Hardfire trailer ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

[CCRider100]

This is one of those examples of watching a train wreck in progress, where even before it starts, you think to yourself "This idiot is not going to do what I think he is going to do".

Richard Gage is living proof that no amount of education will overcome an appalling lack of common sense

[gimme2utah1]

...This guy has clearly lost his mind...

Richard Gage, Jesse Ventura, Charley Sheen, Rosie O'Donnel..These are your champions twoofers, embrace them!

[NotableJInx2]

I don't know if I shall thumb up or down the video...On the on hand, it makes me laugh, so that's a plus...on the other hand it's seriously stupid..

[taledarkside]

so richard gage dropped a cardboard box and it had no air resistance. ROFL

dumb twoofers

[hornetgags]

I loved the cardbox experiment, I have never laughed so much in my entire life...actually tell a lie, the guy who did the simple 911 experiment with plastic trays...that was the high point in the Twoofer movement.

[godzilla1077]

@hornetgags Actually that one made me laugh. Outside the fact that it was a horrible failure on his part on the plastic trays, you should see the lame excuse and reasoning he has on his comments response on the video. It's hilarious.

[godzilla1077]

@blackjerryboymetal Are you saying I believed in the inside job theory?

[Matisaro]

This guy is a retard.

[KeyGuy1967]

LMFAO!

Cardboard boxes????

Really Richard?

What a fucking tool you are.

10 years of truther failure what an accomplishment !

[EndTheFed59]

@KeyGuy1967

"What we need to stand up and say is not only did they attack the USS Liberty, they did 9/11. They did it. I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at it's headquarters, Marine Corps and I made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period."

Urban Moving Systems. Vans/explosives...read the damn police report nit!

[Seigu007]

Mark Roberts is a failed tour guide with zero credibility. His twin mole has more relevance than he does.

[stratocaster539]

@Seigu007 nice. do you think his twin moles would collapse under the same circumstances?

[lijebaley01]

It's rigged. I think he cheated, and put a lot of heavy weights in the box on the left. LMAO. Thank god for clowns like this to help alleviate some of the pain from that day.

[TimReed22222]

This clip is all the proof you need of what a COMPLETE and TOTAL FRAUD Richard Gage is.

Because if there's ANYONE who understands how utterly BOGUS this demonstration is, it's an ARCHITECT!

[Seigu007]

@TimReed22222 pig-ignorant american shits like you deserve to be destroyed with extreme prejudice. Tell your mother to stop breading. Youre a loser.

[godzilla1077]

@Seigu007 You're too stupid to believe the video. Even the physical nature of the boxes are completely different from the WTC's.

[JimmyGunXD556]

the towers were hit by planes. the planes weakened the steel, as the collapsed started, the terrorist then blew the explosives to bring the rest down. people think it was the gov. it wasnt, it was the terrorist that blew up the buildings. thats the confusion. for some reason we detecting explosives for some reason means we did it? (US). no, the terroist blew the buildings the US Gov is guilty of knowing it was going to happen. not that they did it.

[stratocaster539]

perfectly sound scientific demonstration. Disagreeing with it shows scientific ignorance at a most profound level.

[godzilla1077]

@stratocaster539 You're a simple minded fool that is easily swayed by this scam artist's presentation. Comparing boxes to the WTC is ridiculous. A box is built differently and it won't collapse at all like the WTC's. He completely ignores all the complexities that the structures are made of and uses boxes that are null in similarities in both physical features and components. If you think that this is scientific demonstration, then I got some baking soda and vinegar that will amaze you.

[stratocaster539]

@godzilla1077 actually size for size cardboard boxes are a great deal stronger - buts that what you get for making assumptions instead of finding out about the facts. You missed the point of this experiment in your rush attempt at trying to make me look foolish - it's simply that how can an object fall at freefall when it has any kind of mass obstructing it? - well guess what - it can't!Now - you keep the baking soda and vinegar and go and make some nice cakes ok?

