• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Richard Gage vs Mark Roberts

Homeland Insurgency said:
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.

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.

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?

Oh and they’re bitter about being sick? What? This guy knows no bounds does he? Real nice!

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.

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?

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.
Click to expand...

Great points! I agree, Gage easily won the debate. Glad to have you here, it's nice to know that the JREF forum has some intelligent people.
 
The moment an architect has to use card board boxes to try and explain why a progressive collapse isn't supposed to happen, my knees jerk. I never until now thought a person in my own field would try an experiment as stupid as that. You can't scale down a materials and expect the same mechanics with different materials... and using carboard is the worst representation of any model I have ever seen...

Gage lost whatever credibility he had with that... if he had any to begin with
 
Dick really took one for the team huh? Reminded me of several years ago when Tim Wakefield would pitch 8 + innings letting up 10 + runs for the Red Sox to spare the bull pen.

Who do the truthers have warming up??
 
This place reminds me of an AA meeting, a bunch of people sitting around blindly agreeing with each other, and believing in a higher power. (the power to prevent conspiracies)
 
Galileo said:
This place reminds me of an AA meeting, a bunch of people sitting around blindly agreeing with each other, and believing in a higher power. (the power to prevent conspiracies)
Click to expand...

Getting pretty desperate are you? How sad. Off you go now! Back to fantasy land. And don't forget your little cardboard buildings! Science is no match for them!
 
Galileo said:
Gage won the debate. Great job, Richard!
Click to expand...

LOL, pass the drugs, they must be pretty good. You should also check out the debate between Gage and Les Robertson where Gage just like with Roberts got his ass handed to him.

The best part was where robertson 9and actual engineer) got Gage to the point that Gage had to admit that the collapse form the damage and fires would have caused a collapse regardless of any demolition, and thus how pointless it would be to go to all this trouble for the sole reason of making a building fall a few seconds faster.

But then not surprising for you braniacs who claim thermite was used to explain the lack of explosions while claiming the explosions were the proof of a controlled demolition, thus disproving the thermite. Do you guys (gage included) ever even stop and read your own arguments?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
LOL, pass the drugs, they must be pretty good. You should also check out the debate between Gage and Les Robertson where Gage just like with Roberts got his ass handed to him.

The best part was where robertson 9and actual engineer) got Gage to the point that Gage had to admit that the collapse form the damage and fires would have caused a collapse regardless of any demolition, and thus how pointless it would be to go to all this trouble for the sole reason of making a building fall a few seconds faster.

But then not surprising for you braniacs who claim thermite was used to explain the lack of explosions while claiming the explosions were the proof of a controlled demolition, thus disproving the thermite. Do you guys (gage included) ever even stop and read your own arguments?
Click to expand...

sour grapes. You're just upset that the good guy won the debate. Your behaviour proves that.
 
Galileo said:
sour grapes. You're just upset that the good guy won the debate. Your behaviour proves that.
Click to expand...

No offense... but if your definition of representative experimentation is using card board boxes, like Gage does, it practically shames the very profession he works with. He's virtually trying to compare a monolithic box to a building made of tens of thousands of smaller pieces, and totally different materials. That's like comparing apples with the sun.
 
Galileo said:
sour grapes. You're just upset that the good guy won the debate. Your behaviour proves that.
Click to expand...

The guys on here would be pretty honest about it if they though a truther won the debate. There have been times when certian radio hosts get schooled pretty good because they just have no idea of the world of woo. Trying to be objective as I can. Gage got schooled. He was at a disadvantage since he wasn't live in studio and that could have hurt him. But he did really get owned.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
No offense... but if your definition of representative experimentation is using card board boxes, like Gage does, it practically shames the very profession he works with. He's virtually trying to compare a monolithic box to a building made of tens of thousands of smaller pieces, and totally different materials. That's like comparing apples with the sun.
Click to expand...

They're both more or less round. I think I just did better than Gage.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
No offense... but if your definition of representative experimentation is using card board boxes, like Gage does, it practically shames the very profession he works with. He's virtually trying to compare a monolithic box to a building made of tens of thousands of smaller pieces, and totally different materials. That's like comparing apples with the sun.
Click to expand...

you're just jealous! Richard Gage is a great teacher. He has a knack for illustrating concepts!

15 floors of a building will not destroy 95 floors of a building.
 
Hey does anyone have that picture of the kid lying against the wall? You know, the join the revolution picture.
 
Galileo said:
sour grapes. You're just upset that the good guy won the debate. Your behaviour proves that.
Click to expand...

Sorry kid. Nice try. Don't get upset. you'll get used to your pretend experts losing these debates. I know you are probably extra upset because this is not the first time Gage was shot down. Heck, he's an expert at it. With over 300 mistakes in his case, what do you expect? So try not to get too down and the need to put on your oh so cute little song and dance. you do get a pat on the head for effort kiddo. Of you go now.
 
Galileo said:
you're just jealous! Richard Gage is a great teacher. He has a knack for illustrating concepts!

15 floors of a building will not destroy 95 floors of a building.
Click to expand...

Hey kid, how about showing us a peer reviewed paper proving your claim and publishing it in an engineering journal? Or is the scientific back of it simply that some idiot on an internet forum said it was true? Because that's about as good as Gage's argument is since he and all of his experts have not been able to do this.

Now why do you think these 'experts" aren't able to do what all the real scientists have done? How about you simply explain to us how 15 floors of building cannot destroy 95 floors? How about you point out the mistakes in the NIST report where this is proven?
 
Galileo said:
This place reminds me of an AA meeting, a bunch of people sitting around blindly agreeing with each other, and believing in a higher power. (the power to prevent conspiracies)
Click to expand...

I'm glad you're an expert on AA meetings, and I'll take your word that this is what occurs, however, you have demonstrated little else that would convince anyone with a triple digit IQ, that Gage won a debate with cardboard boxes.
 
Oh my god, I couldn't believe Gage did that thing with the cardboard boxes until I actually sat through the video. Un-bel-ievable.
 
I'm watching it as we speak.

I don't like this format at all, whereby Gage gets to make 300 false claims in 2 minutes uninterupted, after which Mark is given 2 minutes to clean them all up.

A free flowing debate would be much better.

Also, after Gage makes his barrage of falsehoods the host keeps interrupting Mark as he is about to respond by asking him a completely different question, leaving Mark to answer that too before he has to dissect everything Gage has said.

I'll keep watching though, and hope for an improvement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom