Great Richard Gage interview according to JREF

The cardboard box demonstration may seem a little silly, but is it any sillier than firing a shotgun at a piece of steel to prove that the aircraft knocked all the fireproofing off?

reply to post by Flatcoat


your correct there ...also IF you use that scenario..then there still would only be random spots where fire proofing was removed....not a complete loss of fire proofing...which would even be more Damning to the OS as that should mean even more possibility of a asymmetrical collapse and not symmetrical.

Also just as all the OS go after character assassination do we call a spade a spade....guilt by association...so therefore all people on JREF can now be considered to be what the allegations against the amazing Randi are...least i have the decency not to state what it is....but i can say...does this make all the Jrefers wackjobs.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
The cardboard box demonstration may seem a little silly, but is it any sillier than firing a shotgun at a piece of steel to prove that the aircraft knocked all the fireproofing off?

If people believed this story.....



Maybe Gage should have used this instead of the cardboard boxes.... Because it's, you know more colorful...

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

As already mentioned, that video is done deliberately to show a principle in the most basic form. If you cannot understand the concept then it's back to school for you!


....snip.....

You seem obsessed with attacking Richard Gage. Feeling threatened by his work are we?!

Try watching the video...although the picture looks the same. It is not the same one showing Gage playing with cardboard boxes. It shows him contradicting himself.

Threatened by his work?? Do you care to show me his work? Spare me the slide show, I've seen it and questioned him ....IN PERSON. He still thinks the Red Cross did a countdown to the collapse of WTC7.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Flatcoat

 

your correct there ...also IF you use that scenario..then there still would only be random spots where fire proofing was removed....not a complete loss of fire proofing...which would even be more Damning to the OS as that should mean even more possibility of a asymmetrical collapse and not symmetrical.

Also just as all the OS go after character assassination do we call a spade a spade....guilt by association...so therefore all people on JREF can now be considered to be what the allegations against the amazing Randi are...least i have the decency not to state what it is....but i can say...does this make all the Jrefers wackjobs.

edit on 043131p://f23Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)

Yeah hey, and not only all that I think I can prove that towers 1 and 2 were full of ASBESTOS.

And of course we all know that asbestos goes up like a roman candle when you light it on fire...

You know I think a better argument can be made that it's a miracle there even was any fire considering the amount of asbestos and the fact that I have proven that the right wing gash on the North Tower wasn't made by the wing of a Boeing 767, thus eliminating all the "jet fuel".

Oh yeah I'm still waiting btw for anyone to come in and prove to me there was jet fuel in the North Tower.

I want proof or you all can just quit talking about it. What's your best proof there was jet fuel in the North Tower?

And if you say something silly like: "The Naudet 'Fireman's Video' shows a 767 impacting the North Tower..." all I got to say is I got some very very bad news for you and your "proof."

You're going to have to do better than that.

But that's not all, I been studying the fires in the North Tower and along the North Face there is a whole stretch line of fire the entire width of the building... and I thought that was funny, all the fires in all the windows and who even put office furniture near all the windows all along the entire width? When you look really really closely though you can see that the fire in the windows is all in the same place in every window - just like someone planned it that way. Just like in HOLLYWOOD when they show a burning building by running hidden piping to spout fire.

Now why is this significant? I'll tell you.

I download 385 Fema Ground Zero pics when I was looking for evidence of computers and desks in the debris pile and I found one picture that seemed to show connected piping all of a certain length near a fallen window section of the North Tower pile.

Here's what I think. There was no jet fuel. There was asbestos. There were empty floors. It was hard to get a fire going and it was much easier to 'fake it'. If you're going to blow the building down, on the empty floors themselves you wouldn't even need to conceal the fire causing piping. You could just stick the pipes in the windows! Who was going to see from the ground with everything else going on?

No fireproofing was knocked off by any 767 impact. I have proven that. It was hard to start a fire, what sporadic fire existed was created.


Cheers

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

As already mentioned, that video is done deliberately to show a principle in the most basic form. If you cannot understand the concept then it's back to school for you!


....snip.....

You seem obsessed with attacking Richard Gage. Feeling threatened by his work are we?!

Try watching the video...although the picture looks the same. It is not the same one showing Gage playing with cardboard boxes. It shows him contradicting himself.

Threatened by his work?? Do you care to show me his work? Spare me the slide show, I've seen it and questioned him ....IN PERSON. He still thinks the Red Cross did a countdown to the collapse of WTC7.

You really do have Richard Gage hang ups don't you!

Why don't you answer flatcoats question above about NIST using a shotgun to test fireproofing!

This is the kind of absurd tests you support, Walt Disney meets John Wayne kind of test!

What's your view on the shotgun test?! Pretty wacky isn't it! Not very, erm, scientific!

Originally posted by Flatcoat
The cardboard box demonstration may seem a little silly, but is it any sillier than firing a shotgun at a piece of steel to prove that the aircraft knocked all the fireproofing off?

Really?

Flight 11 was traveling at 443 MPH (About 650 FPS)
Flight 175 was traveling at 542 MPH (About 795 FPS)

What type of gun and bullets were used?

So, I ask...

1. Would you use cardboard boxes to illustrate the collapses of the WTC?

2. What type of experiment would you do to simulate the removal of fireproofing?

Originally posted by thegameisup


You really do have Richard Gage hang ups don't you!

Answered above. I feel sorry for the feeble minded dolts that give him their hard earned money.

