ae911truth[dot]info debunks this man's crap point by point. Have some brains of your own and check out the what real engineers have to say. You can also get the same point by point debunking of this tripe at 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report' at popularmechanics[dot]com a magazine I'm sure all true engineers out there are very familiar with.
You're a paid debunker, but not a very sophisticated one. After all, you've created a whole site which not only MISREPRESENTS most facts, but you're also NOT ADDRESSING the key point of ae911truth - "please conduct a NEW INVESTIGATION." One conducted by REPUTABLE and OBJECTIVE parties would either prove "you guys" right - or the 911 Truth guys. I would PREFER that your guys were right. But the evidence that ANYONE can glean from videos of that tragedy BELIE your INEPT "debunking."
You must be smoking crack. I've not created any site; I've only given the URL for another site that contests Chandler's theories and conjecture. To tell the truth, I'd welcome a new investigation the looks into all the truthers tripe and refutes it all point by point. Of course all that is already out there provided you're willing to look for documented evidence rather than believe rumor and conjecture.
In that case I'm baffled at how a supposedly "objective" person can be so blind. (1) LOOK at the available data. Something bother you about that? If yes, (2) look at available research. If nothing bothers you, go back to sleep. Use your EYES and LOGIC. Clearly AT THE VERY LEAST a new IMPARTIAL investigation is needed. The Commission report is CLEARLY a whitewash. If it's not a "conspiracy" then it's criminal sloppiness. I HATE the idea of a conspiracy but so far nothing I found disproves it.
Yes, there are a number of things that bother me about the conjecture, theory, and rumor that truthers try to pass off as fact. If you have documented evidence that proves anything I'm happy to consider it. As for myself, I've not relied on the 9/11 commission report as a single point of proof. I've located sufficient documented facts to convince me that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were NOT brought down by controlled demolition. Since the truthers are wrong there, their remaining arguments are specious.
For me, the VISUAL data coupled with OFFICIAL REPORTS never added up. There are MANY alternative views online, some quite shakey (at best) and some - like ae911truth org not just "credible" but in fact MORE credible than the official report, which is not to say it's the "only" truth. For me, the available data is DEFINITELY in favor of the alternative view. And I hate it. But I haven't yet found a credible (i.e. logical and IMPARTIAL) debunker and I AM LOOKING for one all the time.
In your post you're giving evidence of someone whose mind is made up A PRIORI. If you haven't seen "evidence" of controlled demolition, what about your EYES? Are the collapse vids trick photography? Don't you have a watch? Can you count the seconds it takes to collapse? How can that NOT bother you? I'm fully open to a credible explanation of how a building can collapse like that at such a speed without it being controlled. I just haven't found it yet. USE YOUR LOGIC and COMMON SENSE!
My recommendation is do your own research and find documented facts that answer your questions. For me it was a matter of finding documented evidence provided by experts who weren't debunkers that convinced me that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not brought down by explosive charges i.e. controlled demolition. As stated, in my book, since the truthers are wrong about the cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 the rest of their arguments become suspect as well. In short, truthers are ignorant or lying.
So you wrote a book. Nice. You selectively cherrypick among the "experts" forgetting that HUNDREDS of experts endorse the ae911truth view. But... they are not aligned with any of the parties who MIGHT be interested in hushing things up - like the "experts" YOU rely on. No matter what anyone says, all you have to do is TIME the collapse. That is ALL. And then ask yourself how that can be? And ask your "experts" to provide evidence of such a collapse EVER having happened before without explosives.
That's "in my book" as in "in my opinion". I didn't write a book. You presume; you've no idea who "my" experts are. In fact, they are not aligned with any side. They are, however, experts in their field and the exact people to determine if WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. Plus, they have the prove. I don't need to ask any such question since you can't prove that explosives brought the buildings down. Timing is not where to look; where is where to look.
Sorry, I misread you. Indeed I have no idea of your sources. But I have an idea that many of our sources overlap, the principal among them being VISUAL inspection of the videos, stop-watch in hand. You CAN NOT provide proof of near-free-fall under ANY other circumstances. It is IMPOSSIBLE, by ALL accounts - except the ones backed by the government. And those, frankly, are completely untenable. Set up an experiment that proves it. Nobody has to date. A new investigation is needed! Use LOGIC.
