• 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

OMFG!!! Richard's cardboard box is THE MOST hilarious truther "experiment" ever! Sure beats Steven Jones' dropping of a piece of concrete onto the ground from 12 feet up and determining that the concrete in the WTC shouldn't have pulverized.

I don't know why Mark was trying to underplay the shows the other week. Both turned out great, better than I'd expected. I'm glad he was able to get in a brief mention about how these "truthers" blatantly lied about 118 first responders reporting seeing flashes at the beginning of the collapse, when in fact it was only 2. This was added onto their main page about a month ago after I emailed Judy Shelton about it being false that 118 first responders heard explosions, which is what the main page initially only said. Shortly afterwards, she responded saying she was "fixing it", and then she added 118 saw "flashes" as well. So damn dishonest and frustrating!!! Thanks for exposing this lie, Mark.
 
When Richard brought out the boxes, I about fell off my chair. Too funny. Mark did a great job as always!
 
I don't think people understand the seriousness of the situation. This man is designing structures that people may be putting their lives under. There should be sines on all of his work that says "You are standing under a structure that was designed by a guy who thinks dropping cardboard boxes demonstrates the physics behind building design. I think someone needs to publish a list of the buildings he has been involved in so that we can avoid those buildings for our safety sake.
 
Speaking of the absurdities of AE911Truth, check out this response from AE911Truth member Judy Shelton. First, the message I sent a couple days ago:

In characteristic 7, you say the buildings fell symmetrically, which proves controlled demolition. Then in characteristic 8, you say the buildings fell a quarter mile asymetrically in all directions, which proves controlled demolition. ??? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Of course, the truth is that both towers fell asymetrically (23 degrees for WTC2 and 11 degrees for WTC1), in both instances to the side most affected by fire. This asymmetric lean is entirely inconsistent with controlled demolition, which would cause the towers to fall straight down evenly.

You also claim WTC7 fell into its footprint. Oh? Tell that to the construction workers still disassembling 30 West Broadway, which was so badly damaged by debris from WTC7 falling onto it (ahem, outside of its footprint), that the building was all but destroyed. Tell that to the owners of the Verizon Building, also adjacent, which suffered $1.4 billion in damage from WTC7's debris.
Click to expand...

Her response received today:

The buildings did go down in a basically even and symmetrical manner. And yet they were asymmetrically damaged, which mitigates for a highly disorderly collapse quite unlike what happened -- not that, given the kind of structural and fire damage these buildings sustained, there was any reason for them to collapse.

The word "collapse" does not, in any case, accurately describe what we saw at the World Trade Center. The Towers were exploded outward, which is why even heavy material was hurled for up to 500 ft. And B.7 imploded in a manner that is indistinguishable in any significant way from other controlled demolitions.

Judy Shelton
Click to expand...

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Architects & Enginners for 9/11 Truth. The towers did not lean asymetrically, there was no reason for the towers to collapse, the towers fell into their own footprints which proves controlled demolition and fell outside of their footprints which proves controlled demolition, and the collapse of Building 7 is identical to controlled demolitions. Very adorable. I responded to this message with my own rebuttals. If she responds back, I'll post it. I think Mark, in his conversation with Richard, tore apart this last comment of hers. WTC7 showed NO similarities to a controlled demo. No explosive flashes prior to collapse. No SOUNDS of explosives. The only similarity is that when the building fell, it fell down rather than up. Truthers can't even say that it fell into its footprint, since it didn't.
 
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless said:
I don't think people understand the seriousness of the situation. This man is designing structures that people may be putting their lives under. There should be sines on all of his work that says "You are standing under a structure that was designed by a guy who thinks dropping cardboard boxes demonstrates the physics behind building design. I think someone needs to publish a list of the buildings he has been involved in so that we can avoid those buildings for our safety sake.
Click to expand...

Could be the other way round. Maybe he's discovered the secret to buildings impervious to gravity, and to him it's so blindingly obvious he just doesn't realise that nobody else has caught up yet?
 
Last edited:
Tweeter said:
I sometimes wonder what you guys would say if the top 911 truther was a tour guide.
Click to expand...


Really? You wonder? I'd have figured that after all this time you'd at least figure that much out.

