FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio Interview: Richard Gage on 9/11 Demolitions
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8211

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The fact that this is coming from a director of a companie whose
clients include spookster outfits like these is suspicious!

I dunno. Given the size of the U.S. Gov, it would be more suspicious
if Protec NEVER did any work for the government. There is nothing
here but unfounded speculation.

The links you gave make a lot of counterarguments to Blanchard's
analysis of the WTC events, but I don't think these arguments are strong
enough to 'debunk' his report.

And his report makes it clear that the issue of 'controlled demolitions' at
the WTC was kicked around in the demolition community and discussed
among demo experts who had access to Ground Zero --but none of them
found anything in the debris pointing to a demolition. So, it's not just
Blanchard's view --it's a view among the demo community.

Btw, I won't go out of my way to debate with no-planers. Indeed, if
the no-planer's think I'm full of shit, I rather take that as a compliment. Wink

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First, we're not talking about "US Government". We're talking about Lockheed freekin Martin, dude.

Second, his report was inaccurate, full of holes, and did not debunk the demolition hypothesis. Those links show that much.

Third, if we are to take Protec director Blanchard's word for it being the demolition community consensus. I have 660+ architects and engineers going on record that they don't trust this, and I can hear all of them speak for themselves. The only interesting bit in Blanchard's report is that he mentions demolition teams arriving at Building 7 at 3PM, which is around the same time rescue workers said it was going to be "blown up".

Fourth:

a) You won't debate no-planers about issues completely unrelated to no-planes? Makes no sense, dude.

b) If you want to miss what really happened on 9-11 and ignore all of the mountains of evidence for MILDEC/Media deception and TV fakery on 9/11, then have it your way, but our discussion had nothing to do with the No Airplane Theory. It had to do with Brent Blanchard, director of Protec.

Look at the other clients, as well. There are quite a few other suspicious outfits on that very long clients list. Lockheed Martin takes the cake, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8211

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
First, we're not talking about "US Government".
We're talking about Lockheed freekin Martin, dude.

I see. Everybody who works for Lockheed Martin is a covert NWO
operative --even the secretaries and the guy who sweeps the car
park. And every LM contractor is automatically an Intel Stooge.
Or something.....

Quote:
I have 660+ architects and engineers going on record that
they don't trust this..........

There is a problem with that. It seems that they have been fed a line
by Richard Gage which excluded alternative explanations for the collapse
of the Towers. Richard admitted he has wrongly been omitting a portion
of one quote he uses in his presentation. I wonder if that issue extends
to other demo 'evidence' he presents.

Another problem is that unlike Blanchard and the demolition people,
the vast majority of these architects and engineers were nowhere
near Ground Zero during cleanup. Blanchard and crew, were.

So their view has weight --unless you've more than suspicion to go on.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I see. Everybody who works for Lockheed Martin is a covert NWO
operative --even the secretaries and the guy who sweeps the car
park. And every LM contractor is automatically an Intel Stooge.
Or something.....


Not everybody, of course, but the company itself is among Protec's clients. It's probably the most suspicious outfit on there.

Quote:

There is a problem with that. It seems that they have been fed a line
by Richard Gage which excluded alternative explanations for the collapse
of the Towers. Richard admitted he has wrongly been omitting a portion
of one quote he uses in his presentation. I wonder if that issue extends
to other demo 'evidence' he presents.


Richard Gage has presented a solid case IMO. What do you have to say about his physical evidence?

Quote:
Another problem is that unlike Blanchard and the demolition people,
the vast majority of these architects and engineers were nowhere
near Ground Zero during cleanup. Blanchard and crew, were.


So, we need to take Mr. Protec's word for it. I, for one, am not ready to do that, considering the fact that researchers have found evidence of cut beams, melted steel/iron, explosives chemicals, blown out windows, etc.

Quote:
As do the views of fire safety professionals and firefighters on scene.


Where did they say there was no bombs? I heard the NYPD report initially that they had found a 'suspicious device'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The last 3 audios have been superb, Fintan. I suspect there are many of us listening that are very appreciative of your work, but haven't posted yet.

In the past years I have been emotionally attached to the Controlled Demolition Theory (I spent a lot of effort defending that view against Grumpy on this forum), but after taking a few weeks to digest this, I feel Fintan's view is starting to make a lot more sense. Like you always do, Fintan, you look at the gestalt of the event, and if all the pieces don't fit together you've got to keep searching for better hypotheses.

Some questions that you've reminded of are, if you are going to commit a complex crime:

1) How do you minimize risk of failure, and ensure success?
2) How do you leave little evidence behind?
3) How do you make your cover story believable?

Usually the answer is by keeping the plan as simple as possible and keeping the players as few as possible.

You've got to admit that the CD of the towers suffers from being a high risk plan. What if the charges don't go off (no matter how they got there)? What if too much evidence of explosives are left behind? Fintan's theory is less elaborate, and more satisfying because of it. Fly in planes with remote control and let the fire do the work (I don't know about WTC7, though, I'm still thinking about that one).