Your statements convince me youve never viewed my source. As stated, timing, as in free fall, has nothing to do with it, its specious. All that free fall CRAP depends on which videos you use and at what point you start your watch. Besides, its meaningless. All that matters is WHERE. As in WHERE are the initial points of failure and how do they resemble (or NOT) a typical controlled demolition? In other words, if it doesn't walk like a duck, and it doesnt sound like a duck, it's not a duck.
Actually at least two experiments have been conducted that claim to prove or disprove free fall, one by Richard Gage, the subject of this thread, himself. You Tube search AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE
and
9/11 Simple Experiment
Both videos are hysterically funny, especially Gage. Careful you dont break a rib from laughing. I almost did.
I viewed your original misguided source. And then some. No point to further argue this. For you the demolition speed is of no importance, so further discussion would require a flawed premise. The FREE-FALL destruction is the KEY problem. If you get stabbed 1x, maybe you ran into the knife. If you get stabbed 3x, that's hardly a run-in and dismissing that as "specious" proves either intellectual dishonesty or lack of intelligence. If you get this analogy, then it's the first in your case.
You presume again, a trait common to all truthers: w w w . urban75 . org / info / conspiraloons . html . The original link provided relates to Gage specifically. My source as concerns why something which doesn't walk like a duck nor sound like a duck isn't a duck has not been provided. As you're stuck on your free fall tripe I recommend you view:
watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw
watch?v=X8cU9i7-e9M&feature=related
watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk
Heed the warning on the first video. Note, these are not about ducks.
I suggest we stop this. I'm NOT aligned with ANY truth or "anti-truth" people. I'm looking for my own clues using my professional knowledge where applicable and common sense everywhere else. I treat seriously any RATIONAL arguments for or against, but reject anything which is dogmatic or arbitrary - or just plain spiteful and argumentative. Like ALL your arguments and your specious sources. I'm hoping to prove the turthers wrong. Unfortunately, so far, they win on almost every count. Wake up!
Quit whenever you choose, I didn't ask to be accosted. I disagree that you are not "aligned". Your statements clearly imply you are in the denier camp. Proving truther lunacy is easy enough; all you need are documented facts instead of the conjecture, theory, and rumor truthers present. Take you for example, I've provided links which prove false Gage and free fall while you've not presented a single documented fact; relying rather on conjecture. Confess, you're a Chandler groupie, aren't you?
um, you know NIST itself admitted to free fall of WTC 7 in their revised report? That's no longer a "rumor" or "conspiracy theory". Try reading their report if you care enough to.
I no longer wast time with truther dip shits. Try alienentity, youtube . com / user / AlienEntity1. alienentity is much more up to speed on free fall and will hand your ass to you. Ditto for your other comment.
First of all I'm not a "truther". These are just the hard facts and I don't care what some random youtuber comes up with. Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory, listening to a theory by a random youtuber with no science behind it, just cause it suits your emotions. The final NIST report says free fall, get over it. People like you are as bad as the conspiracy theorists that think they have 9/11 down to exactly who was behind the conspiracy and # of people. Read the report yourself, don't listen to me.
Being a truther is like being pregnant, you either are or you are not. Your fascination with NIST, free fall and WTC 7 implies you saw color on your pee test this morning. As noted, if you find free fall, NIST, and WTC 7 important, go chat with alienentity: youtube . com / user / AlienEntity1. He is far more up on the B.S. of free fall and WTC 7. If you're looking for an argument he'll be happy to kick your ass. As for me, you and all other truthers, admitted or not, are a waste of time.
lol no it isn't, if you think it's like that, grow up, honestly. That's like saying you're only either liberal or conservative. You can accept some facts/ideas from both sides as true. There's lots of idiots on both sides. Lots of "debunkers" that cherry-pick facts and evidence are just as bad as the conspiracy cherry-pickers. For example I always see in debates eyewitness testimony cited, but when it's not favoring their side, they say it's unreliable. However, some things are hard fact.
