| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Richard Gage PWNS Mark Roberts; Must see. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 01:15 PM (3,626 Views) | |
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 12:17 AM Post #26 |
|
Yeah, that was particularly funny. When asked what Richard Gage's background was, "20-year architect". When asked what Roberts' background was "nothing. just a tour guide and 'general researcher'". And yes, the cardboard box thing at the end was perfect! That was great Mr. Gage! |
![]() |
|
| Sureshot | Jul 6 2008, 12:27 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
|
Mark Roberts needs to shave. |
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jul 6 2008, 12:53 AM Post #28 |
![]()
|
Was it to make him look more 'learned'? A 'fully dignified' beard doesn't really offset a lack of credibility.. does it?
Edited by Lin Kuei, Jul 6 2008, 01:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sureshot | Jul 6 2008, 01:42 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
|
It makes him look like those creepy guys you don't want your kids around... "honey, don't get near that guy over there..."
|
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jul 6 2008, 01:54 AM Post #30 |
![]()
|
![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Revid | Jul 6 2008, 03:28 AM Post #31 |
|
I've been waiting for a mention of his beard. Oh and a little pedophilia comment as well, bonus. You got him man, what a zinger. |
![]() |
|
| Revid | Jul 6 2008, 03:30 AM Post #32 |
|
Do you guys really think Roberts is a shill? Like actually getting paid to debunk truthers (or attempt to debunk as you might put it). Or are you just calling him that off hand, like how we call you nuts when we don't actually know for a fact that you have mental problems. Just curious. |
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jul 6 2008, 04:05 AM Post #33 |
![]()
|
Yes the anticipation was electrifying was it not?
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 6 2008, 07:07 AM Post #34 |
|
NO, that isn't what roberts said or meant! go to 17:05, part 2 and listen properly this time: Roberts - "the amount of explosives that richard is talking about that would pulverise all the concrete in the buildings is in the hundreds of tons. only if you drilled holes in all that concrete and placed the explosives close together, i don't think he is claiming that happened, but this is the realm of science fiction. there are no detonations." Richard Gage - "the way you would plant explosives, you would need access through the elevators, and if you did have access through the elevator hoistways you could plant the explosives in the core without the 50,000 occupants knowing, and in fact there was an elevator modernisation going on in the 9 months prior to 911 in which plenty of white dust was being produced, perhaps that <came from> the two layers of 3/4 inch gypsum board which protected this hoistway from fire. there is a very plausible rational explanation how 1,300lbs of explosives according to some estimates, not hundreds of tons as you are saying. Roberts - "to pulverise concrete with explosives, to pulverise all that concrete to dust.....hundreds of tons." roberts' argument is an argument from personal incredulity, followed by a logical contradiction: 1. personal incredulity - Hundreds of tons of explosives would be required to pulverise all the concrete. 2. logical contradiction of his first point - therefore ZERO explosives pulverised all the concrete This doesn't even consider the type of explosives which you would need to know in order to discuss the properties of said explosives, which renders pointless any talk of how close to what, or where the explosives would have to be placed. |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 6 2008, 07:21 AM Post #35 |
|
yes, in my opinion it is not possible for a working person to put in the amount of work that he has in the time that he has. thousands of posts on many boards, 16,000 on J***F alone, the information and "papers" on his website. going down to ground zero to counter protest on the weekends (isn't that when tour guides are supposed to be at their busiest?) how does he find time to earn a living, and thus pay the rent? there are government sponsored blogging centres that do this kind of work as mentioned in PNAC papers of 1999, there are PR companies with big government contracts that pay people to blog opinions, even CENTCOM state they do it on their website to counter negative messages. Roberts is one of the most voluminous, why wouldn't he be operating and in the employment of one of the mentioned organisations? |
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 07:34 AM Post #36 |
|
I found this interesting also. From Roberts' point of view, you would need hundreds of tons of explosives to do what happened at the WTC. Since he can't fathom explosives being used, a few simple office fires did what hundreds of tons of explosives could do. That's the type of logic we're talking about. |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 6 2008, 08:07 AM Post #37 |
|
I agree it should not be necessary to say such things - you can't win a shit fight with someone who lives in a sewer. I do however understand the response from 'gaged'. "someone who honestly disagrees" - it is not a question of a difference of opinion, roberts is a proven LIAR and SLANDERER. What is more, he frequently LIES to discredit and SLANDER first responders whose testimony contradicts his position. is this the type of character you defend? would you defend a member of the 911 truth movement against such comments if he SLANDERED and LIED about first responders, or would you let go or agree with comments like that from 'gaged' if they were about a 911 "truther"? |