A similar line of thinking led me to believe a few years back that a plane did INDEED hit the pentagon. A missile was much too elaborate. There were too many witnesses that saw the plane (over a freeway at rush hour), it would be difficult to fake the radar signal, etc. Again, a remote controlled plane is the most satisfying (and simple) explanation there too.

My impression on Richard Gage is that he is a sincere fellow, but that he has been very co-opted by the Truth Movement 'leaders'. I often felt he was giving Fintan his presentation, going through his 'taking points', rather than debating some of the finer points as an architect.

As many on this forum know, Steven Jones is the sole source for the thermate theory, and after all these years there doesn't seem to be any other expert corroboration of it. This doesn't mean one scientist can't be right, but it seems clear that Jones was Gage's sole source for the thermate hypothesis too, and in a situation where infiltration of spooks in the Truth Movement is so high, there needs to be other sources.

And the final point about the perps M.O. of 'leading the skeptics off the trail' with disinfo. That seemed to be the case with the 'missile hit the pentagon' story. A company called "Controlled Demolition" involved in the clean up of the WTC does seem like red flag, but one that's 'too good to be true' to be true. It would be STRANGE if it's actually true...NOT so strange if the wording was chosen by someone playing psychological mind games on the skeptics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rusty shackleford



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's not forget that one of the "perps" leading us down the garden path was Fintan. He proudly crows about his early arrival on the scene. What was his song and dance then? Something about controlled demolition perhaps? Have you all forgotten? It only took him seven years to come around to the obvious. Now he tells us that he never promoted CD and never believed it.

Why wait seven years to tell us?

Why have so many of the best contributors fled this forum?

Cognitive dissonance is keeping you from embracing the truth.

WAKE UP!

_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8211

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, that was a great post by Neil, wasn't it?

Touche:
Quote:
Neil:

One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when
one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.

How? By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are
known as trolls.

And what does one mean by a troll?

Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically
provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.

Do we understand each other now? Wink

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54483#54483


Oh yeah, Neil. We all understand each other.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8211

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
urbanspaceman:
A company called "Controlled Demolition" involved in the clean up of the
WTC does seem like red flag, but one that's 'too good to be true' to be
true. It would be STRANGE if it's actually true...NOT so strange if the
wording was chosen by someone playing psychological mind games on
the skeptics.

It's a perfect sucker bait -'cos they know, that we know: they're capable of it.

I'd like to draw out another benefit of the Controlled Demo meme. It
relates to something I already said in one of the older 9/11 audios.

The people behind 9/11 were not trying to keep a lid on concerns by
U.S. citizens about the 9/11 attacks. These mass-murderous paychopaths
actually used general suspicions about the attacks as part of their
intimidatory PsyOp campaigns during 2003 to 2005.
(see also Berg Beheading, FEMA Camps etc.)

The PsyOps were great for psyching out the Antiwar movement, left liberals,
lawyers, hardcore Democrats, etc.. But after 2005, the PsyOp benefits
were not required. Time to kill off the 9/11 issue.

So. How do make an issue and then break an issue.

That's where Controlled Demo fits in.
(Along with issues like Pentagon
which turn out to be insubstantial.)


The fake issues sound convincing at first --with CIA Fakes pushing
the issues hard and layering as much tinfoil on as possible.

But later, it turns out there isn't any actual substantial evidence
for the Demo theory. Leaving a Big Hole in the 9/11 questions.

That's why 9/11 activists need to broaden their case on 9/11.
Immediately.

By the way, AE911Truth have posted the BFN interview with Richard:

Quote:

http://www.ae911truth.org/interviews.php

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And let's not forget this little breadcrumb ...



http://kingstar.co.uk/demolition.html

Shocked

- Hawk

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bardobeing



Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan, as always thanks so much for the work you do here and for having Richard on your show (and thanks to Richard as well). I have been committed to the CD version and your first two audio installments did a great job rattling my cage and giving me pause. However, in listening to this third piece I've shifted firmly back to CD and will soon watch the 2-hour presentation at AE911Truth to pack my brain yet further.

I do agree that much of this hinges on Steven Jones' "lone wolf" thermite/thermate work, but even without it there seems to be a great deal to support CD. But it sounds like Richard is saying that there are others doing work/testing along the thermite lines. As Richard points out, your argument is one of a building mostly collapsing in on itself, pancaking down with air pressure blowing out small percentage of the mass outward. What I see in the videos with my non-expert eye is a massive outward ejection of all mass with almost nothing in the way of concrete flooring left in the debris. I also refuse to dismiss Jones' credibility due to his having dismissed the authenticity of a cold fusion experiment decades ago when he was much, much younger and may have been manipulated unknowingly into taking that position, as many others were.

As for the company "Controlled Demolition" doing the clean up. Who else but a controlled demolition company would be in a position to clean up collapsed skyscrapers? That they were suspiciously the same firm involved in the Fed Bldg attack tells me that they are used because they are there to conceal the obvious evidence that would be encountered during cleanup, such as undetonated charges. They weren't called in to fuel a fake CD disinfo story, they were there to destroy evidence.

As for the 30-degree angle of attack, I'd say that if you (i.e. the perps) were trying to sell the story that the collapse was caused only by impact and fire, that you'd want the planes to strike at the optimal angle so as to strengthen the argument for such an occurrence.