[godzilla1077]

@stratocaster539 Here's why once again there's no point proven, the mass of the box is different compared to the mass of the building. Once again since I have to explain to you that when masses are different, you have different results in collision. You don't understand physics at all. You just been tricked easily by a guy who has zero knowledge in structural engineering and demolition.

[stratocaster539]

@godzilla1077 look. You believe what you want to believe.At the end of the day nobody gives a shit :]

[godzilla1077]

@stratocaster539 I believe in science and physics. You believe in lies and deceit. I can see why you don't care.

[godzilla1077]

@stratocaster539 "Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which ‘collapsed’ on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience." Richard Gage

[taledarkside]

Actually, both boxes fall at free fall speed. (if you are not considering air resistance since conspiracy nuts are going by grade school physics)

[krustster]

Every time I see this clip I find it hard to believe that it really happened. It looks like a joke put together by debunkers to make Richard Gage look like a fool, but he really is that retarded. Even better when the truthers claim that he is infallible.

[krustster]

My favorite is this video posted by a truther which claims to be be Gage "schooling" Mark Roberts when in reality the entire clip is Roberts explaining in detail that the mystery particles are from paint, while Gage basically goes "NO THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE EXPLOSIVE I SWEAR" and then ends with the legendary cardboard demonstration.

[punctualbird]

Does Richard Gage think that comparing the weight and force of a falling cardboard box to be similar to the weight and force of 15 floors of steel and concrete? I'm pretty sure if you dropped a 15 floor structure made of steel and concrete with the dimensions of the WTC buildings, you'd get a slightly more dramatic effect than a box falling onto another box. Did Gage get his architectural credentials from a fucking gumball machine or what? Wha the fuck is this????

[wordgeezer]

Hmm, I don't hear Richard Gage expounding any theories here. You average debunkers, who have gathered here to discredit him, should take a long hard look at the real evidence before you pollute Youtube with so much hot air.

None of the theories, including the NIST, amount to a hill of beans when considering the real evidence.

In my opinion, everyone should welcome an open and independent investigation where the evidence can be laid on the table and assessed by a jury of our peers.

[HeadLessMunkees]

Flakin idiot !

[nycsentinel]

For $10932/year you can become a AE911Truth Hero. Sounds like an insanely huge amount of money, considering the reward.

"We need many thousands of dollars per month to realize our goals."

-Richard "happy meal" gage

[wordgeezer]

I suppose that Richard Gage could have used something a little more complicated like the famous 9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense", by proudfootz on Youtube, but is there a single debunker with enough intelligence to understand such an in depth presentation of the physics of 911? G%

[taledarkside]

@wordgeezer

Proudfootz, the paid foreigner that looks like he has cancer.

Same person that deletes posts that has anything to do with physics.

[JPPolachek]

LOL, well it wasnt as bad as "You could drop the top floor of the WTC from 20 miles up and it wouldnt cause the building to collapse". or Judy "a death ray from space destroyed the world trade center " Woods. This is the pride of the Truther movement.some religious nut running around with 10 year old dust trying to convince a few retarded kids that there really is explosives in it,,really,,its not red paint chips!! or this idiot with a few cardboard boxes trying to prove a building was melted

[wordgeezer]

Simple examples for simple minds, yet the denseness of the average debunker is evident by the echo's, heard here, of an old story that doesn't fit the evidence.

[Obelisk2290]

which one of you stole his medication and straitjacket?

[nycsentinel]

“The Downtown Lower Manhattan Association and Department of City Planning, in their joint 1993 Plan for Lower Manhattan, proposed RADICALLY CULLING THE HERD OF OLDER BUILDINGS. The suggestion of even broader plazas, in place of OBSOLETE SKYSCRAPPERS, put a positive spin on an OFF-THE RECORD OBSERVATION BY THE DLMA spokesman that in order to stabilize property values, SEVERAL DOZEN DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDINGS WOULD SIMPLY HAVE TO BE RAZED.”Page 206 Divided We Stand Eric Darton(1999)

[HeadLessMunkees]

DICK GAGE

ROFLMAO !

[Obelisk2290]

oh my god i did not know the WTC was made of cardboard no wonder it collapsed

[garypopkin]

Thanks for your comment. Interestingly, Ryan Mackey shows in some other video that at these scales, the cardboard boxes are 10,000 times stronger than the towers. For example, the towers swayed in the wind. To build an accurate cardboard model, those boxes would have to be made so thin and flimsy that they would sway in the wind. As another example, those boxes can hold their own weight on top. The towers could not, showing that the boxes are way too strong.

[mlrs84]

That's probably because the only one you know in Europe only hang out with people like you, who believes in UFO,s a nasty New World Order, time travel, explosives in the wtc and so on....

[TIKOMIX]

normal "I have no evidence and can't use logic to argue" defense...typical.

[mlrs84]

And your "It looks like a demolition, therefore it MUST be one" is just so factual!

[PeaceIsRad]

mlrs84...give it up bud, you're not convincing anyone. Look at the video again and ask yourself is this possibly simple physics? But I really think you're too zombified to look at the evidence and I'm not talking about boxes. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!

[mlrs84]

Excuse me? Typical conspiracy theorist tactics. "You agree with the official story, therefore you MUST open your eyes, because we hold the ultimate truth. We know more about buildings than NIST; after all, we all have degrees from YouTube university in drawing conclusions from low resolution videos"

The reason I don't believe that this was done with explosives is that there is no evidence of it. You can talk about nanothermite all you want, but I'm not convinced.

[xAnacondax]

Well... according to them it all looks EXACTLY like a classic controlled demolition. But at the same time they were not CONVENTIONAL demolitions... And if it has never happened before then there can never be a first time...

Paradoxes don't exactly mix well in the twoof movement

[mlrs84]

Do you realize that it's not the explosion that makes a building fall in a CD, it's the removal of support for a structure. That's what explosives do, yes, but it can also happen in other ways. For instance being hit by debris from another skyscraper standing half a block away and towering roughly twice it's height. If a skyscraper collapses due to an earthquake, would you say explosives was used? In your mind collapse automatically involves collapse.

[TIKOMIX]

We have evidence of how "natural" collapses look like...like earthquakes. They look the way they're supposed to...These...well its obvious that they "at least" do not resemble what we would normally expect.

[mlrs84]

You just debunked yourself. A plane has never flown into this kind of structure before, so there are no references. That's precisely the point. The only reason you know that buildings might collapse in an earthquake is because it has happened before. This however was a unique event.

[TIKOMIX]

Missles hit buildings all the time...we do have somewhat of a reference of a "vehicle" striking a building. No symmetrical collapses there either.

[mlrs84]

When did a missile hit a 110 story building? I'm sorry, but your argument is not very convincing at all.

[NYsentinel]

“My sources in the Obama Administration also inform me that Federal agents are planning a raid…”

Les Jamieson | 13 April 2009

[NYsentinel]

Paul Isaac (NYsentinel) said

August 8, 2009 at 3:56 pm

“Jimmy Walters, who appeared at St Marks Church at a 911 truth event and showed a film focusing on the sexual habits, homosexuality, beastiality and sexual perversions (IN DETAIL !) of members of the Bush administration. Many of those in attendance left, appalled at the content being presented at a Les Jamieson promoted 911 event.”

Les Jamieson

National Coordinator

NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative / NYCCAN

Please Donate…

[AnalCrumb]

Lol, you're an expert on debunking yourself.

Well said.

You realize you've sided with the guy whose representation of the collapses involves three cardboard boxes, right?

Time to move out of mommy's basement!

[MJB919]

Oh my god. Is this guy for real? What a moron!

[MrTm1314]

seriously, i dont think this is even close to the wtc's, cardboard boxes, reely gage?

[osip667]

HE is right !!!

[thedman113]

"Gage totally CREAMED Roberts"

Oh really. Gage lied about what the RJ Lee report said. You're saying the liar creamed the guy telling the truth?

[thedman113]

"I recognize his flaws and can expose them."

Then please, list one of them for us here.

[terrymanning1]

Gage. You're a kook. Pathetic idiot.

[callmetoro]

what are u talking about. every truther argument for building 7 has been debunked.

[kubush]

Steel is not like glass but it is a better analogy to the physics of the building than a cardboard box.

[EdgemanLL2]

""Fireproofed steel beams are not like glass! ""

Nor are they like cardboard. Congrats. You debunked yourself.

[EdgemanLL2]

""the best miniature model that you can find.""

May be the best he could find. But its not applicable. Becuase the cardboard towers can stand alone without the core, or trusses. the REAL wtc couldnt.

Plus, the forces applied to a 110 story towers are just a weeee bit more bigger than a 3 foot high cardboard box. Sorry

[EdgemanLL2]

""You guys should see the full debate between Gage and Roberts. ""

Seen it. Roberts smoked him. HAHAHAH

[PeaceIsRad]

Of course this isn't accurate...it's not trying to be...it's an example...a very SIMPLE example of PHYSICS for those of you that can't wrap your head around the reality of the situation. If you've ever seen a steel framed building up close as it was being built you'd see just how difficult it is to believe the "OFFICIAL" story.

[TsunamiTruth]

there are archetects and engieers for tsunami truth too

but we dont use the same exact box demo

our boxes are painted blue

but its still a very good example

[mlrs84]

Well, it's really not representative. A cardboard box simulating a steel structure? Why don't car manufacturers just crash-test carboard boxes then? Or better still? What is the point of finite element analysis? After all, cardboard boxes is apparently a good model for a complex structure.

[TIKOMIX]

Basics are basics...and basically these buildings resemble demolitions.

[mlrs84]

I think they resemble two buildings which collapsed after being rammed by jets and left to burn for over an hour.

[KimmoKuopio]

OMG!

[Pollyannappollyon]

Fun stuff.

[EdgemanLL2]

This idiot is actually confusing a cardboard box with 80k of structural steel?

[TIKOMIX]

Of course not he is just explaining the obvious that the reaction between air and steel should be much different than what it was.

[EdgemanLL2]

well...then...you should be using air and steel.

Its a ridiculous comparison especially because the boxes (represent the ext cols) can free-stand on their own without any core or truss system.

The WTC needed the floor trusses connect to the core to remain standing. Boxes dont. Thats why its obvious that this is not a valid replication.

You couldnt "re-build" a WTC tower with just the ext cols--no floor truss or core--it would never stay up.

[TIKOMIX]

The floor trusses and and core columns UNDER the point of impact which were relatively undamaged acted as if they were not there. Thus making this demonstration applicable. Of course cardboard is a much easier representation to get a general point across. NIST actually did use air and steel and even they didn't get the results that happened that day.

[EdgemanLL2]

Yeah, but once the descending mass impacts the top intact floor (lets say floor 80) all the mass smashes into the floor truss for 80. Once that truss fails, there ex cols are now completely without support and are push outwards. Then everything falling to 79. The floor truss on 79 fails, and the ext cols for floor 79 are without support and fall outward.

His "floor 80" arrests the descent because its strong enough to, even without trusses in place. WTC ext cols couldnt without the trusses

[EdgemanLL2]

hes simply using a model where (due to the light nature of the upper section) the descending mass can be arrested by the ext cols only.

The real WTC ext cols were nowhere near strong enough themselves only. So as each floor failed one at a time, each floors ext cols failed.

[TIKOMIX]

The path of most resistance is the path that completely gives away with NO resistance.  In your scenario each floor would've had to impact the floor below 100% equally on all 4 sides at the same time and the floor below would have to fail without resisting the weight at all. Not only that but it would have been a gradual failure as the steel bent from the weight/heat. Just like the first tower that fell. It started to gradually lean to one direction.

[EdgemanLL2]

"The path of most resistance is the path that completely gives away with NO resistance."

Absoluetely false. If there were no resistance the collapses would have taken approx 9 seconds. They took (in reality) close to twice that.

Ergo, resistance has to be present.

Youre also unqualified to give an engineering assessment,

[TIKOMIX]

FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Eagar and all the OCT 'experts' agree that the WTC buildings came down at 'free fall' speeds.

"Youre also unqualified to give an engineering assessment, "

This is usually how supporters of the official theory try to wash the argument. You do not need an engineering degree to use common sense and some high school math formulas to figure out that the government's theory is false. Common sense imo would be that the top floors would've eventually fell to one side.

[EdgemanLL2]

FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Eagar ...

Actually the don't. Well, I dont know baz and edgr. But if they do, they are wrong.

Towers are simple. time them yourself. Do something youve never done before--your own research!

In addition (if the complexities of a stopwatch are too much for you) anyone with a HS level physics class can even see visual cues that prove the towers were far from a free-fall speed collapse.

[EdgemanLL2]

"You do not need an engineering degree"

No, actually you really do need that. Science is not "common sense guesses."

Your "common sense" method has been used in the past to prove the sun orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat.

Guesses are not science. Without a sufficient engineering background, youre not qualifed to make the judgement.

I dont understand Einsteins and Relativity. According to you, I dont need to be a physicists, as long as I have HS math

[EdgemanLL2]

cont...I can say "Common sense says Einstein was wrong. My HS math level cacluations say he is wrong."

According to your logic, I just proved Einstein wrong.

If it were so obviously wrong, why is it that 99.99% of the relevent engineers and physicists piss themselves laughing at you? Its not obvious to them.

So, yes, this is how normal people "wash" the argument. We actually rely on people who actually know what the fix they are talking about.

Silly notion, isnt that?

[TIKOMIX]

I guess that you still don't realize that the official report is still just a THEORY. The NIST floor models DID NOT COLLAPSE. The fires they used were hotter and burned for a longer period of time and just sagged. So instead of concluding that more testing was needed, our government just simply said...the sagging caused the collapse. "99.99% of the relevent engineers" Your way of saying the engineers that you agree with.

[EdgemanLL2]

I guess that you still don't realize that the official report is still just a THEORY."

Ummm, No. When all the evidence points away from one direction, and to another, thats fact.

You dont have to account for every minute detail for a fact to be proved. Example, you dont have to know why the sky is blue, to know that it is.

Investigators dont have to explain every failed rivet or busted seam on the titanic to know that it hit an iceberg and sank.

[TIKOMIX]

"Except for the fact that there is ZERO evidence of explosives, and the required events associated with explosives are 100% absent."

Free fall, Pulverized buildings, hot white flashes seen in buildings, squibs, molten metal in basements, testimony on basement explosions. If this was done with explosives it would be a military demolition. The private sector and military would not be using the same materials. Deception would be the objective.

[EdgemanLL2]

1) there were no squibs.

Those are actually the characteristics of a building with the design of the WTC being hit by a speeding airliner with 70lbs of Jet-A. Those are not characteristics of a CD.

[TIKOMIX]

"Silly notion, isnt that?" No it isn't. Common sense...a structure like the wtc towers which are designed to hold itself up plus other factors...wind, gravity etc, would not collapse symetrically, straight down, at the speed of free fall, INTO POWDER if the top 14 floors drop 12 onto itself. Common sense would dictate that the bottom intact portion would resist as much as possible and if it did give would give unsymetrically.

[TIKOMIX]

The conclusion was made by our government before the investigation. All of the "science" about these collapses is very easily explained with the use of explosives. This effect is repeatable with any building with explosives. Just the fact that both buildings were damaged entirely different yet fell the exact same way is the tell that it was controlled. That fact is very important.

[EdgemanLL2]

"is very easily explained with the use of explosives"

Except for the fact that there is ZERO evidence of explosives, and the required events associated with explosives are 100% absent.

You might as well claim "its all easily explained by the use of Giant robot dinosaurs from Mars eating the building." There is just as much evidence for both.

[TIKOMIX]

Gravity pulls symmetically. idenitcal, symmetrical buildings. If this were really the case then controlled demolitions would be easier than they are. Just put some tnt near the top of the building and watch it eventually fall straight down.

[EdgemanLL2]

"Just put some tnt near the top of the building and watch it eventually fall straight down. "

Again, another example where qualified engineering matters, and HS math guesses dont.

WTC was every unique in the design. Only a few other buildings worldwide share the relevent engineering properties.

But in either case, your "common sense" is proved false. Every reaction below the impacts SHOULD be identical. Not different.

[TIKOMIX]

"Again, another example where qualified engineering matters, and HS math guesses dont. "

High school math calculations, not guesses, can be used to explain plenty about the results of a controlled demolition.

[EdgemanLL2]

"High school math calculations, not guesses, can be used to explain plenty about the results of a controlled demolition. "

LOL, youre right. Hey, go get a job as an astronaut at Nasa, or one of their orbital physicists.

Im sure they will hire you. HS math is the APEX of all knowledge.

[thedman113]

In high school math did you learn that 80,000 is greater than 1,300?

[EdgemanLL2]

is the tell that it was controlled.."

No, its just the tell that people who rely on "common sense" and high school math should be ignored on this issue.

The 2 towers were identical below the impacts. While the upper sections might be expected to behave differently (and they did) 1nc the upper section hits the top intact floor and starts that chain reaction, the collapses are identical to each other from that point.

Gravity pulls symmetically. idenitcal, symmetrical buildings.

[TIKOMIX]

If high school math contradicts the official story it should not be ignored...it should be addressed and disproved. But it can't and that's the problem. The weight was distributed differently on both towers after the damage so the chain reaction that you speak of would've behaved differently. Yes the collapses were identical from that point on which is really the issue...My opinion as well as many others is that they would not be the same.

[EdgemanLL2]

""If high school math contradicts the official story it should not be ignored...""

Of course it should, and MUST.

Hgh school math is 100% inadeqaute to the problem. Just as it cant prove Einstein false.. Just as it cant prove orbital mechanics false.

This is like me watching a guy do surgery on Discovery channel. My dog sits on the couch next to me. Youre the dog watching TV saying "I dont understand what hes doing. so therefore he must be wrong."

[TIKOMIX]

This is like me watching a guy do surgery on Discovery channel. My dog sits on the couch next to me. Youre the dog watching TV saying "I dont understand what hes doing. so therefore he must be wrong."

Pretty funny but entirely inapplicable. This is more like being told that a brain transplant is possible by just changing heads but your high school biology class is irrelevant in concluding that this is not possible because you are not a surgeon.

[EdgemanLL2]

"Pretty funny but entirely inapplicable. "

No, its very applicable. Just because the explanation is over your head doesnt make it false, nor does it mean you get to make up your own explanation in response.

Youre committing a logical fallacy. Its called argument from ignorance. Something doesnt make sense to you, so you just make up an explanation that does make sense, and pretend thats proof.

Sorry. Dont work that way.

[mlrs84]

They didn't fall the same way. Wtc 1 fell more straight into itself, shredding the wall off the rest of the building, wtc 2 fell with an angle over 4 wtc, but you have to understand that the angular momentum can't increase indefinitely. At some point, the load of gravity becomes so great that it is pulled straight down either way.

[TIKOMIX]

crazy...sure they did...straight down with no resistance...same as all 3. The building's structure below the point of impact was intact yet gave out in neat little waves. seriously tho...why bother.

[mlrs84]

Hm, yes it was intact up to the point they couldn't take it no more. Just as the impact floors were perfectly fine until the planes hit. The ONLY thing that shows is that it collapsed, it doesn't prove the use of explosives. By your logic, the Titanic shouldn't have sunk aft of the part that hit an iceberg, because that wasn't hit by the iceberg.

[EdgemanLL2]

"Common sense..."