It's simple: "What's he got to support his claim(s)?"
 
thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg


Here we see Richard Gage explaining his superb debating skills by showing what he last debated himself out of.
 
Tweeter said:
The biggest laugh i got in part 2 was the look on Mark`s face when the host was introducing them.

"And we have Mark Roberts who is a, um... (pause) very well (pause) researched ahh 911 truth debunker."

I sometimes wonder what you guys would say if the top 911 truther was a tour guide.
Click to expand...

At least our tour guide doesn't suggest that cardboard boxes and Twin Towers are one of the same. Hell, look at me. I'm just an ass who slapped some subtitles over a crappy movie and look what happened to Loose Change; even other 9/11 deniers don't even breathe a word about it anymore. Same with 9/11 Mysteries.

So there you have it: Subtitles and a tour guide are your movement's biggest threats. Sad, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Gage destroys Roberts play by play.

I so wanted to start a new thread but I'll be nice.

Part I

Roberts 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 Roberts 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 shout be regarding the collapse of WTC7. Excellent point.

Gage then goes on to answer Roberts 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 shockwave that went through WTC7 after he heard what sounded like a clap of thunder then the building collapsed. The Bartner talks about the explosion he heard. What is Roberts response? No one who was there really knows what they heard. They’re not experts. They’re mistaken. But Roberts 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. Roberts 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.




Part II

Roberts starts out still claiming that iron wasn’t tested. Wrong. Roberts then goes on to state Gage is lying about tons of molten metal when all Gage did was point to witness accounts.

The moderator then asks Roberts if the firefighters were qualified to know just what it was they witnessed.

Roberts: “No not at all”

Nice.

Roberts then goes on to bring up how aluminum wheels or hubcaps (?) near the WTC melted. And? Were the WTC columns made out of aluminum? If iron melts well then sure there will be some melted aluminum.

Gage after having some connection problems seems to come back a little frazzled. He doesn’t like Roberts calling him a liar. He is warranted to be upset. But he needs to ignore the crap that Roberts throws out for lack of facts. Roberts is getting to him but Gage gets back on track.

Gage now goes on to bring up the much debated existence of thermite evidence.

Roberts then brings up RJLG and asks why they were talking about it. Gage starts to respond and Roberts in usual fashion interrupts with his bare assertions.

Gage then comes back with the science in which Roberts is totally unqualified to even hang.

WOW! Then Gage comes with the slide and the red chips! Roberts is owned!

“This stuff is not made in a cave in Afghanistan”

Oh yeah!

“Yes. That’s why they are extremely explosive I suppose?”

Roberts then stutters about primer.

The moderator then makes the point that the only reason anyone is able to even debate the topic at hand is because of Truther research.

Oh man. This is a massacre.

“90,000 tons of concrete missing.” - Gage

“A few pancakes that’s all I’m asking for.” – Gage

LOL!!!!!!!

I had to rewind the Roberts response to these points made by Gage because I couldn’t understand the Roberts mush mouth delivery. You can just see it in his eyes at this point trying to figure out how he can possibly save face on even the JREF forum. The only place that could possibly make an attempt to claim he even showed up for this debate.

“We had a hundred and ten floors and most of them are missing.” – Gage

Yes that’s right. This is brutal.

Gage goes to the tape of the collapse showing that the so-called piled driver does not exist.

The moderator then brings up the point of lack of independent research access to evidence. And that when independent research brings up valid points about the inadequacies of the official version they are only pointed to reports and claims of those that they question in the first place.

Excellent.

Roberts: “No one is stopping them…”

John Clifton: “ACCESS TO EVIDENSE…”

Yes hammer it home through his skull.

Gage bites on the straw man of explosive quantities needed but still beats Roberts.

Pathetic.

Ok I have to step in here. Roberts starts going off with how much explosives would be needed to destroy the towers. Something I have debated before. Is it not the claim of debunkers everywhere that the towers collapsed with no explosives involved? What the hell is this line of argument? Jesus friggin Christ.

“118 citing sounds of explosions” – Gage

Roberts gives his false promise of quitting the debunking movement if Gage can answer one question.

Gage answers him.

Roberts is still there. How surprising. Oh well.

