Originally posted by impressme
Has anyone confronted Gage about his comments? Have you had a chance to write Gage to find out why he did not substantiate the NIST 2.25 seconds free fall rate? I would like to know what he would say.

I stated in my EDIT that it was printed in the pamphlet they handed out that free fall was for 100 feet.

I did not hear Gage mention 2.25 seconds in his talk, so he can be forgiven if he didn't mention it, as it was printed for people to read. Gage had a lot of info on his power-point slides and the whole presentation was running over time. He needs to K.I.S.S. and cut down some of the clutter on his slides (in my opinion).

I found the NIST video more deceptive though... why show the modelled video of the undamaged WTC 7 collapse, when everyone knows that WTC 7 did suffer some debris damage.

The debunkers can do what they like. I was there, that's what I saw, so be it. Bear in mind that it is a couple of minor points and there was a lot of other information given out during the night.

Also, someone asked Gage about the upcoming 9/11 trials in New York. Gage mentioned words to the effect that they may try and help the defence team in some kind of capacity. However, he also stressed that all caution needs to be taken so they are not seen to be supporting terorists. He seemed a little unsure about how to respond to that question.

Someone else asked how the super-nano-therm*te was planted in WTC 1&2. He answered by saying that a real investigation may determine this. However, he stated how ACE Elevators had the contracts to both towers and that it would certainly be feasible to apply the explosives from the elevator shafts to access the core columns. Gage hinted that future research should put ACE Elevators under the spotlight. They supposedly worked from the 37th floor on one of the towers, yet it was vacated early on, something like that. (From my memory... I don't recall exactly what Gage spoke about that.)

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As far as the video goes, I wasn't there so I don't know what context it was used. I also don't know if he saved the video and used it or he actually went to that NIST website and used it during the presentation.

The video appeared to be on his power point slide. He did not link to the NIST website.

Gage stated that a natural collapse of a steel framed skyscraper from asymmetrical damage should show buckling, tipping, leaning, falling, etc... It should not collapse how WTC 7 was observed to collapse on 9/11 - straight down.

Showing the NIST collapse video of the undamaged WTC 7, was reinforcing his point that the roof line will crumble, buckle, deform, etc, as that video shows. He did not show the video of the damaged WTC 7 collapse model, which shows far less roof line deformation.

I'm only typing what I saw. In fact, the only reason I am posting this thread now, instead of days earlier, is because it's raining outside. I was bored and decided to search the NIST page to look at the collapse video. I was surprised to see that NIST had the two collapse videos, one for the damaged WTC 7 and the other for an undamaged WTC 7. Gage only showed the video for the undamaged WTC 7, as it helps reinforce his point of a buckling, crumpling roof line, which was not observed.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If I were you, I would email Gage and tell him your feelings and ask him why he used that video and see what his response is.

I've got no interest in doing that. I was there, I saw how he used that video.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As a member and sustaining member of AE911T, I find your thread very offensive.

Yeah, I get that a lot about a lot of my posts and threads. Welcome to the club.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
To insinuate that Gage is purposely lying and purposely being deceptive is a very serious accusation towards the most prominent organization in the 9/11 truth movement. And even more-so since you haven't even tried to get a response from Gage about your thoughts first before making such accusations.

Point taken. Maybe Gage had a reason for linking the NIST video of an undamaged WTC 7, instead of linking to the video of the damaged WTC 7 collapse.

He certainly got a few 'oooohhs and aaaaaahhs' from the audience when the NIST video showed the severe deformity and buckling in the roof line, which was not observed that day in reality.

From my understanding, Gage was using that video to imply that the NIST model was wrong, as it did not show the observed behaviour of WTC 7 as it collapsed straight down, instead of with the buckling and roof line deformities that the video shows.

You're free to ask Gage why he linked to the undamaged NIST video, instead of the damaged NIST video.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As a member and sustaining member of AE911T,

Just to touch on this again... if it makes you feel any better I put $10 in the donation box. The event was free of charge but I can appreciate that AE911truth do have costs and they provided a fairly comprehensive presentation.