Common sense is not a substitute for science. Nor is "you can just look at it and tell."

you're entitled to your laymans guesses. But thats all they are. Guesses.

Just because you dont understand the intricacies of the physical world does not mean the laws of physics were violated that day.

[TIKOMIX]

Just because you don't understand the intricacies of the physical world does not mean the laws of physics were violated that day.

There are plenty of experts that say other wise when you take the official theory into consideration. You are the only one that I've heard call the official story a "fact".

Bringing down a building is easy...bringing down a building symetrically is very hard. It takes precision to bring down a building equally on all sides.

[EdgemanLL2]

"There are plenty of experts"

3 problems.

1) logical fallacy

2) these "experts" cant even take the FISRT step of passing peer review.

3) these "experts" comprise less than 1/10th of 1% of the worldwide opinion.

by percentage there are more people whu believe the Earth is flat, or realy "no shit" geologists who believe creationisn (and that the Earth is less than 7k years ol) is proved by the geological record.

So what?

[TIKOMIX]

"these "experts" comprise less than 1/10th of 1% of the worldwide opinion. " You're living in a bubble if you believe this. The popular worldwide opinion is that the US government did this. Polls have proven this time and time again. Americans are just a little be slow. Well I am no geologist but I believe the earth is not quite round but eliptical and is much older that 7k years old. But according to your logic I need to be a geologist to except this.

[EdgemanLL2]

"" You're living in a bubble if you believe this""

Then your high school math sucks ass.

Gages group "ae911 truth" is about 550 members, Most of which are not even relevent engineersts.

With at least 10 million relevent engineers worldwide, simply do the math. Youd need 100k struct, civil, or Arch engineers to question the collapses before you hit even 1% of the worlds expertise.

[MetaphorInVain]

Look who's in delussion!

[EdgemanLL2]

"There are plenty of experts"

Other problem is that because you dont have any scientific background to this issue, you can not judge credibly if these "experts" are pure bullshitters just winging it, or if they have a valid scientofic claim.

Peer review process indicates the former.

[universalstudios13]

very good points.

[LHOdidntdoit]

this guy should be drummed out of being an archt and should not be allowed to design anything.

He is so pathetic its hilarious.

AE911 Truth what an oxymoron.

[EdgemanLL2]

LHO--no need to worry. The critical stuff is done by Engineers.

[LHOdidntdoit]

i know that being in this biz since 1977.

Deal with archts every day.

[bIZAROsPRMN11]

Benito Mussolini did not appear in a courtroom.

Benito Mussolini did receive justice at the hands of the Italian people.

those responsible for murdering nearly 3,000 citizens on 9-11-01 deserve to be brought to justice.

Newton's Third Law is all the evidence needed to prove controlled demolition.

your choice U.S.A. ; stand up or stand down.

oddly, those most ignorant of events of 9-11-01 and Newton's third law are most vocal in support of Official Government CT and choose to stand down.

[EdgemanLL2]

Oddly, its those who pretend that others are ignorant of Newtons 3rd, and the events of 911 who wind up being the truley most ignorant. And they also wind up being truthers.

Anyone familiar with Newtons 3rd, or the cons of mo KNOWS dropping 2 cardboard boxes atop each other wont prove jack shit.

Just as they know visual interpretation of the WTC collapse is no substitute for the physics.

Perhaps, instead of just blindly parroting Gage, maybe take the time....

[EdgemanLL2]

to learn what the 3rd law of motion REALLY is. Take the time to really learn the conservation of momentum.

Because people who ACTUALLY understand the physics see exactly what the physics dictates they should see in those collapses. Not a CD in the bunch.

[bIZAROsPRMN11]

NIST chose to stand down.

NIST did not study the demolition and collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

NIST admits, in their own words, that their study

""... does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached ... ."

NIST - 2005

Newton's Third Law is all the evidence needed to prove controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2.

it should be apparent why NIST chose to stand down.

it it long past time for a criminal investigation and trial.