Roberts then goes on to hand wave the witness accounts of 118 different people who unlike him were there.

This part is the best. I’ve already read how some here have made fun of Gage and his cardboard WTC model. But isn’t that what he was doing? Making fun of debunkers and their asinine version of events? It doesn’t happen no matter what scale you build it. NIST couldn’t even make a cartoon recreation that made sense of what it is they claimed happen to the towers. Give it up.

Roberts then goes on to dispute the official version times of collapse. No where to run.

Roberts tries to pull out the assertion of “well respected” peer reviewed papers and the moderator corrects him. He then desperately tries to bait Gage with off topic nuclear weapon claims. Way to finish strong. Gage doesn't bite. LOL!

Gage finishes with the squibs as far as forty stories below the non existent piled driver.

Love it. So much for the debunker hero.
 
Last edited:
Tweeter said:
The biggest laugh i got in part 2 was the look on Mark`s face when the host was introducing them.

"And we have Mark Roberts who is a, um... (pause) very well (pause) researched ahh 911 truth debunker."

I sometimes wonder what you guys would say if the top 911 truther was a tour guide.
Click to expand...

yes and it really says something when a tour guide is able to debunk the nonsense of these supposed "experts". Kinda really says something about their 'expert' status eh? Kinda of also scary that a 'tour guide' has done far more research and can on the spot retort every claim and present the evidence to do so on the spot.

As opposed to an architect making engineering claims in a field he has no expertise while pretending to be an expert. So yes, someone honest about their position vs someone who isn't honest about his expertise and it says quite a lot that you are more in favor of the guy who is being dishonest about his expertise.

And I don't think anyone even need to point out the antics of your supposed expert making an absolute fool out of himself with his cardboard boxes. You kids are going to have to spend a lot of time swallowing that one.

how impressive, your experts who think cardboard boxes equate a steel building, think that nuclear weapons were used, and that dropping concrete from a few feet proves the concrete was pulverized. Is it a truth movement or is it a circus?
 
Tweeter said:
...I sometimes wonder what you guys would say if the top 911 truther was a tour guide.
Click to expand...

Were you, perhaps, expecting the Ivy league to assemble a crack team of cutting edge string theorists and analytical philosophers?
 
Last edited:
Debate over why the buildings fell.
In this corner we have a tour guide from New York and in the other corner we have an Architect. Its laughable.
 
Homeland, thank you for copy/pasting the same argument you already made. Perhaps if you check out the responses to your cross posting, you will see how absurd your post is.

"Roberts starts out still claiming that iron wasn’t tested. Wrong. Roberts then goes on to state Gage is lying about tons of molten metal when all Gage did was point to witness accounts."

Roberts is not wrong about the iron not being tested. That is simply an outright lie. And the point Robert made which you clearly are not bright enough to have understood is that witness accounts are meaningless. Just because someone thinks molten metal is steel does not make it steel. Just like if the witnesses thought it was cotton candy, that doesn't make it cotton candy. But is this your idea of scientific investigation? making a conclusion based on what people who have no expertise in metalergy assume a material is? basically going by people's guesses? And you wonder why people laugh at the 911 twoof movement?
 
Tweeter said:
Debate over why the buildings fell.
In this corner we have a tour guide from New York and in the other corner we have an Architect. Its laughable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's laughable to watch an Architect use cardboard boxes and dare compare it to a 110 story buildings.
 
Tweeter said:
Debate over why the buildings fell.
In this corner we have a tour guide from New York and in the other corner we have an Architect. Its laughable.
Click to expand...

Ah so you're saying that what determines someone being right or wrong is simply their job titles?

mantra of the entire twoof movement. I think you pretty much summed up the logic of your entire cause right there. And of course overlooking the fact that an architect is not an engineer. So it's funny that you think a guy who has no expertise in what he is talking about is an expert because his job title sounds impressive to you.

Tell you what, my father is a REAL architect. not a guy like Gage who remodels kitchens. he is a real architect who designed large buildings for guys like Donald Trump and other major developers. He can tell you that Gage is an idiot and his claims are laughable. his credentials make Gage look like he just got out of HS. So if you want to argue credentials, your entire movement doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. And they're gonna need a lot more than some cardboard boxes.
 
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