9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

Richard Gage debated with Chris Mohr on the building collapses on 9/11 for over four hours at UC Boulder in front of 225 students. Check out the article.
3 Switched from Unsure to For Controlled Demolition
2 Switched from Unsure to For Natural Collapse
3 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to Unsure
1 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to for Natural Collapse
There will be a full video of the debate released soon.

Article Here

This debate will go on forever I think, people refuse to let themselves believe anything that goes against their own belief systems. A natural collapse? Come on, 5 mins of research into controlled demolitions proves what the WTC collapses were.

Yeah I dont think it is as hard to prove the controlled demolition as it is allowing yourself to actually believe that our hijacked government would do this. I mean the evidence is there, our government at the very least knew of the attacks, I would bet my life on it. But just to wrap your head around something like that is hard to do even when the evidence is right in front of everyone's face. A lot of ppl think "our government would never do that" and they are right, OUR government never would but unfortunately its been a loooong time since it has been OUR government, it no longer belongs to the people.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

I think you just proved your own point.
It requires a lot more than 5 minutes research to understand all the factors in a controlled demolition, let alone to try and apply that information the the WTC. It takes more than 5 minutes to even learn how to properly handle explosives used in the process.

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I think you just proved your own point.
It requires a lot more than 5 minutes research to understand all the factors in a controlled demolition, let alone to try and apply that information the the WTC. It takes more than 5 minutes to even learn how to properly handle explosives used in the process.

I meant 5 mins of visual research, watching a controlled demolition side by side with the WTC collapses, especially building 7.


If the gov't admitted they demolished wtc7, then I'd be a lot less suspicious something notorious was at work, but when Larry Silverstein said pull it, then took that back, it pretty much wreaks of admission of guilt.

reply to post by subject x


But in 5 minutes, it is very possible to view 30 10 sec videos of controlled demolitions. It then takes only a few more sec to watch the WTC collapse at free fall speed. And then a few more sec to come to an intelligent conclusion. They're all the same. IMHO

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I think you just proved your own point.
It requires a lot more than 5 minutes research to understand all the factors in a controlled demolition, let alone to try and apply that information the the WTC. It takes more than 5 minutes to even learn how to properly handle explosives used in the process.

I might misunderstand what you mean by 'handle' explosives, but if you mean it as literally as I think, than it is a bit irrelevant isn't it? We don't need to know how to rig them ourselves, just understand the factors and evidence involved with a controlled demo compared to a natural collapse by fire.

Having said that, you're absolutely right. While it seems quite cut and dry in the first five minutes of armchair research, the CD/NC debate requires a great deal of delving. All of his '...or the debate is over' opening lines, have had serious issues with the research, especially the thermitic remnants.

All in all, I would like to see all 4 and a half hours of this because I am in the unsure column, leaning towards CD, and would love to hear what both sides of this debate have to say about this mess.

reply to post by logicalthinking


Cue a huge onslaught from people who are amateur engineers debate the reasons for a contolled/natural collapse.

IMO it was a controlled demolition, there is absolutely no way that the steel on the upper floors melted and caused the lower floors to collapse.

Lights blue touch paper and stands back!!!

I believe that the technology employed in the destruction of the towers has never been seen before. The debate is flawed from the outset because they are basing conclusions on conventional dismantling techniques. Whatever it was that pulverized concrete and left nothing even recognizable among the rubble, this was the first one. These buildings were marked for premature demolition years ago, and they've had those years to prepare them for just such a day. Follow the money.

I'm amazed anyone would go back to unsure, I mean, building 7 folks, doesn't get much more in your face than that.

i'm sick of hearing about Larry and the 'pull it' comment. Yes, in demolition terms pull it means bring it down. In fire fighting terms (as was the reference from Larry) it means pull the operation back, pull out, not safe for the men to keep working.

It's pretty plain for me to see a steel framed structure collapse into it's basement at almost free fall speeds suffering only indirect damage and limited fires. Proof of limited fires is in the audio excerpts from the FDNY, and all you need to do is look at the footage of the towers and building 7 while smoke was still coming out. See how it's dark thick smoke? That's a sign of an oxygen starved fire that isn't burning hot, certainly not hot enough to melt certified steel.

I'm interested but my mind is already made up so 4 + hours would be a waste.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


reply to post by jude11

No. You can't come to an informed decision on something with so many variables from watching a couple of youtube videos. The very fact that you think you can shows why the 9/11 truth movement is not taken seriously by so many.

reply to post by subject x


The 9/11 Truth Movement is picking up momentum whether you agree or not. More and more are wakeing up to the fact that their government has completly whitewashed the investigation. Damn even the commision do not believe their own report. Ummm??

