belief. Whether he's genuinely deluded or lying about it, he's still wrong. Of course you probably know that already.
 
T.A.M. said:
Amazing,

9 years with access to all of the NIST reports, access to the fbi reports. Access to hundreds of hours of video coverage. Alledgely 100's of professional engineers and scientists doubting the official account of events, and what have they got to show for it?

Members of the truth movement should be embarrassed to say so, as it is the most pathetic excuse for a movement i have ever seen.

Then again when you start out trying to prove a lie...thats what happens.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

What's worse, T.A.M., is that they're still bringing up some of the first myths that were peddled way back before a real truth "movement" existed. And that they're some of the first myths -"molten steel", "free fall", etc. - that were refuted. You'd think they'd move past the propositions that have been shown to be false, but nooooo... I swear, sometimes I want to post a picture of skydivers and ask if thermite/explosives was involved in their descent. :rolleyes::cool:
 
Ah but see elmondo, if you know the way of the snake oil salesmen, you will understand that to a newvictim, the snake oil is new...so for every naive person Gage and others come across, the free fall and molten steel canards are brand spanking new.

TAM:)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
"What's worse, T.A.M., is that they're still bringing up some of the first myths that were peddled way back before a real truth "movement" existed. And that they're some of the first myths -"molten steel", "free fall", etc. - that were refuted."
Click to expand...

NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face [WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

You confuse denial with debunking.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face [WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

You confuse denial with debunking.

MM
Click to expand...

Have you managed to look up what an architectural footprint is yet?
 
Miragememories said:
NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face [WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

You confuse denial with debunking.

MM
Click to expand...

Gee, still playing "Gotcha" instead of answering the tough questions in the other threads. Of course, the freefall canard ElMondo is referring to is the TM claim that the towers fell at or near freefall.
 
Disbelief said:
Gee, still playing "Gotcha" instead of answering the tough questions in the other threads. Of course, the freefall canard ElMondo is referring to is the TM claim that the towers fell at or near freefall.
Click to expand...

you know shifting those goalposts must have tired out most truthers.

they go from
"the towers fell at freefall" (that would be over the ENTIRE collapse) to "wtc7 had 2.25 seconds of freefall (out of an 18 second collapse, why do truthers leave that out?)...
 
They believe the collapse is 6 seconds because they think nothing was happening between the time of the penthouse collapse and the start of global collapse. The fact that people don't have x-ray vision leaves a vacuum for them to claim it was a simultaneous collapse. Since they flat out reject the existence of any penthouse collapse ---> global collapse they then have "justification" to counter that explosives, rather than the loss of structural integrity are the only means that the collapse could have taken place. Notice the pattern? They usually like to leave something out.

Same goes for witnesses. If they say explosives it's because there were bombs, not that the witnesses are describing something metaphorically, not because things actually do explode in fire... no... because nothing in fires can explode except for explosives. Notice it again? It's usually an omission...

THis is way too repetitious :\
 
Scott Jurgenson said:
I've been around message boards so long now I hate the first post...

But anyway, do you think Gage is openly lying? "Eyes Open" Delusional as an article I read stated, or do you think he actuallly believes the lies he is spreading?
Click to expand...

That's a good question.

I met him a couple of times and thought he couldn't possibly believe what he was saying. I thought his evasions and attempts to change the subject were to do with protecting his used-car salesman routine but now I think that maybe he is a full blown conspiracy theorist who wants to avoid having to deal with the incoherence of the theories.
 
Miragememories said:
NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face [WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

You confuse denial with debunking.

MM
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point of my skydiving joke: Free fall does not equal suspicious. That's the myth. The whole point was that you truthers keep insisting that it means that either the main towers, or in your case 7 World Trade was intentionally demolished. It does not. Read for comprehension next time.

On top of that, we were the ones explaining to you truthers what the significance of the brief duration of unresisted fall bounded by non-free fall meant. You even participated in some of those threads. Mind explaining why you chose to be dishonest in implying we are ignorant about it when in fact we've been the ones telling you what it means? Or is your only purpose here to retail standard truther talking points that have been long established as not meaning what you truthers wish they meant?

You want to have a debate about the WTC7 free fall, you go back to those other threads and do it. Oh, whoops! It's already been done! And shown to not be what you truthers said it was! Imagine that.

The only people here engaging in any denial are you conspiracy peddlers. What we're doing is pointing out to you all that merely stating free fall doesn't make things CD. And we've been doing so for years now. Which was the actual point I was making earlier.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
But Dave Thomas is such a nice guy. ;):D:p

.
Click to expand...

Ha I meant having to post to get your "#1 Post Count". Most people don't start taking you seriously until well over 100 or so.

EDIT: And for the record I commend him for his efforts. I listened to the entire debate yesterday and thought he was well spoken and well educated on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Scott Jurgenson said:
Ha I meant having to post to get your "#1 Post Count". Most people don't start taking you seriously until well over 100 or so.

EDIT: And for the record I commend him for his efforts. I listened to the entire debate yesterday and thought he was well spoken and well educated on the subject.
Click to expand...

Hey, look Dave! You got a fan!

And yes, I did realize that you were referring to your own post. But if you look up some of my history, you'll see that I've been mentally abused and twisted by members JimBenArm and AJM8125, and this is the result :eek: that occasionally I like to find comedy in intentional misunderstanding. Sorry to make you a target so soon, but I just can't help it! :D
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Hey, look Dave! You got a fan!

And yes, I did realize that you were referring to your own post. But if you look up some of my history, you'll see that I've been mentally abused and twisted by members JimBenArm and AJM8125, and this is the result :eek: that occasionally I like to find comedy in intentional misunderstanding. Sorry to make you a target so soon, but I just can't help it! :D
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot. I failed to realize this thing that's been around in Western Civilization for a while called sarcasm haha. Cheers to tuesday morning!
 
Tony Szamboti said:
...You apparently don't see the fact that no deceleration is measurable in the descent of WTC 1 as a problem. ...
Click to expand...

You apparently don't see the fact that the deceleration IS measurable, and has been measured by Chandler. The AVERAGE of a series of freefalls and brief decelerations (from collisions) is a "constant" acceleration. When this constant acceleration is calculated based on a gravitational collapse model, it comes out to 2/3 g, just as Chandler verified.

Chandler's measurements ARE evidence of decelerations. Quite simple, actually, yet we still have truthers saying idiotic things like this:
2. Mr Thomas also states that we (the truth movement) greatly underestimate the energy of the impact. He has an experiment on his website which should be viewed so you can see his math. He is taking impact measurements by dropping items onto a scale. But this is just the point we are making. In order for him to get his measurement, he must first drop an item through nothing but air. His experiment presumes no resistance. Additionally, his math formula uses 'g' for gravity in his calculation. We KNOW (as in the case of tower 1) that it descended at 2/3g. He seems to forget this fact and calculates with 'g' or is my understanding way off base here. I was only a B student in Calc.
Click to expand...

I don't buy your attempt to weasel up an explanation for 2/3 g based on "remaining static loads." The simplest explanation is the best one - the collisions cause the average acceleration to be reduced, and that reduction has indeed been measured.
 
As beachnut often notes, if 2/3 of freefall is "near" freefall, then 14 seconds is "near" a world record 100-metre dash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom