Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA

is there any fictional low you wont drop to flankstake ?
people died ! so why be so obstructive
with your bush science ?

Great vid, I have seen his entire 2 hour speech/lecture about the collapse. Interesting stuff. You can't mess with physics...

@KevinMerck

Motel Iron? How do you know it was Iron and not copper-bronze or aluminum?

Those sections weren't ejected, they were the outer columns that tipped away from the building in long sections as lateral support was lost from the floors.

And how can you claim a symmetrical collapse when the building tipped 28 degrees? Exactly what units and what component markers are using to measure to symmetry?

At what point would you consider the collapse assymetrical?

WTC 1, 2, & 7 were controlled demolition, that's a fact. Think about this ...

Horizontal ejections of multi-ton steel sections up to 600 ft at 60 mph

Asymmetrical damage resulting in symmetrical "collapse"

"Collapse" at near free-fall acceleration

Positive identification of Nano-Thermite

Tons of molten iron under all three structures

Temperatures well above those possible in a hydrocarbon fire

@krs306

What's a baffiling?

What's a neanderthol?

See jizzmonger's page to see why you are stupid.

i think we all know ,flank stake that
you lost before you got started !
but your backward and baffiling posts
are ammusing ; )
please keep this up , your a credit to neanderthol heritage

@KevinMerck

Lets see the work from 1 of the thousand AE's on your website that shows that the collapse "violated" the laws of physics as they collapsed under the official claims.

Your organization has produced no such work because it can't.

Getting specific allows your claims to be easily refuted. You prefer to make vague, hollow claims that have no grounding in science whatsoever.

It allows you to continue your rather profitable fraud.

Some people may not be able to grasp the science and that's okay, but it's a mistake to give these people attention by needlessly arguing with them.

They just need to be seen as either people incapable of grasping the science or as miscreants trying to be disruptive.

It makes perfect sense that asymmetrical damage cannot lead to symmetrical collapse.

Buildings cannot fall at near free-fall speed without the use of explosives. The physics don't lie and it really is that simple.

@KevinMerck

Sure, claiming it loudly makes it true.

Lets see those credentials Kevin.

120 on an IQ test or 1200 on your SAT's or cease further claims.

Any further postings will result in account suspension.

(message 6)

In the real world, any collapse of building 7 would have been a partial collapse in the direction of the damaged area.

The worst case scenario for 1 and 2 would have been a partial collapse at the point of impact leaving the rest of the building standing.

There is no way on God's green earth that they could have collapsed at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance without the use of controlled demolition.

That would be *strictly impossible*.