Good luck to them and Gage. I hope they manage to bust the truth open.

Turbofan has a thread on the twins and their explosive collapse. Very detailed.
I asked a couple times if he had any video of externally seen squibs on building seven.
No one would answer. You have anything like squibs on seven. I know the building is way shorter and needed less demo work and being shorter would have way less visibility.
Just asking!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just for the record, Gage isn't the only one that works on his powerpoint presentation material. Other people also help with that facet as well. So we really have no idea who put that particular video in his presentation and why.

Point taken. However the fact remains that the undamaged NIST video was on the power point slide and Gage was commenting how NIST stopped the animation proceding any further after the model clearly shows severe buckling in the roof line, which was not observed in reality.

If Gage was not aware that this was the undamaged NIST animation video, then he's clearly not done his research too well. I used "NIST WTC 7 collapse animation" in Google and found the page within seconds.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's why contacting him to bring this information to his attention and get a response would be the better thing to do before just all-out calling people liars and accusing them of being purposely deceptive when it might have just been a mistake or an accident or something that was overlooked.

Point taken.

If it was a mistake, then it was unfortunate for them to make. If it wasn't a mistake, then I consider it a little deceptive to include the undamaged WTC 7 NIST animation, instead of the damaged animation video. From memory, the animation on Gage's powerpoint slide did not include the line "WTC 7 Collapse with No Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model Credit: NIST" underneath it, as it appears on the NIST webpage. I don't recall a link or reference to it either.

Here's your chance, as a supporting member of AE911truth to clarify this with them.

I'm only reporting what I saw. You can shoot the messenger if you like but it doesn't change the content of the message.

As I stated in my OP, it was a minor point that I am nit-picking. I didn't find any other obvious flaws in the rest of the presentation that stuck out as being BS or deliberately deceptive.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The lecture theatre looked like it could hold 250 people and it was mostly full, at least 200 people were there. Gage initially asked how many people believed the official government story. There were about three (brave) people put up their hands,

Nothing "brave" about them. I'd call them gullible, naive and lazy for relying on the MSM for (mis)information instead of doing their own research.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Nothing "brave" about them. I'd call them gullible, naive and lazy for relying on the MSM for (mis)information instead of doing their own research.

I can understand that view point. However, consider that the average person knows very little about 9/11. Most of the people the other night were already informed about 9/11 to some degree. It's a brave person to put up your hand giving support to the official government story, when you are completely surrounded and outnumbered by people who don't believe it. Peer pressure works, dude.

Similarly, if the audience and talk was pro official government story, it would be brave for a person to put up their hand, identifying themselves as being a dissenter.

People probably need some help to realise that everything being fed to them by governments and their propaganda agents, the MSM, is not necessarily true. I remember when I used to believe most of everything that I saw on the TV... a long time ago.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I can't tell if you're sympathetic or antagonistic to the 9/11 truth movement.

That's the problem with online communication. It always loses something in the translation.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
The complaints you have about Gage's presentation seem kinda petty and nitpicky (especially compared to the massive U.S. government lies),

Yes, they are petty and nitpicky. I stated that in an earlier post. I'm not denying that they are nitpicky. I'm allowed to express my opinion about the meeting that I attended, warts and all. Overall, it was a good presentation even though there were a couple of glossed over 'facts', if you will...

As I stated earlier, it kind of raises a minor moral dilemma. Is the end goal of seeking the truth, worth a few lies along the way?

The government has told lies to obscure the truth, so should it be ok for others to tell lies to try and expose the truth?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
yet you claim to have donated to AE911truth.

It's not a claim, it's a fact. Of course, I can't prove it, so you'll have to take it as my opinion and leave it at that. I put a $10 note in the donation box, that was on the far left of the merchandise table (closest to the door) before the event, close to 6.55pm. You don't have to believe me and I am not expecting you to believe me, but it's what I did. I can appreciate the time and effort it takes to organise a presentation and I don't have a problem with paying $10 for a presentation lasting close to three hours. It was value for money.