Yes, it is. Either you believe 9/11 occurred because fanatical, death worshiping murderers flew planes into the WTC or you don't. If you don't, you're a truther and a waste of time, truther. Don't believe me, go ask alienentity if you have the guts and truly believe the B.S. your pushing.
You may believe as you will. You're presumptive. I am agnostic in my religious believes, I'll believe it when I see it. On 9/11 I saw it. To my regret I became involved in these pointless "debates" with delusional truthers who grasp at any an all theory that 9/11 occurred for reasons other than what actually happened. What is your problem? Are you unable to grasp that I have nothing but contempt for truther thought and opinion? Try someone who cares and will set you straight like alienentity.
BTW, truthers "win" only among those gullible and paranoid enough to believe the tripe they pedal. If you're one of those I suggest you collect your complimentary copy of Paranoia Magazine w w w . paranoiamagazine . com on your way out and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
You and other wannabe demagogues can't be accosted enough. I know ALL the sources you mentioned and they are mostly deliberate distortions. It's not about paranoia. It's about evidence and discovery of truth. Either side is open to error. Just don't shut them up. It might be your ass on the line next time. Meanwhile, watch "Loose Change" on video google. I'm out dude. Wasted enough time here.
Loose Change? by Avery and Bermas? hahahaha!!! you're killing me, ziggy! watch w w w.lolloosechange . co . nr. Regards, pedal/peddle. You're right, my spell check missed that one, still, you got my meaning. Later ziggy.....say, you're last name wouldn't be zag, would it?
ae911truth[dot]info debunks this man's crap point by point. Have some brains of your own and check out the what real engineers have to say. You can also get the same point by point debunking of this tripe at 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report' at popularmechanics[dot]com a magazine I'm sure all true engineers out there are very familiar with.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
You're a paid debunker, but not a very sophisticated one. After all, you've created a whole site which not only MISREPRESENTS most facts, but you're also NOT ADDRESSING the key point of ae911truth - "please conduct a NEW INVESTIGATION." One conducted by REPUTABLE and OBJECTIVE parties would either prove "you guys" right - or the 911 Truth guys. I would PREFER that your guys were right. But the evidence that ANYONE can glean from videos of that tragedy BELIE your INEPT "debunking."
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
You must be smoking crack. I've not created any site; I've only given the URL for another site that contests Chandler's theories and conjecture. To tell the truth, I'd welcome a new investigation the looks into all the truthers tripe and refutes it all point by point. Of course all that is already out there provided you're willing to look for documented evidence rather than believe rumor and conjecture.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
In that case I'm baffled at how a supposedly "objective" person can be so blind. (1) LOOK at the available data. Something bother you about that? If yes, (2) look at available research. If nothing bothers you, go back to sleep. Use your EYES and LOGIC. Clearly AT THE VERY LEAST a new IMPARTIAL investigation is needed. The Commission report is CLEARLY a whitewash. If it's not a "conspiracy" then it's criminal sloppiness. I HATE the idea of a conspiracy but so far nothing I found disproves it.
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
Yes, there are a number of things that bother me about the conjecture, theory, and rumor that truthers try to pass off as fact. If you have documented evidence that proves anything I'm happy to consider it. As for myself, I've not relied on the 9/11 commission report as a single point of proof. I've located sufficient documented facts to convince me that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were NOT brought down by controlled demolition. Since the truthers are wrong there, their remaining arguments are specious.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
For me, the VISUAL data coupled with OFFICIAL REPORTS never added up. There are MANY alternative views online, some quite shakey (at best) and some - like ae911truth org not just "credible" but in fact MORE credible than the official report, which is not to say it's the "only" truth. For me, the available data is DEFINITELY in favor of the alternative view. And I hate it. But I haven't yet found a credible (i.e. logical and IMPARTIAL) debunker and I AM LOOKING for one all the time.
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
In your post you're giving evidence of someone whose mind is made up A PRIORI. If you haven't seen "evidence" of controlled demolition, what about your EYES? Are the collapse vids trick photography? Don't you have a watch? Can you count the seconds it takes to collapse? How can that NOT bother you? I'm fully open to a credible explanation of how a building can collapse like that at such a speed without it being controlled. I just haven't found it yet. USE YOUR LOGIC and COMMON SENSE!
