Open Letter to Richard Gage

[pomeroo]

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?

One of these days, a leftist will get around to explaining why removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power should be regarded as "sins." We understand that a President Gore would have lobbed a few cruise missiles at nothing in particular and pontificated in the U.N. about bringing the perpetrators to justice, but no one ever explains why this course of action would have been superior to killing lots of terrorists.

 

[pomeroo]

3cups four
1/3 cup salt
2tbsp oil (veg)
1cup water
7 drops food coloring.

mix dry ingredients with oil. add food coloring to water and mix together. add water to flour/salt/oil mixture slowly~about 1/4 cup at a time and mix together with a spoon. once you've added all the water, knead the dough with your hands.

I have doubts that he's the pathetic dunce P-dope. If he is, he's disguised his voice. I'm getting different vibes. Time will tell, of course.

 

[BenBurch]

One of these days, a leftist will get around to explaining why removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power should be regarded as "sins." We understand that a President Gore would have lobbed a few cruise missiles at nothing in particular and pontificated in the U.N. about bringing the perpetrators to justice, but no one ever explains why this course of action would have been superior to killing lots of terrorists.

The Taliban? (There is no spitting smiley) I'd have killed a few of them myself given the chance. We belonged in that fight and I wish we had FINISHED it. Sadly, they were allowed to live and now control most of that sad country again, and the opium poppy harvest (suddenly, they LIKE drugs, who knew?) is of a record size.

But Saddam we had contained and he was harmless to us.

 

[chillzero]

Get it back on topic please, guys. Politics in particular go elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Confuseling]

Gregory,

Hi! I think it comes down to fireproofing too, but I would like you to consider a few things;

1. A truss can fail without fireproofing having failed along its whole length. If you remove fireproofing from one member in one section of a truss, and then a fire heats that section to the standard 600C failure level, then instead of the whole truss sagging and redistributing its load under tension, the very fact that the rest of the truss is not compromised means that it will actually fail at that point with a break in one or more elements of the truss. This can cause the remainder of the truss to sag or allow a twisting moment to distort the truss depending on which member failed.
...

Is it possible that remaining fireproofing could actually increase the temperature?

It is, after all, an insulator. I could imagine a situation where it reduced heat flux out more than in - perhaps an unlikely situation, but not impossible. When you're dealing with big fires, lots of columns, and only need a few failures, maybe one somewhere had its exposed bits pointed at the fire, and all its covered bits pointed at whatever would have been its sink?

 

[AZCat]

Is it possible that remaining fireproofing could actually increase the temperature?

It is, after all, an insulator. I could imagine a situation where it reduced heat flux out more than in - perhaps an unlikely situation, but not impossible. When you're dealing with big fires, lots of columns, and only need a few failures, maybe one somewhere had its exposed bits pointed at the fire, and all its covered bits pointed at whatever would have been its sink?

This is a very good point. Properly insulated, a steel structural member cannot transfer as much heat from the surface, although heat transfer through the member can continue. The thermal gradient will be different, though.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I'm sorry for digging this up... but I wonder has Gage ever responded to Gregorys letter?

 

[boloboffin]

I wonder if Urich still stands by it, since he's here defending the CD hypothesis on another thread.

 

[DGM]

I wonder if Urich still stands by it, since he's here defending the CD hypothesis on another thread.

I didn't see his responses that way. He did indicate that there was an error on NIST's part as to the timing but he did say that no CD has ever produced a "free fall". I didn't see him making the jump to a conspiracy (especially a CD).

 

[DavidJames]

I didn't see his responses that way. He did indicate that there was an error on NIST's part as to the timing but he did say that no CD has ever produced a "free fall". I didn't see him making the jump to a conspiracy (especially a CD).

He said this:

Dr. Greening and others have done more careful work and have come up with the maximum acceleration around 9.2 m/s^2 (+/- 0.6 m/s^2). I think the lower range is more realistic due to measurement errors induced by tipping which gives energy dissipation values that are not unthinkable for either CD or a normal collapse.

I think the fact that he has no problem lumping a CD with a "normal" collapse shows Mr. Urich is still very much bitten by the CT bug. I think he's like RedIbis with an education.

Edit - I don't think my characterization is that fair. It's to hard on Greg and to nice to Red. I have some respect for Greg.

 

[OneRedEye]

I think the fact that he has no problem lumping a CD with a "normal" collapse shows Mr. Urich is still very much bitten by the CT bug.

It does? Would you mind explaining why?

 

[DavidJames]

It does? Would you mind explaining why?

I'll put it in the same boat as pointing out a characteristic consistent with both evolution and creationism, by a member of the clergy.

 

[OneRedEye]

I'll put it in the same boat as pointing out a characteristic consistent with both evolution and creationism, by a member of the clergy.

OK, thank you. That was a interesting answer, quite insightful.

 

[beachnut]

It does? Would you mind explaining why?

Greg’s letter to Gage was just to help tone down Gage’s outright lies and fabrications, as Greg hopes for some scientific break to blame the government. A lot of people gloss over Greg's membership in truther groups I see his membership as his bias contributing to his shallow research and general lack of knowledge on most of 9/11 events. I could be wrong, but his posts and work are the evidence I used to come to my conclusions. Greg is not neutral looking for evidence, he is looking for evidence to blame anyone but 19 terrorist who killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes; a simple, very simple plot, too simple for those who want JFK like CT and love hearsay, fiction, and lies.

directly contradicts the controlled demolition theory, at least by conventional means.