![]() |
|
| jackchit | Jul 6 2008, 08:47 AM Post #38 |
|
Honestly disagrees? |
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 08:57 AM Post #39 |
|
Yeah, in Roberts' case, there was nothing "honest" about his disagreements. When Roberts was asked by Gage if building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, Roberts said "no! building 7 had none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition". That right there gives you a sense of Roberts' logic. |
![]() |
|
| gaged | Jul 6 2008, 10:30 AM Post #40 |
![]()
|
That quote blew me away too. The collapse is on video. It has all the main qualities of a controlled demolition. Falling into its own footprint, free fall speeds, squibs shooting out ejecta, flashes of light, the repeated boom boom boom as the building fell. Christ. There's video of people saying they are going to blow it up. Wake up people!! Silverstein freakin admitted to boot. |
![]() |
|
| hamba | Jul 6 2008, 10:32 AM Post #41 |
|
LOL Says the guy who has a picture honouring a guy with a beard in his signature? |
![]() |
|
| gaged | Jul 6 2008, 10:34 AM Post #42 |
![]()
|
I wonder if he grew that beard on his own or if the NWO told him to do it. |
![]() |
|
| gaged | Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM Post #43 |
![]()
|
I still think that mole's a fake. |
![]() |
|
| hamba | Jul 6 2008, 10:46 AM Post #44 |
|
I guess he missed his structural theory classes! Using a cardboard box as ana analogy for a high rise steel and concrete structures is a logical fallacy at its absolute best. Completely incomparable events and structures. The top of his big box's structural integrity does not depend on the top section he drops on. Where as in the WTC, the section below the impact sure as hell does. Monolithic cardboard boxes structural makeup are vastly different from a steel building consisiting of multiple columns beams trusses etc.
Edited by hamba, Jul 6 2008, 10:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| JFK | Jul 6 2008, 11:07 AM Post #45 |
![]()
|
I agree, he should have taken an exacto knife and cut holes for the windows.... and taken that material and built a core from it.
|
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jul 6 2008, 11:21 AM Post #46 |
|
Edit Note: These comments are based on the first half of the show. I think Richard Gage presented himself and his disagreements about the 9/11 collapse of WTC 7 exceptionally well. Mark Roberts sounded overly pumped (unhinged comes to mind) and very ineffectual in his presentation. Unlike the usual moderator when Mark Roberts appears, Ronald Wieck, John Clifton while still maintaining the amateur 'look' of the show, refreshingly, wreaked of integrity and showed an objective interest in the subject. I hope Ronald Wieck was watching and taking copious notes as to how a respectable moderator of a discussion is expected to behave. Richard Gage sounded calm, respectful and thoughtful, while suffering from over presentation if anything. I particularly like how he seized Mark Robert's 'trolling question' about NIST's WTC 7 point of collapse, and addressed the key points about how due to the importance of it's location, column #79 was particularly designed against failure. Apparently the trick to debating Mark Roberts, is to keep in mind is that he doesn't rely on thinking so much as he does on recognizing key words and phrases, which he's mentally indexed to allow rapid recall of his favorite cherry-picked recitals from NIST and firefighter testimony. Basically the kind of mental dexterity you would expect from a NYC tour guide. Mark Roberts was weak on this show not only because he didn't have the admitted Mark Robert's groupie, Ronald Wieck moderating, (I'm not sure about the audio technician maintaing Richard Gage's phone connection), but because he was attacked with good information and analysis. Good information and analysis for which Mark Robert's canned sources have provided no effective response. MM Edited by Miragememories, Jul 7 2008, 09:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 11:39 AM Post #47 |
|
It appears you are the one that missed your structural theory classes. And you missed the point of the cardboard box demonstration. The point of the demonstration is that the 15-storey portion of the towers that began collapsing, cannot destroy 90 storeys of the rest of the entire building at or near the same speed as that same 15-storey portion falling freely through the air. You should go back and watch that part of the video again and maybe take a science class or two. Where I'm from, science was a required course in high school. Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 12:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| silverstein | Jul 6 2008, 11:44 AM Post #48 |
|
It didnt though, you only need to look at the collapse video to realise that. The collapse front was noticeably slower than freefall. So Gages point is? Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 11:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 11:56 AM Post #49 |
|
It was slower by a few seconds which is negligible. Your point is? It also appears you joined this forum specifically for this topic. Who are you? Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 11:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| silverstein | Jul 6 2008, 12:01 PM Post #50 |
|
And you decide that is negligible based on what? It did not fall at freefall. That was supposedly the point of the demonstration?
Why would you think that? And who are you? Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 12:01 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |












9:23 AM Jul 11