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
My recommendation is do your own research and find documented facts that answer your questions. For me it was a matter of finding documented evidence provided by experts who weren't debunkers that convinced me that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not brought down by explosive charges i.e. controlled demolition. As stated, in my book, since the truthers are wrong about the cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 the rest of their arguments become suspect as well. In short, truthers are ignorant or lying.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
So you wrote a book. Nice. You selectively cherrypick among the "experts" forgetting that HUNDREDS of experts endorse the ae911truth view. But... they are not aligned with any of the parties who MIGHT be interested in hushing things up - like the "experts" YOU rely on. No matter what anyone says, all you have to do is TIME the collapse. That is ALL. And then ask yourself how that can be? And ask your "experts" to provide evidence of such a collapse EVER having happened before without explosives.
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
That's "in my book" as in "in my opinion". I didn't write a book. You presume; you've no idea who "my" experts are. In fact, they are not aligned with any side. They are, however, experts in their field and the exact people to determine if WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. Plus, they have the prove. I don't need to ask any such question since you can't prove that explosives brought the buildings down. Timing is not where to look; where is where to look.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Sorry, I misread you. Indeed I have no idea of your sources. But I have an idea that many of our sources overlap, the principal among them being VISUAL inspection of the videos, stop-watch in hand. You CAN NOT provide proof of near-free-fall under ANY other circumstances. It is IMPOSSIBLE, by ALL accounts - except the ones backed by the government. And those, frankly, are completely untenable. Set up an experiment that proves it. Nobody has to date. A new investigation is needed! Use LOGIC.
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
Your statements convince me youve never viewed my source. As stated, timing, as in free fall, has nothing to do with it, its specious. All that free fall CRAP depends on which videos you use and at what point you start your watch. Besides, its meaningless. All that matters is WHERE. As in WHERE are the initial points of failure and how do they resemble (or NOT) a typical controlled demolition? In other words, if it doesn't walk like a duck, and it doesnt sound like a duck, it's not a duck.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Actually at least two experiments have been conducted that claim to prove or disprove free fall, one by Richard Gage, the subject of this thread, himself. You Tube search AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE
and
9/11 Simple Experiment
Both videos are hysterically funny, especially Gage. Careful you dont break a rib from laughing. I almost did.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
I viewed your original misguided source. And then some. No point to further argue this. For you the demolition speed is of no importance, so further discussion would require a flawed premise. The FREE-FALL destruction is the KEY problem. If you get stabbed 1x, maybe you ran into the knife. If you get stabbed 3x, that's hardly a run-in and dismissing that as "specious" proves either intellectual dishonesty or lack of intelligence. If you get this analogy, then it's the first in your case.
ziggyNY123 2 years ago 2
You presume again, a trait common to all truthers: w w w . urban75 . org / info / conspiraloons . html . The original link provided relates to Gage specifically. My source as concerns why something which doesn't walk like a duck nor sound like a duck isn't a duck has not been provided. As you're stuck on your free fall tripe I recommend you view:
watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw
watch?v=X8cU9i7-e9M&feature=related
watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk
Heed the warning on the first video. Note, these are not about ducks.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
omg u suck, fake ass goverment wannerbe your source is youtube
kavdenmark 2 years ago
BTW, your knife analogy is right up there with Gage and his box demo. LMAO!!
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Forgive me, I meant to ask you, are you sure you're not a David Chandler parrot? Because if you are I have a huge surprise for you.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
I suggest we stop this. I'm NOT aligned with ANY truth or "anti-truth" people. I'm looking for my own clues using my professional knowledge where applicable and common sense everywhere else. I treat seriously any RATIONAL arguments for or against, but reject anything which is dogmatic or arbitrary - or just plain spiteful and argumentative. Like ALL your arguments and your specious sources. I'm hoping to prove the turthers wrong. Unfortunately, so far, they win on almost every count. Wake up!
