Marks first point at about 8:10 is about how the FEMA investigation is old and how NIST will be coming out with their report next month (Yeah we all got our fingers crossed on that one) and for Gage to point to FEMA is premature? Should Gage have pointed to the non-existent NIST report instead? Nothing debunked there. Then Mark goes totally off topic to take a little passive aggressive swip at Gage implying how he is in it for the money. Nice.
Welcome to the forum truther.
NIST has an interim report on WTC7...I am sure you have not read it. You wanna talk passive aggressive? really? as a member of the insane, paranoid, idiot truth movement, you wanna start calling debunkers passive aggressive? really?
John Clifton then makes the point that the fact NIST has not come out with a final report in almost seven years could leave one to believe there must be a controversy into what the answer should be regarding the collapse of WTC7. Excellent point.
******** point. NIST devoted most of its manpower and resources to the original report and investigation of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. You know it. They have stated as much. How convenient to not have that mentioned.
Gage then goes on to answer Robert’s question about what the NIST working hypothesis is since 2004 and how it’s a complete revision to the original FEMA official version. He then goes on with the witness accounts of firefighters and a medical student witness who talks about the shock wave that went through WTC7 after he heard what sounded like a clap of thunder then the building collapsed. Then Bartner talks about the explosion he heard. What is Robert’s response? No one who was there really knows what they heard. They’re not experts. They’re mistaken. But Mark Roberts who wasn’t there and also is not any kind of expert knows exactly what they heard and what they didn’t. Is this debunking?
I thought it was a debate. You want debunking, stick around. As for Gage's presentation as you have mentioned above...wowee! "I know what an explosion was", "I was in shock" "clap of thunder".
Come on. Do you really think that when any building comes down, space beams, thermite (lol), explosives, or from fires (please don't go down the whiny road of "never before in the history of skyscrapers") that it comes down without a few "booms"? Give me a break. Gage is parroting the same, long debunked canards, and you know it. oh noes, der waz explosions!!!
Oh and they’re bitter about being sick? What? This guy knows no bounds does he? Real nice!
appeal to emotion. too bad, so sad, but it doesn't cut it. The fact is, some of those workers are bitter about being sick...many of them are. They have every right to be. The difference is that most of them do not fall for the snake oil...but some do. Or some are so lonely, so desperate for attention, or so want to be a hero to anyone, that they will fabricate, or at the very least embellish, what they saw and heard.
Gage then moves on to the fires and points how the WTC7 fires moved around burning out in each area in about 20 minutes like normal building fires do and that this could not have caused building failure. Robert’s canned response is that Gage has not stated why the fires could not have caused the building to collapse when Gage has just addressed this very point. Roberts then responds to a question from Gage and asserts that the WTC7 collapse looks nothing like a video of a CD that Gage had shown earlier when everyone and anyone who witnessed the collapse even newscasters said that’s exactly what it looked like.
(A) Gage did not "prove" that the fires in building 7 all burned out. Did I miss this revelation?
(B) Gage DID NOT provide any evidence to contradict the working theory that NIST has with regard to the collapse of WTC7...end of story.
(C) I agree, that in APPEARANCE, not knowing anything else, but simply looking a the video, it is similar to a CD.
Gage then moves on to the witness accounts of molten steel finishing with the Metallurgical Examination. He no sooner finishes and Roberts starts his response with the inaccurate statement that no one tested this metal. What? Is Roberts even listening to Gage?
SO you are telling me that they have samples of molten steel, from ground zero, that they can prove became molten prior to the collapse???
My god, get the NY Times on the phone!!!
I’ll watch part two later because I’ve seen enough. Or should I say I’ll enjoy part two later? Why did an official version believer post this debate? Is this helping debunkers? I for one who doesn’t buy into the official conspiracy hope this will become one of the most viewed videos ever.
Enjoy it. Your movement is all but dead, and will not be revived. I will enjoy watching it turn to dust, and leave all but a few nuts, and a few paranoid angry young men.
TAM
