Richard Gage argues 9/11 with a box of rocks in front of the White House

What does it say about our education system when the dude with sunglasses is actually a high school history teacher? Definitely want that guy teaching the new 9/11 curriculum to all our youngin's.

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love


Was was with the high school teachers last comment 'careful there Richard'?

Was he talking about his girlfriend or his stance on 9/11?

If that kid is teaching high school history we are in a world of #.

What a douche...

Please don't insult rocks! Rocks have more common sense than that man in the sunglasses!

Nice video mate, good find!

And seriously, what was with the "Careful there, Richard" comment - he did not look like he was kidding. Beware the rage of the debunker lmao

[edit on 28/9/2009 by Kryties]

i don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

look at any photos from any war ever. you will see partially destroyed buildings. even in hiroshima and nagasaki there are still buildings that did not fully collapse.

these people are idiots. debate is meaningless. if we cared about being raped by our government we'd do something. we don't, so quit acting like it.

reply to post by Moodle


Umm, the reason it is being debated in the first place is because people care.

Nice debunking of yourself there mate

And what does partially destroyed buildings in Hiroshima have to do with WTC 7 falling at freefall speed because of office fires?

[edit on 28/9/2009 by Kryties]

Well at least the guy has some rocks in his box. Richards box is definitely empty.

reply to post by Kryties


WTC 7 was constructed in new york. I don't see how much more clear i can't make this.

What do you expect from a teacher? This guy probably hands out a worksheet at the beginning of class and collects it at the end. The History being taught now isn't what I learned in school. Too much revisionism for political correctness is involved.

After attending a few NEA seminars, I am so glad that I decided to stay out of education.
At least this guy has rocks in his head, I think Gage has pure vacuum in his.

Originally posted by Dr Love

What does it say about our education system when the dude with sunglasses is actually a high school history teacher? Definitely want that guy teaching the new 9/11 curriculum to all our youngin's.

Peace

Can someone please tell me exactly what constitutes a "normal office fire"? I sat there and watched the thing on TV completely engulfed in smoke and yet people are still trying to argue like there was only a smoking garbage can in a cubicle. Truly unbelievable.

reply to post by hooper


The entire building could have been engulfed in flames, from bottom, to top, and it still should not have collapsed. Steel framed buildings, especially one's as structurally sound as WTC7 don't just collapse from fire.

In fact, WTC7 was constructed with massive reinforcements, such that multiple floors could be rebuilt without effecting the structure.

It was probably the most structurally solid high rise commercial office building in the world.

I'd like someone to explain how all supports across the entire breadth of the building could simultaneously uh vanish..? It makes ZERO sense.

Damn that Zelikow myth is STRONG eh? More powerful than reason.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by hooper

 

The entire building could have been engulfed in flames, from bottom, to top, and it still should not have collapsed. Steel framed buildings, especially one's as structurally sound as WTC7 don't just collapse from fire.

In fact, WTC7 was constructed with massive reinforcements, such that multiple floors could be rebuilt without effecting the structure.

It was probably the most structurally solid high rise commercial office building in the world.

I'd like someone to explain how all supports across the entire breadth of the building could simultaneously uh vanish..? It makes ZERO sense.

Damn that Zelikow myth is STRONG eh? More powerful than reason.

So again, what is a "normal office fire"? And if, in your opinion, an entire building could be engaged in a raging inferno and never fail, then why the constant reference to "normal office fires"? Or is it possible that most peope understand the simple concept that if you have a builing with ground to penthouse fire then there is just a slight chance that those fires may, just may, threaten the integrity of the building structure.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by hooper

 

The entire building could have been engulfed in flames, from bottom, to top, and it still should not have collapsed. Steel framed buildings, especially one's as structurally sound as WTC7 don't just collapse from fire.

In fact, WTC7 was constructed with massive reinforcements, such that multiple floors could be rebuilt without effecting the structure.

It was probably the most structurally solid high rise commercial office building in the world.

I'd like someone to explain how all supports across the entire breadth of the building could simultaneously uh vanish..? It makes ZERO sense.

Damn that Zelikow myth is STRONG eh? More powerful than reason.

So again, what is a "normal office fire"? And if, in your opinion, an entire building could be engaged in a raging inferno and never fail, then why the constant reference to "normal office fires"? Or is it possible that most peope understand the simple concept that if you have a builing with ground to penthouse fire then there is just a slight chance that those fires may, just may, threaten the integrity of the building structure.

Even if there was sufficient fires over a long enough timeframe to cause a loss of structural integrity in a variety of areas, say if the whole building WAS engulfed in flame, even then, that would not explain the almost straight down, sudden, free fall descent of the building directly into it's own footprint.

The structural supports at a lower level of the building MUST have been CUT with explosives - there is no other way that is even physically possible.