That the fire escape exits weren't adequate is a non-issue. Greedy corporations cutting costs to maximize profit when the buildings went up.

That Dan Rather and company stated the obvious, - that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions, might simply mean that they weren't "in the loop" when they were shoved in front of the camera to cover the event, and called it how they saw it. That's exactly what I was thinking when I watched the towers fall that day. Plus, there's no other conceivable explanation for the fall of Bldg 7 other than CD.

That the dismembered cap of the ST (or was it NT?) tipped 22 degrees, then suddenly disappeared in a massage explosion has always been something that's pushed me heavily toward CD, and your new arguments do nothing to dissuade me. Where did it go? It should have kept falling off and hit the ground, broken into large chunks, but all of it still there. And it's supposed to be the very pile driver crushing the building below it in perfect symmetry, yet it's in an entirely unsymmetrical position? It's weight would have been pushing down on the outer 1/3 edge of the fully intact building below it.

So, keep up the great work. Thanks again. I'd love to see a shift toward what you referred to in the 2nd audio as "other substantive issues".

As you both agreed to at the end of this audio, - it's time for an investigation. My god, man, its awful that we're left to debate this thing ad nauseam online for seven+ years without our elected public servants taking up the investigation. This is proof alone of an inside job, - not passing the old "stink test".

_________________
"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3185
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Richard admitted he has wrongly been omitting a portion
of one quote he uses in his presentation. I wonder if that issue extends
to other demo 'evidence' he presents.


Quote:
Fake Demolition Audio

This example is used by Richard Gage of ae911truth.org in his slide presentation.

Start by visiting the ImplosionWorld Cinema.

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Choose the Philips building (top of the two rows, right-hand side) and watch the video. Pay particular attention when the timer gets past 10 seconds. You'll hear an explosion, see smoke shoot out from the centre base of the building, then hear another set of explosions, then the building falls. Repeat that a few times so you're familar with the timing.

Take a look at the same implosion from another angle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

We don't have the same view of the base of the building this time, but you can still hear loud explosions before and after first smoke shoots out.

Now visit this page at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

(Edit Bri: The link has now been removed from A@E9/11, but you get the idea...)

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php

And isn't that strange? Now there's no explosions at all, and what's more you can hear the building fall before it actually happens. It appears this version of the video has either had the explosions removed and seen the rest of the collapse sound moved forward to cover it (which would explain the silent second or two at the end), or perhaps has had the complete audio track added from somewhere else.


http://911guide.googlepages.com/evidence

The seed...

http://911guide.googlepages.com/Influencechart.JPG/Influencechart-full;init:.JPG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too, still have issues with totally discarding CD, particularly with Building 7. I don't see any other way that structure could come down the way it did.

bardobeing wrote:
As for the company "Controlled Demolition" doing the clean up. Who else but a controlled demolition company would be in a position to clean up collapsed skyscrapers? That they were suspiciously the same firm involved in the Fed Bldg attack tells me that they are used because they are there to conceal the obvious evidence that would be encountered during cleanup, such as undetonated charges. They weren't called in to fuel a fake CD disinfo story, they were there to destroy evidence.

Once again, this entails buying into the theory that an entire company - almost all of it's employees - would have to be participating in the cover-up of thousands of murders. That's not very likely at all. Now, to place them there for psy-op purposes... sure.

However, I would also place a heavy bet that there are employees of Controlled Demolition who would have noticed some irregularities in the preceding days or weeks. Firms that deal with expendable materials - fuel, cabling, detonation materials - have to stockpile for upcoming jobs. I'm almost certain someone there noticed that the company was "a bit overstocked" for what was on the monthly planner around August 2001.

Quote:
That Dan Rather and company stated the obvious, - that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions, might simply mean that they weren't "in the loop" when they were shoved in front of the camera to cover the event, and called it how they saw it.

Both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, two MSM clowns who've participated in some fairly laughable psy-op campaigns and coverups themselves. I don't think anyone gets to the at level of MSM credibility (speaking of oxymorons) without an unwritten guarantee that they are capable of "playing ball."

Quote:
Plus, there's no other conceivable explanation for the fall of Bldg 7 other than CD.

Agreed, at least from what I've seen.

Quote:
That the dismembered cap of the ST (or was it NT?) tipped 22 degrees, then suddenly disappeared in a massage explosion has always been something that's pushed me heavily toward CD, and your new arguments do nothing to dissuade me. Where did it go? It should have kept falling off and hit the ground, broken into large chunks, but all of it still there. And it's supposed to be the very pile driver crushing the building below it in perfect symmetry, yet it's in an entirely unsymmetrical position? It's weight would have been pushing down on the outer 1/3 edge of the fully intact building below it.

Yes, I can't get beyond that one either, at this point.

Quote:
As you both agreed to at the end of this audio, - it's time for an investigation. My god, man, its awful that we're left to debate this thing ad nauseam online for seven+ years without our elected public servants taking up the investigation. This is proof alone of an inside job, - not passing the old "stink test".

Amen. Oops, I mean Zeus.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 22 of 29

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.