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
Quit whenever you choose, I didn't ask to be accosted. I disagree that you are not "aligned". Your statements clearly imply you are in the denier camp. Proving truther lunacy is easy enough; all you need are documented facts instead of the conjecture, theory, and rumor truthers present. Take you for example, I've provided links which prove false Gage and free fall while you've not presented a single documented fact; relying rather on conjecture. Confess, you're a Chandler groupie, aren't you?
tyburnstree 2 years ago
um, you know NIST itself admitted to free fall of WTC 7 in their revised report? That's no longer a "rumor" or "conspiracy theory". Try reading their report if you care enough to.
trtnec 2 years ago
I no longer wast time with truther dip shits. Try alienentity, youtube . com / user / AlienEntity1. alienentity is much more up to speed on free fall and will hand your ass to you. Ditto for your other comment.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
First of all I'm not a "truther". These are just the hard facts and I don't care what some random youtuber comes up with. Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory, listening to a theory by a random youtuber with no science behind it, just cause it suits your emotions. The final NIST report says free fall, get over it. People like you are as bad as the conspiracy theorists that think they have 9/11 down to exactly who was behind the conspiracy and # of people. Read the report yourself, don't listen to me.
trtnec 2 years ago
Being a truther is like being pregnant, you either are or you are not. Your fascination with NIST, free fall and WTC 7 implies you saw color on your pee test this morning. As noted, if you find free fall, NIST, and WTC 7 important, go chat with alienentity: youtube . com / user / AlienEntity1. He is far more up on the B.S. of free fall and WTC 7. If you're looking for an argument he'll be happy to kick your ass. As for me, you and all other truthers, admitted or not, are a waste of time.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
lol no it isn't, if you think it's like that, grow up, honestly. That's like saying you're only either liberal or conservative. You can accept some facts/ideas from both sides as true. There's lots of idiots on both sides. Lots of "debunkers" that cherry-pick facts and evidence are just as bad as the conspiracy cherry-pickers. For example I always see in debates eyewitness testimony cited, but when it's not favoring their side, they say it's unreliable. However, some things are hard fact.
trtnec 2 years ago
Yes, it is. Either you believe 9/11 occurred because fanatical, death worshiping murderers flew planes into the WTC or you don't. If you don't, you're a truther and a waste of time, truther. Don't believe me, go ask alienentity if you have the guts and truly believe the B.S. your pushing.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
You must've never heard of the term "agnostic". Maybe one can believe there's not enough information, possibly?
trtnec 2 years ago
You may believe as you will. You're presumptive. I am agnostic in my religious believes, I'll believe it when I see it. On 9/11 I saw it. To my regret I became involved in these pointless "debates" with delusional truthers who grasp at any an all theory that 9/11 occurred for reasons other than what actually happened. What is your problem? Are you unable to grasp that I have nothing but contempt for truther thought and opinion? Try someone who cares and will set you straight like alienentity.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
BTW, truthers "win" only among those gullible and paranoid enough to believe the tripe they pedal. If you're one of those I suggest you collect your complimentary copy of Paranoia Magazine w w w . paranoiamagazine . com on your way out and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
You and other wannabe demagogues can't be accosted enough. I know ALL the sources you mentioned and they are mostly deliberate distortions. It's not about paranoia. It's about evidence and discovery of truth. Either side is open to error. Just don't shut them up. It might be your ass on the line next time. Meanwhile, watch "Loose Change" on video google. I'm out dude. Wasted enough time here.
btw it's "peddle" not "pedal"
ziggyNY123 2 years ago
Loose Change? by Avery and Bermas? hahahaha!!! you're killing me, ziggy! watch w w w.lolloosechange . co . nr. Regards, pedal/peddle. You're right, my spell check missed that one, still, you got my meaning. Later ziggy.....say, you're last name wouldn't be zag, would it?
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Comment removed
kavdenmark 2 years ago
I belive the guilty will be caught. They were stupid to try to get away with something like this. The guilty are just dumb.
doof00flemming 2 years ago
Keep up the great work.
It has to come out eventually, just keep pushing the evidence. Good man.
magicbibledotcom 2 years ago 3
Here we have "THE SMOKING GUN"! Keep up the great work and the fight for TRUTH!
SantaSatin 2 years ago 5
mosad & marvin bush are laughing at american people, i guess.
and next false flag operation is ready for american people, too. so psychopaths and sociopaths can get away from arrest.
wannaruwae 2 years ago 5