[bIZAROsPRMN11]

this is a pathetic video. what is even more pathetic is that at least 99% of Americans do not understand Newton's Third Law or have intentionally chosen to stand down.

Newton's Third Law is all the evidence that is needed to prove controlled demolition.

message to those who have intentionally CHOSEN to stand down; you have shown your color.

"...they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

-Adolf Hitler-

[D3mi4n]

But, is impossible for the plane crash to create a demolition-kind of collapsing?

Buildings are complex systems.

[ScootleRoyale]

to be fair, if the kinetic energy of the top section is enough to destroy one floor... the rest WILL follow, the concrete WILL be pulverised and it WILL all happen at near freefall speed.

55 floors falling at 35m/s will have kinetic energy 50 times what the planes had!

Its just a question of whether or not 15 or 25 floors travelling at about 8.5m/s will destroy the first floor they hit. That's where the debate resides.

A near freefall collapse is not impossible as it sounds.

[adunwad]

Hahahaha... Richard Gage is funny man xD

In fact he should be ashame that he taking sh i t like that... N/C

[zensmack89]

Why isn't this complete debate posted? Roberts got his little notebook shoved right up his ass.

I mean hardfire isn't selling these are they? Exploiting 9/11 for profit? Oh the shame.

[mikebuhroo]

Oh yeah, to the guy who ridiculed Gage for the boxes. He wasn't being literal in his comparison he was trying to make point. To me Gage was more convincing for one reason," THAT CANNOT HAPPEN 3 TIME IN THE SAME DAY!" If someone got 3 royal straight flushes would you think they cheated? If you hit 3 jackpots on the slots would security grab you? Why would FEMA and NIST lie? Who do they work for? You think their gonna make a stink so they can get blackballed and the same report comes out anyway?

[mikebuhroo]

Does my common sense tell me 3 buildings would all collapse while looking like a controlled demo in the same day? To me Mark Roberts sounds like he's just disagreeing to diagree. Can anyone debate that Bush and friends tried very hard to ditch the material from those buildings and block any real investigation? People hide things for a reason. Can anyone dispute that a real independant investigation needs to be done? Would you try to stop someone from looking at something for nothing?

[jizzmonger]

"Eat some more paint chips."

~Tammertard~

Should I just keep eating them until I am as dumb as you or your Dad?

[jizzmonger]

I have already procreated. They will be the ones in charge of the NWO who own you and tell you what to do.

Don't worry though, when I hump yer Moms I pull out. I don't need any kids with that female. I can see the massive failure her genes have produced already.

Have a good day! :)

[jizzmonger]

You mean I'll have enough skills to drop some cardboard boxes on top of each other and have idiots like you believe I am credible too?

[jizzmonger]

I can see that.

[jizzmonger]

Do you enjoy making yourself look like an idiot?

[jizzmonger]

He's not respected nor is he admired except by the rest of the flunkies in the Truther movement.

[kaz00you]

WHAT AN IDIOT .... I wouldn't let this guy build me a bird house

[MrSammo1]

Very valid point.

[AkronXXI]

OMG Really. Wow Richard did you learn this while designing a Warehouse or a High School? Oh wait you must be a structural engineer right? No. Well you must at least know how to use a stopwatch right? Yeah, well how come everyone else got around 14-15 seconds while you get around 9.22?

[unclesamsnephew666]

pathetic.

[01psd]

I wouldn't let this guy design a doghouse for me

[budtoken]

Obviously steel and concrete aren't as strong as those cardboard thingys you're using.  LOL

[Swanhearted]

Its the comparison. If he used carboard for both it would in the end be like using steel and concrete for both.

[kubush]

The physics is simply NOT the same. A better comparison would be a bowling ball on top of a glass table. The glass table can support the bowling ball if you carefully set it there and it just sits on the table. However, if you take that same mass and drop it from a couple of feet above the glass, the glass will not support it and it will break.

[jizzmonger]

Your first mistake is trying to use logic when responding to a 911 Truther.

If they were able to logically think something through, they wouldn't be 911 Truthers in the first place.