Leaves open CT woo.

If the truth movement is going to be successful, we will need to distance ourselves from fallacious claims and avoid conjecture.

Greg wants to find evidence to blame the government. Why? Because he signed this:

"We the undersigned: a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11; b) observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials ..."

Fact, Greg has no “ample evidence”; I think he is looking for evidence to blame anyone but UBL and the terrorists.

Greg is right, Gage makes outright stupid claims, Greg is trying to protect 9/11 truth groups from being more stupid than they with defining statements which show they can’t comprehend the thousand pieces of evidence already available.
A righteous effort.

 

[OneRedEye]

Greg’s letter to Gage was just to help tone down Gage’s outright lies and fabrications, as Greg hopes for some scientific break to blame the government. A lot of people gloss over Greg's membership in truther groups I see his membership as his bias contributing to his shallow research and general lack of knowledge on most of 9/11 events. I could be wrong, but his posts and work are the evidence I used to come to my conclusions. Greg is not neutral looking for evidence, he is looking for evidence to blame anyone but 19 terrorist who killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes; a simple, very simple plot, too simple for those who want JFK like CT and love hearsay, fiction, and lies. Leaves open CT woo. Greg wants to find evidence to blame the government. Why? Because he signed this:Fact, Greg has no “ample evidence”; I think he is looking for evidence to blame anyone but UBL and the terrorists.

This, too, is a (surprisingly) good explanation. Not saying I agree (or disagree) with your any of your particular conclusions, but it conveys the reasons for your position very clearly. Thank you.

Be that as it may, I don't see G. Urich's specific statement about the displacement-time characteristics of CD and normal collapse to be loaded in any way, or biased. It is simply correct, as best as I can tell. My bad for looking at the message instead of the messenger's clothes.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I see that Gage still uses those 15 points on the ae911truth website but still havent responded to Ulrich debunking of them. Well...I'm not suprised.

 

[RedIbis]

He said this:I think the fact that he has no problem lumping a CD with a "normal" collapse shows Mr. Urich is still very much bitten by the CT bug. I think he's like RedIbis with an education.

Edit - I don't think my characterization is that fair. It's to hard on Greg and to nice to Red. I have some respect for Greg.

My education is not in science, but it's still extensive. But since you took a cheap shot in a thread I'm not in, riddle me this.

Provide an example of a "normal" collapse in which the building falls part of the time in freefall or faster than freefall, for that matter.

 

[funk de fino]

My education is not in science, but it's still extensive.

Many clever people display a complete and utter inability to think logically, you seem to be one of them. You are not a dumb truther but you certainly approach things in the same way as some of them when it comes to 911.

But since you took a cheap shot in a thread I'm not in, riddle me this.

Says the cheap shot king? Remember your attacks on Silverstein and Myers?

Provide an example of a "normal" collapse in which the building falls part of the time in freefall or faster than freefall, for that matter.

You need to avoid the first time in history type arguments, it makes people think you do not have the education you have just boasted about. Especially after your Shuttle breakup disaster.

 

[DavidJames]

My education is not in science, but it's still extensive.

It wouldn't surprise me if you spent 10-15 years in college.

Provide an example of a "normal" collapse in which the building falls part of the time in freefall or faster than freefall, for that matter.

An argument from ignorance is no way to support your "extensive" education.

But it is consistent with typical CTists.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Greg’s letter to Gage was just to help tone down Gage’s outright lies and fabrications, as Greg hopes for some scientific break to blame the government. A lot of people gloss over Greg's membership in truther groups I see his membership as his bias contributing to his shallow research and general lack of knowledge on most of 9/11 events. I could be wrong, but his posts and work are the evidence I used to come to my conclusions. Greg is not neutral looking for evidence, he is looking for evidence to blame anyone but 19 terrorist who killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes; a simple, very simple plot, too simple for those who want JFK like CT and love hearsay, fiction, and lies.

For your information I have resigned my membership at AE911Truth. I am considering resigning from STJ911, but I would loose access to their forum where I am still arguing for better science, responsible activism and against demolition.

I understand your interpretation which attributes a bias based on my signing of a number of petitions. I supported the petitions based on limited knowledge and a basic trust that the people behind the petitions were well meaning and that there was some substance to their claims. Contrary to your interpretation, I do not seek to justify my signing of those petitions by proving a conspiracy.

Just like the politicians that voted for the invasion of Iraq, I have supported something based on poor information. I guess the difference would be that the intelligence on Iraq was manipulated by oil hungry war mongers and 10s of thousands of people have been killed. On the other hand, I supported well-meaning peace activists who believed that the lying of the current administration could not possibly end at only manipulating the population into a preemptive war, and no one died because of my mistakes.

It remains to be seen if there was in fact some sort of cover-up or active/passive involvement within some part of the government. I still support an new investigation to find out, but at this point, I don't think we will ever know. Nonetheless, I assure you, that if this were true, it would provide me no satisfaction. While I despise the Bush administration, I would still hope that they had at least enough integrity not to abet the horrible crimes of 9/11, which served their agenda like a 5 star restaurant.