Why don't you answer flatcoats question above about NIST using a shotgun to test fireproofing!

This is the kind of absurd tests you support, Walt Disney meets John Wayne kind of test!

What's your view on the shotgun test?! Pretty wacky isn't it! Not very, erm, scientific!

I will ask you the same questions. What tests would YOU do to determine what affect speeding planes would have on the insulation.....

Oh... and do you care to address the video I posted?

Originally posted by NWOwned


Yeah hey, and not only all that I think I can prove that towers 1 and 2 were full of ASBESTOS.

No, they weren't. Do your research, Truther.

And of course we all know that asbestos goes up like a roman candle when you light it on fire...

Wait... WHAT??

You know I think a better argument can be made that it's a miracle there even was any fire considering the amount of asbestos and the fact that I have proven that the right wing gash on the North Tower wasn't made by the wing of a Boeing 767, thus eliminating all the "jet fuel".

Oh... a no - planer truther. More nuts than squirrel poopies.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by thegameisup


You really do have Richard Gage hang ups don't you!

Answered above. I feel sorry for the feeble minded dolts that give him their hard earned money.

Why don't you answer flatcoats question above about NIST using a shotgun to test fireproofing!

This is the kind of absurd tests you support, Walt Disney meets John Wayne kind of test!

What's your view on the shotgun test?! Pretty wacky isn't it! Not very, erm, scientific!

I will ask you the same questions. What tests would YOU do to determine what affect speeding planes would have on the insulation.....

Oh... and do you care to address the video I posted?

edit on 22-7-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

He probably feels sorry for the feeble minded fools that believe the OS!

Again, because you are not capable of comprehending, his videos are all free, and buying them is not an obligation, people do it as a donation, because they support him, they are of their own mind, he hasn't held a gun to their head when they donate to keep the project going!

Why dont you just get over it, or go see a shrink about your RG issues.

Oh, so you will avoid the question I posed and in true weak 'debunker' style you try to come back with another question to avoid answering mine.

I'll pose mine again... What's your view on the shotgun test?!

When you step up and answer it like a good 'debunker' then I'll gladly answer yours. If you fail to answer my question comprehensively then I'll just take it your a phoney.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Flight 11 was traveling at 443 MPH (About 650 FPS)
Flight 175 was traveling at 542 MPH (About 795 FPS)

What type of gun and bullets were used?

2. What type of experiment would you do to simulate the removal of fireproofing?

I would not use a shot gun. The pellets travel at twice those speeds.

wiki.answers.com...

KE=1/2mv^2

The kinetic energy of the pellets would be exponentially greater than the plane parts because:

They are traveling at twice the speed.

AND

That twice the speed (v) would be squared to calculate KE.

Not very scientifical. (Not even mentioning the loss of energy to break through the facade).

Just pointing it out. I will not get into a 9/11 battle with you so might as well save yourself the time and not even try.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Oh... and do you care to address the video I posted?

edit on 22-7-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

Are you referring to the RG box video? If so, if you paid attention you would notice I already commented on it, but you still cannot comprehend why he made it, or what I wrote in my comment about it. www.abovetopsecret.com...

People do not part with their money for the box video, there are other videos, that are much longer, and more comprehensive that are the ones for sale, and again, they are all also available for free, not obligation to buy. Seriously get over it or contact Richard persoanlly if you have an issue with it, I'm sure he would be happy to put you straight.

Airing your personal laundry on a 9/11 forum is not a good look for you.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Flatcoat
The cardboard box demonstration may seem a little silly, but is it any sillier than firing a shotgun at a piece of steel to prove that the aircraft knocked all the fireproofing off?

Really?

Flight 11 was traveling at 443 MPH (About 650 FPS)
Flight 175 was traveling at 542 MPH (About 795 FPS)

Are we actually supposed to believe they got three digits of accuracy on the velocity of those planes.

Now THAT is silly!

psik

Originally posted by thegameisup


He probably feels sorry for the feeble minded fools that believe the OS!

Perhaps.

I'll pose mine again... What's your view on the shotgun test?!

I would have to know what type of gun and what type of bullets were used. But giant heavy airplanes traveling over 400MPH....

Again...what would you do?

Originally posted by thegameisup


Are you referring to the RG box video?

No, I was not. Read the post and watch the 2 minute video of Gage making an ass out of himself.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Are we actually supposed to believe they got three digits of accuracy on the velocity of those planes.

Now THAT is silly!

psik

You're right.... YOU estimate it and tell me. I will listen to you, silly truther.

reply to post by Six Sigma

No, they weren't. Do your research, Truther.

What was it up to 38th floor in WTC 1... Is that not a lot of asbestos?
I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11.

You can tell when the defunkers start getting emotional when they start putting "truther" at the end of their sentences.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

What was it up to 38th floor in WTC 1... Is that not a lot of asbestos?
I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11.

Yes, the use of asbestos was halted during the construction. The "truther" stated that both buildings were "full."

Your comment about Silverstein is ridiculous- period. I have managed many projects in older buildings that have asbestos. Abatement's are quite costly, yes. But I think you should educate yourself on the necessity of it's removal.

Originally posted by maxella1
You can tell when the defunkers start getting emotional when they start putting "truther" at the end of their sentences.

It's not "emotional" ... I just like pointing out how much of a hypocritical title it is. The truth is the last thing you guys are after.