So you could pump up the amount of fire by ever greater magnitudes than the scattered fires which were observed (and how they started, now that's also a mystery in my books), and still not explain the destruction of the building.

Also, please look into the late Barry Jennings tesimony, who was a security guy who worked in that building. There were explosions going on in that building even BEFORE the North Tower "collapsed", and a whole section of floor was blown out, and there were bodies. And to this day, no one knows Barry's actual cause of death. It's a mystery. A 9/11 truth group even tried to hire a private investigator to look into it, and shortly thereafter he gave them back the retainer and indicated that he wanted nothing to do with it.

The myth is strong.. but it will fall.

there were hardly any broken windows on the north side. there was lots of smoke on the south side, but not much flame.

a building "fully involved in fire" would have flamed shooting out of it, and the smoke would be above the flames, you wouldn't have just smoke, and no broken windows.

i notice how debunkers feel very comfortable glossing over the one fact that proves demolition, and that is freefall. "only" 2.3 seconds of it, but enough to be proof that the building offered zero resistance for that period.
the argument that the inside fell first doesn't matter, because even a "just" a wall can't fall through itself at freefall speed.

the cardboard box demonstration is fine, too. it is simply an illustration of how something cannot all through a solid as fast as it can fall through air.

debbies are silly.

Originally posted by hooper
Can someone please tell me exactly what constitutes a "normal office fire"? I sat there and watched the thing on TV completely engulfed in smoke and yet people are still trying to argue like there was only a smoking garbage can in a cubicle. Truly unbelievable.

There is no such thing as a "normal office fire"

The fire could have completely engulfed the whole building but there is no way on earth that the building would have collapsed symetrically, not one chance...!!

The fact there are people that refuse to believe the evidence shown is what is "Truly unbelievable".

Originally posted by hooper
So again, what is a "normal office fire"? And if, in your opinion, an entire building could be engaged in a raging inferno and never fail, then why the constant reference to "normal office fires"? Or is it possible that most peope understand the simple concept that if you have a builing with ground to penthouse fire then there is just a slight chance that those fires may, just may, threaten the integrity of the building structure.

I would love to see an example of this "slight chance" you speak of, seriously, I would.....

...and you're not allowed to use Thermite remember.

You can get wrapped up in semantics all you want but it's hard to ignore the elephant in the room.

I don't need to hear the words during or after the event, on either side of the argument, to know that WTC7 was demolished in a contolled manner. What I have seen on numerous videos from numerous angles does not lie.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka

You can get wrapped up in semantics all you want but it's hard to ignore the elephant in the room.

I don't need to hear the words during or after the event, on either side of the argument, to know that WTC7 was demolished in a controlled manner. What I have seen on numerous videos from numerous angles does not lie.

Exactly! Just use your eyes! Even the smallest amount of common sense will tell you it was a controlled demolition. Buildings 4, 5 & 6 were left in tatters, but the structures did not collapse. Other buildings around the world have been engulfed in flames and burned like torches for 12 hours + and never collapsed. WTC 7 looks like it was made out of papier mache when it collapsed! Would all of those alphabet agencies really have based themselves in such a fragile building?

reply to post by hooper


What part don't you understand? Theres only 2 words, it means everyday objects from an office burning. For example super-napalm is an everyday office supply so you would expect an office fire to burn at 2,200 °F.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to
What part don't you understand? Theres only 2 words, it means everyday objects from an office burning. For example super-napalm is an everyday office supply so you would expect an office fire to burn at 2,200 °F.

WTF is "Super-Napalm"? Is that anything like "nano thermite"? When somebody comes up with a believable explaination, then I might believe it.

The biggest thing keeping me from buying into this is the logistics necessary to make this happen. Forget the science, forget the physics, just think of the amount of equipment, people and materials necessary to pull something like this off. To secretly rig two of the largest structures in the world and a large office building, with enough explosives to drop all three buildings into their own footprints. To detonate those explosives in the precise timing needed to ensure their total collapse, leaving no trace of detonators, wires or other debris. Then to keep all of this a total secret for over 8 years, with no one coming forth to the media. Impossible! Here's a good one for you. The second aircraft to strike the WTC almost overshot the building. Watch the video. The plane is in a skidding turn right before impact. What would have happened if that plane would have missed? It was going to crash one way or another, there wouldn't have been a second pass in the event of a miss.

All of you truthers seem to think that there is this super secret group that did all of this. If there is such a group, why would they be stupid enough to use aircraft? A couple of tractor trailers driven across the plaza, with the trailers full of ANFO and maybe some old x-ray equipment would be enough to do the job. Detonate the trailers, then detonate the buildings. Quick, simple, easy and alot more secure than flying airliners into the towers. The first rule in planning any type of military operation is the KISS principal. Keep It Simple, Stupid.