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

reply to post by jude11

 

No. You can't come to an informed decision on something with so many variables from watching a couple of youtube videos. The very fact that you think you can shows why the 9/11 truth movement is not taken seriously by so many.

Ok, look... remember when you were in grammar school and you took tests and quizzes? Do you remember how some kids finished the tests really fast and others needed the entire half hour or whatever to complete theirs? Did the kids who finished their tests fast get A's or D's? The ones I noticed received A's, sometimes a perfect 100, while the slower kids who got D's and F's took the longest and left many answers blank.

For "some" of us fast test taker kids who are now adults, it doesn't take longer than 5 minutes to KNOW the answers, it does take a long time of researching documentation and testimonies, etc etc, to PROVE what you already figured out in 5 minutes.
That's the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

reply to post by jude11

 

No. You can't come to an informed decision on something with so many variables from watching a couple of youtube videos. The very fact that you think you can shows why the 9/11 truth movement is not taken seriously by so many.

Good point subject x. Armchair research serves to muddy the waters and stifles proper debate. I'm all for everyone weighing in on this, but a YouTube video should be treated as such, not the word of God.

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

reply to post by jude11

 

No. You can't come to an informed decision on something with so many variables from watching a couple of youtube videos.

A couple of videos I would have to agree. But as I mentioned. Watch 30 videos and then WTC. Then come to your own conclusion.

30 videos is hardly a few and would be very noteworthy in a court of law as precedence.

And then, not one but two buildings falling in the EXACT same manner. Hit from different angles and at different floors yet falling at the exact speed and in the same foot print.

Agreed, I am no professional but sometimes, you don't have to be when it's clear. And then again WTC 7...? The same thing?


And again...IMHO

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Ok, look... remember when you were in grammar school and you took tests and quizzes? Do you remember how some kids finished the tests really fast and others needed the entire half hour or whatever to complete theirs? Did the kids who finished their tests fast get A's or D's? The ones I noticed received A's, sometimes a perfect 100, while the slower kids who got D's and F's took the longest and left many answers blank.

There's a huge difference in taking a test on something you were taught, and provided with all the answers previously, and making an informed decision about an extremely complex subject by watching a couple of 2 minute videos. If you can't see that. I see no point in continuing.

Believe what you like.

reply to post by jude11

Watching 30 videos of birds flying in the distance, then one video of bats flying in the distance doesn't make bats the same as birds, although the videos would be remarkably similar.

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Ok, look... remember when you were in grammar school and you took tests and quizzes? Do you remember how some kids finished the tests really fast and others needed the entire half hour or whatever to complete theirs? Did the kids who finished their tests fast get A's or D's? The ones I noticed received A's, sometimes a perfect 100, while the slower kids who got D's and F's took the longest and left many answers blank.

There's a huge difference in taking a test on something you were taught, and provided with all the answers previously, and making an informed decision about an extremely complex subject by watching a couple of 2 minute videos. If you can't see that. I see no point in continuing.

Believe what you like.

To be honest, it is pretty much the same.

In the case of pro-demolition CT videos, they're often filled with pauses, slow motions, "enhanced audio" etc., pointing out a flash of light here or a slightly louder noise there, all with the specific purpose of showing the viewer the "evidence". The viewer watches the video looking specifically for these items because he or she has been told that those are the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.

ETA: Hell, most people link the "shortened" videos of the 7WTC collapse, conveniently leaving out the penthouse collapsing into the structure.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

This debate will go on forever I think, people refuse to let themselves believe anything that goes against their own belief systems. A natural collapse? Come on, 5 mins of research into controlled demolitions proves what the WTC collapses were.

If it took people 5 minutes to research into controlled demolitions and become 'experts' then no one would bother spending years of training to do it would they?

Then we also have the many other problems that this raises. A building, half the size of the twin towers took 4,000 separate charges to demolish and took 7 months to lay it all down (bearing in mind they had an empty building to their advantage). If we scale this up to the size of the twin towers, then we have 16,000 charges (8,000 in each building). Obviously we can't estimate how long it would have taken them: the demolition experts would only have been able to work at night and would have to have hidden their work from the 100,000 people that visited the WTC every day. But lets just say that it was 2 and a half years (starting sometime around March 1999), how did no one spot any of the 16,000 charges it would have taken in that space of time?

Controlled Demolition Hudson Department Store

reply to post by roboe

Yeah, when you look at it in that light, it is pretty much the same, isn't it?
When you get shown the expected answer, that's how you'll answer on the test.